Design for participation, not just donations

For decades, fundraising has largely been built on a transactional model.

Organizations identify needs and make mass market appeals for financial support. Donors give money. Nonprofits deliver programs. Rinse and repeat.

That model powered remarkable growth for decades. But it was largely built 50 years ago, and increasingly, the numbers suggest it’s in need of a rethink.

​​The share of Americans who donate has dropped from roughly two-thirds in 2000 to under half today. Donor retention continues to decline. Growth in giving from individuals is coming entirely by major and supersize donors. And according to the 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer, trust in NGOS is neutral at 58% – only slightly higher than media and government.

I’m not suggesting every donor wants a different relationship with nonprofits. Plenty of “traditional” supporters are happy giving once a year, receiving quarterly impact reports and leaving the rest to you. 

But some parts of the transactional model deserve to be expanded.

Because while many donors are content to support causes, others are looking for something more. They want connection. They want participation.

That’s why I was struck by a recent Chronicle of Philanthropy article about Brooklyn Org.

Over the last several years, CEO Jocelynne Rainey and her team have intentionally shifted from thinking of Brooklyn Org as simply a grantmaker to thinking of it as a platform for civic life. The question changed from “How can people support us?” to “How can people participate?”

The financial results have been impressive. Between 2019 to 2025, their number of donor-advised funds doubled, contributed revenue grew from $2.4 million to $28.8 million, and assets under management grew from $74.5 million to $146.8 million. 

But the story isn’t about donor-advised funds or revenue growth. It’s about what happens when an organization moves people from the sidelines to the field itself. 

Brooklyn Org started treating community members not simply as donors or prospects, but as partners. They conducted neighborhood listening tours. They invited residents into grantmaking decisions. They created advisory roles and public forums. They sponsored cultural events and community gatherings. In short, they expanded the ways people could engage.

What struck me most wasn’t any particular tactic. It was the assumption underneath them: People don’t just want to give. Some people want to participate.

And that mirrors what we hear consistently through Insight Panels.

When donors are invited to share their opinions and then see that organizations are listening, something changes. Participation creates connection.

One midlevel donor told us:

“Being part of the Insight Panel helps me identify with [Organization X] and makes my participation much more personal. Because of the panel, I have a stronger bond with [Organization X].”

Again and again, donors tell us they value feeling heard. They want transparency. They want to understand how their voices matter. They want to feel connected to something larger than themselves. While these desires are often associated with Gen Z and Millennials, we find in practice they are hardly confined to younger generations.

The point isn’t to require deeper engagement. It’s to make it possible for those who want it. 

The opportunity isn’t to replace transactional philanthropy. The opportunity is to build participatory philanthropy alongside it.