Democracy Fund

Blog

Featured

How All by April Improved 2024 Election Funding — and How Nonprofits Say Philanthropy Can Go Further

April 24, 2025

In early 2024, Democracy Fund launched the successful All by April campaign, urging funders to make nonpartisan election-related grants by the end of April. We did this to respond to elections and voting nonprofits who have long said that election-year grants arrive too little, too late. The campaign mobilized at least $155 million in election-related support, with nearly 200 signers joining us. Participants pledged to make earlier 501(c)(3) nonpartisan election-related grants, and often in higher amounts. Many also committed to simplifying grant processes, and encouraged others to do the same.

When we surveyed participating funders in late 2024, we found meaningful shifts in philanthropic practices. This year, to build on our understanding of the campaign’s impact, we worked with the Center for Effective Philanthropy to survey 251 elections and voting nonprofits who received philanthropic funding in 2024. While the survey included some organizations who had directly engaged with the All by April campaign, our goal was to capture a broad picture of how the nonprofit sector experienced funding during the 2024 election cycle.

The survey results show that All by April had a strong impact. We learned that many nonprofits received higher levels of funding in early 2024, and experienced more streamlined grant processes and more flexible funding than in prior years.

However, the survey also identified serious challenges in the field, including funding shortfalls and the need for even earlier funds. The overall message we’re taking away: keep your foot on the gas. It’s working, but philanthropy must push harder and do more.

Here’s a deeper dive into some of the things we learned:

1. Nearly half of the nonprofits surveyed reported higher levels of funding during the first four months of 2024 than in previous election years.

We were encouraged to learn that survey respondents reported receiving greater levels of funding during the first four months of 2024, compared to 2022.

These rates were even higher for nonprofits identified as partners of All by April (67%) and intermediaries (58%).

When we looked at a comparison to the 2020 election cycle, we found very similar numbers to what survey respondents reported for 2022.

It’s possible that organizations that engaged with All by April may have received more funding because they learned about the campaign early and could build it into their fundraising practices for the year. Some qualitative responses from groups that didn’t engage with the campaign indicated that they were caught off-guard by the early opportunity to fundraise and struggled to adjust their fundraising timeline.

“We were grateful for the significant impact of All by April as we saw numerous of our current and prospective funders signing on to the pledge. It influenced several of our existing funders to expedite funding processes, and created opportunities for outreach to other democracy funders that we saw were aligned with our priorities and values.”

— Survey Respondent

“It was an open invitation to see which funders care about democracy. We were able to leverage that list and build new relationships which was great to increase funding and we did raise new dollars.”

— Survey Respondent

We were also encouraged to find that more than a third of respondents experienced more streamlined grant processes (like faster disbursement of funds or simplified administrative requirements) over the same timeline, and more than a quarter received more flexible funding (like unrestricted or general operating support).

The All by April campaign actively encouraged funders to adopt these practices. In our 2024 participating funders survey, we found that 62% of direct grantmakers were motivated to change their funding behavior in 2024. We also found that 55% of direct grantmakers reported that their behavior changes included changing their grantmaking policies or ways of working to support the goal of earlier giving.

“Wonderful! Rapid and flexible funding freed up earlier gave organizations breathing room for strategically planned work that is sustainable with team capacity considered for the long haul.”

— Survey Respondent

2. Nonprofits reported that receiving election-related funding by April is crucial — but they can do more if it’s even earlier.

A majority (75%) of survey respondents indicated that their organizations engage in election-related work that is dependent on earlier funding — like hiring staff, training staff and volunteers, planning, and carrying out programmatic work.

As a result of receiving earlier funding in 2024, 42% of survey respondents – and a higher proportion of organizations with budgets less than $1 million or those with a grassroots focus – engaged in different or expanded election-related work.

As expected, many survey respondents (43%) would prefer to receive election-related funding commitments before January of an election year. While some funding cycles may not be conducive to making grants before January, a commitment that the funds are coming can be fundamental for organizational planning.

An additional 39% of respondents reported that they would prefer to receive commitments during the first four months of the election year. Of the 12% that prefer to receive commitments by a specific month, June and July were the most commonly mentioned months.

“By receiving funds earlier, we are able to hire and train the staff necessary to conduct our programmatic efforts. When we are not able to do that, capacity issues arise. Current staff feel the burden of additional work needing to get done without the staff needed to do it. This affects the overall success of programmatic efforts and also morale.”

— Survey Respondent

“Early funds mean we can actually begin to do what we’ve planned on time. We can start hiring for the temporary positions that provide the added capacity we need during election years. If those folks aren’t onboarded by the end of the previous year, they aren’t there, ready to launch programs and recruiting when it needs to happen at the start of the year. We and our partners also aren’t able to make firm commitments to coalition plans if we aren’t fairly certain we’ll have the funds – and consequently the capacity – to follow through. Everything actually happening depends on getting funding, and not getting it early enough causes a cascading effect of pushing deadlines, paring down plans, and cutting losses.”

— Survey Respondent

3. Most nonprofits did not receive enough early funding to plan election-related work through the rest of the year.

Overall, nearly 75% of survey respondents reported that by April 2024, their nonprofits did not have the necessary funding to plan for the needs of their election-related work through the rest of the year.

However, this number was significantly improved among nonprofits that had directly engaged with the All by April campaign. Only 50% reported that they lacked the funding they needed to plan for their election-related work through the rest of the year, including staffing and infrastructure.

Half of these survey respondents who did not have sufficient funding indicated that by April 2024, their organizations had a shortfall of 50% or more. Still, 43% of these organizations indicated that they were able to raise the necessary funds later in the year.

This aligns with what funders signing the All by April pledge reported in our survey last spring. Even with an increase in early giving, 41% of funders indicated that they would continue giving about the same amount in the post-April period as they would in a normal election year (and 2% would give more).

That said, there were a lot of organizations who were unable to catch up after reporting a budget shortfall in April. Of those reporting insufficient early funds, 57% were not able to raise the remaining funds by the end of the year. One survey respondent noted that 2024 was “a difficult fundraising year for our organization,” and another described the period as “the toughest election cycle in my twenty years of raising money for election work.”

