Considerations as We Exit Grantmaking

As a spenddown foundation, how we exit our grantmaking is on the top of our minds in every decision we make. Though we have nine years before the end of the Foundation, we want to ensure that we are doing the best we can to do no harm and to position our partners to continue their critical work beyond the life of the Foundation. To learn how we can start to adapt and improve our exiting practices, we requested feedback from a number of our partners in Sustainable Food Systems and Green Stormwater Infrastructure, two program areas we have already exited.

We engaged with Mae Hong and Jon Quinn at Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors in 2024, who facilitated conversations with nine of our impacted grant partners and our Foundation’s leadership team. The direct and transparent feedback from our grant partners helped us better understand the impacts of the Foundation’s exits. It also provided us with ways we could improve and adjust our exit strategies going forward to be better partners. The following are four important lessons we learned that we want to share with our funder colleagues, who may be spending down or shifting grantmaking priorities.

1. Respectful and collaboratively planned exits can ensure a more successful exit. As the Foundation’s trusted partners, grantees should be respectfully informed about the Foundation’s plans to exit, given time to plan the best path forward for any final grants, and receive foundation staff support to co-create the most appropriate steps to minimize the impact of those exits.
2. Communication is key. Communication about the exit should occur as soon as possible and with much care. No amount of communication about the planned exit is too much, and it should be delivered clearly. It should also include multiple levels of foundation staff. Including more than one staff member and clearly documenting the goals of the exit are of particular importance in the event there is a staff transition.
3. Timing with adequate resources is necessary for a soft landing. A single year of additional funding is often not enough. Providing exit support over multiple years is essential for grant partners to prepare to lose the foundation’s funding. Prior to and during the exit, the foundation can talk to other funders to share their intentions to exit and better understand their future intentions to fund (or not). This serves as a way to both amplify the work of the grant partner and gauge an appropriate timeline and budget for the exit. Both timing and how other funder colleagues plan to support the work in the future should be used to determine the type of resources needed for the exited work to have a soft landing.
4. Planning a responsible exit is based on the Foundation’s role in the funding landscape. When planning to exit a funding area, the Foundation should consider how much of the total funding in that area it provides. If the Foundation is a major funder in that space, grant partners will need more time and financial support to adjust. The Foundation should also let other funders know about its exit plans so they can prepare or possibly step in.

Based on what we learned from these interviews, we are doing the following:

• Clearly and respectfully communicating our appreciation for our grant partners and their work and our intention to make a final exit grant.
• Involving multiple team members, including a member of our leadership team, to communicate and design the exit grant with our grant partners.
• Speaking with our funder colleagues, who are funding similar efforts, to better understand their future funding plans.
• Designing multiyear grants to provide a softer landing.
• Building in time one year after the grant ends to reflect and get more feedback from our grant partners on how we can continue to improve how we exit grantmaking throughout our closure.

We’re also considering other ideas and will continue to share what we learn along the way. If you have ideas or lessons you’ve learned, please share them with our Learning Director, Liz Delaney.