Appreciate Nick Grono's thoughtful insights on this topic! Read his - and others' - perspectives about intermediary funding here 👇
I have really appreciated the thoughtful conversation happening around the role of funding "intermediaries" over the past month on the Center for Effective Philanthropy blog, spurred by CEP's recently published grantee perception report. A few important points jump out: 1) No matter whether we are intermediaries or originating funders, we should center the grantee experience and adapt to critical feedback. 2) Intermediaries, some of which identify as "collaborative funds" like The Freedom Fund, are not immune to broader philanthropic problems, such as resistance to flexible, multi-year funding. Many collaboratives find creative ways to prevent passing on restrictions to their grantees, but we are still very often constrained by the same funding landscape that we hope to change. 3) Intermediary is a broad category containing a wide range of values, approaches and focus areas. Some of those of us who identify as collaborative funds choose to narrow the definition by focusing on our ability to mobilise new funding, reach grassroots groups that are excluded by traditional philanthropy, and provide more holistic support to grantees. 4) We still have a ways to go toward building the value proposition for collaborative funds, and the majority of that should come from evaluation of our impact - not from how articulately we talk about ourselves or the positive connotations of donor collaboration. Our impact should be judged by the relationships we build, the change we help to fuel, the organisations we support to grow, and the influence we have on the broader philanthropic landscape. Read some of the responses here: