Sector Outlook, Backlash & Resilience

Nonprofit workers see signs of progress alongside persistent barriers to racial equity. In 2022, a clear majority agreed that current DEI efforts were making the nonprofit sector more equitable and inclusive. At the same time, more than half agreed that efforts to address race and equity can create tensions organizations are not equipped to resolve. Respondents were more divided over whether race and diversity issues are simply too complicated to address, with disagreement outweighing agreement.

Earlier survey waves reveal longstanding concerns about racial representation and institutional commitment. In both 2016 and 2019, large majorities agreed that nonprofit leadership did not reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the United States. In 2019, a majority also agreed that the sector knows how to improve DEI but that decision-makers lack the will to act.

The two-item Racial-Equity Challenges Index rose from 2.8 in 2016 to 3.0 in 2019 and remained at 3.0 in 2022. The modest change suggests that greater attention to DEI did not eliminate workers’ concerns about the difficulty of advancing racial equity or organizations’ capacity to navigate the tensions involved. Taken together, the findings show that visible DEI activity and perceptions of progress can coexist with persistent questions about leadership, institutional will, and readiness for deeper change.

Backlash is reshaping nonprofit work, with organizations navigating uneven consequences through a combination of protection, retrenchment, and collective action.

Organizations are responding to political, funding, and public pressures in multiple ways. Roughly one-third of respondents reported that their organizations increased security or digital protections, sought outside expertise, or conducted a risk assessment. Substantial shares also reported delayed or reprioritized work, reframed programs, reduced programming, changed public messaging, or revised organizational policies. Only about one in five reported that their organization made no changes.

These actions do not all point in the same direction. Some represent efforts to protect workers, communities, and organizational missions; others indicate that external pressure is narrowing what organizations say or do. The prevalence of program cuts, reframing, and reduced advocacy suggests that backlash is affecting substantive organizational choices—not only public communications.

The reported consequences also differ by organizational leadership. Respondents at BIPOC-led organizations were less likely than those at White-led organizations to report that their organizations experienced no significant consequences. They were more likely to report losses of foundation grants, government contracts, and individual donor funding, as well as public backlash, threats or harassment, staff loss, and reputational damage. These differences suggest that the risks associated with taking positions on justice and equity are not distributed evenly across the sector.

Organizations are also turning to one another for protection and adaptation. Coalitions and alliances were the most commonly reported collaborative strategy, followed by issue-specific information networks and coordinated communications. Some organizations also participated in community safety planning, pursued joint funding, joined legal-defense or rapid-response alliances, or formed mutual-aid networks. Together, these responses show that resilience is not solely an organizational capacity; it is also being built through relationships, shared knowledge, and coordinated action across the sector.

Most foundation respondents reported that their institutions are responding to the current climate, largely through efforts to protect grantees and strengthen nonprofit resilience—but expanded support for BIPOC-led organizations is not yet the norm.

Nearly three-quarters—74%—of respondents working at foundations reported at least one response to the political and social climate. Increased grantmaking to equity and justice organizations was the most commonly reported direct change, cited by 36.9%, followed by shifts in public communications or framing at 31.2%. About one in five reported joining pooled or rapid-response funds or increasing investment in legal defense or policy advocacy. At the same time, some respondents described more cautionary changes, including reframing programs, delaying grant decisions, and pausing or reducing funding to equity or justice organizations.

Among respondents whose foundations changed their grantmaking or communications, 56.1% said the primary motivation was a proactive effort to support grantee safety or resilience. Another 26.2% described the changes as a reactive response to external backlash or legal and political threats. Budget constraints, reputational concerns, and board or donor pressure were much less commonly identified as the primary reason.

Foundations are also using longer-term funding strategies to help nonprofits navigate uncertainty. General operating or unrestricted support was the most frequently reported strategy, followed by multiyear grants, support for worker mental health and safety, and investments in leadership development or organizational capacity. Still, no individual resilience strategy was reported by more than about one-quarter of respondents, suggesting that these approaches are far from universal.

Support for BIPOC-led organizations presents a similarly mixed picture. Nearly half of respondents—47.1%—reported expanded financial, flexible, relationship-based, or nonfinancial support, while 49.0% reported no change and a small share reported reduced support. Within foundations, the political climate is also prompting institutional adaptation: one-third reported staff or board training on political risk, advocacy, or safety, while roughly one-quarter reported revised communications protocols or enhanced security measures. Together, the findings show philanthropy responding through a combination of external support and internal preparation, but with substantial room for broader and more consistent action.

The political and social climate is affecting nonprofit work most strongly through workers’ mental health and morale, while also shaping organizational stability, community service, workplace relationships, and personal safety.

Across the six areas measured, respondents reported an average impact score of 2.8 out of 5—just below “somewhat” on the response scale. The effects were most pronounced for mental health or stress: more than three-quarters of respondents said the climate affected them somewhat or quite a bit, including 51.8% who selected “quite a bit.”

Morale and stability also stand out. More than two-thirds said their morale or motivation was affected somewhat or quite a bit, while about three in five reported that level of effect on their organization’s or role’s stability. These findings suggest that the current climate is influencing both workers’ personal well-being and their sense of security and sustainability at work.

The effects also extend to how nonprofit work is carried out. More than half of respondents said their ability to serve their communities and their camaraderie or solidarity with colleagues were affected somewhat or quite a bit. Nearly half reported the same level of effect on their personal sense of safety. Taken together, the findings show that the political and social climate is not experienced as a distant external condition—it reaches into workers’ well-being, workplace relationships, and organizations’ capacity to carry out their missions.