As the use of generative AI expands, many in the social sector are grappling with its implications. Questions remain about the ethical implications of AI, with many concerned about both the quality of its output and its potential impact on the workforce. In sectors working to advance the public good, it is especially important to approach AI adoption carefully and weigh its risks and benefits.
Given the role AI will play in the future of our field, Candid has been looking for opportunities to research nonprofits’ attitudes toward AI growth. The 2024 Foundation Giving Forecast Survey, an annual survey of foundations, asked funders whether they had ever received an AI-generated grant application and whether they would accept one in the future. We were interested in whether funders are considering deploying AI for their own use, so this year’s survey asked whether foundations currently use “generated AI to help screen applicants and make funding decisions,” and whether they expect to use “generated AI to help screen applicants and make funding decisions in the coming years.”
Few foundations use AI to review applications, but some are considering it
When asked if they currently use generative AI to review grant applicants and make funding decisions, 97% said no, 1% said yes, and 2% said they don’t know. But when asked whether they expected to use generative AI for those purposes in the near future, far fewer, 65%, said so. It wasn’t like that We plan to do so. Almost a fifth (19%) are considering the possibility of using AI tools to review applications and make funding decisions, with a further 3% saying they plan to do so, and the remaining 12% not sure. This suggests that one-third of respondents have not yet ruled out using generative AI as part of their subsidy decision-making process in the near future.
Comments show multifaceted attitudes and strategies towards the use of generative AI
We also provided foundations with the option to write comments to clarify their responses. The first question received 6 comments and the second question received 12 comments. Most were from organizations that are not currently using generative AI but are considering it.
We received the following comments from foundations currently using AI:
- “AI is being leveraged to assist with grant summaries and generate reports on applicant trends and decision trends. Other ways to support administrative tasks include the use of AI.”
1 participant (the only participant who commented) and (answered “no” to both questions) and expressed strong opposition to the use of AI to help review grant applications and decide who to fund.
- “The use of AI to screen applicants and make grant decisions is deplorable and morally bankrupt.”
Some foundations considering the use of generative AI are evaluating the risks and appropriate use cases for AI.
- “While we believe there are many benefits to using AI, we are cautious about its internal operational use. [manner,] Given the significant environmental impact of the use of AI, while there may be factors we could consider using it in our grantmaking process, we would never allow it to make funding decisions on our behalf without human expert oversight of the process. ”
Some believe that generative AI is particularly useful when handling more objective parts of an application process.
- “[Our foundation] We are researching generative AI to score the desired parts of an application. ”
One organization expressed that it sees AI as a potential means of expanding its capabilities.
- “We are a small foundation (less than $15 million) with only four staff members. We are frequently looking for ways to increase our capabilities, and if AI can help, we may use it.”
Overall, the process of generative AI use among foundations is likely to be multifaceted and uneven, with AI used for some tasks but not others. While foundations are considering using AI tools for individual tasks, they remain skeptical that AI can take over even some of the work related to grant review. Written comments suggest that ‘responsibility’ and the human element remain important to funders.
