[Lesley Slavitt] Hello everyone! I'm Lesley
Slavitt, executive director of the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy at Grand Valley
State University. We are delighted to host today's webinar on 11 Trends in Philanthropy for 2024.
It's the Johnson Center's eighth annual Trends report, which aims to help practitioners
anticipate and embrace what's next in the sector. I'm delighted to share that we have a
sold-out attendance here today — folks from all over the country… and beyond, so go
od morning,
good afternoon, and good evening, depending on where you are. And, in fact, we'd love to
know where you're from, so please go ahead, drop your name and location in the chat… as we do
a little bit of housekeeping and some introductory remarks before our conversation. Housekeeping...
so just sharing with everybody that the webinar is being recorded. A link to the recording will
be shared with you by the end of the week. If you have any technical issues or want to participate
in t
he conversation, please feel free to use the chat feature throughout this conversation. The
second half of today's conversation will be a Q&A, so please submit your questions through the Q&A
function, not the chat function. You can do that at any time throughout the webinar and we'll
make sure to curate those at the end. In just a moment we're going to be joined by our panelists,
and it's my pleasure to introduce you to those terrific colleagues who will be joining me here
today for the con
versation. First, I'd like to introduce Don Chen. Don is the president of the
Surdna Foundation, a national family foundation dedicated to racial justice by fostering
sustainable environments, inclusive economies, and thriving cultures. I'm also delighted to
welcome Stacy Palmer. Stacy is the chief executive of The Chronicle of Philanthropy, an organization
that offers a monthly magazine, news, advice, and opinion sections, and a host of webinars,
briefings, and other services for and about
the nonprofit sector and the foundation world.
Palmer helped found the organization in 1988 and has overseen its transition as it became an
independent nonprofit in 2023. And finally, it's my great honor to introduce Dr. Akilah Watkins.
Akilah is the president and CEO of Independent Sector, a national membership organization of
more than 350 nonprofit, philanthropic, CSR, and university partners working to build and sustain a
healthy, equitable, charitable sector. And before we dive into t
he conversation, just going to
provide a brief overview to sort of level-set us with the conversation we'll have today. So,
regarding Trends, I often get this question, which is, "What makes a trend?" And, so, a trend is a
topic or issue that's moving. It's not necessarily entirely novel or new, but we're seeing it either
increase or decrease or change in some noticeable, significant way. This year's trends share a wealth
of examples, data, quotes, and research that aims to help you and you
r networks look to the future
of the field. But at the core of the 2024 report, you will find a set of questions, rather than a
set of answers. Each trend poses moral, economic, equity-related, tactical, and other questions that
the sector will have to answer as we continue to work for the public good. Some answers are likely
to come sooner; for others, it may be a while before we fully understand the implications of
whether and how choices will be made. In short, it's a snapshot of the sec
tor, highlighting where
concerns are, but also action and initiatives to help advocate and embrace what's next, offering
practitioners donors, and community stakeholders real data, insightful perspectives, and research
examples to help them inform and support their daily work. And Trends is wholly a Johnson
Center product — its research curated, written, and edited by my colleagues here at the Johnson
Center with a level of disciplinary rigor that deepens the sector's knowledge, reflection,
and — ultimately — we hope its actions. I'm going to quickly review the 11 trends for 2024
and then we'll begin today's conversation. And so we've just posted them here today — I know
many of you have read the report — we've had wonderful responses and emails and comments,
but it's just a reminder of the breadth of the topics and the depth that they cover. And so we
see issues related to the crisis of the “glass cliff,” issues related to AI, donor anonymity,
affordable housing, and so rea
lly a significant trend portfolio here that we're going to discuss.
And within that it's been interesting for us this year, perhaps because there are so many really
provocative and important questions being raised, that we've really begun to see traction already.
And I'll be very interested to know if our panelists are seeing what we've been hearing
so far in the ether, issues — again, related to the “glass cliff,” Gen Z in philanthropy,
investing in the South — have really provoked a lot o
f conversation already. And so with that,
I'm excited to turn the conversation over to our panelists. We have lots to talk about! So, Don,
Stacy, and Akilah… I know I was going to challenge you to pick one trend that really resonated with
you most, and why, but I have a slight twist on the question, which is… If there is one that
really resonates with you, why? And if you can't narrow it down to less than three, what is so
profound about what we see in these 11 trends this year, that it's —
you're unable to sort of narrow
down your thinking. And so, Stacy, I saw you smile first, so I'm gonna put the question to you.
[Stacy Palmer] Okay, I might go with the three. I think you've came up with some excellent,
excellent trends. So, donor anonymity is the one that I'm really glad you called out, because
I don't think we talk enough about those issues, and I think they're really going to be on
the rise. Generation Z is having an amazing effect — I mean, after growing up in COVID and
in
lockdown, they're creating their own nonprofits, they are the workers, they are thinking about so
many other things. And it's kind of impossible to be in this field and not think about things
like AI, because that is what's going to have the transformative effect. I would choose all of the
other ones if I had a chance to but those three are the ones that rose to the top for me.
