Philanthropic foundations are not static. The communities they serve change, the evidence about what works evolves, leadership turns over, and the social challenges they address shift in nature and severity. Grant strategy that was right ten years ago may no longer be the right strategy today. Yet many foundations persist with historical strategies not because they've concluded they're still right, but because reviewing them is difficult, uncomfortable, and resource-intensive.
A strategic review of grantmaking — a deliberate, structured examination of whether the current strategy is still the right one — is one of the most valuable governance activities a foundation can undertake. This guide explains how to design and conduct an effective grant strategy review.
Scheduled reviews: Best practice is to schedule strategic reviews at regular intervals — typically every three to five years — regardless of whether any particular event has triggered concern. Predictable review cycles prevent drift and create regular accountability.
Triggered reviews: Certain events warrant an unscheduled review:
- Significant change in leadership (new CEO, major board turnover)
- Major shift in the communities served (demographic change, economic shock)
- New evidence that calls into question the effectiveness of current approaches
- Emergence of a significant new need or opportunity
- Major change in the foundation's financial position
- Merger or significant relationship change with another funder
Purpose alignment: Is the current grant programme still aligned with the foundation's founding purpose and governing documents? Purpose drift — where a foundation's activities gradually move away from its founding intent — is common and worth checking.
Community need: Have the needs of the communities the foundation serves changed? What do community members themselves say about the most pressing needs? What does current data show about patterns of disadvantage, social challenge, and unmet need?
Evidence base: What does current evidence say about the effectiveness of the approaches the foundation is funding? Are there better-evidenced approaches the foundation should be funding instead?
Portfolio performance: Looking across the current portfolio — are funded organisations achieving their intended outcomes? Where is there strong evidence of impact? Where is the evidence weak or negative?
Landscape analysis: What are other funders doing? Where are there gaps that the foundation is uniquely positioned to fill? Where is there duplication that could be resolved through collaboration or specialisation?
Foundation capacity: What can the foundation realistically achieve given its resources, staff capacity, and governance? An ambitious strategy that can't be implemented well is worse than a modest strategy implemented effectively.
Trustees: Board involvement in strategy review is essential — strategy is a core board governance responsibility. But involving the full board in every step of the review is inefficient. Typically: the board sets the scope and reviews the findings and recommendations; a subcommittee or working group does the detailed work.
Staff: Staff have deep knowledge of the grant portfolio, grantee relationships, and operational realities. Their input to the review is essential. However, staff may have interests in the current strategy (it justifies their work) that should be recognised.
Grantees: What do funded organisations think about the foundation's strategy? Are they well-positioned to deliver against current priorities? What do they observe about community need that the foundation may be missing? Grantee surveys, focus groups, or interviews can provide essential grounded perspective.
Community members: The communities the foundation serves should have voice in the strategy review — ideally more than just through the organisations that represent them. Community listening sessions, surveys, or co-design processes bring direct community voice into the review.
External advisors: An external facilitator or independent reviewer can bring objectivity, challenge assumptions, and provide sector knowledge that internal stakeholders may lack. This is particularly valuable for reviews that might otherwise reproduce existing thinking.
Step 1 — Scope and governance: Agree what the review will examine, who will be involved, and how decisions will be made. Establish a review committee if needed.
Step 2 — Data gathering: Collect the evidence base — portfolio performance data, community needs data, landscape analysis, comparative funder data, relevant research literature.
Step 3 — Internal consultation: Structured consultation with trustees and staff — what's working, what isn't, what should change?
Step 4 — External consultation: Consultation with grantees and community members. This requires genuine openness to difficult feedback.
Step 5 — Analysis and options: Synthesise the evidence and develop strategic options — not just "continue current strategy" and "change everything" but a range of realistic options with their trade-offs.
Step 6 — Board deliberation: Present analysis and options to the board. Allow genuine deliberation — the goal is the best strategy, not ratification of whatever management has proposed.
Step 7 — Decision and documentation: Board approves the revised strategy. Document the strategy clearly — so that future leadership understands the rationale, not just the conclusions.
Step 8 — Communication: Communicate the revised strategy to grantees and the broader community. Give grantees appropriate notice if their work will no longer be funded. Explain the reasoning for changes.
Narrowing focus: Moving from broad to narrow strategy — concentrating resources on fewer areas — is often a sound strategic choice. But it means defunding organisations that have relied on the foundation. Managing this transition thoughtfully — with appropriate notice, transition grants if possible, and honest communication — is important.
Exiting a sector: Deciding to stop funding in a particular sector or area requires careful management of existing relationships. Grantees who may have become dependent on the foundation's funding need advance notice and support to diversify.
Shifting to systems-level work: Moving from funding direct service to funding systems change is a significant strategic shift that requires different relationships, different evidence standards, and different timelines for results. Not all foundations can make this shift successfully.
Addressing equity gaps: A review may reveal that the foundation's portfolio is not reaching communities with greatest need. Addressing equity gaps may require changing eligibility criteria, assessment processes, and relationship-building approaches — not just adding equity language to strategy documents.
A strategic review produces decisions. Those decisions need to be implemented:
Scheduling the next review before the current one is complete ensures the review cycle continues.
Tahua's grants management platform supports strategic reviews with portfolio analytics, grantee outcome reporting, and the historical data that foundations need to assess whether their strategy is working — and to make the case for change when it isn't.