Vu Le Transcript

Nonprofit AF: Vu Le on Crappy Funding Practices, Hope, and Hard Truths

[00:00:00]
Eric: Welcome to Let’s Hear It. Let’s Hear It is a podcast for and about the field of foundation and nonprofit communications, produced by its two co-hosts, Eric Brown and Kirk Brown. No relation.

Kirk: Well said, Eric. And I’m Kirk.

Eric: And I’m Eric. The podcast is sponsored by the College Futures Foundation, which envisions a California where post-secondary education advances equity and unlocks upward mobility now and for generations to come. To learn more, visit collegefutures.org.

Kirk: You can find Let’s Hear It on any podcast subscription platform.

Eric: You can find us online at letshearitcast.com. You can find us on LinkedIn—

Kirk: —and—

Eric: Yes—

Kirk: —even on Instagram. And if you like the show, please, please, please rate us on Apple Podcasts so that more people can find us.

Eric: Let’s get onto the show.

Kirk: It’s wonderful seeing you today, Mr. Brown.

Eric: Well, it’s wonderful to be seen, Mr. Brown.

Kirk: I want to introduce a word—a key word that’s very relevant to the conversation we’re about to listen to, which was terrific. And once again, thank you for doing this for all of us. The word is “plainspoken.”

Eric: That’s two words.

Kirk: Okay, maybe it’s a compound word? Isn’t it?

Eric: Hmm.

Kirk: Either way, this is one of the most plainspoken, brilliantly so, guests we’ve ever had on Let’s Hear It. I cannot wait to dig into this discussion. There’s some pitching, some placement, some product highlighting I want to do before we get into the conversation on behalf of our guest. But set this up, because this was excellent. It’s timely, it’s important, it’s necessary—but the plainspoken conversation that’s about to happen is good for us all. I think it’s good for our souls.

Eric: Oh good, because our souls are in need.

Kirk: Yes, they are.

Eric: I interviewed Vu Le, who is the brains behind Nonprofit AF. He’s a former nonprofit executive director who brings all the fun and games that come with that—

Kirk: Mm-hmm.

Eric: —to bear not against philanthropy, but in favor of better philanthropy. I’d wanted to interview him for a long time. I knew it was going to be an exciting rollercoaster ride, and Vu did not disappoint.

Kirk: Vu is plainspoken. Vu is super funny. Vu is also an outstanding writer, so of course everybody should go to Vu’s blog, Nonprofit AF. But I want to pitch a couple of things for Vu.

First, he has a book coming out on October 14th. It’s called Reimagining Nonprofits and Philanthropy: Unlocking the Full Potential of a Vital and Complex Sector. You can order your copy now, and I think you should.

Second, Vu has been on a bit of a sabbatical from the blog, but he’s coming back on August 19th with his next post. He’s moving everything over to Substack from WordPress.

And then, of course, you’re going to hear about a possible one-man show Vu might do? Please Vu, give it to us.

But Eric, this was terrific. Vu, thank you for coming on the podcast. I think we should listen to you two talk, and then there will be a lot to unpack when we come back.

Eric: You may be right. Okay—this is Vu Le joining us on Let’s Hear It. Let’s listen, and then we’ll come back.

[00:03:50]
Eric: Welcome to Let’s Hear It. My guest today is somebody I’ve wanted to have on the show for a really long time: Vu Le. You are an activist and iconoclast, a muckraker, a nonprofit ass-kicker, and the founder of Nonprofit AF—which is exactly what it sounds like. Vu, thank you so much for coming on Let’s Hear It.

Vu: Hey Eric, thanks for having me. And just for the record, Nonprofit AF stands for Nonprofit and Fearless.

Eric: Of course it does! Thanks for coming on. I’ve been watching you for a while—I heard you at ComNet, the Communications Network conference, and I’ve been reading your work for a long time. Can we talk a little bit about how you got to this place—sitting here talking with me, trying to hold philanthropy and nonprofits’ feet to the fire?

Vu: Sure. I was actually pre-med—I was supposed to be a doctor. Then I decided I didn’t want to do that anymore. I dropped the pre-med path and got a master’s in social work.