[Lesley] Perfect… Don are you agreeing or disagreeing? Are you seeing some
of the same things Stacy is seeing,
or are you seeing some other things?
[Don Chen] Well, I agree with her that it's really hard to choose... The one — if I had
to pick one — which was our original mandate here, I would choose the “glass cliff” one because
this is a trend and a challenge that the Surdna Foundation and a lot of other funders in the field
have seen coming for a long time. It's actually a phenomenon that many of us have observed for a
while, namely that we have people of color — you highlight Black women, in par
ticular — taking
over CEO roles from longtime founders, and not being set up for success — not being supported
enough by their boards, by other folks in the broader community… and that's something that the
Surdna Foundation has taken very seriously over the years. So, I'll just briefly mention that one
thing that we try to do to counteract the “cliff” aspect of it is providing long-term general
support, partnership in many aspects of the work, including learning. We also have an initiative
that my staff has developed called the Resilient Organizations Initiative, in which we basically
pay for technical assistance providers to help nonprofits and leaders with leadership
development, setting up technology systems, fundraising, and financial management. So, I think
we… and there's still a lot of work to be done to make sure that future leaders are successful,
particularly People of Color, who've taken over for long — from long-term, long-time leaders.
[Lesley] Thank you, Don. An
d Akilah, to you. Are you seeing similar — different
— love to have your perspective and why. [Akilah Watkins] So, I absolutely agree with my
panelists, and particularly, you know, obviously I care about Black women and the “glass cliff” for
a lot of different reasons, obviously. I'm — I'm sort of living some — some of that reality. I
also think the thing that is transforming, and that has the most transformative power is around
the role of technology. It is really something we are hearing
just sort of more and more. Artificial
intelligence and sort of the role it will play in philanthropy and the nonprofit sector, I think, is
something that is keeping — keeping me up. I mean, choosing three is hard, but I would be remiss
if I didn't talk about affordable housing, because I am a houser… and, and how I am deeply,
deeply worried about the sort of relationship future Americans will have with the concept
of homeownership. It's transforming radically, in real time, and I think we
should spend
some time talking about it, and help shaping it in a way that's fair and equitable.
[Lesley] So I'm gonna build on that, because I think what we really want to do is
identify the advice, actions, opportunities to really raise the right questions so we can start
to seek the important answers in the sector. And, so, because you really sort of highlighted that
for us, Akilah, let's stay on that for a minute and let's actually talk about affordable housing.
I know it's been a topic
we've all touched on and talked about before I was privileged to be the
research assistant and joint author on this year's affordable housing Trend. And so, what are some
of those key questions — where do you think the sector can really come in, where do you think it
is right now, and where do you think it needs to go? Akilah, if you have thoughts on that, it’d be
great, otherwise, Don, I know you have depth in this, would love to hear your perspective on that.
[Akilah] That's how Don and I
first met — through affordable housing work. So, I'm loving — I'm
sort of waiting to hear your perspective on this, Don. So, I'll say a couple of things. I do
think philanthropy can play a role in the future of affordable housing. I think, first of
all, we have to figure out what is the future, right? How do we envision homeownership being
part of the developmental cycle of people now in America, right? So when we were growing up,
homeownership was just something you did. It was how — it w
as how you sort of entered adulthood,
along with, you know — get a job, get married, homeownership. And now, we've decoupled that in
a lot of ways from what it means to be an adult, and there are a lot of different reasons why we've
done that. I will say this, that in a lot of ways I think philanthropy can help sort of spark and
innovate around homeownership. This is where I think I'm a bit of a relic. I think we have to
really engage public systems in homeownership, affordable homeownershi
p. I think it is a
right of Americans to be able to live in safe homes that they can afford, and I think
that's something we should talk about as part of the social contract of America. What does
that look like, and it's such a vast problem and challenge that I don't particularly think
philanthropy can solve that on its own, outside of creating innovative sort of ideas that public
systems can help scale. So, yeah, I'll stop there. [Lesley] So, Don, I think that was perfectly
teed up for yo
u. If you could take reflection from there… what questions philanthropy should be
asking, and what really is our role, and how do we leverage it to the maximum extent we're able to?
[Don] Yeah, maybe I'll begin by acknowledging that housing is an issue that philanthropy-minded
people have been tackling for over a century. You look back at settlement houses in Chicago, Jane
Hall, and that movement around the turn of the last century, up until the Gray Areas program in
the 1950s, with the Ford
Foundation's involvement, the birth of the community development field,
homeownership — there are different phases and different attempts to try to address this
set of issues and I think it is incredibly, painfully evident today that these measures
that we have in place — the mechanisms, the policy infrastructure is incredibly inadequate,
and we're all paying the price. And, these days, housing is not just defined as housing,
as Akilah said. It is… there's a strong connection to health. Th
ere's a strong connection
to community wealth and well-being. There's a strong connection to environmental outcomes and so
housing is connected to all kinds of pathways, to individual and community well-being, and also, you
know, our global condition. So, it is urgent. As a person who's worked in housing for three decades
now, I think the frustrating realization that many of us have come to is that not only are our
existing tools — whether you're in philanthropy or the private sector or in
the policymaking world
— inadequate, I think that we have a paradigm that is very based on private sector collaboration, tax
credits… we've also seen a system that is brittle, to the point where it really cracked and resulted
in a tremendous loss of wealth and stability for families during the mortgage foreclosure crisis.
