Philanthropy has lost the plot, and those consuming all the “hot takes” after the recent release of Giving USA’s 2026 report aren’t getting the memo. Philanthropy was never supposed to be something that just a few of us talked about or cared about. This was always supposed to be something that every. single. human being participated in. How did we get so lost? And how can we collectively find our way back to the path we need to be on?
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?
Subscribe to For the Love of Humanity
Become a Free Subscriber, and you’ll get a missive like this — or a podcast episode — in your inbox on Fridays…
… or become a Supporting Subscriber and you’ll get the above… PLUS you’ll have these additional opportunities to participate in this community:
➡️ Morning Meditations on weekdays;
➡️ monthly Fire Circle (story-telling) gatherings via Zoom;
➡️ and online chats here on Substack.
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!
Coming Together to Solve Our Collective Problems
Some problems seem so big, so hard to fully understand, so pervasive and entrenched… that they seem like they will never end.
These are exactly the kinds of problems that require the collective wisdom of a group. So these are exactly the kinds of problems that we will tackle together at our For the Love…! events.
Our very first one is coming up later this month!
➡️ Anti-Blackness in Nonprofits/Philanthropy: the Reality, the Healing
➡️ Thursday, July 30th | 6:30-8:30PM
➡️ Community. Food. Meaningful discussion. Working toward a better world. Together.
➡️ Black Garnet Books | St. Paul, Minnesota
✨If you are local to the Twin Cities… you gotta come!✨
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?
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!
For the Love of Humanity is an online community made up of, and generously supported by, its readers and listeners (like you).
Why become a Supporting Subscriber?
➡️ Receive a loveletter like this — or a podcast episode! — every Friday. ➡️ Participate in Asynchronous Content Club… in the Substack Chat! ➡️ Listen to Morning Meditations every weekday in the Supporting Subscriber podcast feed, where you get your podcasts. ➡️ Join monthly Fire Circles, via Zoom, to share stories and community. ➡️ Affirm and invest in the value of philanthropy in your life. ➡️ Provide the financial support needed to make this project possible!
Find For the Love of Humanity elsewhere and join us there too!
➡️ LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram | Threads | BlueSky ⬅️
@Cecelia Caspram you’re always right on point.
The nonprofit sector in the US continues to grow because it depends on an economic model that sustains unequal economic growth and tax evasion (or the slow decline of the government’s wealth redistribution mandate).
Neoliberalism and growing inequality (which go hand in hand) actually feed off of the nonprofit/philanthropic sector, using it as an alternative to social responsibility and redistribution.
It’s not just that the nonprofit sector is too small to replace wealth redistribution via taxes and public services, it’s also that morally, corporations and wealthy people, who’ve made money thanks to public infrastructure, underpaid labor, and government provisions, shouldn’t get to decide where, how much, and when their wealth is going back to society.
Yep. All of it. Dollars up, donors down. I’m heartsick that greed and corruption continues to erode the fabric of community. At the same time, I’m hopeful that the people are waking up to see how much we (the 99%) are interdependent and our systems require an overhaul. The philanthropic sector would do well to lead this effort - and may be a good place to start. The evolution of mutual aid is a promising start.
And another thing: giving may be up, but that’s not the story. Headlines like these, from Giving USA, send the message to people not immersed in philanthropy that everything is “fine” - but they are not. Just like the S&P & the DOW continues to climb, people are not connecting the reality to the carefully curated headlines.