Philanthropy’s Role in a Volatile Political Climate
📷 credit: Miguel Bruna on Unsplash
The philanthropic sector is facing a defining moment, as we’ve talked about in previous blog posts, with strategies to defend democracy and specific funding recommendations. The choices funders make today will set the tone for generations to come. While that has always been true, the volatility of our current political climate makes it more urgent than ever.
Over the past few months, our team at Ktisis also conducted a series of confidential interviews with philanthropic peers. We wanted to understand how leaders are navigating this turbulent environment, one marked by federal funding rollbacks, heightened political attacks, and intensifying threats to justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. What we heard was both sobering and instructive.
If there’s one consistent theme that emerged from these interviews, it’s this: philanthropy must lead with principle. This moment does not require reinventing strategy, but it does require reasserting organizational values and leading with courage both internally and externally.
That means preparing with integrity, not fear. It means investing in nonprofit resilience as a long-term commitment to justice. And it means remembering that coordinated, public, values-driven leadership is both a strategic necessity and a moral obligation.
A Growing Disconnection
Recent data underscores the urgency: nearly 90% of nonprofit leaders report burnout as a pressing concern, for themselves and their staff (Center for Effective Philanthropy, State of Nonprofits 2025). And according to the Building Movement Project, 73% of politically active nonprofits face threats, reputational risk, or funding cuts when working on issues like DEI, LGBTQ+ rights, or reproductive freedom.
Despite these realities, many funders remain cautious or even silent. This creates a troubling dissonance between the scale of the crisis that nonprofits are navigating and the scale of the philanthropic response. The leaders we spoke with were clear: philanthropy cannot afford to retreat into neutrality.
The Risks & The Cost of Inaction
We heard candidly from funders who are weighing political and legal risks every day. Some are considering how to prepare for audits or legal challenges; others are adjusting their language to deflect political scrutiny. But several pushed back on the idea that caution is the only safe path forward.
As one funder put it: “If you’re committed to racial justice, you don’t just scrub your website. You commit to it and find strong justification.” Another reminded us that risk, when aligned with values, can strengthen credibility: “Pick a fight you know you can win — or even if you lose, it’s worth picking because you shift narrative.”
The message was clear: the cost of silence may be greater than the cost of action.
Four Ways Philanthropy Can Show Up
From these conversations, four field-level imperatives emerged as concrete ways funders can choose to show up in this volatile period of time:
Reground in risk and values. Risk awareness is essential, but it must be tethered to clearly articulated values. Foundations that scenario-plan around “red lines” and thresholds of action are better prepared to move decisively under pressure.
Align internal culture with external strategy. Program staff (often BIPOC, closest to risk) frequently see the clearest path forward, while boards and senior leaders may hesitate. Institutions that bridge this gap and back it up with a courageous public voice are able to respond authentically and in real-time.
Resource movement resilience. Frontline groups need more than program grants. They require flexible, multi-year support and infrastructure investments that enable them to remain strong under pressure. Even simple shifts, such as accelerated payments, reduced reporting, and backend support, can make the difference between sustainability and exhaustion.
Synchronize with peers for field-level impact. The threats facing nonprofits are coordinated. Philanthropy’s response too often isn’t. Whether through collaboratives, joint funds, or informal intelligence sharing, funders who align their strategies on legal defense, narrative power, and infrastructure multiply their collective impact.
As one leader told us bluntly: “If risk is the reason we’re hesitating, we’ve already lost.”
For philanthropy, the question is no longer whether to take risks. The real question is: Which risks are worth taking, and which will most meaningfully advance a more just and equitable future?
Funding Healing: Why Philanthropy Should Center Mental Health and Wellness
📷 credit: Kyle Smith on Unsplash
Healing and wellness work must be understood and invested in as urgent systemic resilience work, especially for communities on the frontlines of change. The key is to act without reinforcing narratives of individual failure or obscuring structural harm. Healing and wellness work must be understood as systemic resilience work and a way to ensure movements can sustain their people for the long haul.
This crisis isn't about individual weakness or poor time management. It's about systemic under-investment in the people powering social change. When you frame wellness as "self-care," you're asking burned-out organizers to solve structural problems with personal solutions.
A team from Ktisis recently shared some high-level research with a client, offering context and specific recommendations for the field. We know many people and institutions are thinking about how to support grantees at this moment, and we hope sharing these thoughts may help with the next steps.
Seventy percent of Americans say financial anxiety is impacting their mental and physical well-being. Additionally, In a 2024 poll, 43% of adults reported feeling more anxious than the year before. This isn’t just a blip – it’s a steady climb from 32% in 2022. For Latinx/Hispanic, Native, and immigrant communities, these burdens are compounded by systemic barriers to care and the constant stress of discrimination, deportation fears, and economic instability.
Within the nonprofit sector – often the first line of response – the crisis is even more acute. Nonprofit staff experience burnout at nearly twice the rate of other sectors, with leaders warning of morale collapse and unsustainable turnover. In a recent Center for Effective Philanthropy report, nearly 90% of nonprofit leaders expressed concern about their own burnout and a similar percentage indicated burnout is impacting their staff.
From the CEP report, one nonprofit leader captures the reality, “A big challenge is not having enough time for staff and board members to reflect, assess, plan, dream, and celebrate victories. This constant daily grind and inability to come up for air and contribute to the organization’s vision and mission creates burnout and a revolving-door environment.”
Leaders in philanthropy are also experiencing the stress of striving toward a future that feels less and less attainable. In recent interviews conducted for a client, one foundation leader shared, "We are just at the tail end of a period of really immense exhaustion…just across the board. And it's not even just about capacity. It's emotional. People are tired."
The Philanthropic Imperative
For funders committed to racial equity and community well-being, this moment calls for more than sympathy and introspection on our own stress. It calls for sustained investment in healing and wellness as a core part of organizational capacity and movement infrastructure – not an afterthought or “nice to have.”
We also don’t need to wait for perfect research or pilot programs. Philanthropy can draw on an emerging ecosystem of models that already exist and are delivering results:
Rapid-response funds, such as the Solidaire Movement’s Protection Fund and the Proteus Fund’s Grantee Safety & Security Fund, are already resourcing the safety of frontline organizers, including mental health services.
Dedicated wellness programs, such as the Healing Trust’s Culture and Care Fund, the Durfee Foundation’s sabbatical program, and the Kataly Foundation’s Mindfulness and Healing Justice portfolio, offer examples of embedding wellness into long-term capacity building.
Culturally-grounded care initiatives, like the Healing Clinic Collective, Leadership Reimagined’s coaching circles, and the Windcall Institute, offer ideas of prospective grantee partners to provide culturally grounded, movement-rooted care.
These are not fringe programs – they are survival strategies for leaders and organizations navigating relentless demands and rising political threats.
What Funders Can Do Now
In the short term, funders can:
Make immediate grants to existing healing and wellness funds so grantees can access services without delay. Contact Solidaire, Proteus Fund, or a member of the Ktisis team for more ideas and introductions.
Cover participation costs for grantees to participate in healing cohorts, coaching circles, or rest retreats. Budget $2,000 - $5,000 per participant.
Add wellness line items to all current grants. Provide up to 10% in additional funding for staff mental health support and healing.
Longer term, funders can:
Create dedicated wellness funds for grantees, either individually or in collaboration with peer funders, learning from the models mentioned above. We suggest allocating at least $100,000 to start for small foundations or budgeting $10,000 per eligible grantee.
Build wellness and healing into grantmaking criteria and existing capacity-building programs. Ask grantees how they’re thinking about wellness and healing, and support their ideas with funding.
Fund research and listening sessions to understand how grantees – especially those in communities of color – define and prioritize wellness. Then use that information to take action and compensate grantees for their time and expertise in any research or listening sessions.
The evidence is clear. The need is urgent. And the solutions already exist. What’s required now is the will to fund them at the scale this moment demands. Leaders need funders who see mental health and wellness not as charity, but as infrastructure.
Rising to Defend Democracy, Part 2: A Donor Action Guide
📷 credit: DenaliNPS
This post is a follow-up to a funder action guide we shared in July that was oriented toward foundations. You can find that post here.
Ten months after the 2024 presidential election, American democracy continues its descent into turmoil. As we’ve covered in previous posts, the current administration has criminalized dissent, undermined judicial independence, threatened the integrity of our elections, attacked the press, targeted immigrant and trans communities, and engineered economic instability – all in service of consolidating autocratic power. With federal troops deployed in cities that oppose Trump’s agenda and political opponents threatened with arrest, it is clear that the collapse of American democracy is not a future concern – it is an immediate crisis demanding bold, decisive action from progressive donors and activists.
The window to defend democracy is rapidly closing. The choices we each make at this moment will shape the future of our country.
And yet, the philanthropic sector as a whole continues to fall short. What more can be done? Below are four strategies individual donors can adopt immediately to protect and strengthen democracy in the face of existential threat.
Four Urgent Strategies to Defend Democracy
Give like it’s urgent, even more urgent than 2024
As an individual donor, it is critical for your giving strategy to match the urgency of this moment. If you stepped up your political giving in 2024, consider giving even more in 2025. If you've been planning to increase your giving in the lead-up to the midterm election, accelerate that timeline. Every day we wait, this administration takes new steps to undermine voting rights and electoral integrity. Time is running out.
Consider these approaches:
Frontload your annual giving. If you intend to support political candidates in 2026, consider instead investing that money in values-aligned 501(c)(4) organizations in 2025. Doing so ensures those candidate campaigns will have the best possible opportunity to compete in free and fair elections next year.
Better yet, if you typically give $50,000 annually to political causes, consider giving $100,000 or $150,000 this year instead of spreading it across multiple years. The most critical battles for the future of our electoral process are happening right now. Too many donors will respond late, if you step up early you will create the conditions for those late gifts from others to be used more successfully.
Set an emergency giving target. Many donors are setting aside 10% of their total philanthropy budget specifically for unexpected needs in the run-up to the election. Setting aside an emergency giving budget enables you to be responsive now without worrying about constraining your capacity in the future.
Don't wait for perfect information. In the past, you might normally research organizations for months before making significant gifts. But these aren't normal times. If you're confident an organization is doing important pro-democracy work, make the gift now. You can always refine your strategy later, but you can't get back time that is lost. Set internal deadlines and meet them, like giving away the next 10% of your budgeted giving in 30 days and then giving again based on the best information you gathered in those 30 days. There are too many needs to answer all your questions up front. Thoughtful analysis will ensure your giving is effective, but seeking perfection in a moment of turmoil will actually lead your giving to be less effective because it will be too slow.
Think beyond your usual giving budget. This crisis may require resources beyond what you typically allocate to charitable giving. Consider gifts from your investment accounts, business profits, or inheritance. Investing in the future of our democracy is an investment in preserving the system that makes all other investments meaningful.
By challenging our assumptions and interrogating our practices, we position ourselves to be more effective in the face of a rapidly-changing political landscape.