And so the thing that I'm really focused on these days — and Surdna is not formally a housing
funder. That's something I'll talk about in a second, but the thing that I'm
focused on these
days is how can funders really come together to develop alternatives to the current system where
you might have, for example, folks who are focused on permanent affordability, on shared equity
homeownership, on deed restrictions to ensure that properties are in permanent affordability, on
land use and other regulatory measures to ensure, for example, that you know properties aren't
purchased to be used as Airbnb properties — those types of things. In addition to that, I thi
nk
there needs to be much more of a narrative and communications effort to underscore the importance
of this set of issues because, as we all know, housing has ripple effects throughout the economy
and it needs to be elevated to a more prominent place in our discourse. When I was at the Ford
Foundation, many foundations were in the process of getting out of the housing field, much to
many of our… you know, we were just really bemoaning that and a number of us came together
and formed a gro
up called Funders for Housing and Opportunity. And that was a focal point to get
foundations to come and work on housing together and to try to encourage other foundations to
do that. At the same time, there was a set of folks working on tenants’ rights and fighting
displacement and those types of issues, and that has grown very robustly through the Right to
the City Network and others, so I feel like there is important work being done but we really need
like a quantum leap in activity and
also a set of paradigm shifts in how we do housing, how we
provide affordability in this country, and that is not really clear how we're going to get there. So
hopefully that'll be in your 2025 Trends report. [Lesley] Absolutely, we're already working on
it, in fact. Stacy, you know you have such a thoughtful and good look across the sector — I'd
be interested, even though it was hard to narrow down to just three in terms of the trends
that sort of resonated with you the most, what was miss
ing? What was surprising that that
we didn't cover? Have you seen things that you expected to see and didn't for some reason?
[Stacy] Yeah… and these are terrific ones, and when we did our own Trends report
we had to leave a lot of things on the cutting room floor. I think there's a broader
leadership issue and crisis in the field, and you can see that through some of these Trends,
but I would expect when you're doing it next year, the number of organizations that can't find
anybody who eve
n wants to lead the organization, the fact that it is not seen as something that is
a great thing to do is incredibly important and it's connected to the way a lot of philanthropy
flows — the lack of unrestricted funding, the lack of multi-year funding is just causing
some folks who had wonderful aspirations to lead their organizations say, “I don't want to do this
anymore.” But they're all becoming consultants to nonprofits, so they are still helping the field
with their expertise, but the
idea that this job isn't a good one and that the entire C-suite is
suffering from a challenge — I think you're going to see that. The other issue we're paying a lot
of attention to and I suspect we'll all want to talk about is the impact of polarization, and what
some people call toxic polarization at this point, which is really dangerous. It's not just because
it's an election year. We are seeing tremendous divides. It's really thwarting philanthropy's
ability to get anything done, and at
The Chronicle, we're going to debut a special section
that kicks off in April that's going to focus on all the ways nonprofits and philanthropy
can make a difference in closing every kind of divide — not just political, but all of the
ones we see in this country, because we think that that's crucially important. So those might
have been some things that I would have included. [Lesley] Absolutely, and if you think about the
way the Trends knit together and — I think, Akilah and Don, you wer
e talking about affordable housing
and the sort of interconnectedness of what it means to be a healthy, stable, vibrant community
in terms of education — housing stability and education success are so intertwined. I'm
interested, and I caught this a little bit in the conversation, Stacy, when you mentioned Gen Z, and
then Akilah, when you were talking about housing, that there's a lot of throughputs and connective
tissue. No one Trend sits in isolation in the same way that no one issue in c
ommunity is
relevant without context to the other issues and needs around it. So I'm interested in any
of those sort of throughputs that you see in the trends that maybe help us make a little bit
of meaning out of those. I just pointed out one, Gen Z and housing. I wonder if there's other
connective tissue that you see throughout the trends that you can help us make a little more
meaning around… in around a thousand words. [Akilah] Well, I'll just add my perspective on it.
I will just say
that Gen Z — the one word I will describe it is going to be tremendous change…
Even in your Trends report, you're a actually listing the life-changing history that folks who
literally have been born in the last 25–30 years have went through, it has been tremendous. When we
think about the mortgage meltdown crisis, COVID, the reorganizing of community, the George Floyd…
I mean there is so… the election, you know, our electoral politics over the last several years.
