Philanthropy Down and Out—Or Just Miscalculated
The conversation about philanthropy often starts with a troubling statistic. Fewer households are making charitable gifts than they did a generation ago. The number of donors continues to decline even while total dollars given reach new highs, driven by larger gifts from fewer people. That reality deserves our attention, but it may also be causing us to ask the wrong question.
If we measure generosity only by gifts made to registered nonprofit organizations, we are looking through a narrower lens than society actually lives.
A recent Chronicle of Philanthropy opinion argued that philanthropy is not broken, but that our funding models may be. The author challenged foundations to focus less on rigid grant structures and more on outcomes, giving organizations greater freedom to solve problems in the ways that work best. It is a compelling reminder that how we support good work matters as much as how much we give.
I would take the idea one step further.
The question is not simply whether we need new funding models. The question is whether we need a broader definition of philanthropy itself.
Crowdfunding offers an interesting example. Many in our profession dismiss it because it often bypasses nonprofits, lacks tax deductibility, or responds to individuals instead of institutions. Those concerns are legitimate. Transparency matters. Accountability matters. Sustainable solutions matter.
Yet it is difficult to argue that someone contributing to a family's medical expenses through GoFundMe is somehow less generous than someone writing a check to a traditional charity. The impulse is the same. The compassion is real. The desire to help is authentic. Surveys show millions of Americans are making these kinds of gifts even while expressing understandable concerns about oversight.
The same could be said for mutual aid groups, neighborhood giving circles, online communities that rally around a crisis, or people quietly paying a stranger's utility bill.
These acts often disappear from our data because they fall outside the categories we have created. That does not make them any less philanthropic.
As fundraising professionals, we should be careful about confusing the health of our institutions with the health of generosity itself. Our organizations need support, and declining participation in traditional charitable giving presents real challenges. We should work hard to reverse that trend.
At the same time, we should recognize that generosity has always adapted to the culture around it. Technology changes. Communities change. Trust shifts. People find new pathways to express the same enduring desire to improve someone else's life.
When we expand our definition of philanthropy, we gain a clearer picture of the society we serve. The challenge before us may not be convincing people to care. It may be learning to recognize all the ways they already do.
If we can see generosity more broadly, we may also discover new opportunities to invite people into deeper and more lasting forms of giving, rather than insisting there is only one acceptable way to make a difference.