2. Release Yourself (and Your Money) from the Constraints of Tax Deductibility
One of the biggest strategic mistakes individual donors can make is putting all their money into donor-advised funds or private foundations without first considering the potential impact those resources could have on lobbying, electoral work, or other non-tax-deductible purposes. Once the tax benefit has been taken, that money must be limited to 501(c)(3)-friendly activities.
Instead, consider leading with your 501(c)(4) and electoral giving. Before you invest more into your DAF or foundation, ask yourself: What role should lobbying organizations, 501(c)(4)s, values-aligned PACs, or candidate campaigns play in my giving strategy this cycle? Make those gifts first, before putting additional resources into tax-deductible vehicles.
You might also consider how important it is for you to receive any tax benefit at all. For some donors, a tax deduction may be a critical part of the decision to give in the first place. For others, the deduction is a minor factor in their giving strategy. Savvy donors will reflect on how critical tax deductibility may be for their personal finances. Have you already reached your maximum tax benefit for the year? If yes, there is no reason to put any more funding into a DAF or foundation. Even if you ultimately give more to 501(c)(3) organizations, you shouldn’t lock in that limitation if you’ve exceeded your maximum tax benefit. Can you afford the tax burden if it allows you more flexibility in your giving? Sometimes the most strategic gifts are the ones that don't come with tax benefits.
We encourage donors to think of their giving in terms of filling two separate buckets: one for 501(c)(3)-friendly work (public education, direct services, issue advocacy) and another for political work (lobbying, electoral, 501(c)(4) advocacy). Consider planning for both from the start.
3. Invest in Rapid Response Infrastructure
History shows that the most effective action one can take to defend democracy from the rise of fascism is organized and sustained mass mobilization and non-compliance. Protest is fundamental to the practice of democracy because it offers a means to expose autocratic machinations and unite the public against a rising authoritarian. This is precisely why the current administration is actively criminalizing protest and targeting political opponents – to consolidate power and quash dissent.
To be an effective bulwark, protest infrastructure must first be adequately funded. We need legal defense funds to be resourced and staffed before arrests are made. Activists require training in de-escalation, know-your-rights education, and digital security to protect against surveillance and retaliation. Medical teams, secure communications, and logistical networks must also be established before mass action begins. Building this infrastructure in advance enables an effective response when political moments demand immediate action, rather than scrambling to create capacity under pressure.
With this in mind, we encourage you to consider supporting the following organizations working to build a stronger and more effective ecosystem for nonviolent resistance (for a longer list of groups to invest in, reach out to schedule a call with one of our donor advisors):
The Moxie Fund: A pooled fund that supports leading edge efforts to protect our democracy from attack via defense of civil society, election protection, and pursuing accountability for assaults on the rule of law.
Democracy Forward: One of the leading primary legal organizations advancing democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education, and regulatory engagement.
Janisha R. Gabriel Movement Protection Fund: A pooled fund hosted by Solidaire that moves rapid response resources to protect frontline organizers facing immediate security threats.
4. Invest in State-Level Power Built for the Long Haul
Although the federal government is at the center of this administration's efforts to undermine the practice of democracy, state and local governments offer critical safeguards against authoritarian overreach. Building sustained organizing capacity at the state level creates a more cohesive resistance movement and establishes alternative power structures that can protect vulnerable communities when faced with attack. To achieve this, consider the following:
Invest in year-round organizing, not just elections. The most effective state-level organizations are building power 365 days a year, not just during election cycles. Look for groups doing voter registration, civic education, issue advocacy, and leadership development in odd-election years.
Find your state's progressive infrastructure. Nearly every state has organizations dedicated to building progressive political power. Some are formal state-based organizations, others are networks of local groups. Find them and invest in them consistently.
Think beyond blue states. Some of the most important work is happening in purple and even red states – in key cities and at the state level – where strong organizing can prevent or mitigate authoritarian policies. Don't write off states just because they voted for Trump. National and state-level intermediaries can be great resources for donors interested in contributing from afar.
To this end, we urge you to consider investing in state power-building organizations like the ones below (for a longer list of groups to invest in, reach out to schedule a call with one of our donor advisors):
Movement Voter Project: A national intermediary that organizes and moves money in support of multi-entity state-level power-building efforts across the country.
Indivisible: A progressive grassroots movement organization with chapters nationwide, focused on combating the right-wing takeover of American government and building an inclusive democracy.
People’s Action: A national network of power-building organizations focused on building the power of low-income and working-class people to achieve systemic change.
Or your local progressive State Donor Alliance: Most states (38 out of 50) have a local organization dedicated to organizing donors to support progressive political and organizing infrastructure. If you’re not sure who that might be in your state, feel free to reach out, and we can help make contact.
The Time for Action is Now
The future of American democracy depends on immediate, coordinated action to bolster progressive power-building efforts across the country. As donors, we face a critical decision: continue with philanthropy as usual while democratic institutions erode, or respond with the urgency and resources this crisis demands.
The strategies outlined above are intended to serve as a roadmap for donors who seek to meet the current moment. Individual action, when strategically coordinated, can significantly strengthen the organizations and leaders working to protect democratic values and support vulnerable communities.
History shows that well-resourced, organized resistance movements can successfully counter authoritarian advances. However, their effectiveness requires bold, collective action. Given the scale and speed of current threats, incrementalism will not save us. The time for action is now.
To explore any of these recommendations further, please reach out to schedule time with one of our advisors. Thanks to generous underwriting from a client, Ktisis Capital is able to offer pro-bono advising for organizations and individuals interested in deepening their impact in the democracy space. We encourage those working on democracy-related initiatives to reach out for a free consultation to discuss how we can support your mission and amplify your impact.
Rising to Defend Democracy: A Funder Action Guide
📷 credit: Mídia NINJA
After nearly 250 years, America’s experiment with democracy is under threat and finds itself facing imminent collapse. Many have watched in horror as the current administration dismantles democratic institutions before our eyes. The criminalization of dissent, undermining of judicial independence, attacks on journalism, targeting of trans and immigrant communities, and manufactured economic crises all pose existential threats to the future of our democracy. And now, the administration is federalizing troops to exert control over American cities and arresting and even threatening to deport political rivals. This is not a future concern – it is an immediate crisis demanding bold, decisive action from progressive donors and activists.
Historians have identified that when an aspiring autocrat takes office, democracy advocates have approximately 18 months to fight back, after which an anti-democratic regime may be able to consolidate power such that democracy may be lost for a generation or more. The window for transformative action is NOW.
Some in philanthropy are responding, but more is needed. What can be done? Below are 4 strategies foundations can adopt immediately to protect and strengthen democracy in the face of existential threat.
Four Urgent Strategies to Defend Democracy
1. Increase Your Payout
Philanthropy’s response to this moment must be commensurate with the challenges we face today. Too many funders are still prioritizing the growth of their assets over immediate funding. If ever there were a moment for a foundation to move more than the minimum 5% payout, this is it.
The “Set it at Six” campaign encourages foundations to increase payouts to 6% or more. That should be a bare minimum response at this moment. Other funders like the Freedom Together Foundation which we advise are doubling their payout to 10%, while still others are taking even bolder action by temporarily increasing to 15% or spending down entirely. Research shows that based on historical investment trends, a foundation can pay out as much as 8% on a long-term basis without threatening its perpetuity.
Increasing a foundation’s payout requires leadership to interrogate key assumptions that undergird their organizational mission and vision. Without dedicated examination of core values and practices, foundations risk allowing “perpetuity bias” to dominate decision-making in the face of grave threats to the communities they serve. This examination may include questions such as:
How has the world changed since our initial charter and bylaws were established?
What is at risk if we don’t raise our payout?
What is at risk if our communities are not adequately resourced in the near-term?
Is our mission best served by prioritizing organizational permanence over present-day impact?
What do our grantees expect of us during this period of crisis?
By asking these questions and exploring answers with staff, board and community partners, foundation leaders may be better equipped to be more decisive and effective in the pursuit of the democracy our nation has always needed.
2. Invest in Rapid Response Needs
Throughout history, the most effective action one can take – by far – to defend democracy from autocratic regimes is organized, sustained, mass mobilization and non-compliance. The right to protest is fundamental to our nation’s origin story and enshrined in our constitution specifically because it is so crucial to preventing the rise of authoritarianism. And yet, this administration is actively criminalizing protest and targeting political opponents in its quest to consolidate power.
Protest infrastructure requires immediate investment to be effective when called upon. Legal defense funds need to be capitalized now, before arrests escalate. Protest organizers need training in de-escalation, know-your-rights education, and digital security to protect activists from surveillance and retaliation. Safety and security resources – from medical support to communication networks – must be established in advance of mass action. History shows us that democratic resistance movements succeed when they have robust, pre-existing support systems that can rapidly scale in moments of crisis.
With this in mind, we encourage you to consider supporting the following organizations working to build a stronger and more effective ecosystem for nonviolent resistance efforts (for a longer list of groups to invest in, reach out to schedule a call with one of our donor advisors):
The Moxie Fund: A pooled fund that supports leading edge efforts to protect our democracy from attack via defense of civil society, election protection, and pursuing accountability for assaults on the rule of law.
Democracy Forward: One of the leading primary legal organizations advancing democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education, and regulatory engagement.
Janisha R. Gabriel Movement Protection Fund: A pooled fund hosted by Solidaire that moves rapid response resources to protect frontline organizers facing immediate security threats.
3. Invest in State Power-Building Efforts
While federal democratic institutions face unprecedented assault, many state and local governments remain critical bulwarks against authoritarian overreach. Building sustained organizing capacity at the state level creates multiple points of resistance and alternative power structures that can protect vulnerable communities when federal protections fail. This means moving beyond episodic electoral investments to fund year-round organizing infrastructure that builds lasting political power.
Consistent investment in state-based organizing yields both electoral victories and policy wins that reinforce democratic values. These groups form the backbone for both local and national mass mobilization efforts, and they engage in voter registration, civic education, and issue advocacy that builds the political and organizing infrastructure necessary for long-term democratic resilience. State-level organizing also creates the foundation for defending voting rights, protecting reproductive freedom, and maintaining sanctuary policies for immigrant communities.
To this end, we urge you to consider investing in state power-building organizations like the ones below (for a longer list of groups to invest in, reach out to schedule a call with one of our donor advisors):
Movement Voter Project: A national intermediary that organizes and moves money in support of multi-entity state-level power-building efforts across the country.
Indivisible: A progressive grassroots movement organization with chapters nationwide, focused on combating the right-wing takeover of American government and building an inclusive democracy.
People’s Action: A national network of power-building organizations focused on building the power of low-income and working-class people to achieve systemic change.
Or your local progressive State Donor Alliance: Most states now have a local organization dedicated to organizing donors to support progressive political and organizing infrastructure. If you’re not sure who that might be in your state, feel free to reach out, and we can help make contact.
