Philanthropy Can Afford to Give More

There's a number that keeps coming up in conversations about American philanthropy right now. $1.5 trillion. That's what's currently held in U.S. foundations alone. Add in donor-advised funds and the total climbs past $1.7 trillion.

Now, some of that money is moving. But most of it is on the sidelines. It's growing, it's compounding, it's waiting. And meanwhile, federal funding for nonprofits has been slashed. Communities are scrambling. Organizations on the front lines of housing, health, democracy, and climate are being told to do more with less while the sector that exists to support them guards its endowments behind a rule that was never meant to be a ceiling.

That rule is the 5% minimum payout rate. When Congress first required foundations to distribute a share of their assets back in 1969, it was meant to be a floor. More than fifty years later, most of the sector treats it as a maximum. The question is: what happens if we raise it?

To explore that, I talked with three leaders behind the Level Up campaign, a coalition effort organized by CHANGE Philanthropy that's asking foundations to increase their payout to at least 8% for two years and to prove it with their tax filings.

Aaron Dorfman is the President and CEO of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, the sector's independent watchdog. Jodeen Olguín-Tayler is the Campaign Director leading Level Up at CHANGE Philanthropy. And Amanda Andere is Co-President of Neighborhood Funders Group, bringing a decade of experience organizing funders around housing justice.

I'm Eric Ressler, and this is Designing Tomorrow.

Episode Highlights

[00:00] The $1.5 trillion sitting in American foundations — and why most of it isn't moving

[02:03] Why 5% isn't enough for the urgency of this moment

[03:23] Challenging the perpetuity argument — and one leader's decision to stop saving for her son's college fund

[06:15] How philanthropy responded to the 2025 crisis — and where it fell short compared to COVID

[10:49] Moving resources rapidly, flexibly, and with trust

[13:50] What "give better" actually looks like — unrestricted, multi-year, and directed toward power-building

[17:24] Why Minneapolis was ready — the invisible infrastructure investment that held

[21:18] Confronting criticism of progressive philanthropy in a polarized moment

[25:39] The billion-dollar imbalance — how right-wing donors outspent progressive philanthropy

[29:24] Why Level Up requires proof, not just promises — the accountability pillar

[35:03] How peer pressure is moving reluctant foundations forward

[39:53] The donor-advised fund question — and what DAF holders can do right now

[44:03] MacKenzie Scott, Chuck Feeney, the California Endowment, and foundations already leading the way

[49:28] What foundations and nonprofit leaders can do right now to get involved

Notable Quotes

Aaron Dorfman — "We can't leave this capital on the sidelines." [02:30]

Jodeen Olguín-Tayler — "I stopped putting funding into my son's college education fund because if we don't have a world that is effectively addressing climate, racialized violence, building power for communities to actually make decisions, I'm not sure my eight year old is going to have the need for a college account." [04:34]

Amanda Andere — "We didn't see enough moving of resources fast enough because people were still trying to figure out where we were in the moment... We couldn't agree what was actually happening." [09:00]

Aaron Dorfman — "Find groups that are doing great work that you trust and give them the freedom to adapt to a changing landscape." [15:00]

Amanda Andere — "What is the grant report or the theory of change you would've asked Dr. King in the civil rights movement? We laugh at that, but that is the moment that we're in." [15:54]

Amanda Andere — "Minneapolis has shown us that investment in infrastructure in 2020 is the reason why they're able to respond in such a comprehensive way now." [17:24]

Aaron Dorfman — "Right-wing donors spent a billion dollars in funding for voter suppression and other anti-democracy activities in three years leading up to the 2024 election. They got a pretty good return on their investment." [26:00]

Aaron Dorfman — "Should anyone really be surprised that those who have a vision for a more fair, equitable, and just society can't make progress when we aren't willing to make the same kinds of long-term, high-dollar investments?" [26:45]

Jodeen Olguín-Tayler — "Other pledges could practically be signed by foundation communications staff because they didn't require big changes." [29:30]

Amanda Andere — "Whatever you thought you were doing during the civil rights movement, whatever you thought you were going to do during the Nazi occupation — that is what you should be doing now." [51:15]

Aaron Dorfman — "If you've been broadly invested in the markets, you can afford to go to 8%, 9%, 10% payout rate for the next few years and still have immense purchasing power in your corpus." [53:15]

Resources & Links

• Level Up Campaign — CHANGE Philanthropy
• National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP)
• Neighborhood Funders Group (NFG)
• Amalgamated Foundation
• Movement Voter Project — Report on long-term philanthropic infrastructure investment in Minnesota
• Climate and Clean Energy Fund — Report on multi-decade philanthropic investment in Minnesota

[Subscribe to Designing Tomorrow]

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and readability.

