A Wave Forming? Funders Taking Action in Response to a Challenging Context

It’s clear that nonprofits are looking for more support from their foundation funders, in both words and deeds, as they grapple with a Trump administration that seems hell-bent on going after nonprofits — and civil society more broadly.  We have documented some of those efforts in other recent posts on this blog since Inauguration Day.

But you don’t have to take our word for it. A survey of nonprofits we conducted in February generated a 66 percent response rate (far above the typical rate for our research surveys of this type), a telling indicator in itself. The 585 respondents — representative of nonprofits that receive at least some foundation funding — didn’t mince words.

 “Our communities are under attack and, frankly, it doesn’t feel like philanthropy is that alarmed,” said one respondent. Nonprofits here in the US and around the world are reeling from the threats of this political context, including efforts to cut federal funding, and they are seeking more communication and support.

Some funders have responded boldly and quickly. Others we’ve seen as too reticent, perhaps worried about taking risks that might jeopardize their institutions or operating under a set of assumptions that may have made sense in November but now seem worth reconsidering — and quickly.

Maybe that’s beginning to happen.

We have reviewed public communications from foundations through the week ending March 21, as well as media reports and listservs, and we’re seeing a growing number of funders taking steps to confront the challenging realities. Our search is definitely not exhaustive — we’re sure there are examples we’ve missed, and we welcome you to reach out to let us know.

Still, it is instructive to see the public actions and statements from foundations and philanthropic leaders. We know that each of these decisions was undoubtedly the result of careful internal deliberations. In the hope it may offer inspiration or instruction to others, we offer these examples of what we found in our research as a resource to funders considering their own responses.

But first, a note on “naming names”: We all feel we’re in a moment in which institutions are maliciously targeted, seemingly at random, by powerful government actors. We don’t intend to create any sort of “targets” list. Therefore, the names you’ll see below have all made public statements about their actions. There are also, we know, many cases where actions have been communicated privately without a public declaration on social media or websites.

Stepping Up Payout Levels

A handful of foundations have now announced increases in their grant payout levels.

• The Northwest Area Foundation will double funding in 2025.
• Freedom Together will increase its grantmaking to 10 percent or more of its endowment.
• The Woods Fund of Chicago is bumping its payout to 14 percent in 2025 and 15 percent in 2026, according to Inside Philanthropy.
• MacArthur Foundation will up its grantmaking floor to at least 6 percent. (CEO John Palfrey’s “Six Hard Questions” public FAQ about the pros and cons MacArthur’s staff and board considered during their decision to increase payout provides helpful guidance.)
• TransitCenter made the decision to spend down all its $69 million endowment within 12 years.
• The James B. McClatchy Foundation committed nearly $7 million in new funding to support democracy in California’s Central Valley.
• The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) is paying out at 6.5 percent, its highest rate ever, its CEO Rich Besser noted on a webinar last week.

Given the nature of a decision to step up payout, which involves board discussion and approval, we expect this is just the beginning — and that many other funders will be taking similar steps in the weeks ahead. This means more money out the door to nonprofits that very much need it, given that so many are operating under extremely difficult conditions.

New Grant Initiatives to Respond to the Moment

Relatedly, a number of funders have announced new grantmaking initiatives that respond to the moment. It’s not necessarily always clear whether these represent an incremental increase to their grantmaking budgets, but they’re clearly efforts to steer funding to those whose work is particularly essential, or particularly threatened, in this context.

Examples include:

• The Meyer Foundation in Washington, D.C. offered current grantees rapid response one-time grants “to support movement building, mobilization, and power building around causes or issues that promote racial justice through advocacy, organizing, and/or coalition building.”
• The Kenneth Rainin Foundation committed an additional $4 million to “mitigate the destructive impact of these executive orders.” 
• The St Paul & Minnesota Foundation announced $2 million to organizations focused on democratic participation, legal defense, and related initiatives.
• The Boston Foundation launched a special round of its Safety Net Grants with $2 million of general operating support to social service organizations that respond to the essential needs of marginalized communities and vulnerable residents.

Streamlining Processes, Providing Unrestricted Support

Many foundations streamlined processes five years ago, in the wake of the pandemic, to allow nonprofits to focus their attention on responding to the crisis rather than, say, writing detailed grant reports. As we have documented, many funders maintained at least some of those shifts, realizing that they could get the information they need from grantees while requiring less time and effort.

