Umbrella groups that serve and advocate for nonprofits or grant makers and donors are an unsexy part of the charitable world. They act as scaffolding to strengthen organizations that do good by bringing nonprofit leaders and philanthropists together to learn from one another, conducting research, and doing advocacy. The groups have long received few philanthropic funds and have struggled to win attention from individual donors.
But that might be changing as MacKenzie Scott shines a very bright spotlight on those organizationsā work. Dozens of such groups received unprecedented multimillion-dollar donations in Scottās latest round of giving with her husband, Dan Jewett.
Recommended Videos
āIāve been working for philanthropy infrastructure groups of different types for over 20 years now, and Iāve never in my career experienced a gift like this,ā says David Biemesderfer, the CEO of United Philanthropy Forum, which received $3 million from Scott.
Roughly 70 regional and national āinfrastructureā organizations received gifts from Scott. Many of them include social- and racial-justice and equity components in their work. The Chronicle focused only on national groups for this article. Of the 53 national groups it identified, 26 either publicized how much money Scott had given them or told the Chronicle how much they had received. Those that disclosed how much they received got a total of $146 million. Contributions ranged from $2 million to $15 million.
Scottās total giving to these groups is remarkable since itās coming from an individual donor. In one fell swoop, Scott gave hundreds of millions. U.S. foundations gave $1.9 billion to infrastructure groups from 2004 to 2015, according to a study conducted by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Foundation Center.
Itās unclear whether Scottās giving signals a new era of wealthy donors giving big to these kinds of umbrella organizations.
Most donors donāt understand what these groups do or why they matter, says Kelly Fitzsimmons, the founder of Project Evident, which received $3 million from Scott and helps nonprofits and foundations measure what works. That is one of the reasons so few individuals give them large sums, she says.
āIf other wealthy donors better understood the nature of this work, they would follow her lead,ā Fitzsimmons says. āWeāre in a corner of the nonprofit world that is just not well understood, but itās a significant area of impact.ā
Yet Scottās gifts have helped leaders at these organizations raise awareness about their work, which could increase their chances of attracting gifts from other individual donors.
One wealthy donor recently told Nicholas Tedesco, the head of the National Center for Family Philanthropy ā an organization that advises and educates wealthy donors about effective grant-making practices ā that the donorās family is considering an earlier grant request since it learned Scott gave the center $4 million in June.
āThey very explicitly said to us that the gift will allow a grant request from us to be considered with more seriousness because of the due diligence that has been done by MacKenzie and Dan and because the family wants to know that theyāre not the largest funder of the organization,ā Tedesco says.
Scottās $2 million donation to Native Americans in Philanthropy, a coalition of grant makers, tribal leaders, and others who advocate for increased philanthropic support of Native American organizations, raised the groupās public profile, says CEO Erik Stegman. He was even invited to appear on āGood Morning Americaā to talk about Scottās latest donations.
MacKenzie Scott is practicing the kind of philanthropy nonprofits have been asking for, Stegman says ā to āgive up power to the organizations and communities that know best.ā
āIām able to point that out to people who donāt know much about our work or even the philanthropic sector,ā he says, ābut they know enough about MacKenzie Scott and what sheās up to that it starts a conversation.ā
News coverage that focuses breathlessly on the size of Scottās gifts misses an important point, says Elizabeth Barajas-RomĆ”n, who leads the Womenās Funding Network, which received an undisclosed sum from Scott. Whatās more significant, she says, is the way Scottās money focuses on groups unaccustomed to the limelight.
āIt gets people to pay attention and wonder, āWhat are womenās funds? What are they doing, and why did MacKenzie Scott pick a womenās funding network?āā
Many of the umbrella groups that received gifts from Scott are still figuring out how they will use the money. Almost all said they plan to use some of it to hire more staff and build up their technology and data capabilities.
Independent Sector, a national membership organization of nonprofits, foundations, and corporate-giving programs, received $6 million from Scott last July and put the money into a board-designated fund so that it could be invested and grow but also be used to support specific internal needs.
āWe were in the middle of the pandemic, and we didnāt know what would happen to membership or if there would be a massive downturn in the economy,ā says Dan Cardinali, the groupās CEO. āWe wanted to make sure we were living within our means for our normal operations.ā
GivingTuesday, an organization that encourages generosity around the world, plans to use the $7 million it received to further expand in East African countries, India, and elsewhere, says CEO Asha Curran.
Scottās gift was the biggest GivingTuesday has ever received from an individual donor, as has been the case with many of the umbrella groups. Yet Curran says the gift doesnāt change her groupās fundraising plans.
āThis gift literally did not give us a break from fundraising for even a day,ā Curran says. āWeāre not sitting back and declaring victory; weāre looking at how we add to this gift and continue to add to it.ā
But the money does give the groups more breathing room. The $4 million that Grantmakers for Effective Organizations received is a substantial amount but not so substantial that it can save it for a rainy day, says CEO Marcus Walton.
āIt allows us to do what weāre doing without the typical budget constraints,ā he says. āWe still need to prioritize, but we donāt have to do so from a scarcity mind-set. We can be a little bit more abundant in our thinking.ā
Waltonās group, a membership organization that helps grant makers improve their philanthropy, is using some of the money to broaden training programs that bring foundation leaders and staff up to speed on best practices on racial equity and justice. The goal is for foundations to have a clear sense of their values and to be connected with the people they serve, something Walton says many grant makers struggle to do.
Several organizations are concerned that longtime donors will assume that Scottās gifts are enough to take care of the nonprofits for years to come, which they say is simply not true.
āThese gifts help to free us up a bit to expand the possibilities but only if we continue to get the support weāve had and can build on that,ā says Biemesderfer, of United Philanthropy Forum. āIt shouldnāt be viewed as replacement funding or else it kind of defeats the whole purpose.ā
___
This article was provided to The Associated Press by the Chronicle of Philanthropy. Maria Di Mento is a senior reporter at the Chronicle. Email: maria.dimento@chronicle.com. The AP and the Chronicle receive support from the Lilly Endowment for coverage of philanthropy and nonprofits. The AP and the Chronicle are solely responsible for all content. For all of APās philanthropy coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/philanthropy.