Voices From the Field: Reimagining Giving in a Shifting Landscape.
Word Cloud of Key Themes in Listening Sessions.
Voices from the Field: Reimagining Giving in a Shifting Landscape
Listening Sessions Data Analysis Report
July 2025
“We are thinking about risk and wondering how the nonprofits we fund are doing and whether or not they will close their doors.” Participant
In spring 2025, Idaho Partners for Good initiated a series of listening sessions with philanthropic foundation leaders across Idaho and the broader Pacific Northwest to better understand how external pressures—including political polarization, economic uncertainty, and government funding cuts—are shaping their giving strategies. Participants included leaders from local, regional, and national foundations collectively stewarding more than $148 million in annual grantmaking.
From our direct experience working alongside nonprofits, we know Idaho’s nonprofit sector is at a critical inflection point. Through these sessions, we wanted to explore whether philanthropic foundations are experiencing a similar shift—and if so, whether there is an opportunity to approach this convergence of critical factors differently, together. The impetus? We were hearing loud and clear from the nonprofit sector about the pain they were experiencing and we wondered if this mirrored what was occurring in philanthropy.
With government grants comprising nearly one-third of nonprofit budgets in Idaho—and additional cuts anticipated—the pressure on private philanthropy has mounted. Compounding this are uncertainties around the passage of federal legislation (H.R. 1), leaving many foundations grappling with its implications for their operations and long-term grantmaking capacity. Several foundations reported a significant surge in funding requests, in some cases nearly doubling. Leaders described the tension between wanting to serve the most under-resourced communities and the need to demonstrate measurable impact, all while navigating limited staffing and organizational capacity.
Despite these challenges, a tone of cautious optimism emerged. Foundation leaders expressed a growing appetite for collaboration among grantees, more opportunities to convene with peers, and greater clarity around shared learning and accountability. Many highlighted the urgent need for stronger nonprofit infrastructure, innovative funding models, and support for cross-sector partnerships.
This report synthesizes the insights gathered from those conversations and offers strategic recommendations to guide Idaho Partners for Good’s role in this evolving landscape—from catalyzing collaborative dialogue to equipping nonprofits with practical tools and amplifying stories of courageous philanthropy. It underscores a timely call to action: to reimagine giving in a way that meets this moment with humility, innovation, and bold leadership.
“All the nonprofits we know are being touched; the rare ones are not touched.” Participant
Why Idaho Partners for Good?
From the start (2020) we have positioned ourselves as the go-to partner to reimagine giving in Idaho. We know Idaho Partners for Good (IP4G) is uniquely positioned at the intersection of nonprofit practice and philanthropic insight. With a five-year track record of serving over 100 Idaho nonprofits—many in rural or serving under-resourced communities—we understand firsthand the operational and leadership challenges nonprofits face. We are also trusted by philanthropic leaders across the state, who look to us as a neutral convener, strategic partner, and translator between the two sectors.
Our hybrid model allows us to deliver high-touch, capacity-building services at no cost to many nonprofits, thanks to our unique reinvestment approach: 40% of all consulting revenue is redirected into pro bono support and grantmaking. This means when we work with a foundation or corporate partner, their dollars go further—expanding the reach and sustainability of nonprofits across the state.
In this time of volatility, IP4G offers three distinct advantages:
We listen to those in the field in real time (surface field intelligence) and translate it into actionable insights for funders, including ourselves.
We design and deliver tools and training that address root causes, not just symptoms.
We convene cross-sector champions with courage and credibility to inspire new solutions, not just talk about them.
This report is not simply a summary of trends. It is a roadmap for what’s next—and an invitation to philanthropic foundations to work with IP4G to lead boldly, fund differently, and create lasting, systemic impact in Idaho. The future of giving starts now. Let’s reimagine what’s possible together!
