The quiet bias in funding
I was recently talking with a nonprofit leader whose work is closely tied to churches.
She’s applying for a major grant. The challenge is that the funder has a long history of supporting established, legacy organizations.
At one point, I said—only half joking—
why does this funder keep investing in organizations committed to maintaining the status quo?
She laughed. Then agreed.
Institutional gravity
What’s at work here is something like institutional bias—or what I’d describe as institutional gravity.
Funding tends to flow toward what already exists.
Not necessarily because it’s most effective.
But because it’s familiar. Recognizable.
Considered Less risky.
Established organizations have:
name recognition
infrastructure
a track record
But they also often carry inertia.
They are slower to adapt.
Less flexible.
More invested in maintaining what is than exploring what could be.
The irony no one names
Here’s where it gets more complicated.
An established organization she was in conversation with suggested they might contract with her to help lead the very work she was proposing—if they received the grant funding.
In other words:
The innovative work would still be done by newer leadership.
But the funding would flow through an older institution.
It’s not malicious.
But it does raise a question:
Why not fund the work where it is actually happening?
Why this matters here
Substack Seminary exists in that space of emergence.
We’re not a legacy institution.
We’re not trying to preserve an inherited model.
We’re trying to make sense of what comes next—and help others do the same.
We may not be able to change how grant systems operate overnight.
But we can help you think clearly, act faithfully, and build something real in the middle of it.
If you’re working on something new—and finding that existing systems don’t quite know what to do with it—you’re not alone.
Join us.