Full Transcript

Eric Ressler: Thank you so much for joining me today. Really excited to dig into our conversation about all things philanthropy, but especially the Level Up campaign that you all are behind. To start with, Aaron, I'd like to ask you a big component of this campaign is 5% is not enough when it comes to spend down percentage requirements for philanthropies. Simple question, why isn't 5% enough?

Aaron Dorfman: If you look at what's going on in our world right now and the immense threats facing communities in this country and the cutting of government funding, philanthropy can and shouldn't be expected to fill all of those gaps, but 5% is not enough to match the urgency of this moment. We need more from donors and foundations who have the means to really bolster a strong civic response to this moment. They got to get in the game. We can't leave this capital on the sidelines.

Eric Ressler: So one thing that I hear as kind of a counter argument to this is that the nature and the benefit of the 5% spend down is that it provides this perpetuity, this sustainability for these funders that by continuing to invest their assets and only spend down 5%, their overall assets are growing year over year as they invest them. And that makes sure that especially philanthropies that are doing, let's say, climate action work or work that might take decades to solve, they ensure that they become a sustainable source of funding for those organizations. Jodeen, I want to go to you. What do you say to that counter argument?

Jodeen Olguín-Tayler: I would say that it is time that we have a new normal in philanthropy and the Level Up campaign is actually designed to set a new floor and not a new ceiling for the payout rates. I actually work at a philanthropic fund where we took a vote to become part of the Level Up pledge as part of a conversation about our commitment in the long term to setting a spend down timeline. And that's because we know that the giving that we'll be able to do, especially if we come to meet the payout rate of the Level Up pledge at this really timely moment for communities and in our country, we will inspire other philanthropic giving to come in over time. There is no shortage of resources in the philanthropic sector and this economy is producing billionaires and so there will be new philanthropists that can come in and step in when one institution doesn't exist into perpetuity.

As a parent, I would also say I stopped putting funding into my son's college education fund because if we don't have a world and a sector that is effectively addressing climate, racialized violence, building power for communities to actually make decisions, I'm not sure that my eight year old's going to have the need for a college account. So this idea that we need to be looking at perpetuity instead of the immense urgent needs of communities facing violence, facing climate catastrophes, who if they were empowered to actually be governing in local states and communities, we would be making better decisions that would change the work that needs to be supported by the philanthropic sector in the long term.

Aaron Dorfman: Yeah, let me jump in here. The pledge asks you to spend more for two years. This is not like you got to spend out all your assets. That's not what we're asking people to do necessarily. We are indeed hoping for a new normal in the sector that is above the historic 5%, but signing the pledge means you're committing to spending more for the next two years. It's not a heavy lift in response to what communities are experiencing right now. I mean, if we all see what's been happening in my home state of Minnesota where I grew up and the attacks on immigrants and everyone there, it's like spending a little bit more for two years is not a heavy lift. Anybody can do it.

Eric Ressler: On that point, we're recording this at the beginning of 2026. 2025 was a bumpy year to say the least for the philanthropic sector, for the social impact sector, for communities around the world, especially here in America. And my sense on this is that it feels like there was not a sufficient response from the philanthropic sector even in the same way that we at least saw lip service if nothing else being paid during the pandemic where there was this global crisis and funders seemed to recognize that, seemed to voice support, and some of them took some pretty big actions to actually spend down some more money to meet the needs of the community. And it doesn't feel like from my purview and from discussions I've had with other funders and with the clients that I work with every day who are on the front lines oftentimes of this work that there's been an equal level, even close to an equal level of response to that. Amanda, I want to go to you for this one. What are you seeing out in the communities right now and how are you feeling like philanthropy has responded to the current moment?

Amanda Andere: Thank you, Eric. I think I've seen a little bit of both. We've seen major sweeping investments in legal defense that has stopped a lot of bad actions and been able to get a lot of wins in the courts. We've seen some immediate infusion in traditional advocacy, some organizing, some activism. And definitely as cities were overtaken, like occupied, like in DC, in LA, and now Minneapolis, we've seen more local funders support things like mutual aid and bolster up the infrastructure that was already there in response to the racial awakening and uprising and COVID.

But I think to your earlier point about perpetuity, what we also saw was a lot of scrambling that happened last year because funders were trying to figure out what was the right level of resourcing for the moment. And a part of it I think that slowed things down is that as much as at the beginning of COVID there was a little bit of unknown — where did it come from? How is it going to be transmitted? How do we protect ourselves? Is a cloth mask enough? — there were things in place that taught us about the science of disease.