Background
About one-third of the funding Idaho nonprofits receive annually comes from government sources (federal, state, city, county). A report from the Urban Institute indicated that Idaho nonprofits receive over $643,000,000 annually from these sources. According to this report, it directly affects the grant funding of 477 Idaho nonprofits (Note: this is an underestimate because it does not include funding from reimbursements or contracted services). If philanthropy wanted to cover this gap they would have to give away 3x what they do now. This gap highlights the scale of the challenge and the need for systemic solutions, rather than expecting philanthropy alone to absorb the shortfall.
This data is compounded by what is occurring nationwide, “There’s a lot of uncertainty, a lot of volatility, especially in financial markets,” said Una Osili, (associate dean Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy). “When you’re not sure exactly what’s happening and the news is changing, that sometimes leads to donors just being uncertain and not acting. Uncertainty can dampen giving.”
While the overall charitable giving picture is mixed, one positive trend is the growth of giving over time by Foundations (19% in 2024) per Giving USA. The graph below is data from Giving USA and is adjusted for inflation. It illustrates the growth of Foundation giving nationally over time: 1984 = $207.1B, 2004=$432.2B, 2024=$592.5B. (Note: over this same period individual giving has shrunk from 82% in 1984 to 66% in 2024.)
Foundations Participating in the Listening Sessions
IP4G’s CEO conducted mostly one-on-one interviews either virtually or in-person with fourteen participants. At a few interviews two leaders were present. The interviews were conducted between April-July 2025 with the following organizations.
County-based funding: SPUR Foundation
Boise metro-based funding: Brandt Foundation, Idaho Women's Charitable Foundation
Statewide/Idaho-based funding: Idaho Community Foundation, J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Foundation, Laura Moore Cunningham Foundation
Region-based funding (eastern Washington/North Idaho): Innovia Foundation
Northwest Pacific Funding: Murdock Charitable Trust, Philanthropy NW
Other: LOR Foundation (rural-focused), Simplot (global)
Estimated Annual Giving (2023/2024)
Brandt Foundation: $1.4M
Idaho Community Foundation: $11M
Idaho Women's Charitable Foundation: $300,000
Innovia Foundation: $9M
J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Foundation: $30-$38M
Laura Moore Cunningham Foundation: $6.8M
LOR Foundation: $4.9M
M. J. Murdock Charitable Trust: $80M
Philanthropy NW: Not available
Simplot Corporate Foundation: $2.9M
SPUR Foundation: $3.7M
Interview Questions Were Designed to:
Get to the heart of how external pressures are shaping foundations’ priorities.
Identify their emotional pain points and/or urgent concerns.
Understand their timeline preferences and whether they were sensing an urgency to respond differently, given the moment in time.
Understand whether they were exploring any strategic adjustments or experiments currently or in the near future.
Open a values-based discussion about outcomes, trust, and impact of their giving.
Understand their level of caution, boldness, and/or the desire for innovation.
Understand their appetite for collaboration, and who they go to for insight and support (backbone organizations, or trusted advisors.)
Note: the list of questions is in the Appendix.
“You can’t ‘nonprofit’ your way out of everything. It is going to cost Idaho to have these services delivered by nonprofits.” Participant
Methods
The recommendations presented in this report are drawn from an analysis and synthesis of the interview transcripts. Emotion, tone, and thematic patterns were discerned from the interviews. With AI-assistive tools, we examined keywords, themes, and sentiments connected with the emergent themes. Our evaluation team interpreted these findings and are sharing insights and actionable recommendations in this report. A full description of the methods is included in the Appendix.
Keyword Analysis Insights
As anticipated, the keywords used most frequently and reflected on the Word Cloud on the report cover include: foundation, nonprofits, funding, need, Idaho, and support.
Because we anticipated seeing these top level keywords, we dug deeper into the data and found a more nuanced set of keywords. These keywords deserve closer attention based on individual responses and in light of the current data from these sectors (see hyperlinks). Secondary keywords include:
Thinking: Reimagining a foundation’s giving approach requires time for careful consideration. From our experience in both the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors, we know that the “tyranny of the urgent" often crowds out the intentional time leaders need for strategic thinking.
