10 questionable assumptions we make when fundraising that are holding us back
Hi everyone, as I’m getting older, I start reflecting on my work, and there are a few things for which I’m proud of having accomplished. One was coming up with the acronym MYGOD—which stands for Multi-Year General Operating Funds. Another was when I was able to stop myself from eating the remainder of a bar of Theo chocolate that had been lightly chewed on by rats, which I found after cleaning out my office, which showed an astounding amount of self-restrain, you must admit.
Above these accomplishments though, has been my involvement in founding and advancing Community-Centric Fundraising, a movement to ground fundraising in equity and justice. CCF has come a long way, spreading across the US and gaining footholds on other countries as well.
This spring, on April 25th in San Diego, California, CCF is having its Family Reunion. It’s a day of relationship- and community-building and educational opportunities not available elsewhere. Think of a conference, but cooler. Whether you’re new or true to the CCF movement, this event is for you. Register here to lock in your spot before they sell out. Tickets are offered on a sliding scale with suggested levels, so everyone can participate.
I’ll be there. Lurking in the shadows. Eating chocolate. Like a hawk.
While we’re on the topic of fundraising, let’s talk about many of the assumptions people make about fundraising that have been holding the sector back. Over the past few years, as I talk to people about CCF and how fundraising needs to evolve—to address white supremacy, capitalism, wealth hoarding, tax avoidance, reparation for slavery and stolen land, and so on—I get tons of push back from people. A lot of the pushback, however, is based on several assumptions, which often don’t prove to be true at all:
Questionable Assumption 1: If we don’t fawn over donors, they won’t give. Fundraisers have been trained for decades to fawn over donors, manifesting in things like handwritten thank-you notes, donors-as-“heroes” narratives, donor walls and other public forms of recognition, and a general “attitude of gratitude” (which makes me want to throw up). Having talked to a lot of donors, and being one myself, I know many donors don’t need to be constantly sucked up to. They will still donate as long as you’re doing good work.
Questionable Assumption 2: Donors don’t care about race, equity, justice, and so on. There’s the assumption that donors only care about whatever issue they’re donating to, whether that’s the environment or mental health or the arts or whatever, and they won’t take it well if we bring up systemic issues like racism, white supremacy, and so on, or that they’re too fragile to be able to handle it. This sort of gatekeeping prevents us from tackling the root causes of these problems and inviting donors to be involved in more meaningful work.
Questionable Assumption 3: If we push back on donors, they will take their money elsewhere. Because of this assumption, we put up with a lot of malarkey and tomfoolery from donors. Like the ones who won’t pay for overhead. Or the ones who demand special treatments. But is this assumption true? Maybe for a few asshole donors, sure, but most donors probably would welcome feedback and appreciate that you respect them enough to be honest. We need to stop catering to the assholes and assuming everyone is one.
Questionable Assumption 4: If we change the way we fundraise, we’ll lose funding. Lots of fundraisers stick to what they’ve been doing because there’s the assumption that if they try some new stuff, such as CCF, donors will run screaming away. Stuff like dropping the raise-the-paddle, nixing the recognition of donors by level in the annual report, helping another organization raise funds, etc. We see lots of stories, such as on the CCF Hub, that prove otherwise.
Questionable Assumption 5: If donors leave, we are screwed. Yeah, it’s scary losing money, but it doesn’t always mean bad things will always result, of that even better things won’t happen. Sometimes, losing a donor or funder is for the best, and the loss in the short-term is balanced out in other ways. There are many stories of nonprofits that stick to their values and lose a few donors but then gain more than they lost when other donors, inspired by their convictions, step in to fill the gap.
Questionable Assumption 6: If we raise a lot of money, we’re doing an awesome job as fundraisers. Decades of training have led fundraisers to believe their main responsibility is to reach financial goals, and if they do so, they’re great at their job. Nope. I’ve seen tons of fundraisers who raise a bunch of money, and tons of nonprofits that are well-funded, that suck and their presence often makes the community worse off. If your organization is somehow furthering injustice, then your raising lots of money for it just means you’re complicit in furthering injustice.
Questionable Assumption 7: If we don’t raise a lot of money, we suck as fundraisers. In parallel with the assumption above, there’s this assumption that failure to raise a ton of money means failure as fundraisers. Nah. There are many brilliant fundraisers and nonprofits who don’t raise as much money as others, but their work is vital. Often they are organizations led by people and communities that are most affected by inequity and injustice and thus they are more thoughtful about how and when they raise funds, which often means they raise less money than others.
Questionable Assumption 8: If we are loyal to our mission, we’re doing on the right path. Yeah, there’s a huge thing about being “mission-centered,” with the assumption that organizations are doing right by always following their mission. But that sets up a very org-centric sector, when we all need to be more community-centric. To be community-centric, nonprofits and foundations need to constantly assess their mission in relation to the community and what’s needed at various moments, and sometimes, what’s best for the community may be for some missions to move to the background, so that other more pressing missions may have the attention and resources.
Questionable Assumption 9: The decline in giving is because we don’t do enough traditional fundraising. Every year, there are alarms being raised about how giving is in decline. And this is usually followed by fundraising experts saying everyone needs to double down on traditional fundraising: More gratitude, more recognition, more treating donors like heroes. I dunno, maybe the assumption is completely wrong, and that the decline in fundraising is because some donors are getting sick of that stuff and want more meaningful engagement, including being included in more difficult conversations about systemic injustice, reparation, tax reform, eating billionaires, etc.
Questionable Assumption 10: Human nature doesn’t change. I talked to a fundraising expert who believed strongly in traditional fundraising methods. When I said we need to stop fundraising through a white-savior narrative, poverty tourism, and tugging at heartstrings, he said, “Well, those things work; that’s just human nature, and human nature doesn’t change.” That’s a cynical, unimaginative view of human beings. Human nature changes all the time. It can take a while, but we can help it along by giving people opportunities to do it and not just assuming they’re incapable of it.
There are bunch more, but I like stopping at 10, because it’s a nice round number. Let me know what other assumptions you can think of. If anyone needs me, I’ll be eating my chocolate before the rats get to them. I’ve learned my lesson.
--
March 4th and March 5th, I’ll be speaking at the Nonprofit Fundraising Summit, which is free, and you can register here. I’ll be on for a session called “Fundraising During the Apocalypse: A No-BS Conversation with Vu and Candace” with my colleague Candace Cody. And On March 5th at 1pm PT I’ll be speaking with a panel of cool leaders in a session called “From Crisis to Courage: Supporting Communities and the Future We’re Building Together.”
March 19th, I’ll be having a conversation about my new book with colleagues Andrea Caupain Sanderson and Rashad Morris of Ile Kimoyo. This will be a more in-depth dive into the book. Register here.