While the All by April campaign demonstrated that earlier funding commitments can have a notable impact on budgets, the issue is much bigger than timing. Organizations don’t just need earlier funds, they need more funds. Philanthropy must work to close the budget gaps that organizations are experiencing.

Philanthropy must get dollars out earlier, and in greater amounts.

Democracy Fund’s recent survey of democracy funders indicated that nearly 4 in 10 (39%) plan to revisit their long-term strategies in 2025. This is an opportunity to adapt philanthropic strategies to include practices that empower the elections and voting field by:

Increasing election-related giving;
Planning earlier grantmaking in election years; and,
Creating grantmaking processes that are a lighter lift for grantees.

At Democracy Fund, we’re committed to getting our 2026 election and voting grants made as early as possible. The target month of April was a good start, but we can do better. More to come on this soon.

As we plan for the next election cycle, we’re continuing to look for ways to make our grantmaking processes a lighter lift for grantees. Things like streamlining the grant application process, and offering simpler reporting methods can really help. We’re working on some shifts internally, and we encourage our peers to explore options like these as well.

Lastly, we’re supporting the Courage Calls Us Campaign. This campaign is answering the call for increased funding by pushing for an initial investment of $20M across the field to fund streamlined responses to today’s most urgent challenges. Please reach out if you have any questions — we’d be happy to discuss.

Back to Ideas

Announcement

Blog

Featured

Authoritarian Attacks on Philanthropy are Coming. Here’s How We Can Stand Strong for Our Grantee Partners.

Joe Goldman

April 10, 2025

These are scary times — by design. Authoritarians are using a deliberate strategy meant to instill fear, suppress dissent, and fracture civil society.

We know attacks on philanthropy are coming. But attacks on frontline nonprofit organizations are already here. The organizations that we and many other funders support are already weathering an intense storm — divisive political rhetoric, financial uncertainty, deep burnout among staff, and bad faith attacks from actors seeking not to ensure the sector performs as it should but to weaken it.

As funders, we must stand with our grantee partners — our actions can help support their services, protect their leaders, and defend their voices. We must also prepare and unite as funders. When authoritarian attacks come, we must respond with courage, not fear. Here are some of the actions we’re focused on, right now.

1. Keep Resources Flowing

We all depend on nonprofit organizations. From medical research to sports leagues, and from food pantries to business associations, nonprofits touch all of our lives.

Some foundations are already deepening their support for grantees in these challenging times — releasing unnecessary requirements, increasing payouts, supporting safety, security, wellness, and more. Others are understandably worried and wondering how best to show up in this moment. We must choose the “easy courage” of resourcing grantees more and better as they do the courageous work of supporting everyday people in communities.

This year, Democracy Fund has mobilized around frontline organizations’ most urgent needs in the field. Stay tuned for updates on how funders can continue to answer the call from nonprofits doing the work on the ground.

2. Support Grantees When They Face Unfair Scrutiny or Attack

We’ve seen powerful institutions like Columbia and Harvard University, and top law firms targeted, and many have not withstood the pressure. But some have, and there are signs it is working, at least in the short-term. Nonprofits are far more vulnerable, and it is philanthropy’s responsibility to have their backs.

At Democracy Fund, we respect the autonomy and judgment of the organizations we fund, and we work hard to ensure our due diligence from a legal, compliance, and programmatic perspective.

As an organization, we will not stray from our mission or shy away from support of grantees just because they have come under unfair pressure and scrutiny — especially as it relates to our commitment to racial justice. We will pay particular attention to the safety, security, and well-being of our grantees.

We urge our partners to not make the work of those unjustly attacking our sector easier. Do not abandon commitments to justice. Do not encourage grantees to censor themselves. Do not retreat — in words, actions, or dollars.

3. Stand Together as Funders

Democracy Fund just signed onto a public solidarity statement, affirming that we stand with our peer funders and the communities we serve. We encourage others to stand with us now, not later.

Solidarity does not mean that we are not concerned for our own self-interest. Rather, we act in solidarity when we recognize that our own interests lie with those of others. Authoritarians depend on us isolating ourselves out of a sense of self protection. We must reach across divides and stand with one another. This is how we’ll expand our coalition and deepen our partnerships.

Moving Forward With Courage

We at Democracy Fund recommit to the pledge we made at the beginning of the year. We want to reiterate our commitment to an America where all people belong, thrive, feel safe, and have their voices heard.

We will be continuing to seek out ways to move forward together courageously, and we hope you’ll join us.

Back to Ideas

Featured

Report

On Black Swans, Gray Rhinos, and the 2024 Election

Tom Glaisyer & Liz Ruedy

May 15, 2024

Table of Contents
Introduction
Making Sense of Chaos Factors
Creatures of Chaos
Planning for Resilience
Leaning into Uncertainty Together
Download the Report

Introduction

The 2020 presidential election happened amid a pandemic and racial justice protests, and it was followed by an insurrection. What can we expect in 2024?

Political observers, journalists, and others have begun raising questions about how different events could unleash uncertainty into the election year. Here are some of the things they’re thinking about:

What if a candidate, party, or segment of the public rejects the legitimacy of an election related court ruling? How likely is it that the losing side will accept the outcome, that voters will acknowledge the winner as legitimate, and that results will be accepted peacefully?
How will our democratic system respond to multiple criminal indictments against one of the party nominees for president? What are the implications of legal proceedings coinciding with the campaign? What would a guilty verdict mean?
What happens if a campaign of either major party candidate is suspended? How would the timing of this affect the election?
What if a third-party candidate garnered a significant share of the vote? Could this undercut acceptance of the result?
What if acts of domestic terrorism and violent threats disrupt campaigning and public events? If disillusionment and frustration with our democracy turn into widespread political violence or domestic terrorism, how will we address it?
What could happen if a new pandemic or regional climate disaster occurred on or near election day? How would the public respond to a state of emergency coinciding with voting or counting the vote?
How disruptive could AI-enabled misinformation campaigns get? How might a campaign use AI audio or video? How might they target particular communities? Could they change the makeup of particular coalitions?
How will our election system weather the unprecedented turnover of seasoned election administrators across the country? What could happen with a wave of new administrators?
Could interventions or geopolitical events driven by foreign powers reshape political coalitions? How might the pro-democracy community fracture as a result of external events? How will the actions of foreign actors using social media platforms and artificial intelligence tools shape the spread of misinformation?