Staffing:This has long been a critical concern in the nonprofit sector (see staffing)—and is now becoming increasingly problematic for philanthropic foundations as they grapple with rising demand for grants, grantee support, and internal capacity constraints.
Understanding: Research shows that although more foundations are adopting responsive practices—like reducing restrictions and streamlining their application process—grantee-reported data indicates this does not fully address the most pressing needs (e.g., staffing challenges, multi-year unrestricted funding, community understanding). (See State of Nonprofits 2024)
Impact: This remains a key area of disconnect between funders and grantees. Many philanthropic funders continue to rely on business-style metrics—such as return on investment or cost per outcome—while nonprofits are often evaluated based on the volume of people served, rather than the depth or sustainability of impact. For example, one interviewee shared the tension between a grantor’s need to “get philanthropic resources out efficiently” so they seek easy to report information from the nonprofits which comes at the expense of “the stories of their grantees” which helps their members “feel like their donation makes a big impact” (see appendix). Research from the Center for Effective Philanthropy and the Stanford Social Innovation Review highlights that this mismatch often leads to frustration and misaligned expectations on both sides, especially when nonprofits are pressured to quantify outcomes in ways that don’t reflect the complexity of their work.
Giving: For many nonprofits, the most pressing concern right now is simply staying open. While it's too early to fully quantify the impact of government funding cuts across Idaho, nonprofit leaders consistently report that the current level of financial uncertainty and instability is unlike anything they’ve experienced before. This aligns with national trends showing unprecedented strain on the sector due to inflation, reduced public funding, and increased demand for services.
Theme Identification Insights
Cultural & Political Climate
Current political/cultural polarization is influencing philanthropic decisions; leaders are seeking ways to navigate. There is a desire for neutral convening and more civil and civic dialogue.
Government Funding Cuts
Widespread concern expressed across both sectors (nonprofit/philanthropic) over unmet demand; leaders acknowledged there is an ability for private funding to step in, but it would not be enough.
Shifting Grantmaking Strategies
Some emphasis on responsive (emergency) funding, but most looking at holding to their upstream investments (eg. mental health equity and justice).
Overwhelmed; Burnout
Foundation leaders report they are having struggles managing their capacity to respond, underlining the need for streamlined processes.
Collaboration & Convening Support
Many want IP4G (or a similar type of leader) to serve as a convener/organizer of cross-sector collaboration.
Philanthropic Identity Crisis
This moment has some leaders reflecting deeply on their organization's purpose and broader impact.
Risk & Innovation
There is a mixed appetite for innovation—most are open if supported by clear accountability and shared learning.
Sentiment Analysis Insights.
These are the main sentiments identified with a few contextual details.
While nuanced, the overall tone across themes suggests:
While some uncertainty remains, funders generally expressed interest in exploring new approaches—especially those grounded in partnership and learning
A cautious optimism exists when discussing collaborative opportunities and innovation.
There is an anxiety tied to financial shortfalls and stretched capacity for the foundation and their grantees.
A neutral-to-slightly-positive sentiment around IP4G’s potential role as a convener organization.
Actionable Recommendations
“We need to rely on the nonprofit sector to lead us. We are all for making the community healthy.” Participant
Based on the keyword analysis, theme identification, and sentiment findings, the following targeted recommendations are offered for use by Idaho Partners for Good (IP4G), the philanthropic foundations that participated in the listening sessions as well as others that fund nonprofits in Idaho.
These recommendations are designed to bridge sector disconnects, respond to emerging needs, and position funders for greater collective impact during this time of volatility and transition. We know we have a bias toward action and want to bring as many systems leaders along, as possible.
Overall Insights from Listening Sessions
There is a growing sense of responsibility and urgency as public funding retracts. Philanthropic foundations are setting aside time to consider how these broader external pressures might need to shape their current and future priorities.
