Read more

Read more

We’ve got a couple nuggets of wisdom on thi…

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

With Love,

Cecelia 💗

PS: I’d love to be in conversation…

Read more

The time for blind trust is passing, if it hasn’t already long passed. Because no, we’re not simply “doing good” here… and yes, we have a lot of things to change, if we actually want to.

Read on….

For You: Today’s Main Course

Friends, it’s important that we’re honest with ourselves about the ways we fall short in the work of seeking a better world.

If we can’t see, name, and talk about the problems…

… how will they ever change?

Spoiler alert: they won’t.

We’ll just keep creating problems, harming individuals and their communities, and perpetuating the ills that make philanthropy/nonprofits necessary in the first place.

So let’s not do that, yeah?

Let’s be open to seeing and discussing the problems we’re creating.

Let’s be honest with ourselves.

Let’s name things.

Let’s talk about it.

Here are eight problems I see with our work of seeking a better world.

1️⃣ The DNA from which this work grew, over time, was “helping” those “in need” through “charity.” I’m a social worker, and I didn’t know until my very first class of my Master’s in Social Work (MSW) program that social work wasn’t actually a profession until relatively recently.

The short story is that wealthy White women — who were needing meaningful ways to direct their energy — started creating programs to help people who were not as comfortable as they were (and were, in fact, suffering in various ways).

While this work was much-needed at the time and had its merits, it set a tone for what would evolve from it (our modern-day “industry” of philanthropy/nonprofits): well-off folks choosing to enter into — and “help” (which cannot shake its paternalistic vibe) — communities not their own, those decidedly less well-off.

In other words, we’ve created a whole “industry” centered around othering communities that are already marginalized — thus essentially marginalizing them even more. When we do this, we’re not inviting folks into the joy of community with us, honoring their dignity, or valuing their experience and expertise. Instead, we’re making them a “problem” that “we” must solve.

2️⃣ Donors decide what they will give to. Spend enough time around these parts and you will hear it: talk from foundations of “strategic resets” in their funding decisions, or wealthy individuals lauding things like “effective altruism.” Folks with funds to give have convinced themselves that they should be driving the process.

And I couldn’t disagree more.

Of course, as a professional fundraiser for nearly two decades, I’ve learned to walk this line and play this game as the funders want to. Because I need to, if I want the essential causes I’m fundraising for to get any funds.

But do you see the problem there? The power dynamics are such that the funders hold all the cards. And even though they’re making wrong moves, in the eyes of almost anybody who knows how this approach actually affects real people on-the-ground and will be honest, that message is not getting to them, because there is no real way to do so — at least not without jeopardizing funding.

I wrote more about that earlier this year, when reflecting on how different that dynamic was here in Minneapolis during the traumatic Operation Metro Surge, as our community’s cash simply flowed toward asks arising from community needs — with no strategy first, no funder priorities, no carefully choreographed process. Just a simple reality: 1) community need arises; 2) it’s communicated; 3) it’s funded.

3️⃣ We’ve decided that formal education and degrees are the learning required to do this work. Look at any of the job description requirements. Bachelor’s degrees. Graduate degrees. Even though I have both of those types of degrees myself, I still question their necessity. Of course, a key part of my MSW was field practice. And in so many ways, I’d say that that was the education — not the research, the endless reading, the papers, the writing, the class discussions, the lectures.

Ask me who I think knows the most about addressing and solving homelessness? Someone who has been homeless. Ask me who I think knows the most about making sure families don’t starve? Someone who has experienced perpetual hunger. Ask me who I think has the best ideas to solve the problems within a massive system like foster care? Easy. People who have come up through it themselves.

And that last one is a beaut of an example, because my former client — one I will forever fan-girl — is an organization led by Fosters (their chosen name for themselves) who are actively leading, setting priorities and vision, creating and developing programs, and lobbying our state legislature, passing law after law to improve the system. They don’t have a degree on a diploma to do this. Their “degree” was lived, year after year, as they experienced and were affected by a system that required change. They know what’s needed. They are making it happen. This is the model I want to see spread to more and more places.

4️⃣ Almost every nonprofit talks about “ending” a problem… yet many orgs have persisted for decades, and they always talk about growing as a good thing. Believe me, as a fundraiser, I’m sure that I experienced this even more than folks working in programs. We and our leadership would talk about growth as the goal — in funds raised, in programs started or grown, in buildings procured.

I just have to ask: is growth really a good thing, in this setting?

