TBP or Not TBP? A Reflection on MacKenzie Scott’s Giving
6/6/2023
By Pia Infante
A few years back, I wrote a piece thanking MacKenzie Scott for what I then referred to as her “trust-based philanthropy.” It emerged from a sense of appreciation for the historic nature and scale of Scott’s giving to address the persistent inequities that contributed to her wealth accumulation in the first place.
Since then, many others in the sector have also described MacKenzie Scott as an exemplar of trust-based philanthropy.
I now realize it was a bit hasty to label Scott’s effort “trust-based philanthropy.”
Don’t get me wrong. I think it is wonderful that Scott’s giving mechanism delivers large, often unsolicited resources to traditionally underfunded organizations in the pursuit of systemic equity. On top of that, she asks for very little in return. No bridges or buildings to be stamped with her name. No expectations of securing a seat on the board. No implicit or explicit influence over the recipient’s hiring, direction, or strategy.
I also appreciate her vulnerability in publicly exploring the complicated role of being a donor who has benefitted from structural inequities and has pledged to use her wealth to ameliorate structural inequities. Clearly, Scott embodies one of the core qualities of a trust-based leader in her desire to “seed” power by “ceding power.” This is consistent with trust-based philanthropy’s fundamental belief that advancing an equitable and inclusive society requires philanthropy to give up and share power with the communities who bear the brunt of inequities.
Despite some of these shared values, there are some key differences in the “how” of it all. Here are some distinctions where Scott’s approach diverges from a holistically trust-based approach:
Opacity v. Transparency. Scott’s approach utilizes mainly unspecified consultants to carry out the giving process, which for the first couple of years was quite opaque. This lack of transparency mimicked the structures of conventional giving, raising many questions about how decisions were made, and by whom. The recent launch of the Yield Giving website seems to be an attempt at addressing this issue by providing a bit more context behind her motivations, along with an open call for applications, more information on the decision-making process, and a roster of organizations that have received funding so far. That said, the call is so wide that many, many organizations may consider themselves eligible even if they may not necessarily be. In contrast, trust-based philanthropy encourages funders and donors to be specific and clear about their criterion for funding so that those who are unlikely to receive it will not spend time attempting to procure it.
Singular Grantmaking v. A Holistic Leadership Approach. The trust-based philanthropy movement is equally invested in seeing grantmaking practices shift as it is seeing grantmaking leaders and organizations align their actions with their values. Our TBP in 4D approach applies a values lens to culture, structures, leadership, and practices - externally and internally. Essentially, how an organization operates (the way staff conduct their work, the level of collaboration between boards and teams, the general embodiment of organizational values) is as core to a trust-based approach as overall strategy and grantmaking. This is internal cultural work that requires constant self-reflection and refinement. In Scott’s giving, given the lack of transparency around the players and process, it’s unclear whether or not there is a commitment to cultivating an internal culture rooted in self-reflection, learning, and iteration.
One-Time Gifts v. Long-Term Relationships. By all accounts, the gifts made via Scott’s grantmaking operations have been sometimes surprising and always welcome. But, for all intents and purposes, the grant is the relationship. Moreover, it seems that most of Scott’s grants are a one-time commitment – a shot in the arm, an award for doing the work. In contrast, trust-based philanthropy approaches giving as part of a greater ecosystem of collaboration toward a shared vision. As such, trust-based funders seek to forge and sustain relationships wherein power is shared, and the “burden” of being in the work is also shared. This is not to say that trust-based philanthropy advocates for funders getting overly involved in implementing the work itself, but rather that funders should be willing to take on the risk and learning that is often conferred to nonprofits to carry independently. And given the slow pace of change, this is best expressed in a long-term partnership rather than a one-off transaction.
External Evaluation v. Mutual Learning. It is unclear how Scott plans to approach impact evaluation. One assumption I am making is that if it's happening, It is likely being conducted the same way as their due diligence -- by external, unnamed consultants. In contrast, a trust-based approach to evaluation embraces a more multidimensional stance, wherein funders embed ongoing learning to be more accountable to the communities and the issues served. Part of this includes having nonprofit and community perspectives inform theories of change and indicators of success, and working with partners to interpret learnings about the work over time. Trust-based learning also takes a more embedded and iterative approach to learning – focusing on learning about barriers and accelerators to impact in order to inform the overall grantmaking strategy. This mutual learning approach requires a long-term relationship and ongoing dialogue with partners in a way that does not seem to be embodied in the current structures of Scott’s giving.
As I reflect on what Scott has written about her giving process, I appreciate the desire to “get out of the way” and let nonprofits operate without heavy involvement from a donor. I know that many groups have expressed how refreshing this is, and, given the decades of harm and control imposed by conventional philanthropy, I can see why!
In the end, I think I would rewrite my original letter to MacKenzie Scott to say “Thank You for Your Angel Donorship to Address Structural Inequities,” instead of labeling it as trust-based philanthropy. In the spirit of transparency and honesty about “face-plants,” I want to own this misstep on my part.
Of course, there is room in the imagination for many different ways to redistribute resources.
While Scott’s giving and trust-based philanthropy are not identical, both are part of promising sea change to reimagine philanthropy to be more accountable to the communities it serves. This growing movement fortifies me that the clarion call for trust-based philanthropy, shaped by the grantee partners of The Whitman Institute ten years ago, is now part of a collective way forward.
Pia Infante is the Senior Fellow at the Trust-Based Philanthropy Project.