Our region has long been recognized as a giving community. We have more than 700 nonprofits and tens of thousands of people working in the nonprofit sector from Manatee to Sarasota. We give to everything from organizations that feed the hungry and rescue homeless cats to groups that support breast cancer survivor athletes and provide early childhood education. But Sarasota is witnessing a huge influx of wealth. How will that impact philanthropy and our quality of life?

We talked to David Callahan, the founder of Inside Philanthropy, an independent research company in Los Angeles County that tracks foundations and major donors in the U.S. and maps the trends shaping and reshaping philanthropy. He gave us the 30,000-foot view of philanthropy in America. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What is a major trend in philanthropy right now?

“The place to start is with the money—the massive accumulation of wealth at the very top of our society. In 1982, when the Forbes 400 list was first published, there were only 13 billionaires on the list. The richest person at that time, John Paul Getty, had $2 billion, or about $5 billion or $6 billion in today's money. Fast forward to 2026. The richest person in the world, Elon Musk, has [close to a trillion dollars]. There are so many billionaires—about a thousand in America—and most will no longer fit on the Forbes 400 list.

“And it's not just that there are so many billionaires; it's also that there's a huge number of super wealthy people who are worth tens of millions of dollars. The Wall Street Journal recently did an article on the super-wealthy in America and found that 74,000 families have assets of $100 million or more. Another 434,000 families have assets of $30 million or more.

“Many of them are turning to philanthropy. The best indicator of this is the explosion of donor-advised funds [a charitable-giving vehicle that gives the donor an immediate tax deduction], which are a principal way that most wealthy people give. We've gone from a couple of hundred thousand donor-advised funds five years ago to a million today.

“We’ve seen a similar explosion in the number of private foundations. Many of the new billionaires have set up major foundations that are now giving away more money than some of the familiar legacy foundations that we've all heard of, like Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie Corporation, Ford Foundation.”

What does this mean for philanthropy?

“A couple of things. No matter which political party holds office at the federal level, the trajectory of discretionary federal spending [has historically been for] things like education, parks, the arts and scientific research, space exploration.

“That discretionary spending power is going down at the same time that new philanthropic players are coming onto the scene with ever-larger fortunes. Many of them have activist ideas about how to use their money. You can see this at the state and local level, as well. There's less discretionary spending at all levels of government for things like education and parks. This means that the wealthy have more power to set the agenda in terms of what public goods get funded and what priorities are reflected at the federal level or in a community like Sarasota.”

How has that played out when you take a look at their priorities?

“This is the good news, which is that there are a lot of new funding opportunities for nonprofits because there are a lot of new major donors showing up on the scene. MacKenzie Scott [Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’ ex-wife, who has given away more than $26 billion in the last several years, including more than $43 million to Sarasota nonprofits] may be the most dramatic example of that. Nonprofits have new opportunities to get their programs funded because of these philanthropists.”

What’s concerning about this?

“Well, let's take the example of K-12 education, where there's been a tremendous focus on the part of wealthy donors on charter schools. Many Americans think of K-12 education as one of the most democratic and accessible spheres of American life. People care deeply about their schools and democratic control over those schools. That has been challenged by wealthy donors from the business world, who have embraced [charter schools] wholeheartedly, as opposed to trying to change the financing of public schools so that schools aren't financed based on local property taxes, which creates inequities.

“Another example is public parks. The priorities of a wealthy donor when it comes to public parks are not necessarily the priorities of the majority of residents who live in that community. [Donors to] The Central Park Conservancy in New York City live on the Upper East Side. Central Park is right there. You give to what you know. Billionaire Barry Diller [a media and Internet magnate] gave $250 million to build a new park in New York City on the Hudson River called Little Island. That is great for tourists, and it looks nice. But in the meantime, there are hundreds of playgrounds and small parks that are falling apart. The last thing New York needed was a fancy park for tourists in Manhattan. But that's what Barry Diller wanted to create. He cares about that part of the city, and he thought it would be cool. And it is a cool park—except that there are tradeoffs.

“You can see this in the arts. Wealthy donors prioritize high-profile cultural institutions that serve people like them, while arts education is being decimated in schools and local arts organizations struggle to survive. You get distorted priorities when the wealthy are calling the shots about what they want to invest in, then using their spending power to leverage public funding and shift the priorities of a city overall.”

Why are the priorities so different?

“[Donors] give to things they're passionate about because they've had personal connections. Healthcare, for example. There's a lot of money raised by hospitals and disease groups from wealthy donors who use those hospitals or suffer from those diseases. Conversely, most [wealthy donors] have not had the experience of being a low-wage worker, trying to afford health insurance and childcare. Those economic hardship concerns tend to resonate last [with wealthy donors]. Which is not to say that philanthropists don't give money for that stuff, because some of them devote tremendous resources to improving the economic mobility of people.

