Behold the Philanthrosphere: A Wild, Wondrous World
/ChameleonsEye/shutterstock
Like life itself, philanthropy thrives in every corner of the United States. From the glistening towers of Manhattan to the snow-swept wilderness of Alaska, money changes hands and nonprofits are born. With luck, they’ll find the donors they need to sustain their work and grow. Without it, they can be left to starve.
But even as nonprofits adapt to shifting social and economic conditions, philanthropy, too, is changing. In terms of demographics and disposition, American elites are more diverse now than at any point in the past. Donors don’t all fund in the same way, and increasingly, some neither know nor care about how philanthropy is “supposed” to work.
Having evolved desirable traits like trillion-dollar companies and multibillion-dollar fortunes, many of these newcomers are poised to dominate the 21st-century philanthropic ecosystem. But will they out-compete older titans that evolved under very different conditions? Time will tell.
Other funders, though, have carved out philanthropic niches letting them survive and thrive despite convulsive changes to the wider world of wealth. Whether those niches are geographic, ideological, cause-based or some combination of the three, this quiet majority accounts for most of the philanthropic species to be found in the U.S.
But that’s not all. The wondrous diversity of American philanthropy encompasses all sorts of strange fauna, ranging from the symbiotic (and sometimes parasitic) world of the philanthropy-serving organism to the uncharted depths of the donor-advised fund.
Here at IP, we’ve taken it upon ourselves to make sense of this fascinating and frightening philanthrosphere. While this only scratches the surface, here’s a brief look at some of American philanthropy’s many denizens.
Big legacy foundations (Antiqua donator)
Once regarded as apex species across the American landscape, these venerable institutions dominated national giving during the 20th century. Today, they retain an important place in the nation’s philanthropic ecosystem, despite getting knocked off the top of the food chain in terms of sheer size. As attitudes toward institutional philanthropy shift, the legacy foundation’s signature traits can be weaknesses — things like high overhead and bloated staffs, and an innate caution around moving money out the door. Still, other aspects of the legacy foundation stand it in good stead — sterling reputations, high levels of institutional knowledge, well-developed networks and well-tended endowments.
Tech mega-donors (Technologia pecunia)
Mostly concentrated along the western seaboard (the Bay Area in particular), these megafauna are still relative newcomers to the philanthrosphere. But they’ve made their mark. An initial wave of tech donors coalesced in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, populating an alternative ecosystem to that of the legacy foundations, concentrated mainly in the East. Successive waves of tech mega-donors have given away money in increasingly avant-garde ways. That’s been an ideal environment for the rise of the contemporary apex donor (Novus maximus donatoris), a creature given to lean, large-scale giving, and well-suited to an age in which vast wealth, celebrity and sociopolitical clout go hand in hand.
Wall Street donors (Taurus et ursus)
Unlike their West Coast cousins, these besuited bipeds are more likely to be found close to the big city haunts of the typical legacy funder with whom they’ve long coexisted. Their interests are diverse, but they tend toward more traditional expressions of philanthropy and often have less appetite for disruptive gestures. However, the Wall Street donor also tends to have a greater penchant for politics than the big tech donor — although that’s changing as more members of the California crowd develop a taste for policy.
Major heartland funders (Media Americae)
Not to be confused with small, local foundations, this is a well-resourced, wide-ranging species that prefers habitats like the Midwest, Texas and the Mountain West. These philanthropies — some legacy foundations, some living mega-donors, some family outfits — tend to have more conservative tendencies, although that can vary. Some have also been observed frequenting houses of worship. A national trend toward wealth inequality, combined with heavily pro-business policies in many of their states, have lifted these funders into greater prominence over the past several decades, forming alternative hubs of philanthropic activity away from the coasts. Community foundations (Plures in loco) have also played a role here.
Values-driven funders (Datorem ideologicum)
All philanthropic giving is informed by values and principles, but these grantmakers make a particular point of what they believe in. The values-driven funder can intermix with other funder species on this list, including, most notably, the big legacy foundation. What makes the contemporary values-driven funder stand out is often its willingness to live closer to hazardous environments — like politics, which organisms throughout the philanthrosphere traditionally avoid. Subspecies in this genus can be intensely competitive.
The quiet majority (Familia et loci)
Most of the organisms in the philanthrosphere fall into this broad category. Often highly specialized for specific causes and geographies, these mostly smaller grantmakers usually fund in typical, traditional ways — although there are plenty of exceptions. These funders can be harder to spot than their larger, flashier peers, drawing less attention from amateur and seasoned philanthropologists alike. And yet, a vast number of nonprofits owe their survival to these funders, which include local funders, family philanthropies, community foundations and issue-specific grantmakers.
The DAFs (Occulta pecunia)
Once a low-key, fairly rare form of philanthropy, the donor-advised fund has exploded in size and numbers recently. Much of this has to do with low rates of predation from distracted and otherwise occupied regulators, but another factor has been a mutually reinforcing feedback loop between the philanthrosphere and the wealth management industry. Donors of more modest means have also found the DAF easier to digest than the resource-intensive foundation. The Latin name for this species references the “hidden” nature of much of this giving. Camouflage can serve these donors well when they want to claim a tax deduction but have an appetite for unpopular causes — or prefer to store up energy rather than expend it.
The PSOs (Ad auxilium donatorum)
Not every creature in the philanthrosphere actually engages in philanthropy. A growing number of symbiotic lifeforms have made it their business to aid, advise, organize and comment on philanthropic giving. Some of these philanthropy-serving organisms have, indeed, become involved in giving through their own funds, while others focus on influencing and assisting specific funders or the broader philanthrosphere. Attitudes toward values and ideology vary among this bunch. Some purport to be values-neutral, existing simply to aid the field. Others are much more forthright in their ideological commitments.
Small donors (Parva pecunia)
While philanthropy is often not their main concern, the small donor’s role in the philanthrosphere is not to be underestimated. In large enough numbers, this fickle breed can keep nonprofits fed and functioning when larger grants are scarce. Small donors are often easier to attract than larger philanthropic megafauna, but they can be easy to lose track of as well. In recent years, philanthropologists have evinced heightened concern about threats to this species due to adverse economic conditions and a concentration of resources higher in the food chain. Without some form of rehabilitation, many fear this species will grow emaciated and scarce, a devastating blow to philanthropic biodiversity.