I think when you're talking about authoritarian rule, when you're talking about oppressive regimes, everyone has a hot take. People have different analysis. And in general, what we saw from philanthropy was unfortunately a lot of not listening to the folks who've been sounding the alarm for decades, particularly Black queer activists in the South who've been under authoritarian rule locally or in their state for a long time and had a lot of lessons over the years to share. So we did see a scrambling and we didn't see enough moving of resources fast enough because people were still trying to figure out where we were in the moment. As organizers say, what time is it on the clock for justice or liberation? And folks were still trying to figure that out as it was being destroyed. There wasn't a lot of agreement about what was actually happening. Even saying authoritarianism was something that people debated. Are we here yet? Is our democracy destroyed yet? And so I think there wasn't a lot of coalescing around what to do. We couldn't agree what was actually happening.

Eric Ressler: I see this tension from the funder side, and I feel it from the practitioner side as well, where there's this balance between wanting to get money out the door to fund the causes and the missions that need resources to activate and to mobilize, but also wanting to make sure that's being done responsibly. And I think sometimes funders are looking for inputs and research and data and proof that this work is going to be effective, that these dollars are dollars well spent. But especially in times of crisis where we need to be more quick to mobilize and a little bit more open to getting money out the door, even if maybe it's not going to be quite as effective at times, there's a kind of calculated risk that needs to happen. And my sense is that philanthropy in general is pretty risk averse, especially when it comes to stewarding those dollars out into the community. So what do you see out there and what's your opinion on how we should all be thinking about that right now?

Jodeen Olguín-Tayler: I appreciate the question, Eric, and I think it relates to the third pillar of the pledge, which is to move the resources rapidly, flexibly, and nimbly. So at a time when we know that there are such immense needs for resources, we want to get the money into the hands of the organizations who are actually best positioned to make decisions about how the resource should be used and along what timeline. And so moving these resources aligned with the Level Up pledge in a way that puts those sorts of decisions into the hands of grantees is actually part of shifting the norms and culture of philanthropy that we want to see. We also support long-term, multi-year sustained giving so that when we have these inflection points and crisis points where there is an influx of resources that are needed, they can be deployed more flexibly and organizations know that they will have other sustained funding coming in over time so that they're really able to make strategic decisions.

The other thing that I would just add — I agree, there is this tendency in philanthropy to sort of twiddle thumbs or wait for information or want what are the newest KPIs. And I think to be honest, as someone who's also been both in a grantmaking role and in a grant-seeking role, when you build relationships of mutual trust where you're actually talking with field leaders about what the needs are, then you as a grantmaker can learn in real time with them as lessons are emerging because they trust you to share the questions that are coming up as well as the things that they're learning instead of waiting two years to the end of the grant report to tell you anything because there's this fear that if you say something where there's not a complete conclusion, that could impact your funding. So actually being willing to trust, let go of some of the power that you hold as a grantmaker and actually trust in the leadership of folks who are leading in frontline communities — I actually think will result in philanthropic institutions getting better information because they'll be in more of a learning position to learn alongside the work that's happening.

Eric Ressler: So we're jumping ahead a little bit, but that's fine. Let's stay on this thread. One of the other pillars is give better. How can we be distributing these assets in a more responsible, trust-based way? So Aaron, I'd like to go to you for this one. How do you characterize give better as part of this pledge? What does giving better look like for funders?

Aaron Dorfman: Philanthropy has historically underinvested in organizations led by people of color, in organizations doing grassroots organizing and movement building work. All of those organizations are really needed right now. So part of giving better is who are you investing in to get us out of this mess that we're in as a society right now, and we need to see dollars going to those frontline, grassroots, accountable organizations. That's part of it.

The other part is give unrestricted general operating support and make it over multiple years. The evidence is overwhelming. That kind of multi-year unrestricted support is what allows organizations to be effective, to have the most impact in the world. And who doesn't want that? What funder doesn't want to see the groups that they're funding have that kind of an impact? So figure it out. Lots of funders have figured out how to do it, but more need to come along and transition away from restricted project grants and towards general operating support, especially in a chaotic political and policy environment like we have right now. The outcomes and deliverables of a project grant are going to perhaps be obsolete or useless three months from now. So find groups that are doing great work that you trust and give them the freedom to adapt to a changing landscape so that they can get our society to where it needs to be.

Eric Ressler: Amanda, I want to give you a chance to weigh in on this one too.

Amanda Andere: Yeah, I appreciate what my colleague Aaron said and I would just take it a step further and also tie together some of the questions that you were asking earlier about what moment we're in. This gets said a lot, but I think it's really important to mention here when we're talking about what is trust and how do you know if it's worth the risk. We often ask people, what is the grant report or the theory of change? You would've asked Dr. King in the civil rights movement — and we laugh at that, but that is the moment that we're in. And so giving better is not just finding the right organizations and trusting folks, it's all of that, but it's understanding that the level of investment and the types of organizations that will need to take us through this moment are also not going to be the usual suspects.

