What Makes Funder Collaboratives Work? The Fund for a Safer Future Looks Back on Its First Decade

Sheila Fitzgerald/shutterstock

The impact and efficacy of funder collaboratives have received a lot of attention in recent years. CEP’s Phil Buchanan authored a Stanford Social Innovation Review article in 2017 reflecting on the challenges of funder collaboratives. Bridgespan released a comprehensive report on their relative impact in 2019. And another Bridgespan study, just released, showed their popularity is soaring.

As leaders of the largest funder collaborative supporting efforts to prevent gun violence, we are pleased that much of this research shows that funder collaboratives are working. For example, the first Bridgespan report noted that 92% of funders who are part of a collaborative say that the benefits they receive exceed the cost, and that they feel their collaborative funding is more strategic, informed and effective. Participating in a collaborative has also been found to help build the field by extending support to organizations and communities beyond the reach of individual foundations.

Our collaborative, the Fund for a Safer Future (FSF), is now commemorating our 10th year in operation, an anniversary that many collaboratives never live long enough to see. Having reached that milestone, we have been reflecting on what has worked well and how funder collaboratives can maximize their impact and contributions. Here’s some of what we’ve learned. 

Our nation’s gun violence epidemic remains a major challenge in so many communities. Exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, gun violence trend lines have taken a wrong turn over the past several years. But behind these grim statistics, we see emerging evidence of real solutions saving lives every day, many of which are being funded by FSF and its members. 

A recent study of Connecticut’s gun risk removal law estimated that for every 10 to 11 orders issued, the law prevented one firearm suicide, averting a total of 72 suicide deaths over the period studied. Meanwhile, another study of focused deterrence strategies, which combine law enforcement, community mobilization and social services to reduce criminal behaviors, showed that they consistently produced significant declines in shootings in several cities. 

Finally, a 2019 analysis described more than 20 cases in which extreme risk protection orders had been applied, of which 13% involved mass shooting threats. These evidence-informed policies empower families and law enforcement to temporarily remove guns from persons at high risk of violence to themselves or others. Researchers concluded that this policy is likely playing a role in preventing tragedies of that nature. So despite ongoing challenges, we can say with confidence that we believe our approach and our investments are having a meaningful, life-saving impact. 

Over a decade of collaboration and co-investment, FSF members and funding partners have made more than $125 million in grants to organizations whose work has been critical in advancing a gun safety agenda.

  • On the policy front, since 2014, California, Washington and 17 other states have adopted or strengthened extreme risk protection orders. 

  • Community violence intervention strategies are receiving more funding at the federal and state levels. For example, a growing number of states are increasing their funding for programs that deploy public health strategies to identify and mediate potentially lethal conflicts before they escalate into further loss of life.

  • On the legal front, new Second Amendment litigation strategies are defending evidence-informed gun policies and challenging extreme gun rights policies. FSF grantees like the Brennan Center for Justice and Giffords Law Center have provided much-needed legal scholarship about the right to keep and bear arms, which has influenced countless legal briefs and several court opinions. More evidence of the changing legal debate came earlier this year when a group of conservative legal scholars expressed support for a New York law against carrying guns in public, stating that the Second Amendment does not provide an unfettered right to do so.  

These successes would not have been possible without the consistent and dedicated engagement of FSF’s members. Our donor collaborative sees the complexity of the gun violence epidemic and understands that it will take coordinated efforts and sustained funding to end it. We have found particular value in the broad range of options grantmakers can take advantage of by collaborating. FSF members know their grant dollars go further because:

  • They gain insight from the front lines of the gun violence prevention movement, including early looks at research, policy papers and advocacy briefings.

  • Smaller investments can be leveraged into support for a larger strategy, giving every donor at the table a chance to participate in high-impact initiatives.

  • FSF’s grantee partners have strong, deep connections in many of the communities most affected by gun violence, providing our members with insights from and connections to the people they hope to support.

  • For members whose core funding is focused on issues adjacent to gun violence — like public health, suicide prevention, criminal justice reform, violence intervention and police reform — we help connect the dots and build alliances as they pursue systems change.

  • The pooled fund structure minimizes administrative costs, particularly for funders who are new to funding gun violence prevention or are not in a position to build out a dedicated GVP program and strategy on their own.

Ultimately, the power of FSF and other funder collaboratives lies in helping funders magnify their impact, creating a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. FSF members aren’t just joining a fund, they are powering a movement. Many of the most important advances in our nation have only been possible with this kind of coordination: From civil rights to voting rights, advancing the most complicated and important issues of our time works best when we work together.

So if you are a funder working on gun violence or any other adjacent social problem, join us, and help us make the next decade of our work even more impactful than the last. In a country with almost 400 million firearms and unacceptably high levels of daily gun violence in all our communities, the challenge is monumental. But our aligned efforts are making a difference each and every day. If you want to maximize your impact, going alone is not an option.

Tim Daly and Scott Moyer are members of the executive committee of the Fund for a Safer Future. Daly serves as a program director at the Joyce Foundation and has held senior legislative positions for members of Congress. Moyer serves as president of the Jacob and Valeria Langeloth Foundation and has worked on public health issues for decades, including as a board member of Grantmakers in Health.