Foundations on both sides of the political spectrum are re-examining how they can best contribute to society as the Trump administration nears its 100-day mark, according to findings from two surveys released today. Nearly three-quarters of foundation leaders have already made, or plan to make, adjustments in reaction to the Trump White House, according to 162 grant makerssurveyed by the Center for Effective Philanthropy, a nonprofit research group. The foundations represented in the survey are relatively large, with each making at least $5 million in grants annually.
“Foundations are not sitting on their hands now,” said Phil Buchanan, the center’s president. “They are actively considering how their approaches and practices need to change in light of the changed context. The overwhelming majority are shifting something.”
Nearly half of the foundations said they expect their work will get harder during the Trump presidency. About one-quarter said they expect the new administration to have a mixed effect, while 8 percent said they expected no change, and 17 percent said it was too soon to tell. Three percent of the foundation leaders said the new administration would have a generally positive effect on their ability to make progress.
In a separate survey,Exponent Philanthropy, a membership organization of small grant makers and family foundations with few or no staff members, found that more than three-quarters of them expect philanthropy to play a more important role in society given the changes in Washington.
Those changes, Exponent said in a statement, include an “aggressive congressional agenda, the potential for sweeping policy changes, and the unconventional style of the new administration.”
This administration is a disaster for essentially every aspect of our agenda, but the very egregiousness of its behavior is laying the basis for a new social movement.
“This is a very different transition,” said Henry Berman, Exponent’s chief executive. “It’s not business as usual.”
Mr. Berman said there wasn’t a clear ideological split among the 324 foundations that participated. According to anecdotal responses that accompanied the survey, some grant makers planned to increase their giving because they saw the government receding from spending and policies that support their missions. Others, anticipating a surge in financial markets under President Trump, planned to use increased earnings from their endowments to distribute more money to causes where they believe the federal government should limit its involvement.
“Those are two different ideological views, but the result is that philanthropy is playing a greater role,” he said.
Exponent made these findings and others cited in this article available to The Chronicle, but is not releasing them more widely. It said the study was part of its internal efforts to understand what its members think on key issues.
President Trump’s election has prompted a strong response among many foundations that believe the new administration could stymie their progress.
For instance, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund decided to increase its grant-making budget by 12 percent this year, largely because it views President Trump’s policies as a threat to multilateral trade and U.S. leadership in global affairs. Others, including the San Francisco Foundation have created rapid-response funds to support immigrants and other populations they see as vulnerable.
Both the Exponent and Center for Effective Philanthropy surveys showed grant makers in a time of flux.
For instance, nearly one-quarter of the foundation leaders in the Exponent survey said they were considering grant-making changes. Of those, more than half expected to shuffle spending among their grant-making priorities, while one third expected to direct more money to support nonprofits’ general operating expenses and one third expected to increase giving over all.
The Center for Effective Philanthropy’s survey revealed a similar response. More than one-third of the foundation leaders said they planned to increase or reallocate their grant budgets. About the same percentage said they were modifying their grant-making goals and strategies. Nearly half of the foundation leaders said they planned to emphasize public-policy advocacy at the state and local levels, and almost a third said they planned to do so nationally.
Foundation leaders anonymously provided written responses explaining some of their answers to questions in both surveys.
In both cases, they expressed optimism as well as pessimism about their work at the outset of the Trump era.
For instance, in the Center for Effective Philanthropy survey, one leader welcomed the administration’s emphasis on charter schools. Another said “it seems possible that the administration’s interest in infrastructure could benefit a regional economic development project in which we are engaged.”
The new administration is instilling a sense of urgency among many foundations.
Others weren’t so sanguine.
The new administration is creating opportunities for nonprofits simply because it is stirring up opposition, one foundation executive told the Center for Effective Philanthropy.
“This administration is a disaster for essentially every aspect of our agenda, but the very egregiousness of its behavior is laying the basis for a new social movement,” the foundation chief wrote. “Our focus needs to be on how to leverage that.”
The messages received by Exponent were similar.
For instance one leader said that the Trump administration would probably decrease regulation and “interference in society,” which would allow the foundation’s philanthropic goals to have more impact. Another was confident that rising shares on Wall Street would contribute to foundation endowments.
But not all have that view about endowments. One leader said President Trump posed such a threat that the grant maker was considering distributing all of its assets soon in an attempt to make a bigger, more immediate impact.
The executive’s response, Mr. Berman said, is an indication that the new administration was instilling a sense of urgency among many foundations.
Said Mr. Berman: “That’s pretty serious stuff.”