Eric: Which I imagine nearly got you disowned by your parents.

Vu: Yeah. They were hoping at least one of their kids would become something “meaningful.” And in our community, social work is not the most respected profession, which is too bad because it’s awesome.

I really like the path I took. I got my MSW, but no one would hire me because I didn’t have enough experience. So I joined AmeriCorps for two years, and in my third year I became an executive director of a nonprofit.

Eric: So you went from AmeriCorps to being an executive director. What was that like?

Vu: It was definitely shocking. And it wasn’t because I was brilliant—it was because, one, no one really wants to be an executive director, and two, the organization I was placed at did not have a great reputation. So nobody wanted that job.

I thought, you know what, I’m going to turn this organization around. And I stuck with it, and I think I did.

Eric: I’m guessing—and we haven’t talked about this—but being an ED was probably super easy, right? Fundraising was smooth, funders were easy to work with, money flowed in?

Vu: Oh yeah, it was so easy. I only worked 20 hours a week. Funders called me up all the time saying, “We want to give you money.” And I’d say, “No, get in line.”

Eric: And of course it was all general operating support, multi-year.

Vu: Exactly. No night terrors from cash-flow problems, no screaming into the void every night.

Eric: And no crazy reports to fill out.

Vu: No, it was just simple. It didn’t age me 20 years during those three years at all.

Eric: Okay, so you came out of that, and then what?

Vu: The organization went pretty well after the rough first years. Then I started writing. One of our funders asked me to write a blog post from a grantee’s perspective. You can’t really turn down a funder, so I said fine, I’ll do it for free.

It caught on. People liked that I was using humor—I thought, there’s already too much academic writing, so I’ll take a more lighthearted tone. The blog posts were silly compared to the usual, and people really needed to laugh. There’s a lot of humor in our sector if we let ourselves see it.

Eric: By the way, do you remember that show The Foundation about 10 or 15 years ago?

Vu: No—what was it?

Eric: It was this ridiculous show where a foundation executive is a spy. Like James Bond meets philanthropy. He’s dashing, handsome—it was so over the top it became inadvertently funny.

Vu: That’s hilarious. We need more shows about philanthropy—

Eric: About dashing James Bond foundation executives?

Vu: Well, when you have that much money to give away, your attractiveness increases by like 27%.

Eric: My old boss at the Hewlett Foundation had a plaque on his desk that said, “With money in your pocket, you’re handsome, you’re funny, and you sing well too.”

Vu: Exactly! At least he had perspective.

[00:08:45]
Eric: So you’re funny, but you’re also using that humor to apply really important critiques—especially to philanthropy, but also nonprofits. You’re getting an important message across. What’s the core message?

Vu: One is that this sector is really important. I criticize nonprofits and philanthropy because I believe in our sector. We make change every single day.

Some of the most important advances in civil rights and justice happened in great part because of nonprofits and leaders who fought for them. I think of our sector as like air. Other sectors are like food—you can see food, you can see iPhones, you can see movies.

But nonprofits are invisible until you need them. You don’t think about a food pantry until you lose your job. You don’t think about a senior center until your parents start aging. People take nonprofits for granted, and that creates challenges.

The other point is: the very existence of our sector—nonprofits and philanthropy—signals that something is not right with the world. We shouldn’t have so many nonprofits. We shouldn’t have so many foundations. If the world were fairer, the sector would be much smaller.

Eric: This is a common critique of philanthropy—that it shouldn’t exist. We’re trying to backfill and reverse-engineer systems that should have been set up more equitably from the beginning. Given that we do have this imperfect system, what can philanthropy actually do?

Vu: First, it’s important to distinguish between conservative philanthropy and progressive philanthropy. Conservative philanthropy has been extremely effective. It’s largely responsible for what we’re seeing right now.

They’ve invested in think tanks like Heritage and Cato, in the Federalist Society, in Turning Point USA. They’ve funded leaders, pundits, intellectual warriors, media platforms. They’ve influenced the courts, bought politicians. They’ve been incredibly strategic and effective.

Meanwhile, progressive philanthropy has been tentative, risk-averse, giving one-year grants, wrapped up in intellectualizing. That’s why we’re not as effective.