Many respondents acknowledged their foundation staff (or those in their networks) are overwhelmed but open to strategic, responsive grantmaking.
There seems to be not just an appetite but encouragement for nonprofits to collaborate. Yet funding for capacity-building is not as wide-spread as the sector needs. A few respondents have historically built this in. Based on this insight, we think there is a need for a trusted entity (like IP4G) to continue to educate and serve as an intermediary between philanthropy and the nonprofit sectors.
While pain points and urgent concerns are varied there is a general uncertainty about the future of our political, cultural and funding landscapes.
There is a perceived harm to the national giving “infrastructure” as a result of government cuts. With this, there is growing recognition that philanthropy alone cannot fill the funding gap left by government cuts.
Most have experienced an increase in funding requests in the past 12 months.
There is a general positive sentiment toward the need to innovate.
A common element of the various definitions offered for effective philanthropy is that it must have a measurable impact on the community.
Many funders are open to collaboration but lack infrastructure and coordination.
There is a tension between maintaining neutrality and engaging more boldly in response to cultural and political shifts.
Foundations want better data, closer relationships with grantees, and to invest in long-term solutions.
“What keeps me up at night are vulnerable populations… some of these shortfalls are going to kill people.” Participant
Recommendations
Set Aside Dedicated Space for Leaders to Think Strategically: Prioritize and facilitate protected, agenda-free spaces personally, as an organization and with the Board beyond the normal strategic planning process. The keyword “thinking” signals a strong need to set aside more high quality intentional reflection time.
Strengthen IP4G’s Role as a Cross-Sector Convener: Leverage IP4G’s neutral positioning and trusted relationships to convene funders, nonprofits, and civic leaders. Focus convenings on themes like the future of philanthropy in Idaho, equitable impact metrics, and collaborative funding models. Many leaders expressed a desire for safe, nonpartisan spaces to engage. Philanthropic foundations have both the credibility and the convening power to bring diverse actors to the table. These gatherings aren’t just for listening—they are for sparking new ideas, surfacing shared priorities, and accelerating coordinated action. Foundations can lead by modeling collaboration and using their influence to catalyze solutions that no single organization could achieve alone.
Host roundtables, learning sessions, and/or design-thinking workshops that create space for open, honest dialogue. Some could be targeted to facilitate funder collaboration around specific projects, sharing best practices, co-funding initiatives, and/or engaging in collective advocacy.
Research the 477 Idaho nonprofits that experienced significant government cuts and identify the foundations currently funding them. Use their credibility and leverage collectively to design solutions to keep Idahoans from experiencing increasing challenges in their access to healthcare, housing, food, recovery support services and other key indicators of well-being.
Develop and Distribute Capacity Infrastructure Tools: Nonprofits are being asked to do more with fewer resources, all while navigating staffing shortages, outdated systems, and overwhelming administrative demands. We urge foundations to advocate for and invest in the full cost of nonprofit effectiveness: staffing, leadership development, data systems, technology, and operational resilience. This is not overhead—it is capacity. It is what allows nonprofits to respond quickly, collaborate meaningfully, and deliver lasting impact. If we want strong, sustainable organizations that can withstand shocks and scale solutions, we must move beyond program-only funding and support the backbone of the work.
IP4G should scale up the creation and dissemination of simple tools and templates to help nonprofits assess, communicate, and plan for infrastructure needs. These could include the use of the IP4G Organizational Diagnostic Tool to uncover strengths and opportunities to build their capacity.
