Reparative Philanthropy: When Grantmaking Confronts Its Foundations

What Is Reparative Philanthropy? Defining a Movement at Odds with Tradition

For over a century, American philanthropy has built its identity on benevolence—wealthy individuals and institutions directing capital toward "solving" social problems. But increasingly, a growing chorus of practitioners, Indigenous leaders, and reparations advocates are asking a more uncomfortable question: What if the problems philanthropy is trying to solve were created by the very systems that generated the wealth being deployed to address them?

This is the central tension animating reparative philanthropy, a funding approach that acknowledges and attempts to remediate historical wealth extraction, ongoing systemic inequities, and the role that institutional racism and colonialism have played in accumulating the assets now held by many foundations. Unlike diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives—which often treat these issues as internal organizational challenges—reparative philanthropy positions the philanthropy itself as part of the harm that must be addressed.

Reparative philanthropy is rooted in a fundamental reframing: funding is not charity dispensed from above, but a return of resources that were extracted from below. It prioritizes community-led solutions over expert-driven interventions, supports self-determination over dependency, and often requires donors to confront their own complicity in the systems they claim to oppose.

Distinction from Diversity and Inclusion

It's crucial to understand how reparative philanthropy differs from the DEI movement, which has become standard in many foundations. DEI efforts typically focus on internal hiring practices, board composition, and organizational culture—making philanthropy itself more representative of the communities it serves. This is valuable work, but it does not fundamentally address the structural questions that reparative philanthropy raises.

Reparative philanthropy goes deeper: it asks whether the foundation should exist in its current form at all, whether its wealth was legitimately accumulated, and whether direct transfers of capital and control to communities harmed by historical injustice should replace traditional grantmaking altogether.

The Wealth Extraction Problem: Philanthropy's Uncomfortable Mirror

To understand reparative philanthropy, you must first understand its central critique: much of the wealth in American foundations—and by extension, the fortunes of individual philanthropists—was built on systems of extraction that continue to disadvantage the very communities those foundations claim to help.

Historical Foundations of Philanthropic Wealth

Consider the history: major American fortunes were built through industries that explicitly benefited from slavery, colonialism, and the theft of Indigenous lands. Andrew Carnegie's steel fortune was built partly on labor practices that modern standards would consider exploitative. John D. Rockefeller's oil monopoly was constructed through anti-competitive practices and the extraction of resources from communities that had little say in the matter. These fortunes formed the basis of the nation's largest foundations.

Even more recently, modern tech and finance fortunes have been built on extraction of data, labor, and natural resources from Global South communities and communities of color at home. The inequality that allows a single individual to accumulate billions of dollars—creating a foundation with assets larger than some state budgets—is itself a form of wealth extraction.

When these fortunes are transformed into foundations, they gain tax benefits. The government essentially subsidizes philanthropic activity by allowing wealthy individuals and institutions to avoid taxes on the income generated by their assets. From the perspective of reparative philanthropy, this means public resources are being deployed to allow private actors to determine how societal resources are allocated—often in ways that benefit communities that have already benefited from historical extraction.

The Perpetuation Problem

Reparative philanthropy critics also point to how traditional grantmaking can actually perpetuate the very problems it claims to address. When foundations fund social services—homeless shelters, food banks, mental health clinics—in communities devastated by disinvestment, they're providing a bandage for wounds created by extractive economic systems. The communities remain dependent on foundation funding while the underlying systems of dispossession remain untouched.

Moreover, the grantmaking process itself can reinforce power imbalances. Foundations decide what problems are worth solving, what solutions are acceptable, and which communities are "credible" enough to receive funds. Grant applications demand extensive documentation, evaluation metrics, and compliance requirements that can overwhelm grassroots organizations with limited administrative capacity. In this way, traditional philanthropy can function as a mechanism of control—funding only those initiatives that align with funder priorities, whether or not those priorities actually serve community needs.

Indigenous-Led Funding and the Massive Funding Gap

Perhaps nowhere is the failure of traditional philanthropy more stark than in Indigenous communities. Less than 0.5% of all philanthropic funding goes to Indigenous-led organizations, despite the fact that Indigenous nations and communities manage some of the most biodiverse and climate-critical lands on the planet, preserve irreplaceable cultural knowledge, and face profound challenges in health, education, and economic opportunity.

This funding gap is not accidental—it reflects the historical and ongoing colonization of Indigenous lands and the systematic marginalization of Indigenous decision-making authority. Reparative philanthropy must therefore begin with an acknowledgment that nearly all land in what is now the United States was stolen from Indigenous peoples, and that this theft continues to generate wealth that accrues to non-Indigenous institutions, including foundations.

