July, 2025
“In every meeting, in every workshop, we say “intermediary” isn’t adequate to refer to these organizations. Yet we keep using it,” a colleague recently reflected. “Let’s try to find another way to address these organizations”.
This discomfort is not isolated. Over the past few years, I’ve immersed myself in the ecosystem of what are commonly labeled as intermediaries—especially those based in the Global South. Across interactions with these organizations and the funders who support them, concerns about the inadequacy of the current terminology have been consistently raised.
If you’re a funder, this is a critical moment to deepen understanding of the diversity of intermediaries. Investing the time to grasp the full range of models and engaging with the variety of organizations will contribute to better and longer-lasting partnerships. That understanding is critical to any revisiting of the terminology.
Why does current terminology fall short? There is no single definition for “intermediaries”. However, the term has long been used in philanthropy and development to describe organizations that serve at the nexus between funders and local communities, managing funding flows by regranting them - mostly at the local level. Yet, reducing their role to merely transactional strips away the value that many of them bring to the ecosystem and the richness of their potential contributions. The term “intermediary” is increasingly seen as reductive—and even harmful. It masks the strategic, political, and deeply relational work that many of these organizations do, particularly in the Global South.
This raises a few fundamental questions: How should we address these organizations? Could a single term accurately reflect their diverse roles and contributions? Or, instead, should funders embrace this nuanced ecosystem? To begin answering these questions, it is necessary to understand the roles these organizations perform.
A closer look at their functions. So, what exactly do these organizations do? Beyond regranting, many of these actors are playing strategic roles in shaping agendas, managing risk, and sustaining social movements. They can furnish invaluable local expertise, foster networks, build and strengthen capacities, and promote advocacy efforts.
Additionally, they can help funders navigate legal and regulatory frameworks, offer contextual insights, and inform grantmaking strategies that ensure funding efforts have a deeper, long-term impact (Gibson & Mottola, 2023).
Many of these organizations are indeed strengthening their ecosystems and contributing to advancing locally led initiatives. However, they can also replicate power imbalances at the local level. For this reason, funders should analyze their roles and actions critically before engaging in joint efforts (we explore this subject further in our latest study).
Evidence from recent studies. In the last few years, many funders have commissioned studies to gain a deeper understanding of these organizations. As part of a larger analysis, TAI reviewed 13 studies and checked if the topic of linguistic configuration and terminology was discussed:
Eight studies (61%) raised concerns about the term’s hierarchical connotations and the issues encountered when trying to use a one-fits-all category, highlighting the need for more inclusive and context-specific language.
Six studies (46%) proposed typologies and classifications for these organizations, highlighting the diversity of models, roles and relationships, as well as the need to adapt to contextual requirements.
Toward a new lexicon (and practice). The global push for localization is urging funders to rethink not only who gets funded, but how. More funders are recognizing that meaningful change requires trusting local actors as strategic partners. Language must evolve to match this moment, as the labels we use shape how organizations are perceived, valued, and funded.
But how should it evolve? Is creating a new, catch-all term the answer? I remain skeptical. Given the diversity of roles these organizations play and the wide variety of structures they take, any single term will likely run into the same limitations as the current label. Rather than simplifying, we should embrace the nuances. Understanding this complexity is essential for funders seeking aligned and effective partners.
The good news is that a more diverse set of terms is surfacing across the philanthropic field. While shared definitions of the different types of organizations have yet to emerge (might be a valuable first step towards a more accurate lexicon), here are some of the emerging terms we have collected from studies and conversations with strategic actors:
Activist-led funds
Strategic local funds
Territorial foundations
It is important to note that these terms are not interchangeable, nor are they mere semantic variations. Each point to different organizational forms, governance models, and levels of community proximity. They offer funders a roadmap for how to better understand—and support—these organizations based on their specific function and identity.
A call to philanthropy. There is no one-size-fits-all model or term that can capture the full diversity of organizations regranting funds and contributing to local ecosystems through multiple strategies.
Thus, we encourage funders to:
Embrace the complexity and nuance of this ecosystem.
Invest the time to understand the diversity of organizations, their roles and structures.
Analyze which models would better fit your objectives.
Taking care with the language we use is not just an exercise in semantics. It is a step toward a more inclusive, accountable, and trust-centered funding ecosystem.