“But when they approach those issues, they're not interested in funding structural critiques of the current economic system and finding structural solutions, such as regulating monopolies. They're interested in funding downstream things to deal with the problems created by inequality. There's nothing wrong with funding workforce development to help people get a job, but there are larger structural problems.

“They’re beneficiaries of the free market, of the economic status quo that we have, and it’s often seen as working pretty well despite some problems. They believe in [the system]. They just think it needs to be tweaked and that it needs to empower individuals within it to operate more effectively, as opposed to buying into this idea that the system is rigged against individuals and no matter how hard you work, you may not get ahead.”

What about the next generation of philanthropists?

“There's a lot of generational flux. Organized philanthropy in America is family philanthropy and family foundations. A lot of next-gen donors are coming [into the picture]. They often have different ideas of how to do things. They don't necessarily want to give to the symphony like Mom and Dad have been doing for 40 years. Maybe they want to give to climate change work, or they want to do impact investing, or some other kind of cutting-edge methodology driving social impact. 

Are there good strategies to interest the next generation?

“I don't know how it's gone in Sarasota, but a lot of arts organizations have been quite interested in experimenting with audience engagement and bringing the arts closer to people and mixing up formats as opposed to the same old thing. The [Los Angeles Philharmonic] is doing outdoor concerts at the Hollywood Bowl. There are more efforts to show the social impact of the arts, programs like music education in low-income schools and neighborhoods. That might appeal to those who are comparing the option to donate to the arts or donate to global health in Africa. More donors coming onto the scene want the maximum return on their philanthropic investment in terms of that, and also want that to be measurable.”

How are politics and culture wars impacting philanthropy?

“The politicization of philanthropy is a trend that I’ve written about a lot. There are many endeavors on both sides of the ideological spectrum—and in the center—converting their wealth into policy and political influence using tax-deductible 501(c)(3) contributions. Our laws are porous and flexible in terms of how these contributions can be used.

“You can use them to help win elections, bring out the voters who are on your side, or suppress the voters on the other side. A lot of conservative donors have invested heavily in measures to restrict access to the franchise by making it harder to vote. A lot of other funded efforts [invest in how to] educate and empower voters in historically marginalized communities.

“This kind of spending can have a real impact on electoral outcomes. And, of course, spending on litigation can be very effective as well. Tens or hundreds of millions of philanthropic dollars go every year to litigation on highly divisive issues, whether it's trans athletes or religious freedom.

“There's an ideological arms race being fought with philanthropic dollars invested in think tanks, legal groups, advocacy organizations, media, nonprofit media establishments, and messaging and narrative work that has a significant impact on politics and culture that most people can’t see very clearly or are not aware of.”

Does that worry you?

“I think it should worry everybody. Most Americans would not like the idea that billionaires spent unprecedented amounts of tax-deductible money to push their ideological agendas. Wealthy donors have far more influence over election outcomes, policy outcomes and the composition of our course than ordinary Americans.

“The larger point that Florida's political shifts bring to mind is that the result is going to be a state that's less mobile for the average working Floridian. This could mean more inequality, worse public schools and a lot of unsolved problems, thanks to a government that doesn't actively address major issues because it's libertarian minded. Problems are huge, and a lot of solutions lie upstream. You think you can shelter yourself from the effects of extreme inequality, but it can be hard. I see this in Los Angeles. You could be an affluent person here, but you're living with a lot of human suffering around you, which is disturbing and politically destabilizing in the long run.”

If you came to our town, what would you look at to understand our philanthropic culture?

“I would look at the community foundations first and see how well funded they are. How many philanthropic dollars are going into Sarasota, and what are the top priorities? I would look at the top givers, who is driving the action through their giving and through their leadership and networking. If their top priorities are institutions, that tells me one thing. If their top priorities are bringing mentorship and tutoring to low-income kids in public schools, that tells me something else. Is it an empathetic culture of philanthropy, or is it a status-seeking, elite-focused culture of philanthropy that primarily is focused on feathering its own nest?”

Where can we feel good about philanthropy and giving?

“Philanthropy is the No. 1 sector in American society that is specifically built on the idea of hope. Business is focused on making money. Government is focused on providing public services. Philanthropy is in the business of trying to make progress.”

David Callahan is the founder of Inside Philanthropy. His work focuses on trends in philanthropy and issues of American culture, public policy and business. He is the author of seven books, including The Givers: Wealth, Power, and Philanthropy in a New Gilded Age. He has appeared on hundreds of television and radio programs, including major networks and national NPR shows. He has published numerous op-ed and feature articles, including in The New York Times and Washington Post, and spoken at more than 150 universities and associations around the U.S.