There's been so much change
, and we are feeling it in the nonprofit sector. Even to Stacy's point
around — and I'm talking specifically around Gen Z — when we think about leadership, like being
an organizational leader was one of the highest achievements you could obtain in the sector. And
today, that is not necessarily the case. And so what looks like success, what looks like having a
very good career — things have just been deeply, radically changed in a way. So what it does in
a lot of ways is that it causes us to
have to be a lot more present — to not have to assume,
you know, the assumptions that I've had — and I'm part of Generation X, I think — so the
you know the assumptions that I’ve had don't necessarily come through in today's world. So
Gen Z-ers aren't actually looking to sort of rise organizationally through the organizational
hierarchy in ways that I was conditioned to, and so what does that mean in terms of how we
prepare the next generation for leadership? It is one of the largest chall
enges we're facing
now, especially as Baby Boomers are retiring… we still have quite a bit of Baby Boomers leading
organizations, leading parts of the sector, and they will be retiring within the next 10
years. We don't necessarily have — not quantity of people ready to take over — but sort of the
natural, internal will to want to take over, because running an organization is different
today. Gen Z-ers are demanding more levels of transparency in organizations. They want more
shared power
models — all these things — whether or not you think they're good or you think
they're not good — they're here to stay. They have incorporated technology in a way that is
very synergistic. And so, I think organizations have to be prepared for the increased amount of
change that Gen Zs are sort of ushering in. I will just say one thing about the toxicity, the
political toxicity, that we find ourselves in. This is one of the major threats to our sector.
The nonprofit sector doesn't just serve
Americans that are in blue or red states. We serve all
Americans, and sometimes part of my job is, I have to remind people of the full breath of
the nonprofit sector. We go where the need is, where the hurt is, and we go to repair, and it
takes a lot. We have to be very intentional about not getting pigeon-holed in these political boxes,
because it's not going to be good for the sector. Americans from all backgrounds volunteer,
they give, they work. 12-and-a-half-million Americans from all
parts of the political aisle
work in the nonprofit sector, and we are very, very inclusive of the political lives of people.
So it's important for us to remind folks of that. [Lesley] Lovely. Stacy? Don? Any feedback
or reflection on that? Don, please go ahead. [Don] Sure. I'm thinking about what Stacy and
Akilah mentioned just now about polarization and Gen Z. So many of the trends that you identified
are inherently about civic participation, democracy, civil society… and that could be a
trend unto itself. I think a lot of us are feeling very acutely that democracy — many aspects
of democracy — institutions, the franchise, etcetera — are really threatened this year, and
it feels quite nerve-wracking. I think what we'll see in 2024 is more and more foundations trying
to devote themselves to ensuring that democratic practices and civil society remain strong, no
matter who becomes president next, no matter what the different administrations try to do… I would
identify that yo
u know if you look at the AAPI participation, the more finer-grained demographic
data that are being collected or will be collected by the federal government, the importance
of the South in this country, politically, culturally, economically… those are all aspects
of civic participation and democracy, and I think funders are really responding to that throughline.
[Lesley] That's terrific. Stacy, any thoughts on that? Any reflections from your perspective?
[Stacy] Yeah, and I think it's fascin
ating especially to think about funding patterns in the
South and whether that stays as a trend, because we've seen inattention to so many parts of this
country — Rural America is often neglected… Maybe that's a question to ask for all of these Trends:
What's the staying power of all of them — the ones that we think are most important? And what can we
do to advance the ones that we want to see, and what do we need to do to avert the real crises?
[Don] I'm happy to say, Lesley, that the many
of the reports and analyses that you cited in
your write-up about the South informed the Surdna Foundation’s strategy to fund more in the
South when I first came, and so we went from about a fifth of our grantee organizations saying
that they worked in the South back in 2019, to today — I think, about a little over a
third. And I think you're starting to see that in a lot of foundations that work nationally.
[Lesley] Absolutely, and I think that's one of the things which is important to note
,
going back to what a trend is, Stacy, which is… it's something that's moving.
And so, to your point, it could be, “We think it's going up.” And so our opportunity,
and the need within the sector, to say, “Okay, if we think it's important and we want
to see the trend continue and advance, or increase in pace, we need to be aware and do
something about it.” Or… a trend is something that's decreasing… it's not advancing, and are
we okay with that? Should we sunset something appropriately an
d move on to something else, or
are we at risk of losing some important currency because we're not asking the questions? Are we
not investing in the types of practice that need to move forward to keep important issues at the
forefront and moving forward? So I think that's the interesting thing about a trend… we feel like
it's something that's advancing, getting larger, but it may not necessarily be. I think down
to your point — and this was a question — I'm going outside the Q&A — that some
body put in the
chat… was about the approach to the trends and about their rigor. I think in some instances one
could almost see that the citations are as long as the actual thousand-word articles. These are
deeply researched, very, very, very rigorous, deeply engaged work to try to — as you know is
the purview of the Johnson Center — to ensure that… we go where the research takes us. And I
think that's something that's really critical. One of the things that I think we're building
on a li
ttle bit is… how is what you're seeing in the trends going to help inform your work? How
do you take back what you're hearing, in terms of raising those questions that you think need to
be asked? We talked about that a little bit with affordable housing, but in even in the proposed
changes to Federal race and ethnicity standards, this will change the way our sector operates.
