Yesterday in Philantopic, Foundation Center President Bradford Smith made the case for which nonprofits are "too big, too important or too (blank) to fail." In other words, these are the nonprofits that he’d give a bailout to, if he had the choice.
Women’s funds make the list of only 14 nonprofits he named, including Greenpeace, Oxfam, World Wildlife Fund and Doctors Without Borders.
Not bad company.
Bradford writes of women’s funds, "It started with Mama Cash in the Netherlands, spread to San Francisco with the Global Fund for Women, branched out to Mexico with Semillas, and keeps on growing."
Indeed.
There are 134 women’s funds throughout the world today. And Bradford putting them on the list begs the question–are they too important or too (blank) to fail? And if so, why?
I’ve got a few theories, and I’ll even leave out all the (very true) stuff about how investing in women is the best way to improve a community and the world and will come up with some new stuff.
First, women’s funds and the way they do business are shifting the power dynamics of philanthropy. Philanthropy and community development generally operate on a top-down model, with program officers or funders making grants to nonprofits who are hesitant to share concerns, ideas, or mistakes with that funder for fear of a future loss of funding. As a result, the organization doesn’t improve over time and weak aspects of a program or funding strategy aren’t addressed. Further, the funder loses the valuable input of the organizations working most closely with the people and issues they want to address.
Women’s funds tend toward community-based philanthropy, using diverse groups of people–whether in a giving circle or on a grantmaking committee–to award grants. Decision-making is spread throughout the community, which leads to decisions that reflect the true needs and realities of what is happening on the ground, and also makes it possible for the nonprofits receiving the funds to have open, honest dialogue with the fund’s program officers and other staff. Staff can serve more as advisors, capacity builders and partners than as "bosses."
This model is a win-win for the nonprofits, the funder and the community they’re serving.
Second, women’s funds are fostering community involvement, ownership and social change. Because they don’t just give out grants, women’s funds rely on their donors and supporters to be geniunely involved in their work, which requires them to learn more about their community, the issues impacting it and how strategies to address it.
Whether that individual then stays in that community or moves to another one, or to another charity or nonprofit, they take all that they have learned about effective, strategic giving with them–meaning that every philanthropic dollar they invest is likely to have a greater return than if they had just written a check and never learned about how to make their gift go as far as possible.
Third, women’s funds are risk-taking and innovative, and therefore tend to root out and support the best strategies and organizations. Due to the wisdom of collective grantmaking, which leads to its ability to seek out, find and fund organizations that may be small, new and/or struggling, they are truly able to elevate the best strategies, programs and ideas to a more visible, effective playing field. Often when other funders won’t take that risk.
And, because they foster open dialogue with their nonprofit partners, they are able to see when an effective program is otherwise being hindered by a management or fundraising issue–and help correct it. And so organizations and ideas that may otherwise never have made it–but prove tremendously effective years later–receive the support they need to be seen beyond the more established organizations and strategies.
So, just off the top of my head, I’d agree with Bradford that women’s funds are too (important) (innovative) (effective) (inspiring) and (gamechanging) to fail.
Would you agree? What other aspects of women’s funds make them too (blank) to fail?
Lisa Kays is The Women’s Foundation’s Director of Communications
