Donors
Donors

Donors

Light in times of darkness: Community philanthropy offers a way forward

The reliance – even dependency – of large sections of southern civil society on international donor funding has long been an uncomfortable truth in our sector. A truth that has been easy to bat away, a can kicked down the road, tomorrow’s business. All of it perilously resting on the assumption of the current funding paradigm.

Colouring outside the colouring book: Seeking out the alternative systems for movement organizing.

No one ever claims to hold power within philanthropy. I have met countless people who are well paid, who hold positions of power and/or are backed by endowments. Many of these always refer to another unknown power. From directors to project officers, trustees to backdoor funders; all of them referred to some other power over and above them. This is how systems work. They lie in nuance and ambiguity whilst explicit through tools and controls. Invisible, but always void of any of the accountability it demands of others. When it dies, it tends to implode in and of itself, rather than be dismantled externally.

Rethinking the logframe: A reflection on power, purpose, and measurement

It’s striking how enduring the logframe has been. Perhaps because many organisations were smaller and more centralised then, adoption was easier. Or perhaps once embedded in donor systems, it was too difficult to dislodge. It often feels like an attempt to nail spaghetti to a wall — to force complex, relational, adaptive work into a linear accountability framework.

Philanthropy didn’t understand what it was trying to fix

Here’s what I’ve observed: the things we try to reform are rarely the ones that matter most. Reform tends to fixate on what can be measured, managed, and credited—where reformers still believe control is within reach—while quietly avoiding what they don’t understand, where control is harder to find. And nothing, I’d argue, is more misunderstood—or more resistant to control—than the gift.