Those good organizations are probably going to know organizations that have historically been underfunded, organizations that haven't been given the capacity to work with mainstream advocacy and policy organizations. I worked in the housing justice field before I came to Neighborhood Funders Group, and we saw this a lot during the pandemic — the people closest to the problem were the folks who didn't necessarily have a C3, but they knew the work to prevent people from becoming unhoused. And they were often five steps away from the mainstream organizations that were receiving the money. And so that meant delays in getting critical resources out.

I think now we're seeing both ends. We know that there's a crisis of basic needs happening in places like Minneapolis where people actually need support to be able to live, and there's a crisis of organizational infrastructure. Minneapolis has shown us actually that investment in infrastructure in 2020 is the reason why they're able to respond in such a comprehensive way now. And so when we think about giving better, it's understanding the immediate needs of folks, the infrastructure needs of mobilizing and organizing, the protection that's needed for independent journalists, for folks on the front line, for folks who might have their safety compromised, and for the spaciousness for the long-term planning about how we get out of this mess.

And that's part of the give better — knowing that part of the learning is giving and testing things out and that the trust is that we will never lose when part of the work is about building community and solidarity and sharing information. Those things will always be accomplished when you invest in organizing and activism. That's exactly what happened in Minneapolis in 2020 that's able to carry them forward right now. If they had waited to build that infrastructure, we would see very different results. Even though what's happening is devastating, we would not see the level of care, community, and commitment. And that's because people took risks back in 2020 to invest in organizations that knew community well, that understood how to build infrastructure, that understood how to build trust within their communities and with their neighbors. And that's the kind of giving better that we need to see happen.

Eric Ressler: I'm glad you brought that up because I do feel like a lot of this work can be and feel invisible at times, especially when we're talking about building mutual aid, building communities, strengthening communities. But I think when you see how the community is responding and has responded in Minneapolis and more broadly Minnesota, it's palpable. It's like clearly there is some kind of network here that is powering this and it's beautiful to watch even though the situation that's being tested is obviously tragic at the same time.

I'm holding that in one hand and then the other hand I'm holding what seems to me to be this kind of growing criticism of the so-called nonprofit industrial sector. We see this a lot on the West Coast here in California where I am around housing, which Amanda, you have a lot of experience with. And I'm sensing this kind of narrative that I think is largely politically motivated, but leading into just general concerned citizens around billions and billions of dollars being invested in these complex issues and feeling like if anything, we're going backwards on those issues.

And to me, that might be where some of the criticism of trust-based philanthropy comes from. It's like, well, how do we do trust-based philanthropy but also ensure that there's accountability, especially when these are taxpayer dollars in certain situations, maybe less so now than in the past with federal funding being cut. So at the end of the day, this is really about there are these systemic issues in society. They're not equally distributed, but anyone working in good faith can say there are problems in the world that we need to solve. So to me, the question is how do we best solve those problems effectively and sustainably, not in a whack-a-mole kind of way — sometimes you need direct relief of course, but if we're only just providing direct relief all the time and the system perpetuates, that's not a long-term solution either. Jodeen, I want to go to you for this one. I know it's kind of a thorny subject, but I love to ask questions like this on this show because I think these conversations often happen behind closed doors but don't really get the light of day. How do you think about balancing all of that and are you seeing more pushback on the philanthropic sector in general, especially in this politically polarized moment?

Jodeen Olguín-Tayler: Yeah, thanks for the nest of questions, Eric. And absolutely, I do think there is more criticism and critique and examining of progressive philanthropy in this moment. And I think more pointedly, there are undue threats and trumpeted investigations on frontline organizations that are meant to cause alarm, meant to be distracting, meant to pull people away from the urgent work that they're doing.

I also want to go back to what Amanda was raising — the important piece about investment and infrastructure over time at the state and local level. I think there are two really good reports on the long-term, multiple decades of philanthropic investments in a set of broad, multi-issue organizations and multi-entity infrastructure in Minnesota. One was done by the Climate and Clean Energy Fund and one was done by the Movement Voter Project.

And what they both highlight are more than 15 years of different types of philanthropic institutions, donor networks investing in a broad set of organizations — not all of them nonprofits — at the local level who are really rooted in community, who are thinking about how to diversify revenue, how to bring in their own revenue, and supported their collaboration and work over the long term. And it took philanthropic investors getting out of their silos — funders who traditionally fund in climate or funders who traditionally fund in democracy or workforce development actually coming together and asking the local infrastructure: what are the kinds of resources, over what period of time, do you need to build community organizations that are working together to have governing power in the state, to actually be able to reach people at scale, to mobilize people at scale, to participate in local and state government? And I think those are two reports that really show the kind of trust, collaboration, and partnership needed between philanthropic actors and grassroots infrastructure to build the type of state-based, multi-entity infrastructure that's needed to sustain action in these kinds of intense moments like we're seeing now in Minnesota.

