The growth of community foundations globally provides an interesting example for the increasingly multifaceted communications required of nonprofits. Community foundations raise money in their communities, support nonprofit organizations, and integrate local citizens on their boards. Strategic communication and engagement with all forms of media widen their networks of relationships, engage stakeholders, and increase public awareness of their multiple roles and activities (Esposito and Besana 2018). In 2014, there were an estimated 1,800 community foundations worldwide with over 1,000 in the United States and Canada, and 670 in Europe (Community Foundation Atlas 2014). Often connected to thematic or local community foundations are giving circles – groups of individuals who come together to support their community through funding, volunteering, and networking. Leveraging the power of the digital age, giving circles and related initiatives like Philanthropy Together (2020), are increasing not only donations but the numbers of individuals engaged in collective giving. The Philanthropy Together collective, which promotes the democratization and increase in diversity in giving circles across the United States and globally, is enhancing the ability of these groups to gather, discuss, decide, give, and engage. By the year 2020, the network had brought together 2,000 giving circles that donated $1.29 billion.
Media channels, both traditional (newspapers and radio) and digital (websites, social media platforms, podcasts, and digital downloads) are enmeshed in the daily practices and routines of nonprofit professionals, including fundraising and volunteer recruitment (Burger 2019). These practices, linked to the professionalization of the sector, require specific communication and digital literacy skill sets that are needed in all nonprofit organizations (see Chapters 16 and 24). The term digital literacy refers to “the ability to use information and communication technologies to find, evaluate, create, and communicate information, requiring both cognitive and technical skills” (American Library Association 2020). It is considered the next core function of any nonprofit organization alongside financial and program management (Bernholz 2017).
The size and scope of philanthropy education and research has grown significantly in the last two decades. The number of institutions offering programs has nearly doubled in just the past 15 years (Seton Hall University 2020). In 2020, there were 342 colleges and universities offering nonprofit management courses, which included 86 programs with noncredit courses, 78 continuing education programs, 252 graduate degree programs, and 82 programs with online courses. Scholarly activity about the nonprofit field has existed for nearly a century and has accelerated since 1990. Top research themes include theories of volunteering, social capital, and civic engagement. The frequent disconnect between academic research and practice calls for more collaboration between academics and practitioners and a search for new explanations of the functioning of the sector (Ma and Konrath 2018). Fundraising theory is one method to bridge this gap (see Chapter 4).
The COVID‐19 pandemic accelerated the widespread use of digital platforms across the nonprofit sector for fundraising purposes. Fundraisers need to understand the difference between commercial and nonprofit entities that provide these digital platforms (Bernholz 2020b). The abrupt change to a virtual format highlighted issues of data privacy for donors and beneficiaries as well as the importance of digital access. Fundraisers increasingly must have essential – if not advanced – skills in digital fundraising perhaps acquired through academic programs in the field.
Fundraising and the Economic, Social, and Political Climate
Charitable giving is affected by economic growth and recession, social well‐being and unrest, and the overall dynamic of political processes and institutions. Nonprofit organizations experience these changes daily and may be challenged due to their particular context.
Economic Climate
Analysis shows changes in giving are closely tied to economic changes, especially in household wealth, household income, and for foundations, stock market performance. When adjusting for inflation, giving usually increases in nonrecessionary years and slightly contracts in recession years (Rooney and Bergdoll 2020).
The COVID‐19 pandemic unevenly impacted business, employment, health, and the nonprofit sector. People of color suffered disproportionately in the United States revealing numerous systemic barriers to economic opportunities and the precariousness of entire communities.
The coming transfer of wealth and new wealth will render Gen X and Millennial generations the most significant philanthropists who will contribute to reshaping norms in giving and engagement (see Chapter 31) (Johnson Center 2017).
Social venture philanthropy and social enterprises have grown considerably and often serve as alternative revenue streams to traditional fundraising for nonprofits. Social enterprise, LLCs, BCorps, and social cooperatives can be attractive opportunities to operate in the marketplace as businesses using revenues to advance social goals. These hybrid organizational forms are developing across the globe and present a new way to mobilize innovative ideas and resources to contribute to long‐term societal challenges. However, to enter this “Frontier of Philanthropy” – described by Salamon (2014) – requires significant knowledge and recognition that traditional philanthropy and government support are needed for success. Further, “market‐based” solutions need to be viewed as appropriate for the social purpose mission of the organization. Fundraisers continually need to be aware of the potential pitfalls associated with these vehicles.
Social Climate
The recent social climate has been characterized by widespread dissatisfaction. The persistent and unresolved issues of healthcare, education, poverty, greater inequalities, and racism have refocused the attention of American society. Philanthropy has been both challenged by and responsive to these issues.
Philanthropy has historically been associated with wealth of key individuals like Carnegie and Rockefeller from the Industrial Revolution or Gates and Bezos of the tech revolution. However, philanthropic action has been carried out in a multitude of ways by diverse members of society from the earliest days. Individuals crossing color or ethnic lines to save others from drowning or fire. Women raising funds for mining families, for illnesses such as tuberculosis, or for basic school supplies for classrooms. Minority veterans, doctors, and community members raising money for basic healthcare for their communities. These examples demonstrate that philanthropy has engaged individuals at all levels of society who have given “time, money and moral concern to benefit others” (Moniz 2020, para 5).
Individuals across the country and around the world are envisioning new ways of expressing generosity and care for others. Fundraisers can look at this as an opportunity to include these diverse communities and philanthropic practices in their own approaches for support.
Political Climate
Democracy is being scrutinized through questions about institutions, processes, and division among people. Philanthropy's unique role in prompting and developing civic engagement, advocating for change, and amplifying unheard voices is part of this discussion. Philanthropy and nonprofits increasingly are being asked to provide basic services in healthcare, education, environmental action, and more (Bernholz 2020c). What is the role of philanthropy and where are the limits? Bernholz asks whether it is time to “re‐imagine philanthropy.”
There are changing demographics of who is giving with more reliance on the super wealthy. Recent examples such as Purdue Pharma and Jeffery Epstein point to a continuing concern with tainted money and tainted donors within the practices of philanthropy (Johnson Center 2020). Critiques of “big philanthropy” from mega donors and the ultra‐rich have raised concerns of decreased participation by donors with less wealth. Yet, research shows that even in the unique environment of both a global pandemic and an economic downturn, most households initially maintained both direct and indirect giving (Mesch et al. 2020). Regular people gave in various ways, including