Use time saving tools like the McGovern Foundation new Grant Guardian platform for financial due diligence: https://www.mcgovern.org/our-work/data-solutions/grant-guardian/
Equip Foundations with “Grantee Understanding” Tools
There is an inherent imbalance of power that often keeps nonprofits from fully disclosing their needs beyond the programs and services. Equipping Foundations with education about what nonprofits are really facing is more important than ever—particularly regarding staffing, mission-aligned evaluation, and multi-year financial planning. These sessions should center nonprofit voices, allowing funders to deepen empathy and gain actionable insight.The development of a sustainability toolkit could include an emphasis on strategic partnerships, mergers, collaborative funding, etc. Philanthropy can support and/or pay for legal expertise specifically.
Provide tools such as the Organizational Diagnostic Tool (ODT) to help foundations assess their grantee-readiness to level up.
Design a Shared Impact Language Across Sectors
Use IP4G’s research and practitioner lens to co-create a more aligned and equitable framework for use by both foundations and nonprofits to measure impact. There is a need for a framework to measure not just an organization’s ability to meet their mission, their organizational capacity and their program impact. Any framework must ensure that success is measured not only by scale or efficiency, but by how deeply and sustainably communities are being served—especially those historically under-resourced.Publish calls to action: "Let’s Fund the Plumbing." Use data and case studies to argue for capacity-building, backbone support, and innovation funding.
Co-create with the communities impacted to ensure long-term, equitable change. Equity and impact are not competing priorities—they are mutually reinforcing and lead to more holistic outcomes.
Offer a Collaborative Giving and/or Sharing Lab: Some foundations are doing very innovative work and need a space to share their lessons learned as well as the tools and resources that they have developed that show promise. IP4G can act as a neutral administrator, impact reporter, and accountability partner to test small pilot projects with the potential for impact at the systems level. With over 10,000 Idaho-based nonprofits registered with the IRS there is a compelling need to rethink and reimagine how this sector serves the community and shares what works.
Design a Research and Development space to facilitate shared practices, and potentially pooled-funding cohorts with the intent to explore scaling what works, testing new business models, mergers, shared staff, outsourcing and/or greater collaboration (e.g., mental health, food security, housing, rural). This could be a designated space set aside to leverage collective resources.
Support Storytelling and Impact Communication Across the Philanthropic Foundation Sector
Help foundations collect, craft, and share compelling stories of impact. One idea is to elevate stories of courageous philanthropy. Documenting and publishing bold experiments with a “learning-focused” lens—even when outcomes are mixed.
Track and share trends in giving conditions across Idaho to monitor public and philanthropic funding trends, emerging risks, and innovation opportunities. Share concise, actionable, data-informed updates to help the sector respond in real time and reduce fragmentation in how different players understand and navigate the landscape.
“In challenging times, we need people to think differently about their work. There is not enough money to fund them individually but we could fund a collaborative.” Participant
Partnering with IP4G: What Foundations Can Do Next
The future of Idaho’s nonprofit sector—and the communities they serve—will be shaped by what we do now. With significant federal funding cuts and a change in the tax structure for foundations on the horizon, philanthropy could play a more strategic role in guiding and leveraging the resources in these sectors. Idaho Partners for Good has a role to play and we are ready to lead—but we can’t do it alone.
Ready to talk? Let’s co-create a partnership rooted in bold leadership, shared learning, and community resilience. We’ll work with you to design deliverables that speak to your board, your values and help you grow your impact.
Blossom Johnston CEO, Idaho Partners for Good [BlossomJ@IdahoPartners4Good.orgl] [208.391.5389] [https://www.idahopartners4good.org/]
“In the past we could fund enrichment programs like art but this year we really focused on the viability and sustainability of the nonprofit and how critical their services are. In the past, we could do both.” Participant
APPENDIX
Special thanks to the team that helped develop this report:
Vicki Stieha, PhD BSU Professor Emeritus
Donna Llewellyn, PhD BSU Professor Emeritus
Lantz McGinnis-Brown, PhD BSU Idaho Policy Institute
Paul Miles, MD retired
Foster Cronyn, IP4G Board Member
Blossom Johnston, IP4G CEO
Methodology: AI-Assisted Data Analysis
Brief description of how the data was collected and processed.