Liberated Capital and the BIPOC-Led Approach

One of the most significant models emerging to address this gap is Liberated Capital, a fund that explicitly targets Black, Indigenous, and People of Color-led organizations. Rather than requiring these organizations to compete in the same rigorous (and often exclusionary) application processes as larger, better-resourced institutions, Liberated Capital provides flexible funding, longer grant periods, and technical assistance designed specifically for grassroots and community-based organizations.

Liberated Capital's approach reflects a core principle of reparative philanthropy: that the problem is not primarily the organizations seeking funding, but the systems of funding themselves. By reducing barriers to access, providing more trust-based funding, and prioritizing organizations led by people with lived experience of the problems they're addressing, funds like Liberated Capital attempt to redistribute both resources and power.

NDN Collective and Community-Defined Solutions

Another crucial player in Indigenous-led funding is the NDN Collective, a Native-led organization that provides rapid-response grants and capacity-building support to Indigenous communities across the United States. Founded on the principle that Indigenous communities are the experts in solving problems affecting their own people, NDN Collective channels funding directly to local initiatives without the bureaucratic overhead typical of foundation grantmaking.

What makes NDN Collective distinct is that Indigenous communities themselves determine what problems need solving and what solutions are appropriate. There is no external evaluation process determining whether a community's priorities align with funder priorities. This represents a fundamental inversion of traditional philanthropy's power dynamics.

As funding from mainstream foundations has increased toward Indigenous causes (often following years of activism and pressure), NDN Collective's role has become increasingly important in ensuring that this funding actually reaches Indigenous-led organizations and is deployed in ways that Indigenous communities define as meaningful.

Black Reparations in Philanthropy: 80+ Funders and Growing

While the Indigenous funding gap remains the most severe in percentage terms, the scale of Black-led organization funding represents another critical area of reparative philanthropic attention. Black-led organizations receive approximately 1.8% of all foundation dollars despite serving some of the most resilient and dynamic communities in the country.

The reparations movement in philanthropy has moved beyond rhetoric to concrete action. Over 80 national funders are now actively supporting reparations-related work, including both direct reparations (cash payments or investments to Black communities) and indirect reparations (funding for Black-led institutions, Black wealth-building initiatives, and addressing specific harms of slavery and segregation).

Types of Reparative Funding Models

Reparative philanthropic approaches to Black communities take several distinct forms:

• Direct Cash Transfers: Some funders are providing direct monetary reparations to Black individuals and communities. This can take the form of guaranteed income pilots, community-controlled funds, or direct payments to descendants of enslaved people.
• Wealth Building Initiatives: Funding homeownership programs, business capitalization funds, and investment vehicles designed specifically for Black entrepreneurs and wealth-builders, addressing the racial wealth gap that stems directly from discriminatory policies.
• Land Restoration: Supporting Black farmers, land trusts, and agricultural initiatives that address the historical loss of Black agricultural land through violence, fraud, and discrimination.
• Institutional Reparations: Funding to historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), Black-led nonprofits, and community institutions that serve as cultural and economic anchors in Black communities.
• Truth and Accountability: Funding for historical documentation, truth commissions, and accountability mechanisms focused on specific instances of racialized violence and injustice.

The Land-Back Movement: Material Restitution Beyond Funding

If reparative philanthropy represents a philosophical shift in how funders think about their role, the land-back movement represents its most concrete manifestation. Land-back goes beyond funding to materially restore Indigenous control over ancestral lands—sometimes through direct purchase and transfer, sometimes through co-management agreements, and sometimes through supporting Indigenous land trusts.

How Land-Back Works

The mechanics of land-back initiatives vary, but the general principle is consistent: land that was stolen or coercively taken from Indigenous peoples is returned to Indigenous control. This can happen through:

• Philanthropic Purchase and Transfer: Funders purchase land in real estate markets and transfer title to Indigenous nations or trusts. Organizations like the Native Land Conservancy and Trust for Public Land are facilitating these purchases.
• Co-management Agreements: Private or public landowners enter into agreements allowing Indigenous nations to jointly manage or co-steward lands, restoring traditional management practices.
• Conservation Easements: Funders work with Indigenous communities to place lands under conservation easements that prevent development and allow traditional ecological stewardship.
• Indigenous Land Trusts: Community-based organizations that acquire and hold land for collective Indigenous benefit, preventing future dispossession.

