By now, you have probably read about The Center for Effective Philanthropy’s research study focused on the impacts of MacKenzie Scott’s $19 billion dollars worth of unrestricted giving to nonprofits. In short, the study found that Scott’s unrestricted generosity was “transformational” for the nonprofits she supported.
Turns out, nonprofit leaders won’t be “overwhelmed” by large unrestricted gifts, and other funders won’t stop giving because a nonprofit is becoming more effective in fulfilling its mission. In fact, the outcomes were the opposite of these and other apparent concerns “experts” had warned us about when Scott started making her gifts.
But, the fact that so many were mistakenly concerned about the impacts of Scott’s large and unrestricted outpouring of support is not what is most surprising to me. It’s actually quite common for those who make and report on U.S. philanthropy news to offer overly-pessimistic (and wrong) forecasts and takes during the most important moments and developments.
Instead, what is most stunning is the way Scott’s major unrestricted gifts are being reported as some type of novel concept for philanthropy.
Her unrestricted gift-giving is being called, “an important development,” a tremendous start for “trust-based philanthropy,” and even, “a new kind of giving.”
So, unrestricted giving is now being termed as, “a new kind of giving,” when it is actually the oldest, most foundational, most pure type of giving humans provide.
Gift officers will often blame donors for being willing to only make restricted major gifts. “We have to provide major gifts donors with restricted giving proposals because that’s what they care about,” has been the gift officer mantra for decades.
But, I’ve never seen the universal evidence for that.
In fact, studies have shown us that many high net worth donors make their largest charitable gifts each year unrestricted. And, I have conducted research for clients in which 60-70% of their major donors – when asked – will make their gifts unrestricted.
In my experience, this myth that major gifts donors won’t give unrestricted is perpetuated, at least in large measure, by development folk themselves.
We don’t invite major gifts donors to give unrestricted. We don’t work to build trust between major gifts donors and our institutional leaders. We don’t ask major gifts donors to become partners in our mission. And we don’t invite major gifts donors to join our cause.
Instead, we do the easier work of crafting proposals that align with their narrow, sometimes uninformed beliefs about students, young people, poor people, patients, communities, and the best solutions to their needs.
When advancement leaders decide to believe in and become champions and promoters and activists for fundamentally authentic philanthropy, we might make the unrestricted giving case with more consistency, enthusiasm and zeal. And, more and more major gifts donors will follow our lead.
Perhaps then unrestricted major gifts will no longer be seen as “a new kind of giving.”