Eric [00:11:00]: I have this theory that progressives lost the election because of jargon. Progressive circles talk in mystical, inaccessible ways. People feel excluded. It makes it easy to paint progressives as elitist or out of touch.

So one thing we could do is just say what we mean. Don’t use “decolonize” or “intersectional paradigm”—just say what we mean in plain language. Do you think that’s part of it?

Vu: Yes—but the problem is, we don’t agree on what we mean.

Take taxing billionaires. That’s easy to understand: stop letting billionaires avoid taxes, stop letting them dictate everything. Simple. But many philanthropists don’t agree. They call themselves capitalists. They don’t want to tax billionaires out of existence.

So the messaging doesn’t matter if we can’t agree on fundamentals. Many people in power want things to stay the same.

Eric: Right. Another critique of philanthropy is that it’s created out of capitalism—a few people make enormous wealth, then give back a slice, sometimes to feel good, sometimes to make a difference. But it’s not a great way to redistribute wealth compared to taxation.

How do you square that contradiction? You needed philanthropy as an ED, but you also know it’s built on hoarding. How do you deal with that complexity?

Vu [00:13:30]: It is complex, but maybe not as complex as we make it. Liberals love to overcomplicate things.

Philanthropy is rooted in Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth: make as much money as you can, then give some back. And that’s been the model for decades.

Meanwhile, communities are being hurt. So we do what we can. But we need a mindset shift.

Too often, we think “this is the foundation’s money, this is the donor’s money, we should just be grateful.” We’ve internalized that. But this is hoarded wealth.

Wealthy individuals pay less in taxes. Much of their wealth was built through exploitation—slavery, stolen Indigenous land, worker abuse, environmental destruction, tax avoidance.

So instead of being deferential, we should be angry.

Eric [00:15:00]: And then you wrote that piece, “Dear Funders: Your Endowments Will Be Worthless in a Fascist State.” You’re pointing out: we may not be able to change philanthropy overnight, but there are philanthropists who could make a huge difference right now.

Vu: Exactly. That essay came from frustration. We’re advancing quickly toward fascism. Democracy is being dismantled—Trump, Republicans, disappearing people without due process, arresting judges. People who study fascism are sounding the alarm.

We need everyone—funders, nonprofits, all hands on deck. And too many funders don’t show the urgency.

And on top of that, we still have crappy funding practices. That’s why I started calling them out. It began with me naming foundations who were doing things like requiring a notarized document—for a $5,000 grant. Or quarterly reports.

Now it’s become a movement, run by brilliant anonymous volunteers. Anyone can report a crappy practice.

We need to stop being so nice. Stop beating around the bush. These practices are harmful, and funders need to be called out by name.

Eric [00:17:00]: Okay, on that very cheery note, we’re going to take a short break. When we come back, we’ll talk more with Vu Le about what philanthropy should be doing.

Break [00:18:00]
You’re listening to Let’s Hear It, a podcast about foundation and nonprofit communications, hosted by Eric Brown and Kirk Brown.

If you’re enjoying this episode, check out season two of Break Fake Rules with Glen Galaich, CEO of the Stupski Foundation. He chats with leaders in philanthropy, government, and media about breaking the fake rules that don’t work, so we can build a future that does. New episodes drop monthly.

Find Break Fake Rules wherever you get your podcasts.

Eric [00:18:30]: And we’re back with Vu Le. You’re the founder of Nonprofit AF, the instigator of Crappy Funding Practices, and you’ve been really vocal about how philanthropy needs to act—forcefully, and now.

I keep hearing calls for philanthropy to be full-throated, aggressive, to spend more, to dig in. Because if not now, when? Can you talk about what you’re seeing? Any signs of hope?

Vu: It’s been a long time coming. Progressive funders’ reluctance to fund critical things has been a problem for decades. They stick to 5% payout, always.

Years ago, I asked them for more voter engagement funding. They said, “That’s not in our strategic plan.” They just stuck to whatever flavor of the year matched their priorities.

