A legacy report from a philanthropic collaboration in Aotearoa New Zealand
1. Introduction
After more than 15 years of working together as a collective of family foundations, the Weave funders have agreed to bring this initiative to a close.
We began (as the Working Together More Fund, later Weave) with a simple but ambitious idea: that by combining pūtea, relationships, and learning, we could back courageous community collaborations across Aotearoa and achieve more together than we could alone. Over time, Weave shifted from a contestable fund focused on small, short-term grants to a proactive, relationship-based fund with four pillars: donations, capacity building, resources and action.
This report is offered as a parting gift to the sector. It is not a victory lap. It is a reflective, sometimes uncomfortable look at what we learned about funder collaboration, where we fell short of our aspirations, and what we hope others might carry forward.
We write from a place of deep gratitude for the communities and collaborators who trusted us, and with humility about the mistakes we made along the way. The relationships, learning and shifts in practice that Weave catalysed are real and enduring, even as Weave itself comes to an end.
As one funder reflected near the end: “The real impact happens in the hands and hearts of our community partners, who work tirelessly alongside whānau to create change where it matters most. It’s a privilege to witness the strength of these relationships and the generosity that underpins them.”
Funders remain committed to working together and to supporting collaboration across the community sector, so that these relationships and shared efforts continue to thrive.
2. What Weave Set Out to Do
Weave was formed by a group of family foundations at a time when the funding landscape looked very different. Funders generally worked alone, there was little or no pūtea available specifically for collaboration, and mergers or joint initiatives between community organisations were hard to resource. We set out to change that – to be a model of funders collaborating with each other in order to support collaboration and mergers in the community.
From 2021, our revised strategy was built around four pillars:
Donations – including small “seed” grants for collaboration planning and larger, multi-year commitments
Capacity building – training, especially around collaboration and partnership brokering
Resources – sharing tools and knowledge
Action – being a proactive partner alongside selected collaborations
Our aspiration was to be “more than a funder”: a rōpū that could walk alongside collaboratives over time, contribute skills and networks, and model collaborative practice ourselves. The Partnership Brokers training and related workshops were part of how we tried to build that practice, emphasising shared purpose, principled partnering, listening and empathy as core to effective collaboration.
Funders consistently highlighted this intent. One described Weave as “family foundation collaboration at staff, trustee and family levels,” and another as a vehicle “to partner and walk alongside our partners in community” – an experiment in doing philanthropy differently, together.
3. What We Believe We Got Right
3.1 A space for learning and mindset shifts
For many of us as funders, Weave was the first place where we were systematically exposed to systems change thinking, trust-based philanthropy and Te Tiriti-aligned practice. It helped us see philanthropy not just as administration of grants, but as stewardship of privilege, and as a role grounded in relationships, courage and listening.
For at least one member trust, this translated into profound organisational change:
Shifting from contestable, application-based funding to proactive, relational giving
Re-centering strategy around equity, Māori-led solutions, intergenerational wellbeing and systems change
Embedding regular board kōrero about power, privilege and Te Tiriti.
Over time, funders observed that similar shifts were taking place within several of their own organisations, though in different ways. They described Weave as:
“A window into the world of family philanthropy that informed our practice as a funder, and encouraged me to think differently about how we fund.”
“A great opportunity for staff, trustees and donors to work together… The learnings over the last 15 years have contributed to the way we fund today.”
For many, Weave was “a space of learning, not just leverage” – a place to ask hard questions, do sense-making together, share vulnerability, and build courage to change practice at home.
3.2 Collective funding for bold collaborations
Over its life, Weave distributed more than $5 million to a wide range of community collaborations, from local initiatives to multi-year movements for change.
Pooling funds allowed us to:
Take on larger or riskier kaupapa than many of us could have supported alone
Fund outside our usual regional or thematic boundaries, especially for place-based funders
Stand in solidarity with other funders around kaupapa that aligned with our shared values, even when they fell outside individual strategies
Funders particularly valued that Weave enabled “funding amazing collaborations that would not have got funding” otherwise, and that it “contributed to more funding going to collaborations” beyond the pooled fund itself.
