Deepening Impact Through Relational Philanthropy

In SSIR’s Winter 2024 issue, we authored an article advocating for the philanthropic sector to become more intentional with its relationship building, because trust-rich relationships in the social sphere can be transformative in problem-solving. We put forward three recommendations to help realize this goal of “relational philanthropy”: 

1) commitment to fostering meaningful relationships centered on “we” vs “us/them”; 

2) instituting practices that promote shared learning and continuous improvement; and

3) developing a standard of conduct for philanthropy. Braided together, these three elements help close a gap that exists in philanthropy’s ability to consistently dedicate time and resources to relationship building.

As we explore the why and how of relational philanthropy, a deeper dive into the first recommendation is critical. Figuring out how to commit to fostering meaningful and “messy” relationships requires close examination of how we are defining community within philanthropy. Indeed, long-term solutions can be catalyzed or thwarted by philanthropy’s choice to tend to some relationships and not others.

There was a time when a primary obstacle to building relationships across lines of difference was people talking past each other. That occurs less and less—there are far fewer opportunities to convene together across lines of difference and so there is no one to talk past. Instead, we see an increase in “gated conversations” where groups are invited in only at highly controlled points in planning. There is an uptick in people engaging in the three Cs of disconnection: curation, closed-loop planning, and an overreliance on consensus. This shows up as carefully orchestrated meetings where philanthropy only invites groups into the conversation when they are able to control the outcome (curation). Closed-loop conversations look like planning processes built around a small set of influencers who already agree about a big new idea. And an overreliance on consensus looks like meetings built around a shared value of unity or harmony such that the brave person choosing to voice a conflicting point of view feels the pressure of being out of step with the prevailing culture in the room.

Philanthropy can close a gap here by demonstrating leadership that centers relationships without backing away from the inherent messiness of diverse points of view. Instead of trying to design disagreement out of meetings and convenings, philanthropy can choose to actively bring swaths of community to the table to work side-by-side and persevere through conflict to build stronger relationships where we solve problems together instead of working around each other. What follows are our recommendations for how we can shift into brave relationship building.

Defining Community as a Circle, Not a Pyramid

In strategic philanthropy, there are rarely only two sides to anything. The issues being tackled are too complex with multiple variables and degrees of intractability. The strategic philanthropist accepts that there is no going it alone if anything of substance and sustainability is to be accomplished. However, let’s get specific about who is coming with us and why.

For almost any issue, the community will have at least three components, identified below. We are mindful not to use terms like “grassroots/grasstops” or “frontlines/ivory tower” because we don’t think it is useful to define community members in a hierarchical manner. We see a Venn diagram or spectrum of the groups outlined below where interests merge and overlap.

Community Keepers. To identify this group, we might ask questions such as who is closest to the impact of this issue? Who are the people whose lives are touched intimately by this issue continuing? Who will be the first to feel the change if it is made? If the target of your strategic philanthropy is neighborhood revitalization, for example, the community keepers might be those currently living in the neighborhood. If you are working on juvenile justice, the community keepers might be the children and families within the juvenile justice system.

Community Gates. With every issue, there is likely an existing group or multiple groups, organized formally or informally, with the issue you care about on its agenda. The questions to ask in identifying this band of the community are: Who is already providing direct service to interested beneficiaries? Who is already working indirectly, through advocacy or redistribution of resources/funds, for the interested beneficiaries? Taking the example of neighborhood revitalization, the Community Gates could be neighborhood associations and in the case of juvenile justice, it could be youth development and mentoring organizations.

Community Issue Influencers. The questions to ask in identifying this band of the community are Who has social capital—potentially outsized social capital - to make this issue better or worse? Who is closest to the lever needed for real change on this issue? In neighborhood revitalization, local government, business leaders, and foundations with a focus on neighborhoods might make up this group. With juvenile justice, perhaps prosecutors, defenders, governmental officials, and interested foundations have substantial influence on how the issues are framed and approached.

Some discussions in philanthropy today would not include this group within the definition of community. We contend that this is a consequential mistake in designing solutions and antithetical to relational philanthropy because in some cases, it sets up a preconceived adversarial relationship before any work is even begun.

Breaking With Patterns that Entrench Community Silos

In philanthropy, there are some well-worn habits of selectively engaging specific subsets of the community that further entrench lines of division. Some examples of the patterns that fail to serve the collective:

• Engaging the so-called “grassroots” for implementation but not design. This can look like facilitated meetings where a mostly baked plan is shared to create an image of collaboration. At this late stage, it’s often deeply uncomfortable to name that the plan fails to address root problems or to harness community assets.