At Democracy Fund, we refer to these unpredictable, uncertainty-causing events as “chaos factors.”

Feeling overwhelmed? These and other chaos factors could make even the most seasoned observer throw their hands up in frustration. We are facing serious threats that — individually or in combination — could push our democracy to the brink. If those of us in the pro-democracy field are going to engage efficiently and effectively, we need a way to think about the range of variables we face.

Chaos factor: an event that, if it occurs, would create huge uncertainty in the system.

Making Sense of Chaos Factors

Conventional wisdom tells us to rank threats by how likely they are to happen and how big the impact could be. A highly likely, high-impact threat is something to pay close attention to, while an unlikely or low-impact threat is not. But the world is not that simple.

The challenge we’re dealing with in 2024 is just how much uncertainty there is. While we are already aware of a long list of chaos factors, there are likely more that we haven’t imagined. Many of the chaos factors are unprecedented, and we just don’t know what impact they might have. We can try to determine which are more likely, but we risk getting it wrong. In other words, there is a significant risk of focusing our attention and resources on threats that could be inconsequential — while ignoring those that end up mattering.

At Democracy Fund, we believe that the best way to address chaos factors isn’t to proactively anticipate and respond to specific threats, but to remain resilient in the face of any threats that might emerge. Rather than jump to “how likely is it?” about a possible threat, we can step back and also ask “is it possible to see such a thing coming?” And instead of focusing on only “how big would the impact be?” we also ask “is this something we could be prepared to respond to?”

“There is a significant risk of focusing our attention and resources on threats that could be inconsequential — while ignoring those that end up mattering.”

In 2007, Nassim Nicholas Taleb introduced the idea of the “Black Swan” into the world of foresight and strategic planning. A Black Swan is something that happens that is both unforeseeable and highly impactful. By definition, you don’t anticipate a Black Swan and you’re not prepared for it. While it may be tempting to spend our time trying to think of the one crucial event that no one else saw coming, many of the chaos factors facing our democracy in 2024 are not Black Swans. They are foreseeable, and we can prepare for them.

Since the introduction of the Black Swan, the foresight field has created a number of different terms¹ for events that could or could not destabilize a system, and we’ve developed a framework using those terms to help us make sense of chaos factors. We argue that while Black Swan thinking can help us explore uncertainty, we can build overall resilience by focusing on factors we can already foresee, and which of those require additional preparation: White Swans and Gray Rhinos. Meanwhile, we can deprioritize those events we might categorize as Paper Tigers.²

Creatures of Chaos

The framework we have developed at Democracy Fund considers chaos factors as White Swans, Gray Rhinos, Paper Tigers, or Black Swans based on whether we can foresee them and/or prepare for them. Even internally, this categorization has provoked debate. For example, what may be a Gray Rhino for some can be a Black Swan for others. As Taleb has put it, “a black swan for the turkey is not a black swan for the butcher.” This debate can be useful, as it surfaces assumptions about what risks we are aware of and preparing for — and about our cognitive biases more generally. We offer the following definitions and examples for your consideration.

Foreseeable

White outline of a swan against a dark blue background.

White Swans are the opposite of Black Swans. They are events we know will happen and for which we routinely prepare. For example, flu season happens every year, and public health departments should have a clear plan of action. In the democracy field, White Swans include:

Errors in the tabulation of votes. It is highly likely that this will happen somewhere, and election administrators generally have approaches to identify and to address it.
Low voter turnout. This is a perennial concern, often compounded by deliberate voter suppression including intimidation and misinformation campaigns

White outline of a rhino against a dark blue background.

Gray Rhinos are widely anticipated but ignored by the mainstream and largely not planned for. For example, public health experts warned about a global pandemic, but governments were largely caught off guard by rampant Covid breakouts. Likewise, the overturn of Roe v. Wade was a clear and stated goal of the conservative movement once it held a majority on the Supreme Court, yet the act still came as a shock to the public. A Gray Rhino for the U.S. election system was:

The false claim that the 2020 election was stolen. It was not a surprise that the 2020 election results would be disputed. However, the pro-democracy field was largely unprepared for the scale and persistence of the attacks on the integrity of our election system.

Unforeseeable

Dark blue outline of a tiger, stylized in a geometric way reminiscent of origami, against a light blue background.

Paper Tigers are vaguely defined threats that stoke fear and anxiety, but largely amount to nothing because of existing safeguards in the system. For example, relatively few of the new tech products marketed as “game changers” actually “disrupt” the system and take over meaningful market share. For U.S. elections, notable Paper Tigers are:

Voting machine hacking. This has been advanced as a threat to our democracy, yet 2020 was “the most secure election in U.S. history.” Despite claims that some form of coordinated electoral fraud could affect the outcome of an election, instances of fraud are extremely rare, and there are numerous checks in place to maintain the integrity of the vote count.

Dark blue outline of a swan against a light blue background.

Black Swans cannot be anticipated and cannot be prepared for. Their impact is significant. Taleb described the 9/11 terrorist attack as a Black Swan. Even though the possibility of an attack was understood, the nature and scale of the actual event was not. A Black Swan that continues to threaten our election system includes:

The storming of the Capitol and the insurrection on Jan 6th. Protests and rallies were anticipated, but the scope and scale of the violence were not.

Two categories of events we often discuss don’t fit neatly into this framework, but they are worth keeping in the back of our minds because they can help us understand the full sweep of the impacts we might face: the Dragon King and the Peacock.

White outline of the head of a dragon (as typically depicted in Western art) against a light blue background.

