Ending Well: How Can Grantmakers Close Funding Relationships with Care?
By Sebastian Africano, Beth Collins, Anna Hernandez, Pui Ling Tam, and Dr. River Sturdivant
As trust-based philanthropy practitioners, we’re confident we know how to enter into trust-based relationships with grantee partners. We’ve studied the practices and guidelines, we’re committed to the mindset, we’ve attended trainings.
But what happens on the other side? How do you end multi-year grants in a way that is just as thoughtful and caring as the beginning? How can we plan ahead to set grantees up with stability, transparency, and opportunity, instead of cliffs?
As we found out from a recent Trust-Based Philanthropy Peer Exchange event, this is something many funders grapple with. Eighty-four people joined the discussion, and while we didn’t leave with a list of perfect answers, a few key themes came to the surface.
It was powerful to see what can develop from a gathering of minds, which itself was sparked by a conversation a few of us had at a recent TBP convening. Funders want help, guidance, and opportunities to candidly share what’s messy so we can do better. We’re hoping to learn with each other.
Here’s what we learned from the discussion, along with questions we’re still contemplating.
Listen, and Center Relationships
How can we gather feedback and ideas early on and throughout a partnership without burdening? How can grantees actively shape and lead endings?
How can we avoid one-size-fits-all approaches with a menu of options?
How can we honor partnerships, people, and endings to recognize the human and emotional aspects of transitions?
We heard during the Peer Exchange event that listening is key. Practitioners have asked grantees what they wanted to support a transition and been surprised by the answers. For example, grantees asked for final grants to be restricted, or asked the grantmaker to require matching funds to better leverage fundraising opportunities. Others were clear that they do not want a one-size-fits-all approach.
Endings have emotional impacts. It’s frankly one of the reasons we might avoid talking about them. Who likes to start a relationship—personal friendships, romantic commitments, or professional roles—by talking about the ending?
A poll made clear that funders on the call believe in advanced notice as an attribute of a trust-based approach. They’ve learned through practice and failures: Multiple practitioners said that instead of waiting to talk about the end of a grant once they’re there, they’ll start a grant term by naming the end of the grant and planning toward it.
“Endings have emotional impacts. It’s frankly one of the reasons we might avoid talking about them. Who likes to start a relationship—personal friendships, romantic commitments, or professional roles—by talking about the ending?”
Doing this means giving both grantees and funders a runway to act in whatever ways are needed. Timing matters—and so does facing something that raises icky feelings, like endings, directly and honestly. This move is about transparency and the grantmaker’s accountability to the grantee.
Another practice that resonated during our gathering: One funder said they treat transition as a ceremony. This recognizes that it’s not just a transactional end, but also an emotional connection with the “ending” of a long-time partnership.
Help Deepen Funding Diversity
How can we unlock new funding for grantee partners (e.g., introductions, DAFs, mini endowments, reverse RFPs, or government funding)?
How can we organize and collaborate with each others’ foundations (e.g., relay funding)?
How can we support other fundraising, visibility, or income-generating initiatives (e.g., training, consultants, increased staff capacity, seed funding)?
A key element in the end of a grant is not necessarily that the relationship ends—usually, a funder still cares about the grantee and the work they do—but the ending of the money relationship. We’ve heard that many funders have a desire to support grantees in identifying new sources of funding.
Funders spoke about different ways they leveraged their endowment to support the end of the grantmaking relationship, such as: beyond the grant dollars from the administrative budget to support nonprofit capacity, budgeting for transition grants focused on the organizations most adversely impacted by the end of the grant, and exploring endowment building for or with future exited grantees.
Most often, grantees ask to be connected with other funders. People shared different pathways to doing so:
The reverse call for applications at FRIDA, inviting funders to apply to fund FRIDA’s exiting grantee organizations
Using common-applications for multiple funders and dreaming about “relay funding”—different foundations working together to guarantee a slate of grantees multiple years of stable funding via two or more funders
Build the Necessary Institutional Commitment and Infrastructure
How can we create internal policies and practices?
How can we make transparent, equitable decisions that minimize harm?
How can we structure grantmaking to minimize destabilization (e.g., step-down funding)?
How can we assess if exits truly “ended well,” and what’s our responsibility if they don’t?
We found that most funders don’t have endings figured out, especially at an institutional level, although everyone recognized we have a responsibility to end well.
We are still hoping to find examples from funders who have created and integrated policies and practices that are transparent for staff and their grantees about responsible exits.
Funders on the call were excited to hear about a rubric one foundation made to help them weigh harm and make decisions about grant exit sizes and timelines. We also wondered how to assess the impact of exits without burdening grantees during or after a transition.
“We found that most funders don’t have endings figured out, especially at an institutional level, although everyone recognized we have a responsibility to end well.”
What Now?
The five of us funders who co-organized the Peer Exchange event are committed to learning forward and experimenting. We want to do right by grantees in the direct relationships as well as do right by the circle of nonprofits our organizations help hold whether or not we’re in a current grantmaking relationship.
The truth is that what we fund is never equal to what we care about. The truth is that money does not define relationships, and resources are necessary for organizations to sustain thoughtful infrastructure that is part of lifting communities up. The truth is that the revenue model/business plan for the nonprofit industry is problematic and not itself sustainable. The truth is also that we have to manage aspirations with our own capacity. Some of our dreams are really big; most of the problems are bigger than our hearts and staff can hold.
So we’ll start with what’s in front of us—individual experiments for better, co-constructed, transparent, responsible endings—and keep talking and learning with others in the field.
If you’re working on this as a trust-based practitioner too, and you want to learn with us, consider joining the TBP Peer Exchange.
Additional Resources
Framework for Responsible Philanthropic Exits published by The Foundation Review
Healthy Goodbyes: Exiting Grantee Relationships with Care by Jamie Allison, Walter & Elise Haas Fund
—
Sebastian Africano is the Executive Director of Trees, Water & People. Beth Collins is the Executive Director of the Sisters of St. Joseph Health and Wellness Foundation. Anna Hernandez is a Strategist for Justice, Equity, and Learning at the Walter & Elise Haas Fund. Pui Ling Tam is a Relationship Manager at the Walter & Elise Haas Fund. Dr. River Sturdivant is the Chief Executive Officer of the Arthur Dean Family Foundation.