Weave also contributed to the development of “collective partnership strategic frameworks” and high-trust relationships between funders and community, with some partnerships (for example, place-based or thematic collaborations) likely to endure well beyond the life of the fund.
3.3 Investing in collaboration skills and practice
Weave supported collaboration not only through grants but also via training and capacity building. Partners valued opportunities like Partnership Brokers training and workshops on effective partnering, which provided tools around principled approaches, interest-based negotiation, listening and empathy.
Community partners told us that these learning spaces were powerful – and that they wanted:
More connection with peers
More shared reflection and sense-making
More opportunities to learn together about working with mana whenua and navigating complexity
Funders echoed this, noting how Weave created “a space to ask hard questions” and modelled high-trust approaches that they then took back into their own organisations.
3.4 A unique governance collaboration
Bringing multiple family foundations – trustees and CEOs – together around one table was, in itself, unusual and valuable.
We created:
A peer network where CEs could share candidly and support each other
A space where family trustees could quickly feel comfortable, learn, and participate in decisions beyond their own region
Exposure to international thinking and practice around collaboration and philanthropy
Funders described the most valuable aspects of Weave as:
“Time spent with other family foundation CEs – and trustees”
“Connectivity with other family foundations staff and trustees in the absence of other sector spaces providing that opportunity”
Regional visits to grantees that grounded decisions in relationships and place
For many of us, Weave was one of the most meaningful professional and governance commitments we took on, because it stretched us. As one funder put it, “Weave played a hugely important role in the philanthropic sector – leading the way in both collaborating and supporting collaborations.”
3.5 What Weave meant for funder practice
Over time, several themes became clear about how Weave has shaped funder practice:
Collaboration as a serious practice, not an add-on
Funders learned that “real collaboration is hard work for both community groups and funders and requires real purposeful, honest and sustained effort,” and that this work needs to be recognised and resourced.
Multiple levels of collaboration
Collaboration between funders happens at staff, trustee, donor and family levels. “All play an important role in successful long-term collaborations.”
Increased appetite for risk and systems change
Being part of Weave encouraged funders to support more innovative, collaborative and risk-tolerant work, and to think differently about their role in systems change.
A stronger shared field
Weave “brought family foundations together for shared learning and collaboration,” filling a gap in the ecosystem and contributing to a more connected philanthropic field.
These are intangible but important legacies that will continue to shape how member foundations work long after Weave itself has closed.
4. Where We Struggled and What We Would Do Differently
Alongside what worked, there were significant challenges. Some we recognised early; others became clear only in hindsight and through various reviews and research.
4.1 Strategy that was inspiring – and too broad
Our intention to support “systems change” across all sectors and regions of Aotearoa was ambitious but, in practice, too wide. The lack of clear boundaries about what was in or out made it difficult to:
Prioritise opportunities
Develop deep expertise in particular domains
Communicate clearly to communities about whether they were a fit for Weave
We also did not fully embed systems thinking into our own training, processes, or decision-making. While we talked about systems change, the practical tools and shared understanding needed to support that were underdeveloped.
In hindsight, we would:
Choose a small number (2–4) of focus areas where collaboration was most needed and our values most aligned
Invest in building deep expertise and relationships in those areas
Be clearer about what we were not going to fund, as an act of kindness and transparency to community partners
Several funders said they would have advocated “for a different, and simpler, strategy,” or, alternatively, “harder for an operating model to achieve the strategy which would have required greater funding commitment from each foundation.” The lesson here is less about ambition, and more about matching ambition to clarity, focus and resourcing.
4.2 Internal collaboration that did not always match our external rhetoric
Weave was often held up as an example of collaboration. Yet, our own governance and decision-making processes did not always model the practices we were trying to support externally.