Meanwhile, conservatives were strategic. They built institutions, created intellectual warriors, shaped the judiciary, controlled messaging through Fox and other outlets.

Progressive philanthropy became like the SkyMall catalog—funders shopping for hobbies. “This year I’ll fund this, next year I’ll fund that.”

I don’t know how much funders have admitted this was a mistake. But some are increasing payout. Some have gone to 10% or more. Some are spending down. That’s hopeful.

But at the same time, many are retreating. They’re eliminating DEI. They’re complying with fascism. I hope they’ll turn around and recommit to fighting.

Eric [00:20:30]: Are there bright spots—funders or organizations that give you hope?

Vu: Yes. Groups like Democracy Forward and the National Council of Nonprofits. When federal funding was paused, they immediately took legal action and got an injunction. That probably saved countless organizations.

There are incredible people fighting.

Eric: You say you didn’t go into medicine, but you are practicing a little proctology here.

Vu: [Laughs] I don’t want to be doing this! Do you want to be kicking ass all the time? It’s exhausting.

And I’m not saying anything new. Women of color, trans folks, marginalized communities—they’ve been saying this for years. I’m just one more voice.

But because we didn’t listen, here we are—facing the rise of fascism, the erosion of democracy.

[00:22:00]
Eric: One of the interesting comments I’ve heard is: when you don’t have strong defenses for people who need them, it chips away at democracy.

For example, attacks on trans people weaken democracy. Those attacks take hold, and then the same tools get used on other groups. So if funders say they care about democracy, defending the most vulnerable is actually how you defend democracy. It’s not just about voting—it’s about making sure organizations are strong enough to withstand attacks.

Vu: Absolutely. And none of this is new. Attacking trans people is straight from Hitler’s playbook.

In 1933, when he came to power, one of the first things he did was round up trans people and gay men, send them to concentration camps, and destroy the Institute for Sexual Science, which was advocating for LGBTQ rights.

That strategy—go after the most vulnerable, then move to the next group—conditions people to keep their heads down, to be deferential.

And we’re seeing the same thing today. What’s even more disappointing is when it happens in supposedly progressive spaces. The New York Times, for example, has published very anti-trans things. It’s deeply disappointing.

Eric [00:24:00]: Things are really difficult right now. But are there areas where you see hope? Where do you see opportunities?

Vu: A couple of things give me hope.

One, I remind myself these things come in waves. They’re not unprecedented. Which means we can have hope.

Second, maybe what we’re seeing is the last gasp of white supremacy and patriarchy. They’re clinging harder as they lose their grip.

This year is the Year of the Snake. Snakes aren’t just a symbol of evil—snakes are also a symbol of renewal and rebirth. They shed their skin.

Maybe society is shedding the skin of white supremacy, capitalism, patriarchy. People are waking up to how unfair the system is, realizing we need radical change.

So if we can survive this moment, it could lead to something better. That gives me hope.

The other thing is people are still fighting. I see neighbors offering spare rooms in case a trans person needs to escape persecution. I see people organizing in creative ways.

And I just read research by Erica Chenoweth about the 3.5% rule: if 3.5% of the population consistently rises up, there’s a strong chance of overturning the system. In the U.S., that’s about 11 million people—twice New York City’s population.

A few weeks ago, half that many were out protesting. If we can keep that consistent, keep the uprising going, we have a real chance to turn things around.

Eric [00:27:00]: The left is often criticized for not appealing to enough people—that’s why many went to Trump. They felt left out. Progressives haven’t found an inclusive way to communicate. Do you think that’s fair? And if so, what’s the solution?

Vu: I think the left needs to actually embrace being left.

Look at the Harris campaign. They didn’t embrace the left. They supported genocide against Palestinians. They campaigned with Dick Cheney. They bragged about having the most lethal army in the world.

Why would that attract progressives?

Now look at progressive candidates like Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, AOC, Bernie Sanders, Andy Beshear. They win because they actually embrace progressivism instead of waffling. People don’t like waffles.

So the left needs to stop waffling. Be clear: tax the rich, universal Medicare, stop supporting genocide. Those are progressive values.

It’s not just a messaging problem—it’s that people in power don’t want to be left. They hedge their bets so they stay rich no matter who wins. That’s why we lose.