Eric Ressler: Aaron, I want to go to you for this next question. In working with a number of different nonprofit organizations and social impact organizations who are not 501(c)(3)s, I've noticed a trend actually away from certainly federal funding in this moment, which is almost a non-starter if you're doing anything progressive, but even major grant philanthropy in general, away from working with major foundations and more towards direct funding from high net worth individuals, major donors in the community. Almost as an exacerbation of just like this is no longer sustainable for us as an organization when funders' priorities shift all the time, when as soon as something's not in vogue anymore — like we saw with the backpedaling of DEI investments from a lot of major foundations and philanthropies. I think we can all agree that there are parts about this system that are not working for the greater good. Is this a time to strengthen and to kind of double down? If you were in the shoes of an executive director trying to do fundraising and build a sustainable organization, how would you think about your portfolio? And obviously it depends on the type of org that you are, but is this salvageable in your opinion? And if so, what would it look like for this ecosystem to be healthier and more sustainable long term?

Aaron Dorfman: Yeah, Eric, I think there's a place for foundation funding. There's a place for individual donor fundraising. As you say, it depends a little bit on what your organization is trying to do in the world, who your constituency is. So that's tough to generalize about.

But I want to go back to something you were saying a little bit earlier, like the frustration that we're not making more progress on some of the thorny issues affecting our society. Part of the reason for that is that right-wing donors and foundations have invested heavily for decades in thwarting progress on these issues and in strategies designed to drag our society backwards, not propel it forwards. Just to give one example: right-wing donors spent a billion dollars in funding for voter suppression and other anti-democracy activities in three years leading up to the 2024 election. They got a pretty good return on their investment for that. So should anyone really be surprised that those who have a vision for a more fair, equitable, and just society can't make the progress we need when we aren't willing to make the same kinds of long-term, high-dollar investments in advancing our vision for a better society? I think that's the kind of courage that donors in the center and on the left need to have if we're going to make progress on this. And part of that is spending more, which is why we have this Level Up pledge.

Eric Ressler: Interesting. So your point there that I'm hearing is that this is not necessarily just a failure of effective work, but there are countermeasures actively working against some of these causes that are often not considered as part of the general assessment from the public.

Aaron Dorfman: And I think we underestimate the dollars and the level of commitment coming from those who have a different vision for society.

Eric Ressler: Yeah. I mean that gets really thorny because that's the whole subjective element of this work. When we talk about social impact work, the vision for the future looks very different depending on where you sit and what your goals are and what your vision is. And so there are, in the best faith, these kind of different ideas about what equity and what justice looks like. I think that's not always the case, or very much not the case right now in many situations. But there's also these efforts that are actively suppressing these issues. And you see that very clearly in the political world, even just candidate A versus candidate B. But I don't think people typically think about the social impact space in the same way. And it's absolutely true — if you take any hot button, especially cultural, issue, there are nonprofits working on both sides of that issue, fighting for their vision of what the future looks like, funded by very different people in this country.

I want to shift over to the part of the pledge that we haven't talked about, the accountability part. And this I think is pretty unique for the campaign. There's been a number of giving pledges of various shapes and sizes that are a little bit more like a public letter of intent than any kind of deep agreement or structural change that we're asking organizations to make. Jodeen, I want to go to you for this one. Can you talk through why you built in this accountability measure, what it looks like, and how that changes the nature of what it means to sign on to this campaign?

Jodeen Olguín-Tayler: Yeah, thank you for the question, Eric. The campaign is really designed to change behavior norms, narrative, and governance policies in the philanthropic sector as a means of creating a new floor for how the philanthropic sector operates. So it's a big ambition, and the pillar in the campaign about accountability is a large part of that.

So first of all, I want to say that institutions who've committed to join onto the pledge have committed to share relevant grantmaking data in a secure way. And that data is not different than the data that they would need to share with the IRS eventually, but one of the things that we're asking pledge signers to commit to is to share that data sooner as a way to make good, to verify their commitment, and as a way to help us learn more and produce and share research about how resources in the sector are hopefully shifting and being expanded.

It's also, I think, in practice as we've talked with institutions and as I've been part of boards who've made the decision to sign on to the pledge — it's become an important part of the discussion internally in an institution to make these commitments. It helps us really affirm that this is a step that we are committed to taking as an organization. In particular, I can speak to institutions that don't usually set their grantmaking budgets over a two-year term or set their endowment payout rates over just a one-year term. This is asking them to think more than one year in advance, both about what they're willing to commit to and how they're willing to verify that commitment. And we need philanthropic institutions to make more than one-year commitments at this time because that allows the groups who are responding to these unprecedented needs from and within communities to plan in a more strategic and effective way. So I would say it's an important part of the pledge, not just in terms of what we're asking for, but it actually becomes an important part internally for institutions to really take seriously the commitment and the strategic rationale for why it's important to make these commitments at this time.

