Grant funding fragments movements

Social movements die when they get funded. The moment collective resistance accepts institutional money, it transforms from a threat to the system into a component of it.

Grant funding doesn’t support movements—it domesticates them.

──── The fragmentation mechanism

Foundation funding requires movements to break themselves into discrete, fundable pieces:

Environmental justice becomes separate from labor organizing. Racial equity gets divorced from economic inequality. Gender issues are isolated from class struggle.

Foundations fund single-issue organizations, not systemic change movements. This forces holistic resistance to fragment into manageable specialty areas that can’t threaten the underlying system.

The funding structure ensures that movements addressing interconnected problems can never work together effectively.

──── Competition over collaboration

Grant funding transforms natural allies into competitors:

Organizations fighting poverty compete with groups addressing homelessness for the same foundation dollars. Racial justice groups compete with immigrant rights organizations for limited diversity funding.

Mission creep occurs when organizations expand their programs to access additional funding streams, creating overlap and competition with other groups doing similar work.

The funding system pits social justice organizations against each other instead of against the systems creating the problems they’re trying to solve.

──── Professional class capture

Grant funding requires movements to hire professional staff who understand foundation language and grant-writing requirements:

Development directors speak fluent foundation jargon but often can’t communicate with the communities they claim to serve. Program managers optimize for measurable outcomes rather than systemic change.

The professional nonprofit class becomes a buffer between actual movements and institutional power. They translate movement demands into foundation-acceptable language, inevitably diluting radical content.

Organizations become more accountable to funders than to the communities they claim to represent.

──── Measurable outcomes vs systemic change

Foundations fund measurable outcomes, not revolutionary transformation:

“Served 500 homeless individuals” gets funded. “Challenged the property relations creating homelessness” doesn’t.

“Provided job training to 100 ex-offenders” gets funded. “Organized against the prison-industrial complex” doesn’t.

Grant requirements force movements to focus on addressing symptoms while avoiding the structural causes that foundations and their donors benefit from.

──── Timeline domestication

Foundation grant cycles impose artificial timelines on social change:

One-year grants for problems that require decades to solve. Quarterly reporting that demands immediate measurable progress on intergenerational issues.

Real movements operate on the timeline of social change, which doesn’t align with foundation fiscal years. Grant funding forces movements to pretend systemic change happens on institutional schedules.

Pilot programs and demonstration projects become substitutes for sustained organizing work.

──── Geographic containment

Foundation funding isolates movements geographically:

Local organizations get funded to address local problems while being discouraged from analyzing how those problems connect to national or global systems.

Regional foundations prevent movements from developing analysis that crosses geographic boundaries. Problems get localized even when their causes are systemic.

This prevents movements from developing the scale and coordination necessary to challenge the systems creating the problems they’re addressing.

──── Language policing

Grant applications require movements to translate their analysis into foundation-acceptable language:

“Anti-capitalism” becomes “economic justice.” “Revolution” becomes “systemic change.” “Class struggle” becomes “equity work.”

Foundation language requirements force movements to self-censor their most radical analysis. Organizations learn to speak in code that obscures their actual politics.

Over time, the coded language becomes the actual politics as radical analysis gets lost in translation.

──── Board governance co-optation

Foundation funding often requires nonprofit boards that include business and community leaders:

Corporate executives end up governing organizations challenging corporate power. Politicians sit on boards of groups trying to influence policy. Foundation representatives directly oversee the organizations they fund.

Board governance requirements ensure that movements are supervised by representatives of the systems they’re trying to change.

──── Evaluation as control

Foundation evaluation requirements transform movements into data-collection enterprises:

Organizations spend more time documenting their work than doing it. Program evaluation becomes more important than program effectiveness.

Logic models and theory of change documents force movements to pretend they know exactly how social change happens, eliminating experimentation and adaptation.

Evaluation becomes a form of surveillance that allows foundations to monitor and control movement activities.

──── Strategic planning domestication

Foundations require strategic plans that map out multi-year organizational development:

Movements are forced to predict their future activities and outcomes years in advance. This eliminates the flexibility to respond to changing conditions or opportunities.

Capacity building becomes code for professionalizing organizations until they resemble conventional nonprofits rather than grassroots movements.

Strategic planning requirements transform unpredictable resistance into predictable organizational development.

──── Coalition management

Foundations fund coalitions that bring multiple organizations together under foundation oversight:

The funding structure allows foundations to influence entire sectors of social movement activity through coalition grants. Organizations must coordinate their work through foundation-mediated processes.

Collaborative funding gives foundations leverage over multiple organizations simultaneously while creating the appearance of supporting movement unity.

──── Research and policy capture

Foundations fund research and policy advocacy that channels movement energy into academic and legislative work:

Think tanks and policy institutes become substitutes for grassroots organizing. Academic research replaces direct action and community organizing.

Policy advocacy creates the illusion of progress while keeping movements focused on working within systems rather than challenging them.

──── Innovation theater

Foundations fund innovation and pilot programs that create the appearance of addressing problems without threatening existing power structures:

Social entrepreneurship becomes a substitute for collective organizing. Tech solutions replace political solutions.

Innovation funding channels movement energy into individual projects rather than collective resistance.

──── The nonprofit industrial complex

Grant funding creates a parallel economy that absorbs movement energy:

Thousands of organizations exist to address problems that could be solved by challenging the systems creating them. The nonprofit sector becomes a employment program for college-educated activists.

Career nonprofiteers develop professional interests in maintaining the problems they’re paid to address.

──── Movement recuperation

Foundations fund the recuperation of radical movements:

Revolutionary analysis gets packaged into diversity training. Anti-capitalist organizing becomes social impact investing. Community self-defense becomes restorative justice programs.

Foundation funding transforms threatening movements into harmless service providers.

──── Alternative funding models

Movements that reject foundation funding develop different characteristics:

Membership dues create accountability to participants rather than donors. Community fundraising keeps organizations rooted in their base.

Mutual aid networks operate without institutional oversight. Direct action campaigns can escalate without worrying about foundation consequences.

Self-funded movements maintain their radical analysis and confrontational tactics.

────────────────────────────────────────

Grant funding doesn’t accidentally fragment movements—it’s designed to. Foundations understand that unified, radical movements threaten the systems their wealth depends on.

By requiring fragmentation, competition, professionalization, and moderation, foundation funding transforms revolutionary potential into manageable reform activities.

The most effective movements in history were self-funded through membership, community support, and direct economic action. They remained accountable to their participants rather than their funders.

Contemporary movements that accept foundation funding trade their revolutionary potential for institutional legitimacy. They become part of the system they originally sought to change.

The choice is stark: maintain radical analysis and grassroots accountability through independent funding, or accept institutional money and institutional control.

Most movements choose the money. That’s why most movements fail.