I still remember walking into my first Women’s Philanthropy Institute conference in Chicago nine years ago. At the time, women’s giving felt like a promising subfield — important, yes, but still fighting for intellectual legitimacy. The room had a distinct charge and energy of mutual recognition and appreciation. Many in attendance had contended with a snow storm to get there (sound familiar?) and were expressing gratitude for making it there before airports started cancelling flights.
The room was filled with researchers, funders, and advocates trying to articulate something that many of us felt intuitively: that women’s philanthropy was not simply a niche category, but a force capable of reshaping the broader giving landscape. That gathering quietly shifted the trajectory of my work as a publisher. In many ways, it helped clarify the role Philanthropy Women would go on to play.
Flash forward as this year’s conference, “Be Bold. Be Brave. Be the Bridge.” ramps up with a fascinating lineup of speakers including Judy Woodruff, Senior Correspondent for PBS Newshour, and Angelique Power, President and CEO of the Skillman Foundation. The conference offers a robust agenda and even includes poetry and musical performances, adding more artistic angles to a convening that tends to be heavy on data, history, and analytic thought.
Women’s philanthropy has grown in reputation and stature since 2017 when I attended the WPI conference entitled “Dream, Dare, Do.” Since then, lots of brave advocates and funders have dreamed, dared, and done a great deal to increase social change initiatives aimed at leveling the playing field and opening up opportunity for women. Along the way some key shifts have taken place. Let’s take a look at what has changed in the field, and what hasn’t.
Strategic Philanthropy: The Campion c3/c4 Model
Before delving into some of the big changes in the field of women’s philanthropy, let’s first look closely at a piece of the 2017 line-up: Sonya Campion speaking about developing a c3/c4 model to increase social change impact for philanthropy.
Sonya Campion of the Campion Foundation illuminated something strategically impactful at the 2017 conference when she spoke about the decision she and her husband made to complement their foundation with a parallel advocacy organization, the Campion Advocacy Fund.
Campion described the decision candidly. After several years of grantmaking through their 501(c)(3) foundation, they realized that philanthropy alone was often insufficient to move the policy conditions shaping the issues they cared about. Rather than accept those limitations, they created a 501(c)(4) advocacy arm aligned with the foundation’s mission.
The result was a more complete strategy. The foundation could continue funding research, programs, and nonprofit organizations, while the advocacy fund could engage more directly in policy conversations and public debate. Each entity operated within its own legal boundaries, but together they created a framework capable of addressing both immediate needs and systemic barriers.
What struck many of us in the room was how practical the model was. It challenged a longstanding habit within philanthropy of separating charitable work from policy engagement. The Campion approach suggested something more integrated: that if funders are serious about long-term outcomes, they must pay attention not only to the programs they fund but also to the policy environments that shape those programs.
Looking back now, that conversation feels prescient. The field of women’s philanthropy has continued to wrestle with questions of power, policy, and systemic change. The Campion model offered an early example of how philanthropic strategy could evolve to meet those challenges more directly.
Three Ways Women’s Philanthropy Has Evolved Since 2017
Looking back from today, it is striking how much the field of women’s philanthropy has evolved in less than a decade. In many ways, women’s philanthropy has served as an early testing ground for ideas that are now influencing the wider philanthropic sector — including collaborative giving, advocacy-oriented philanthropy, and long-term systems thinking.
Some changes have been structural, others cultural, and still others more subtle shifts in awareness about what philanthropy can and cannot accomplish. Three developments stand out in particular.
1. A Growing Willingness to Engage Systems and Policy
In earlier years, much of women’s philanthropy focused on strengthening organizations and supporting programs that served communities directly. That work remains essential. But over time, more funders have come to recognize that many of the challenges they care about — economic inequality, reproductive health, education access, gender-based violence — are shaped by policy environments as much as by individual programs.
As a result, we have seen a gradual expansion of strategies that include advocacy, movement building, and policy engagement. The Campion model discussed at the 2017 conference was one early example of this shift. Since then, more philanthropic actors have begun exploring ways to support systemic change alongside charitable work.
This shift reflects a deeper understanding: that generosity alone does not alter the conditions that produce injustice. To create lasting change, philanthropy must also pay attention to the structures shaping people’s lives.
2. A More Honest Conversation About Power and Influence
Another change has been the growing willingness within women’s philanthropy to discuss power more openly. Earlier conversations often emphasized collaboration, generosity, and shared purpose. These are all essential values, but over time, the field has begun to examine more carefully how philanthropic resources influence decisions, priorities, and outcomes.
Questions that once sat quietly in the background are now more visible: Who sets the agenda? Whose voices are included in decision-making? How do philanthropic institutions avoid replicating the hierarchies they seek to address?
This shift has not always been comfortable, but it has been clarifying. When people look honestly at the forces shaping their work, it becomes easier to act with intention rather than habit. In that sense, the field has matured — not by abandoning its ideals, but by examining them more carefully.
3. A Gradual Turn Toward Long-Term Perspective
Finally, there has been a subtle but important shift toward longer time horizons. Early enthusiasm around strategic philanthropy sometimes carried an implicit promise that well-designed interventions could produce rapid results. Experience has shown that social change rarely moves so quickly.
More funders are now acknowledging that meaningful progress often requires patience, sustained commitment, and the willingness to support work that unfolds over many years. Rather than seeking immediate proof of success, there is growing appreciation for investments that build capacity, strengthen movements, and create the conditions for future breakthroughs.
Seen in this light, philanthropy becomes less about quick solutions and more about steady participation in a longer process of social change.
Where are We Going? Where Have We Been?
As the next Women’s Philanthropy Institute gathering approaches, it is worth pausing to appreciate how far the field has come. Conversations that once felt exploratory — about women’s economic influence, about advocacy, about systems change — are now part of a much broader and more confident dialogue about the role women can play in shaping civil society.
At the same time, experience has shown that progress in philanthropy, as in many areas of life, rarely unfolds in a straight line. Real change tends to arise through steady effort, thoughtful reflection, and a willingness to keep learning from one another. Conferences like these provide an opportunity to step back from the daily work and see the larger landscape more clearly.
Watching the evolution of women’s philanthropy over the past decade, one of the most encouraging signs may be this growing sense of perspective. The field is no longer only asking how women can give more. It is asking deeper questions about how resources, strategy, and collective wisdom can work together to create lasting change.
For those of us who have been observing and documenting this field over time, it is encouraging to see the conversation continue to deepen.