• Engaging a handpicked subset of nonprofit leaders and community providers. This can look like convenings where a select few, often with pre-existing relationships and access, are  at the table to shape an initiative. A careful look at the landscape of providers often reveals an overlooked but deeply knowledgeable set of nonprofits, community groups, and activists who may not be networked into philanthropy but have deep community relationships.

• Engaging individuals who lack lived experience proximate to an issue only in carefully curated experiences. These are often business and civic leaders, funders or policy makers who can bring influence, ideas, and connections. Think of the CEOs who are invited into a rehearsed panel discussion instead of invited to join a working session where the aim is to surface what’s not working in a pilot project. The miss here is that by sidelining these individuals into more curated roles, we miss the opportunity for shared learning and for influencers to understand and shape the “whole” of the work.

We’re not suggesting every facet of the community needs to be at the table in all aspects of an initiative. Relationships are hard and time-consuming. If one expands the table of who is included, the “usual suspects” might get anxious and uncomfortable. 

And if one is not careful, quality time is spent herding cats on a marginal idea that’s supported by consensus instead of a transformative idea that was shaped in robust discussion and debate by stakeholders.

We are suggesting that the strategic philanthropist find a way to balance these tensions because it is worth examining who is at the table at each stage of work and asking the question, where might we develop new understandings and relationships if we expanded participation?

Deepening Impact Through Relational Philanthropy

Once we have looked at who is at the table with an expanded lens on how community is defined—and perhaps brought people to work alongside each other who have been working in separate lanes up until this point—we can deepen our impact by unlocking the power of these new relationships. There are three core ways tending to relationships in this manner deepens impact:

1. Unlocking shared understanding of the issue. As a strategic philanthropist thinks about how to approach an issue, analysis and synthesis of key data from a diversity of sources related to the issue are crucial to defining what the problem or opportunity is. Once you have a more holistic community at the table, actively invite perspective sharing. Begin your work by defining the opportunity or challenge together. Intentionally step back from over-orchestrated conversations and invite conflicting perspectives. Be explicit in your intention to explore ideas that are in tension with one another in service of developing a more nuanced, and shared, understanding of the issue before you.
   
   The field of social problem solving is often characterized by silos. Breaking down those divisions by bringing the community together to share information can yield approaches not previously imagined.
   
   

2. Strategically mobilizing resources. The ability to absorb and deploy capital of every kind, from financial to social, is a key ingredient in social solutions. Those who have provided services, directly or indirectly, related to the issue will have the best ability to mobilize community expertise and partnerships. Those with access to financial capital will be best able to raise and aggregate funding and provide patient capital in connection to the mobilization of other resources.
   
   Philanthropy is riddled with stories of good intentions gone wrong due to a failure of strategic mobilization of resources, but we rarely hear about them. Imagine a funder providing free laptops to school children to use at home but failing to realize that most of the homes do not have access to WIFI. Or a community setting up a basic income program for low-income mothers, only to discover most recipients do not have bank accounts to access the funds. These are issues that can be prevented with a thorough and expanded lens of community.
   
   

3. Developing partnerships and coalitions to expand reach and foster sustainability. Strategic philanthropy always has the goal of sustaining good results. The likelihood of sustainability increases with planning and working across the entire community, relying on those who can bridge and connect people, resources, and knowledge. This is a chance to think more expansively about how we might give new initiatives legs. Yes, that might mean inviting university faculty in as community researchers and it might also mean funding nonprofits and community activists as partners in a learning community where their expertise fine tunes the program or pilot real-time. When we artificially limit who is in our community, we miss the opportunity to grow deeper roots for solutions to stand the test of time.

A Final Word on Breaking From Defining Community as a Hierarchy

Our mental models shape the way we interact with the world around us. The pyramid model of community that places “grassroots” on the bottom tier and “grasstops” on the top tier brings with it a host of behaviors that are obstacles to relational philanthropy. The top of the pyramid is often engaged early in project design to get their blessing or buy-in, while the bottom is excluded from early thought partnership and “invited” to compete for resources to do the doing. Relational philanthropy requires that we build—and live in—new mental models of community. Mental models that look more like networks of connected circles. We recommend beginning with a map of where the various social, relational, intellectual, and financial capital resides that will be necessary to move the dial on a specific issue. Activate, engage, and mobilize the spectrum of capital in concert—as a connected community—not in exclusive lanes of work.

Relational philanthropy applied with an expansive definition of community can help us engage all of a community’s resources and optimize chances for success. We urge those embarking on new approaches to philanthropy to bring forward all aspects of a community that bear on an issue at hand, as seen through a wider, less hierarchical lens. We will catalyze meaningful and sustainable solutions when we develop disciplined habits of broadening who is at the table and connecting those individuals and groups to each other. This is brave leadership. It asks us to invite and expect our best selves to build a resilient “we” that embraces and activates our differences in service of a stronger collective.