A 2024 learning series introduced “restorative philanthropy” – a rethink of traditional models of philanthropy, especially in light of historical and ongoing injustices experienced by Indigenous Peoples. Tanya Rumble and Yumi Numata share some key learnings from the program.
The veneer of philanthropy is shiny and positive; however, philanthropy can also be extractive and harmful and replicate systemic oppressions found in all other facets of our society. This is especially true when philanthropy intersects with Indigenous communities. Many foundation, corporate, and private funds have been established on capital raised through lands or resources taken from Indigenous people. There are more than 170,000 non-profits and charities that employ more than 2.4 million Canadians and contribute more than 8% of the country’s gross domestic product. Non-profits and charities give tens of millions, yet barely any of that is reinvested into Indigenous communities. Representing roughly 5% of the population, Indigenous groups received just over .7% (less than 1%) of gifted funds.
As discussions of reconciliation begin to permeate philanthropy, questions are being asked about this de facto discrimination. Why are Indigenous communities – whose resources built this country – excluded in discussions of giving (back)?
This was some of the context that led to a collaboration between Recast Philanthropy, Hayden King, and Yumi Numata in spring 2024 to lead a learning series called Restorative Philanthropy. This series introduced “restorative philanthropy” – our collective conceptualization of rethinking traditional models of philanthropy, especially in light of historical and ongoing injustices experienced by Indigenous Peoples.
When we throw around terms like ‘colonialism’ or ‘reconciliation’ or ‘sovereignty’ or ‘decolonization’ or ‘indigenization’ – what do they actually mean?
When we throw around terms like “colonialism” or “reconciliation” or “sovereignty” or “decolonization” or “indigenization” – what do they actually mean? It was stunning to us that we have all these conversations without doing that conceptual work, without asking one another, “Well, what is your interpretation? What are we talking to each other about? What are we talking about when we use the term ‘colonialism’? What’s your interpretation of reconciliation?” Because without that, we develop all these policies and approaches and processes, frameworks that inform our relationships, our partnerships, our programming, our fundraising, our grantmaking, our governance in the charitable and philanthropic sectors. And we do this without that shared understanding of where we are starting. So we wanted to begin the introduction to restorative philanthropy by asking: Have you thought about what your conceptualization of reconciliation is? Because really, that should be the baseline for all the work that follows.
As funders, but also as fundraisers . . . we owe this work some critical self-examination and thinking about how colonization is showing up in our institutions.
As funders, but also as fundraisers, those who are speaking with donors and inviting them to make investments in work, we think we need to start with some of the things that we are doing. We owe this work some critical self-examination and thinking about how colonization is showing up in our institutions. We need to be prepared to work through difficult conversations about who we are, what we prioritize, what we believe, the ways in which we work, and how we can adapt or completely eschew our existing approaches and bring in new, more relational practices to centre sovereignty. We need to avoid the need to be experts; instead thinking about money as a tool and a resource, and philanthropy as a tool and a resource to upend settler colonialism within the sector, and replacing that kind of “divide, control, and exploit” paradigm with some restorative repairing.
The three-week Restorative Philanthropy program was designed to progressively deepen participants’ understanding of restorative philanthropy, centred on the following learning objectives:
- Question assumptions: Challenge traditional philanthropic practices and explore why Indigenous communities often do not benefit proportionately from philanthropic funds.
- Clarify “equity” versus “sovereignty”: Understand the differences between equity and sovereignty in relationships with Indigenous communities.
- Build reconciliatory practices: Learn how to develop ethical fundraising and grantmaking practices that prioritize justice and respect Indigenous leadership.
- (Re)define funding for Indigenous communities: Outline different, contextualized ways to fundraise for and support Indigenous-led projects.
Beyond the learning objectives, we conceptualized three key principles of restorative philanthropy, and some ways to action these principles. We also highlighted some actions not to take as you think about prioritizing restitution, Indigenous leadership, and the future.
