Models of Change
To do this work with integrity, we need to understand how change actually happens—and why so many familiar approaches fall short.
When we talk about accountability, we’re talking about how we use our time, energy, and resources. That means being honest about which models of change create real transformation and which ones only address the surface. Many of the approaches most of us were taught to trust are not built to dismantle the systems that produce racial harm. They’re built to manage the symptoms.
Understanding the difference matters. It helps us stay aligned with our values, avoid unintentional harm, and invest in strategies that actually shift power.
Reformist Approaches vs.
Systemic Change Models
Most mainstream efforts to “make things better” fall into reformist models. These approaches focus on what we can see—individual behaviors, isolated problems, or short‑term crises—without addressing the systems that create those conditions in the first place.
Reformist approaches tend to:
-
Offer temporary relief instead of long‑term solutions
-
Reinforce existing power structures
-
Keep us cycling through the same problems again and again
Systemic change, on the other hand, looks at root causes. It asks: What is producing this harm? Who benefits from things staying the same? What would it take to transform the conditions entirely?
Effective systemic work combines:
-
Long‑term strategies that shift structures and power
-
Short‑term support that meets immediate needs without losing sight of the bigger picture
This image uses a tree to illustrate the differences in change models. When we fail to accurately identify what is causing a problem, any solution we create will be ineffective—leaving the harm unchanged or even reinforcing it. The most effective change models pair long‑term strategies that address root causes with short‑term strategies that respond to immediate symptoms.
Why Many Dominant Change Models Fall Short
A lot of well‑funded, well‑respected social change work is top‑down. People with institutional power, wealth, or credentials design solutions for communities they are not accountable to. Even with good intentions, this approach centers the perspectives of those least impacted and sidelines the wisdom of those who live the reality every day.
This dynamic is part of what many call the nonprofit industrial complex—a system where the organizations with the most resources are often the least equipped to create deep change.
Below are three common reformist models and the limits built into each one.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH PHILANTHROPY?
Philanthropy channels individual, family, or corporate wealth into charitable causes. While it can provide important resources, it rarely addresses the root causes of the problems it aims to solve. Most philanthropic decisions are made with little or no engagement from the communities most impacted.
Philanthropy becomes a problematic model of change when people with the least lived experience and the most power and resources decide what solutions should look like. It’s like going to a doctor who prescribes medication without ever asking what’s wrong. The result is predictable: ineffective solutions and a poor use of enormous resources.
There’s another core critique: the extreme wealth that philanthropy relies on is often created through the same economic and social systems that produce the very problems philanthropy tries to fix—including systemic racism. In this view, excessive wealth is not a solution to injustice; it is a symptom of unjust systems.
From this perspective, many of the issues philanthropy seeks to address could be resolved far more effectively by correcting the underlying imbalances of power and resources in our economic and social structures.
This doesn’t mean wealth can’t be used for good. It means that for philanthropy to be effective, it must:
-
Address root causes, not just symptoms
-
Fund solutions designed and led by the communities most impacted
Only then can philanthropy contribute to real, lasting change.
SUGGESTED READING
Decolonizing Wealth: Indigenous Wisdom to Heal Divides and Restore Balance by Edgar Villanueva
Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World by Anand Giridharadas
Patronizing Evil: The Nonprofit Sector Perpetuates the Worst Legacies of Capitalism by Alexi Jenkins
WHAT'S WRONG WITH ADVOCACY?
Advocacy—shaping public opinion or influencing decision‑makers—is a tool used in every successful movement. Here, we’re talking specifically about nonprofit and NGO advocacy organizations like the ACLU, the Sierra Club, Doctors Without Borders, and thousands of smaller local groups.
The model has two major limitations:
-
These organizations often do not meaningfully consult the communities most impacted by the issues they work on. Without lived experience guiding the strategy, their solutions frequently miss the mark.
-
Their survival depends on the continuation of the problems they address. If they fully solved their core issues, they would no longer need to exist. This creates a structural disincentive—often unconscious, but very real—not to pursue solutions that would eliminate the problem entirely.
