Trends, and why it's bad to always go with the flow
Hi everyone, if you’re free this week on June 18th from 11:30am to 1pm Pacific, here's a great webinar: “What If our Trans siblings were fully included and protected in all spaces? A guide to substantive allyship for Trans rights and how to do better with Nathan Rodriguez of Trans Equity Coalition.” It’s free. Register here and spread the word.
And next Monday, June 22nd, at 1pm, there's a briefing on Donor-Advised Funds, put on by the Philanthropy Project, whose Working Group I'm on. Register here.
In the sixth grade, I became fascinated by four-leaf clovers. Something about their mythology and the fact that they can be found. During recess, I started looking for these symbols of luck. Eventually other kids became curious and started looking for them too. For a week it became a craze, with all the kids hunched on the grounds, combing the schoolgrounds. We found dozens, which we pressed in our books until dry and then laminated with packing tape.
I’m bringing this up because I often hear this question being asked in our sector: “What are the trends?” A colleague asked this in a group chat when another colleague said he attended a fundraising conference. At another event, a speaker talked about “AI trends,” while on a panel I was on recently a fellow speaker recommended people “go where the energy is” as that’s often the most productive path when several are available.
It can be helpful to be aware of trends and collective energy, as they can be helpful in developing strategies, especially when it comes to preparing for contingencies. It is helpful to know such as things, for example, as:
· Smaller donors are decreasing in number while mega donors are increasing
· Donor-Advised Funds (DAFs) continue to increase, while regulations on them continue to be nonexistent
· More organizations are looking into four-day workweeks
· Flatter organizational structures are on the rise
· While companies are using AI more, there is rapid pushback against AI, especially among young people
The problem is that our sector often follows trends and collective energy without stopping to analyze whether they make sense, and that can do all sorts of damage.
For example, for a while many funders bought into the “Strategic philanthropy” trend, which I argue has been one of the most destructive concepts ever inflicted on our sector, ironically causing progressive-leaning funders to be extremely unstrategic. It’s like the “gender reveal party” trend, which has caused forest fires among its many negative consequences. One of strategic philanthropy’s originators formally apologized for it, but much like gender reveal parties, it’s too little too late.
The trend for the past couple of years under this administration is to avoid DEI. While there are many organizations that must be careful because they rely on federal funding and understandably fear losing it, there are some nonprofits and funders that are avoiding DEI work or changing their language simply because that’s the trend.
A few weeks ago I mentioned an immigrant organization that declined to lend their name to a pro-trans-rights effort, likely because the trend among the administration and right-wing-shaped general culture is to target and harass the trans community. Which means it’s even more important for everyone to stand WITH the trans community.
So, let’s be thoughtful about trends. Here are things to consider when you hear about the latest trend in whatever subject people bring up, fundraising, grantmaking, leadership, communications, board development, event planning, hummus recipes, or whatever:
How does the trend align with our sector’s values? Trends are shaped by people, and people have agendas and biases. Run every trend you encounter through not just your organization’s values, but the values of the sector, which include equity and justice. A lot of trends (such as anti-DEI and anti-trans sentiments) do not align with our sector’s values and purpose, and no matter how compelling (or threatening) they are, we must resist them. We need to stick by our values, no matter what current fickle trends are.
What are the power dynamics involved with this trend? Nonprofit leaders are always curious to know what the trends are among funders and donors. We can’t help it; they have money and we need money to do our work. But over time, we just accept trends that funders and donors set without question, tangling ourselves into knots to conform to funders’ trends. Remember when all the funders were obsessed with collective impact, and all the challenges that caused? We need to stop letting funders dictate trends. Funders, stop dictating trends.
Who started the trend? A lot of trends in our sector are inflicted on people by white dudes who come from ivy league institutions and elite think tanks. Think of logic models, theories of change, social entrepreneurialism, and so on. It’s very annoying to be forced to go along with these trends that are often set by people who have little first-hand experience in the issues they’re trying to solve. The next time you hear some trend—“The latest tool all nonprofits should use is the Synergistic Paradigm Action Matrix (SPAM)!”—search up who started it. If it’s not from a marginalized community, it may not be all that helpful.
What are the long-term consequences of this trend? Nonprofits’ need to survive means we’re very focused on the short term. But the long-term can hold significant consequences. The short-term of the (thankfully dying) trend of treating donors like heroes means in the long-term we entrench white saviorism and poverty tourism. The short-term of using AI means our work is more efficient, but in the long-term, there are tons of horrific consequences, including whittling down our sector’s ability for critical thinking, and aiding in the rise of fascism.
What are the equity considerations in this trend? Trends, like everything else, do not apply equally to and for everyone. Many often leave behind the most marginalized people and communities. I’m still irritated at this one funder who forced all applicants to develop logic models. One nonprofit led by and serving people of color spent hours at a retreat learning to do it. They didn’t get the grant; their logic model wasn’t formatted properly or didn’t include the right buzz words or something. The grant was for $5,000.
Does it make sense to shape the trend instead of letting it shape us? Donors and funders are increasingly putting money into DAFs. When this is brought up, I often hear nonprofit leaders ask how they can access that money, since DAFs are not transparent and are harder to tap into. That’s understandable. But we also need to ask how we mitigate the damage caused by this trend. We need to educate, organize, and push for regulations instead of just accepting that this is the trend.
Is this trend just a red herring, distraction from the real issue? For a while there was a trend of social enterprise, and everyone calling on nonprofits to generate earned revenues. Then there’s conversation about impact investing. Now I hear funders floating around ideas about loaning nonprofits money, with low interest rates...probably so orgs can open social enterprises, because how else will they pay back the loans? You know what a great trend would be? Funders increasing their payout rates and fund nonprofits adequately to solve problems and then everyone can close up shop and go home!
The next time you're at a conference or reading an article and a trend is mentioned, don't immediately jump on the wagon. Reflect on whether the trend aligns with values, who started it, who benefits from it, and how it may affect marginalized communities. When conflicted about a trend, ground the work in our sector's mission of advancing equity and justice.
Don't be like my 6th grade class. We found lots of four-leaf clovers, but no one's luck changed, and tons of grass and clovers were trampled.
--
Thank you to monthly Patreon supporters and Ghost subscribers for keeping these posts ad-free and open to everyone.
