In Conversation: Siyasanga Hayi-Charters on Building African Philanthropy That Lasts

As development assistance to Africa declines, the growing philanthropic ambitions of the continent’s wealthiest individuals are raising questions about who funds development, who sets priorities, and who benefits.

Siyasanga Hayi-Charters is a senior manager at Bridgespan Africa, the African arm of The Bridgespan Group, a global nonprofit advisory organization that works with philanthropists, foundations, and nonprofits to strengthen their strategies and social impact.

In this interview, she discusses how African-backed philanthropic institutions can strengthen local organizations, outlast their founders, and ensure communities shape development priorities.

As more wealthy Africans turn their wealth toward philanthropy, what could large, African-backed philanthropic institutions change about how development is funded on the continent?

Hayi-Charters: Large African-backed philanthropic institutions could increase the pool of African capital available for development and help direct more funding toward priorities identified by African governments, nonprofits, and communities. This matters particularly now. Preliminary OECD data shows that bilateral official development assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa fell by 26.3 percent in 2025. Philanthropy cannot replace government funding or development assistance at that scale. At its best, however, it can provide flexible, patient capital, protect important work during funding shocks, and take risks that public institutions may find difficult. 

Realizing this potential will depend on how these institutions deploy their capital, whether they are grantmaking foundations or operate their own programs. Grantmakers can provide African-led nonprofits with long-term, flexible funding that covers the true cost of their work and enables them to build durable institutions. Operating foundations can commit to issues over long periods, invest in local capabilities, and work with governments and civil society to strengthen existing systems. In both cases, the opportunity lies in matching funding practices to the realities of development, rather than relying on short funding cycles or narrowly defined projects.

One of the greatest potential advantages of African-backed institutions is their proximity to the contexts in which they work. Their understanding of local political, cultural, and economic realities, as well as their relationships across business, government, and civil society, can help them identify locally credible solutions and respond to changing needs. The opportunity is therefore not only to bring more African capital to development but also to connect that capital more closely to the knowledge and leadership already present on the continent.

What does Africa gain when philanthropic institutions are built to outlive the wealthy individuals who created them, and what determines whether they actually become durable institutions rather than extensions of their founders?

Hayi-Charters: An enduring institution can turn one person’s wealth into a long-term public resource that supports social progress across generations. It can preserve institutional knowledge, build professional expertise, and make commitments that do not depend on the founder’s continued involvement or the annual performance of their businesses. It also gives partners greater confidence that the institution will remain engaged as circumstances and leadership change.

Longevity alone does not make an institution effective, however. The real test is whether it develops an identity, capabilities, and accountability beyond the founder. That requires secure long-term funding, clear separation from the founder’s business interests, professional leadership, and a credible succession plan. It also requires a governing body that can provide independent judgment and bring relevant African perspectives to the institution’s decisions.

The reported intention to direct one-third of Aliko Dangote’s wealth to philanthropy is potentially significant. Bridgespan’s recent Slow Philanthropy essay, which draws largely on US experience, offers a relevant caution: philanthropic ambition and deployed capital are not the same. It distinguishes between committing resources to philanthropy and subsequently allocating them to organizations, noting that it is often during the second step that barriers accumulate and the flow of funding slows. The strongest indication of an enduring legacy would therefore be an irrevocable transfer or legally binding commitment of assets, accompanied by the governance, strategy, and professional capabilities required to deploy them well over decades. The amount committed matters, but sustained follow-through will ultimately determine its impact.

Your research has looked at the gap between large philanthropic gifts and the local organizations closest to communities. Why does that gap persist, and what would it take for more philanthropic capital to reach African-led organizations?

Hayi-Charters: Our 2021 report, Disparities in Funding for African NGOs, found a striking disparity. In a sample of publicly reported large gifts between 2010 and 2019, African NGOs received only 9 percent of the value of large gifts from African donors and 14 percent from non-African donors. Those figures come from a limited historical sample, rather than a complete measure of all African giving, but they illustrate a persistent pattern.

The report found barriers throughout the grantmaking process. Many funders lack an explicit strategy to support African NGOs, source opportunities through networks that exclude local leaders, or apply diligence criteria shaped around large international institutions. More than 70 percent of the people surveyed identified sourcing as a major barrier, and a similar proportion identified a lack of trust in African leaders and organizations. Those that secure grants often receive small, short-term, restricted funding that limits their ability to build resilient institutions.

For African funders, there is an additional dynamic: much large-scale philanthropy has historically not taken the form of grantmaking at all. Our 2020 brief, The Landscape of Large-Scale Giving by African Philanthropists, found that 42 percent of the value of large gifts from African donors went to public-sector institutions and 33 percent through donors' own operating foundations. This partly reflected donors’ focus on areas such as health, education, and disaster relief, where government is often central. Some donors also preferred to implement programs directly using their existing business footprints and capabilities, while perceptions about the scale and accountability of African NGOs further constrained direct grantmaking.

There have since been some encouraging signs. Our 2024 follow-up, The Changing Landscape of Large-Scale Giving in Africa by Non-African Philanthropists found that the share of large-scale giving from non-African funders going to African NGOs rose from 14 percent between 2010 and 2019 to more than 55 percent in 2022 and 2023. African NGOs received $880 million in large gifts during those two years, more than they received over the preceding decade. However, much of that shift was driven by the Gates Foundation and Mastercard Foundation, so it was too early to conclude that it represented a sector-wide trend. It would be valuable to examine whether this progress has continued since 2023 and, particularly, whether the giving practices of African funders have also changed.

This increase sits alongside a broader movement toward localization. Some non-African funders are placing greater emphasis on locally grounded organizations, while some international NGOs are adapting their partnerships and operating structures to support local leadership. African philanthropists could reinforce and help sustain this shift by directing more domestic philanthropic capital toward African-led nonprofits.