Growth means more community resources being tied up in this org and issue. Growth means more individual egos being convinced how “needed” the org is — and that their job is to ensure it lasts forever. Growth may very well mean the problem we’re trying to address is actually growing too. What? Do we really want that?

Wouldn’t a more apt goal be shrinking the org? Lessening the problem we’re addressing? Seeing the need for this org’s work… eventually disappear? Oh, I’ve heard folks say this plenty of times. We say it. But we don’t actually live it in practice.

5️⃣ Foundations exist to fuel capitalism. I wrote about this in a full article recently, seen here: Foundations Exist to Fuel Capitalism. I encourage you to go there for the goods. But here’s a sample: money placed into a foundation earns a tax break; foundations then invest millions, to billions, in the stock market; the 5% law is treated as a ceiling, rather than a floor, by foundations; a foundation’s 5% spend includes the operating expenses of the foundation; SO nearly 100% of the basis of a foundation’s existence is dedicated to fueling the stock market; then, funding trickles to the community are an effective, yet paper-thin, mask.

Foundations exist to underwrite and fuel capitalism. And capitalism has never pretended to prioritize communities.

Inside capitalism, people and the natural world are only “resources” to be “used” — and drained of value — in order to create a profit for a corporation and its investors. Profit (or accumulation of excess money) is the ultimate good, in this world.

And thus, fully invested in capitalism as they are, we have to assume the following about foundations: excess money, extracted from and held apart from human and natural communities, is the ultimate good for foundations.

6️⃣ White Supremacy reigns in this “do-gooder” space just as much as it does everywhere else. I don’t even want to say much about this, because it’s just so obviously true, if you’re paying attention, and so much has already been said and written on this topic.

And yet… I’m pretty sure that some of you will question this assertion.

So I’ll just say this: can we at least agree that White Supremacy still reigns in our world at large?

And that, if that’s true — and if the field of philanthropy/nonprofits still takes most of its operating cues from the wider world (most especially business norms) — then that means that widespread norms centering White Supremacy make their way into the “do-gooder” space too?

7️⃣ We talk about “relationships” all the time, but we don’t actually have them. If I had a dime for every time I’ve heard a colleague in this work talk about how much we center relationships… I’d be rich by now. But here’s the thing. We’re nowhere near as good at actually having real relationships with each other as we are at talking about it.

Real relationships require honesty. Real relationships are mutually giving and receiving. Real relationships have accountability baked into them. Real relationships require shared responsibility. Real relationships prioritize trust. Real relationships don’t continue without deep, open communication. Real relationships welcome conflict, because they know they aren’t actually possible without it. Real relationships are constantly airing out and re-negotiating power dynamics.

Do any of those qualities sound like the “relationships” that exist within philanthropy/nonprofits? In case you’re wondering: no. No they don’t.

8️⃣ Anti-Blackness is persistent and powerful in this space. And that is different than the White Supremacy I mentioned above. And it is also different than racism. If you haven’t heard about this reality within philanthropy/nonprofits, that means you don’t have any Black friends… or the ones you have don’t trust you enough to tell you about what they experience. Because it’s there, in spades.

A Black friend was working for an organization led by and centered on another community of color; the anti-Blackness she experienced there made her leave the job within months of starting. Another brilliant Black friend leads a nonprofit with an essential, sorely needed mission; even I am so frustrated at how hard it is for him to bring in the funding he needs to keep the org afloat.

If you really care about finding out more, you’ll do the research. And you’ll find evidence everywhere, like here.

Or even better, if you’re in Minnesota, you’ll attend the gathering I’m hosting later this month on this topic — where we’ll hear directly from two Black speakers sharing their experiences, and we’ll collectively put our heads, hearts, and souls together to start healing the issue.

If you really care, what you won’t do is let your eyes glaze over when you see this topic, because you just don’t see how it affects you… or if it’s even a real issue that you need to care about. Because you know what? That’d be anti-Blackness too.

………………….

SO, y’all.

Whadaya say?

Conversation: Your Real Real

I really want to know your more detailed and nuanced thoughts, too. Let’s start a conversation on this topic. Visit the comments section!

Leave a comment

Practice: Make It Yours

Reflect on things you’ve observed in your own experience.

Are there times you’ve seen someone who thinks they’re helping… but is definitely not helping? If so, could you have told them that?

If not, why?

If yes, did you?

If not, why?

How can you start addressing this kind of thing more?

How can you be more open to others giving you this sort of feedback?

Get quiet.

Reflect.