Dragon Kings are somewhat predictable but can unexpectedly bring about the collapse of the system.³ That collapse is unanticipated and catastrophic, often because we under-appreciate the scale of the event or how interdependent aspects of the system are. For example, a massive earthquake could trigger a collapse in the transport system, which then causes a failure of food distribution. In the democracy field, there may be just such a combination of events that cause governance as we know it to break down, such as:

Election certification refusal. A critical mass of counties and/or states refuse to certify the
election results, and attempts to resolve the dispute through legal means fail.
President defies judiciary. A president refuses to abide by a court order even after an appeals process has played out.

White outline of a peacock against a light blue background.

Peacocks are totally inconsequential events that serve as a ploy for attention, often using a familiar formula or tactic. Peacocks are often distractions or cynical attempts at self-promotion.⁴ For example, the U.S. trucker convoy protesting federal vaccine and mask mandates was largely a manufactured controversy, because by the time it happened, the only federal requirements of this type applied to healthcare and military personnel. In terms of elections, Peacocks can include:

Election-inflected noise. Media personalities and media channels (who may not actually have much influence over voters) spin up election-related stories or stage photo ops.

Planning for Resilience

So how does this framework help us to set priorities and develop strategies for the year ahead? At Democracy Fund, we’ve spent significant time doing strategic foresight work to help us prepare for 2024. Here are some of our recommendations.

1. Keep doing the core work

As in every election, in 2024 there is a need for poll worker training, get-out-the-vote efforts, informing the public about an election, election protection, and other “bread and butter” election work. These efforts all respond to White Swans: very real challenges that we know are real and for which we know how to prepare.

Handling White Swans may not grab the headlines the same way Black Swan efforts do. But if, for example, we lose sight of the core work of election protection, we risk letting a key part of our resilience atrophy.

We launched a multifunder campaign, All by April, because we’ve learned over many election cycles that the best way to support free, fair, and representative elections is to get money out the door early.

TRUSTED ELECTION FUND

Many organizations are working to address Gray Rhinos. The Trusted Election Fund (TEF) is a nonpartisan pooled fund that supports efforts to prepare for and respond to high-risk threats to U.S. elections. TEF plays a critical role in helping the sector identify, communicate, plan, and support efforts to counter the range of threats we face.

This ensures that front-line election defenders have the funding they need to do the work that needs to be done.

2. Listen to the communities who can see chaos factors on the horizon

Most of the chaos factors on our list are Gray Rhinos. They are real, known risks. Are we doing enough to think through and plan for them — and identify others? We need to listen to people on the frontlines of defending our democracy and ask them what’s keeping them up at night. In particular, marginalized communities have often experienced the earliest and worst effects of our democratic system’s failures, and they are often aware of signals that indicate threats on the horizon before anyone else. As a sector, we need to build trusted relationships with people who can identify the Gray Rhinos — and take their warnings seriously.

We need to listen to the people on the frontlines of defending our democracy and ask them what’s keeping them up at night.

3. Provide early, strong support to communities most likely to be impacted.

We may not be able to foresee a Black Swan or contain its impact, but we know who is most likely to be affected — and to respond effectively in its aftermath. It’s easy to get fixated on conceiving of every imaginable threat to our democracy and think that a novel or untested approach is the best way to protect against it. But an important part of resilience is investing in the people and the ideas that we know can get the job done, and investing in them early.

Community activists, organizers, and leaders have been responsible for most of our democracy’s transformative moments, and they are a key line of defense against authoritarianism. Their movement- and power-building work has been part of our democratic system since its inception, ensuring that communities most likely to be affected by anti-democratic actors and practices are able to respond and engage. Investing in this work can help prepare our democracy for whatever comes next. The time to support movement- and power-builders is not after a crisis has occurred, but now, when they can build the critical democratic infrastructure needed to respond.

An important part of resilience is investing in the people and the ideas that we know can get the job done, and investing in them early.

4. Watch out for distractions

There will be a lot of noise in this election year: fear-mongering around Paper Tigers that our system is already built to withstand, and Peacocks designed to distract everyone from important priorities. It’s easy to get sucked into the latest headline, clickbait, or petty provocation.

We need to be disciplined about not letting our focus wander into issues and events that ultimately aren’t consequential. We also need to push back against narratives that sow distrust in our electoral system, and that seek to undermine the processes and safeguards in place to ensure that our elections are free and fair.

5. Don’t ignore the Dragon King

Catastrophic events are a possibility that’s hard to face, but we have to acknowledge the dangerous moment in which we find ourselves. We don’t want to dwell on the worst-case scenario, but ignoring it or pretending that the collapse of our democracy is simply not possible would be a grave mistake. The leadup to the 2024 election will demand our full attention, because the risks are real — and the stakes for democracy couldn’t be higher.

Leaning into Uncertainty Together

Many of us in the pro-democracy field are individually preparing for what might happen this year by doing scenario and contingency planning. This can help each of us anticipate possibilities and reduce uncertainty about how we might respond to specific events.

But what if we focused on creating resilience across our field? This would mean leaning into uncertainty together as we share insights. At first, our expanded ability to see chaos factors across the system might feel even more overwhelming. But by working together we’ll be able to have richer conversations on which chaos factors we’re seeing and how they might interact. We’ll be able to discuss how to prepare, and explore different interpretations of the longer-term impacts on our democracy.

This shared practice could create more powerful and holistic insights into how our democratic system works, and what it might take to defend and transform it into the inclusive, multiracial democracy that many of us seek. Uncertainty, after all, can be a powerful place for listening to each other, learning, and building solidarity. We can let go of the need to be right, and consider new ideas and new perspectives with curiosity and openness. We can ensure that whatever happens — whether White Swan, Gray Rhino, Paper Tiger, Black Swan, Peacock, or Dragon King — the pro-democracy sector will be prepared.

