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 on to find out….

For You: Today’s Main Course

I love humans.

I especially love humans in community.

I love the magic that happens when people gather together, and care about each other, and work together to help each other and be helped, and prioritize their collective well-being.

There is nothing else quite as lovely as the experience of being in community — feeling your heart, mind, and whole being tune into the joy of connection and care within a group, a sense that is as much about receiving as it is about giving.

This is philanthropy.

The roots of the word philanthropy are Greek: philos, meaning love (think Philadelphia, the “City of Brotherly Love”), and anthropos, meaning humanity (think anthropology, or the scientific study of humanity).

Yet, in the many years that I’ve worked in the field of professionalized philanthropy, I’ve observed that there is very little love, or humanity, in the prevailing practice of “philanthropy” today.

We’ve come to think of “philanthropy” as big money given in “charity” — and “fundraising” as the way we attract and direct that big money to specific “nonprofit” organizations. And this whole process has morphed — as it’s been professionalized and scaled up exponentially — in ways our ancestors wouldn’t recognize.

Donors are feeling like ATMs…

… fundraisers are feeling like cogs in a machine….

… communities are being commodified….

… which means everyone is feeling de-humanized.

And all the work we’ve been doing in this field — over many decades — hasn’t really changed many of the problems we’re addressing.

So what are we really doing here?

I think it’s time to return…

… to where philanthropy started.

Before foundations… or corporate giving programs… or donor-advised funds (DAFs)… or “major gifts”… or “annual giving”… or “planned giving”… or donor acquisition mailings… or “appeal” letters… or CRMs… or galas… or “donor lifetime value” (DLV)… or Return on Investment (ROI)… or endowments… or stock gifts… and certainly before AI and crypto, the most recent trends on the scene…

… “philanthropy” was just neighbors helping neighbors, in solidarity.

Everyone came together and helped, if someone needed to raise a barn, or if someone’s house was on fire. If people noticed someone in their community was hungry, they’d feed them. Or if someone needed a place to stay, they’d be invited into others’ homes.

And in the earliest days of humanity, “philanthropy” would have likely been even more natural and daily:

Think about a time, very long ago, before they started building buildings like we have today. They would have lived in close relationship with the natural world. (That would have been the only option!) The natural world would have been their “floor,” their “ceiling,” and the “walls” around them.

Beyond their connection to the natural world, there are likely many more things we can assume about our ancestors who lived in such a time.

We can assume that they would have known exactly where their food came from, as they would have been directly involved in every stage of its path to their mouths. Or that they would have gone to bed with the sunset… and awoken with the sunrise, as there were no lights to turn on, to illuminate the night, or shades to draw down, to allow for morning snoozes amidst the sunshine.

Given how closely people would have lived together in a time like that, and how precarious survival would have been, people would likely have understood how much supporting and caring for each other was essential to human life.

Yes?

Surviving without that sense of mutual care and responsibility for each other would have been next-to-impossible, I imagine.

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 lean heavily on the expertise and passion of the good folks at Philanthropy Together in generating this list, and I encourage you to plug into their great programming and educational offerings too.

Because we need all the help we can get…

… to turn the Titanic.

Collective Giving is not the model that the massive, worldwide nonprofit and philanthropic industrial complex has predominantly been using… right?

Our current world of philanthropy, fundraising, and nonprofits is quite siloed, hierarchical, corporatized, individualized, professionalized, and — all these things considered — broadly de-humanizing.

Moving to a model of Collective Giving is the antidote to all of these toxins, and I truly believe that this is the future of fundraising and philanthropy.

To that end, when I work 1:1 with organizations going forward, I will be prioritizing helping them develop Collective Giving as their model for mobilizing all the resources they need.

I can’t wait to really dig into this!

As I talk about it, this is the process of transforming fundraising…

… into philanthropy.

Think about it.

If you could shift your focus from “raising money”…

… to mobilizing collective resources out of love for humanity…

… wouldn’t you want to?

I sure would.

So I’m going to.

Will you join me?

Subscribe now

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

Find a quiet place where you can be alone for a few minutes.

First, take some deep breaths, to settle your nervous system…

… and then, reflect on this question:

If I could personally start a collective giving circle… who would I invite? And who do I believe we would most likely give to?

Write down your answers.

And let yourself start to dream about how you might actually do it!

Subscribe now

Inspiration: Something to Sit With

Giving circles are a great way for people to use all of their five T’s [time, talent, treasure, ties, testimony] in order to make their communities more free, more fair, more joyful, more opportunity-equal for all.

Do we want to move all of our five T’s towards our communities… or do we want to move [them] towards these three billionaires who are currently running amok through our federal public goods and services in order to enrich themselves and their billionaire friends?

- Hali Lee, author of The Big We: How Giving Circles Unlock Generosity, Strengthen Community, and Make Change

Thanks for reading For the Love of Humanity! Spread love for humanity by sharing this post with others who you think would appreciate it.

Share