In the wake of the recent freeze on USAID funding and staggering cuts to foreign aid in Europe, many are looking to philanthropy to sustain essential services and support human rights. Yet this unfolding crisis—and philanthropy’s increasingly pivotal role—has sidelined a nuanced but necessary conversation about power itself in the charity sector.
Power is not inherently positive or negative. Money is a form of power, but so are relationships, knowledge, structures, identities, and location. Power imbalances exist at every level in philanthropy and human rights: between funders and grantees, urban and rural organizations, and the Global North and South, to name just a few examples. These disparities create gatekeepers who make choices about where resources are directed.
At the Fund for Global Human Rights, where we all work, we experience the use of power from every angle. As funders, we exercise considerable influence through our grantmaking and other work with grantee partners. However, as a nonprofit that must raise every dollar we spend, we are also susceptible to changing political winds and the whims of donors. As actors in the philanthropic space, we are undoubtedly acting as gatekeepers. Yet our program staff, who live in the countries where we work, experience the same geographical and political realities as the grantee partners they support.
Within this complex dynamic, we set out to explore power at the operational level—in philanthropy, in human rights, and in our own organization. Over 18 months, we audited our internal processes, hosted group discussions with grantee partners, and commissioned a mapping of the philanthropic sector to start answering the question: How can power be used responsibly?
Here is what we learned.
We have to be aware of our power
In recent years, “shifting power”—transferring more autonomy and control to the recipients of funds—has become a rallying cry in progressive philanthropy. This has given rise to innovative ideas for correcting power imbalances: flexible funding that isn’t restricted to specific projects, efforts to fund local groups rather than international organizations, and participatory grantmaking that empowers expert panels instead of donors to decide who receives funding.
We believe that these principles, all of which are foundational to our work, can help mitigate systemic power differentials. But we also want to hold a mirror to them and ask difficult questions. Can localization efforts, which tend to favor organizations based in capital cities, perpetuate power imbalances? Can participatory panels, which are often dominated by people with elite educations, create new gatekeepers?
The truth is that power imbalances are baked into philanthropy, just as they are baked into the broader economic system from which philanthropists derive their capital. While aspiring to shift power is an important step, we must first acknowledge that we cannot entirely divest ourselves from the power that is inherent in our role as decision makers and thus in our actions themselves. We can, however, use it more responsibly by being transparent about who we are accountable to and what we are accountable for.
We all have room to improve
At the Fund, our power—including money, expertise, connections, and experience—is present in every action we take. But we can always be more intentional about how our power is directed.
To be truly accountable, we mapped out every step in our funding process, from application cycles and reporting requirements to how we deliver money to grantee partners. In some areas, we were already leading with innovation, like emphasizing self-care or advocating for collaborative funding practices. In others, however, we found room to let go of unnecessary controls.
Ultimately, we reached greater alignment between our actions and our intentions, so that grantee partners understand not just what we ask for but why.
We all have something to contribute
There is an implicit myth in the philanthropy world that people with more money are inherently more strategic, insightful, and better positioned to solve the world’s intersecting crises. This misconception ignores the dynamics that have historically underpinned who has wealth, who doesn’t, and why. In so many contexts, we have found that those on the sharpest edge of intersecting inequalities are actually better placed to drive the solutions.
At the same time, dismissing the expertise of those in philanthropy simply because they have traditionally decided who and what to fund is an equally flawed approach.
Money is certainly a defining element of power. But the 16 grantee partners we spoke with considered relationships just as important, or even more so. People, it turns out, are the key drivers of change. Taking the time to build relationships and acknowledging everyone’s contributions are essential steps in our collective pursuit of social justice.
We can deepen understanding through dialogue
To better understand how others experience power, we hosted a series of experimental conversations with three grantee partners based in disparate regions. In these small groups, we positioned ourselves not as funders enforcing compliance but as co-learners exploring core concepts.
Together, we interrogated ideas like safeguarding (the processes organizations put in place to keep staff, volunteers, and beneficiaries safe), self-care, and risk tolerance. Each discussion yielded valuable results. Participants shared, for example, how donors’ aversion to risk can actually impede effective safeguarding and stifle context-driven solutions.
By not just acknowledging but centering power dynamics, the conversation shifted from one of compliance to one of curiosity. This type of open dialogue, over time, builds understanding and trust needed to ultimately redistribute power.
We can’t do this alone
Our mapping of the wider philanthropic space—conducted expertly by researchers Anna Levy and Nonso Jideofor—revealed that actors across the sector understand and engage with power dynamics in complex ways. Many say they want to shift power, but fewer are grappling with the operational realities that would make this possible.
To address the intersecting crises we face, the philanthropic sector must collectively reckon with power dynamics. The solution, we believe, lies in fundamentally reimagining power to build a movement that transforms individual strengths into shared accomplishments, bringing us closer to a thriving, resilient ecosystem of change.