4. Embrace the Multi-Entity Ecosystem
The most effective democratic defense requires coordinated action across multiple entity types – from direct charitable work to aggressive lobbying to electoral advocacy, yet most foundations operate under unnecessary, self-imposed constraints that limit their strategic impact. Many 501(c)(3) funders remain unaware of just how expansive their legal options actually are. Private foundations (and DAFs) are legally allowed to support grantees that engage in lobbying and advocacy, including 501(c)(4) organizations. Doing so is strategic because it can use 501(c)(3) funds to defray costs that would otherwise draw from a grantee’s lobbying and advocacy budget.
501(c)(3) funders can support lobbying and 501(c)(4) capacity through several mechanisms:
General operating support grants that allow organizations flexibility to use funds as needed, including for advocacy efforts
Project grants, which can be used to fund specific non-lobbying costs included within a broader lobbying campaign
Expenditure responsibility grants that allow 501(c)(3) funds to go to organizations that are not public charities
Each pathway brings unique opportunities and challenges, and are important tools that allow foundations to maximize their impact without running afoul of the law.
Foundations that unnecessarily limit themselves to funding only non-lobbying work by 501(c)(3) organizations are essentially fighting authoritarian movements with one hand tied behind their backs. The challenges we face today stem from decades of coordinated, multi-entity investment by opponents of democracy. To chart a genuine path toward a democratic future, we must take similarly bold action and invest deeply across the entire progressive ecosystem.
For additional support as you explore these options, consider reaching out to consult with one of our philanthropic advisors.
The Time for Action is Now
Our ability to meet this moment will depend on how urgently we – both individually and collectively – take action to reverse our country’s slide toward autocracy. The choice before us is stark: we can continue with philanthropy as usual while democracy crumbles around us, or we can rise to meet this moment with the courage and resources it demands.
The four strategies presented here work in concert to create multiple layers of democratic defense. Increased payouts provide the immediate resources needed for rapid response. Investment in protest infrastructure and legal defense creates the capacity for mass resistance. State-level organizing builds alternative power structures that can chart an aspirational path forward. And finally, multi-entity giving maximizes political impact through every available legal channel.
We are not powerless in the face of rising authoritarianism.
Philanthropy, when deployed strategically and at scale, can energize and bolster the thousands of leaders and organizations defending democratic values and supporting vulnerable communities. But we must act now, act boldly, and act together. The future of American democracy hangs in the balance.
To explore any of these recommendations further, please reach out to schedule time with one of our advisors. Thanks to generous underwriting from a client, Ktisis Capital is able to offer pro-bono advising for organizations and individuals interested in deepening their impact in the democracy space. We encourage those working on democracy-related initiatives to reach out for a free consultation to discuss how we can support your mission and amplify your impact.
The Unique Challenges of Leading Family Foundations: What I Learned from Executive Directors
📷 credit: Direct Media
I recently facilitated a coaching group for family foundation executive directors, and their stories highlighted challenges that resonated from my own six years leading the Julian Grace Foundation (a limited lifespan, two-generation family foundation in Chicagoland). If you're in this role – or considering it – here's what you need to know.
The Isolation of Leadership
One of the most striking patterns was the profound isolation many executive directors experience. This is true for foundation and nonprofit leaders alike! Unlike other staff, executive directors (EDs) find themselves without internal peers. This structural reality creates a unique burden: making critical decisions without the benefit of collaborative input from colleagues at similar levels.
This isolation isn't just uncomfortable – it's detrimental to the quality of decisions. The best decisions come from collaboration, but when you're the only voice in the room with your perspective, decision fatigue becomes real, fast. While EDs have board members and sometimes staff, the nature of family foundations means that board members often lack operational experience, and staff members may not have the institutional perspective necessary for high-level strategic decisions. This isolation can lead to decision fatigue and the weight of carrying institutional knowledge alone.
You're Not Just Running a Foundation
While it may seem obvious that family foundations involve working with families, the reality of this dynamic is far more complex than many realize. Executive directors find themselves wearing multiple hats: philanthropic strategist, family therapist, and organizational diplomat. The boundaries between family dynamics and foundation business are often porous, requiring EDs to develop skills that extend far beyond traditional nonprofit management.One week, you might be mediating between siblings who fundamentally disagree about which causes to fund. The next, you're helping a founding generation understand why their adult children want to completely change the foundation's direction.
Board meetings can quickly become family meetings. Strategic planning sessions can feel like group therapy. And you're the one trying to keep everyone focused on the mission while navigating all of this emotional complexity.
The Challenge of Cohesive Strategy
Bringing families together to create a unified strategic direction represents one of the most demanding aspects of family foundation leadership. Traditional nonprofits recruit board members based on expertise and mission alignment. Family foundations? Your board is whoever happens to be born into or marry into the family.
This means you might have a board where one person is passionate about education, another about environmental issues, and a third about healthcare, and they're all equally convinced their priority should be the foundation's main focus.
Creating a unified strategic direction requires skills they don't teach in nonprofit management programs: family diplomacy, generational bridge-building, and the ability to help people see how their values can align with effective giving – all while trying to keep the community's actual needs at the center.
Generational Transitions: A Constant Undercurrent
Generational shifts present ongoing challenges that require constant attention and strategic planning. As founding generations age and next-generation family members assume greater roles, executive directors must navigate changing expectations, values, and approaches to philanthropy. What worked for the founder may not resonate with their children or grandchildren, who may have different perspectives on social issues, giving strategies, and governance structures.
These transitions aren't just about changing leadership; they're about evolving organizational culture, updating processes, and sometimes fundamentally reimagining the foundation's role and approach. Executive directors often serve as institutional memory during these transitions, helping to preserve important elements while enabling necessary changes.
When the World Needs Help Now, But Decisions Take Time
A particularly challenging dynamic that emerged from our coaching group was the disconnect between the urgency many EDs feel about current world events and their boards' capacity to respond quickly. Executive directors, who are often in direct contact with grantee partners and community organizations, hear firsthand about pressing needs and emerging crises. However, family foundation boards may operate on different timelines, with decision-making processes that don't always align with the rapid response needed for crises.
This disconnect creates stress for EDs who feel caught between their understanding of urgent community needs and their board's approach to decision-making. You're caught in the middle, feeling the weight of community needs while respecting your board's approach to careful philanthropy.
Strategies That Make a Difference
Despite all these challenges, the EDs I worked with found ways not just to survive, but to thrive. Here's what makes the biggest difference:
Find Your People: The isolation is real, but it doesn't have to be permanent. Other family foundation EDs get it in ways that nobody else can. Whether it's through formal networks, coffee meet-ups, or coaching groups, finding peer connections is essential, not optional. NCFP has a number of peer networks, for example.
If you have staff, consider shifting away from traditional hierarchy. Your team can become genuine partners in navigating these complex dynamics.
Master the Soft Skills: The interpersonal nature of family foundation work requires exceptional soft skills. Active listening, in particular, emerged as a critical competency. When family members feel truly heard and understood, they're more likely to engage constructively in foundation discussions. Other essential skills include conflict resolution, emotional intelligence, and the ability to facilitate difficult conversations with grace and neutrality.
I became a certified executive coach primarily because of the nature of the role and the need to develop these soft skills. That might not be the answer for everyone, but there are a few places to brush up on soft skills, from conflict resolution to behavioral science.
Get Crystal Clear on Your Role: Getting clear about the executive director's role and establishing reasonable expectations is essential for both effectiveness and sustainability. Have the awkward conversations upfront. What exactly is your job? What decisions are yours to make? Where does your authority end and the family dynamics begin?
Setting these boundaries isn't just about protecting yourself – it's about being maximally effective for the foundation and the communities you serve. My favorite boundary book is Set Boundaries, Find Peace by Nedra Glover Tawab.
The Bottom Line
Leading a family foundation is genuinely one of the most challenging roles in philanthropy. If you're doing this work, the struggles you face are real, complex, and shared by more people than you might realize.
The key is acknowledging that this work requires a unique skill set, ongoing support, and clear boundaries. You're not just running a foundation – you're stewarding family relationships, preserving legacies, and building bridges between generations, all while trying to center community needs and voices to invest in the crucial work happening in communities.
That's not easy work. But it's important work. And recognizing these challenges is the first step toward addressing them.
Alison facilitates a coaching group for family foundation executive directors and continues to work with family foundations on governance, strategy, and leadership development. If you’re interested in joining a future group or learning more, email her [email protected].
Challenges of the Virtual Meeting Era
📷 credit: Sonja Hansen
I had an experience last week that is familiar for too many organizers and educators.
I was preparing to cohost a Zoom call where it seemed like the stars had aligned – a timely topic with a strong set of speakers and an engaged co-host had led us to almost 50 RSVPs. For us, this was a strong turnout for a somewhat niche philanthropic strategy conversation.
Sadly, only six attendees logged on who were not connected to one of the organizers or speakers. It was still a powerful call, and we got very appreciative feedback from the participants…and a bunch of requests for the recording even though this was an off-the-record call with no recording.
A few days later I saw a TikTok about tsundoku, the Japanese word that refers to the practice of accumulating books without reading them, something my fiancé will confirm I am very guilty of! That video got me thinking…what would be the equivalent of collecting webinar recordings you won't watch? With the help of some AI brainstorming, I present to you half a dozen favorite new terms:
Tsunwebinaru - Tsun or “to pile up” (from tsumu, like in tsundoku) plus webinaru (the Japanese katakana rendering of the English word webinar). So, tsunwebinaru would whimsically mean "the practice of accumulating webinar recordings without watching them."
Zoomnoku - From Zoom + tsundoku, the ancient and noble art of clicking “Register” on Zoom webinars and then ghosting the playback link like a pro.
Webinarchivist - A portmanteau of webinar + archivist to describe someone dedicated to curating an impressive archive of unwatched webinars, for anthropological study by future civilizations.
FOMOnar Syndrome - From FOMO (fear of missing out) + webinar, translating to the compulsive behavior of signing up for every free webinar just in case it’s life-changing (spoiler: you never watch them).
Click’n’Skip - For those who enthusiastically register, confirm, calendar... and then ghost. “Click now, skip forever.”
Save-it Syndrome - Compulsive saving of links, files, and webinars with absolutely no plan for follow-through. Usually followed by “I’ll totally watch this over the weekend.”
But more seriously, it got me thinking, how do we improve our webinars and Zoom calls in an era of online engagement burnout? Here are three strategies I’ve been thinking about that chip away at different connected issues:
Extend your reach – First, I’ve been pondering that we ask the same people in our networks to keep coming back. How do we engage new people? How do we ask our networks to promote our content to their networks? Who else can be dissemination or recruitment partners? Maybe we can find some new participants for whom our content is excitingly new.
Filter RSVPs – In the webinar example above, we would have had more realistic expectations if we knew some people who RSVP’d just wanted a recording. We could have clarified that this was “off-the-record” to encourage people to log in. Or if we’d planned to record, we could have asked in the RSVP if each respondent was “definitely planning to show, might show depending on their schedule, or just RSVP’ing for the notes/recording.”