Eric Ressler: Aaron, my understanding is that although this campaign is relatively new, you already have close to 50 pledging organizations and we're not talking about necessarily just small organizations. Some big names on that list too. Can you speak to how this pledge has been received in the philanthropic community at large so far?

Aaron Dorfman: Well, I'm really pleased with the reception that it's getting so far. I think we are hearing from funders that they agree that these are urgent times, that they agree that spending more and being held accountable to that is part of the solution and maybe part of the path out of this dark place that we are in. So I am optimistic. I continue to hear that folks are wrestling with what their spending policy ought to be in the next couple of years. So that makes me hopeful. We've got almost 50 signatories at this point. I wish we had 500 signatories at this point, and we will get more, but I am pleased with the early adopters that we've seen in this effort so far.

Eric Ressler: Amanda, I want to give you a chance to weigh in on this. What have you seen from your purview? My fear here — and I still think this is all a very good idea overall — but aren't we also kind of asking the organizations who are more likely to get to this conclusion on their own? There's a whole cohort of organizations that are going to be resistant to this. So at some level, is there a more systemic play here longer term where this becomes more of a legal requirement versus an opt-in that we should be thinking about?

Amanda Andere: Yeah, that's a great question. I think the moment that we're in now, what I'm seeing as I serve on the board of a family foundation and work with a lot of funders — yes, coming to this pledge was easy for them. They were already starting to have that conversation, or it offered them cover. But what we're hearing from a lot of foundations who haven't been on this journey is that they're learning from their peers, and the peer pressure from other boards is influencing folks in a good way. Peer pressure can be a good thing, and it's not just the pressure of it, but it's the "how did you bring this conversation to your board? What are the things that you thought about that allowed them to think about this in a long-term and a short-term strategy?"

So in essence, this has created its own cohort of people who are starting to talk to each other, maybe in more underground ways, maybe in more overt ways, to get us to the 500 that Aaron wants — that we all want — if not all foundations who care about people and democracy and having a country that is able for all people to thrive and survive. We have to have a different conversation. And I think the Level Up campaign is allowing people to have that conversation in a context that might feel a little bit safer to them. And I think none of us in the CHANGE Philanthropy coalition want to just have safe conversations. We want to have bold conversations. But we want to have the right conversations that actually get people to move in ways that are transformative and not in this inattention and attention cycle, not in these short spurts. And so that's what I think we're planting the seeds and building the foundation for — these longer-term conversations.

Eric Ressler: I really like the concept of giving foundations the cover, the permission almost to do this, even the social cover. Because I do feel like a lot of the reluctance might be a PR backlash or social pressure or sometimes even accountability being something that they're not used to. We see a lot of funders starting to spin up as philanthropy LLCs so they can do things however they want on their own terms, especially when we're seeing family offices transform from tech where they're used to basically doing whatever they feel like and not having accountability. So it is an interesting space that we're in. But Aaron, I want to give you a chance to weigh in on that last one because I sensed that you had some thoughts.

Aaron Dorfman: Well, look, Eric, there is a time to have a conversation about what the rules governing philanthropy ought to be. And now is not that time. It certainly isn't. We have an autocrat who is attempting to dismantle our democracy, and we all need to band together and resist that and make sure that we have a thriving multiracial democracy that we come out the other side of this with something that is better than what we've ever had before. That's what I'm looking for. And someday there ought to be a conversation about what the rules governing philanthropy ought to be, but there are far more important fish to fry than that right now.

Eric Ressler: I think that's a fair characterization, and I think that we need to be pragmatic as a sector right now. We need to understand there are systems that are imperfect and we need to work within them and mobilize rapidly in this moment. And we should certainly be having conversations around the long-term shifts that should happen to the sector. But there are people suffering right now that need support and need help and need dollars. And so I think that's a really smart way to think about it.

I want to touch on one other element that's tangentially related to this. There's been a lot of discussion around DAFs, or donor-advised funds, as a safe haven for tax-free dollars for the ultra wealthy. Some people argue that DAFs are a net benefit for social impact and a new vehicle that will get more money out of bank accounts and into communities where we need them. But DAFs aren't set up in a way that requires any spend down or payout, not even a 5% minimum from my understanding. And so I'd be curious to kind of introduce DAFs into this conversation. Obviously different — we're not talking about major philanthropy here, we're talking about individual philanthropy — but to me it's a related topic in that how do we get more philanthropic dollars out of the coffers of ultra wealthy and into the communities that need them? Jodeen, I want to go to you to start on this one.

