“We must raise the money!” Joseph Pulitzer wrote in his newspaper, the New York World, on March 16, 1885. The Statue of Liberty “is not a gift from the millionaires of France to the millionaires of America but a gift of the whole people of France to the whole people of America!”
Pulitzer’s long-ago plea could be a rallying cry for nonprofits today vexed by the decline of small-dollar donors.
In Pulitzer’s case, his call to action was part of a fundraising campaign for the pedestal and installation of the Statue of Liberty, which had languished in a warehouse for nearly nine years. Funds from Congress and New York City weren’t enough, and the 19th-century robber barons-turned-philanthropists didn’t want to help. So Pulitzer turned to the largely poor and working-class readership of the New York World.
In just five months, those readers donated more than $100,000 in increments as small as 10 cents. The newspaper listed every gift along with the donors’ names. One family itemized each child’s contribution: “Frannie, 25 cents; Leonard, 10 cents; Frank, 15 cents; Carri, 10 cents …”
Pulitzer’s campaign affirmed giving as a democratic act. Through his passionate appeal, the grand statue became an enduring reflection of his working-class readers’ generosity and agency. This egalitarian spirit is as crucial to philanthropy today as it was back then. Small-dollar gifts show community buy-in and counteract the idea that philanthropy is just for the wealthy and only benefits elite institutions.
All the more reason why the decline in individual donations should concern everyone in the nonprofit world. Sure, philanthropy has had plenty of triumphs recently, including record-setting gifts as well as a new philanthropic force in MacKenzie Scott. But fewer than half of U.S. households now make charitable contributions, a nearly 20 percentage point decrease since 2000. While mega-gifts turn heads and make headlines, they also reflect the concentration of wealth and overall inequality in America.
No Cash to Spare
The withdrawal of small-dollar donors from the giving rolls is just one symptom of the increased financial pressure on many households. When a family is struggling to pay for milk or child care, it’s hard to imagine sparing $50 for your local nonprofit.
The increase in the standard tax deduction, first in 2017 and then again in 2023, to $13,850 for single filers and $27,700 for joint filers has also likely precipitated the decline in individual giving. Only households whose charitable donations and other itemizations top that amount see any tax benefit, underscoring the message that charitable giving is for the wealthy.
Fewer people giving means many worthy charities are left out. Consider that while overall charitable giving dropped 3 percentage points, the Forbes top 100 charities saw a 4 percentage points increase in their donations in 2023. Smaller, local nonprofits now struggle to raise money from a fatigued, overstretched base of support.
If community institutions — such as local arts programming, social services, or nonprofit media — can’t sustain themselves, philanthropy loses its broader relevance. A sense of shared purpose comes from helping to create accessible landmarks such as the Statue of Liberty or even a new baseball diamond or children’s library. Without these concrete reminders that anyone can build and maintain establishments that improve communities, the social fabric frays. In place of attachment and connection, people feel increased alienation, futility, and exclusion.
What to Do?
Addressing the economic forces causing this decline in philanthropic participation is a huge task. However, fundraisers, nonprofits, and philanthropists can start by encouraging and celebrating participation and donations of any size. Some solutions are tactical while others focus on adopting new approaches to how the field defines success.
Nonprofits should advocate for a “giving wage.” Campaigns such as Fight for $15 successfully introduced the idea of a “living wage,” and with it the expectation that all workers should earn enough to cover basic costs. The nonprofit world should embrace and advocate for a “giving wage,” or a level of compensation that pays people enough not just to live but to feel financially secure enough to give back, even in small amounts.
I propose a giving wage of about $30 an hour, adjusted for inflation. That includes a $25 an hour living wage, which many economists now recommend, and another $5 for people to donate.
Pushing for and paying their own employees a “giving wage” would allow nonprofits to affirm principles of economic justice by incorporating them into their internal operations — in other words, putting their money where their mouth is. Committing to economic justice as employers and supporting a policy that enables greater philanthropic participation would enhance the legitimacy and sustainability of the field.
The benefits are both practical and ideological. A broader base of donors can give to causes they care about. In turn, generosity becomes a democratic ideal, not something that validates inequality and wealth concentration but instead allows everyone to have a hand in bettering their communities.
Major donors should focus on smaller organizations and increasing participation. One approach could be a campaign modeled after the Giving Pledge that requires ultra-high net worth donors to allocate at least half of their annual giving to organizations with budgets under $1 million. This could turn much-needed philanthropic attention to the small, local institutions that improve people’s day-to-day lives. MacKenzie Scott, for example, could show yet another form of leadership by underwriting consulting services to help philanthropists identify suitable organizations.
Major donors could also combine their large donations with fundraising efforts that motivate more people to participate. Challenge gifts are familiar to anyone who has listened to a public radio fundraising drive, but this approach would encourage small gifts or high participation rather than a total amount raised. Fundraisers could propose adding a top-off challenge grant to all major gifts — for example, an additional $20,000 if the organization gets a certain number of gifts under $1,000.
Celebrating the number of donors rather than the size of gifts would not only increase donor awareness and participation but also highlight the value of inclusion. Funding participatory grant-making efforts that cede funding decisions to those closest to the issues being addressed also helps engage more people in the philanthropic process and results in more resources distributed to smaller nonprofits.
Philanthropy media should cover small gifts. Publications such as the Chronicle of Philanthropy should celebrate fundraising campaigns with extraordinary rates of participation. They could also spotlight people who donate a large portion of their income, even when the total amount is modest. Big gift announcements might mention an organization’s total donor pool or the number of gifts under $5,000.
I know from my experience managing major gift campaigns that fundraising brings tremendous pressure, which can lead to a certain ruthless pragmatism. I’ve hustled to close gifts that came with massive constraints, all for the sake of announcing a big win and generating momentum. This focus on reaching a big target can detract from the slower, less glamorous work of building a small-dollar giving base.
At the same time, I’ve also seen how mass participation provides moments of inspiration. Take the influx of donations after the 2019 fire at Notre Dame cathedral in Paris. Alongside the nine-figure pledges from billionaires that received most of the attention, nearly $40 million came from tens of thousands of donors around the world, with some gifts as small as a single dollar. Those gifts started coming in well before the billionaires announced their pledges. Fundraisers at the four nonprofits designated by the French government to collect contributions for the cathedral told me they found those donations the most meaningful.
Of the many reasons small gifts matter, perhaps the most important is that they allow everyone to shape the world we share — whether that’s helping Notre Dame or a local nonprofit theater or contributing to an enduring symbol of democracy such as the Statue of Liberty. The devotion and financial sacrifices of average people send a powerful message: Our world isn’t just for millionaires. It’s for all of us.
