Philanthropy’s insurance policy: Civic infrastructure

Barely a week goes by without a webinar or new report regarding the challenges faced by philanthropy – the end of government aid; the complications of the polycrisis; new attacks on civic space; declining trust in our sector, etc.

Recommendations on what to do seem to cluster into two camps: give more and give better. Both are laudable. Neither will be enough unless we confront what Carola Carazzone of Philea called “a deep, structural crisis of dependence caused by project financing.”

More money and better grantcraft are helpful but will not, alone, get us where we need to go any more than voting has secured democracy. Grants have a critical role to play but too few prioritise the skills or infrastructures grantees need to build the knowledge, relationships, and participatory processes needed to engage citizens in evolving systems and cultures.

This is short-sighted. Civil society, inclusive of grantmaking philanthropies – like any cultural phenomenon – would not exist without people believing it is necessary and demonstrating that belief through participation. Most people’s participation in civil society manifests as giving time and money to the causes they care about. Their generosity is not just a transaction; it is how they embody, practice and reinforce their belief in the potential of civil society. Further, when people give, they convince themselves giving is virtuous, leading to a positive, self-reinforcing and culture cementing feedback loop between the act and belief that the act – and civil society, by extension – is important.

Acts of generosity thus increase funding and decrease dependency on grants, while increasing trust in civic processes – trust that grantmakers and grant-takers alike need in a world where civil society is under attack. Citizens will stand with and for civil society if they are invested in, understand and trust civil society – inclusive of the right to give – as theirs, something they are proud of, something they do and need. We cannot expect them to do so without inviting and encouraging participation, so they learn and trust.

Today, much of the world’s civil society lacks the infrastructure to spark positive cycles of engagement and foment cultures of engagement. If philanthropy wants to ensure the potential for civil society writ large to fulfill its role as humanity’s stewards of rights, dignity, and hope through the polycrisis, we must start funding the infrastructures that support people to lead with or without us. Practically speaking, it is high time for philanthropy to:

1. Invest in infrastructure at the ecosystem level: The infrastructure civil society needs is neither obscure nor evenly distributed. Civil society needs the technologies (digital and analog) to support transactions of money and time, the training on how to use it and support understanding of what is working, when. Fund the broader enabling environment: giving platforms in local languages, networks that train and support non-profit leaders, fiscal hosts for small organisations, research and campaign tools designed for the local context.

2. Build the capacity of your grantees: Support your grantees to raise money and mobilise support from their communities. While change is hard and many will say it isn’t possible, there is ample evidence that that is simply not true. Invest in training for fundraising, communications and community organising and match local giving to incentivise new behaviours.

3. Back the data and research to find out what works: Fund research to map the availability and use of fundraising infrastructure, to understand local cultures of giving and to track what works. Programmes like GivingTuesday’s Civic Intent offer examples of how to do this at scale and in partnership with local actors.

These investments are necessary and have a track record of delivering exponential results in terms of local giving and volunteering, especially when prioritizing collective action. The need is greatest in the ‘Global South.’ WINGS research indicates 80% of investment in philanthropic infrastructures have been in the ‘Global North.’ Yet there is room for growth even in the most infrastructure rich environments. GivingTuesday’s research indicates up to $50 billion in untapped giving in the United States that could be unlocked if nonprofits had more capacity and confidence to use the tools they already have.  

Considering that many foundations are already feeling stretched, unless there is someone willing to take a big bet on infrastructure, then a pooled fund in combination with some of the above is probably the most realistic path toward a time when civil society everywhere has what it needs. Such a fund could support the research necessary to map where tools, training or support are most needed and evaluate results of investments made. Such a fund could be leveraged in a variety of ways, through co-investments with funders dedicated to specific regions or recoverable grants and revenue-based financing to infrastructures (e.g. online giving platforms) that tend to pay for themselves over time. 

Regardless, investing in infrastructures that enable a civil society rooted in participation, not dependency; powered by local trust, not grants, is a job for philanthropy. Assuming civil society organisations have the money to invest in local infrastructure development, no matter how small in the grand scheme of things, is naive. Civil society’s smallest organisations often rely exclusively on local support. They could mobilize more support with access to enabling infrastructures. Larger, grant-taking organisations often struggle to make ends meet based on grants alone. Neither has the funds to set aside and invest in the infrastructures needed to unlock local generosity and would have to cut existing, needed programmes to do so on their own.

Philanthropy can invest in the infrastructure for generosity, philanthropy has on occasion done so through one-offs and collaborative funds like the various trusts for civil society around the world. Philanthropy arguably must do so at scale now rather than continue investing in the same things, often in the same ways and expecting different results. With philanthropy ultimately benefiting as much from the trust accrued through the process as the civil society partners philanthropy needs to deliver, and ultimately society itself, consider it an insurance policy.