The Covid-19 pandemic, for all its tragedy and loss, has often been cited as the much-needed pause for nonprofit organizations to stop operating in “catch up mode” and to start working on long overdue, industry wide issues. An especially pressing issue is the standard model of nonprofit fundraising: donor centrism. As the nonprofit sector’s version of the “customer is always right” mentality, this model centers the donor in all fundraising efforts, and often does so at the expense of the organization’s mission and community. This issue needs immediate attention due to the nonprofit development department’s ability to impact its community through its role in managing the organization’s external relationships, distributing organizational resources, and creating the shared narrative of the organization's needs and vision. Acknowledging that the development department is the fuel source for outputs rather than a barometer for inputs, nonprofit organizations should rapidly adopt the community-centric fundraising model to both better serve their communities and to integrate the model’s inherent values of equity and social justice.

What is Donor Centrism?

To better understand its failings, it is important to understand donor centrism as the current “best practice” in fundraising. In Sergeant and Shang’s textbook, Fundraising Principles and Practice, a comprehensive textbook of the fundraising profession, donor-centric fundraising is defined as:

an approach to the marketing of a cause that centres on the unique and special relationship between a nonprofit and each supporter. Its overriding consideration is to care for and develop that bond and to do nothing that might damage or jeopardize it. Every activity is therefore geared toward making sure donors know they are important, valued, and considered, which has the effect of maximizing funds per donor in the long term.

This definition requires the fundraiser to place the donor, rather than the organization’s mission, at the absolute center of their universe. This is understood as an acceptable practice under the assumption that the fundraiser is prioritizing the donor’s relationship with the mission. If the donor demands treatment that neglects or even opposes the mission, the fundraiser must either veer from donor centrism standards and confront the donor or act in opposition to their community—those for whom the organization and its agents are charged with serving. Examples of this strong, donor-centric mentality can be found in publications such as Michael Kaiser’s The Cycle, where he discusses at length what an arts donor might be looking for in return for a gift, writing, “What [donors] want is often not tangible; it might be prestige, access to artists, an enhanced social life, or simply the good feeling of supporting a project they love.” While Kaiser later notes that the “favorite” donors are the ones that give from their purely altruistic belief in the mission, the acknowledgement that some of the donors closest to the heart of the organization are primarily motivated by materialism should raise concern, especially if that is the standard and not the exception.

Misplaced Metrics: Nonprofits are Not For-Profits

If the donor-centric model creates such moral grey areas, why is it so widely used? The answer is simple: in terms of bringing in large sums of consistent funding, it works. According to Cygnus Applied Research, an organization dedicated to research and promotion of the donor-centric model, “67% [of donors] would definitely or probably continue supporting a donor-centered not-for-profit indefinitely,” and “52% would definitely or probably make a larger gift when they renew.” While data shows successful implementation of this model can result in a significant increase in contributions, it is important to distinguish that revenue growth is not designed to be a measure of success for the social sector as it is for profit-seeking enterprises. 

There is a wealth of research and theory surrounding the elusive necessity for social impact-focused organizations to find ways of measuring success beyond their financial statements. In Good to Great and the Social Sectors, Jim Collins notes that, “In business, money is both an input (a resource for achieving greatness) and an output (a measure of greatness). In the social sectors, money is only an input, and not a measure of greatness.” Many methods have been developed to help steer the nonprofit sector from measuring input dollars to measuring output impacts instead. Examples include social return on investment (SROI), which maps and values inputs to their social impacts and outputs and double or triple bottom lines, which account for financial performance in the context of social change and environmental impact. These and other tools exist to help nonprofit organizations develop the language to express their impact in a way that better speaks to the change they have committed to making. This concept, despite the plentiful research and discussion surrounding it, has not penetrated the for-profit mindset adopted by nonprofits, who continue to prioritize growth at the expense of net social good. 

Evidence of these outdated priorities can be found even in Sargeant and Shang’s definition, which cites the primary benefit of the donor-centric model as, “maximizing funds per donor in the long term.” While contributed income is certainly a necessity for nonprofits, especially in the United States, it should never be predicated on the prioritization of the donor’s needs at the expense of the mission or community. This is exactly what happens when organizations seek out, establish, and actively grow relationships with wealthy but toxic donors. An alternative to this model, known as community-centric fundraising, seeks to address these problems. 