This typology continues to be refined, reinterpreted, and adapted by many different foresight thinkers and practitioners. The definitions, examples, and framework provided here are from Democracy Fund’s internal futures and foresight practice, but we have provided citations to credit individuals who first coined the terms. [↩]
Paper Tiger is a term that comes from the Chinese “zhǐlǎohǔ” and is not specific to the foresight field, but we have found the concept helpful to describe a certain type of event. [↩]
Didier Sornette coined the term “Dragon King as described in the paper, Dragon-Kings, Black Swans and the Prediction of Crises.” Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1596032. [↩]
The term Peacock was popularized in the horizon scanning field by the consulting firm Global Business Network. [↩]

Back to Ideas

Featured

Report

How Philanthropy is Responding to a Changed World

Joe Goldman

March 27, 2025

Will philanthropy rise to the occasion?

It’s a question many are asking just a few months into this new era in which Americans are seeing democratic institutions undermined and core norms eroded at a rapid pace.

A new survey conducted by Democracy Fund of 151 foundations, donors, advisors, and funding intermediaries in the democracy field sheds light on this question. While we have found some reasons to be hopeful, our data reveals a field that is both deeply concerned about the threats we are facing and uncertain about what it will take to overcome them.

View the full survey.

The survey is part of a larger body of research aimed at getting beyond anecdotal data to better understand how philanthropy is supporting our democracy. While these results are from a limited sample of a specialty population, we believe they are helpful to get a directional pulse check on where the field is headed.

Foundations and Pooled Funds Plan to Sustain or Increase Levels of Funding

Here’s the good news. While 89 percent of respondents say that they are concerned about a significant decline in donor funding for democracy, the majority of foundations and pooled funds say they are planning to increase their giving (26 percent) relative to 2024 or maintain the same funding levels for democracy (42 percent). Only 10 percent say that their democracy giving will decline this year and 21 percent say they are unsure.

Individual Donors Might Back Away, Though

On the other hand, evidence of a decline can be seen among individual donors (though we are working with a relatively small sample here). The majority of respondents who run philanthropic networks or serve as donor advisors say they expect the donors they work with to decrease their giving relative to 2024 (36 percent) or are unsure of giving plans (36 percent). Just over a quarter say that the donors they work with plan to increase their giving this year (14 percent) or maintain the same level of democracy giving as 2024 (14 percent).

Many in Philanthropy are Trying to Figure Out Where We Go From Here

Many donors are asking hard questions about the work they have been supporting. Only about four in 10 (42 percent) say they will not be revisiting their overall funding strategy. Compared to an earlier survey of democracy donors, optimism about the role of philanthropy in strengthening democracy has declined by 21 points, from 64 percent in October 2024 to 43 percent in February 2025.

Importantly, 44 percent of respondents say that efforts over the past decade to promote the health of democracy have been largely unsuccessful and 70 percent believe that philanthropy does not currently possess the strategies needed to significantly improve U.S. democracy.

Funders are Taking Action to Protect Against Threats

Across the board, democracy donors are deeply worried about threats to their grantees, civil society as a whole, and to philanthropy itself. Funders say they are very concerned about the potential harassment and intimidation of journalists (77 percent), opposition leaders and activists (74 percent), and pro-democracy non-profits (66 percent). Sixty-eight percent say they are very concerned about pro-democracy organizations facing legal challenges and 51 percent say they are very concerned about legislative and regulatory scrutiny.

In response, funders are making more flexible funding available (52 percent, up from 43 percent in October 2024), helping grantees respond to legal challenges and scrutiny (47 percent, up from 30 percent), and supporting grantees with improved cyber and physical security (34 percent, up from 23 percent).

Notably, the percentage who are at least somewhat concerned about harassment and intimidation against philanthropic organizations increased from 67 percent in October to 95 percent in February, including 42 percent who are very concerned.

Funders Have Confidence in Their Own Abilities, but are Concerned About Wider Philanthropy

A majority of funders believe their organization is either somewhat prepared (61 percent) or very prepared (12 percent) to act quickly and support the field on democracy issues as they emerge. However, funders feel philanthropy as a whole is overwhelmingly unprepared, with 64 percent saying philanthropy is not very prepared and 16 percent saying not at all prepared.

Overall, the Data Shows a Need for Philanthropy to Act

For many in philanthropy, the results from this survey might not be surprising, but they should be a wake-up call. Philanthropy has a responsibility to understand how our choices brought us here and to identify a path forward.

Backing off is simply not an option. We must act now and fund with purpose – doing what we can to make sure grantees know that we are with them. The key areas of concern are highlighted in the full survey results but safety, security, and legal support for grantees should be top-of-mind for pro-democracy donors.

Protecting our democracy is vital, and in order to push forward, we must focus on the opportunities and possibilities. At our best, philanthropy can be a powerful force for positive change. Let’s rise to the occasion.

Survey results can be viewed below. After reviewing the findings, reach out to partnerships@democracyfund.org to explore opportunities for addressing these challenges by partnering together.

Back to Ideas

Announcement

Featured

Democracy Fund Welcomes New Leaders to its Board and Staff

March 19, 2025

Our people are at the core of living our mission every day — and we are excited to announce a new member of our board of directors along with several internal promotions at Democracy Fund.

We are honored to welcome Vanita Gupta to our board of directors this month. Vanita is currently a Distinguished Scholar in Residence at NYU School of Law. From 2021 – 2024 she served as the 19th Associate Attorney General of the United States at the Department of Justice and previously led the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Vanita fills a vacancy created by the departure of board member Danielle Allen, who completed her two-year term earlier this year.

Democracy Fund also has several exciting internal transitions and promotions to share.

Sanjiv Rao, former managing director of media and movements, has stepped into a newly-created Vice President role as part of Democracy Fund’s executive leadership team. In this role, he will oversee our program, communications, research, partnerships, and strategy functions promoting deeper collaboration across the organization. Before joining Democracy Fund in 2023, Sanjiv served as a senior equity fellow in the Office of Management Budget in the Executive Office of the President. Before that, he completed a nearly decade-long program term at the Ford Foundation, concluding as director of the Civic Engagement and Government program. We are thrilled to welcome him into this new role.