Plan for Better Follow-Up – In the race that we all face to keep up, one thing I’ve noticed we and so many others could do better is follow up on a training or briefing more thoughtfully. To name a few examples, we all could prep our follow-up emails so they can get sent out quickly, clean up recordings with either light or heavy editing to make them more engaging, craft highlight notes so people capture some key takeaways, or even highlight the timestamps of each highlight so people are incentivized to open the recordings that sadly get so few views.
I know we won’t have time to do all these things ourselves, but they’re things I’m keeping in mind to try and do as much as possible when possible. What else are you trying?
Higher Education at a Crossroads: Reflections on Service, Power, and Accountability at Stanford
📷 credit: Alison Upton López (top row fifth from the left)
Alison Upton López, Ktisis Senior Director and National Advisory Board member of Stanford University’s Haas Center for Public Service, recently attended the Spring meeting and first reunion with all past advisory board members. She shares her reflections as higher education institutions remain a focus for this administration's priorities.
I've been on the National Advisory Board since Fall 2022, around the same time I started at Ktisis, coincidentally. The Haas Center for Public Service was my home as a student more than 20 years ago; a place of learning, connection, and where I began my nonprofit career. It provided me with opportunities to lead volunteer groups, participate in community-engaged learning experiences, work in summer internships, and a post-graduate fellowship.
I struggle with Stanford as an elite institution, a sometimes lousy neighbor, and a place that doesn't always make values-aligned decisions. But the Haas Center is a unique space on campus. Students drive more work there, partnering with communities, pushing for justice and real change with learning and support behind them.
This meeting was unique in its purpose as a moment to celebrate 40 years of the Haas Center and multiple decades of the National Advisory Board. Normally, meetings provide a glimpse into programming at the Haas Center and problem-solving around specific issues facing students and staff, from integrating public service across the university to expanding postgraduate fellowships to increasing engagement with graduate students.
This reunion was more of a celebration of the role of the Haas Center on campus and acknowledging the challenges of doing the work within the current sociopolitical context. Every conversation also carried the weight of attacks on higher education, particularly elite universities, as Stanford's new president, Jonathan Levin, voiced concerns about research funding cuts and potential endowment taxes. Students also shared fears around immigration status, censorship, economic inequality and barriers to careers in government right now. While it's difficult to feel overly sympathetic for universities with massive endowments, connecting with students at the meeting left me inspired and, at times, worried.
The Haas Center for Public Service, one of the largest university public service centers, engages thousands of students in community-based research, coursework, and fellowships. These students regularly discuss their challenges navigating upstream at a university deeply embedded in Silicon Valley, where technology-focused careers dominate. They, too, encounter the increasingly difficult struggle to cultivate and nurture values centered on creating a more just world. Engineering students told me they might attend one single hour-long course on ethics, usually without graded work or mandatory attendance. That leaves practically zero space to understand the real-world and ethical impacts of the tech they're building.
At the Spring meeting, I connected with aspiring immigration attorneys, politicians, climate researchers, and yes, even one tech entrepreneur determined to bring social justice principles into that space. They all shared challenges in keeping their vision and values clear while navigating the student community at Stanford and the larger stresses of the world right now.
As is the case with most of our meetings, there were moments when we inevitably turned to discussing higher education's purpose and our goals for educating young people. What responsibility does Stanford have to commit to public service and provide these learning experiences? When endowment taxes hit, how will universities make financial decisions that serve students and stay true to the mission of higher education?
I remain something of a critical friend to my alma mater on these issues. I hold high expectations that such a powerful institution will keep prioritizing opportunities for students to engage in thoughtful community work where they learn to navigate power dynamics, value community voice, and develop an appreciation for civic engagement and activism. We’ve seen attacks on other elite universities already and varying responses. And I worry that endowment hoarding, fear, and politics may drive responses to these attacks, instead of what truly serves students and their potential for positive global impact.
Ultimately, we need courageous decision-making, and alumni (particularly donor alumni) are prime candidates to hold universities accountable to making these courageous decisions that center students. For better or worse, higher education institutions respond to the organized power of alumni and donors. If we unite in coordination with and in service to all students, we'll all come out stronger.
Narrative Work Matters Now More Than Ever For Immigrant Communities
📷 credit: National Parks Gallery
In today’s political landscape, immigration isn’t just a matter of policy; it’s a matter of narrative. Who gets framed as a threat? Who gets left out of the story altogether? And who gets to decide?
The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia offers a chilling example. A longtime Maryland resident, Kilmar was deported this month despite a Supreme Court ruling ordering his return. He was labeled a gang member without formal charges, detained in a Salvadoran mega-prison, and turned into a political talking point. A single tweet from the administration dismissed his humanity and mocked the court’s decision: “He’s not coming back.”
This is what happens when narrative overrides due process. When a person becomes a symbol, justice is treated like a suggestion.
Narratives are not just stories. They’re tools that are crafted, deployed, and weaponized to shape public opinion and justify state violence. Nowhere is this clearer than in the national conversation about immigration.
Across the country, raids are staged for social media. Cabinet members are cosplaying in tactical gear for cable news. Deportations are framed as reality TV content, with families ripped apart to send a political message.
In an age where policy is shaped as much by public perception as by facts, the narratives we share and fund carry immense power. Anti-immigrant sentiment is sharply on the rise. In today’s political climate, immigration enforcement is packaged as entertainment, and communities are criminalized for existing. For those of us committed to justice in immigration, this moment demands more than just a defense against harmful policies. It calls for reshaping the cultural and political terrain we have shaped.
If we want to protect immigrant communities, not just from policy, but from public erasure, philanthropy must get serious about narrative change.
Why Funding Narrative Change Is Essential
Narratives shape who is seen as deserving of protection, dignity, and belonging. For decades, immigrants in the U.S. have been confined to narrow roles: As “good workers,” “criminals,” or “burdens.” Flattening millions of complex lives from hundreds of countries into palatable, uniform soundbites.
We have seen how devastating the flattening of stories can be. Like Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Andry Hernandez Romero, a Venezuelan asylum seeker and artist, was deported to a Salvadoran mega-prison after being accused of gang affiliation based on tattoos and social media posts. In both cases, due process was bypassed, and narrative became the rationale.
The strategy of cruelty isn’t accidental. As Silky Shah argues in Unbuild Walls, the dehumanization of immigrants is deeply intertwined with the broader expansion of incarceration systems.
When the public is conditioned to see immigrant families as threats or lawbreakers, it becomes easier to justify draconian policies: the rollback of Temporary Protected Status, the arrest and deportation of legal residents, and even the attempted revocation of birthright citizenship.
These stories are not anomalies. They are warnings. Narratives scaffold policy; by changing the story, you begin to change what is possible.
How Funders Can Support Narrative Change
Resource Immigrant-Led Storytelling
Many groups like Define American and Opportunity Agenda are already disrupting dominant narratives, lifting up the lived realities of immigrants in ways that resonate across cultural and political divides. Investing in these efforts amplifies stories that counter fear with truth.
Fund Local Media Ecosystems
Narrative change doesn’t just happen in major media outlets. It happens in local newspapers, community radio, street art, and digital campaigns. These are the places and sources of information where anti-immigrant policies are most aggressively pushed, particularly in migrant communities. Funders can support creative, multilingual, and community-centered approaches to storytelling that foster solidarity rather than division.
Reject the “good immigrant” narrative:
Too often, funding strategies reinforce the binary of the “deserving” vs. “undeserving” immigrant. Framing some immigrants as more deserving than others reinforces harmful binaries that leave entire communities behind. Funding strategies must support organizations pushing back against respectability politics and advocating for full, unconditional dignity and belonging.
Invest in Long-Term Culture Change
Narrative change is a marathon, not a media cycle. As organizations like Four Freedoms Fund have recognized, a lasting cultural shift requires a long-term commitment to frontline organizations, rapid-response infrastructure, and the artists, content creators, and strategists who can build new public consciousness.
Philanthropy must be prepared to weather the backlash and keep showing up year after year.
Philanthropy’s Role in Shifting Cultural Conditions
Immigrant communities are targeted not just by policy but by narrative. They are being erased, criminalized, and turned into a spectacle. Unless funders intervene, these stories will continue to shape the cultural and political terrain for years. They will continue to degrade institutional trust and pit neighbor against neighbor.
The current moment is a stark reminder that policy does not exist in a vacuum. It grows from the stories we tell, or fail to tell, about who belongs, who deserves care, and whose lives matter. In the face of coordinated media attacks and state violence, investing in narrative change is not ancillary to immigrant justice work; it is central to it.
Philanthropy has a responsibility to help shape the cultural conditions where justice can take root. If we want to build a future where immigrants are seen not through the lens of fear, but through the full scope of their humanity as core members of our communities and a critical part of our society, then we must invest in the storytellers, organizers, and visionaries working to shift the narrative.
Welcome ari vargas: Our Newest Learning Fellow!
We are thrilled to have ari vargas join Ktisis Capital as a Learning Fellow! Through this year-long program, our fellows gain experience and exposure while becoming skilled emerging leaders in the philanthropic field.
ari comes to Ktisis with nearly a decade of experience in community and cultural events organizing for BIPOC and queer and trans communities, program development, writing, and researching for non-profit organizations, as well as 1:1 coaching and group facilitation.
Most recently, ari served as the program manager for the Solis Policy Statewide Fellowship at the Women’s Foundation California. During their time at the Foundation, ari successfully led efforts to increase fellowship participation from rural-based and trans leaders across the state, develop an anti-racist and BIPOC led policy training curriculum, and deepen opportunities for fellows to connect. In total, ari supported 125 grassroots leaders and organizers advocate for 28 bills in California, with 15 of those bills becoming laws in California.
As a Learning Fellow, they will play a crucial role in advancing Ktisis’ learning and field-building strategy by leading research, supporting programming, staying current on industry trends and effective practices, monitoring key issues within philanthropy, and contributing to Ktisis’ thought leadership efforts.
ari is driven by the belief that collective liberation is made possible through the caring and transformative relationships we build with one another. They do their best to embody this belief by locally organizing in Oakland/Ohlone land, working as an end-of-life doula, and loving on their niblings (a gender-inclusive term for the children of one’s sibling).
We are grateful for this opportunity to collaborate with ari!
When Nonprofits Are Under Attack, Security Must Be Funded
📷 credit: LumiNola
For justice-focused nonprofits, the work has never been more urgent or more dangerous.
Nonprofits focused on advancing immigrant rights, racial justice, social justice, environmental justice, and defending our democracy are under siege from an escalating wave of attacks. They’re facing politically motivated audits, legal harassment, online threats, and funding retaliation, all while key revenue streams dry up overnight.
Nonprofits saw this coming. Many have been warning about escalating threats for years, especially in preparation for the return of a hostile Trump administration. They understood that the pushback against justice work wouldn’t just come in the form of ideological opposition; it would target their safety, infrastructure, and survival.
The mission hasn’t changed, but the risks have. And yet, philanthropy has not adjusted to meet the moment.
