BOTH SIDES NOW (AND THEN)
I have said many times that I wish I didn’t see both sides of a problem. Who needs the complexity? It’s so much more fun to just pick a side and make a lot of noise. Which is all most people seem to be doing these days anyway.
When it comes to philanthropy, I truly do see both sides. I have run a small non-profit, during which time I spent at least half my time on revenue-generating projects. Well, I tried. I don’t like fundraising any more than the next guy or girl. Who wants to spend all their working hours asking for money? Not fun. But it has to be done.
Before, during and after the years that I ran Awakenings, I also was a philanthropist. Which is a word I hate, by the way. Makes giving to worthy causes sound grander than it really is. I prefer to call myself a donor, and I make grants. Much simpler.
Over the years, my granting goals and intentions have changed and evolved several times. I began, in 1998, with a program called the Judith Dawn Memorial Fund for the Arts. It was created as a memorial for my cousin Judith, who died in 1998. For the next twelve years, the program distributed over $100,000 to sexual abuse survivors who wished to pursue creative endeavors as a way of healing. Eventually, this program was incorporated into Awakenings. Although it was discontinued around 2014, we were able to help more than 100 survivors.
In the first years of that program, I happened to overhear a conversation I was not intended to overhear. I was working with a non-profit to help administer the program, and the Associate Director of that organization told someone there, “Not another donor with a program idea! I can’t even afford to run the programs we have.”
I suppose my feelings should have been hurt, and maybe they were. Don’t remember. What I do remember is that she shifted my perspective, and for the next ten years or so I made unrestricted operating grants. Because she was right. There are way too many donors around who restrict their grants to programs, even specific programs, and ignore the fact that if a non-profit can’t administer their programs, and keep the lights on while doing so, no one is going to benefit.
My granting took a big step forward after my mother’s death in 2017, when I inherited the bulk of her estate. I was eager to make larger grants, and was excited at the possibility that maybe now I could make a real difference.
Somehow, it didn’t work out that way. No matter how much I granted, it didn’t seem like it was accomplishing much. Staff changes and misunderstandings caused me to question what I was doing. I felt like I was missing something, and since the amounts I was granting were much larger than in the past, I began to think I wasn’t doing a good enough job managing the funds now at my disposal. Something was wrong –- something was missing.
I found that something in a book called “Uncharitable,“ by Dan Pallotta, who also featured his ideas in a Ted Talk. If you never saw his talk, or read his book, stop here and order it RIGHT NOW. Or at least listen to him. It explained so many things about working in the non-profit sector that had always puzzled me. The book won’t take you long to read, because about a third of it is footnotes, and you’ll get his message in the first 60 pages. Basically, it’s about how and why non-profits don’t run themselves like good businesses, and most of the reasons why they’re not allowed to. It also provides a historical perspective on how we all got into this mess.
(Hint: there’s religious thinking involved. Wealthy people were supposed to use philanthropy to atone for their sins. Do you need to atone for your sins? I don’t.)
I have spent years wondering why non-profits have so many different, and often misguided, ideas about fundraising. Is it just because no one wants to do it? I already covered that. Are they unable to afford good fundraisers on staff? Probably – but there are fundraising consultants out there, and I’ve met some very good ones. Or is it just misguided thinking, the kind Dan writes about in Uncharitable? That there’s something evil about money, and wealthy people just SHOULD be giving them money, since they probably don’t deserve to keep it anyway? And have you noticed non-profits never even use words like “fundraising” and “money?” It’s always development, advancement, stewardship, etc. Again, is there something wrong with telling people you can’t operate programs, and help anyone, unless you can afford to pay people?
These days, I concentrate on specific granting, aimed at initiatives that help non-profits grow and diversify their funding. Initiatives that focus on marketing, awareness building, and yes, fundraising. Most people I work with are very happy with this direction. Projects designed to help non-profits grow and build new revenue streams are not very popular with funders. Not the best way to atone for their sins, I guess.
As always, I’m different. I see both sides of the problem. Someday, I hope to be in the fortunate position of granting larger amounts than I do now. I’m building a legacy, although I hate that word too. Somebody has to. There aren’t very many survivors out there with the financial resources I’ve been fortunate enough to acquire. If I don’t work hard and do it right, who will?
