For a long time, the dominant fundraising strategy has focused on creating better donor experiences.

The concept of donor-centered fundraising was popularized by Penelope Burk and others. When donors feel connected and empowered, according to this theory, they are more likely to give, give again, and give more … which raises more money for your mission.

If you’ve ever read a nonprofit newsletter with headlines like, “You’re a hero! Your support changed the lives of hundreds of children,” that’s an example of DCF.

Intentionally or not, this approach marginalizes the impact of everyone else, including staff, board, volunteers, partners, and program participants. At its worst, it positions donors as saviors.

The donor, the organization … or the community?

In response, Vu Le of Nonprofit AF and many partners have developed a thoughtful, radical critique. Their alternative is called community-centric fundraising.

CCF includes ten core principles (read them!), including:

• Fundraising must be grounded in race, equity, and social justice.
• Individual organizational missions are not as important as the collective community.
• All who engage in strengthening the community are equally valued, whether volunteer, staff, donor, or board member.
• We treat donors as partners, and this means we are transparent and occasionally have difficult conversations.

I thoroughly support CCF – and I’m also left with a vexing question. Is there any way to integrate these two worldviews about fundraising, or are they inherently incompatible?

One big misunderstanding?

A persistent fallacy deepens the distance between these models: the idea that you can’t raise money without approaching foundations, big corporations, and wealthy individuals. Under this scenario, nonprofits must bow down to funders to survive and thrive, thereby upholding oppressive systems.

For obvious reasons, this makes many people uncomfortable. However, it’s based on a misconception about where money comes from.

Only 20% to 25% of philanthropy (donated money) comes from foundations and corporations. The remaining 75% to 80% comes from individual donors. Yes, some are wealthy, but many are not. Some are white, but many are not. Indeed, your most generous donors (and potential donors) may surprise you, because donors are a diverse bunch.

You’ve got options!

Considering your many revenue opportunities and strategies …

• Membership
• Monthly giving
• Email
• Phone banks
• Crowdfunding
• Social media asks
• Text-to-give
• Canvassing
• Community events
• Giving circles
• Challenge gifts
• Legacy gifts
• Fee for service
• Social enterprises
• Local business support
• Government funding
• Raising money from congregations and labor unions

… and more … it’s entirely possible to fund your grassroots organization without writing a single foundation grant proposal, hosting a gala, or soliciting members of the One Percent.

Indeed, this is the daily lived experience of many grassroots, community-based groups.

It ain’t perfect

OK, let’s critique this approach.

First, as traditional fundraisers warn, you will potentially miss some big gifts. Second, growing income inequality has hollowed out the middle class, reducing the pool of mid-level donors.

Finally, if your goal is to redistribute wealth through charitable giving – a modern-day Robin Hood – what I’m suggesting won’t meet that goal.

However, a community-based fundraising strategy begins to resolve the question of who you center in your fundraising, even as it raises complex issues about how you define your “community.”

Is it a community based on identity? Shared values? Social class? Geography? Do you include allies?

This isn’t a new idea 

Several iconic BIPOC-led social change movements have been substantially self-funded. The mid-century civil rights movement gathered money, volunteers, sustenance, and moral authority from Black churches and other community institutions. The farm worker movement raised a lot of what they needed through member dues, while also collecting resources from outside donors. The list goes on.

The Grass Roots Fundraising Book first appeared 1977. (Here’s my beat-up copy.) Kim Klein’s Fundraising for Social Change, now in its seventh edition, has been in print for more than three decades.

The Grassroots Fundraising Journal was published for 36 years; in later years, by the recently closed, much-beloved Grassroots Institute for Fundraising Training.

You can find the free Journal archives here.

These are a few of the many, many resources that focus on how to build a sustainable revenue model without relying on the wealthy and powerful. Indeed, Kim’s mantra has long been, “Stop looking for wealth.”

Can you center everyone?

If you’re raising money primarily from your community, the problem of donor-centric vs. community-centric pretty much goes away – because your donors ARE the community, and the community provides the donors. It’s an elegant solution. 

Will this community-based strategy end racism and oppression? Will it reduce income inequality and dismantle capitalism? I’m not sure, but it definitely strengthens community self-reliance and builds power. Both are essential for social change.

The time is now

According to new data from the Fundraising Effectiveness Project, charitable giving grew by 10.6% in 2020 – during the pandemic. (Probably not what you expected…)

Even more encouraging, gifts of less than $250 grew by 15.3%. This was the largest increase of any gift category, outpacing bigger donations.

Are you ready to create, update, and/or implement your community-based fundraising plan? Now is your moment.

I welcome your responses and critiques. Please add your voice using the comments section below.