Nila Kartika Wati
The year 2026 began with an unprecedented wave of analytical reports from the philanthropic sector’s leading thought leaders, collectively identifying a set of systemic pressures that are fundamentally reshaping the nonprofit landscape. These reports—originating from institutions such as the Chronicle of Philanthropy, Inside Philanthropy, and various academic centers—highlighted a convergence of crises: the fragility of democratic institutions, escalating government overreach, a rise in political violence, and significant retrenchment in federal funding. Furthermore, the erosion of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) protections, the operational complexities surrounding Donor-Advised Funds (DAFs), and the increasing pressure on nonprofit organizations to undergo structural reorganizations or mergers have created a volatile environment for civil society. While these forecasts accurately diagnosed the turbulence ahead, a critical element was notably absent from the mainstream recommendations: the strategic necessity of movement-rooted philanthropic intermediaries. This visibility gap represents more than just a conceptual oversight; it signifies a potential failure to leverage the very infrastructure required to dismantle the inequities that institutional philanthropy seeks to address.
The Landscape of Collaborative Funding and the Visibility Gap
Movement-rooted intermediaries—often referred to as collaborative funds—operate at the intersection of institutional philanthropy and grassroots social movements. Currently, these funds collectively mobilize between $4 billion and $7 billion annually across more than 500 funds worldwide. According to a recent study by Philanthropy Together, these collaborative entities consistently outperform traditional funding models in several key metrics. The study placed movement-rooted intermediaries in the top 15 percent of all funders nationwide regarding field impact, the advancement of specialized knowledge, and contributions to public policy. Furthermore, they rank in the top 10 percent for their nuanced understanding of the populations they serve and the socio-economic conditions that dictate the success of grantee work.
Despite this proven track record, the capital currently flowing through these intermediaries is a mere fraction of the broader philanthropic economy. With total U.S. foundation giving estimated at approximately $103.5 billion annually, the $4 billion to $7 billion managed by collaborative funds suggests a significant underutilization of specialized infrastructure. Sector experts argue that meeting the current historical moment requires a deliberate realignment of funding priorities to ensure that resources are not just distributed, but are guided by the voices of those most impacted by social and environmental crises.
Former Ford Foundation President Darren Walker has frequently advocated for this shift in perspective, emphasizing that the major challenges of the modern era—ranging from climate change to inequality—require foundations to move beyond their traditional comfort zones. The argument for movement-rooted intermediaries is that they provide the "unlikely, unconventional partnerships" necessary to tap into relationships and resources that institutional funders often overlook.
A Chronology of Increasing Sector Strain
The urgency surrounding the role of intermediaries has intensified over a specific timeline of events leading into 2026. In the preceding 24 months, the nonprofit sector faced a series of "stress tests" that exposed the limitations of traditional, top-down grantmaking.
- Late 2024 – Mid 2025: A series of legal challenges to DEI programs led many corporate and private foundations to pause or pivot their equity-focused initiatives. This created a vacuum in support for grassroots organizations led by and serving marginalized communities.
- Late 2025: Budgetary shifts at the federal level resulted in the expiration of several pandemic-era grants and a reduction in social service block grants, placing immediate operational strain on mid-sized nonprofits.
- Early 2026: The release of major forecast reports identified "democratic fragility" as the primary risk factor for the nonprofit sector. These reports warned of a "slide into authoritarianism" and the rise of disinformation as a barrier to civic engagement.
- Present Day (2026): The emergence of movement-rooted intermediaries as a "connective tissue" has become a focal point for advocates who argue that traditional philanthropy is too slow and too removed from the frontlines to respond to rapid-onset political and social crises.
The Strategic Functions of Movement-Rooted Intermediaries
To understand why these entities are considered transformative, it is necessary to analyze their functional advantages over traditional funding structures. Movement-rooted intermediaries serve five primary roles that are difficult for large, bureaucratic foundations to replicate.
First, they act as a bridge between institutional donors and grassroots communities. By resourcing a diverse array of leaders and strategies, they ensure that the public good is shaped by a broad spectrum of the population rather than a narrow group of high-net-worth individuals or foundation boards.
