Funding the ecosystem for long-term change
For the last decade, I’ve been raising money for grassroots organizations based outside of the US. I am passionate about the value of supporting these organizations. I believe firmly that those closest to the problem best know the solutions and that supporting local leadership is an investment in the future of social movements that are creating lasting change. In the international sphere, the case is also made “easier” for me because the alternative is supporting large INGOs, which mainly have a top-down approach, are already generously funded through governments as well as mainstream donors, and don’t support the social movements or local social-change leadership. The contrast is clear.
These same arguments are true in the US, but in this context, where big, national organizations get so much more attention from—and are VERY familiar to—American donors, it is even more important to make the strongest case for supporting small, movement-based organizations. Here, especially in this time of intersecting crises, one could easily buy into the idea that big organizations are the only ones that can move the needle on legislation or serve massive numbers of people--or just have the ability to stay afloat in a difficult funding environment. But it is SO important to recognize two things: (1) the risk we take by not funding the work at the grassroots, led by the most affected communities, and (2) the value that we as a society could reap if we were to significantly invest in those leaders and those strategies.
Which is why I love talking to movement-grounded folks, like Janis Rosheuvel, now at Solidaire Network. Janis counsels an ecosystem approach, which doesn’t dismiss the role of large organizations, but reminds us that it is the small, movement-grounded groups that do what large orgs cannot—serve those in the most geographically isolated or marginalized communities; shift the narrative to be more inclusive, more nuanced and more progressive; and finally shift power to communities and leaders who have been marginalized and left out as larger, mainstream groups have ascended. What might the amplification of those left-out voices might have enabled, had they been resourced earlier? In the reproductive justice sphere, for example, they might have pushed the adoption of a more holistic approach to these issues, one that didn’t separate out abortion from other needs around pregnancy, parenting and maternal and child health. Could we have better integrated abortion care into the broader provision of mainstream healthcare had this approach been supported earlier? Could we have made a case about healthcare access that would have prevented passage of the Helms Amendment (which has made abortion, while technically legal, unattainable for anyone without private health insurance or personal means)? It’s not too late to put our resources into those organizations and leaders – SisterSong Reproductive Justice Collective, Whole Woman’s Health, Mississippi Reproductive Freedom Fund—just to name a few….
What other movements should we be looking to support now? Stay tuned for some ideas… and of course, reach out if you’re interested in thinking about how to incorporate this thinking into your philanthropy!