What do we have to do to think through that, to be prepared, and to lean into the real meaning of
what could be happe
ning? … It's a big question — I can restate it, but what do you see here that
you want to prioritize? Let's ask it that way. [Akilah] Let me just say… it's a lot of
stuff to prioritize. But I will just say… a few things. I think your Trend about the
South was particularly interesting to me, partly because when we're talking about electoral
politics, nonprofit organizations are one of the key ways that we can move Americans to the polls.
And so nonprofits are great way for Americans to deepl
y get involved in civic life, whether that's
voting, whether that's volunteering in their local community, whether it's tackling… larger issues.
To see the political strength in the South grow, and minority strength in the South grow — I mean,
minority growth in the South is growing among all groups. I also think it's going to be a hot-bed
for electoral politics, too. It's important for us to make sure that organizations in the South have
a really good handle on advocacy… At Independent Sec
tor, we just did a report called A Retreat From
Influence where we looked at how advocacy numbers across the sector have been declining. 22 years
ago, about 61% of nonprofits participated in some level of political advocacy at a local, state,
or federal level. That number is roughly around 31% today. When we think about where we are as a
society in terms of how many Americans vote, how many Americans are volunteering… that worries us —
that nonprofits are not seizing their power in the way
that they could. In the South, in particular,
this is going to be a very interesting time because it is growing in terms of its political
strength, in terms of its population strength, and we at Independent Sector are really trying to just
take a more focused look on the South — making sure that the organizations down there are strong,
and they understand how to advocate, and that they understand the rules of advocacy, that they have
strong coalitions to tap into, and that funders know how
important it is to fund advocacy work. In
fact, we want to highlight some of the importance of why it's important to invest in the nonprofit
sector, particularly in the South, and we will be doing that with our national convening happening
in Atlanta in 2025 — just as one example. [Lesley] I think that raises a good point… it's
sort of going one level below… it's one thing to look in sort of an overarching way at how things
are trending in the South, but in terms of the changes in philanthr
opy and grantmaking… what does
it mean in terms of, specifically, what are the program areas? Don, you give a terrific statistic
that said we went from X percent to Y percent, but from a program or strategy or context perspective,
what does that change reflect for the foundation, for your focus… I think if we can go one
step below that it'd be helpful to understand what it means to make that kind of shift.
[Don] I can take the next crack at your question — I'd like to answer your question in
four ways.
[Lesley] Please! [Don] The first way is going to break the rules.
I'm going to answer — I'm going to ask for a… prioritization of something that is not one of the
11 Trends, and that is the fact that we're seeing a backlash against racial equity, inclusion, and
racial justice efforts. This is something that is has been covered very well in The Chronicle of
Philanthropy and other outlets, and it is very concerning. I think this is the priority for the
Surdna Foundation and many o
thers, and it really gets at so many of these other important themes,
i.e., democratic participation, making sure we have an inclusive society, trying to solve
problems together, overcoming polarization… So that would be the first thing I would prioritize.
The second one I would prioritize is in the category of things that foundations can do in
their tightest spheres of influence — in other words, things that they can do right now. I would
address the “glass ceiling” issue, supporting women
of color — Black women in particular — who
have taken over as CEOs and making sure that, as funders, we're really signaling support for these
leaders through leadership development, through other types of efforts beyond the money, beyond
the check. To me, that's critically important. A third category is what I would describe as things
that we can prioritize where a little bit of extra help goes a long way. I would count the AANHPI
grantmaking as a factor there. As you noted in your report,
only 20 cents of every $100 of
philanthropic resources go to AANHPI organizations and communities, and even if foundations and
donors did a little bit more it would make a big difference in that regard. And then, finally,
things that I think are outside perhaps individual grantmakers’ and individual foundations’
influence, but really require partnership — I would say AI falls in that category. I'm speaking
at tomorrow's AI & Philanthropy Forum here in New York City, and… one of the big the
mes is the
importance of partnerships. I think so many of us, even those who are paying very close attention
to the field, don't really know exactly what to expect… All these issues are coming thick
and fast, and we really need to problem-solve, analyze, develop solutions together
—private sector, government, nonprofits, philanthropy. We need to work across sectors to
try to identify things that are really important to our society and how we can head off some of the
looming challenges that
people have already begun to identify. So, those would be the four ways I
would answer your question about prioritization. [Lesley] I'm gonna go one step deeper
— and this is a tough one, Don, so, managing your expectations… Going back to
AI and the partnership and the approach, which I think reflects back to some of the
conversation we had on affordable housing… which, for me, goes to the role of philanthropy, which
is a question often asked. So if you look at AI, in this case — because i
t builds on your last
comment — and you look at the sort of cadre of partners that need to come together, is there
a particular role that philanthropy should lean into hard and really occupy a space? And what
does it do… that's generative or supportive or advances the overall partnership? What role do we
play in that puzzle, or what role should we play? [Don] You want me to take that on first?