Josh Stearns, former senior director of Democracy Fund’s Public Square team, has stepped into a new Managing Director of Programs role. In this role, he will run Democracy Fund’s programs in Equitable Journalism, Digital Democracy, Governance, Just & Inclusive Society, and Elections & Voting. Josh has been with Democracy Fund since 2016, leading the efforts of the Public Square team in remaking local journalism and advocating for more just technology. While in his role as senior director, Josh was critical in launching NewsMatch, the largest ever grassroots funding campaign for journalism which has mobilized more than $400M from small donors and foundations, and Press Forward, a national movement to strengthen our democracy by revitalizing local news and information. Before joining Democracy Fund, Josh served as the Director of Journalism and Sustainability at the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation and Director of Press Freedom at Free Press.

Angelica Das, former associate director of Democracy Fund’s Public Square team, has been promoted to Program Director for Equitable Journalism. She will co-lead the Public Square team together with Paul Waters, Program Director for Digital Democracy. Angelica has been with Democracy Fund since 2019, where she has led the foundation’s Engaged and Equitable Journalism efforts to make journalism more responsive to and reflective of its communities. At the foundation she has led cutting edge research on media and elections and racial justice and journalism. Previously, she worked as a consultant and Senior Associate with Dot Connector Studio, a production company that collaborates with funders, journalists, and experts to research and develop social impact media. She also served as associate director at the Center for Media & Social Impact at American University.

Finally, we want to thank Lara Flint, former Managing Director of Elections and Institutions, for her leadership. Lara departed Democracy Fund in February after eight years with the organization. We thank Lara for her many years of dedication to Democracy Fund, and wish her well on her next chapter.

As an organization, we are only as strong as the team we have to face the challenges and opportunities ahead. We are excited about these changes, and are confident these leaders will help chart the path forward as we work to build an inclusive, multiracial democracy that is open, just, resilient, and trustworthy.

Back to Ideas

Brief

Learning From North Carolina

Fiona Morgan, In Consultation With Melanie Sill

December 5, 2017

Democracy Fund’s Public Square Program defines a local news ecosystem as the network of institutions, collaborations, and people that local communities rely on for news, information, and engagement. Healthy news ecosystems are diverse, interconnected, sustainable, and deeply engaged with their communities. When an ecosystem is healthy, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Looking at local news and information through this ecosystem lens raises new, compelling questions. For example, instead of asking how do we save traditional models of local news, we ask about ways of strengthening people’s access to information that is central to a healthy democracy. Instead of asking about the health of any one organization, we examine the robustness of the relationships between them. Instead of asking how we can get people to pay for news, we ask what might be a range of models to support news as a service to communities.

To that end, we commissioned a series of reports from regions around the country to better understand the complex forces shaping local news ecosystems from North Carolina to New Mexico. In this report, the authors have sought to ask these questions, and map out the strengths and challenges facing North Carolina as the landscape of local news continues to shift due to economic and technological change. This report, researched and written by Fiona Morgan, with Melanie Sill contributing significant insights and feedback, seeks to map out key contours of the news ecosystem in North Carolina. Although the report’s initial purpose was to inform our investments in local news, we are making its findings available to the public. We do so to help serve the field and welcome further feedback that will inevitably add new layers and richness to our understanding of the field.

The report is based on interviews with more than two dozen people from different sectors and geographic areas in North Carolina that took place in the spring of 2017. It also pulls from previous research by Morgan and by Democracy Fund Senior Fellow Geneva Overholser. Morgan discusses journalistic and financial challenges facing local news in North Carolina and identifies bright spots in the ecosystem — for example, audience engagement initiatives, promising business models, and emerging collaborations. Her report concludes with 10 suggestions for developing a more robust ecosystem in North Carolina, ranging from convening conversations to forming partnerships to tackling concrete problems by building practical solutions.

Democracy Fund is grateful for the thoughtful reporting and analysis by Morgan and Sill, who are well-connected journalists and students of media in the state. (see “About the Author”). The report has also profited from the insights of many people in and out of North Carolina, including Overholser, whose earlier interviews with North Carolina journalists and publishers provided a foundation, and Dr. Phil Napoli of Duke University, a grantee of Democracy Fund who is mapping the health of media ecosystems across the country. We are also grateful for the work of Penelope (Penny) Muse Abernathy who has been a stalwart advocate for local news and a chronicler of its challenges in North Carolina and across the United States.

This report presents an overview of North Carolina’s local news and information ecosystem but does not attempt to catalogue or cover every part of it. We welcome feedback, further information, and questions about North Carolina’s local news and information ecosystem, our ecosystem approach to supporting local news, and Democracy Fund’s Public Square program to localnewslab@democracyfund.org.

Back to Ideas

Blog

New Report: A Growing Gap in Philanthropic Support for Newsroom Diversity

Lea Trusty

June 19, 2018

Journalism has long struggled to reflect the diversity of the communities it serves, and over the past decade, most efforts to support diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in news outlets have been unsuccessful in creating meaningful change within the stories, sources, and staff of newsrooms across the United States.

New research released today by Democracy Fund traces half a decade of philanthropic investment in organizations, programming, and research aimed at increasing DEI in journalism. We commissioned this report to learn from the important work undertaken up to this point, to guide our future investments, and to spark discussions across philanthropy regarding the urgent need to address these challenges with significant new resources.

This report is based on data from the Foundation Maps for Media Funding, created by the Foundation Center for Media Impact Funders. The data set has some important limitations due to the nature of self-reporting and challenges around how grants are categorized. Even so, Katie Donnelly and Jessica Clark at Dot Connector Studio have done great work to reveal larger trends in the field.

**From 2009 to 2015, $1.2 billion was invested in journalism, news and information in the U.S.**

Recent research by the Shorenstein Center at Harvard and Northeastern University, using the same Foundation Center data as well as a study of foundation 990 tax forms, found that there is simply not enough philanthropic dollars flowing into journalism to make up for the gaps in what has been lost from legacy newsrooms. Amongst the funding that does exist there are troubling gaps and disparities. Our report provides a deeper look at one of those gaps, showing that there are even fewer dollars are going to DEI efforts within the industry.

Here are a few interesting takeaways, according to data as of February 2018:From 2009 to 2015, there were 1,105 grants totaling $105.6 million from 274 funders to 294 recipients pertaining to either racial and ethnic groups, women and girls, or LGBTQI populations.