Be honest with yourself.

Subscribe now

A Gift to Take With You: Something to Sit With

Read more

Read more

Read more

With Love,

…

Read more

Read more

Read on….

For You: Today’s Main Course

Did you know that you’re a philanthropist?

Well, hold up.

You’re not a philanthropist if you don’t care about other people and try to help them whenever you can.

But I’m pretttttty sure that no one here in the For the Love of Humanity community fits that description.

So yes: you are a philanthropist!

Do you usually think of yourself that way?

I’m betting no.

Because the meanings of words like “philanthropy” and “philanthropist” have completely morphed, in a modern age where the rich keep getting richer… and everyone else worries about how to put food on the table, amidst ever-rising inflation and seemingly ever-shrinking jobs and adequate compensation for a day’s work.

Like many things in a world of widening economic inequality like this, “philanthropy” has started to revolve around money — and those who are considered the most important and valid and laudable participants are those who have, and give, the most financially.

Our Language Needs to Change

Look at how we talk about this stuff.

“High Net-Worth Individual.” This one has always bothered me. How can we use this language to refer to one individual, just because they control an outsize amount of financial wealth? If you ask me, every single human being on this planet has high net-worth. And I would never, ever rank one’s worth over another’s. Honestly, how could there be a “high net-worth individual”… if all human beings are high net-worth?

“Major Gifts.” Fundraisers have gotten so used to this term — used to refer to donors who give the largest gifts — that we don’t even stop to think about it anymore. But let’s. The connotations of the word “major” (according to Merriam-Webster) are that it bestows greater dignity, rank, importance, or interest on whatever it describes. So in essence, fundraisers are creating a world where the ones who give the most money are given greater dignity, rank, importance, or interest. And often, we do this while working to provide band-aids that help people without the ability to give such gifts… to merely survive. Do you see that juxtaposition? While some of our fellow human beings — folks who have just as much inherent worth as all other human beings — struggle to merely survive, we’re falling over ourselves to shower extra attention and praise on others who are perfectly comfortable already. I’m not OK with that. Are you?

“Our Most Generous Donors.” In fundraiser-speak, this almost always refers to folks who have given the most dollars. What a misnomer, though! Think about it. If someone has access to a million dollars and they give $100,000… are they more generous than someone who is earning minimum wage… and gives $25? I say no way. I don’t even really want to rank peoples’ generosity… but still, I’d say that someone giving from their funds needed for survival — vs. someone giving from resources far-in-excess of what they actually need to meet their needs — is showing greater generosity. Why don’t we recognize this reality more, as fundraisers?

Our language really needs to change.

Especially if we want the way things are to change….

Giving USA 2026 Report

Every year around this time, Giving USA releases their report on the previous calendar year’s state of philanthropic giving, and everyone involved in fundraising for nonprofits rushes to digest it and understand what it means for their work.

My buddy Nate recently posted on LinkedIn: “Happy Giving USA Hot-Takes Season to all who celebrate.” Ha! Indeed.

I’m not really a hot-taker.

But I will say this.

I’ve been a professional fundraiser for nearly two decades already. So I’ve seen a lot of these reports come and go. And almost without fail, giving increases every year.

I think that’s pretty much to be expected, in a country so driven by capitalism that growth is considered the only way to success.

Add to that that there’s a whole financial services industry dedicated to helping those who are collecting wealth to hang onto it and grow it even more, and you’ve got growth in philanthropic giving.

The progression looks something like this….

Corporate profits grow.

Those invested in the market grow their wealth.

Financial advisors recommend philanthropic giving as a way to divest of their clients’ monetary gains — usually as a means to avoid taxation, which is another problem to discuss on another day, I must add.

And nonprofits end up benefitting.

But that’s the problem.

Growth in financial giving, for many years now, has been a function of growing wealth in the top echelons of our economy.

The headline from Giving USA this year is that charitable giving grew to $617.20 billion in 2025, surpassing the $600 billion mark for the first time, and growing 3% annually when adjusted for inflation.

And that is what everyone hears.

And people cheer, thinking things are moving in the right direction. And then, they go back to doing whatever they were doing.

Look at the way that Giving USA presents its results, and you only see reference to the dollars increasing.

You’d think things sound pretty hunky-dory.

But that’s not the whole picture.

In order to even see the bigger picture, you have to dig for certain “hot-takes” that mention a concerning problem. Only some do.