Key issues included:
A large committee where some voices dominated and trustees often deferred to CEOs
Unclear roles and expectations between committee, co-chairs and the manager
A tendency towards politeness and avoidance of constructive conflict – what some described as “groupthink”
We lacked robust governance documentation for much of our life:
Clear codes of conduct
Conflict of interest policies
A structured board/committee pack format
Induction materials for new members
A later strategic review in 2024/25 recommended a smaller, better-supported committee, clearer delegation, and more nuanced decision tools (such as “levels of consensus”), to avoid binary yes/no votes that masked real reservations.
We did not fully implement these recommendations before deciding to wind up. That is one of our regrets. Funders also reflected that introducing “more challenging external global thought leaders” earlier might have stretched our thinking and disrupted group norms in helpful ways.
4.3 A staffing model that set our manager up with an impossible brief
For much of Weave’s recent life, there was a single part-time general manager role, expected to:
Build and maintain relationships with collaborations across sectors and regions
Provide strategic leadership to the fund
Manage administration, contracting, reporting and communications
Navigate diverse expectations and risk appetites across a large committee
Community partners consistently affirmed that our manager was relational, approachable and supportive – someone who nudged them to think bigger and explore systems change. Funders agreed that Weave “led the way, showing high trust and modelling best practice.”
However, they also recognised that resourcing this role was a persistent challenge. One funder commented that “the biggest challenge for Weave has been resourcing it – enough resource, the right resource,” and another noted the importance of committing resourcing “not only for the fund but also for staff time needed to manage and administer the funds.”
The strategic review was clear:
Weave needed a senior leader with the authority and mana to match the group around the table, supported by appropriate administrative infrastructure
The role as designed was too broad and underpowered, especially with a contractor status and limited internal support
If we were designing Weave again, we would separate strategic leadership from administration, house the fund in an independent entity, and ensure the leader had a clear mandate, delegated authority and a team to match the ambitions of the strategy.
4.4 Community partners’ experience: moments of alignment and unintended consequences
Many collaborators valued the pūtea, the training and the relational approach. But they also told us, through interviews and the review, about experiences that fell short of our intentions:
Presenting to a room of funders who seemed guarded and disconnected, with little reciprocity or relationship
Confusion about reporting requirements and expectations
Anxiety created by a lack of transparency about the total fund size, criteria, and future funding possibilities
Feeling isolated from other Weave-funded groups, with no visibility of who else was funded or opportunities to learn together
Community partners asked for clearer communication (“being clear is kind”), more information about what Weave funds and why, and more connection with peers – a tuakana–teina style learning environment.
Funders echoed these concerns, noting that:
“Collaboration work takes time, effort and resources that community organisations often don’t have – so it is important for funders to recognise these ‘costs’ of collaboration and enable them through funding and other non-monetary support.”
Not all community groups see funder-led collaborations as a positive thing, and funders need to be attentive to this.
We did not respond to these messages quickly or consistently enough.
4.5 Cost, sustainability and partner withdrawal
Over time, the administrative and governance costs of Weave – including manager time, co-chair load, and national travel – sat in growing tension with the size of the fund. Co-chairs in particular carried disproportionate responsibility.
Funders described Weave as a “slow burn” model that required patience, but also emphasised the need to ensure that “the ratio between time/capacity is well balanced with funding/resourcing,” and that the “structure/process” is fit for purpose.
Following the 2024 review, Weave adopted a refreshed purpose focused on Māori-led and bicultural collaboration. The review reaffirmed Weave’s value, but also made clear that significant investment in systems, culture and staffing would be required to deliver on the new strategy and manage reputational risk.
At the same time, several partner foundations withdrew or signalled their intention to withdraw, eroding the shared financial base that Weave depended on. Without sufficient partners, the model of shared funding, governance and learning could not be sustained.
In this context, continuing Weave in name without the ability to resource it properly would have been misaligned with our values – and unfair to community partners. As one funder summed it up, “Weave served a valuable purpose in giving priority and credibility to the tool of collaboration… But I remain convinced of the potential of collaboration amongst family foundations. There is still a need for the funding and non-funding support for collaboration that Weave was offering.”