Funding has declined in these areas overall, both in terms of dollar value by $1.3 million and total number of grants by 18.
When it comes to funding that serves racial and ethnic groups, relatively few dollars go towards financial sustainability compared to programming and project-specific funding.
There has been significantly less investment in gender-related news and staffing compared to racial and ethnic groups.
Funding serving LGBTQI populations in journalism remains extremely limited.

**Here’s a breakdown of philanthropic support strategies for funding DEI in journalism.**

The past efforts represented in these numbers faced stiff headwinds and real challenges, including a dramatic financial downturn that strained the news industry. But tight budgets alone cannot explain the persistent gap in employment opportunities between minorities and their white counterparts seeking jobs in journalism. Nor does it excuse the historic leadership failure of legacy outlets to fulfill their promise to diversify their ranks.

Reviewing this history, we are left with more questions than answers: How should we think about supporting programs and investigative projects looking at inequality when they may be housed at news outlets with a weak history of supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion internally? How do we rethink equitable funding so that program-specific funds at ethnic media outlets don’t exacerbate financial and structural uncertainty? And how do we ensure that investments in diversity, equity, and inclusion have broad and measurable impact across the industry?

Prior to this research we created a public database of organizations invested in diversity, equity, and inclusion in journalism, and we’ve got more research on the way that we hope will provide a better snapshot of the field of ethnic media and the challenges and opportunities facing those outlets.

Democracy Fund isn’t represented in the data released today because we only became an independent foundation in 2014. However, in our first few years we’ve prioritized this work. So far we are:

Working with News Integrity Initiative, Craig Newmark Philanthropies, and Gates Foundation in diverse leadership training from the Maynard Institute;
Collaborating with Google News Initiative to help revamp the ASNE Diversity Survey led by Dr. Meredith Clark;
Investing in new models like City Bureau with the MacArthur Foundation
Partnering with funders like Knight Foundation and Open Society Foundations to support data training from the Ida B. Wells Society;
Co-funding the National Association of Black Journalists with the Ford Foundation;
Working alongside the Heising-Simons Foundation to support paid internships for aspiring journalists of color through the Emma Bowen Foundation.

Together with these funders, we are learning from the research we released today to ensure that our strategies are as effective and equitable as possible. We are committed to supporting innovations in engaged journalism through grantmaking, partnerships, and collaboration. This report is part of that commitment.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Three reports spotlight the role of media by and for diverse communities in America

Lea Trusty

July 10, 2019

As Jodi Rave, author of American Indian Media Today writes:

“Media in Indian Country are grappling with many of the same challenges around sustainability that face the rest of the journalism industry, but it is exacerbated by low levels of philanthropic support.”

This double-edged challenge is what led us to commission leading researchers and practitioners from around the country to write a series of reports featuring American Indian, African American, and Hispanic media in the United States.

We wanted to shine a light on the important role of media by and for diverse communities in the United States and learn more about the unique issues these various sectors of media are facing. And as funders who are invested in diversity, equity, and inclusion in media—both internally in newsroom staff and leadership, but also in the communities these outlets serve—we wanted to listen to media makers of color and identify opportunities to sustain ethnic media into the future.

We believe that every community member must have access to accurate, diverse, and representative sources of news to inform their everyday lives and enable them to fully participate in our democracy. Our hope is that other funders and advocates will join us in recognizing and supporting the important role ethnic media plays in fulfilling these needs.

Here is the full series:

American Indian Media Today. Through a series of interviews with Native media practitioners and experts, Jodi Rave of the Indigenous Media Freedom Alliance reports on the major trends and challenges for American Indian media today. The report also offers recommendations for funders and advocates who want to support the growth of independent news media in Indian Country.
African American Media Today. Angela Ford, Kevin McFall, and Bob Dabney of The Obsidian Collection provide a brief history of African-American and black legacy media, an overview of current trends and challenges, and offer recommendations for funders and advocates who want to support the growth and strength of Black publishers across the country.
Hispanic Media Today. Jessica Retis, Associate Professor of Journalism at California State University Northridge, provides a brief history of Hispanic media in the United States, an overview of current trends and challenges, and offers recommendations for funders and advocates who want to help support and sustain Hispanic media.

Democracy Fund has been working to build a robust infrastructure of support for these newsrooms through investments in organizations like the Center for Community and Ethnic Media, the Obsidian Collection, and our ongoing support of journalism associations serving journalists and media makers of color. In addition, our Ecosystem News strategy works with local communities around the US to support ethnic and community media locally, and our NewsMatch campaign helps build the long term capacity of newsrooms to build support from their communities. However, as these reports show, there is still a long way to go and much more work to do. In the coming months, we’ll be sharing more about how we are building on the lessons from these reports and deepening our support for media makers of color across the country.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Announcing a New Fund for Racial Equity in Journalism

Lea Trusty

September 12, 2019

Last year, Democracy Fund commissioned a study focused on philanthropic support of newsroom diversity. The findings revealed troubling disparities: Between 2009 and 2015, only 6% of the $1.2 billion in grants invested in journalism, news, and information in the United States went towards efforts serving specific racial and ethnic groups, and only 7% went towards efforts serving economically disadvantaged populations.

To begin addressing the longstanding gap in capital and resources for news entrepreneurs of color, we are helping launch the Racial Equity in Journalism Fund. It’s designed to support and build the capacity of newsrooms by and for people of color, who are best positioned to deliver critical news and information to their communities.

So far, the Fund has raised $3.6 million and will begin making grants in the first quarter of 2020. Donors include Craig Newmark Philanthropies, Democracy Fund, Ford Foundation, Google News Initiative, and the News Integrity Initiative at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at CUNY.

Maya Thornell-Sandifor, the director of Racial Equity Initiatives at Borealis Philanthropy, where the fund is hosted, explains why this initiative is meaningful:

“Media outlets led by and for people of color break stories and offer perspectives that are relevant to the communities they serve and inform the public dialogue in invaluable ways. Now more than ever, we need reporting that addresses the root causes of racial injustice and confronts racism with unflinching honesty and courage. This fund will strengthen the capacity of news organizations that prioritize building long-term relationships with communities of color, helping them expand their reach and impact.”