This doesn’t mean people inside these organizations lack commitment or integrity. Many are deeply dedicated to justice. The issue is the model itself: enormous resources are concentrated in institutions that are not positioned to create transformative, community‑led change.
A small fraction of the resources held by the advocacy sector could have exponentially greater impact if redirected to grassroots organizations—groups that are accountable to their communities and capable of creating authentic, systemic change. But the advocacy sector’s control of funding, visibility, and narrative power makes that shift difficult.
As allies, our responsibility is to invest our time, money, and trust where they will have the greatest impact: grassroots community organizing led by the people most affected.
SUGGESTED READING
WHAT'S WRONG WITH SERVICE OR CHARITY?
Service or charity work focuses on meeting immediate needs—food, clothing, shelter, disaster relief, and other essential supports. There are absolutely times when this model is necessary, such as after a hurricane, during a pandemic, or in other emergencies. The problem is not that service exists; it’s that it is vastly overused and often treated as a primary strategy for social change.
One major limitation is that service work rarely asks the deeper questions: Why are people hungry? Why are people unhoused? Why are people without basic resources in the first place?
Because it doesn’t address root causes, service alone cannot reduce the number of people experiencing these conditions. Enormous amounts of money, labor, and attention go into service work every year, yet the underlying problems remain unchanged. This makes service an extremely inefficient model for creating long‑term change.
However, direct service can be powerful when it is part of a larger strategy for systemic transformation. The clearest example is the Black Panther Party. Their community programs—free breakfast for children, medical clinics, ambulance services, food distribution, and elder care—were not charity. They were tools for building grassroots power and challenging the systems that produced racial and economic injustice.
These programs were so effective that government agencies eventually adopted versions of them, in part to undermine the political power the Panthers were building.
SUGGESTED READING
Against Charity by Matthew Snow
Grassroots, or bottom‑up, organizing is the only model of change that consistently produces authentic, lasting social justice. People with lived experience understand the problems most clearly and are best positioned to design effective, sustainable solutions. When communities lead, resources are used more efficiently, strategies are more accurate, and the work is accountable to the people most impacted.
The critiques of philanthropy, advocacy, and service all point to the same core issue: the people furthest from the problem are often the ones making decisions about how to solve it.
-
Philanthropy concentrates power in the hands of wealthy donors who rarely address root causes.
-
Advocacy organizations often operate without meaningful consultation from impacted communities and have structural incentives to maintain the problems they work on.
-
Service and charity meet immediate needs but do not change the conditions that create those needs.
Grassroots organizing answers these failures directly. It centers the leadership of those most affected, addresses root causes rather than symptoms, and builds collective power—the essential ingredient for systemic change.
This doesn’t mean philanthropy, advocacy, or service have no role. They can be valuable only when they follow the leadership of impacted communities and align their resources with community‑driven strategies. But as things stand, the organizations most capable of delivering real solutions have the least access to funding, while the least effective models control the vast majority of resources.
This is why it is essential that, as allies, we direct our time, money, and trust toward grassroots organizations—groups that are rooted in community, accountable to those most impacted, and committed to transforming the systems that produce harm in the first place.
MORE ON THE GRASSROOTS MODEL OF CHANGE
We Do This ’til We Free Us: Abolitionist Organizing and Transforming Justice by Mariame Kaba
The Purpose of Power: How We Come Together When Things Fall Apart by Alicia Garza
Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Friere
Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race by Reni Enno-Lodge
Beyond Survival: Strategies and Stories from the Transformative Justice Movement
How do we help?
Support grassroots organizations that are led by—and accountable to—the communities most impacted.
Support organizations that take a systemic approach and intentionally address the root causes of the problems they work on.
Listen to and learn from the solutions and strategies these organizations use. Outsiders often doubt grassroots approaches, and that skepticism leads people to second‑guess, dismiss, or disengage from the very strategies that create real change. This pattern is one of the many subtle ways our unconscious conditioning helps maintain racism. We interrupt that conditioning when we choose instead to learn from the experience, leadership, and expertise of the communities most impacted.
Go to Next Learning Destination