An Equitable Model for Fundraising

Community-Centric Fundraising (CCF), in its formalized iteration, began in a 2015 blog post by Vu Le on NonprofitAF in which he ruminates on the values and shortcomings of donor centrism. He anchored this discussion on the notion that though nonprofits have different missions, they all serve “the Prime Mission: to build a stronger, safer, happier community that we all can live in, where we want our kids to grow up in, where we can all grow old and die peacefully in.” In 2017, only two years later, he placed himself in direct opposition to donor centrism in another blog post, discussing how it promotes the savior complex in donors, fuels systemic injustices by allowing donors to ignore the disparities and wealth gaps they benefit from, and centers their voices rather than the voices of the communities in need. He addressed how many of the logistical demands of donor centrism, such as rapidly responding to each gift according to hyper-personalized donor preferences, create an expectation of service from donors that small organizations (often run by the most marginalized members of society) doing “the most critical and urgent work” (often for the most marginalized members of society) cannot maintain. 

Another flaw in the growing demands of donor centrism is the nonprofit sector’s need for advanced customer relationship management (CRM) software to meet those demands. Research shows that many small and mid-size nonprofits simply do not have the resources to purchase these and other information technology tools nor the talent needed to use them correctly. Stuck in a cycle that keeps resource-rich nonprofits at the top of the fundraising food chain through their ability to obtain and manage these complex CRMs and thus cater to growing donor demands, small nonprofits not only lack access to a large piece of the fundraising pie, but by default, lack the resources needed to expand and bolster their programs. This is especially dangerous considering that small nonprofits are often the most responsive to the rapidly changing needs of their communities, and even more so considering that many of the small nonprofits caught within this cycle are minority-led, minority-serving organizations.To minimize donors’ expectation of hyper-attentive treatment that most small organizations cannot meet, the CCF model reminds donors that they are partners in the fulfillment of the mission rather than investors. 

Yet another major failing of donor centrism cited by Le is the apprehension of development staff to educate donors when they do or say something harmful to fundraising staff or the community the organization serves. In the same 2017 blog post in which he began to formalize the tenets of community-centric fundraising, Le writes, “we [cannot] make progress in many of the issues we’re tackling if we cannot build true partnerships with donors, which includes pointing out, respectfully and at the appropriate time, when donors are in the wrong, and helping them shape their thinking and actions.” Unfortunately, these instances of harmful statements are not uncommon, so fundraising professionals should be prepared to address them.  

According to Cause Effective’s Money, Power, and Race: The Lived Experiences of Fundraisers of Color, 77% of survey respondents “acknowledge facing obstacles in their development careers due to their race/ethnicity,” and many report that they receive little to no support from their supervisors in these scenarios. The report also documents dozens of testimonials from fundraisers of color that detail some of their experiences facing implicit bias, discrimination, and blatant racism from donors and fellow staff alike. Considering that donor centrism’s charge to fundraisers requires they “do nothing that might damage or jeopardize'' the bond between them and their donors, it is not surprising that these experiences are common, or that management is hesitant to right these wrongs. This criterion of donor centrism not only stifles development staff’s moral obligation to correct and educate donors in these cases, but eliminates an expectation of accountability on the part of the donors themselves.  

The Community-Centric Model

To replace the donor-centric model, Le began developing a community-centric model, which is “grounded in equity and social justice, prioritizes the entire community over individual organizations, fosters a sense of belonging and interdependence, presents our work not as individual transactions but holistically, and encourages mutual support between nonprofits.” With the help of numerous fundraisers of color and grassroots organizations, he helped to formalize this model through the following nine principles, which include many detailed suggestions for organizational implementation on the CCF website.

1. Fundraising must be grounded in Race, Equity, and Social Justice 

2. Individual missions are not as important as the collective community 

3. Nonprofits are generous with and mutually supportive of one another 

4. All elements that strengthen community are equally valued and appreciated 

5. Time is valued equally as money 

6. We respect our donors’ integrity and treat donors as partners, which means occasionally pushing back 

7. We foster a sense of belonging in our fundraising work; we avoid treating anyone as an “other” 

8. We believe, and we encourage donors to believe, that we all benefit from this work 

9. We believe and encourage donors to believe, that the work is holistic, not a collection of isolated segments  

Though originally published in 2017, this model grew rapidly over the summer of 2020, as much of the world—many for the first time—became aware of the long-standing pandemic of white supremacy. In the wake of this reckoning, Community-Centric Fundraising (CCF) launched itself from a localized effort to a national movement and it has continued to grow since then.