Journalism has long struggled to reflect the diversity of the communities it serves. However, throughout American history, media by and for people of color has played a critical role in informing, engaging and connecting communities who were left out or forced out of our national story. Over the last year, we have published three reports shining a spotlight on this history, and chronicling the role of American Indian, African American, and Hispanic media. While the entire media industry is struggling today, the economic challenges facing these publications are made all the more difficult by longstanding inequalities in access to funding.

Nikole Hannah-Jones, journalist at the New York Times Magazine and co-founder of the Ida B. Wells Society for Investigative Reporting, explains why this work is so critical to our democracy:

“Media organizations led by people of color have long been a vanguard of our democracy, holding the powerful accountable for the ways it treats its most vulnerable citizens in ways mainstream media has often failed to do. It was organizations such as the black press that campaigned most vigorously to abolish slavery, to pass federal legislation against lynching, and to end Jim Crow, when mainstream media either ignored these stories altogether or sided with the powerful. Journalists of color consistently bring credibility and accuracy to the coverage of our multiracial democracy, yet media organizations led by and serving people of color consistently struggle to gain the types of resources that allow them to have a broad and sustained impact. We at the Ida B. Wells Society for Investigative Reporting are excited to see how the fund will help to change that by providing pivotal support to these newsrooms at a time when their unique perspective and coverage is desperately needed.”

The Racial Equity in Journalism Fund launches today, but that is just the beginning. We know it will need to grow and expand to meet the needs and catalyze the opportunities we see in the field. We know a more representative industry is crucial to ensuring all communities have access to news with a broader, more accurate array of perspectives, and we hope the fund will serve as a meaningful step forward in closing the historic gap in funding for entrepreneurial journalists of color.

If you’re an outlet interested in receiving support from the fund, you can sign up here to receive forthcoming updates about the application process. And if you’re a funder interested in supporting this work, please contact Borealis Philanthropy’s Director of Racial Equity Initiatives, Maya Thornell-Sandifor: mtsandifor [at] borealisphilanthropy.org.

Back to Ideas

Report

New Report: How funders can support diversity, equity, and inclusion in journalism

Lea Trusty

October 16, 2019

Journalism has long fallen short of reflecting the diversity of the communities it purports to serve—something that is fundamental for supporting a healthy democracy. Last year, we released research from Dot Connector Studio that explored philanthropic support for increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in journalism from 2009-2015. We commissioned this research to learn how funders are investing—or not investing—in field-strengthening organizations working to make journalism more diverse and representative. What we found—unsurprisingly—was a significantly under-resourced field.

Now, we are turning to solutions. Our latest report, Advancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Journalism: What Funders Can Do, also produced by Dot Connector Studio, digs deeper into the vibrant field of organizations working to build DEI in journalism, and proposes concrete ways that funders can increase their support for this work.

Efforts to build DEI in journalism are led by both news outlets that specifically serve diverse populations and by field-strengthening organizations that provide support to these outlets, and to journalists from diverse backgrounds. These organizations are doing amazing work—often with limited resources—to create more representative journalism. But, as this research reveals, they need more support.

Our report found that:

DEI-focused organizations receive a very small slice of journalism funding. This research confirms what we’ve long suspected: no matter how you slice the data, DEI within journalism is not a high priority for funders. Of the $1.1 billion that went into journalism more generally in the United States from 2013-2017, only 8.1 percent went to DEI-focused efforts.

Funders are focused on big players. This research also reveals that funders are focused on bigger players, not a diverse pool of smaller grantees. The data show multiple funders supporting the same, better-resourced organizations. And while some organizations receive funds from multiple foundations, foundations are less likely to support many different organizations across the field at the same time.

Foundations are the lifeline for DEI-focused organizations. This research shows that 74 percent of revenue for DEI-focused field-building organizations comes from grants and contributions. While many organizations are experimenting with new revenue streams, echoing trends in the broader nonprofit news space, organizations continue to be reliant on foundations to provide the bulk of funding.

What can funders do to improve the situation?

Funders need to work together with urgency and intentionality to avoid grantmaking that reinforces the inequalities this research highlights. Our report proposes two actions that funders can take right now:

1. Funders can join a new collaborative effort: the Racial Equity in Journalism Fund (REJF). This fund is a collaborative that includes Craig Newmark Philanthropies, Democracy Fund, the Ford Foundation, the Google News Initiative, and the News Integrity Initiative at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at CUNY. REJF is committed to investing in news organizations led by and serving communities of color; supporting news projects that provide information to communities that face the greatest barriers in access to news; and strengthening the organizations that are developing creative and innovative ways to reach communities with relevant news.

“Media organizations led by people of color have long been a vanguard of our democracy, holding the powerful accountable for the ways it treats its most vulnerable citizens in ways mainstream media has often failed to do. It was organizations such as the black press that campaigned most vigorously to abolish slavery, to pass federal legislation against lynching, and to end Jim Crow, when mainstream media either ignored these stories altogether or sided with the powerful” —Nikole Hannah-Jones, journalist at the New York Times Magazine and co-founder of the Ida B. Wells Society of Investigative Reporting.

2. Funders can start sharing more resources across a diverse pool of grantees. Democracy Fund’s Journalism DEI Tracker is a tool that helps funders identify prospective grantees and find useful resources to share with current grantees. The tool includes over 70 organizations and outlets in the field; professional development and training opportunities for journalists from diverse backgrounds; a list of HBCUs, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges with journalism and communications programs to include in recruitment efforts to ensure a more diverse pipeline; and resources for journalism organizations to promote respectful and inclusive coverage. We will continue to update this living document on an ongoing basis.

We hope this report will inspire more funders to action. But it’s just the start: Democracy Fund itself has more work to do to put equity at the heart of how it does its grantmaking in media and journalism. We are still learning and listening and remaining open and accountable.