Jodeen Olguín-Tayler: Yeah, thanks for that. We have had a couple of donors who operate through DAFs who have signed on to support the pledge. And I think it is, as Amanda said about creating examples — catalytic examples and leaders that can be elevated within the sector for others to follow. So we're glad to have those examples amongst the signers.

I would also say that we have talked about ways to approach some of the philanthropic institutions that house DAFs to talk with them about the importance of this campaign. And there are organizations — I would elevate the Amalgamated Foundation, that has a practice of encouraging DAF holders at the end of every year to get their money out. And you cannot indefinitely hold resources in a DAF there and just accumulate them and not spend them.

I think one of the reasons why it's so important that this campaign is held and housed by a network of 10 philanthropic infrastructure organizations through the CHANGE Philanthropy Coalition is because we do have relationships with so many different types of philanthropic institutions and can help to collectively approach some of the influential actors like DAF holders and have conversations with them about what they may already be doing to ensure that DAFs are not just tax havens and actually get resources out to work that is very urgently needed in communities who should be holding those resources. And so that is something we're discussing as both a coalition and as a campaign, as something on the horizon. But I do think it is a very important issue in the sector at the moment.

Amanda Andere: Kind of like Aaron, I think the conversation around DAFs is this larger conversation that we need to have in this sector right now. What we need to be doing is getting to those folks who might hold DAFs that have been politically motivated, who largely have contributed to political campaigns, that are now seeing the need for advocacy, organizing, and activism. And actually in having conversations with some of these high net worth individual donors and folks who have long been involved in some type of political work but not in this way, they want to figure out how to move money. They're coming to organizations like Neighborhood Funders Group, like Funders for LGBTQ Issues. And that's why the coalition is so important, because they want to figure out who do we move money to really quickly? What's a trusted resource? And they know that we have those relationships and partnerships, they want to start to align their dollars with foundations, with individual donors.

So I think that work is happening right now and we need to in this moment build community and not shame people, but give them pathways and on-ramps in order to now move resources and stay connected with them so they understand the impact and then they start to move more resources. And that's what I want to focus on in this moment.

Aaron Dorfman: Well, I think Amanda and Jodeen covered it. DAFs are an important piece of the landscape. Let's make sure that donors who use donor-advised funds move that money, get it out the door, increase their giving.

Eric Ressler: So when we're talking about increasing this spend down percentage from 5% to 8%, even over just two years, it's a significant increase. Some people might feel like that's a lot, but I also know there are examples of organizations out there who have already done this, have done it more aggressively — even thinking about MacKenzie Scott spending down billions and billions of dollars much more quickly than that. I'd be curious to hear, are there already organizations that you all are aware of who are moving this way already, that inspired you, or that are allies in this kind of faster spend down vision? Aaron, I'll start with you.

Aaron Dorfman: Yeah, I mean there are a lot of great examples. MacKenzie Scott is one. She's one of the few Giving Pledge signatories who's actually moving resources at a speed fast enough to meet the terms of that pledge. Most of them aren't anywhere close to it. You think about the sort of most well-known "giving while living" proponent, Chuck Feeney, the founder of Duty Free Shops, who gave away an $8 billion fortune during his lifetime. And those grants did a tremendous amount of good. The donors who think about this think about how making a difference on issues now is a more cost-effective way than waiting to try to make a difference on those in the future.

And I've had lots of conversations with donors and foundations who have signed this pledge or who are thinking about signing this pledge. And most of them tell me, "Well, we were already talking about this, Aaron, before you asked us to sign the pledge. We understand the urgency of the moment. We want to do our part." And signing the pledge is a way for us to take a stand publicly and encourage other institutional grantmakers to also step up and meet this moment. I think I'm not speaking out of school to say that the California Endowment was one of those — they'd already been having these conversations, but they gladly signed on to the pledge because it was in line with what they were already thinking. And hopefully it encourages other donors, other foundations to have the permission to make that step as well.

Eric Ressler: Jodeen, do you want to weigh in on this one?

Jodeen Olguín-Tayler: Yeah, absolutely. As Aaron said, we've seen a number of family offices as well as institutional funders take the step formally because of the pledge. But we've also been in conversation with public charities, community foundations who have signed on, intermediary funds. One of the funds — the Movement Voter Fund — signed on early to the pledge and had a conversation with their board where they said, this is a risk for us to make a commitment for two years to raise our grantmaking because we raise money to give out. But actually signing on to this pledge is taking a strong position that this is a time to be taking action in our sector and gives us an opportunity to talk with our institutional funders and across our broad donor network about the importance of making commitments over a longer period of time and making larger commitments at this time. So in those ways we see a wide range of philanthropic actors getting involved in the pledge and also using it as a tool to make bigger and more active commitments to the field.