To efficiently and accurately distill insights from the 2025 philanthropic listening sessions, we utilized a combination of AI-powered tools and human synthesis to analyze qualitative data. This hybrid approach allowed us to uncover patterns in language, tone, and content across multiple interviews while ensuring contextual accuracy and strategic relevance. Combining AI tools with expert interpretation helped ensure both analytical depth and contextual accuracy.
By integrating AI tools with expert interpretation, we ensured the analysis was both comprehensive and grounded in the realities of the Idaho philanthropic ecosystem—allowing us to move quickly from raw data to actionable strategy.
Interviews: IP4G’s CEO conducted mostly one-on-one interviews either virtually or in-person with thirteen participants. A few interviews had two leaders present. The interviews were conducted between April-June 2025.
Transcription and Preprocessing: Session notes and transcripts were prepared for analysis by standardizing formatting, removing identifiers, and organizing responses by question and theme. We completed an initial theme identification to ensure the AI version matched. This step ensured consistency in how the data was processed through AI models.
AI-Driven Thematic and Frequency Analysis: We used natural language processing (NLP) tools to identify dominant keywords, recurring phrases, and co-occurring concepts across interviews. This allowed us to surface high-frequency terms and thematic clusters, helping prioritize the issues most commonly cited by participants.
Sentiment and Emotional Tone Assessment: AI models were also used to analyze the sentiment of participant responses, detecting emotional tone (e.g., anxiety, optimism, frustration) and shifts in language related to funding pressures, collaboration, and innovation. These emotional cues provided deeper insight into the unspoken drivers behind participants’ stated concerns.
Human-Guided Synthesis and Interpretation: AI outputs were reviewed and interpreted by our evaluation team at each step to ensure contextual accuracy, validate nuance, and develop actionable insights. We translated the data into overarching themes and generated practical recommendations grounded in the AI analysis, our synthesis as well as our firsthand experience working in the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors.
List of Questions Used in Interviews
How are the current cultural and political dynamics influencing the way you think about your giving right now? (Gets to the heart of how external pressures are shaping their priorities.)
Has there been an increase in requests for funding?
If so, with the change in government funding to NPOs, how are you thinking about your response to this increase in requests?
What’s keeping you up at night when it comes to the issues or communities you care most about? (Identifies emotional pain points or urgent concerns.)
Are you feeling a pull toward emergency response, long-term change, or a mix of both?(Helps understand timeline preference and urgency.)
Are there any shifts you're making—or considering making—in how you approach philanthropy in 2025 and beyond? (Explores strategic adjustments or experiments they’re exploring.)
At this moment, what does “effective philanthropy” mean to you? (Opens a values-based discussion about outcomes, trust, and impact.)
How are you thinking about “risk” in your giving right now? (Addresses their level of caution, boldness, or the desire for innovation.)
What kinds of partnerships or support would make your philanthropic efforts (feel more aligned and) sustainable? (Invites conversation about collaboration, backbone orgs, or trusted advisors.)
Interviews: Selected Responses
Unlike earlier sections of the report, which synthesized responses across all participants to identify common themes and actionable recommendations, the appendix highlights one representative response per question. These individual excerpts were selected to illustrate the range and depth of perspectives shared—offering a more detailed, human-centered view of the conversations. Care was taken to preserve anonymity while providing meaningful insights into the thinking of foundation leaders.
Impact of the current cultural and political dynamics and how they are influencing the way foundation leaders are thinking about their giving right now. A tough question to answer right now because they have such a complex and diverse portfolio. Some parts of the nonprofit sector (eg. refugee/immigrant legal issues) are going to receive some funds. They have always been about bridging. They are thinking about how to promote effective pluralism. Promoting talking and working together. Even more so right now. More practically or tactically, all the Nonprofits are being touched; the rare ones are not touched. Tariffs are affecting giving. This foundation is used to historically getting up to 800 Letters of Inquiry per year. In 2024, they received 1500 inquiries. In 2025, right now they are getting 90 per month. There is a lot more competition for funds and Executive Directors are stressed. The other big challenge is the excise tax on foundations! This is a giant tax bill that will have a big impact on their grantmaking.
