Reexamining Fundraising

Changing nonprofit demands - Part 4

Image description: overhead view of a file drawer full of paper. Image by Ag Ku from Pixabay

Nonprofit leaders need to fundraise. There is no way around it in our current context. Effective leaders are typically able to communicate in a compelling way about their organization’s work and attract resources.

How has the fundraising arena changed over the past 35 years? My first fundraising job was stepping into the role of the first Development Director at Gay Community News in 1991 at age 24. I was raising funds using grassroots techniques learned by reading Kim Klein’s classic book Fundraising for Social Change (first published in 1985, now in its 8^th edition) and talking with more experienced colleagues. I maintained a database of supporters and appealed to them via our newspaper, mail appeals, local events, telethons staffed by our board and volunteers, and in-person solicitations. The keys to success were well-crafted appeals, systematic asking, understanding how bulk rate mail worked, and thank you notes.

We also asked some of our more famous supporters to headline events when they came to town (I got to meet Dorothy Allison, Essex Hemphill, Urvashi Vaid, Susie Bright, Allison Bechdel, and many more LGBT authors and activists) and organized big dance parties and Boston’s first Gay and Lesbian Film Festival (yes, it was that long ago), raising modest amounts of money through ticket sales. In addition to raising funds, we were building community and solidarity within the community. Our vision was inclusive and intersectional, and we were ensuring that journalism by and for the queer community was available. Because we were not yet so assimilated, we knew we had to do this for ourselves, including raising the funds to make it happen. Do I sound nostalgic? Maybe I am. The LGBTQIA+ community is much more fragmented today, and many of the more privileged people within our community are comfortable and out of touch with the survival struggles of more marginalized people.

So, what does this have to do with how fundraising has changed? Certainly, some of the elements are still the same. Here are a few observations:

Individual giving: Many nonprofits have a greater divide between their donors and their participants than was present 35 years ago. Due to increasing wealth inequality, many are forced to chase bigger gifts from the wealthy few. These wealthy few may be harder to identify and to form a relationship with, with many using donor-advised funds or foundations as intermediaries. In addition, fewer households give at all. In 1991, 72% of US households gave to charity, and today the percentage is under 50%.

Corporate giving: Back in the day, it was relatively easy to identify who owned local businesses and approach them personally for sponsorship or in-kind gifts. You could observe what level of sponsorship they offered to other nonprofits and calibrate your ask more easily. Even at businesses that were under a corporate umbrella such as the local bank or grocery store, community giving was usually handled at the local level by the branch manager. Now, corporate giving tends to be consolidated more centrally and may be based on trying to stand out in an online submission rather than a personal relationship. Many corporations have very narrow sponsorship criteria that must be aligned with their business interests.

Foundation giving: Years ago, there were fewer foundations, but more of them had broad giving guidelines and offered unrestricted grants. Reporting requirements were minimal. United Way still provided general support to a set number of “member organizations” and talked about a “safety net” rather than “impact.” Most giving was to “mainline” nonprofit organizations that claimed to serve everyone but tend to be white-led and very much reflected the dominant culture. Applying for grants was onerous—it was common that grantors required applicants to submit a thick packet of written information with a narrative and many attachments. Sometimes, the requirement was to mail or drop off ten or twelve copies of the complete application packet, so that they could be distributed to each of the people on the decision-making committee. Things have changed a lot, for better and for worse. As much as I dislike some of the online grant portals, it’s been good to leave the paper-intensive processes behind. I do miss the days when many foundations were open to a wide range of nonprofit work. I understand the desire to specialize, but this approach may discourage cross-pollination and collaborative missions that combine insights and strengths from several fields to accomplish their work (arts-based outdoor ed, intergenerational work, etc.).

I share these observations just to acknowledge that times have changed. For those of you who have worked in the sector for many years, do my perceptions match yours? What other changes do you see? And how do you feel that times have changed for better or worse?