Nihilism meets Fundraising

Do we make things better, or worse?

After 20 years as a professional fundraiser working with high-net-worth individuals, I have been involved with and seen my share of spectacular donations.

And yet year after year, despite the world-class quality of research, program, or specific capabilities, my organizations have not been the choice of sophisticated, successful, and generous philanthropists. I've often wondered why that's the case. I can characterize anecdotally along three distinct tracks. First, people give out of habit. The longer a person or family has supported an organization, the more likely they are to write a check the following year. They do so with little analysis of impact or leadership, are made to feel that their support is appreciated, and continue to give as encouraged or asked. 

The second category is social pressure or legacy, where individual families or extended families or friends are involved or supportive tends to generate its own gravity, and attract donations. Again, this is less about the impact or philosophical bent of the organization, but rather a reflexive response to familiar stimuli. 

Third and sadly most rarely, are those philanthropists who have carefully evaluated the quality, efficiency, and output of a programmatic initiative and allocate their philanthropic resources to amplify those endeavors. Laura Andreesen’s book philanthropy 2.0 attempts to provide an analytical framework for the evaluation, and I encourage you to read her book and go forward with a more rigorous analytical framework for personal giving. 

The point here is that, all too often, the calculus behind a donor’s annual and sometimes major philanthropic decision has nothing to do with the capability of an organization to deliver on its promises. What are the costs of this dynamic? What more could be done to allocate philanthropic capital to where it can do the most good?

As a professional fundraiser, I thought a lot about this question. I would wonder whether the activities we pursued – fancy dinners, conferences, faculty talks, marketing materials, social media impressions you name it – really helped advance the human condition. Why are we spending so much money to cultivate and “woo” smart, to encourage successful people to make donations? What is this dance really about, and why do we do it this way?

It’s the question for me, and for our industry. And after 20 years I’m starting to wonder whether we have this thing right after all.