Rather than focusing on serving their communities, nonprofits are being forced to divert precious time, staff, and already-limited budgets to defend themselves against threats they warned us about. They're fighting legal battles, responding to doxxing and harassment, and scrubbing websites of staff names for safety.
While these attacks intensify, funding isn’t increasing to match the danger. Many foundations, wary of political scrutiny, are quietly stepping back, preemptively complying with an environment that punishes justice work. Others are taking a wait-and-see approach, as if inaction itself doesn’t carry consequences.
This moment requires more than continued programmatic support. Philanthropy must fund the security that makes justice work possible. That includes legal defense, digital and physical protection, crisis response, and flexible dollars that allow organizations to adapt quickly.
Nonprofits Are Fighting Battles They Shouldn’t Have to Fight Alone
The pressure is coming from multiple directions:
Government agencies are revoking grants for political reasons, forcing organizations to scramble for funding.
Far-right groups and individuals are harassing, threatening, and doxxing nonprofit staff, forcing organizations to remove employee information from public websites.
Funders are scaling back support out of fear of backlash, leaving nonprofits most vulnerable when they need protection most.
Funders are quietly asking grantees to remove so-called "controversial" language and core aspects of their work, such as justice, DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion), racial equity, and anti-racism, from their websites and grant applications to avoid political backlash.
Under the advice of legal teams and peers, boards and executive directors are distancing themselves from advocacy work, even when it is central to their organizational missions.
This is not theoretical. It’s happening now, and it’s only going to escalate.
Philanthropy Must Treat Security as Essential Infrastructure
Security cannot be treated as an afterthought. How can nonprofits do their work if they’re under siege? How can staff show up for communities when they’re worried about their safety?
Nonprofits aren’t asking for radical solutions; they’re asking for basic protection to meet this moment: funding for legal defense, crisis response, security systems, and flexible grants to help them adapt. These are not bold innovations; they’re overdue necessities. What nonprofits need now is not reinvention but a reaffirmation of support.
None of these threats are new. What’s new is the scale and coordination. The calls are louder, the attacks are sharper, and the stakes are higher.
If Philanthropy truly supports justice movements, it must use its power to fund the security and stability that make them possible. Here’s how:
Make Legal Defense and Security a Priority
Provide funding for legal assistance, digital safety, physical safety, compliance support, and crisis response, not just programmatic work.
Groups like Reset Tech guard against digital threats and seek to hold tech companies accountable to democratic values.
The San Francisco Foundation’s Safety & Security Resources offer a wide range of practical tools for nonprofits, activists, and funders alike to strengthen protection and preparedness.
Help Nonprofits Survive Funding Retaliation
Offer bridge grants and rapid response funding for organizations that lose government contracts due to political targeting.
Provide flexible, unrestricted funding that allows nonprofits to adapt to emerging threats and budget cuts.
Invest in Collective Defense Strategies
Support coalitions and rapid response funds that provides legal, financial, and strategic guidance to nonprofits under attack.
Invest in initiatives like the LEAD for Racial Justice initiative by the California Black Freedom Fund, the The Protecting and Advancing DEI Pro Bono Initiative by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, or the Democracy Forward Litigation Fund, which help organizations prepare for retaliatory audits and security threats.
Organizations like Vision Change Win are also providing rapid response support and community training education through virtual series tailored for nonprofits navigating community safety incidents.
Use Philanthropy’s Influence to Push Back
Publicly defend nonprofits that are being unfairly targeted.
Engage in legal defense and advocacy to protect nonprofit status and funding from politically motivated attacks.
Funders can turn to resources like ABFE’s Race-Explicit Grantmaking guide to stay grounded in values while navigating this moment.
Philanthropy Has the Power to Take Risks. Nonprofits Don’t.
Large philanthropic institutions have the financial security, legal resources, and institutional power that nonprofits do not. Unlike nonprofit organizations, foundations are not constantly at risk of being defunded or shut down without the power to fight back.
This is not about blame; it’s about recognizing positionality. Philanthropic institutions have the ability to take risks that frontline nonprofits cannot. That’s why this moment demands more than passive support. It requires action. This is a critical time for the country. Will philanthropy stand by the organizations it funds when they are under attack?
Nonprofits are making impossible choices in 2025: whether to continue critical work or pull back to protect their staff, whether to fight back or stay quiet to avoid becoming the next target, or risk losing government funding. Philanthropy can help alleviate some of those impossible choices. By funding security, legal defense, and crisis response, funders can ensure that nonprofits don’t just survive these attacks. Their funding will allow nonprofits to deepen their work and support their communities at an especially fraught time.
Our communities are under attack, and philanthropy has the power to help. None of these challenges are new, but the harm is escalating. The solutions nonprofits are calling for are practical, proven, and overdue: security, legal defense, and flexible, unrestricted funding. This isn’t about bold innovation. It’s about meeting the moment with courage and clarity. Philanthropy has the power to act; now is the time to use it.
Ktisis Capital's Democracy Learning Cohort: Shaping the Future of Democratic Philanthropy
📷 credit: Dylan Gillis
In April, Ktisis Capital will launch another cycle of the Democracy Learning Cohort (DLC), a program designed to deepen donors' understanding of strategies for funding civic engagement and building long-term power in the face of unprecedented threats to democracy. Participants will join a cohort of like-minded philanthropists on a carefully crafted, eight-month journey committed to strengthening democracy and maximizing their philanthropic impact.
First implemented in 2024, this program features monthly sessions led by expert facilitators who help participants navigate the complexities of funding the pro-democracy movement. Programming will include sensemaking about how we got here (including analysis regarding what happened during the 2024 election); exploration of the range of tools and strategies donors can employ to actualize their goals; national analysis regarding emergent needs and opportunities; guidance on developing and refining strategy for political and 501(c)(4) giving; and critical questions to deepen your thinking about this work in conversation with your peers in a confidential space.
This program also includes unique opportunities to hear directly from national movement leaders. Past participants were particularly inspired by presentations from luminaries like Stacey Abrams and Maurice Mitchell, who helped connect electoral strategy to broader democratic transformation. As one cohort member shared, "They were incredibly effective in helping us understand the big picture in ways we'd never thought of before, appreciating the long game and how elections are a piece of a much larger strategy."
To learn more about joining the Democracy Learning Cohort, contact Associate Director Michael Pratt at [email protected].
Understanding Extreme Wealth Today
📷 credit: StockCake
The following was originally published in Mike Gast's Organize the Rich Substack in a post entitled “Who are the wealthy in the US today?”. Mike is a longtime friend and colleague of our founder Jason Franklin since their organizing time together in Resource Generation in the early 2000s through to today.
I loved your latest article (A six pack of election related reflections) and the ideas behind it and agree 100% with your fourth point about the need for some serious and thoughtful power mapping…but just a note that the Street Insider article of "25 wealthiest heirs" was out of date and frankly badly done and deceptive in its framing. It came from Investing.com which often publishes spammy "articles" built by AI scraping of other data and click-baity combinations of publicly available or Wikipedia information. Even the “author” of the article, credited as Audrey Kyanova, seems to be a fake account/name.
So, the idea to map wealthy heirs is needed but, while all of the people in that Street Insider article are wealthy, none of them are among the richest heirs and only two would make it to most thoughtful people's list of possible wealthiest heirs.
Who are the wealthy in the US today?
It's hard for people to wrap their heads around the extreme wealth concentration in the US right now. As noted by the New York Times, we’re facing the greatest wealth transfer in American history. A projected $84 trillion in assets is set to change hands over the next 20 years, and the top 10% wealthiest Americans control over 50% of those assets.
The Forbes 400, while imperfect, is the most accurate and publicly available list of the wealthiest people in the US today. Forbes spends a lot of time trying to estimate the wealth of people who are constantly trying to hide or exaggerate their assets, not an easy task.
From Mapped: Where do the wealthiest people in the world live? by Omri Wallach
The current intro to the Forbes 400 notes: "The wealthiest people in America have never been wealthier. The 400 richest people in America are having a rollicking time in the roaring 2020s. In all, they are worth a record $5.4 trillion, up nearly $1 trillion from last year. A dozen have $100 billion-plus fortunes, also a record. And admission to this elite club is pricier than ever: A minimum net worth of $3.3 billion is required, up $400 million since 2023."
Right now, the Forbes Real Time Billionaire List counts 762 Americans among the world’s 2,740 billionaires, meaning 362 billionaires don't even make the Forbes 400 list. This is mind boggling and such a reminder of how skewed the wealth concentration in this country has become.
Additionally, talking about millionaires as wealthy these days is almost no longer useful. It is true but it can skew our thinking. The 2022 Survey of Consumer Finances from the Federal Reserve found that approximately 18% of U.S. households had at least a seven figure net worth which translates to roughly 23.7 million millionaire households across the country.
From Mapped: The Richest Billionaires in US States by Avery Koop
The average net worth of Americans has exceeded $1M because the wealthiest people skew the average up, although median net worth also rose to $192,900 because of surging housing and stock prices. However, averages and medians hide extreme inequality. Over 25% of the American population have a negative net worth (debts exceed assets). And for almost all wealthy Americans, their home plus retirement savings represent the vast majority of their wealth, while for the extremely wealthy those represent a tiny slice of their assets. (Check out the chart at the bottom of this post for details.)
Talking about the top 1% of wealth holders in the US (1.27 million households) is a better frame to truly understand extreme wealth today. Estimates to be in the top 1% hover around $13-14M+ so we'd need to talk about "deca-millionaires to billionaires" to have a more accurate framing for extreme wealth in the US, but "millionaires & billionaires" rolls off the tongue better so our language keeps obscuring true inequality.
What wealthy means continues to change, but our society’s language and understanding have failed to keep up with the extreme wealth accumulation and concentration of the past quarter century.
From What assets make up wealth? by Jeff Desjardins
Who are the wealthiest heirs in the US?
Back to the question of heirs. If we want to talk about the 25 richest heirs in the US, are we talking about those who have inherited or those who will inherit?
In terms of those who will inherit, shockingly, Elon Musk's children probably account for a third of the wealthiest 25 heirs. He has 11 children, some likely won't inherit at all given the way he has treated them, but the rest will all count among the wealthiest heirs.
You'd likely round out the rest of a 25 person list with a subset of the 32 kids of the other eleven people with net assets over $100B - Bezos (4), Zuckerberg (3), Ellison (4), Buffet (3), Page (1), Brinn (3), Ballmer (3), Gates (3), Bloomberg (2), Huang (2), and Dell (4). However, five of these twelve people have signed the Giving Pledge (Bloomberg, Buffet, Ellison, Gates, and Zuckerberg) so if they fulfill their pledges some of their 15 kids may be excluded from this list.
Wealth inequality is so extreme in this country, it's hard for any of us to wrap our mind around the fact that even the two wealthiest heirs from that Street Insider article - Alex Soros (one of George Soros’ five children) or Eve Jobs (one of Steve Jobs’ four children) - wouldn't be among the 25 wealthiest heirs in the country.
