Funding the Unfundable

I joined the Woods Fund Board in 2011. I was the youngest board member, and the first board member that was also a grantee. I had spent the last three years building an organization that many called unrealistic, unnecessary and unfundable. I was so excited to have an opportunity to learn more about “the other side.” In my mind, philanthropy was this free place where you could fund new ideas, new leaders and new work. You had no funders to please. You were the funder. What freedom!

I was new to this role, so I sat back in my first few board meetings. I found myself learning as much about what we can’t do, as much as what we can do. Many of these rules were counter-intuitive to me: Smaller organizations can only receive smaller grants.

Over the years I’ve gotten my bearings as a trustee, and have become fascinated by the “rules” and “norms” of philanthropy, especially this notion of “risk”. What does it mean to be a “risk taking” foundation? Are we risk taking as a foundation, or do we fund risk taking work? What is a failed grant? What is the cost of being “risk taking” or the opportunity cost of not being “risk taking” to us as a foundation, and to the field as a whole?

Something else has changed during this time—the world, including the world of community organizing and public policy that we fund. Within community organizing we have seen a growth in coalition building, civic engagement and electoral work. And we are living in times of the resistance. Organizing itself is less structured and predictable (aka fundable, at least in the traditional way). Organizing, advocacy and activism are adapting to the changing environment. How do we as funders do the same—and soon?

As a foundation we have started to look at some of these questions. We have started to do more multi-year grants, support leadership for women of color, fund capacity building by geography and fund new, smaller organizations. But there are still questions of how we do this not just as special initiatives, but as part of our overall grant-making process. How do we shift from making exceptions to our rules, and change our rules? How does our existing funding proposal process inhibit our ability, and the ability of our grantees, to be responsive and risk-taking? How do we build a process that is built on trust with our grantees that allows them to be “risk-takers” even if we are not “risk takers”? How do we change our process so we can fund work that we believe is important that is currently “unfundable”? How do we leverage our role as a convenor and capacity builder?

I’ve put forth more questions than answers. Sorry. But I know one thing for sure. For me, there’s no better place to do this than at the Woods Fund, and no more important time than now. I hope you will join us on this journey.

Josina Morita, Woods Fund Chicago Board Member