5. Why We Are Winding Up – And What We Hope Endures
The decision to wind up Weave is not a judgement that collaborative funding “doesn’t work.” On the contrary, the review and our own experiences reaffirm that donor collaborations can:
Mobilise more resources for complex issues
Enable funders to share risk and learn together
Support community-led systems change more effectively than isolated efforts
However, for this particular collaboration, at this point in time, several realities converged:
Insufficient partner participation to maintain a viable pooled fund and shared governance model
The scale of change required internally (in culture, systems, staffing and governance) to do the next phase well
A philanthropic environment where co-funding and collaborative practice are increasingly embedded within individual foundations that were a part of Weave, reducing the need for a separate structure
We also recognise that collaborations, like the issues they address, move in chapters. One funder reflected that “everything has a chapter, and you either park it up, finish the book or start on a new chapter. We are proud to have all contributed to the Weave chapter and the communities we have collectively contributed to.”
We chose to close Weave with care – honouring all existing commitments, communicating directly with partners, and seeking to capture learning in this and other reflective pieces.
What we hope endures is not the brand, but the kaupapa:
Funders working together with humility and courage
Long-term, flexible funding for community-led collaboration
Philanthropic practice grounded in equity, Te Tiriti and real relationships
As one survey respondent reflected, “Weave made a huge impact on the philanthropic sector and in the support it provided to community.” Our hope is that this impact continues to ripple out through the practices, relationships and collaborations that have grown from this work.
6. Practical lessons for future funder collaborations
This final section is offered as a concise, strengths-based summary of what we would recommend to others.
6.1 Be clear – and honest – about your ‘why’
Take time at the start to define your strategy, roles, who is in the room, and outcomes.
Be specific about why you are collaborating, and how this is grounded in the communities and kaupapa you seek to support.
Decide what you will not do, as an act of transparency and care for community partners.
6.2 Match ambition with resourcing and structure
Ensure that people capacity (staff, trustees, co-chairs) and time commitments align with the donation budgets involved.
Recognise the cost of collaborative infrastructure – convening, relationship-building, governance – as core work, not overhead.
Invest early in getting the structure and processes right: governance documentation, decision-making tools, induction materials, and clear delegation.
6.3 Centre leadership and relationships, at multiple levels
Understand that collaboration happens between CEs, trustees, staff and donors – and that all these levels matter.
Recognise the central role of the CE or lead staff member: “Your CE is integral in your success.” Ensure they are empowered and supported.
Expect that “at some stage something will go wrong/feel hard,” and be explicit about who will provide leadership to navigate through.
6.4 Treat collaboration as a slow burn
Accept that collaboration is a “slow burn” – it takes time to build trust, shared language and aligned practice.
Be patient and realistic about what can be achieved in a given timeframe.
Make it as easy as possible for partners to participate, so the collaboration is not always experienced as “an extra thing/on top of” existing work.
6.5 Invest in learning spaces, not just grants
Provide spaces for peer learning and reflection among funders (CE-to-CE, trustee-to-trustee) and among community partners.
Offer training in collaboration skills, such as partnership brokering, principled negotiation, and working well with mana whenua.
Bring in diverse and challenging external perspectives to stretch thinking and avoid groupthink.
6.6 Honour community leadership and the true cost of collaborating
Acknowledge that collaborative work is resource-intensive for community organisations and fund it accordingly – including time, coordination, and relationship-building.
Ensure that your “why” for collaboration comes from, and is accountable to, the communities most affected.
Be attentive to how funder-led collaborations are perceived; work to share power, increase diversity in governance and representation, and be transparent about decision-making.
6.7 Hold on to what worked
Across the board the funders of Weave expressed deep appreciation for:
The opportunity to learn alongside peers
The chance to fund bold collaborations that might otherwise have gone unsupported
The way Weave encouraged them to think and act differently in their own foundations
As one funder put it, “I think all the funders in Weave will be better funders for the time spent working together.”
If this report can help others design, resource and lead collaborative funds with more clarity and courage – building on what worked at Weave and learning from what did not – then the Weave chapter will have been well worth writing.