Sustaining this momentum starts with the distinctive value African-led nonprofits can bring. Their proximity to communities can give them a deep understanding of local context, credibility with local stakeholders, and a sustained commitment to the people they serve. Funders then need to adapt their practices accordingly: setting and tracking goals for funding African-led nonprofits, drawing on local networks, and moving decision-making authority closer to the continent. Other helpful shifts could include simplifying diligence, recognizing local knowledge and community credibility as assets, and providing more multi-year, unrestricted funding. Accountability remains essential, with requirements calibrated to the size and risk of the grant and responsive to the context in which African organizations operate.

Could the growth of billionaire philanthropy give a small number of wealthy Africans too much influence over which problems receive funding and which development priorities get attention?

Hayi-Charters: Large-scale philanthropy inevitably gives donors meaningful influence over which issues and approaches receive support, so this is an important question to keep in view as African philanthropy grows. That influence can be constructive. Philanthropists can fund neglected issues, act quickly, take risks that other institutions may find difficult, and sustain attention beyond political or commercial cycles.

At the same time, Bridgespan’s 2026 research on High-Impact Family Philanthropy notes that, as private wealth grows, families will increasingly shape philanthropic practice and nonprofit funding norms. Their relative autonomy is one of their strengths, but the impact of that autonomy depends on how deliberately they use it, including how they listen to others, respond to evidence, share decision-making, and remain accountable for results.

In the African context, the central question may therefore be how philanthropists use their influence and whose knowledge informs their choices. This includes considering whether their giving addresses underlying causes as well as immediate needs, complements rather than displaces government and civil society and remains open to approaches that may challenge a donor’s own assumptions. Foundations can draw on the perspectives of African-led nonprofits and the communities closest to the issues, collaborate with public institutions and civil society, and be transparent about their priorities and what they are learning. Bridgespan’s research on Community-Driven Change in Africa and India also points to the value of communities participating in and leading the identification and design of solutions.

A broad and connected philanthropic ecosystem matters as well. Strong local nonprofits, community foundations, pooled funds, and donor networks can bring more perspectives into decisions and create opportunities for collaboration. This can help ensure that large-scale philanthropy contributes to Africa’s development priorities without any one donor having to define those priorities alone.

How should philanthropic institutions balance a founder’s ability to set a vision with the need for independent governance, accountability, and communities having a say in how money is spent?

Hayi-Charters: Founders can bring a powerful sense of purpose, an appetite for ambitious action, and the resources and relationships needed to establish an institution. Their relative autonomy can also enable them to act quickly and take risks that other funders may find difficult. The goal is to preserve those strengths while translating the founder’s personal vision into a clear mission that others can interpret and carry forward.

There is no single governance model for every philanthropic institution, but clarity about decision-making roles is an important starting point. A founder or family can remain a steward of the institution’s mission and values, while a capable board provides strategic oversight and independent judgment. Professional staff need sufficient authority to select partners and manage grants or programs within that strategy. Institutions can also create structured ways for African-led nonprofits and communities closest to the issues to inform priorities, program design, and learning.

For independent governance to be meaningful, board members need to be able to exercise their judgment rather than simply affirming the founder’s preferences. Depending on the institution, this could be supported by independent trustees, clear terms and succession processes, conflict-of-interest policies, transparent funding or program criteria, and credible reporting. Community participation can take different forms, including advisory or grantmaking committees, participatory research, and formal feedback mechanisms. The aim is not necessarily for communities to make every decision, but for their knowledge and experience to have a visible influence on the institution’s choices.

The balance will also evolve. As Bridgespan’s research on high-impact family philanthropy notes, changes such as generational handovers can reopen questions that once appeared settled. Governance arrangements therefore need to be revisited as the family and institution develop. Ultimately, a founder’s vision is strengthened when autonomy is paired with independent judgment, responsiveness to evidence, accountability for results, and knowledge grounded in proximity to communities.

If we look 20 or 30 years ahead, what would distinguish a genuinely transformative African philanthropic institution from one that simply gives wealthy individuals another way to shape Africa’s development?

Hayi-Charters: The clearest distinction would be whether the institution could speak credibly about its impact over several decades. That means looking beyond how much money it committed, how many programs it launched, or how prominent its founder became. Could it demonstrate sustained improvements in people’s lives, communities, or the systems it sought to strengthen and make a credible case for how its work contributed to those results?

Establishing that contribution requires disciplined learning over time. A strong institution would define the outcomes it seeks, track progress, draw on independent evidence, and be transparent about what worked, what did not, and how it adapted. The perspectives of communities and organizations closest to the work would be an important part of that evidence. Because development outcomes usually depend on many actors, credibility would also mean being realistic about contribution rather than claiming sole credit.

An enduring institution can stay with important issues beyond a typical project cycle, adjust its approach as circumstances change, and build knowledge across generations. Whether it makes grants or operates programs directly, its funding practices, partnerships, governance, and leadership would need to support that sustained focus and learning.

Ultimately, a transformative institution would be one whose contribution outlasted individual programs and the founder’s direct involvement. After 20 or 30 years, the test would be whether the progress it helped achieve proved meaningful and durable and whether the organizations and systems involved were better equipped to sustain it.

Philanthropy Circuit's Take:

Hayi-Charters asks whether progress outlasts the founder. We would add a second test: whether the organizations and communities closest to the work see their knowledge shape where the money goes. The published data on how much large-scale African giving reaches African NGOs ends in 2020. Commitments like Dangote's will play out over decades, and they deserve to be measured against African benchmarks.

If you lead an African-led organization, what would it take for large-scale African philanthropy to reach your work?