Executive Summary:
This report, titled "Bridging the Gap: Grantee Perspectives on Intermediary Funders," provides insights into the experiences of grantees receiving support from intermediary funders compared to those funded directly by originating funders. The research, conducted by the Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP), analyzes data from over 62,000 grantees of 364 funders, including 24 intermediaries, collected through CEP's Grantee Perception Report (GPR) between 2013 and 2023.
Reflection: Imagine if the GPR data was part of an LLM. What else could we learn? What questions would you ask? What would you hope to query a ChatGPT-type functionality with 10 years of grantee survey data? What insight and data-informed action could we take to better meet grantee needs?
The study reveals that intermediary funders represent a diverse range of organizations with varying characteristics, focus areas, and geographic scopes. While there is significant variation among intermediaries, the overall grantee experience does not differ substantially between intermediaries and originating funders. This suggests that the form of the granting institution is not the primary driver of grantee experience.
Intermediaries in broad brush strokes: What is an intermediary in contrast to an originating funder?
I have seen originating funders (institutional philanthropy) deploy intermediary partnerships in a couple ways:
* to distribute grant dollars - perhaps in collaborative funds with other philanthropies.
* to source reach and expertise - geographic, cause area etc.
* to provide much-needed capacity support to small or grassroots organizations.
The benefit to these approaches are 2-fold: grantees get additional support and attention they need; funders are able to access orgs they might not otherwise “see” or have capacity to support (Funder, “no, I can’t help you develop a program budget, but an intermediary might be able to help get you the training you need.”)
Key findings include:
1. Field Impact and Expertise: Grantees report that intermediaries have a slightly better understanding of their fields and are somewhat more likely to advance knowledge in these areas compared to originating funders. However, the overall impact on grantees' fields is similar for both types of funders.
2. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI): Contrary to some assumptions, grantees indicate that intermediaries demonstrate similar levels of commitment to DEI as originating funders.
3. Communications and Relationships: The report suggests that intermediaries may have some advantages in building strong relationships with grantees, potentially due to their proximity to communities and shared experiences.
4. Grant Funding: While intermediaries tend to provide smaller grants with shorter durations, they are more likely to offer general operating support compared to originating funders.
The key findings are a little disappointing.
1. If sourcing expertise is a goal, it looks like intermediaries aren’t driving impact as I hoped.
2. Intermediaries do not have billion dollar endowments and I assumed, closer to lived experience of communities they serve and perhaps more DEI committed
3. and 4. Offer glimmers of hope. Our sector runs on relationships and it seems like proximity (v. institutional philanthropy) is serving the goal of relationship building (that can result in impact networks). General Operating Support (GOS) funding is what gets used to support infrastructure and staff. GOS funds are critical.
The report also includes profiles of two highly-rated intermediary funders, Groundswell Fund and Conservation Lands Foundation, highlighting their approaches to grantmaking and relationship-building with grantees.
In conclusion, the study emphasizes that while intermediaries may offer some unique benefits, the quality of grantee experiences depends more on individual funder practices than on whether the funder is an intermediary or an originating funder. The report encourages funders to consider various factors when deciding whether to work with intermediaries and provides questions for reflection to improve grantmaking practices.
Reflection: I hold hopes that intermediary funders can be a panacea for the sector. We need collaborative funding. We need upskilling. We need lived experience at the strategy table. We need data repositories (for AI, sector-level insight, and data-driving IMPACT initiatives). In my experience, intermediaries are a powerful tool for the sector - and clearly we are missing the mark.
Key Quotes from the CEP Report:
"Our intermediary funder was able for years to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the field, ask the right questions, set the right challenges, and help create collaboration opportunities."
"At least with the intermediaries that I'm familiar with, there's a different dynamic than traditional philanthropy, a really special dynamic. Groundswell's ability to understand the work that we do is unparalleled."
"One of the strongest factors in all of this is that the vast majority of staff at Groundswell come from organizing. So they've come from organizing for reproductive and gender justice, labor organizing, electoral organizing, community organizing in general. It helps make a difference when you have folks who have been in the work helping to guide the work and helping to establish what it means to be in the right relationship with grantee organizations."
And then these darn quotes seem to contradict the quantitative data. These are the flaws inherent in our current qualitative and quantitative data collection practices. AI will have a hard time driving IMPACT when quantitative data ways one thing … and the quotes used in the report tell a different story.
AI Clarified: while the overall data shows that intermediaries as a whole don't dramatically outperform originating funders, the quotes illustrate that some intermediaries can indeed offer unique value and create exceptionally positive grantee experiences. This nuance underscores the report's conclusion that the quality of grantee experiences depends more on individual funder practices than on whether the funder is an intermediary or an originating funder.
Do intermediary funders have a special place in our social sector work? If the staff come from community organizing and activism, why the low scores for DEI commitments?
Sampriti Ganguli, former CEO of Arabella Advisors, notes, philanthropy is evolving, and intermediaries have a vital role to play. But it’s up to us, as funders, advisors, and leaders in the sector, to ensure we’re employing intermediaries wisely. We need to ask ourselves: Are we positioning them as complements to our core grantmaking strategies as bridge builders, or are we treating them as mere administrative conveniences and gatekeepers? The answer to this will determine whether intermediaries truly become transformative forces for good.
In my experience, the most effective intermediaries act as navigators in an increasingly complex philanthropic landscape, providing support and guidance that direct funders may not be able to offer. We need to use all tools at our disposal—AI included—to drive sector-wide improvements. Imagine if we used AI-driven insights to pinpoint where intermediaries are excelling and where they need support. By embracing new technologies and a commitment to impact, intermediaries can be a powerful force in reshaping philanthropy for the better.