When Funders Hesitate but the Movement Can’t - What Comes Next?
In my last post, I laid out the growing tension between grassroots urgency and philanthropic hesitation. Organizers need to act now, while funders are waiting for “movement 2.0” before they reinvest.
So where do we go from here?
This moment calls for a new approach on three levels:
💡For Grassroots: Funders are watching and waiting, so instead of chasing short-term dollars, grassroots groups need to shape the funding landscape, not just react to it.
Set the agenda. Movements should be forcing the conversation about what democracy actually needs, rather than contorting their work to fit existing funding priorities.
Educate donors. Many funders hesitate because they don’t know what to do next. Movements should be guiding them toward action, not just asking for money.
💡For Philanthropy: The same old short-term, election-driven funding cycles aren’t going to cut it.
Be a convener, not a gatekeeper. Use their birds-eye view to connect dots, strengthen networks, and build real alignment.
Take risks, not just make safe bets. Democracy movement 2.0 won’t emerge without risk capital. Funders need to invest in experimentation, even when outcomes aren’t immediately measurable.
💡For the Movement as a Whole: If funders and grassroots groups are talking past each other, we need to rethink the relationship entirely.
Stop seeing funding as a one-way transaction. The movement has the power to shape the funding landscape, but not if everyone is competing in a scarcity mindset.
Flip the funder-implementer hierarchy. What if grassroots groups set the strategy and philanthropy followed?
Build cross-cutting movement infrastructure. Movements must find ways to sustain their work beyond philanthropic cycles through pooled funds, alternative revenue, and collective resourcing.
⏳ Neither side can afford to wait for the other out. But breaking the cycle requires both to step outside their usual roles.
