To Support Civil Society, 4 Traps for Foundation Leaders to Escape

Originally published by Inside Philanthropy, September 12, 2025.

Co-authored by Vivian Tseng, President and CEO, Foundation for Child Development and Mike Pratt, President and CEO of the Scherman Foundation.

The Trump administration and its allies have made clear their intention to target civil society organizations that don’t align with their agenda. From threats to revoke tax-exempt status to investigations of organizations working on democracy, climate and immigration, the nonprofit and university sectors face unprecedented political pressure. 

This is when philanthropy should step forward as a bulwark for civil society. Yet for all our resources and stated commitments to social change, many foundations find themselves hesitant to act. This isn’t because foundation leaders and trustees lack conviction or compassion. Rather, many of us find ourselves caught in dynamics that, despite our best intentions, constrain action precisely when our courage, voices and resources are most needed to protect civil society.

We’ve identified four common traps that constrain philanthropic response when our partners face threats. Fortunately, we can release ourselves from these traps while upholding prudent stewardship and standing alongside our nonprofit and university partners.

The all-or-nothing trap

Too often, we frame our choices as binary: a 5% payout for eternity or spend-down; transform our entire philanthropic model or maintain the status quo. This false dichotomy prevents us from taking meaningful steps that can create a significant impact without an organizational change that feels existential. 

The Scherman Foundation recently broke free from this trap by committing to increase our payout to 10% – double the required 5% for private foundations. This two-year commitment adds $10 million to our giving, bolstering current grantees while supporting innovation in community organizing, movement-building and racial justice advocacy.

By structuring this as a time-limited commitment, we’re making a significant contribution in this moment without constraining our long-term options. Our endowment’s spending power will stabilize over time, but the urgent needs we’re addressing cannot wait.

The lesson here is that impactful action doesn’t require permanent transformation. Strategic, time-bound increases in giving can provide substantial resources for urgent needs while preserving organizational flexibility.

The risk-aversion trap

Foundation leaders are right to consider reputational and legal risks in this moment of political attacks, but we must also ask ourselves: What is at risk for our mission and the partners and communities central to our mission if we do not speak up and act? Our grantees work on the front lines daily, facing far greater exposure to the very dangers we fear.

Early childhood funders consider birth to age eight a critical time for children’s development. Recent legislative and executive efforts to curtail access to food, healthcare and education will have dramatic impacts on the early socio-emotional, cognitive and physical development of a generation of kids. 

The Foundation for Child Development uses a framework of concentric circles for assessing our risks as a social justice funder for young children marginalized by racism, xenophobia and economic inequality. We place children at the center because they are at greatest risk. The nonprofits and universities working on behalf of children are in the next ring, and our foundation is in the outer circle. This framework helps us maintain perspective: While we do face risks, they pale in comparison to those borne by our partners and communities. 

This framework guided our recent grantmaking to protect all children’s access to services and communications, standing up for the most vulnerable children and the nonprofits who protect them. Anchoring our risk assessment in our mission and values and maintaining clear sightlines on who faces the greatest danger enables us to act swiftly rather than retreating into lengthy deliberation. Risk cannot be eliminated, but it can be contextualized. 

The governance trap

Well-intentioned governance processes can become permission structures for inaction or just end up belaboring funder responses to rapidly changing contexts. Rather than unquestioningly following past governance procedures, boards and executive leaders can build stronger alignment around their missions and values, forge greater trust, and redefine their respective roles to focus each party’s time and energy where it is most needed. 

Our foundations have worked deliberately to build trust and strategic thought partnership among our boards and executive leadership. Over the last year, the Foundation for Child Development’s board and CEO built a shared vision and mutual trust. This alignment enabled us to make grants early in 2025 to protect vulnerable children and support grantees’ access to digital security, crisis communications, physical safety and legal services amidst politically motivated attacks. This June, the board approved a new strategic framework and shifted grantmaking authority to implement the framework to the CEO.

The Scherman Foundation spent three years developing a new mission and vision, creating momentum that also led to the delegation of grantmaking authority to staff. When our board decided to increase payout in June 2025, staff deployed an additional $3.5 million in grants within two months — a speed that would have been impossible under our previous governance model.

The key insight is that alignment and trust among foundation leaders are vital, enabling robust responses to rapidly changing contexts.

The legacy trap

Finally, legitimate attention to organizational legacy can become a trap if institutional preservation is prioritized over mission fulfillment. 

The Scherman Foundation’s evolution from family foundation to independent board governance illustrates how legacy concerns can be reframed productively. Rather than seeing change as a betrayal of our founder’s intent, we recognized that adapting our structure would better serve our mission in changed circumstances. Legacy is built through impact, not just longevity. Purpose-driven leadership, as described by Anne Wallestad in the Stanford Social Innovation Review, can help boards avoid this trap by recentering on purpose: the fundamental reason that an organization exists.

A call to action

None of these changes required an immediate or complete philanthropic transformation. Instead, they were strategic adaptations that enhanced our effectiveness while deepening organizational integrity. Think of them as opportunities to test new approaches — something philanthropy regularly encourages grantees to do. Whether changes are experimental or permanent, the crucial step is breaking out of the traps and taking action to achieve our organizational purpose. 

Vivian Tseng is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Foundation for Child Development, a private foundation that works at the nexus of research, policy, and community to advance social justice for young children and their families. Prior to joining the Foundation, Dr. Tseng served as senior vice president, programs, at the William T. Grant Foundation, where she pioneered initiatives to advance evidence-informed and equity-centered policy and practice.

Mike Pratt is the President and CEO of the Scherman Foundation, a private foundation that invests in the economic, political, and cultural transformation necessary for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color to reclaim and build power. It primarily funds organizing, movement building, and narrative work. Prior to joining the Foundation in 1996, he worked as a civil rights lawyer and a community organizer.