Second, they function as a risk-mitigation layer. By pooling funds from multiple donors, intermediaries distribute the "philanthropic burden." This prevents frontline organizations from having to manage dozens of individual, often conflicting, reporting requirements from different foundations, allowing them to focus on their mission-critical work.
Third, they provide intersectional connectivity. These funds are uniquely positioned to distribute investments across multiracial movements, linking rural and urban efforts, and bridging the gap between cultural narrative work and material support. This holistic approach prevents the "siloing" of social issues that often plagues traditional philanthropy.
Fourth, they prioritize long-term sustainability through flexible, multi-year commitments. In times of crisis, these intermediaries are capable of distributing emergency capital within days, ensuring the survival of organizations that might otherwise collapse under the weight of sudden political or economic shifts.
Fifth, they serve as aggregators of field knowledge. Because their staff and networks are rooted in the communities they serve, they act as an early-warning system for the sector, identifying emerging threats—such as new forms of digital surveillance or legal shifts—long before they reach the radar of institutional funders.
Case Study: The SAFE Initiative and Movement Responsiveness
A practical application of this model can be seen in the Security, Action, and Freedom for Everyone (SAFE) Initiative, launched by Borealis Philanthropy in response to the waning of federal and philanthropic resources in 2025. The initiative was designed to address six key areas of concern identified directly by community partners: adaptive and operational needs, physical safety and security, rest and healing for activists, facility maintenance, tech and digital security, and legal defense.
The SAFE Initiative demonstrated the agility of the intermediary model. Grants were flexible and often distributed within two weeks of application. In Minneapolis, for example, the fund was able to route rapid-response dollars to the Sahan Journal, a nonprofit newsroom, following the arrests of journalists during periods of civil unrest. In Oregon, a partnership with the Meyer Memorial Trust allowed the SAFE Initiative to facilitate rapid grantmaking at a volume that linked statewide trends to national themes, providing insights that a local funder working in isolation might have missed.
Analysis of Implications: Why Intermediaries Remain Underutilized
The persistent underutilization of intermediaries, despite their documented efficacy, can be attributed to several factors. Some philanthropic leaders prefer to maintain direct control over their grantmaking portfolios, viewing intermediaries as an unnecessary layer of "middle management." Others may simply lack a clear understanding of the unique value proposition these organizations offer.
Sector commentator Vu Le has compared intermediaries to mycelium—the underground fungal networks that sustain entire forests. Like mycelium, intermediaries are often invisible to the casual observer, yet they are essential for the health of the ecosystem. In the context of 2026, where the "forest" of civil society is facing threats from authoritarianism and polarization, ignoring this infrastructure could lead to systemic failure.
The broader implications of this visibility gap are international in scope. Analysis of democratic backsliding in countries such as Hungary and Turkey suggests that the erosion of independent infrastructure is a precursor to the failure of democratic systems. When the connective tissue between the people and the resources intended to support them is severed or ignored, the entire structure becomes vulnerable to overreach.
Conclusion: Moving Toward a Coordinated Future
As the nonprofit sector navigates the complexities of 2026 and beyond, the role of movement-rooted intermediaries is likely to shift from a "niche" strategy to a central pillar of democratic defense. The data suggests that collaborative funding does more than just move money; it transforms how social change is imagined and sustained. By aligning funding priorities with the lived experiences of those on the frontlines, philanthropy can move toward a model that is not only more equitable but also more resilient.
For institutional funders, the challenge lies in relinquishing a degree of direct control in favor of greater collective impact. As the Bridgespan Group’s report, Releasing the Potential of Philanthropic Collaborations, concludes, the question is no longer whether philanthropy can achieve transformative change, but whether it is willing to invest in the movement-rooted infrastructure necessary to make that change permanent. The continued slide into political instability and economic uncertainty suggests that the "wait and see" approach is no longer viable. Safeguarding democracy requires a robust, well-funded, and highly visible network of intermediaries capable of bridging the gap between institutional wealth and grassroots power.
