Over the past decade, there has been a significant rise in both the interest in and number of intermediary organizations — those that primarily regrant funds from institutional sources on their behalf, including nonprofits that act as regrantors, collaborative or pooled funds, and more. However, much of the existing literature on intermediary organizations draws from the perspectives of the intermediaries themselves or their funders, while there is comparatively little research about intermediary grantees’ experiences.
This gap in the literature led the Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP) to analyze the past decade of data from our Grantee Perception Report (GPR), a comparative grantee survey used by hundreds of funders. Our report, published today, delves into the experiences of organizations funded by intermediaries, how their experiences differ from those grantees have with other funders, and whether these experiences aligned with commonly cited reasons for working with intermediaries.
Many in philanthropy have asserted that intermediaries are better able to achieve goals related to impact, building relationships with nonprofit grantees, and progress on issues related to equity. Our research reveals that when it comes to the grantee experience, not all intermediaries are the same, reflecting the broad range of grantee ratings seen across all funders that have conducted a GPR. However, at the aggregate level, we didn’t find substantial, meaningful differences in grantee experiences between intermediary funders and other funders. For instance, intermediaries and other funders received similar ratings for field impact and commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Differences that did emerge were small. Grantees of intermediaries reported slightly more open and frequent communication with their funders. On the other hand, grantees rated intermediary funders slightly lower in areas related to the funder-grantee relationship and understanding of grantee organizations. When we examined grantmaking characteristics of intermediary funders compared to other funders, we found grantees of intermediary funders are slightly less likely to receive multiyear or unrestricted grants, and the grants they do receive are somewhat smaller. At the median, the size of a grant from intermediaries is half that of a grant from other funders. Over a quarter of the suggestions from intermediary grantees asked for larger, longer, and more flexible grants.
In short, as with other funders, grantee experiences with intermediaries vary — and those experiences seem to depend on the actions and practices of their funder, rather than the funding organization’s form.
To understand more about the approaches of intermediary funders that do receive strong ratings from their grantees, CEP spoke with two intermediary organizations — Groundswell Fund and the Conservation Lands Foundation — and several of their grantees. These interviews highlighted the importance of certain trust-based practices, such as having a deep understanding of the contexts in which grantees work and providing funding that is responsive to grantees’ needs.
Given the significant benefits for both intermediaries and funders in strengthening intermediaries’ work with grantees, our hope is that this research sparks an open and honest conversation about what it takes to build excellent intermediary-funder-grantee experiences across the philanthropic sector.
Emily Yang is a senior analyst, Research, at CEP. Find her on LinkedIn.
