The global political landscape has become increasingly complex and volatile. Rising authoritarianism, shrinking civic space, polarization, and shifting geopolitical alliances are challenging traditional development and philanthropic paradigms. Nowhere, arguably, is this change more apparent than in the USA. There are many sectors that are being threatened in various ways, whether overtly politically, through financial pressure, or other mechanisms that make business as usual nearly impossible. Amid this shift, the philanthropic sector generally, and philanthropic intermediaries in particular, are facing growing pressure and political attacks that undermine and threaten their efficacy, in some cases their existence.
Philanthropic intermediaries have played an essential role in the philanthropy ecosystem for decades. They help to resource transformational social change efforts, providing a bridge between donors and charitable causes, especially innovators and frontline actors. They enable emerging initiatives and innovative projects to access philanthropic support without the burden of setting up their own organization. This democratizes philanthropy and catalyzes innovation by reducing barriers to entry for new voices and ideas.
Intermediaries take many forms and provide value by managing grants, building capacity, offering contextual intelligence, providing direct services to frontline actors, and facilitating innovation and entrepreneurial approaches. Fiscal sponsorship has become a critical service in recent years and has long been recognized as a legitimate legal construct to provide not only funding, but a full suite of services to philanthropic and social change efforts. The majority of intermediaries that can provide a full suite of fiscal sponsorship are located in the USA. While these services exist in other geographies, they are much more limited.
In the current context, where US-based fiscal sponsors - and the sector more broadly - are subject to increasing scrutiny and political pressure, donors are looking for alternatives to work with philanthropic intermediaries outside of the US, seeking to avoid the heightened risks they perceive of transferring or holding funds, and operating, in the USA. US operators are also considering changes to their approaches. Many donors are considering opportunities to expand philanthropic infrastructure outside of the US, which has long term benefits for the sector. Europe is a natural location, given a strong regulatory environment, diverse array of foundations and long history of organized philanthropy. But questions exist regarding how quickly the sector can adapt and expand, which countries offer relative benefits, what existing infrastructure can be (relatively quickly) evolved, what is the level of need, what types of services are needed, and what can be learned from the US and other existing fiscal sponsor models.