[Lesley] I do, I do. [Don] Okay, I'm happy to. Actually, reading your
report, I was surprised to k
now that foundations have played a role in in the development of AI,
historically, and that that was fascinating unto itself… I think, for me, the key thing is…
the development of an ethical framework, the development of standards, expectations,
what we want from our AI… I've been a student of technology and its effect on society for for
decades, and I have a healthy appreciation for the fact that technology comes in many forms.
It's really the human beings that shape what happens to it — h
ow we use it, how we allow each
other to use it… and that suggests a regulatory environment, an ethical framework, development
of societal norms and narratives about what technology should do for us… And to me, we
still don't have that… That would be a nice counterbalance to some of the techno-optimists,
who, of course — bless them — they have the ability to imagine better things in our lives
and problems being solved in innovative ways. At the same time, we have to take the doomsdayers
ve
ry seriously, because a lot of this stuff can go sideways very quickly. So, that ethical framework,
and understanding societal expectations and norms I think is going to be critical.
[Lesley] Thank you. And Stacey, I'd like to move that question to you because… in
the 2024 Trends report, this was our third trend on AI… So from your long-lens perspective, I'm
interested if you have a sense of how far we've come and how effective philanthropy may have
been in occupying a role that is narrative
in how society moves forward in the space. Do you see
anything? Anything come to mind as you think back to the evolution of how we got to where we are?
[Stacy] Yeah, and obviously philanthropy plays such an important role in many of these things,
but I think… technology has moved so fast in this area that there's always a concern that
philanthropy isn't doing quite enough to do what Don was talking about — to make sure that
the most vulnerable are protected… What else can philanthropy do ex
cept speak out for the people
who are most likely to be left out by some of these technology changes, and hurt and harmed,
because the technology companies —that is not their main interest in life… So there's wonderful
things that we can all get excited about, but philanthropy’s work in fighting misinformation,
doing all of those kinds of things, it just needs to accelerate in so many ways — we see bad
actors happening. And philanthropy is not known for its speed, so one thing I think we're
really
going to need to see is everybody really up their game. I'm really curious about the conference
you're going to, Don, tomorrow. I mean, it's urgent that people be talking about this. But I am
glad that you've had it for three years already. [Lesley] Absolutely. Well we're just coming to the
conclusion of the conversation we have before we move to the Q&A. There's been folks, as they've
listened to our discussion, who have some things they want to inquire about. But before I do that
— I'm just curious to know if any of the panelists have a question they'd like to ask to one their
colleague panelists. Anything… any perspective, any reflection you'd like to have from one
another before we move to the Q&A? … Alright. Well I think… our 500+ people are going to
be very excited that we get to move quickly to the Q&A. We'll try to get through as many of
those questions as we can. Just a quick note that some of them are multi-part questions — they're
very long, so I will do m
y best to read quickly and to try to summarize. I'm going to start with a
shorter one. Susan is hoping that we will be able to clarify why isn't it enough to be a nonprofit
leader anymore. What is the challenge? Akilah, you were articulating that there seems to
be some barrier or lack of appeal or lack of attractiveness… what is it you're seeing? And then
I'll ask an additional… you answered this a little bit before, what we can do, but this is sort of
a diagnostic question. If you have any
additional insights — or any of the other panelists.
[Akilah] I think that's the right question. So, a couple of different things… I just completed
an 11-city listening tour, so I have talked to probably close to about a thousand nonprofit
leaders around, “why is it so hard to do your job these days?” So I think a couple things… One
is, people came back from COVID just different, right? … Work got deprioritized in our lives
because we were all facing personal existential and collective exis
tential threats over the last
three years. So people are coming back — so even coming back to the office, people aren't
doing that. So leaders now are having to manage organizations with people that live across
the country and sometimes across the world. That's difficult. That's difficult in some ways, because
our definitions of organizational culture have been very, sort of, spatially limited… we're in
the same office, we're in the same place, we build community, we work on these issues to
gether, and
now that's not the case. So for a lot of leaders, they have to try to manage staff in times where
it's hard to hold organizational culture when people aren't collectively in the same space.
So that's one. And two, people's ideal around power… organizational hierarchy… they've shifted.
