Blog / Community Philanthropy

Q&A with the Authors of the New Report, “Adopting Community-Centric Fundraising”

A Q&A with Tory Martin
Q&A with the Authors of the New Report, “Adopting Community-Centric Fundraising”

Cover of the report "Adopting Community-Centric Fundraising: Findings from a National Study"Over the past year, Elizabeth Dale, Ph.D., Frey Foundation Chair for Family Philanthropy at the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and Maya Hemachandra, M.P.A., owner of Sambar Nonprofit Solutions, conducted the first-of-its-kind, national study to understand nonprofits’ adoption and use of Community-Centric Fundraising. 

In advance of the report’s publication, they had a conversation with Tory Martin, director of communications and strategic partnerships, to share more about why they took on this research, what they learned, and the insights they gained along the way.

Tory: Let’s start with what is Community-Centric Fundraising? Where did it come from, and how does it differ from the fundraising practices we’re all likely familiar with?

Maya: In 2018, Vu Le of the blog Nonprofit AF called together a gathering of Seattle-area fundraisers of color. That group went on to establish the Community-Centric Fundraising (CCF) movement, which officially launched in 2019. CCF grew out of frustrations that those fundraisers identified with standard philanthropic practices. Over the last decade and more we’ve been focusing on one side of the equation – donors and funders – and CCF uplifts the need to balance donor input and desires with what the community we serve wants and needs. We can’t make a meaningful difference on social ills like hunger, poverty, and educational disparities without engaging the people who are most affected. 

Elizabeth: When I started as a fundraiser in 2006, the concept of donor-centered fundraising had recently gained prominence and was the guidepost for many fundraising operations. A lot of my “on-the-ground” education was focused on creating deeper relationships with donors and personalizing donors’ experiences. While I value the relationship-building tenets of the donor-centered approach and the desire to have long-term relationships with donors, over time, the focus on donors meant they were often elevated, which could come at the expense of the well-being of the community and the organization as a whole. A great example is holding an expensive gala-type event for donors that has significant costs for the organization and where clients and even staff may not be comfortable attending. A CCF practice might be holding a low- or no-cost community event that invites families to make a meaningful gift of any amount. I see CCF as a response to the prioritization of donors and a recognition that donors, and wealthy donors in particular, often hold outsized power and influence in an organization, either as donors or sometimes as board members making decisions for the organization. 

Tory: What inspired you all to collaborate in pursuit of this research?

Maya: I was lucky enough to be introduced to community-centric practices before the CCF movement officially launched, and I have seen the impact that the approach can have to build trust and understanding across stakeholder identities. But as a consultant, when I went into new organizations to help them implement some of these practices, I was often met with concern from volunteer or staff leadership. We have lots of data that shows donor-centric practices work to raise money. I was consistently asked for evidence that engaging in equitable fundraising practices wouldn’t harm revenue projections, but at the time the data didn’t exist. 

Elizabeth: As a nonprofit leadership faculty member in Seattle, I also had first-hand knowledge of the CCF movement. Many of my graduate students were questioning “traditional” fundraising approaches in my classes and wanted to experiment with practices that felt more centered in movements for equity and respectful of beneficiaries and the communities impacted. I supervised two students’ capstone projects that included interviews with Seattle-area fundraisers about the CCF principles, and we knew we needed data that extended beyond the Pacific Northwest. When Maya and I were introduced by a mutual colleague at the local Association of Fundraising Professionals Advancement Northwest conference, we immediately clicked, and I was enthusiastic to involve a practitioner and woman of color in the research. We also received a research grant from the AFP Foundations for Philanthropy, which provided some needed support.

Tory: How are you anticipating this research will be used? Were there a few data points that stood out as particularly actionable? If you were a fundraiser reading this report, how would you change your practice?

Elizabeth: We were excited to see that CCF is being adopted across the country and in a wide range of organizations, and most importantly, that organizations using these practices have often maintained or even increased their fundraising revenue, number of donors, and volunteers. We heard from some participants that they were using the survey as a way to audit their own fundraising practices, which was unexpected. We also hope this report serves as a benchmark and that we can revisit the survey in a few years to see whether and how fundraising practices continue to change.

Maya: As a fundraiser, this report is something I can take to a leadership team to help make the case when proposing changes to the organization’s fundraising approach, such as removing tiered giving levels for donors from an annual report or not applying for grants better suited for another organization. A great resource that we modeled the survey on is the CCF Aligned Actions List. 

Tory: While the report is full of rich findings, did anything in particular surprise you?

Elizabeth: While we weren’t surprised that the respondents were a CCF-friendly group, the steady pace of adoption was somewhat surprising. That told us that in the past five years the movement has stayed relevant and that organizations continue to implement changes that reflect the CCF principles. I was also surprised that the organizations adopting CCF fundraising practices were engaging in so many different types of activities, which means that the practices are being infused throughout many different fundraising activities and to some extent, even throughout the organization.

Maya: In some ways the lack of giant shifts in itself is a finding. Nonprofits that made these changes increased morale and engagement, especially for fundraisers of color, without big swings in philanthropic support.

Elizabeth: I will point out a concerning figure. While many organizations were making internal changes to fundraising operations, just under 18% said they adopted anti-harassment protections/policies for fundraising staff. It could be that these organizations already had those policies codified, but I was concerned given past reporting on the incidence of harassment experienced in the profession. One recommendation we have coming out of this research is for organizations to review their anti-harassment policy and ensure there is clear language to support staff who work with donors and volunteers.

Tory: You also interviewed 14 fundraisers as part of this work. Why was that important?

Maya: The data can tell you the trends, but it can’t tell you what those changes mean to the individuals behind the numbers. One of the shifts we are seeing with CCF is how it resolves fundamental frustrations that some fundraisers and nonprofit staff have with the charity-donor dynamic. It reframes the role of nonprofit staff and the people that we serve from being supplicants to being equal partners in our shared goal of a better community. The interviews allowed us to hear what that looks like for people who live this reality every day. 

Elizabeth: The interviews also gave us some terrific insight into changes happening in individual organizations, including in areas like fundraising events, sponsorships, board recruitment, and communications. While we couldn’t share all the detailed examples in this report, we are working on a practice guide for fundraisers which the interviews really helped shape. We also heard from the interviews that fundraising education needs to address both donor-centered and community-centered approaches rather than being so polarized. 

Tory: What’s next for your work and what do you hope will happen as a result of this work?

Maya: The current political climate is a difficult one for many nonprofit organizations, especially those that have historically relied on federal funding. This is a time when organizations need to gather their community around them and find new ways to resource their work. I’m hoping that some of those organizations will look at our findings and use the practice guide, which will be published in April, as a support for turning towards the abundance of community rather than relying on a few large donors to help them thrive. 

Elizabeth: I hope that this research demonstrates that fundraising can be a “both/and” approach that recognizes the important contributions of donors of all types and sizes, works together with the community to identify solutions, and prioritizes authentic relationships. I also hope it encourages more nonprofits to share resources and support one another’s work as we need a multitude of people, organizations, and approaches to solve our long-standing social problems. Finally, I would love to take this research to donors to understand their views on working with fundraisers and their openness to changing fundraising norms.