Principle 1: Restitution prioritized
This principle emphasizes reparations and justice over charity, suggesting that philanthropic giving should focus on righting historical wrongs rather than offering benevolence. It advocates for unrestricted funding and supporting initiatives that prioritize land acknowledgements and restitution.
What not to do
The charity mindset is one that is often intertwined with an inclusion framework – one where organizations have built wealth (often via the dispossession of Indigenous people) and want to simply integrate Indigenous people into these existing systems and frameworks. This approach does not invoke a reciprocal relationship where Indigenous self-determination is centred; instead, it often assesses Indigenous funding proposals – if they come in – against a set of universal criteria that is often not applicable. If proposals do not come in, organizations might falsely assume a lack of interest from Indigenous organizations, when really, it’s because of a lack of infrastructure and support for their specific needs.
What to do
- Dedicate funding streams that have the built-in resources and capacity to support specific communities – ideally these streams, priorities, and processes are informed by or even led by community.
- Pool and share learnings and resources with other foundations and organizations to create unique initiatives for Indigenous people/organizations to engage with meaningfully.
- Review internal policies with a justice- and community-centred lens: what does it mean to be an organization that builds reconciliation into your governance practices?
Principle 2: Indigenous leadership prioritized
The focus here is on trusting Indigenous leadership and wisdom, recognizing that Indigenous people and organizations are best positioned to resolve their own issues. It challenges meritocracy myths and encourages trust-based philanthropy that centres relationship-building and the fundee’s leadership.
What not to do
While it is common practice for organizations to have their own strategic plans, deciding on areas of focus and outcomes based on organizational priorities instead of community-communicated needs and interests means you are asking Indigenous communities to adapt and, potentially, shoehorn their own established needs and approaches into your framework. It may also be tempting to create advisory roles for Indigenous folks, but often these are token roles that have no real power. Or, there is an overreliance on one person to affirm a very generalized approach to “indigenization.”
What to do
- Assess if, or what, organizational procedures exist that allow for Indigenous sovereignty and decision-making around funding. How might your organization actually start to cede decision-making around how dollars get allocated to Indigenous folks and how that money is spent? This could look like community-led funding, a dedicated co-created Indigenous stream/funding program, or gifting unrestricted funds to identified Indigenous organizations with no requirements or reporting.
- Question your accountability framework and lean into trust. What information do you truly require from a grant recipient? Do they really need to define their needs in your terms or abide by policies that your organization established, likely in a very different time and context where reconciliation was not part of the framework?
- Listening and learning is key, and should come from multiple sources and channels. A diverse array of reports, books, local talks and events, peer learning, and connections with diverse Indigenous folks will help you understand how to best facilitate the space to address Indigenous community needs and opportunities.
Principle 3: Future prioritized
Restorative philanthropy requires a long-term perspective, moving away from short-term metrics and quarterly reporting. It suggests that sustainable relationships and trust-building take time and that success in this space should be measured over decades.
What not to do
It can be easy to take the cue from other organizations and follow popular trends in philanthropy and fundraising, but this can go against the relational practices that are so fundamental to restorative philanthropy, which for the most part centres long-term practices rather than short-term goals. Additionally, review your policies and practices, both written and unwritten, from the perspective of harm reduction and ensure that those doing the reviewing include members of the communities being considered – notably Indigenous folks and people with a diversity of lived experience who have received training in anti-oppression, harm reduction, and decolonization.
What to do
- Centre iterative and generative relationships where ethics and governance are co-created. Allow for the time required to have important conversations and to shift perspectives and policies. This may entail changing the way you work and the way you engage with partners, and especially Indigenous partners.
- Develop a vision with Indigenous communities on long-term goals and plans first, then develop a fundraising strategy that supports it and reimagine prospecting and proposals to ensure alignment with this vision co-created with Indigenous communities.
The authors wish to acknowledge their collaborator Hayden King for his role in co-developing the principles and concepts shared in this article. King is Anishinaabe from Beausoleil First Nation on Gchi’mnissing, in Huronia, Ontario, and is executive director of Yellowhead Institute.
