In his new book, Glen Galaich argues for changing the mindset of institutional philanthropy, away from control and toward community engagement, away from donor-centred philanthropy to people- and community-centred philanthropy.
Control: Why Big Giving Falls Short, by Glen Galaich. John Wiley & Sons, 2026; 236 pp; ISBN 978 1394352425
Control by Glen Galaich is the latest entry in a series of books that have critiqued the world and practices of big US philanthropy, beginning with David Callahan’s The Givers in 2017 and continuing with Just Giving by Rob Reich in 2018, Letting Go by Ben Wrobel and Meg Massey in 2021, and A New Era of Philanthropy by Dimple Abichandani in 2025, among other books. Galaich focuses in this new book on what he describes as “Big Giving” by donors and foundations giving annually at least US$1 million, or much more. He is a professional in this world, serving as CEO of the Stupski Foundation in San Francisco since 2015, with previous leadership stints at The Philanthropy Workshop (now Forward Global) and the Global Philanthropy Forum. But while he has worked closely with major donors for most of his career, he is not captured by what he describes as the mindset of control that predominates among philanthropic donors. By this he means control over the money, resources, governance, and decisions of giving vehicles such as private foundations or donor-advised funds (DAFs). As indicated by the subtitle of his book, he believes that this mindset has caused big giving to fall short of its possibilities. This must change, he asserts, faced with the urgency of the current moment.
Galaich speaks as a reformer, not a critic of the “burn the house down” variety. He isn’t arguing explicitly for the elimination of the system of tax incentives and institutional structures that underpin big giving, or the abolition of foundations altogether. Nevertheless, he is unquestionably a disruptor. His book is a trenchant criticism of the prevailing model and practices of institutional philanthropy. His argument is for changing the mindset, away from control and toward community engagement, away from donor-centred philanthropy to people- and community-centred philanthropy. He puts his finger squarely on the assumptions and behaviours of individual wealthy donors and their families, who are by far the largest donors and creators of private foundations both in the United States and in Canada.
Galaich’s book is a trenchant criticism of the prevailing model and practices of institutional philanthropy.
Like many other observers, Galaich traces the development of donor-centred philanthropy in the United States back to Andrew Carnegie and his Gospel of Wealth, written in 1889. As Galaich points out, Carnegie’s vision of centring the elite donor class in deciding what society needs and where resources go continues to influence US philanthropy. The emergence of “strategic philanthropy” in the early 2000s reinforced this idea that donor-centred giving based on evidence and internally devised impact metrics was the most effective form of philanthropy. Galaich himself was a believer and teacher of this approach in his role as leader of The Philanthropy Workshop. But he has come to a very different perspective through his years as a grantmaker at Stupski. The admonition he makes today to new or experienced grantmakers alike: “This. Work. Isn’t. All. About. You.”
How did he arrive at this change of heart? Over eight brisk chapters, Galaich explains how the mindset of control became so dominant in philanthropy, and how that mindset can be replaced. He writes in an engagingly direct and informal style, weaving his personal story throughout the narrative to explain how his thinking about the mindset of control evolved as he worked with Joyce Stupski, the widow of Larry Stupski (former CEO of Charles Schwab) and one of the two co-founders of the Stupski Foundation. Initially, as staff leader of the foundation, his role was to serve as gatekeeper to Joyce. In the mindset of control, foundations are walled institutions. A would-be partner or grantee must find a way to get through the gate. The gatekeeper, or foundation executive, is there to ensure that the grantee meets the donor’s expectations. This is justified, in the mind of the donor, by the idea that it’s “their money” to give out. But, as Galaich points out, the money has already been given to the foundation itself. Nevertheless, the donor or donor family often believes that it is their decision to direct the foundation’s choices and avoid risk in the name of good stewardship. Galaich cleverly notes that many foundation executives thus end up in the position of gatekeeper, assistant, and therapist executive, or GATE.
Galaich has heard stories from foundation GATEs across the United States about the difficulty they have had in getting their organization boards and donors to support communities under stress or to advance social change. Most of these donors and their boards or advisors use their GATEs to carry out their wishes and to wall them away from “the challenges, thoughts and viewpoints found in marginalized communities and working-class populations under socioeconomic stress.” This is the population that Galaich himself is most interested in working with. The Stupski Foundation focuses on communities in the San Francisco Bay Area and in Hawaii, using a trust-based philanthropy approach to partner with local communities in the areas of food security, health, and post-secondary education. But in Galaich’s early years at Stupski, he worked with a small staff who did not come from the communities they wanted to serve, and his board was walled off from them.
The essential purpose of philanthropy is to return resources to communities that have been underserved by our economic and political systems.
Glen Galaich
Galaich traces his change in mindset to his dawning realization that he was not “proximate” enough to the experiences of communities. He began to listen to activists, community leaders, and consultants who could help him and his team see and hear more clearly what communities want of their funders. He has come to the view that the “essential purpose of philanthropy is to return resources to communities that have been underserved by our economic and political systems.” The best way to do this is to engage the communities themselves directly in identifying and attacking intractable social problems. At an important inflection point, Galaich was able to persuade Joyce Stupski to empower him in recruiting more community leaders to his team. As he and his team evolved, he realized that he had to ask Joyce and the board to give up their control over granting decisions and to move more power to communities. He was able to convince her to do so. His book pays tribute to her humility and courage as a donor.
This decision marked the foundation’s adoption of trust-based philanthropy. Stupski had already decided to spend down all its assets by 2029. This gave Galaich and his board the leeway that many foundations do not give themselves, to move large amounts of money more quickly into the hands of community leaders. But shifting from a mindset of control to one of community engagement takes time and effort, Galaich warns. Over several years, the Stupski Foundation changed its operations and practices and diversified its governance to bring community representatives directly into the processes of transferring resources. Galaich suggests that the benefits of this change are reflected in an organization that is much more nimble, responsive, and accountable to community. The success of the foundation’s shift was validated by the positive change in its grantee ratings in the independent Grantee Perception Report run by the Center for Effective Philanthropy. As well, they have seen more positive impact in the fields and communities in which they work.
Galaich is quick to note that impact is difficult to measure, especially when it comes to social change. The donor can’t determine it alone, without community partner involvement. Galaich criticizes the misguided notions that donors can specify a social return on investment or claim full credit for social outcomes. In his view, funders who try to measure impact and seek attribution are tilting at windmills. He believes that these notions must be left behind if the mindset of control is to shift significantly. Instead, funders should hold themselves accountable for how they contribute. This means contributing to the impact sought by a community, not your own.
The Stupski Foundation has gone a step further and given itself much more flexibility by divesting its assets out of the market, while allocating some of its capital to communities via no-interest loans made to community lenders. Galaich is a fervent believer in the need to get as much capital to communities today as possible. He is an apostle of spending down, and he makes clear that the perpetuity argument for foundations makes no sense to him. Spending down for him is “a natural outcome of fulfilling the real needs of those we serve and trying to do philanthropy in a pure and fullest form.”
This is a book that challenges many of the norms of foundation philanthropy. It will be controversial for many who are active in philanthropy. But it is undeniably passionate and thought-provoking. And it may be more in synch with the times and with the thinking of a new generation of wealthy donors in 2026 who look around and see a world in which inequities are growing and human needs are more urgent than ever. Galaich concludes with three principles to ponder for all of us interested in the purpose of philanthropy: give what the community needs, go all in on mission, put humanity above perpetuity. Reflecting on the meaning of these principles is a first step in shifting the mindset of control.