Eric [00:29:00]: So what’s next for you?

Vu: I was joking about doing a one-man show.

Eric: Tell me about it.

Vu: On April Fool’s Day, I announced a one-man show called Please Send Money: The Joy and Agony of Nonprofit and Philanthropy. It was going to be four hours long.

There’d be a 17-minute segment where I emerge from the womb covered in strawberry preserves and pennies, symbolizing the nine months it takes to apply for and get a grant.

It was ridiculous. But people actually asked, “When are you coming to Houston? To Hawaii?” I had to tell them: it was a joke! I’m not going anywhere. I’m just trying not to be deported.

So what’s next? I’ll keep fighting. Add humor where I can. Remind people to take care of themselves, find joy—because joy is resistance. Build community.

Maybe my role is to point out inconsistencies, to kick ass when needed, but also to affirm the good things happening in our sector. Because there are a lot of good people doing important work.

Eric [00:30:00]: We need Vu Les in this field. Telling the truth, helping us remember where we came from and where we’re going. I really appreciate your work, and I appreciate you taking the time to talk with us.

Vu: Thanks, Eric. Hang in there.

[00:31:00]
Kirk: And we’re back. So… are you telling me that Vu Le is able to pay his bills and run his life just from his blog Nonprofit AF?

Eric: I don’t know. Maybe. I didn’t ask him how he makes his money—that felt rude. This isn’t the kind of show where I ask for financial disclosures.

Kirk: Wow. Because this is the background of all these conversations. Do you make your living hosting a podcast, Eric?

Eric: [Laughs] No, I do not.

Kirk: Nor do I. This is my volunteer contribution—one of many I make to the world.

Eric: Same.

Kirk: Anyway, Vu has a book coming October 14th, Reimagining Nonprofits and Philanthropy. Please order it. He’ll also be back with his blog post August 19th on Substack.

It’s such a great site—funny, timely, engaging. I loved how he said a foundation asked him to write something, and he just went for it. Did it for free. Did it with humor, which we need in this sector.

And I appreciated you, Eric, dripping in your own humor throughout the conversation.

Eric: “Elements of humor,” maybe.

Kirk: He has the ability to put things so plainly. It felt like oxygen—necessary oxygen—as we soul-search about this moment, the costs, and what we need to do going forward.

[00:33:00]
Eric: Speaking of rooms—there’s an elephant in this one. I’ve been thinking about it ever since the conversation. Vu talked about genocide.

I have dear friends with differing opinions on what’s happening. I don’t feel qualified to wade into that.

I thought: should we not air the show to avoid controversy? That’s not right. Should we edit around it? Also not right.

So the elephant is here. I’m not going to analyze specifics. If people are angry or excited, don’t come to me for commentary. Maybe that makes me a coward, but I don’t think so. I think it means I recognize there’s suffering I’m not equipped to speak about.

What do you think, Kirk?

Kirk: Yeah. Let me “yes, and” that. Vu’s giving us one perspective on a fundamental challenge.

If we call it “the left,” or “progressive,” or whatever—this whole constellation of people trying to make the world better—we have to admit there’s robust, sometimes aggressive disagreement within it.

Listening to Vu, I felt like there was a missing critique. It’s not just philanthropy. It’s that the incentives are mismatched.

Our opposition—let’s call it the right—is deeply aligned around a core set of incentives. Meanwhile, the left is this flowering of perspectives. That diversity is beautiful, but it’s also the challenge.

Eric: I take your point.

And I love Vu’s work. He shines light on this field. He’s compassionate, passionate, and full-throated.

So yes, he’s part of the left—and he’s a plainspoken, funny, deeply passionate one.

[00:36:00]
Kirk: Let’s talk about crappy funding practices. Vu started calling out foundations by name. How would it feel to be a comms officer at a foundation called out on LinkedIn for requiring quarterly reports or notarized forms for a $5,000 grant?

Eric: Honestly—he’s right. Foundations shouldn’t do those things.

And Glen Galaich is about to publish a book making the same case.

