A trendy argument circulating in the philanthropic world goes like this: The field pays too much attention to measures of nonprofit giving, such as those tracked by Giving USA. Generosity, these folks assert, is about much more than data on giving to nonprofits, so it’s crucial to open the aperture and look closely at all the ways Americans help each other and their communities.
In a recent Chronicle of Philanthropy op-ed, author Jeff Cain argues that Giving USA discounts “crowdfunding, mutual aid networks, and other private acts of kindness” when it reports data on charitable giving. His views on generosity echo those of Stanford University researcher Lucy Bernholz and others. But Cain, a former corporate and foundation executive and philanthropic consultant, is especially caustic, contending that the “philanthropic professional class is adrift” in a “self-serving sea” because of its focus on giving to nonprofits.
Certainly, generosity takes many forms, and all are worth celebrating. Elevating this fact as Bernholz does is important. But that doesn’t mean we should take our eyes off charitable giving levels and rates of participation. If anything, the field isn’t paying enough attention to these numbers. By conflating all forms of generosity, we risk losing sight of the real challenges facing nonprofits.
Cain, however, insists that the field is neglecting crucial manifestations of generosity. “If a person’s charitable contributions decline because they’ve taken in their adult children or aging parents, are they now less generous?” he asks. “Are they giving less or more? Are they making a positive or negative contribution to civil society?”
Cain’s argument implies that we should just accept a lesser role for nonprofits — even as the nation emerges from a period when these organizations stepped up to meet critical needs and unprecedented challenges.
Surprisingly, even those connected to Giving USA seem to have fallen prey to the confusing conflation between measuring charitable giving levels and gauging something more nebulous. On its website, the Giving USA Foundation’s Generosity Commission — formed in response to declining charitable giving — says research it commissioned from Bernholz shows “generosity behaviors reach far beyond the kinds of activities that are officially counted or incentivized in the U.S., like tax exempt donations to charitable organizations, and revealed that the way we count and perceive generosity needs to change.”
That people exhibit “generosity behaviors” other than charitable giving is hardly a revelation, however. And it doesn’t mean we should be less concerned about charitable giving.
It might be that other forms of generosity could or should be quantified in ways that are not currently happening. That’s fine, even good. But it’s also the case that measuring generosity in all its forms is like measuring love. It’s impossible and absurd to even try. As the variously attributed quote goes: “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.”
Some things, however, can be counted and actually count a great deal. Giving to nonprofits is one of them. Continuing to closely track such giving as its own distinct activity will help ensure that these vital organizations, which do so much good under so much pressure, remain strong and vibrant.
Look, it’s lovely that my neighbor brought over a dinner after I had surgery, but it’s also an entirely different act than donating to a nonprofit. It certainly isn’t philanthropy as it’s generally defined in contemporary society, even if it is an expression of its literal etymological roots —love of humanity. The same goes for supporting your niece’s GoFundMe to raise money for her community service project; or offering a gift of money to help a family in your community who lost a parent to cancer; or pulling over to help a stranded motorist.
All these activities are wonderful and laudable. But they’re different from donating to a nonprofit.
The significant decline in recent decades in the percentage of households making charitable contributions or the steep drop off in total giving in 2022 should not be minimized — even if unintentionally. Yet the reaction to this troubling data seems to be a collective shrug, if not downright dismissal. Cain, for example, notes that most nonprofit revenue is from government grants and contracts and fees for service. Given this, he argues, the more than 10 percent decline in total giving is not so concerning.
But, as any nonprofit leader will attest, it’s philanthropic contributions, not these other forms of revenue, that provide the flexibility that fuels innovation and organizational capacity. My colleague at the Center for Effective Philanthropy Elisha Smith Arrillaga and I recently made that point in Newsweek, arguing that “the drop in support for nonprofits should be seen as nothing less than a national crisis.”
Small Groups Pay the Price
Some of those calling for a reduced focus on nonprofit giving data speak derisively of what they call the “nonprofit industrial complex.” Yet the overwhelming majority of nonprofits are small and local, with budgets under $1 million. These are the organizations that pay the price when donations drop.
My organization’s recent report, State of Nonprofits 2023, found the biggest challenges facing nonprofit leaders relate to staff — burnout, filling positions, and retaining employees, including “pay and benefits that keep them competitive with the private and public sectors.” The median staff size of the organizations we surveyed was 14, which is far larger than the typical nonprofit because we include only those that receive at least some foundation funding.
But even these are hardly behemoth organizations, and most depend to varying degrees on individual donors to sustain themselves. Charitable giving levels have a direct bearing on the services these nonprofits provide and the quality of life of those doing the work. That’s who this is all about, not Cain’s imagined bogeyman — the so-called “philanthropic professional class.”
I can’t help but wonder whether the lack of attention to the most recent Giving USA data is related to the cloud of confusion that has been created about generosity in all its forms. Some of the very folks that could be sounding the alarm and plotting strategies to alter the trajectory of charitable giving are instead essentially saying, “but look, there are other good things happening.” This may well be true but it’s beside the point.
I also wonder if the lack of concern about charitable giving numbers is connected to a phenomenon I have lamented for more than two decades now: A widespread under-appreciation of nonprofits and the role they play.
It’s well past time to elevate the voices and stories of the nonprofits doing crucial work in every community — often with and for the most vulnerable among us. They need support and they need it in the form of monetary contributions from as many people as possible.
A version of this piece originally appeared on the Center for Effective Philanthropy website.
