Read on Twitter
Late to the party and definitely no expert. But @UinvitedU‘s question has been churning around in my head for days, so here goes… 
There is nothing “wrong” with prodding (or forcing) foundations to give more money, especially now. Many organizations are in desperate need.
/1 https://twitter.com/UinvitedU/status/1287011971712180224
There is nothing “wrong” with prodding (or forcing) foundations to give more money, especially now. Many organizations are in desperate need.
/1 https://twitter.com/UinvitedU/status/1287011971712180224
To me, though, this is traditional philanthropy doing what it always does – focusing on dollar amounts above all else. More dollars out the door = we are the good guys and our work is done.
/2
/2
Is a little bit more of the same things we’ve done forever really the best we can aim for? It hasn’t changed things much so far. Yet more short-term, tightly-restricted grants do not sound like the transformational response this moment requires, whether DQ is 5%, 10% or 50%.
/3
/3
What we could and should be doing, IMO, is trying to genuinely redesign the dynamics of philanthropy. Acknowledge and shift power. Work from trust. Give the experts on the ground the flexibility to do what needs doing. Stop fixating on overhead! Get. Out. Of. The. Way.
/4
/4
Listen more. Be vulnerable. Learn. Co-design with the people you’re trying to support. Centre equity. And most of all, make completely unrestricted core operating grants. Lots of them. That’s the money that makes a difference.
/5
/5
Focusing on the Disbursement Quota isn’t a *bad* idea - good programs would be supported, good organizations would be helped. But it’s the bare minimum of ambitions. There is so much that needs to change. I think philanthropy can do better than "just enough".
-end rant-
/6
-end rant-
/6
