I had my fingers crossed that the Generosity Commission’s report last month would deliver some introspection, ask tough questions, and ruffle a few feathers. Unfortunately, that’s not what I found.
Instead, the commission’s take on declining donor participation was similar to Robert Putnam’s approach to civic decline a quarter of a century ago.
The commission dedicates considerable space to discussing macro-dynamics — broad societal and economic forces that affect giving patterns across the nonprofit sector. These factors are presented as external forces shaping the behavior of both donors and nonprofits, creating a landscape in which nonprofits must adapt to survive. In this sense, the commission’s analysis is distinctly Putnam-esque.
Putnam’s seminal work, Bowling Alone, argued that large-scale social changes, including the decline in social capital and community engagement, were driven by macro-level forces such as economic shifts, changes in work and family structures, and technological advancements. These trends, in his view, were largely external, affecting individuals and communities from the outside.
The commission, by emphasizing macro-dynamics, follows a similar trajectory. It portrays nonprofits as largely reactive — responding to societal trends over which they have little control. For example, the report suggests that increasing wealth inequality has made it necessary for nonprofits to focus their attention on major donors as fewer individuals hold the financial resources to sustain their operations.
However, this macro-dynamic focus leaves a significant blind spot: the role of nonprofits themselves in shaping donor behavior through their own organizational decisions and fundraising practices. This is where a critique in line with that of another Harvard academic — Theda Skocpol — is essential.
Looking Inward
Unlike Putnam, Skocpol’s analysis focuses on how internal, structural changes can explain shifts in donor participation as well as volunteer engagement since the civil rights movement. She argued that the decline in civic participation wasn’t just the result of broad societal trends but also of organizational design choices. National organizations shifted from grassroots, member-driven models to elite, professionalized, expert-driven structures, leaving ordinary citizens feeling sidelined and disengaged.
If the commission genuinely wants to explore why fewer people are giving, it must contend with Skocpol’s critique. Her work demonstrates how top-down, expert-driven nonprofit models have systematically sidelined everyday donors — the very people the commission hopes to re-engage. Skocpol’s analysis is a tough pill to swallow because it challenges the neoliberal, top-heavy structures that dominate both the nonprofit world and broader civic life. It doesn’t offer the fundraising industry the convenient cover that a Putnam-esque explanation does.
A largely Putnam-esque approach leaves nonprofits in the dark about why alternative ways of giving have become so alluring. By overlooking how their own internal choices — especially those related to organizational structure and donor engagement — have alienated everyday donors, nonprofits have created space for alternatives to thrive.
Without focusing on micro-dynamics, nonprofits fail to grasp why new models of giving have become so attractive. These alternatives offer donors more direct, relational engagement, where they feel greater ownership, transparency, and influence — qualities often lacking in the traditional nonprofit model. Skocpol’s critique demonstrates how nonprofits abandoned ways that kept the everyday donor actively involved, leaving donors searching for more participatory and democratic models that make room for the donor’s voice and influence.
It’s understandable that a commission of powerbrokers in the fundraising industry would prefer to deliver a Putnam-esque approach. To begin with, this framing demands little accountability from those at the table.
By attributing the decline in donor participation to external forces, commission members avoid scrutiny of their own practices and the fundraising strategies on which many of its members have built profitable enterprises and lucrative careers. This approach is all but guaranteed to preserve the status quo, maintain the credibility of fundraising experts, and allow them to dodge all possibility that their methods would be brought into question.
By focusing almost exclusively on macro-dynamics, the commission shifts the narrative away from the internal decisions nonprofits make that may have contributed to the problem. This allows nonprofits to frame the decline in giving as something beyond their control. Yet organizational-level choices — such as behaving like concierges to the rich and famous for 2 percent of donors while confining everyone else to a mailing list — are just as critical to understanding the real challenges.
A continued focus on external forces risks letting nonprofits off the hook for their own role in the donor decline. While addressing macro-dynamics such as economic inequality or restoring trust in institutions is important, much could also be done by reforming internal practices: developing genuine relationships, ensuring everyone has a voice, and rethinking top-heavy fundraising models that have dominated the sector for a half-century.
Ultimately, the Skocpol critique requires the nonprofit sector to take a closer look at how its own practices — particularly those that privilege the major donor over the everyday donor — have contributed to the very problems the commission identifies. Until nonprofits confront these internal issues, focusing only on external forces will offer an incomplete understanding of donor decline and limit the potential for positive change.
Editor’s Note: This piece originally appeared on the author’s Substack and was republished with permission.