In addition to being a robust resource for anti-racist and social justice-oriented articles about fundraising and the nonprofit sector, the CCF website also provides action items for organizations seeking to implement this model in their operations. Individuals can join the shared Slack channel, where fundraisers from all over the world come together to ask questions, learn from each other, and share resources regarding the implementation of community-centric fundraising. Other ways organizations and individuals can join this movement is by joining or creating local “chapters” of fundraising professionals who can review these resources together and find the best ways to integrate this anti-racist, community-centric approach into their own nonprofit ecosystems. 

Conclusion

Fundraising can be an incredible form of advocacy for marginalized communities. Radical mutual aid and grassroots community care, created and perfected by communities of color, provide a template for how to center anti-racism and racial justice in community service. Community-Centric Fundraising provides the tools for nonprofit institutions to operate more ethically and sustainably, but the tools will only work if the organization is truly intent on centering their community.  

This is uncharted territory for large organizations, and dedication to this change will be a difficult and incremental process. It will likely upset donors, members, and staff, both current and past, and it will certainly put off some prospects. It will require intense self-reflection and commitment to change on individual and organizational levels. It will require drastically unconventional financial strategies. There will be many growing pains, but this divestment from toxic dollars, donors, and fundraising practices is necessary for organizations that seek to prioritize the “prime mission” and create a truly equitable world. The community-centric approach is a necessary but painful sterilizing agent to a long-neglected wound.  

As long as inequality and injustice exist unaddressed by society at large, the direct redistribution of resources to those in need will remain a necessity. As long as nonprofit fundraising is needed to serve this purpose, it also needs to stop operating within and for those very inequalities and injustices. Community-centric fundraising not only has the power to strengthen the fundraising profession as a form of activism, but its successful implementation means that the marginalized communities our organizations seek to serve will receive the attention, care, and justice they deserve. 

Resources

Collins, Jim. Good to Great and the Social Sectors, 2005. 

Community Centric Fundraising. “Community Centric Fundraising- Home,” 2020. https://communitycentricfundraising.org/. 

Daniel, Janay, Judy Levine, David McGoy, Cynthia Reddrick, and Hera Syed. “Money, Power and Race: The Lived Experience of Fundraisers of Color.” Cause Effective, 2019. https://preparingthenextgeneration.org/preparing-the-next-generation/money-power-and-race.html.

Guinn, Fillmore. “Evaluating Outsourcing Information Technology and Assurance Expertise by Small Non-Profit Organizations.” ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. D.B.A., Northcentral University, 2013. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1448579472/abstract/D53CC2D0DE60489APQ/2. 

Hadad, Shahrazad, and Oana (Drumea) Gauca. “Social Impact Measurement in Social Entrepreneurial Organizations.” Management & Marketing 9, no. 2 (2014): 119–36. 

“How African-American-Led Organizations Differ from White-Led Organizations.” Philadelphia African American Leadership Forum, 2015. 

Le, Vu. “9 Principles of Community-Centric Fundraising.” Nonprofit AF (blog), May 22, 2017. https://nonprofitaf.com/2017/05/9-principles-of-community-centric-fundraising/. 

Le, Vu. “How Donor-Centrism Perpetuates Inequity, and Why We Must Move toward Community-Centric Fundraising.” Nonprofit AF (blog), May 15, 2017. https://nonprofitaf.com/2017/05/how-donor-centrism-perpetuates-inequity-and-why-we-must-move-toward-community-centric-fundraising/. 

Le, Vu. “It’s Time We Fundraise in a Way That Doesn’t Uphold White Moderation and White Supremacy.” Nonprofit AF (blog), June 29, 2020. https://nonprofitaf.com/2020/06/its-time-we-fundraise-in-a-way-that-doesnt-uphold-white-moderation-and-white-supremacy/. 

Le, Vu. “Winter Is Coming, and the Donor-Centric Fundraising Model Must Evolve.” Nonprofit AF (blog), April 20, 2015. https://nonprofitaf.com/2015/04/winter-is-coming-and-the-donor-centric-fundraising-model-must-evolve/. 

Sargeant, Adrian, and Jen Shang. Fundraising Principles and Practice. Second. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2017. 

Swerdlow, Deborah. “The Size of a Nonprofit Organization Matters | Here’s Why,” February 7, 2018. https://www.idealist.org/en/careers/size-nonprofit-organization-matters-why. 

Cygnus Applied Research. “What Is Donor-Centered Fundraising?®.” Accessed October 9, 2020. https://cygresearch.com/donor-centered-philosophy/.