Barriers to Philanthropic Equity Part 2: Cultural & Systemic Issues

What is pervasive in fundraising is the key to its redemption.

By AJ Loper

If you work anywhere near the fundraising world, you have heard the bells of mistrust ringing loudly throughout the hills. 

Right now, trust in institutions is fragile. Research from the Trellis Group has shown a decline in trust in major institutions — government, media, corporations, and nonprofits. Meanwhile, data from Pew Research Center shows Americans’ trust in one another hovering at historically low levels. These days, you can spend more time proving yourself and your organization’s worth than serving communities.

Combine that mistrust with our tendency as humans to avoid risk and proselytize power, and you have a trifecta of barriers ingrained in our society and systems.  

In our first part of Barriers to Philanthropic Equity, we discussed some technical barriers and accessibility issues we see in grant applications and how even well-intentioned systems can lead to poor execution. In this second installment, we are diving into the cultural and systemic barriers that create tension between how fundraising exists now and what is possible.

Why Don’t You Trust Me?

Relationships require trust. And trust requires connection. So it is not surprising that, in an age of noise and distance, we find ourselves at a crossroads of mistrust and skepticism. Add to that the polarization between groups and communities, and you’ve created a space where supporting and funding missions has become a ballot measure – a political stance. 

According to the Edelman Trust Barometer, “Political polarization has eroded trust in institutions, with people increasingly viewing organizations through a partisan lens rather than an objective one.”

Not only does declining trust lead to polarization, but polarization in turn breeds more mistrust. It is a ruthless cycle. In a highly politicized world, we see through a lens of “for” and “against” – of “us” versus “them.” 

Last year, more than 1,000 charitable nonprofits signed a national letter defending the nonprofit sector’s nonpartisan status amid political pressure to weaken protections under U.S. tax law (specifically the Johnson Amendment, which traditionally keeps 501(c)(3) organizations out of direct partisan politics). These groups warned that politicizing nonprofit nonpartisanship would “erode public trust” and “threaten the independence and integrity of the entire nonprofit sector.”

In other words, nonprofit neutrality became a flashpoint, prompting sector-wide defense amid fears that political polarization would erode donor and community trust.

And they are right.

According to the 2025 Donor Trust Report, conducted by Give.org, some donors believe that nonprofits today are “more involved in political issues than they were 10 years ago,” and this perception affects whether they trust these organizations to be neutral actors. 

A Risky Game

Risk is not something we are willing to stake a claim on. In a tumultuous socio-political environment, being asked to move the needle is a reach. People tend toward safety when instability is prevalent and are easily fatigued by decisions regarding money and power.

According to this article, “new research shows 82% of American donors prefer to support tried-and-true methods of addressing needs, while just 18% would rather support new methods, which might be game-changers but are not yet proven.”

People and corporations are playing it close to the vest when it comes to support, reputation, and results.

“Tangible things such as healthcare or clean water are easier for people to visualize, easier for organizations to show the need, and easier to demonstrate results,” said Ron Sellers, president of Grey Matter Research & Consulting. “It’s easy to show someone receiving a new pair of shoes. It’s harder to demonstrate someone finding relief from anxiety or having greater freedom of religion.”

A sentiment that goes hand-in-hand with the politicization of some causes.

This behavior often limits social impact by focusing on safe, tangible results rather than riskier, systemic changes. Donors may use risk as an excuse to avoid giving, and often, high risk aversion leads to lower, less impactful contributions.

In a climate of skepticism, philanthropy becomes cautious. This is a default state that results from prioritizing the status quo and gives more power to those already in power.

The Object of Power is Power

Philanthropy was built and exists within an economy of concentrated wealth. Those who hold capital typically define funding priorities, set reporting requirements, and determine what counts as success. This dynamic is reinforced by tax policy, market capitalism, and legacy wealth structures that shape who accumulates resources and who must ask for them.

“There is an implicit myth in the philanthropy world that people with more money are inherently more strategic, insightful, and better positioned to solve the world’s intersecting crises,” write Clare Gibson Nangle, Alison Miranda, and Marianne Mollmann in this piece. “This misconception ignores the dynamics that have historically underpinned who has wealth, who doesn’t, and why.”

Power, specifically as it pertains to wealth, creates a mindset of scarcity that reduces the needs of our communities to recitable missions and the numbers in an annual report.

When people do not trust institutions, our nonprofits, they are more inclined to want to control the work and the narrative to maintain their pocket of security. And that control lies in the hands of those in power. We see this in the spotlighted names of MacKenzie Scott, MrBeast, Warren Buffett, and the Gateses. It’s not what missions they support that is notable, but their ability to choose what is notable through their power and wealth. It is a choice that is steeped in privilege and inaccessible to those whose lives are shaped by it.

Enough is Enough

In an article titled “The unbearable hypocrisy: Fundraising in a world of compromised integrity,” fundraising consultant Maria Rio writes, “The irony is that while we fight for systemic change, we are often trapped in systems that resist it. We face the same old excuses: ‘We need the money,’ ‘We can’t afford to be picky,’ and ‘The end justifies the means.’ But does it? At what point do we draw the line and say enough is enough?”

Uncovering the answers means asking the right questions.

Instead of, “Can donors trust us?” It’s, “How can our communities trust us?”

Instead of, “How can we manage the risk?” We ask: “How can we be courageous?”

The answer is not, “We must hold the power,” but “Together we are powerful.”

Systems do not change unless we change them. The journey to something profound and compelling has requested our presence. If we are honest with ourselves, we can feel the shift in the everyday work we do; in the unsettling moments of misalignment. We can feel the erosion of trust at odds with our sense of empathy. We can see the safety that lies in turning away from bold challenges. We can hear the enticing call of power trying to drown the underlying whisper of renewal. That whisper is for us. 

Noel Martin Rubio writes this: “Do we stick with what’s safe and familiar, or do we rise to meet the moment with bold, community-led action and an unapologetic focus on fixing broken systems?”

To usher in a new era of fundraising, we will need the courage to leave the well-worn path of comfort for the worthwhile pursuit of an untamed one.

Check back for part three in our Barriers to Philanthropic Equity Series, coming in March, when we will examine the psychological and behavioral roadblocks fundraisers face.