Change is a constant, yet some shifts feel especially unexpected and disorienting. They bring with them confusion, fear and a lingering sense of unease. For many, the current climate feels unprecedented, leaving us searching for ways to persist in the work of integrating inclusive and equitable practices in the fundraising space.

The nonprofit sector, whether educational institutions, social service agencies or advocacy groups, has weathered waves of political, social and economic uncertainty. In such moments, the essential role of these organizations becomes even clearer. Our work is not optional; it's vital to the health and progress of our communities.

Recognizing this, Apra has long emphasized the importance of advancing equity and inclusion within the philanthropic landscape. As researchers and analysts, our diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging, justice and access (DEIBJA) journey began with Apra’s inaugural DEI Data Guide, a foundational framework that had been missing from our field. That guide became a catalyst for deeper conversations and helped inform the development of additional resources across the sector.

When this year’s DEIBJA Committee convened, we were met with a stark reality: a growing number of professionals were being restricted in their ability to engage in DEI work. In some institutions, DEI programs were paused indefinitely, funding was retracted, or the work was subtly deprioritized. At the state and federal level, messages were being sent that organizations pursuing equity-based work might face consequences, even threats to their nonprofit status.

So we asked ourselves: What message can we offer the Apra community when the very foundation of our committee’s mission is being questioned?

We chose to create space for reflection and to hear directly from those doing this work on the ground. We interviewed several DEI practitioners in philanthropy to gather their insights, observations and advice. Given the current risks, we’ve kept their identities anonymous, but we are deeply grateful for the honesty and expertise they shared.

How are Institutions Responding to Political Pressures?

Practitioners described a spectrum of institutional responses to political pressure. Many said they see their institutions start with the least disruptive move: changing labels so the work can continue with less scrutiny. “We had to reframe our language, it's not climate change, it's sustainability.”

From there, changes move into structure: “Departments were restructured and renamed to be more palatable. But the work didn’t stop internally.”

In other cases, the shifts were sharper: “The entire DEI division was eliminated without assessment. That sent a message.”

People also pointed to pauses and rollbacks: “Our inclusion council is on pause. And I’m not sure it’s coming back.”

“We had a comprehensive identity data plan. It’s been shelved. No one will talk about it.”

“We were told to stop collecting identity data until further notice.”

Uncertainty is now routine: “There’s no clear guidance on what we can or can’t say anymore. We’re in limbo.” And there is a sense of unease: “There’s a chilling effect, even mentioning DEI in meetings feels risky.”

Respondents stressed that capacity to push back is uneven:

“We also have to acknowledge that not all institutions have the same freedom or privilege to push back. Schools with billion-dollar endowments can weather donor backlash differently from small, under-resourced institutions. That power dynamic shapes what DEI can look like in practice.”

“Institutions with more financial and political capital are in a better position to take a stand. Others have to balance survival with values, especially smaller schools without large endowments.”

Institutions are weighing the risks of action and inaction. While a full retreat is not ideal, many are choosing modification as a practical way to mitigate risk while staying aligned with the mission.

These choices shape what practitioners face day to day.

How Do We Keep the Work Going When It's Under Threat?

Across the country, the ground is shifting in visible ways. In Texas, SB 17 led public universities to close DEI offices. In Florida, the Board of Governors adopted a rule restricting DEI spending. The UNC system also repealed a systemwide DEI policy. At the federal level, grant instructions have prompted some projects to remove gender identity items or limit the scope of inquiries. After the December 2023 House hearing with Harvard, Penn and MIT, scrutiny and donor pressure grew, and UCLA faced a temporary research funding freeze tied to campus climate. Against this backdrop, practitioners told us the work can still move forward when we name the human impact, protect the people doing it and stay centered on purpose while adjusting tactics.

Practitioners said the first step is naming the toll and risk, noting that “The emotional labor is nonstop, and the lack of support makes it harder.”

They also described how the strain manifests on a daily basis. “It’s not burnout. It’s discouragement. I want to put my efforts where there can still be meaningful change.”

“Some people see you as a symbol of DEI and project resistance onto you.”

For many, the responsibility lingers even as roles change: “The work stays with you, even when your title disappears.”

To keep momentum, some try to depoliticize the practice, while acknowledging the cost: “You have to separate the work from the politics — but it’s exhausting.”

Trust in leadership often determines whether people stay engaged: “I believe in the work. It’s the people in charge I struggle to believe in.” Taken together, these responses point to what sustains progress: visible leadership commitment, real backing for the people doing the work and spaces for community. When those supports are present, progress continues. When they are not, performative signals erode trust and stall the effort.

