The Open Society Foundations recently completed a prolonged restructuring, announcing a new initiative to invest in green economies, and a sharp reduction of staff. As the process concludes, the foundation will retain less than 600 employees, a reduction of more than 65 percent from their one-time high.

The process has brought uncertainty and a certain amount of anxiety for those looking from the outside in. The importance of OSF to civil society advocacy around the world cannot be underestimated, and the sweeping changes that have appeared to be underway will undoubtedly shape our field, for better or worse, for years to come.

The changes at OSF, and its status in the philanthropic world, can be understood in terms of an article I wrote in January on myths embedded in philanthropic practice. I ended with three things that philanthropy should attempt to do:

1. Give as much as possible;
2. Give for as long as possible;
3. Give to as many groups as possible.

In short, an ideal model is one where funders give in proportion to the problems they confront, plan for a long future, and nurture the smallest as well as the largest NGOs. This can be a tall order: the pressures of protecting the endowment, meeting grantee needs, and maintaining internal expertise are not easy to reconcile. No one can go all in on all three of these goals. Finding the right balance between scale, longevity, and scope is key.

The news coming out of the Open Society Foundations provide an example of how this balance works – and how it can go awry.

OSF is one of the largest funders of human rights advocacy worldwide, with an unrivalled global reach. Started with annual contributions by George Soros with the initial intention to serve as a vehicle for funding during his lifetime, OSF reached a peak of $1 billion in spending annually, providing a lifeline to hundreds of grantees, from community-based organizations to international NGOs. In 2017, Soros gave $18 billion with the aim of ensuring that OSF operates in perpetuity (‘Give for as long as possible’). This has meant moving beyond hefty annual contributions from the Soros family, and ensuring that OSF can sustain its global commitment through the return on its endowment – likely around $800 million per year. This was a welcome development: given the resurgent threats to open society everywhere, it is clear that OSF will be needed for a long time to come.

More recently, with a generational shift that sees George’s son take over as chair, there is a move to increase grantmaking as a part of the organization’s budget (‘Give as much as possible’). Plans were announced last year for a 40 per cent reduction in operational costs, including ending engagement in Western Europe and scaling back their presence elsewhere, alongside staff reductions. The savings, presumably, will support more money going to grantees.

Reducing internal expenses surely leaves more money to channel into grantmaking. But staff reductions may hurt as much as they help. As the process concludes, the foundation will retain fewer than 600 employees, a reduction of more than 65 per cent from their one-time high of more than 1,700.  

Staff reductions may hurt as much as they help. OSF has deepened its commitment to the first two of the goals given above, but in the process it has weakened its ability to pursue the third (‘Give to as many as possible’).

Reducing administrative costs to put more money in the hands of grantees is a noble ideal, but it is often not so simple. Foundation program officers do significant, painstaking work in assessing their fields, identifying key actors, connecting with potential grantees and guiding them through the approval process and the reporting requirements to follow. Deep cuts in spending mean fewer people doing this work. This, in turn, may result in fewer opportunities for activists and human rights groups to access the funds they need.

Such a shift hits the smallest grantees hardest, those that are located far from the financial centres of gravity where foundations cluster, and far from able to hire fundraising staff to expand grant opportunities. These organizations are vital to a robust NGO sector. They are often based in the communities who are most at risk, and bring firsthand perspectives to campaigning. Supporting many such organizations is good strategy: a multiplicity of actors with different approaches to a problem makes success more likely. And small organizations are often nimbler, operating on small grants that represent less risk to funders, enabling more flexibility.

I have worked with dozens of human rights groups around the world, from large international NGOs to tiny, community-based advocates. Virtually all of them have benefitted from OSF support. The international human rights movement is vibrant and diverse, but ultimately, it adds up to little without the contributions of grassroots groups who stand against power to assert their own rights.

OSF has been unusual in the degree to which it gave both very large and very small grants. Those small grants are a lifeline to local human rights defenders who often have few other supporters. But it is no less onerous to give $25,000 than $25 million – indeed, smaller grants can be more difficult to manage. This range of support is only possible because OSF has the staff capacity to identify local grantees, support them in the application process, and collectively manage a vast portfolio of grants.

Many small groups will be unable to compete for, let alone manage, the large grants that seem likely to be the bulk of OSF’s giving in the future. The loss of OSF support for these groups, caught between the foundation’s inability to manage small grants and their own inability to manage large ones, will be devastating.

It would be a huge blow to the international human rights movement if smaller OSF grantees were left behind. Most likely, there are efforts within OSF to mitigate this possibility. But there will be slack that I hope other funders will pick up, extending their own networks to enable more money to reach the global grassroots where a gap in OSF funding may emerge. Meanwhile, other, larger human rights organizations can take steps to partner more widely with local groups, to use their position as a pipeline to help ensure that frontline human rights defenders have the resources they need.

Devon Kearney has worked with human rights and social justice nonprofits around the world for more than 20 years.