They have changed, and we are not going back to those days… And if you've been in the nonprofit
sector as long as me and my colleagues have here, you remember those days, right? So our definitions
or our prioritization around work has shifted and, now, staff… they want more power, want more
transparency as to how decisions are made, they want more participatory leadership
— all these things take… they're not bad things — they're actually really good things, but
they take additional time. They take additional resources. And sometimes that doesn't
happen. Like, you don't get the sort of resources you need. I think the other important
structural thing is that it just costs more to oper
ate a nonprofit today. For a lot of our
nonprofit leaders, healthcare premiums have, for some… they've almost doubled in one calendar
year, and funding has not matched the operational cost of nonprofits. So we're asking leaders
to manage staffs coming back who need more, in a lot of ways, mental health services. People
have long-term physical ailments due to COVID, and our health insurance may be, woefully, able to
sort of deal with these challenges. And it costs more to get your staff what
they need, and the
funding isn't there. So, when I say that the world has shifted — and it has shifted at such a such
a speed — that I think now, I think we're sort of deeply feeling the ramifications of this. And I'll
say one other thing that's sort of happening in our sector is in a lot of ways there's a lot of
collectivism work happening and unionization of the sector is happening, and again, organizational
leaders don't necessarily have a toolkit or training or even dollars available t
o sort of go
through these processes of unionization. So for a lot of organizational leaders, it feels like
before COVID they were one way, they came back, they had to manage through COVID which was crazy
for all of us, and now they came back, and it's like they're coming back to a different world now
with a lot of different challenges, and not enough resources to meet what the immediate challenge
is. So, all of this is happening simultaneously. [Lesley] And so there's such interdependency
in the sector, right? And so I'd be interested, Stacy and then Don, if you have some reflections
on that. Is there a sense of recognition that the health of the nonprofit infrastructure,
and the role it plays in our society, and how interdependent that is with the success
of the work of philanthropic intention — you know, that foundations and grantmakers have…
Do you think there's some recognition — I mean we've certainly, for years, gone
through the general operating support, program supp
ort… pendulum back and forth — but is
there some sense in terms of the under-recognition of the cost of overhead, the increasing cost
of doing business in the nonprofit sector, for a lack of a better way to say that. Do you
see that there's an openness to that conversation and change being made? I don't know if you've
seen that, Stacy or Don. Your thoughts on that? [Stacy] I'm going to let Don answer first.
[Don] Sure. I definitely see greater a understanding… the foundations that
I work —
that we work very closely with — are already very attuned to that. Generally, you know,
foundations that have a social justice mission, that recognize the true costs of what it takes to
run a nonprofit that's mission-oriented, that's trying to do systems-change which takes many
years to accomplish… A number of years ago — and this was covered in The Chronicle, as well — a
consortium of large foundations commissioned a study on the true cost of running a nonprofit and
came up with a number t
hat was perhaps surprising to many funders because it was much bigger than
overhead rates that are allowed in grantmaking, but reflected… what's actually true in the
field. So I think there's more openness to it, and yet there's still such a long way to go. I
think people out in the broader world — individual donors and foundations and whatnot — still use a
lot of those websites that use different metrics for assessing the quality of a nonprofit, and
some of those are… the lowest overhead r
ate, and they don't realize that they apply mainly to
organizations that are service oriented or passing money through or services through, as opposed
to organizations that are really trying to seek change and also, you know, want to pay their staff
and provide healthcare benefits and leadership opportunities and professional development and all
those types of things that you would expect from other sectors. So that's one thing. Second thing
is… I think for those of us in philanthropy that
support philanthropy-serving organizations — we
fund a lot of philanthropy-serving organizations as part of the infrastructure of this field.
I've been trying to get my staff to think about nonprofit-serving-organizations, that nonprofit
infrastructure groups like Independent Sector, how can we play more of a role, just a more
intentional effort to try to support the organizations and networks that really help
nonprofits with their work. And so, to me, that's there needs to be a little bit
of paradigm
shift there, because foundations tend to support philanthropy-serving organizations in large part.
[Lesley] Stacy, anything you'd like to reflect on? [Stacy] Yeah, and the reason I wanted Don to
answer first is that he's part of a group of philanthropists that do understand this
issue and advocate for it. Writ large, I am not sure that we're seeing as much of that
as everyone had hoped, especially, you know, in the wake of the pandemic. Everybody dropped
the restrictions and sai
d “we're going to give multi-year funding” and “we're going to do
this” and there's been a retrenchment on that, as far as we can tell. And so I think in the
field, writ large, this battle still has to come. I interviewed a large number of nonprofit
leaders — doing something probably similar to what Akilah did — and I asked them “what is the one
thing you would love foundations to do that would help make you stay on the job?” And I expected
them to say leadership coaching, sabbaticals, and
all those kinds of things. And they all
said multi-year, unrestricted funding. That's what they need. And it's so simple! It's not more
money. It doesn't take more to do it. It is within our grasps, and yet we still can't do it. So
I hope that there will be more conversation. I'm really glad we had this question.