We’re seeing a number of funders announce that they’re either retaining that commitment to more streamlined processes, streamlining further, releasing grants early without questions asked, or bringing back shifts they had made temporarily. One example: Barr Foundation CEO Jim Canales, whose foundation already has — speaking from our direct personal experience here at CEP as a grantee — extremely streamlined and grantee-friendly processes, wrote: “We want to learn how best to support our grantees, and we remain open to exploring different ways to reduce administrative burdens and create more flexibilities in how Barr funds can be used, so that our partners can adapt and be responsive to this context.”

In a National Council on Nonprofits (NCN) webinar last week, Jean Reis of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation described how “philanthropy must truly adapt” and noted that the Packard Foundation is “providing flexibility,” including the provision of more general operating support. Similarly, Palfrey of the MacArthur Foundation, in announcing its stepped up grantmaking, said the Foundation would “where possible, use flexible, trust-based models for our charitable gifts.”

Providing Extra Support for Nonprofits, Including Legal and Security Resources

A number of foundations are offering up additional resources for grantees that might be targeted by this administration, including in the areas of cybersecurity, personal security, staff well-being, Directors and Officers liability insurance, and legal support. Nonprofit Secure and AccessNow are among the resources funders are supporting, as Packard’s Reis described on the NCN webinar.

Some of this, of course, is understandably being done quietly. We know of regional foundations whose websites contain no mention of the current political context — a conscious choice likely affected by their particular contexts and local realities — but which have nevertheless convened their grantees for candid conversations about what is needed.

Reaffirming Commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)

While some funders have, we believe unnecessarily and unwisely, scrubbed DEI language from their websites, and even instructed grantees to do the same, others have spoken out strongly for thoughtful, legal DEI practices. Powerful statements responding to the administration’s executive orders on DEI have been issued by about a dozen foundations (at least), including large and small private foundations and community foundations in both red and blue states.

Given the administration’s stated interest in targeting institutions that engage in DEI efforts, we’re not going to list all those who made statements here. Some, of course, are so prominent, like RWJF, that it makes no difference to mention their strong statement. Collectively, these statements are an important recommitment — and a reminder that, done right, DEI efforts increase effectiveness, support merit rather than undermine it, and are completely legal. 

Speaking Out Against Other Specific Administration Actions

A number of philanthropic leaders have spoken out against other specific Administration actions. Just days after the inauguration, Bloomberg Philanthropies announced that it and other U.S. climate funders “will ensure the United States meets its global climate obligations following the federal government’s intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement for the second time. This includes covering the funding gap left by the United States to UN Climate Change (UNFCCC) and upholding the country’s reporting commitments.”

Humanity United and Rockefeller Foundation each issued statements opposing cuts in international aid. Gates Foundation CEO Mark Suzman has also spoken up to criticize the dismantling of the USAID.

Suzman has also made clear his support for the U.S. Department of Education as has the Detroit-based Skillman Foundation. Skillman issued a strong statement noting the crucial role the department has played for “kids whose families have a low income and for youth with special needs who require additional support” as well as the broad public support it has enjoyed.

Speaking Out in Defense of Nonprofits and Civil Society

Some philanthropic leaders are using their voices, and resources, to go beyond their usual programmatic focuses to defend the broader sector. “Consider the importance of funding civil society as a whole,” said Reis on the NCN webinar.

“Funders have to really step up,” said Robin Hood Foundation Chief Public Policy Officer Jason Cone on the same webinar. “They have to step up because there is a full frontal assault on the very communities that we serve and the leaders that work in the sector that serve those communities everyday… We need to be vocal.”

Grant Oliphant, the CEO of the San Diego-based Conrad Prebys Foundation, spoke up for local nonprofits in this recent op ed. “Our civil society, along with the values of mutuality, justice, and shared interest it enshrines, should be no one’s punching bag,” he wrote.

In a similar vein, Emily Nielsen Jones, Founding Partner and Trustee of the Imago Dei Fund, penned a powerful essay on LinkedIn:

These words, and the increasing number of philanthropic leaders both speaking up and taking action, may represent just a ripple. But we hope they are the beginning of a wave of philanthropic resistance to what NCN President and CEO Diane Yentel has accurately described as “relentless and unprecedented attacks on nonprofits and the people and communities we serve.”

Candice Jones, CEO of the Public Welfare Foundation, put it well in a statement last month. “Bullies need only pick on the vulnerable and allow the chilling effect to intimidate the rest. If we refuse to stand up to and resist those tactics, then all is indeed already lost.”

The time for foundations to act is now, and there are an increasing number that are offering up good examples of how to do so.

Phil Buchanan is president of the Center for Effective Philanthropy. Molly Heidemann is special assistant to the president. Kevin Bolduc is vice president, Assessment and Advisory Services at CEP.