From Breaking Down the Wealth of America’s Top 20 Billionaires by Marcus Lu. Graphic by Miranda Smith
If we want to think about the wealthiest people who have already inherited, it gets complicated. If we just think about the current wealthiest people in the US who mostly inherited their wealth, you could consider the 28 people who had a score of 1 (the lowest score) on the Forbes "Self Made Index".
According to a 2020 Forbes article on the self made index, that includes 75-year-old Christy Walton, who married Walton heir John T. Walton; brothers James and Austen Cargill (76 & 74 respectively); Daniel Pritzker (66); and others.
Or if we're talking just about wealthiest young inheritors, there are eight Americans under 50 on the Forbes real time billionaire list whose primary wealth came from inheritance.
Lukas Walton (youngest member of the Forbes 400, $34B), the wealthiest by far.
Scott Duncan ($8.3B, oil & gas company Enterprise Products).
Brothers Mat ($9B) & Justin ($4.8B) Ishbia whose wealth mostly comes from mortgage lender United Wholesale Mortgage founded by their father Jeff Ishbia.
Lynsi Snyder ($7.3B) who inherited ownership of and now runs In-n-Out Burger.
Brothers Alejandro ($2.5B) and Andres ($1.5B) Santo Domingo who are heirs to the SABMiller company which was sold to Anheuser-Busch InBev.
Stefan Soloviev ($2.3B) whose billionaire real estate developer father Sheldon Soloviev passed in 2020.
We’d need to spend more time to build a list of 25, but to round out a Top 10 I would add two other young (under 50) billionaires who earned significant wealth built on big inheritances:
Josh Kushner ($3.8B, brother to Trump son-in-law Jared) backed some of the decade's biggest startups through his VC firm including Instagram, Spotify, and OpenAI with wealth he inherited from his father, real estate tycoon Charles Kushner.
Ernest Garcia III ($4.2B) founded online automobile dealer Carvana in 2012 with funding from his billionaire father, Ernest Garcia II.
Anyway, none of this invalidates your arguments nor the need for mapping. It’s just a reminder that we need to make sure to map the right things, grounded in real understanding of what extreme wealth (and wealth inequality) looks like in American society today.
I have to add what is arguably the best graphic video explaining American wealth inequality produced in the last twenty years. Created by an anonymous freelance filmmaker, “Politizane” is based largely on reporting from Mother Jones. This video’s underlying assertions still hold true although American inequality is even greater today than it was in 2012, when it was made.
Protecting Immigrant Communities in 2025: A Call for Philanthropic Action
📷 credit: Rawpixel
On November 6, the United States of America woke up to face a stark new reality and an uncertain future. We know that this uncertainty and fear is impacting certain communities disproportionately as people worry about their rights disappearing – communities of color, LGBTQ+ people, immigrants, and women, to name a few.
As we enter 2025, millions of immigrant families, in particular, across the country are facing unprecedented anxiety and uncertainty. Parents are having difficult conversations with their children about emergency plans. Community leaders are working overtime to provide accurate information and combat the spread of fear-inducing misinformation. These are not abstract policy discussions or talking points – they are the lived realities of our neighbors and community members whose security and safety are targeted.
The stakes could not be higher. With the incoming administration's stated plans to implement aggressive immigration policies, including potential mass deportations through declared national emergency powers and military deployment, approximately 46.2 million people – 14% of the U.S. population – face potential impact. Behind these numbers are real people: the teachers educating our children, the doctors and nurses caring for our communities, the scientists advancing medical breakthroughs, the artists and creators shaping our culture, the local leaders strengthening our democracy, and the essential workers who kept our country running through the darkest days of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The philanthropic sector faces a critical moment. Our response must match the urgency of the immediate threat and the necessity of building long-term resilience. This is not just about defending communities under attack – it's about preserving the fundamental values of inclusion, dignity, and human rights that define our society. It's about protecting the generations of people essential to our prosperity and cultural richness, especially when their contributions have historically gone unrecognized.
As a follow-up to our previous blog post sharing recommendations from leaders of immigration-focused nonprofits, we wanted to lift up specific priorities and recommendations we’ve heard from the sector and our partners in the context of the election outcome.
Priorities for 2025
We are already seeing a robust response emerging across sectors. Several state and city governments are preparing to act as the last line of defense for immigrant communities, exploring legal protections and policies that could shield residents from federal enforcement actions. Immigration legal aid organizations are rapidly scaling up their capacity, conducting know-your-rights workshops in churches, schools, and community centers. Grassroots organizations that have long served immigrant communities are forming new coalitions, sharing resources, and creating rapid response networks. National advocacy groups are preparing for prospective legal challenges.
A few specific examples of priorities to support as funders are included below:
Immediate Protection & Legal Defense
Scale up funding for immigration legal services and rapid response networks.
Support know-your-rights training and emergency preparedness programs
Fund security assessments and protective measures for immigrant-serving organizations
Strengthen coordination between national advocacy and local legal service providers
Movement Infrastructure & Coalition Building
Invest in state-level infrastructure, especially in vulnerable regions
Support cross-movement solidarity, particularly between immigrant rights and civil rights organizations
Fund organizing efforts that bridge racial, ethnic, and faith communities
Build capacity for rapid response to enforcement actions
Narrative Change & Community Defense
Counter misinformation targeting immigrant communities
Support immigrant-led media platforms and content creators
Fund research and messaging that demonstrates immigrants' contributions to American society
Invest in alternative media ecosystems in multiple languages, such as community radio, alternative community media networks, and immigrant-led digital content creators and journalists.
A Call to Action
This moment calls for all of us in philanthropy to demonstrate our courage and commitment. The choices we make in 2025 will resonate for generations to come. Immigrant communities have always been essential to our country’s past and present. Now, we must stand with them to protect our future. The path forward requires courage, creativity, and unwavering commitment to immigrant justice. By acting boldly now, philanthropy can help immigrant communities survive this challenging period and emerge stronger and more resilient.
For Foundation Leaders:
Challenge your board to increase payout rates for 2025-2026 to meet this historic moment
Remove bureaucratic barriers that slow down grantmaking when speed is essential
Use your institutional voice and relationships to advocate for immigrant communities
Consider how every portfolio – not just immigration-specific funding – can support immigrant communities
For Program Officers and Foundation Staff:
Reach out to your grantees now to understand their needs and challenges
Advocate within your institutions for flexible funding and streamlined processes
Connect grantees to other funders and resources
Look for opportunities to connect immigration to other portfolios and programs
Make grants to intermediaries if immigration is not your area of expertise (Examples like Four Freedoms Fund and Abundant Futures Fund)
For Individual Donors:
Increase your giving to immigrant rights organizations
Support local grassroots groups that larger foundations may overlook. Most states have immigration coalitions, and their members are critical to support (Examples like New York Immigration Coalition, Pennsylvania Immigration Coalition, and Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights)
Leverage your networks to bring new resources to the movement
Speak up in your communities about the importance of protecting immigrant rights
For Everyone in Philanthropy:
Recognize that this is not business as usual – we must take risks and act with urgency
Center the voices and leadership of directly impacted communities
Build authentic relationships with immigrant leaders and organizations
Use your privilege and access to open doors and create opportunities
Remember that your silence or inaction is a choice with real consequences for millions of families
History judges how people respond in moments of crisis. Future generations will ask us where we were and what we did in 2025 when members of our communities were targeted. We can choose to be cautious and maintain business as usual or rise to meet this extraordinary challenge with the boldness and urgency it demands. The time for half-measures and incremental change has passed. Immigrant communities have always believed in this country’s promise – now it's time for philanthropy to prove that their faith is justified.
This blog post builds on insights from recent sector convenings by Hispanics in Philanthropy (HIP) and Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees (GCIR). It draws from the expertise of immigrant rights leaders, organizers, and advocates nationwide. The recommendations also reflect immediate needs and long-term strategic priorities identified by movement leaders and highlighted in our previous blog.
After the Votes Are Counted: Strategic Insights for Democracy Funders
📷 credit: Ted Eytan / Flickr
Despite record-setting fundraising and massive GOTV efforts during the 2024 election, progressive losses across the board present advocates with daunting political challenges over the next four years. The election resulted in losses of the Presidency and Senate and failed to flip the House, leaving a federal landscape increasingly hostile to progressive values.
The incoming administration has already signaled its intent to pursue the white Christian nationalist agenda of Project 2025, which seeks to consolidate power for the President. Between the extremist cabinet nominations of the past few weeks and the rapid emergence of legislation like H.R. 9495 which would give the US Treasury expanded powers to strip nonprofits of their tax exempt status, rightwing forces are redoubling efforts to undermine democratic institutions and clamp down on voices of dissent.
In the coming months, it is likely that we’ll see further consolidation of power behind the President, as some red states may seek to align with the federal government to restrict voting rights, threaten electoral systems, and criminalize protest. Furthermore, we can expect the threat of mass deportations to be used as a rationale to impose force on states that resist unjust federal policies. The fight for democracy will get harder over the coming years.
Yet, despite this electoral loss, there is still hope. The truth is, this election was not a mandate. President Trump won with the smallest popular vote margin since 2000. While the Harris campaign failed to overcome the headwinds that toppled almost every incumbent administration around the globe, we saw a number of local and state victories and a high level of split ballots which show the divided nature of the electorate today. The challenges we face will also provide us with the opportunity to grow the democracy field in ways that will benefit our movement for years to come, if we have the strength and thoughtfulness to do so.
We have the power to push back against despair. Our success in this endeavor relies on our ability to learn critical lessons from the past, and prepare for the future. Below are some key themes Ktisis Capital has identified that will drive our actions over the coming years:
Multi-year investments in democracy are more critical than ever. Donor anxiety about a potential economic downturn will impact fundraising for democracy organizations at a time when needs are higher than ever. Progressive donors should strongly consider making multi-year commitments to organizations working at the frontlines in the fight for democracy. We must remember that any short term economic concerns are dwarfed by real long-term threats and show up strongly to support the groups fighting at this critical time. Doing so allows development staff to focus their fundraising efforts elsewhere and helps organizations create multi-year plans around the commitments they receive.
States are fundamental to the fight for democracy and will require investment to highlight, prevent and fight back against federal abuses of power. Local governments will play a critical role in resisting the unjust policies of this administration, just as they did in 2016. In addition, cities and states are where policy innovation thrives, and we know that local leaders will have to get creative to protect and strengthen communities and democratic institutions from further attack.
Investment in philanthropic alignment efforts will be critical to maintaining a united front. Philanthropic intermediaries like Movement Voter Project and pooled funds like Trusted Elections Fund provide the broader funding community with strategic direction and rapid response capacity. Their close engagement with partners across the country make them well-suited to respond effectively to threats as they emerge, which relieves donors of the burden of having to track all the threats themselves.
