By Paul Taylor, Co-founder of Evenings & Weekends Consulting, and teacher at Simon Fraser University.
I've spent enough time leading nonprofit organizations to know that fundraising is hard work. There's always another grant deadline, a revenue target to meet or a funding gap to close. And when you're worried about payroll, conversations about systems change can feel pretty far removed from the pressures of running an organization. I get it. I've been there. But I think we need to have a bigger conversation about fundraising. Not just how we raise money, but what we're actually trying to accomplish.
We celebrate successful campaigns, growing budgets and major gifts. We track donor retention, build pipelines and spend a lot of time trying to diversify revenue, which is all really important. But an organization can double its budget, expand its programs and serve more people without doing much to change the conditions that created the need for those services.
I’ve often had to ask myself, are we fundraising to grow our organization, or to help build a more just society? And when I sit with that thought, I remember that those two goals don't always lead us in the same direction.
Let's talk about power
One thing that's always bothered me about traditional fundraising is how much influence people with money can have over what gets funded. It's often easier to raise money for a food bank than for a campaign to increase social assistance rates. Donors can often see or envision the food being distributed, and they can usually understand the immediate need.
Organizing people to challenge poverty is a harder sell. It takes time, doesn't always produce neat outcomes and might involve challenging the interests of people who fund the work.
People need to eat today, and many who struggle with access rely on food based charities. But we also need to ask why so many people can't afford groceries in the first place. And we need to fund the people working to change that.
This is part of what draws me to community-centric fundraising. It asks us to think about who holds power, whose priorities shape our work and whether our fundraising practices actually support equity and justice.
So, what could we do differently? Funding movement, not just organizations.
We talk about collaboration constantly in the nonprofit sector. Then we go back to competing for the same grants, donors and funding opportunities. It's a strange way to work when so many of us share similar goals.
Housing justice, racial justice and economic justice don't belong to any one organization. They require community groups, advocates, organizers and service providers working together. We could do more joint fundraising, create shared funds and direct resources toward grassroots organizations that are doing important work but don't have dedicated fundraising staff. Sometimes another organization might be better positioned to use the money. That's not always an easy conversation to have. But we should be having it.
Give communities control over more of the money.
I've facilitated enough listening sessions and community engagement processes to know that asking people what they think doesn't necessarily mean they'll have any say in what happens next. We need to change that. Why not give communities real decision-making authority over some fundraising priorities and spending decisions? Participatory budgeting, community-led funds and shared governance are all options. None is perfect, but they move us beyond simply asking people for input.
There's a catch, of course. Organizational leaders have to be willing to give up some control. And that's often where our commitment to equity gets tested.
Rethink the stories we tell.
We know the standard fundraising appeal. Someone is struggling. The organization steps in. The donor gets to make a difference. It works. But I think we should be asking what those stories do to the people we're talking about. Communities are more than their struggles. People organize, resist, care for one another and come up with solutions every day. Why aren't we telling more of those stories? We can talk about poverty without presenting people as helpless. We can show donors how to support collective action instead of inviting them to rescue someone.
Make fundraising part of organizing.
We tend to think of donors as people who give money. But they could also become advocates, organizers and active participants in social change.
A monthly giving program could connect supporters to advocacy campaigns. A fundraising event could bring people together to learn about the policies behind an issue. Peer-to-peer fundraising could help build community networks.
Someone giving $20 a month and organizing their neighbours might contribute more to lasting change than someone writing a large cheque once a year.
We need both. But we should recognize that money isn't the only thing that builds a movement.
Have different conversations with major donors.
I'm not against major gifts. Organizations need them. But we should be able to talk with wealthy donors about more than their giving priorities and recognition opportunities. We can encourage them to support unrestricted funding, community organizing and policy advocacy. We can ask them to fund grassroots groups directly and trust communities to make decisions about their own needs. And we can be clear that making a large donation doesn't automatically give someone the right to shape community priorities. Some donors will welcome that conversation. Others won't. That's okay too.
Are we measuring the right things?
Most fundraising dashboards tell us how much money came in, how many donors we retained and whether we're on track to meet our targets. I wouldn't want to run an organization without that information. But I'd also like to know how much funding we're directing toward community-led work. Are we supporting organizing and advocacy? Are communities gaining more control over resources? Are we building stronger relationships with other organizations? And are we actually contributing to change? These questions are harder to answer than whether we met our annual campaign target, but that doesn't make them any less important.
Maybe bigger isn't always better
We've created a sector that often treats organizational growth (bigger budgets, more staff and expanded programs) as a sign of success. Sometimes growth is exactly what's needed, but not always.
I've seen how easily organizations can become focused on protecting their funding, their donor relationships and their place in the sector. It's understandable, particularly when people depend on the services we provide. Still, we need to be willing to ask whether the best use of our resources is always to grow our own organizations. I’ve tried to have this conversation with leaders in coaching sessions – some get it, and spend time working that through with me, and others ask to work with another coach.
We need to think about what our fundraising makes possible beyond our own walls. Because if our organizations keep getting bigger while the communities we're working with aren't gaining more power, we need to ask ourselves a difficult question.