I appreciated the way Marts&Lundy laid it out: “The most important insight is not simply that giving is growing. It is how that growth is occurring. Philanthropy is becoming increasingly concentrated.”

They went on to say this:

Total charitable giving increased across all major sources in 2025, supported by strong financial markets and continued asset growth. Individual giving remained the largest source of philanthropy at $394.2 billion, while foundations, corporations, and bequests all posted gains as well.

At the same time, a familiar trend continued: “donors down, dollars up.” Fewer individuals are giving, while larger gifts account for a growing share of philanthropic revenue.

What is becoming clearer is that this is not simply a cyclical shift. It reflects a more structural change in how philanthropy is distributed, with growth becoming more concentrated among higher-capacity donors and certain giving vehicles.

OK. Got it.

So what does that mean for us?

One of their recommendations to nonprofit leaders is to “rebalance [their] portfolio strategy to account for concentration.”

<insert GIF of someone looking confused and skeptical>

I’m not OK with just fatalistically accepting this state of affairs — one that has been continuously developing over a period of years now, mind you — by simply figuring out how the nonprofits I support can adjust their portfolios to best take advantage of this mega-wealthy, increasingly concentrated money train.

No way.

I want to be a part of flipping that reality on its head.

Because I don’t believe concentrated philanthropy is where it’s at.

I don’t want to continue to see “donors down, dollars up.”

I want to see the number of donors increasing, above all else.

I think philanthropy…

… belongs to all of us.

Philanthropy Of The People

I’m calling it now.

The future of philanthropy is collective giving.

We can’t keep advancing on the path we’re on right now and expect that our communities will solve any of their problems — let alone thrive.

I can see it so clearly: the path we’re on just leads to greater inequity… deeper suffering in our communities… and further alienation from each other.

Not. Good.

We need the antidote to this poisonous path.

All thriving is mutual.

And our path to thriving must be mutual, too.

“Philanthropy” means love of humanity.

All of us who love our fellow humans are philanthropists.

And “philanthropy” needs to start including all of us again.

This is exactly why I birthed a new section of this publication last month: Philanthropy Of The People.

From the launch post:

How do we recover the purity of neighbors simply helping neighbors — without any middlemen or overly complex processes?

How do we counter-act current trends causing ballooning monetary wealth in the top 5% of the population, accompanied by ever-increasing poverty for the majority of the population… which, in our current model of “philanthropy” means that there will be fewer and fewer able to give.. and more and more in need?

How do we seed and grow more of the the powerful mutual aid networks that rose up in Minneapolis earlier this year… and inspired the world?

How do we humanize donors… fundraisers… and whole communities who are being de-humanized by our current processes?

I got you.

This is not as big and hard as we might make it.

We know the way.

Our ancestors have been there.

All we have to do is remember… and return.

Philanthropy Of The People — a new section of this Substack publication launching today — will focus on the process of getting where we need to go.

Together.

➡️ From narrow, hierarchical giving… to collective giving.

➡️ From mechanization… to humanization.

➡️ From corporate… to community-centric.

➡️ From professionalization… to democratization.

➡️ From fewer and fewer participating… to more and more participants.

The heart and soul of Philanthropy Of The People will be talking about, providing inspiration for, and giving practical support for Collective Giving.

Giving Circles.

Collaborative Funds.

Crowdfunding.

Mutual Aid.

Giving Projects.

Donor Organizing.

… and more.

I can’t wait to see all of this unfold.

Because we clearly need it — so badly.

So… whadaya say?!

Are you with me?

Conversation: Your Real Real

I really want to know your more detailed and nuanced thoughts, too. Let’s start a conversation on this topic. Visit the comments section!

Leave a comment

Practice: Make It Yours

For real, now.

Do you consider yourself a philanthropist?

Why or why not?

Spend some time in reflection, pondering and answering these questions:

• What might be stopping me from embodying philanthropy more?

• How might I start embodying philanthropy more?

• How can I encourage/inspire others to do the same?

Subscribe now

A Gift to Take With You: Something to Sit With

Every time I hear Sara Lomelin speak, I fall a little more in love with her. She is a powerhouse, a delight, and a widely recognized leader in moving philanthropy towards collective giving: a member of the inaugural TIME100 Philanthropy List in 2025, as well as the 2024 NonProfit Times Power & Influence Top 50 and the 2023 Forbes’ 50 Over 50: Impact List.

She’s a badass. She’s on fire. She’s an inspiration. AND she’s someone you just want to hang out with. Do that here for about twenty minutes!

Read more

Read more

Read more