As the presence of artificial intelligence increases in the nonprofit sector, grant-making organizations are moving towards reevaluating its role in the processes of sorting grant applications and making decisions.

This article, translated with modifications from the Candid platform while preserving all rights, presents the latest trends of donors in the United States and analyzes their position on the introduction of AI into their operations, balancing caution, operational benefits, and maintaining trust.

Will AI tools soon take over the review of grant applications?

This question is no longer theoretical.

Recent indications reveal how grant-making organizations in the United States view the use of generative AI, whether for screening grant applications or for supporting decision-making about which entities deserve funding in the near future. It is a shift that could reshape philanthropy from its roots... and the data is starting to speak.

As the use of generative AI expands, many in the social sector are trying to understand its actual implications. Ethical questions remain strongly on the table: Can its outputs be trusted in quality? Will it disrupt the workforce? In a sector that sees itself as responsible for serving the public good, engaging with AI becomes a step that requires great caution and a balance weighing gains against risks.

Looking at the anticipated rising role of AI in the future of philanthropy, the Candid team began exploring opportunities to gauge the stance of nonprofit organizations on this expansion. In the “2024 Grant Forecast Survey,” which is the annual survey directed at grant-making organizations, we asked a question about how funders would receive AI-written grant applications and whether they would accept such types of applications in the future.

To further understand funders' inclination towards using AI themselves, the recent survey included two pivotal questions: Are grant-making organizations currently using generative AI to screen applicants or to assist in making funding decisions? and Do these organizations expect to rely on AI for the same purpose in the near future?

When asked whether they currently use generative AI to screen grant applications or to help determine eligible recipients for funding, the answers were decisive: 97% answered “no,” 1% said “yes,” while 2% were unsure.

But the picture changed when the question was posed in a future-oriented manner: Do you expect to use AI to perform these tasks in the near future? This time, the percentage of dissenters dropped to 65% only, while:

19% said they are considering it,

3% expect to use it,

12% have not made up their minds yet.

This shows that nearly one-third of organizations have not closed the door on the integration of AI into their grant decision-making processes in the near future, reflecting a more open mood.

Sub-questions allowed grant-making organizations to add clarifying comments, resulting in six comments on the first question and twelve on the second, most of which came from organizations that do not currently use generative AI but are seriously considering it.

Among all the responses, there was only one comment from an organization that actually uses AI, stating:

“We use AI to help summarize grant applications and analyze trends in applicant behavior and our decisions. We are exploring other areas where it could alleviate administrative burdens.”

In contrast, there was a strongly opposing voice, the only comment from someone who answered “no” to both questions, stating:

“Using AI to screen applicants or make funding decisions is shameful and unethical.”

Between these two extremes, there emerged a group of organizations that are cautiously studying AI, focusing on assessing its risks and potential areas of use:

“While we recognize the benefits of AI, we are cautious about any internal use because of its environmental impacts. In grant processes, we may benefit from some of its capabilities, but we will never allow it to make decisions without expert human oversight.”

Other organizations saw AI as suitable for handling the objective part of grant applications:

“Our organization is exploring the use of AI to assess the objective aspects of applications.”

Meanwhile, a small organization noted that AI could be a means to compensate for limited human resources:

“We are a small organization (less than 15 million dollars) with only four employees... We are always looking for ways to increase our operational capacity, and if AI helps, we may use it.”

In conclusion, it appears that AI's integration into grant-making organizations will be gradual, varied, and fragmented: using tools for specific tasks while refraining from others. While some organizations express readiness to use it in technical operations, there remain wide cracks of doubt and caution, especially concerning the ethical tasks associated with the final funding decisions.

The conclusion revealed by the comments is that wisdom, responsibility, and the human touch are still elements that AI cannot replace.

The data indicates that AI will not vanish from the grant-making sector, but it will not make decisions alone. Because organizations, despite being open to new tools, still see that justice, responsibility, and building trust require the continued presence of human expertise. The future will be a combination of technology and humanity, provided that principles remain the primary guiding force.

This article has been translated with modifications from candid