We Surveyed Hundreds of Philanthropy Professionals. Here's What We Found

Andrey_Popov/shutterstock

Here’s something that won’t surprise any veteran of the social sector: People who work at foundations or in fundraising have decidedly mixed feelings about their professional world. 

Most do believe that philanthropy and nonprofits have a positive impact, but they’re skeptical about the extent of that impact. They also don’t think so highly about the leadership of the sector or the way that foundations conduct themselves. Many see signs of change in how philanthropy operates, while others see business as usual — despite a lot of talk about trust-based grantmaking and other shifts in practice. A surprisingly large number support major reforms to the laws that govern philanthropic giving. 

Those are just some of the findings from Inside Philanthropy’s latest survey of philanthropy professionals, which garnered nearly 350 responses from a mix of nonprofit development staff, foundation program officers, consultants and others. 

We last did a major survey like this in August 2020, near the height of the pandemic. We asked many of the same questions this year that we asked then — about practices like providing general operating support and centering equity within organizations, as well as more specific questions about trends that respondents are seeing in their own issue areas or regions. But this year, we also added new questions to gauge people’s views on other topics, including the role of philanthropy writ large, the influence of different types of funders, proposals for reform, the quality of leadership, and the climate of discussion within organizations. 

I can’t say that any of the findings of this year’s survey were totally unexpected — starting with the ambivalence I mentioned before — but there are a few real surprises, as I’ll explain shortly.  

Who responded 

Before getting into the findings, let me say something about the 350 or so respondents. Nearly half said they work in a fundraising role (either as development staff or as nonprofit executives), while just over a quarter work in grantmaking institutions. A small sliver, about 3%, said they were major donors. The rest reported working as consultants within a philanthropy-serving organization or in some other capacity within the sector. 

Two-thirds of respondents said they held senior-level positions, 22% said they were mid-career, and less than 5% were early career. Asked to describe themselves politically on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being very liberal, the median response was 8. Just 13 respondents said they were a 1 or a 2 — the most conservative scores on the scale — while 114 said they were a 10 or 9. As for the focus of their work, respondents named a range of issues — including such niches as historic preservation — but the majority said they work in familiar top areas like education, healthcare, the arts and the environment. 

The survey was sent to readers of IP’s newsletter, as well as other lists that we use. We did not employ a rigorous methodology to ensure that recipients were representative of those working in the philanthropic sector overall — as you can see, for example, in the disproportionate number of respondents who work at a senior level. Our approach was designed to broadly take the pulse of our readers and others in the philanthrosphere. Data reported here should not be seen as offering authoritative or conclusive findings about the opinions of foundation or nonprofit staff, nor of those working as consultants or in other roles.

Ambivalent feelings

You don’t need to log 20 years at nonprofit water coolers to know that a lot of people in this world view philanthropy with a mix of idealism and cynicism. That’s something you pick up pretty quickly — and it certainly came through strongly in responses to this survey.

When asked broadly about the impact of philanthropy, only around half of respondents agreed that “philanthropy works to accelerate positive change in society.” Nearly 40% said it has “only limited or incremental impact,” while 10% said it “works to slow down or hold back real change.” Respondents working in grantmaking organizations were only somewhat more positive than those in fundraising roles about the impact of philanthropy. On the subject of leadership in the sector, 75% of respondents agreed that “there are some creative and bold leaders, but it’s not the norm.” Nor is a vigorous exchange of views the norm, according to respondents, with only 15% agreeing that there’s “a lot of candid and robust debate about important issues.” Nearly 57% said there is only “sometimes” such debate, while 28% agreed that “there’s a lot of groupthink and people are afraid to say what they really think.” Those on the grantmaking side of the fence were more likely to see groupthink as a problem than other respondents.

Respondents expressed mixed views on the role played by funders and whether that role is actually changing. A majority agreed that grantmakers play an active role in steering nonprofit agendas, but are not “overly controlling.” However, 28% agreed that funders “are setting agendas and controlling grantees.” Just 2.6% agreed that funders are “totally hands-off, trusting nonprofits to steer their own course.” 

In response to a related question, only 11% of respondents said they saw general operating support “increasing substantially” over the past few years — although 44% did say that such grantmaking was increasing “somewhat.” Respondents working in grantmaking organizations were somewhat more likely to say that general operating support is on the rise compared to those in fundraising jobs.

In short, the survey offered more evidence that trust-based philanthropy is growing, but that it’s doing so gradually, and that it’s still far from a major trend that’s sweeping the sector. 

A billionaire backlash? 

Much has been written about the backlash to billionaire philanthropy and we were keen to see how those inside the sector see these mega-donors. While we were at it, we asked respondents to share their feelings about other funders, too. 