Eric Ressler: Amanda, what are you seeing out in the space?

Amanda Andere: I'm seeing the exact same thing. I think about one of the pledge signers, the Meyer Foundation based in DC, who I asked to sign the pledge. They in relatively short time talked to their board and their staff. And what's important about that is that DC's funding pool is very small compared to other communities. And so that level of increase is significant. And it also has necessitated conversations with other funders in DC who now are talking about increasing their payout — and they never were having those conversations or were putting off those conversations.

Meyer was already working with their grantees around increasing in certain areas. They were already giving responsive and emergency grants. And so this just leveled them up in a way that allowed other funders to see that they could level up. And maybe that means that they won't sign the pledge, but maybe it means that they'll think about doing their grantmaking in more responsive ways. Maybe they will do a temporary increase, and then we know we can hold them accountable having those conversations.

So I think those are the types of things that happen when you have these kinds of pledges. As we talked about before, all investment in getting people to do things differently is good because it builds community, it gets people talking, and it builds solidarity in ways that sometimes will be measurable and sometimes will not be. And that's why we need to keep on having these conversations with folks so we can tell the stories about the unintended consequences that actually are good unintended consequences.

Eric Ressler: So before we wrap up, I'd like to give each of you an opportunity to make your own personal case. If we have some funders listening who are hearing this and they're motivated and they're on board, what is it that really tips people over the edge? And what's the first step that people can take if they're interested in potentially signing onto the pledge, or even for nonprofit executive directors who want to share this episode with funders that they're in relationship with? Jodeen, I'll start with you.

Jodeen Olguín-Tayler: Yeah, thank you. I would say please reach out to us. One of the great things about how we're built as a coalition is a network of both board members and leaders of philanthropic institutions who've made these commitments and who have also said, "We're happy to go talk with your board. We're happy to share the process that we went through to be able to make this decision or have a longer-term conversation about it." There are a number of partners in CHANGE Philanthropy who do amazing, very detailed research about how to move money, where it's currently being moved to, who to move it to.

And so I think we have a wealth of resources to support philanthropic leaders and executive directors who want to make this journey. We also have a community of trustees of color who are board members of philanthropic institutions who are bringing the pledge to their boards and working internally to make — not just adopt the pledge, but it really is about making this bigger shift in the norms and behavior of philanthropy over the long term.

And so I would say reach out to us. This is a moment where collective action in the philanthropic sector actually does matter. This is an opportunity and an invitation for you to take a very important step to level up, and we will help you, support you, and accompany you and be sure you have the resources and networks to support you on this journey. So let us know how we can support.

Eric Ressler: Amanda, over to you.

Amanda Andere: Well, thanks Jodeen. I think you said the right things technically and the right resources. I would just take us up a level to where we started. And while these are not unprecedented times for people at the sharpest intersection of marginalization, it now feels unprecedented for many people who've not had to confront the realities that our country does not work for everyone.

And so what legacy do you want to leave in this moment? Whatever you thought you were doing during the civil rights movement, whatever you thought you were going to do during the Nazi occupation — that is what you should be doing now. That does not mean just doing incremental changes. It does not mean just a little bit more. It means showing up in ways that say to community: we understand what you're going through. We understand that we've been part of this problem. We understand the long-term and short-term investment it's going to take to get out of here and build a community that works for all people. And we are right there with you with more resources, learning alongside of you, trusting you, and being accountable to what we say we're going to do.

And I would just call on people's moral clarity. I would call on people's spirit of abundance. And I would ask them to think about what they would say they were going to do in moments of oppression — because that is what you should be doing now. And it needs to be reflective of what you want your grandchildren to remember you by and the legacy you want to leave.

Eric Ressler: Beautiful. Aaron, over to you.

Aaron Dorfman: Well, Amanda and Jodeen said it all quite beautifully. I would just add: if you're a trustee of a foundation and you're wrestling with this question — does it make a difference even if we do it, if we give more? — there are 10 philanthropy infrastructure organizations that are connected to hundreds of nonprofits, thousands of nonprofits and grassroots movement groups, and they are telling you it will make a difference. It will matter if you increase your spending rate for the next couple of years. And if you look at your returns the last few years, if you've been broadly invested in the markets, you can afford to go to 8%, 9%, 10% payout rate for the next few years and still have immense purchasing power in your corpus when we are hopefully on the other side of this crisis facing our society.

Eric Ressler: Aaron, Jodeen, Amanda — thank you so much for taking time with me today to break down this Level Up campaign. Thank you also for doing this good work and encouraging a more ambitious, responsible form of philanthropy and getting more money into the communities that need it most right now. Appreciate all of you for joining me today.

Aaron Dorfman: Thanks for having us, Eric. Thanks so much.