Dream Funder
Hello!
For a few months we were pretty sure we were giving up on our blog. We didn’t think the time put in to writing posts produced enough value or usefulness. However, after a few conversations at the Opportunity Collaboration last month we’ve decided to get back on the wagon.

At the Opportunity Collaboration I led a dinner discussion on what makes an ‘ideal funder’. As you might imagine, we had lots of eager participants all ready to contribute to painting a picture of a great funder. There were grant seekers, grant makers, and philanthropy consultants at the table, drawing flowcharts, cartoons and writing lists. The discussion was broad and extensive (see word cloud above), but boiled down to 4 main points. So here, in the words of a group of thoughtful Opp Collab delegates are the top 4 characteristics of an ideal funding relationship:
- Trust
- Transparency
- Thoughtful flexibility
- Partnership
I’d love to hear specific stories and instances of funders demonstrating these characteristics. How does a funder demonstrate they trust you? In what way do you want funders to be transparent? Can you share examples of funders being thoughtfully flexible? What does a partnership with a funder look like?
Concrete examples will help us and other funders take list of nice, but abstract, words and figure out if and how we can put them in to action. This is about sharing best practices, not recognising specific people or organisations, so please keep your description general (no program officer/funder names).
Thanks, in advance of taking the time to type.
The Peery Foundation is a Palo Alto-based family foundation established in 1978 by Richard Peery. Our mission is to strengthen youth and families to build lives of dignity and self-reliance. We do this by investing in and serving social entrepreneurs and other leaders who are working to empower youth and families living in poverty in the San Francisco Bay Area and around the world. Hereʼs a bit about our founder and the values which inform our approach to philanthropy.
2 COMMENTS
I like the “worddle” above. I’ll try to add a few more. On taking the time to type about our dream funder, I found myself creating parallels, or opposing qualities:
Knowledgeable yet seeking-wisdom
Instinctive yet self-questioning
Involved yet trusting
Focused and disciplined about specific goals yet willing to see how those goals can be met in new ways
Committed beyond a single grant cycle yet always seeking the “next”
Cognizant of non-expertise yet willing to step into expertise and to share new findings with the entire community
In short, our dream funder is much more a “partner” capable of meeting the significance of the full scope of the problems our nonprofit and nonprofit community is working to fix.
Thanks! Great exercise!
Elliott
Elliott,
I like the way you’re highlighting the tension between opposing qualities. This is a great list. I’ve noticed this tension in philanthropy before, in the balance between the extremes of highly rigor based and highly trust based approaches (brief illustration: http://prezi.com/ogufzvldkwtp/view/#19). Your observations extend that idea of tension and go deeper in to the two opposing approaches. Looking at your parallels, I think it’s easier to focus on either one or the other in each juxtaposition. It just simplifies life. It’s hardest to be in the middle. But potentially most effective in the long-run.
Thanks for sharing your ideas.