Why Funders Don’t Want to Join (and Why They Probably Should Anyway)

Let’s be real: the word join makes some funders twitch. Join a network? With founders? With other funders? Sounds suspiciously like vulnerability, and we all know philanthropy has a mild allergy to that.

And yet—here we are. Talking about a network built on proximity, equity, and shared power. A network funders are invited to be part of—not to run the show, not to call the shots, but to actually sit at the table with the people you say you’re here to serve. Gasp.

Now, before you reach for your impact report and your “learning journey” notes, let’s take a moment to walk through the classic reasons funders say “nah, I’m good” when invited to join a network like this one.

1. “We already have partnerships on the ground.”

Sure. You fund some local orgs. You’ve got MOUs. There’s that one WhatsApp group you lurk in. But let’s be honest: proximity isn’t just transactional. This isn’t about funding some people sometimes—it’s about stepping into a structure where your presence doesn’t override but amplifies. Where learning goes two ways. Where “power shift” isn’t just the title of your next conference keynote.

2. “We can’t be seen as biased.”

Ah yes, the great fear of being seen as too close to community actors. But let’s get one thing straight: neutrality isn’t philanthropy—it’s distance. And distance doesn’t drive change. Joining a community of practice rooted in equity doesn’t compromise your objectivity. It clarifies your humanity. (And if that makes the board nervous, we’re happy to hop on a call.)

3. “We’re already overloaded with networks.”

Same. But most of those networks involve 80-slide decks, 2-hour panels that could’ve been emails, and an echo chamber of nice-sounding “learnings.” This isn’t that. This is a space that actually listens, challenges, and builds with. A space where funders don’t perform allyship—they practice it. Which, yes, might feel awkward at first. Growth often does.

4. “We’re here to fund, not to join.”

Here’s a wild idea: what if the two weren’t mutually exclusive? What if funders who join actually become better funders? More effective, more trusted, more relevant. Being in the room doesn’t mean you suddenly have to write a strategy with emojis and grassroots slang. It just means you stop making decisions about communities without communities.

5. “We don’t know what we’d get out of it.”

Let’s flip the script: what do you put into it? Because that’s what transforms the experience. You don’t join to extract value—you join to co-create it. That’s how trust is built. That’s how systems shift. That’s how you move from being a well-meaning ATM to an actual partner in justice.

So why should you join?

Because philanthropy is at a crossroads. The old way—top-down, opaque, performative—is slowly collapsing under the weight of its own buzzwords. The new way? It looks a lot like this network: bold, imperfect, rooted, relational. The work is still rigorous, but the posture is different. Less savior, more student. Less distance, more dignity.

Joining this isn’t about losing control. It’s about releasing the illusion of it. It’s about learning from those who live the change, not just write the checks. It’s about showing up—not as the expert, but as the ally.

So don’t join. Unless you’re ready to grow, to listen, and to stand on the side of history that isn’t afraid to let go of power to make real impact possible.

In which case—pull up a seat. We saved you one.