More requests for funds. Yes, there is a significant increase not just in requests but in how large the requests are. They cannot fill the gap left by the Government cuts. It is time to innovate. Nonprofits think we should be opening our endowments but they aren't a fan of this approach.
How they are thinking about their response to the increase in requests as a result of government funding cuts. They are responding in a few ways: the Foundation has consistently given beyond the IRS 5% giving requirement. They are trying to increase giving but also trying to figure out how to reduce the backlog of requests. What they have seen/heard from other Foundations is they have been backlogged with requests. They do not have the staff capacity to process all the requests. They were approving 80% of completed applications and now they can only approve 20%.
Things that keep them up at night regarding issues or communities they care most about. Nonprofit infrastructure - whether it can maintain itself without federal funds. They hope people do not become complacent. They hope people will respond to nonprofits who are being asked to do more with not much support. Nonprofits have to plug the gaps made by the federal cuts. Their foundation wants to better understand the needs of the sector.
Are they feeling a pull toward emergency response? No. They have been doing more advocacy work at the federal level and in their state. They had a lobbyist this year. The issue with emergency funding is how do we pick favorites? They had a Board meeting recently and discussed the increased number of requests that are much bigger than historically. They are struggling with the question, what is the role we play? Do we let the pain have its way to kickstart innovation? We know people have to feel pain to change. State and Federal funding has to be more strategic in their cuts.
Shifts they are making—or considering making to their approach to giving in 2025 and beyond. They have been investing in community partnerships and in technical assistance and will continue the path of supporting these. They do not fund organizations that do not collaborate. They made this mindset shift seven years ago.
Definition of effective philanthropy. (2 responses included on this question)
There is a pragmatic return on investment: they are responsible for getting the philanthropic resources out efficiently but there is also a human element of being able to tell the stories of their grantees so members feel like their donation makes a big impact. The inspiration piece is critical - if people don't feel like their donations matters they are not going to do it again. Also, people seeing the results of their donations does create change. Philanthropists are impatient. We need to help them understand it is going to take time. We need to rely on the nonprofit sector to lead us. We are all for making the community healthy.
It means investing in programs and organizational capacity where there is a high probability of a meaningful outcome. This includes funding sound plans, organizations with confidence to execute these plans as well as the ability to report back. The flywheel approach. They have a ton of summer events that are not effective philanthropy. It has to be tied to a mission not an event. So many capital campaigns are in the works and there is a lot of donor fatigue. Donors need to be coached to have a plan and purpose for their charitable investments.
Risk in their giving right now. They have always been pretty comfortable funding startups. There is a risk of exposure and reputational risk which is in the back of their minds but they still push through. They are the Switzerland of philanthropy and nonprofits and have a great reputation and goodwill. They are not afraid of being ʻpokyʻ.
The kinds of partnerships or support they need to make their philanthropic efforts feel more aligned and sustainable. They want to partner with other foundations that are leaning into community impact, especially if they are a national partner. They want nonprofits to put aside their biases about collaborating and partnering. Partnerships are hard, yet some think they are doing it just fine. In challenging times, we need people to think differently about their work. There is not enough money to fund them individually but they could fund a collaborative. Let's turn it from scarcity to abundance.
Sources Cited in Order of Listing in the Report
Giving USA: https://givingusa.org/
Staffing Report: https://givingcompass.org/partners/effective-giving-starts-here/foundations-are-concerned-about-nonprofit-staff-burnout-too
State of Nonprofits 2024: https://cep.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/NVP_State-of-Nonprofits_2024.pdf
SSIR Impact Report: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/plotting_impact_beyond_simple_metrics