Donor Centricity: Is It Still Fit For Purpose?
If you haven’t seen it already – the provocative article by Vu Le is well worth a read.
How Donor-Centrism Perpetuates Inequity, and Why We must Move Toward Community-Centric Fundraising.
It came to the top of mind for me again this week, because one of my students had posted it in a class resource and wanted to know what I thought.
Essentially Vu argues that the donor-centric approach is now perpetuating much of the inequity that nonprofits are trying to solve. To summarise some of the arguments he raises, donor-centrism has:
Increased competition among nonprofits
Proliferated the Savior Complex – i.e. the constant use of "you" gives donors the impression they are heroes and that “others” need to be saved
Perpetuated the notion that there are "others"
Diminished the voices of those that are served by crediting donors with having the solutions necessary to solve community problems.
Furthered the notion of transactional charity by indicating what can be purchased for a specific price (i.e. $20 buys X and $30 buys Y).
So Vu highlights some important issues, and many are reflected in the agenda of Community Centred Fundraising (CCF), whose principles are also an important read.
As one might expect the sector’s response to the challenge Vu poses has been mixed with an occasionally heated debate ensuing. One reason for the heat is that folks who advocate for and against donor-centrism can be working from very different definitions of what the term actually means. My recent blog on the origins of donor centricity may be helpful in this regard:
Specifically, donor-centrism is not the same as donor primacy. And much of what Vu and CCF warn against is donors being able to shape the missions of nonprofits to their own interests, rather than the genuine needs of communities.
But from where I sit, one can care about how we make donors feel without giving them control over our missions. I would also say that the argument has most resonance in the major gift domain. If I'm giving you $20 a month, my ability to shape your mission is minimal - but if I'm pitching up with $20million in my pocket, then it becomes a very real issue. Nonprofits can desperately try to secure the donation and in doing so, inappropriately accommodate the wishes of the donor if they want to pursue a particular direction. But to call that donor-centrism is to construct a straw man - it is not. It is donor primacy.
The other difficulty with the critique is that it is aimed at the "concept" of donor centricity, when really the fight is with a handful of possible manifestations of the concept and certainly not ones I would recommend.
To illustrate - take the point I highlight above, about the use of the word "you." The you could indeed be a hero - or it could be a moral person, an environmentalist, a cancer survivor, a Christian, a parent or indeed any of the identities that people are articulating when they give. Should we have an issue with nonprofits that make me feel great about being a cancer survivor or a passionate environmentalist? Of course not. And being respectful of who people are in this way is important because it promotes wellbeing and I suspect everyone would want that for their donors.
So, the argument is really one about the hero identity and there are certainly SOME giving situations where that would be detrimental. Most aid/development agencies already recognise the dangers of that. But for other categories of cause, there is no harm in creating a "hero" - and a lot of animal welfare/protection organisations raise substantive sums from priming that identity. But of course, it is combined with a heavy dose of moral identity and sometimes good humour too.
The point about "othering" is more subtle, yet the science of philanthropic psychology can help shed light here.
Remember that a key dimension of wellbeing is connection – and specifically connection with those that we love or care for. It would be counter-productive for smart fundraisers to encourage "othering" as that destroys the sense of connection, drains wellbeing, and limits our ability to experience love. If we were to think in a smarter way about fundraising, we might recognise that we can use it for the wider social purpose of stripping away barriers and allowing people to experience a deeper and ultimately even transformational sense of love and connection. That involves focusing on the right identities and the right drivers of wellbeing and the right forms of love.
On that latter point - often fundraising promotes compassionate love - which is love we have for others. With some thought it could just as easily promote companionate love which is born from much deeper senses of connection. It is the love we feel for those that are close to us - not others. So which form of love would deliver the greatest wellbeing while assisting in the most appropriate furtherance of our mission?
My personal sense of things here is that fundraising could be delivering a lot more social good than just bringing in the money. How we communicate can shape how people experience meaning and love in their philanthropy. So, what is needed is not the abandonment of donor-centricity, but rather a new and richer understanding of it, the difference it can make to supporters and ultimately to the experience of giving.