After many years of marketing public instituions such as libraries and parks, I shifted sideways into nonprofit marketing. As is often the case in the nonprofit world, my shift’s boundaries expanded to include fundraising. I never thought I would ask people for money, but it turns out it is not that much different than asking people to come to the library. But that’s a topic for another time.
I entered the philanthropic space at a very interesting time, and one that is a good fit for me personally. Since the pandemic, and the racial reckoning that Americans experienced during That Time, more nonprofits are asking basic questions about how they fund causes and projects. Questions like: who does philanthropy in America really benefit? Are we actually asking the clients what they need or are we writing checks as a way to promote a funder’s philosophy? Why is applying for funding like applying for a job, with the endless and repetitive applications and the expectation of eternal gratitude to the funder? (link to thoughts from the frank and fearless Vu Le.)
Yes, money comes with strings. Yes, people who write checks have an expectation about how their money is used. But it turns out that both of these nuggets of hard wisdom may not just be wrong but extremely harmful, and often awfully racist.
The fact is that American Philanthropy is a feint, a stage set to distract you from the fact that Americans, especially those who regularly have disposable income, do not want to pay taxes to help their fellow citizens. Or they do, but they want to help the right citizens — the deserving, the innocent, the down-on-their-luck. Between decades of deinvestment in social services and the algae bloom of private nonprofits, one can now use the money that would have gone into a general pool to be distributed by the state to help all Americans (that is to say, to taxes) to make personal donations to causes that dovetail with one’s beliefs. We feel good about “helping,” we are thanked profusely, and we can personally track the work of the local charities to which we donate to make sure they are using our money “wisely.” If we paid anywhere near the amount of taxes we should (“we” mostly meaning high middle to high-income earners), commonly operated government offices devoted to food security, housing, health, childcare, etc. would work on a daily, consistent basis to take care of our neighbors who need help.
But, in my lifetime, I have seen the de-evolution of the social state. We can start the clock at various points, but I locate the change a bit before I was born. In the 1960s and 1970s, under both Democratic and Republican presidents, we implemented a more comprehensive welfare system, created federal programs to combat racism and sexism, funded early-childhood health and education programs, and got tough on polluters. But change did not happen fast enough, for various reasons. And there was a war that many of the recipients of social programs protested vehemently, and sometimes violently. On the nightly news, those protesters were younger, poorer, and darker than the white Americans who were in the majority at the time. And so, those we had just spent a hopeful decade trying to uplift were painted as “undeserving” because one or two or five of them resorted to violence.
This sounds like I am simplifying, and I am, but not much. It did not take a lot of work on the part of conservative politicians in the 1980s to convince white America to rescind our generous offers of assistance to people and families who needed it. And, as in the case of its creation, the destruction of the social safety net, common in the Europe we had just help rebuild after World War II, was accomplished by both major political parties. We are now left with shreds that nonprofits try to weave together to help as many as they can. But socially conscious aid needs to be reliably funded and distributed in order to make any positive changes.This America is no longer willing to do. We do not trust the recipients, and we only trust the nonprofits who are left with the thankless task because we can pester them for impact reports and thank-you notes.
The marketing person in me is always looking for the story that will convey the message. I am also always looking for efficiencies and opportunities to reach multiple audiences with the miniscule resources available, since there is a general belief that marketing is done by benevolent fairies who work for free and need no supplies. I think this is why, as a marketer turned fundraiser, I am so frustrated by the inefficiencies of the philanthropic realm. Rather than federal, state, and/or local offices managing both the intake and outflow of funds with systems and personnel who are accountable to elected officials, we are leaving the feeding of hungry children and the finding of roofs over homeless heads to charites that are blessedly full of good intentions but run by people who are taking time during their corporate lunch hour to sit on a nonprofit board, and the underpaid saints who they employ.
“Do you want the government to run everything?” I have been asked this question all of my life, and my answer is still yes. Yes, I want a system in place that consistently takes a common tax from all citizens and pools the money to distribute it to those who need it. But I no longer believe this can happen in the United States as our governments are currently configured and, most importantly, funded.
Others are asking the same questions I am, although admittedly from a justice perspective, not from a systems one, as I tend to do. But I welcome the chance to ask the same questions, as we are all getting at the same thing: why don’t we just give the money to people who need it? Why not trust that if someone is asking for help, they probably really need that help, rather than making them prove their kids are starving? This is America, so there are big race issues in these questions. It’s why we are here now, making charities beg for money that may not be available anyway, or may be taken away next year if new people get elected to the board, the council, the state house, the Congress.
There is some hope. Fresh eyes are good, and the demographic group we call Gen Z has shown that they think our systems are bullshit, racist, and backwards. And they do not have arguments from decades of backing away from social care weighing them down. I look forward to the changes they will make, or the systems they will blow up, if need be. This marketer turned fundraiser is here to help.
Carol Morency 