Concrete Examples of Land-Back in Action

Several significant land-back transfers have occurred in recent years, illustrating the growing scale of this movement:

• The Karuk Tribe has regained stewardship of vast tracts of California forest land, allowing the restoration of traditional burning practices that reduce catastrophic wildfires while restoring ecosystem health.
• The Orca Indian Tribe and other Pacific Northwest tribes have secured co-management agreements with federal land agencies, restoring their role in salmon management and ecosystem restoration.
• The Menominee Nation has maintained continuous forest management on their traditional territory, demonstrating economic sustainability and ecological restoration simultaneously.
• New York State has made historic commitments to return lands to the Onondaga Nation and other Haudenosaunee peoples as part of evolving land-back agreements.

What makes these initiatives significant is that they represent a shift from funding solutions to resource restitution. Rather than asking Indigenous communities what problems they need funding to address, land-back asks: what lands and resources were taken, and how can we return them?

The Decolonizing Wealth Project and Edgar Villanueva's Framework

One of the most influential frameworks in reparative philanthropy comes from Edgar Villanueva's "Decolonizing Wealth" project. Villanueva, a philanthropy professional and member of the Lummi Nation, developed a comprehensive critique of philanthropy as an inherently colonial institution and proposed pathways for transformation.

The Core Tenets of Decolonizing Wealth

Villanueva's framework rests on several key principles:

• Acknowledgment: Philanthropy must acknowledge that wealth in America was built on stolen land and stolen labor. This acknowledgment must be explicit and unflinching, not hidden behind euphemisms or abstract language about "systemic challenges."
• Granting Power: Rather than foundations determining what problems are worth solving, communities themselves should determine priorities and have direct control over resources. This might mean moving toward participatory grantmaking, community-controlled funds, or direct wealth transfers.
• Healing Justice: Funding should support healing from historical and ongoing trauma, recognizing that colonialism and racism create psychological, spiritual, and relational harm that cannot be addressed purely through traditional social services.
• Reparations: Philanthropy should directly support reparations initiatives, whether directed toward Indigenous nations, Black communities, or other communities harmed by systemic injustice.
• Investment in Resistance: Funders should support movements and organizations that challenge the power structures underlying inequality, not just fund services that accommodate inequality.

The $20 Million Commitment

The Decolonizing Wealth Project itself represents a major philanthropic commitment. Over a five-year period, the initiative has mobilized over $20 million in reparative funding, directing resources toward Indigenous-led organizations, land-back initiatives, and organizations working on reparations and economic justice. This represents not just a shift in where funding goes, but a shift in how funding operates—with more flexible timelines, less bureaucratic overhead, and greater trust in community-led solutions.

The significance of Decolonizing Wealth extends beyond the funding it mobilizes. By providing a coherent intellectual and ethical framework for reparative philanthropy, it has helped legitimize critiques that were previously marginal in mainstream philanthropy circles. Major foundations have begun referencing Villanueva's work and adopting elements of his framework in their own mission statements and grant guidelines.

How Traditional Foundations Are Responding: Internal Reckoning vs. Structural Change

The emergence of reparative philanthropy has forced even the largest and most traditional foundations to reckon with their own historical complicity and contemporary responsibilities. However, foundation responses have varied widely, ranging from genuine attempts at structural transformation to what critics characterize as performative gestures that leave fundamental power structures intact.

Category 1: Genuine Structural Transformation

Some foundations have committed to substantive changes in how they operate. This includes:

• Shifting to participatory grantmaking models where community members directly determine how funding is allocated
• Moving away from competitive RFP processes toward direct invitations to organizations with lived expertise
• Providing multi-year, unrestricted funding that reduces the burden of constant reporting and re-application
• Examining their own investment portfolios to ensure they align with their stated values around justice and sustainability
• Investing in endowments controlled by Indigenous nations and communities

Category 2: Incremental Reforms

Other foundations have made meaningful but limited changes:

• Creating new grant programs specifically for BIPOC-led organizations or Indigenous communities
• Adding racial equity language to mission statements and funding criteria
• Hiring staff from communities they serve and adjusting organizational culture
• Increasing grantee feedback mechanisms to improve funding processes

These changes represent real improvements but do not fundamentally address the power dynamics that critics of reparative philanthropy identify. The foundation still controls the resources. The foundation still determines what problems are worth solving. Community input is sought but not necessarily determinative.