Foundations should consider utilizing more mission- and program-related investments (MRIs and PRIs) to activate a greater percentage of their endowment. This can include actions like providing a grantee with a low- or no-interest loan to purchase a building, funding a social impact startup, or investing in the green energy ecosystem. At a time when both democracy and the climate are crumbling, it is critical that funders draw upon the full weight of their investments to fund the future our communities need.
Multi-entity organizations will be better positioned to navigate the hostility of the incoming administration. The rise of H.R. 9495 is the opening volley in what will likely be an ongoing attack on the progressive organizing ecosystem. Multi-entitity organizations (those with 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), PAC and LLC affiliates) will have more flexibility to adjust their strategies and retain critical staff and other resources when legal challenges arise. New Left Accelerator offers support for practitioners and funders regarding how to structure and navigate the complexities of building a multi-entity organization.
Litigation funds will be critical to help smaller and mid-size funders to lean in and support progressive organizing in an increasingly hostile landscape. Rightwing forces have already weaponized litigation in an effort to chill the movement of progressive dollars. Litigation funds like Democracy 2025 can be used to mitigate risk and provide critical support for smaller funders who are unable to afford a costly legal battle.
This election has made apparent the need to counter disinformation. Disinformation is increasingly utilized to distort people’s perceptions of the truth and manipulate voter behavior. Groups like Reset Tech guard against digital threats and seek to hold tech companies accountable to democratic values. Onyx Impact is another organization fighting disinformation designed to harm Black communities. In addition, efforts to support non-corporate journalists who reliably report on local affairs can mitigate the impact of disinformation at the local level.
At Ktisis, we are considering our own responsibilities as we navigate this moment of vastly increased need. Not only must we make critical investments in our democracy ecosystem, we must strengthen broader work for economic justice and labor protections, a just transition to a new sustainable economy and more to respond to the real frustrations of voters. We are working to better support each other during stressful times while also delivering on our promises to the field. As circumstances evolve, we will continue to track both threats and opportunities to help funders navigate the complexities of our shifting philanthropic ecosystem. Moving forward, our team is available to talk through options and offer advice about how to best support the pro-democracy movement.
Welcome Sonja Hansen: Our Newest Communications Fellow!
We're delighted to announce that Sonja Hansen has joined Ktisis Capital as our newest Communications Fellow! As part of our fellowship program designed to support emerging leaders in philanthropy and social justice, Sonja will play a vital role in advancing our mission through strategic communications and storytelling.
A Stanford University graduate with a B.S. in Earth Systems and a Notation in Science Communication, Sonja brings both environmental expertise and storytelling capabilities to our team. Her academic background and international experience align perfectly with our commitment to advancing racial, social, economic, and environmental justice.
In her role as Communications Fellow, Sonja will be instrumental in shaping and executing our communications strategy. She'll manage our content pipeline and editorial calendar while developing engaging content across our various platforms – from our blog and newsletter to thought leadership pieces that amplify our impact in the philanthropy space.
Beyond content creation, Sonja will contribute to our broader strategic initiatives by researching industry trends, analyzing best practices, and collaborating with our team to develop innovative communication approaches that advance our mission. She'll also participate in our collective learning journey, working alongside other fellows and team members to deepen our understanding of philanthropy and social change.
We're particularly excited about Sonja's role in helping us tell the stories of our partners and grantees, bringing attention to the crucial work being done at the intersection of philanthropy and social justice. Her creative approach to communication will help us engage with our stakeholders in meaningful and impactful ways.
Please join us in welcoming Sonja to the Ktisis Capital team!
Social Justice Donors vs. Mainstream Wealthy Donors: A Comparative Analysis
📷 credit: Johnson Center for Philanthropy
Reposted from the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy.
In the diverse landscape of philanthropy, a groundbreaking report from Ktisis Capital has illuminated stark differences between social justice donors (SJ donors) and the general population of wealthy donors. This first-of-its-kind comparative analysis offers valuable insights into the unique characteristics, motivations, and practices of those committed to advancing racial, social, economic, and environmental justice through their giving.
For years, the annual Bank of America Study of Philanthropy, conducted with Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, has been the gold standard for data on high-net-worth donor behavior. Now, Ktisis Capital’s report provides a fresh additional perspective, comparing SJ donors with that broader universe of wealthy donors. While the BoA survey group undoubtedly includes many donors who identify as social justice donors, the overall research provides a sort of “control group” effect. In this article, we refer to the BoA group as “general donors” as a shorthand for the “general population” of high-net-worth donors. The findings reveal significant disparities in approach, strategy, and focus between the two groups.
A tale of two donor types
One of the most striking differences lies in the sheer scope of giving. While nearly all SJ donors (97%) reported supporting five or more organizations, less than half of general donors did the same. In fact, almost two-thirds of SJ donors spread their generosity across more than 20 groups. This pattern suggests that SJ donors cast a wider net, potentially seeking to address interconnected issues through a more diverse portfolio of beneficiaries.
When it comes to causes, SJ donors showed a clear preference for democracy and political activities, environmental and climate justice, and racial justice and healing. Compared to their non-SJ counterparts, SJ donors were 5.5 times more likely to support racial justice causes and four times more likely to back environmental initiatives. This focus on systemic issues contrasts sharply with mainstream donors, who were more inclined to support religion and human services.
Perhaps the most dramatic difference between the two groups is their approach to political engagement. In a near-perfect inverse, almost 80% of SJ donors reported giving to political candidates, campaigns, or committees in the 2020 election cycle, while nearly the same percentage of the total population of donors abstained from political giving entirely. This stark contrast highlights the SJ donor’s view of political participation as an integral part of their philanthropic strategy.
The strategic mindset of SJ donors extends to how they structure and evaluate their giving. They are significantly more likely to have a guiding strategy (65% versus 41% of general donors) and to use sophisticated giving vehicles like donor-advised funds (73% versus 5%). Moreover, while only a fifth of general donors monitor or evaluate the impact of their donations, more than two-thirds of SJ donors engage in some form of impact assessment. This emphasis on strategy and evaluation suggests a more holistic intentional approach to philanthropy among SJ donors.
Lastly, the report reveals intriguing differences in how these two groups perceive their own expertise and seek to develop as donors. A majority of SJ donors (63%) rate themselves as highly knowledgeable or experts in philanthropy, compared to a mere 4% of general donors. This confidence is reflected in their learning interests: SJ donors are more inclined to advance concepts like impact investing and integrating philanthropy into wealth management, while general donors focus on more baseline activities like identifying volunteer opportunities and understanding how nonprofits operate and serve constituents.
Beyond the headlines
While these key differences paint a vivid picture, the report offers many more insights. Readers interested in a deeper dive can find additional comparisons in the full report, including:
The motivations driving giving for each group
How decisionmaking about donations differs between SJ and general donors
The unique challenges faced by each donor type in their philanthropic journey
Implications for future directions
This groundbreaking report has significant implications for various stakeholders in the philanthropic world. For donors, it highlights the growing importance of long-term, flexible funding and collaborative giving in creating systemic change. Nonprofits seeking support from SJ donors should focus on demonstrating their approach to systemic change and providing comprehensive impact data. The philanthropic sector as a whole may need to develop more sophisticated tools and resources, particularly in areas such as impact measurement for social change work and platforms to facilitate collaborative giving.
However, it is important to note that this is just the beginning. The relatively small sample size of SJ donors (68 respondents) and potential geographic biases in the responses highlight the need for further research and should be a caution to all on relying too much on this data to direct fundraising or donor organizing efforts. There may also be some bias in the results tied to the sample size and sample source — the Bank of America study surveys wealthy clients who happen to give, while the Ktisis survey respondents primarily were reached through donor networks and donor education programs which may over index for highly engaged donors. As we continue to gather more data and insights and expand our survey size in future years, we can refine our understanding of how to effectively engage donors to progressive causes and address the pressing racial, social, economic, and environmental challenges of our time.
The differences revealed in this report between SJ donors and the general population of wealthy donors underscore the diversity within the philanthropic community. By recognizing and understanding these differences, we can work toward a more nuanced and effective approach to philanthropy that leverages the unique strengths and motivations of different donor groups.
Standing Firm in Our Commitment to Justice: A Message from Ktisis Capital
📷 credit: Luke Michael via Unsplash
In moments that shake our collective foundation, we at Ktisis stand firmly with those working toward a more just and equitable world. This week, many in our communities are processing complex emotions, concerns, and questions about the path forward. We hear you, we see you, and we remain steadfast in our commitment to stand alongside you.
Our mission has never been more vital: to mobilize resources that advance racial, social, economic, and environmental justice. These struggles are deeply interconnected – what affects one sphere ripples through all others. This understanding only strengthens our resolve to support transformative change across all dimensions of justice.
To our partners and the communities we serve and support: your work matters now more than ever. We will continue to center your voices, amplify your efforts, and direct resources to support your vital initiatives. We remain committed to treating all people with fairness, dignity, and transparency, while actively challenging the systemic inequities that persist in our society.
In the days ahead, we will continue to:
Center the voices and perspectives of those most affected by injustice;
Support movements and organizations working for systemic change;
Partner with donors and foundations to direct resources where they are most needed;
Create spaces for healing, learning, and collective action.
While the path forward may feel uncertain, our values remain clear and unwavering: justice, integrity, wholeness, care, and learning. These principles will continue to guide our work as we support communities and movements building toward a more just and equitable future.
Immigration Funding Through a Justice Lens: Recommendations for Philanthropy
📷 credit: Miko Guziuk via Unsplash
The scope of immigration’s impact has consistently shaped the very fabric of American society. As of 2022, 14% of the U.S. population – approximately 46.2 million individuals – was born abroad (Migration Policy Institute, 2024). The demographic reality of immigration has transformed communities, local economies, and social structures across the nation. Despite their significant contributions, immigrant communities remain highly vulnerable and are increasingly under attack, facing legal, economic, and social challenges that threaten their safety, stability, and acceptance.
We also know the current federal administration has had a mixed approach to immigration largely only working to create opportunities to protect current immigrants while deterring and restricting would-be immigrants. The presidential campaign rhetoric is also once again trying to pit groups against one another by spreading misinformation and lies about certain immigrant groups.
Philanthropy has a critical role to play in the face of ongoing attacks on immigrant rights. Recent interviews conducted by Raquel Gimeno and Alison Upton Lopez of leaders in the immigration space offer insights for funders seeking to make a meaningful impact in this space.
Current Landscape: Challenges and Inequities
Interviewees highlighted a few themes around the current challenges facing the sector when it comes to addressing and prioritizing immigration and immigrant communities.
Severe Underfunding: The immigration sector faces a funding crisis, particularly in legal services, narrative work, and state-level advocacy. This underfunding perpetuates systemic inequities and limits the capacity for transformative change during a time when immigrants are most at risk.
Political Vulnerability: With looming political uncertainties, immigrant communities are at risk of increased deportations and erosion of legal protections, highlighting the urgent need for expanded support systems. Anti-immigrant rhetoric is continuously spread, which not only shapes public opinion but influences policy. This rhetoric dehumanizes immigrants, fuels discrimination, and creates a pressure pot of hostility that impacts the daily lives and dignity of the migrant population.