[Lesley] Thank you, yes. And so this is one that's maybe a little bit more provocative
and I think… it's a question about, essentially, about the growth of the nonprofit sector and
where it is now, and is there a sense of… are you seeing redundancy? Are you seeing that
the nonprofit sector, which can move slowly, as we talked about foundations, that it's not…
that it has a harder time stopping something as it starts something else. So as certain
populations age and change, you know, where they are and what their needs are in the sector,
as Boomers retire, as issues in community change… is there some sense that some organizations
are out-living their utility or aren't
changing quickly enough to adjust to changing needs in
our sector? The question here is really about… does it continue to grow unabated without enough
reflection on itself as a sector? I'll sort of… it's a very long question. I'm trying to quickly
par paraphrase parts of it. So, I don't know, any thoughts or reflections on that question?
[Don] I'm happy to take first crack. So, a couple years ago I read a wonderful book
called “Public Citizens” by Paul Sabin, who's a historian at Yale. It's
about… it largely
focuses on Ralph Nader and… his contribution to dramatically expanding the nonprofit sector and
creating a different ethos within… essentially, in American liberalism. You know, prior to the era
of ‘Naders Raiders,’ you had New Deal liberalism from the FDR days where folks really trusted
in government and they trusted in government experts and there was a partnership between
government labor and corporations and, you know, they really ran things. Then you had had Ralph
N
ader, and various similar things emerge where there was a real skepticism of government and
labor and corporations brought in. And what was really interesting about that book and how it's
relevant today is that we've seen this tremendous growth in the nonprofit sector, where you have
folks… when I came into the nonprofit field, you had a whole generation — several generations
of professionals — who came in wanting to do… to gather evidence and to do research and develop
good policy ideas an
d develop solutions and build partnerships. Then — and this is more on the
policy side — work with people in government and work with people from across the political
spectrum, republicans and democrats, and… win victories in terms of policy and see that through
to implementation. These days, I think that is still a workable model but it's harder and harder
to do that based on evidence and willingness to work across the aisle. One thing that I think
we've seen become much more important in
the nonprofit space, in the social change space, is
the importance of narrative change, the importance of getting people to… look at their worldview and
reassess and determine whether the way they see things working, the narratives that they have in
their head, are actually valid, and can those be applied to solutions. And, increasingly, I think
more and more of our political discourse and the investment in it is really devoted to either
trying to shape people's public opinions and their co
nventional wisdom and not really towards
evidence. So, I think the nonprofit sector really needs to do a lot more on narrative — excuse
me — on narrative change in communications, and that's something that I would prioritize.
[Lesley] Thank you. And this one — I think we we're getting close to the end, and so
because AI was such a topic of conversation, apologies that we couldn't get to all the
questions. I'm gonna end on this one about AI. And this is from somebody who's a fundraiser
who s
tates that they've been asked to incorporate AI into the streamlining of their tasks so that
there's an expectation that they're going to get more efficient or more productive by integrating
AI into the nature of their business and their work. And he wonders… they wonder about the
impact this has on how they think about their job, on ideas about job security, and about where the
sector, writ large, is going to trend if there's that expectation that now, you know, we're talking
about not hav
ing enough administrative support, right? And now, on the other side, there's
this growing sense of, you know, we need to weave in efficiency and greater productivity
and that AI is going to allow us to do that. And so I think, interesting. Any thoughts
about that, in response to this question? [Stacy] We've written a lot about that on the
impact on fundraising and how people are trying to do that and that hope that there can be more
real live interaction with donors instead of all that adm
inistrative kind of work. And I think
some people are finding already that it's useful, but you know, we also find some of the limits.
You can't let chat GPT write your grant proposals entirely without you looking at it or write a
note to a donor, because there are going to be incredible mistakes and rather embarrassing ones.
But if we can relieve some of the tedium that goes into the administrative task involvement
— fundraising is one area where there's a lot of that, and not nearly as mu
ch of talking to
donors, making sure that fundraising, you know, is really relational and not transactional. AI
has tremendous potential, so I hope we will keep talking about some those things. And you've
probably read things that Allison Vine and Beth Kanter have written about — we have a lot of
them on our site. You can find them elsewhere. I urge you to take a look at those things.
[Lesley] Thank you very much, Stacy. And with that, our webinar is going to come
to conclusion. I can't tha
nk Stacy, you, Akilah, and Don enough for your time, for your
thoughtfulness, and for your deep and broad commitment to the field. This is a one small
window into how dedicated and fabulous you all are as colleagues and as leaders in the sector, so
I really can't thank you all enough for spending time with us today. I want to urge everybody on
the webinar to respond to the evaluation — they'll get a link out which requests an evaluation.
We'd love to know how we do. We appreciate your feedb
ack. We want to make sure we do better and
bring you questions and information that really empower you. We will also be sending out a link to
the recording, so that'll be available to watch on demand on our website and our YouTube channel.
So feel free to watch it again, to share it out to provoke more conversation. Please follow us —
follow the Johnson Center on LinkedIn and YouTube. And you can see a full list of upcoming programs
on our site, johnsoncenter.org. Again, my great gratitude
to our panelists. And I also want to
thank everybody from across the country and beyond for joining us here today for this important
conversation. I wish everybody a wonderful rest of their week, and I look forward to engaging again
on these important and other important topics.
Comments