Category 3: Performative Responses

Some foundations have adopted reparative and decolonial language while making minimal substantive changes. This might include:

• Issuing statements acknowledging historical injustice without committing to specific reallocation of resources
• Creating advisory boards that include BIPOC leaders but lack real decision-making authority
• Framing existing programs as reparative without significant modification
• Investing in research and documentation of injustice while avoiding direct funding of movements for change

Critics argue that performative responses can actually undermine reparative philanthropy by creating the appearance of change while maintaining structural inequalities. As communities become increasingly sophisticated at identifying these dynamics, foundations that engage in performative action may face growing pressure and loss of legitimacy.

Criticism from Left and Right: Contested Territory

Reparative philanthropy is contested from multiple directions, with critics on both the left and right questioning different aspects of the movement.

Criticism from the Left

Critics within justice and environmental movements argue that reparative philanthropy, even in its most progressive forms, is insufficient because it:

• Remains within capitalism: Even redistributing wealth through reparative channels does not address the fundamental inequality-producing mechanisms of capitalism. It allows wealthy individuals and institutions to maintain their power while appearing to address injustice.
• Preserves foundation power: Even participatory grantmaking models ultimately allow foundations to control timing, scope, and conditions of funding. True reparations would involve wealth transfers that remove foundation control entirely.
• Lacks scale: The $20 million in the Decolonizing Wealth Project, while significant, pales in comparison to the trillions of dollars in generational wealth accumulated through extraction. Real reparations would involve far larger transfers of wealth and land.
• May depoliticize movements: By channeling activism and organizing through foundation-funded structures, reparative philanthropy might inadvertently tame movements for radical change by making them dependent on funder support.
• Risks co-optation: Communities of color have historically seen radical movements diluted or diverted when mainstream institutions offer resources with strings attached. Accepting foundation funding might compromise movement integrity.

Criticism from the Right

Conservative critics and some moderate commentators question reparative philanthropy on different grounds:

• Individual responsibility vs. collective guilt: Critics argue that funding based on historical harm holds current foundations and donors responsible for actions they did not personally commit, raising questions of fairness and individual liberty.
• Determinism: Some argue that reparative frameworks reduce individuals to their race or ethnicity, failing to account for individual agency and variation within communities.
• Divisiveness: Critics worry that reparations-focused philanthropy exacerbates racial divisions rather than fostering shared community responsibility.
• Reverse discrimination: Some claim that prioritizing BIPOC-led organizations represents discrimination against white-led organizations, even if those organizations serve BIPOC communities.

These right-leaning critiques often rest on premises that reparative philanthropy fundamentally rejects—namely, that racial inequality is not the result of systemic extraction but rather individual choices or cultural factors, and that addressing systemic harm means "treating people differently based on race."

What Reparative Philanthropy Means for the Broader Grants Ecosystem

Beyond the organizations directly engaged in reparative philanthropy, this movement is reshaping the broader landscape of American grantmaking in several important ways.

Funding Flows and Competitive Advantage

As more funding becomes available through reparative channels, organizations led by and serving BIPOC communities face new opportunities. However, this also creates new challenges: organizations that have previously struggled to access mainstream foundation funding may now face competition from well-resourced organizations attempting to access the newly available "reparative" funding pool. Additionally, the growth of reparative funding might create pressure on mainstream foundations to further decrease funding to communities of color, under the assumption that "reparative funders" are now responsible for addressing these needs.

Shifting Definitions of Success

Reparative philanthropy is challenging traditional metrics of philanthropic success. Rather than evaluating success through increased service delivery numbers or behavioral change in target populations, reparative funders increasingly ask: Did this funding strengthen community power? Did it increase community self-determination? Did it address root causes rather than symptoms?

This shift has profound implications for how organizations design their work, measure impact, and tell their stories to funders. Organizations that have been evaluated based on traditional metrics may need to develop new language and frameworks to communicate their impact to reparative funders, and vice versa.

Professionalization and Movement Dynamics

As reparative funding becomes more mainstream, there is risk that grassroots movements and community organizing become increasingly professionalized and institutionalized. Activists who were previously operating outside nonprofit structures may begin forming 501(c)(3)s to access reparative funding. This can bring important resources but may also dilute movement power and autonomy.

Diversity Within Communities

Reparative philanthropy, by necessity, makes assumptions about community interests and priorities. However, communities are internally diverse, with differing perspectives on what reparations should look like, what problems deserve priority funding, and whether foundation funding is appropriate at all. As reparative funding flows increase, ensuring that diverse voices within communities have genuine decision-making power—not just advisory roles—becomes increasingly critical.

