Philanthropy loves funding programs. But programs don’t change who owns, who decides, or who profits. That’s why billions in grants haven’t shifted systemic inequality: because most philanthropy skips the economic strategy.

At Blueprint, we’ve supported national intermediaries to neighborhood-based trusts in moving from programmatic funding to full-fledged economic strategies. The difference is striking: while programs deliver services, economic strategies build ownership, shift decision-making, and rewire the flow of capital.

What is Economic Strategy?

Economic strategy asks three simple but radical questions:

1. Who is making money in this system, and how?

2. Who owns and governs the assets?

3. What mechanisms keep wealth circulating in the community, instead of extracting it?

Why philanthropy often misses it

• Short-termism: Grants tied to 1–2 year program cycles rarely align with the decades needed for community wealth building.

• Risk avoidance: Funders avoid capital-heavy plays like land trusts or loan funds, even though they address root causes.

• Metrics obsession: Counting program outputs feels safer than tracking shifts in ownership and decision-making.

How funds are changing the game

• The Richmond Our Power Coalition built a 40×40 vision that combined land, capital, and labor strategies — not just social services.

• The People’s Solar Energy Fund paired cooperative ownership with tax-credit leveraging to keep solar wealth in communities.

• Indigenous-led funds are designing ecosystems of entities — trusts, LLCs, nonprofits — to embed sovereignty in capital strategy.

Next time you build a grant proposal or fund strategy, add a section titled Economic Strategy. Spell out who will own, govern, and profit when the dust settles. That’s where transformation begins.

At Blueprint, we help funds and philanthropies translate vision into economic strategies that build power, not just programs.

Curious how your philanthropic strategy stacks up? Schedule a Blueprint consult.