How Is DEI Impacting Prospect Research and Analytics?

Prospect Research Strategy Shifts

A common theme is a lack of direction from leadership, whether due to poor communication, resistance to making decisions while so much is unknown, or other factors. This can be frustrating — as one respondent noted, “It’s hard to build equity-aligned strategies if your institution refuses to name its commitments.”

But prospecting must continue. Everyone we talked to was still actively working to identify diverse prospects, mostly using markers like giving circles, Greek organization membership and involvement in professional affinity groups. But many have backed away from specific initiatives (e.g. “identify more Black alumni who own small businesses”) or presenting these prospects in a way that highlights their diversity.

While ethical DEI data collection has been at the forefront of many of our minds for several years, some said they were deprioritizing it, and others raised concerns about protecting their constituents’ identities in the case of FOIA requests, especially concerning those who are transgender. This gets even more complicated depending on whether the database is state- or privately-owned, and if an organization regularly shares data with partners or affiliated agencies. One respondent worried, “Has our work in ethically collecting and using DEI data resulted in the unintended consequence of making people in vulnerable populations more identifiable, when that data is held by organizations that are also at risk?”

What Role Are Donors Playing in This Landscape?

Donor Reactions and Alumni Pushback

One consistent theme is that donors and alumni (mostly) have our backs, but it’s complicated. We heard several anecdotes of their activism when organizations have “given in” to demands or complied in advance of expected demands — for example, letter-writing campaigns, caucusing, protests and meetings with leadership.

In terms of giving, it’s a mixed bag. Some are pulling support over DEI decisions (in either direction); others have increased or accelerated their gifts to narrow the gap left by decreased government support: “These tend to be existing donors… they know our mission, they know our program scope and they know that we're under fire.”

Many donors are taking the initiative to learn how policies are affecting those served by organizations and how they can help, which sets the stage for deep donor engagement. Organizations have had success with one-on-one and small group conversations to explain what is happening privately, and to learn how donors are feeling and help inform solicitation strategy. “We are using this uncertainty as a rallying cry to shift major gifts from program-specific to unrestricted, because right now, we can't guarantee that programs related to things like climate, gender or accessibility will continue.”

One pain point that came up, particularly in higher ed, is that leadership has not been proactive in guiding gift officers on how to talk with donors and alumni who are members of groups directly affected by DEI policy shifts.

Where Do We Find Hope and What Comes Next?            

A constant theme is that DEI work that is performative may fade away, but these times provide opportunity for innovation, reassessment and shifting approaches. One person noted that activism is always evolving, and that if we step back, adjust DEI messaging and initiatives to move past the pushback and meet the moment, the end results could be more equitable and inclusionary than expected. “I want to do meaningful work and have meaningful change, and if that is not possible due to factors out of my control, it makes more sense to put those efforts into work that has impact and meaning rather than focusing on just doing the work just because.”

Respondents stressed the importance of ensuring that cause-based organizations with clear political ideology — and those whose work isn’t necessarily political, but are still caught in the crossfire — can continue to do their work. Recent changes are “sort of replicating the system that has made philanthropy what it is in the United States, filling the gap of what the government's support is not providing.” This could result in more reactive work and narrowing of priorities, instead of working holistically with an eye toward the future.

Still, there are glimmers of hope and persistence:

• “More people are stepping up, asking deeper questions and pushing leadership.”
• “There’s a whole generation coming up that won’t let this go unnoticed.”
• “There seems to be a lot more people that interested and willing to do DEI work than I've seen in previous years, so I think that there will be systemic change within the next few decades, especially in the workplace.”
• “Fortunately, there have been changes generationally and that will continue… there's a completely different understanding of gender in younger generations.”
• “Cede ground grudgingly… you have to make a decision of whether to stand up exactly for what you believe in and take on risks, or make incremental sacrifices to weather the storm.”

Parting Thoughts: Keep Doing the Work

The interviewees offered clear guidance for navigating this moment. Above all, keep doing the work. Even as DEIBJA is being removed in name or structure, the need to persist is urgent. That calls for more creativity, testing new paths when the obvious ones are blocked and staying focused on real outcomes: equity, belonging, justice and access. One practical lever is gift strategy. Encouraging unrestricted giving can preserve agility and sustain impact over time, not just meet near-term goals. Progress also depends on visible leadership support and protection for practitioners. Name the toll, fund well-being and safeguard constituents’ identities and staff safety. If each of us plays our part in research, stewardship and donor engagement, the collective can keep momentum and reduce the risk that this work is pushed aside.