For Grant Seekers: Finding and Approaching Reparative Funders

For organizations engaged in reparative work or serving BIPOC communities, understanding the landscape of reparative funding can be strategically important. Here's a practical guide to identifying and approaching these funders:

Where to Find Reparative Funders

• Decolonizing Wealth Network: The Decolonizing Wealth Project maintains a directory of funders committed to reparative grantmaking. This is an essential resource for organizations seeking to align with this movement.
• Native-Led Funding Directories: Organizations like NDN Collective and the Native Land Conservancy maintain lists of funders focused on Indigenous communities and issues.
• Racial Justice Funder Networks: Groups like the Funders for Social Justice and Interfaith Funders maintain networks of funders explicitly committed to racial justice and reparative work.
• Community Foundation networks: Many regional and local community foundations are increasingly engaging with reparative frameworks and may be accessible to local organizations.

How Reparative Funders Differ (And What to Expect)

Reparative funders operate somewhat differently than traditional foundations. Understanding these differences can help you approach them more strategically:

Aspect	Traditional Funders	Reparative Funders
Application Process	Formal RFPs, extensive written applications, competitive processes	Often invitation-based, shorter applications, emphasis on relationships
Evaluation Metrics	Quantitative outcomes, service delivery numbers, behavior change	Community power, self-determination, movement building, addressing root causes
Funding Duration	Typically 1-2 year grants with annual reporting	Often 3-5 year grants with flexible reporting
Restrictions	Highly restricted, specific project-based funding	Often unrestricted or minimally restricted
Funding Amount	Varies widely; often requires significant organizational infrastructure	Often accessible to smaller grassroots organizations
Leadership Role	Foundation identifies priorities; organizations respond	Communities/organizations define priorities; foundation supports

Crafting Proposals for Reparative Funders

If you're approaching a reparative funder, several strategies can increase your likelihood of success:

• Lead with community leadership: Emphasize who makes decisions in your organization and how community members are centered in governance and strategy. Reparative funders want to fund organizations that are authentically community-led.
• Articulate your theory of power: Rather than focusing solely on service delivery, explain your understanding of root causes and how your work addresses underlying systems of inequality.
• Be honest about trade-offs: If you're choosing community empowerment over measurable service numbers, say so. Reparative funders value this clarity.
• Demonstrate movement connections: Show how your work connects to broader movements for justice and change. Reparative funders see themselves as movement supporters, not just service funders.
• Address your own positionality: If your organization's leadership includes people from the communities you serve, highlight this. If not, explain your accountability mechanisms to the communities you serve.
• Be specific about reparations: If your work directly addresses historical harms (land restoration, wealth building, truth-telling, etc.), make these connections explicit.

Critical Questions to Ask Before Accepting Reparative Funding

While reparative funding can be transformative, it's important to approach with clarity about potential trade-offs:

• Does accepting this funding compromise your movement autonomy or align you with funders whose other investments may contradict your values?
• Will you be able to sustain your work if this funding ends? Are you building unhealthy dependence on a single funding stream?
• Are there strings attached—explicit or implicit—that might constrain your work or require you to professionalize in ways that undermine grassroots power?
• Are you being asked to participate in the funder's visibility and marketing in ways that feel appropriate to your community?
• Does the funder have genuine accountability to the communities being served, or is accountability only upward to the funder's board?

These questions don't necessarily suggest you should reject reparative funding, but they're important to ask and discuss with your community before committing to a funding relationship.

Conclusion: Reparative Philanthropy as Ongoing Struggle

Reparative philanthropy represents a genuine—if incomplete—shift in how American philanthropic institutions are grappling with questions of justice, extraction, and accountability. The movement has forced conversations that were previously marginal into mainstream foundation spaces. It has directed hundreds of millions of dollars toward communities that had historically been systematically underfunded. It has enabled land-back transfers that are materially restoring Indigenous stewardship.

At the same time, reparative philanthropy operates within constraints that its own intellectual framework identifies. Foundations, even reparative ones, still control resources and set conditions. Wealth transfers, even when framed as reparative, still operate within capitalist systems that continuously regenerate inequality. The scale of reparative funding, while growing, remains modest compared to the scale of historical harms and ongoing extraction.

Rather than viewing reparative philanthropy as a solution to the problem of inequality, it's perhaps more accurate to view it as one important arena of struggle over how resources will be allocated, who gets to decide what problems matter, and whether philanthropy can genuinely support transformation or merely manage its symptoms.

For communities engaging with reparative funders, the strategic question is clear: how do we leverage these resources and relationships to build power, strengthen self-determination, and move toward genuine justice—while remaining clear about the limitations and potential co-optations of philanthropic funding itself?