One of the great mysteries in philanthropy right now is why the wealthy are donating less even as they grow wealthier. What gives? Charity, after all, has never inhibited the super-rich from living large — from buying a house in the Hamptons and giving to a good cause.
Some have argued that this trend reflects a crisis of generosity, but many factors are likely at play, including economic uncertainty, political polarization, and a pervasive feeling that philanthropy is too ideological and not results driven.
As a 30-year veteran of city government, nonprofits, and philanthropy, I have a different theory: I believe one of the biggest culprits is a lack of expertise. Many philanthropists, or aspiring ones, don’t have deep enough knowledge on a given issue to feel confident writing a check, and few have access to trusted experts who can help them decide what to fund.
Fortunately, this is one problem with a straightforward solution: As a sector, we need to start sharing our expertise with those who have money to give but aren’t sure where to put it. The dismantling of government norms by the Trump administration should be a call to arms for all foundations to do more with the resources they have. That means disbursing their intellectual as well as their financial wealth.
In the world of family philanthropy, which I inhabit as head of the Overbrook Foundation, many of us lament that we can’t give out more money like the Gateses of the world. But what we can give is intellectual capital to those who can help us fulfill our missions, including peer foundations, philanthropy advisers, and, perhaps most significantly, wealth advisers.
The Wealth Adviser Problem
The most effective grant makers increasingly rely on issue-area experts who have migrated from public policy, government, and nonprofit program positions into foundation leadership. Mega-donors such as MacKenzie Scott hire the experts and create the infrastructure to operate like a foundation. But Scott and her mega-gifts are an exception, requiring a bespoke strategy that most wealthy donors don’t have the time or knowledge to create. The experts they turn to — typically wealth advisers — aren’t doing the job. Their emphasis is on clients’ investment portfolios, not philanthropic advice, and the guidance they do give often lacks sophistication and substance.
Consider that a record $132 trillion in assets is under the management of a steadily increasing number of wealth advisers, yet charitable giving hasn’t grown in parallel. Most of these advisers are ill-equipped to guide their clients’ philanthropic giving. Research by the Charities Aid Foundation found that just 5 percent of independent financial advisers are “very confident” about advising clients on philanthropy. This is a problem for their clients, 87 percent of whom say they want to have “a meaningful impact” through their charitable giving.
Foundations have the expertise wealth advisers need. Grant makers should tap them as allies in battles against climate change, wealth inequality, polarization, and other dire issues already worsening under the policies and actions of the Trump administration.
“The key is to make advisers better and faster at their job, so that they can be the trusted partner that helps move money off the sidelines,” says Kimberly Dasher Tripp, vice chair of the National Center for Family Philanthropy.
Sharing Expertise
Foundations with subject-matter expertise are sitting on “a treasure trove of information,” says Jamie Hackleman, the U.S. team lead for the Philanthropy Centre at J.P. Morgan Private Bank. “Sharing insights on how they vet grantees, measure impact, and what funders should focus on could be incredibly valuable.”
For most foundations whose staffs have deep subject-matter knowledge and relationships with relevant nonprofits, this shouldn’t be an onerous task. They regularly use their expertise to create grant recommendation reports for foundation boards, allowing them to make informed funding decisions. What happens next? Those term papers hit the archives and go dark.
“Historically, foundations were proprietary about the internal reports and evidence that suggested their funding strategies. But the sector has evolved past that. Foundations need to realize that this is a dated practice, and every foundation’s mission beyond grant making should be about moving the information,” says Michele Lord, president of NEO Philanthropy.
Grant makers have long been cordial about sharing data and strategies with peer organizations and may already be disseminating their expertise through the growing number of donor collaboratives.
My foundation, like many others, has for years offered intelligence about grantees and issues we work on at conferences and in one-on-one conversations with other funders. Lever for Change, whose open call program seeks to connect donors with promising ideas and solutions, shares all application details and materials from these efforts — in effect creating an open-sourced ideas menu for likeminded philanthropies. And organizations such as Giving Compass offer baseline data about nonprofits and different causes. What’s missing, however, is the analysis and rationale about funding options that foundation insight would provide.
A Win for Small Funders
Small family foundations in particular could punch above their weight by exporting what they know — not simply publishing success stories on their websites. Many, however, are hesitant to take that step.
According to a study by the Center for Effective Philanthropy, more than half of foundation CEOs report not sharing more about their work because they lack the time, staff, and funds to present it in a publicly palatable way. And more than a third say they refrain from disseminating information because of concerns, often from board members, about exposing failure.
None of this, however, should stop foundations from sharing their expertise. Producing grant recommendations for boards is already embedded in foundation systems, so taking this extra step shouldn’t be particularly expensive or time-consuming. Foundation leaders can also reassure board members that the point of this exercise is to provide intelligence about nonprofits and projects that are investment ready — not to dwell on failures.
Recently, the board and staff at the Overbrook Foundation came together to discuss how our expertise in democracy, human rights, and the environment could be disseminated to address growing wealth inequality, shrinking philanthropic activity, and widening political chasms. In our October 2024 board meeting, we got the green light to make sharing knowledge part of our day-to-day operations.
Overbrook Chair Joyce Fensterstock explained the move this way: “Overbrook staff are more than just grant makers. They’re sectoral experts and leaders. We can get more money where it needs to go if we take our intellectual material and share it with other likeminded individuals and organizations.”
We are now in the process of collaborating with other climate grant makers to assemble funding recommendations and share them with wealth-advisory firms and aspiring philanthropists. The vision is to package an analysis about the sector, identify high-performing organizations, and provide funding rationales from the foundation and peer funders in an accessible manner to non-expert donors.
This written work will supplement our efforts to host convenings and will take the shape of mini white papers that analyze and offer promising solutions to the nation’s most pressing environmental and human rights issues. The white papers will be sent directly to the wealth advisers with whom we’ve begun to collaborate.
Creating these three- or four-page documents isn’t particularly time consuming for staff who are already experts on a given subject. And the process could be further simplified by using AI to help synthesize lengthy grant analyses, although understandably not everyone may be comfortable yet with these tools.
Given the political landscape, philanthropy is at risk if we don’t evolve. Foundations of all sizes need to recognize intelligence sharing as an opportunity to move their missions forward and move more money to nonprofits that need it. They’re making a mistake if they don’t.