Movement Fragmentation: Years of crisis response have led to burnout and division within the immigration movement, weakening collective power and resilience.
Risk Aversion and Its Ripple Effects: Funder’s hesitance to engage in potentially controversial work has a cascading effect on the sector. Smaller nonprofits, lacking the resources to navigate potential legal challenges, are often forced to adopt similarly risk-averse strategies. This domino effect of caution further limits the sector's ability to pursue bold, transformative initiatives, which disproportionately impact grassroots and community-led organizations.
Recommendations for Justice-Oriented Philanthropy
Provide Sustained, Flexible Funding: Offer multi-year, unrestricted support to build organizational capacity and enable proactive strategies.
Integrate Immigration: Prioritize immigration and immigrant communities long-term in any grantmaking strategy, not just as a response to waves of xenophobic rhetoric and policies.
Empower Local Action: Focus on state and local initiatives for immediate impact and momentum-building.
Amplify Marginalized Voices: Invest in narrative change work centering immigrant experiences and countering harmful rhetoric.
Strengthen Legal Defenses: Support direct legal aid and strategic litigation to protect immigrant rights.
Foster Intersectional Solidarity: Build connections between immigrant communities and other marginalized groups.
Invest in Community Power & Infrastructure: Fund grassroots organizing and leadership development within immigrant communities.
Prepare for Political Contingencies: Develop strategies to help organizations plan for the outcomes of national elections, particularly around safety and security, legal defense, and longer-term policy strategies.
Call to Action
The fight for immigrant justice requires bold, sustained commitment from philanthropy. By centering equity, empowering communities, and addressing root causes of injustice, funders can play a pivotal role in building a more inclusive and just society for all.
*Note: Leaders from the following organizations were interviewed for this work:
Moving Beyond Listening: Shifting Grantmaking Practices to Center Proximate Voices
📷 credit: Hannah Busing via Unsplash
Last week, we had the privilege of presenting at the Council of Michigan Foundations' Annual Conference. Our session, titled "Moving Beyond Listening: Shifting Grantmaking Practices to Center Proximate Voices” and designed and facilitated by Alison Upton López, Michael Pratt, and Ricky Benavidez, was a powerful exploration of how philanthropy can better serve communities by amplifying the voices of those closest to the work.
Why Centering Proximate Voices Matters
The core message of our session was clear: to create meaningful change, philanthropy must move beyond simply listening to actively centering the voices and experiences of proximate organizations and leaders. These are the individuals and groups who are deeply embedded in their communities, understand the nuances of local challenges, and are best positioned to drive sustainable solutions.
Expert Insights
We were fortunate to have a panel of experts share their experiences and insights:
eMily Alemán-McAlpine, Program Director, Wege Foundation
Vicky Stott, Senior Program Officer, Racial Equity and Community Engagement, W.K. Kellogg Foundation
Kelsey Wabanimkee, Indigenous Educator and Community Wellness Consultant
Our panelists discussed their journeys in shifting decision-making processes, the challenges they've faced, and the successes they've achieved in centering proximate voices. They emphasized that this work isn't just about grantmaking – it's about transforming entire organizational cultures and practices. For example, one recommendation echoed across panelists was encouraging staff and board members to go out into communities and participate in organizations’ work beyond site visits.
Key Takeaways
Importance of Proximity: Understanding and valuing the perspectives of those closest to the issues is crucial for effective philanthropy.
Organizational Shift: Centering proximate voices requires changes across all organizational functions, not just in grantmaking.
Challenges and Successes: While the journey can be challenging, the impact of truly collaborative and community-centered philanthropy is profound.
Practical Steps: Attendees left with concrete ideas and commitments to implement in their own organizations.
Looking Ahead
The energy in the room was palpable as attendees engaged in small group discussions and individual reflection. Many shared commitments to try new approaches in the coming months, from revising grant application processes to creating more inclusive decision-making structures.
As one attendee noted, "This session wasn't just about theory – it gave us practical tools to start making changes right away."
We're excited to see how these commitments will shape the future of philanthropy in Michigan and beyond. By centering proximate voices, we can create a more equitable, effective, and transformative philanthropic sector.
Stay tuned for more updates as we continue this important work. Together, we can move beyond listening to truly amplify and empower the voices that matter most.
Systemic Change in the Fight for Democracy
📷 credit: Unseen Histories via Unsplash
As we near the November election, many donors are feeling anxious about the role they play in the fight for the future of our democracy. The specters of white nationalism and rising global fascism have progressive donors asking, “How can I direct my investments to best protect and strengthen democratic practice? Where are my resources needed most?” This was the subject of a recent blog post, as well as the impetus for our Democracy Learning Cohort series – 9-month learning engagements with groups of donors who are interested in maximizing their impact in the democracy space (you can learn more about our DLCs here).
These questions are relevant to anyone working in the philanthropic sector, regardless of where we are in the election cycle. How can we best leverage our access and resources to build the democracy we have never had? What is our role in effecting systemic change? What factors does systemic change rely on? Below, we will explore these questions, as well as some of the foundational concepts we use in our DLC program to help donors consider how their giving strategies impact the future of our democracy.
Achieving Systemic Change
The staggering wealth inequality in the U.S. is directly linked to the accumulation of political power. Multiple Supreme Court decisions have ensured that the more money you have, the louder your political voice may be. These dynamics are responsible for the decades-long and largely successful efforts of wealthy opportunists to systematically undermine the institutions of democracy. We see the fruits of this labor all around us: election denialism, gerrymandered districts, mass voter purges, attacks on the ballot initiative process, the partisan capture of SCOTUS and lower courts, the criminalization of protest, and more. The resulting imbalance of political power drives the social and economic disparities progressive philanthropy ostensibly seeks to address. Solving the social problems that plague us requires more than treating symptoms. The true work of progressive philanthropy must be to invest in changing systems that allow financial wealth to determine political outcomes.
Achieving this relies on the pursuit of three primary “pillars of systemic change:” 1) the advancement of structural reform, 2) building organizing infrastructure, and 3) narrative development. These three pillars comprise the foundation for fundamental realignment in how power is recognized, utilized, and shared – and enable a truly reflective democracy to be built. In addition to these components, it is critical to also make ecosystem investments that cultivate conditions that are conducive to reform.
Structural Reform
Structural reforms are shifts in policy or practice that change the way power is codified. These reforms open the door to achieving longer-term changes in who has access to levers of power and how that power is recognized. If we imagine the burden of community organizing as a Sisyphean boulder that must be rolled uphill, structural reforms are “wedges” that enable us to prevent backsliding in the aftermath of incremental progress.
For example, it is a common experience that our communities will secure a win (e.g., election of an ally to local office, passage of a progressive ballot measure at the state level, or the introduction of democracy reform legislation in US Congress) only to see that progress undone due to actions driven by moneyed interests (e.g., the unseating of a progressive champion, repealing successful ballot measures that defy corporate interests, or cynical machinations to prevent the passage of immensely popular national legislation). The constant battle over the same ground is made possible because the structure of our democracy elevates the interests of the wealthy over those of the general public.
Structural reforms open the door for power to be shared differently. They allow communities to achieve more durable wins and help ensure that future battles will be waged over new ground. In a democracy, structural reform looks like the reinforcement of voting rights, redistricting reform, money in politics reforms, or changes in how elections are administered. Such policies change how voices are recognized and valued by our political institutions and pave the way for communities to play a stronger role in governance.
The pursuit of racial equity and racial justice in America is directly tied to changing how power is held, recognized, and wielded in our democracy. The advancement of structural reform makes this possible.
Organizing Infrastructure
Actualizing structural reforms requires that these reforms be grounded in the needs, energies, and analyses of communities most impacted by injustice. Structural reforms open the door for power to be shared, but communities must be mobilized to cross the threshold and recognize the opportunity to shift the balance of power. This mobilization relies on a robust organizing infrastructure.
We measure organizing infrastructure by the relationships, resources, narratives, and actions that community-based institutions facilitate. The most effective movements for progressive change have emerged from multiracial community networks that are well-resourced, trusted, savvy, and audacious. These conditions enable organizations to build the capacity necessary to engage more people to take bold action and tell the story of their efforts in a way that compels others to accommodate their victory. Structural reforms that emerge from well-organized communities ensure that policy victories are more fully implemented and utilized; as a result, the balance of power is more likely to shift.
However, organizing without an eye toward structural reform undermines the durability of any gains that may be won. As attention moves to the next fight, opponents of reform redouble their efforts to maintain control, and the boulder slips back down. For this reason, both of these pillars are critical in the pursuit of systemic change.
Narrative Development
As communities build structural and organizing power, it is imperative to also reinforce community-driven narrative infrastructure to ensure that the dominant story that emerges elevates the conditions that have allowed these changes to occur. If we don’t control the narrative, we cede that space to those who may oppose our fight for justice. Ceding that space undermines our immediate organizing position and any learning that future generations may glean from the historical accounts of victories won.
Similar to the impetus for structural reforms, the stories that emerge must be rooted in communities most impacted by the issues that are being addressed. This ensures that leaders begin to recognize the inherent power of communities of which they may not be a part. It also places opponents of reform in a more defensive posture as their efforts to regain control are more likely to face social and cultural backlash from the masses.
Telling the right story with sufficient reinforcement from media and communications infrastructure ensures that any gains in the fight for racial justice may be more readily incorporated into the dominant culture. This is the ultimate goal of power-building efforts.
Ecosystem investments
The three pillars above are the most critical components necessary to achieve systemic reform. However, the speed at which reform occurs is heavily impacted by the ecosystem from which change efforts emerge. Ecosystem investments include philanthropic commitment to things like research, training, leadership development, building grassroots fundraising capacity, and organizing philanthropic alignment around shared values and practices. These components intersect with efforts related to structural reform, organizing, and narrative infrastructure, but can exist somewhat outside of those activities. They prep the soil for future growth and ensure community-led efforts are better positioned for success.
Perhaps surprisingly, elections also fall into this category – even in a year like 2024. Elections on their own do not shift power. The identities of elected leaders are largely inconsequential unless their presence results in shifts in governance. Our goal in electing a champion is that they will operate differently than their predecessors. If this is not the case, then our elections fail to meaningfully shift power for our communities. The true thrust of pro-democracy work is to create the conditions in which community voices are valued equitably within our political and cultural practices. Elections, while critically important, are just one component of the foundation on which the pillars of systemic change are built.
In an election year like 2024, many donors tend to think of the November election as an end date – the end of a campaign cycle and, often, the end of their democracy giving (for a while, at least). At Ktisis Capital, we encourage donors to instead think of election day as the start of a new chapter in a story we are deeply invested in. As we consider our roles as progressive funders, how are we committing our time, energy, and resources toward reinforcing the pillars of systemic change, not just during an election year, but ongoing? What role do we want to play in the next chapter of reform? These are some of the themes we continue to explore within our Democracy Learning Cohorts.