As you might expect, billionaire philanthropists are viewed far more harshly than any other type of funder, with nearly 30% saying they see the influence of those donors either “negatively” or “very negatively.” Notably, though, more than a third held the opposite view — seeing billionaire donors “positively” (29%) or “very positively” (6%). Another third said they were “neutral” about these donors. Put differently, a strong two-thirds majority of respondents expressed no concerns about billionaire philanthropy. If there’s a backlash to the giving of the ultra-rich, it’s not centered in the nonprofit sector itself. (Our hunch is that MacKenzie Scott’s giving has done a lot to improve the image of all billionaire donors.) 

Another unsurprising finding here is that the role and influence of small donors is viewed most favorably, with only 2% of respondents expressing any negative feelings about these donors. Community foundations also drew little concern, and, for all the complaining about private foundations, only around 7% of respondents expressed any negative views about them, while more than 70% said they viewed them positively or very positively. 

Calls for reform — and also more policy focus

Maybe the biggest surprise from the survey is how much support respondents voiced for “changes in the laws that govern philanthropy.” Over 70% said they favored mandatory payouts by donor-advised funds, while a nearly equal share said they favored “increasing required foundation payout.” (Those in grantmaking roles were less enthusiastic about changing payout rules, but both reforms still garnered majority support among these respondents.) Half of survey takers also favored “requiring that nonprofits disclose their donors” and 40% said they favored “limiting the tax breaks that wealthy donors can receive.” Another third favored “restricting the types of policy advocacy and electoral activities that nonprofits can engage in.” 

What’s striking is that none of the reforms mentioned above are backed by the main associations that purport to speak for people who work in philanthropy and nonprofits. I’ve been arguing for years that those groups are behind the curve in responding to rising public concerns around philanthropy, and I’ve criticized them for “reflexively fighting every reform that comes along, however modest.” Our new survey findings — while by no means conclusive, as I said — suggest that these trade groups are also out of touch with their own communities.

One other interesting finding to note is that a majority of respondents want philanthropy to play a bigger role in shaping public policy, with 51% agreeing that “a greater percentage of philanthropic resources should go toward policy and advocacy efforts to change public perceptions, laws and regulations holding back social change.” Just 22% said that a “greater percentage of philanthropic resources should go to traditional charitable activities to improve people’s daily lives.” Here again, respondents are on a different page than powerful players in philanthropy — in this case, the lion’s share of foundations and major donors who don’t prioritize policy and advocacy in their giving.  

Racial justice and internal debate

Two years after George Floyd’s murder triggered a wave of responses by foundations and nonprofits, we wanted to gauge how people view philanthropy’s role in advancing racial justice, and how debates on this topic are playing out within organizations. 

Asked about “recent efforts to prioritize and center racial justice issues in philanthropy,” nearly two-thirds of respondents agreed these efforts are “essential and need to go much further” while just 19% said these issues “have become too much of a priority” and 16% agreed that “philanthropy has been achieving the right amount of change in this area.”

In addition to expressing strong support for further engagement on racial justice, a majority of respondents said that board and staff within their organizations “agreed” or “mostly agreed” on how to approach this issue. And nearly 80% said there was either “little or no conflict” on these issues among staff, or that there is “some conflict, but the process is working.” When we probed in more detail about internal conflict around these issues along generational and racial lines, few respondents said that such divisions were a problem in their organizations. 

Finally, amid endless talk of “cancel culture” within elite institutions, along with recent criticism by some conservatives of “woke” philanthropy, we asked respondents to say how comfortable they felt speaking up on racial justice and other equity issues within their organizations. Overall, 70% agreed with the statement: “I feel comfortable sharing my views on these issues.” Just 10% agreed with the statement: “I feel that equity issues in my organization have become so all-consuming that they are crowding out other important considerations, but I feel uncomfortable saying so publicly.”

The above findings are noteworthy on two counts. First, they suggest a strong continued commitment within the sector to addressing racial justice issues — as opposed to a falloff in interest as people move on to other topics, which is what so often happens within a philanthrosphere where trends famously ebb and flow. Second, there appears to be little evidence of the kind of fraught organizational conflicts around racial justice that get so much media attention nowadays — much less any widespread muffling of dissenting voices, as some have suggested is the case. 

An important caveat here is that the respondents to this survey overwhelmingly reported being “very liberal” and most also want philanthropy to push harder on racial justice. However, among the small slice of respondents who described themselves as conservative, 43% said that racial justice had become too much of a priority and 27% said they were uncomfortably publicly saying that within their organization. More than half agreed that “there’s a lot of groupthink and people are afraid to say what they really think.” Conservative respondents also expressed divergent views on the proper role of philanthropy and proposals for reform. Most said that funders should stick to traditional charitable activities and only a minority supported mandatory payout for DAFs or other changes in tax laws.

****

We will have more to say about the findings from the survey in future articles as we drill down into the data and tease out how different sub-groups within the sector view key issues in philanthropy. We’re especially interested in exploring any divisions between the opinions of grantmakers and grantseekers — two camps that often experience friction. Stay tuned.