Grantees go through hell to get tiny bits of money, and then they’re expected to be grateful. If funders really want to make change, don’t do that.

Vu compared foundations to a SkyMall catalog: “This year I’ll buy a little bit of this program, next year I’ll buy another one.” Exactly right.

If you care about change, end those practices. If you don’t care—then yeah, do whatever you want.

Kirk: I’ve been part of all those reporting cycles. Quarterly, biannual, 12-month spending windows for multi-million dollar grants. It’s impossible. Anyone in this world knows the pain.

And yet every foundation is unique, its own little ecosystem.

Sometimes I wonder: maybe the issue is that organizations are too dependent on foundation funding?

Eric: Maybe. But where else are they supposed to get money? Federal funding isn’t reliable. Individual donors rarely cover the whole budget. Major donors sometimes work, but not often.

The truth is, the social sector model in this country doesn’t work.

And you’re right—it’s not even their money anymore. Once you take the tax deduction, it’s public money. You don’t get to micromanage how it’s spent.

But philanthropists still want control after they’ve taken the deduction. That’s a crappy system.

[00:41:00]
Kirk: There are two conversations here. One: the strategy of what needs to happen—institutions, intellectual warriors, shaping courts, electing politicians, aligning on message.

Two: how to pay for it.

Progressive funders talk about payout—5%, 6%, 10%. But if the money isn’t aligned to a coherent strategy, it won’t add up.

Eric: But you can’t legislate a strategy into the tax code. Anything that serves the public good is tax deductible.

And the left doesn’t—and maybe can’t—operate with one playbook. There’s no central hymnal.

Meanwhile, the right just tears things down. It’s easier to demolish than build.

Sometimes progress requires gravity and heat and light around a single idea, or a single leader. Sometimes it comes from movements. Sometimes philanthropy helps, sometimes it doesn’t.

But nonprofits that succeed usually do so in spite of funding, not because of it.

Kirk: Right. And Vu is saying to philanthropy: if you want to help, then help. Throw the money in, get out of the way, stop demanding boxes and arrows.

Eric: Exactly.

[00:44:00]
Kirk: Vu is a plainspoken truth-teller. Aggressive, funny, clear. Every foundation says they value “learning” and “risk-taking.” But how much does the sector really value truth?

Eric: Not enough.

Funders want to know what their money “buys.” But the truth is, you can’t always know. You have to accept not knowing.

Sometimes the thing you think you’re buying isn’t the thing you actually want. And if you constrain grantees with your narrow thinking, you’ll never get the better thing.

And yes, if I sound cynical it’s because I love this field. I want it to be better.

But many foundations fought against increasing payout. That’s not a good look.

Kirk: Exactly. And the system makes it take years—sometimes eight years—to do something that should take one or two conversations.

Eric: I’ve seen the better way too. Foundations that give long-term general support, minimal reporting. They build relationships, learn with their grantees, then get out of the way.

If you really care about change, that’s how you win: give fast, give long, and don’t micromanage.

Vu’s way of saying it is funnier than mine—but he’s right.

[00:50:00]
Kirk: And if Vu succeeds—even just in reducing the administrative costs of grantmaking—that could unleash billions into the field.

So Vu, thank you for your work, for being plainspoken and visionary.

Eric, thank you for bringing him on.

Everyone, order Vu’s new book Reimagining Nonprofits and Philanthropy, out October 14th. And check out Nonprofit AF, back on Substack August 19th.

That was awesome.

Eric: Yes.

Kirk: Okay. We’ll see you next time.

Eric: I still can’t believe you cut that.

[00:52:00]
Eric: Okay everybody, that’s it for this episode. Please let us know if you have thoughts about what you heard today—or people we should have on the show, including yourself.

We’d like to thank John Allee, the tuneful and inspiring composer of our theme music.

Kirk: Our sponsor, the Lumina Foundation. Please check out their terrific podcast Today’s Students, Tomorrow’s Talent at luminafoundation.org.

Eric: Thanks to today’s guest, and of course, all of you.

Kirk: And most importantly—thank you, Mr. Brown.

Eric: No, no, no—thank you, Mr. Brown.

Kirk: Okay everybody. Till next time.