Money For Change: Social Movement Philanthropy at the Haymarket People's Fund

5. Connecting Fundraising and Organizing

5 CONNECTING FUNDRAISING AND ORGANIZING I N WHAT PEOPLE AT THE HAYMARKET FUND CONSIDERED A CRISIS, THEY suffered a decline of $200,000 in donations to the general fund be- [Ween 1990 and 1991-from about $700,000 to about $500,000. This particular public foundation was certainly not alone among philanthropic organizations in experiencing a loss during these years, described in Haymarket's May 1992 strategic plan as "the worst recession since the Great Depression." And donations to Haymarket have since resumed earlier levels and higher. The seriousness ofthe loss in real dollars was compounded, however, by a growing realization that the Fund had been relying for most of its money on only thirteen to fifteen major annual gifts. People were also concerned that many of Haymarket's most generous donors had now given away the bulk of their fortunes; more new donors needed to be brought on board. This chapter is focused on three fundraising issues of greatest concern during this time: (1) what some saw as overly personalized fundraising methods, (2) low levels of donor involvement in the work of the organization , and (3) the power that staff fundraisers derived from their close relations with major donors. Copyrighted Material 82 Chapter 5 Some people at Haymarket thought fundraising had become too dependent on close personal relations between major donors and the two staff who were the main fundraisers. While cultivation of relations with donors is an integral part ofestablished fundraising practice (Rosso 1991, 189), especially when seeking large gifts, many people at Haymarket thought this had become too prominent compared to other more important aspects of fundraising. They saw Haymarket's "personal" emphasis as inappropriate for an organization whose mission was radical social and political change.l They called upon two other established and, from their point ofview, more important principles of fundraising they thought were being neglected: donors' full awareness of and commitment to the goals of the organization, and their active involvement in the organization (Panas 1984, 1; Dorsey 1991, xv; Payton, Rosso, and Tempel 1991, 13, 14; Edles 1993,5,20,21; Rosso 1991,6; Mixer 1993,25). One way to address their concerns would be to combine fundraising and donor organizing.2 While I was at Haymarket , this principle was articulated more and more, though its practice was still abstract and in a state of development. People were also raising questions about the purpose of donor anonymity , which they saw as an obstacle to donor involvement, and about donor-advised grants, which provided a way for donors to separate themselves from Haymarket's defining practice of community-activistcontrolled grantmaking. Following from close personal relations with donors, and from donors' low level of direct involvement in the organization, staff fundraisers had what some considered too much power. These staff agreed they had too much power, though they tended to see it more as unwanted responsibility taken on when others, especially the governing board, did not do what they were supposed to. Some members of the governing board, in contrast, thought staff fundraisers sometimes overstepped their authority. I explain here in more detail how these three main concerns evolved and how people addressed them. I begin to tell how important cross-class, crossrace relations began to develop between governing board activists and a few active donors with regard to restructuring fundraising. These relations formed the basis for an emerging new vision ofa fuller partnership between Copyrighted Material CONNECTING FUNDRAISING AND ORGANIZING 83 donors and activists at Haymarket and, consequently, for changing dynamics of race and class in the organization. An Evolving Crisis In September 1988, a year and five months before I began my fieldwork, one Haymarket staff fundraiser presented a positive written report to the newly reconstituted governing board. Her report included the statement that "there is no magic or secret to how we fundraise. We are blessed with loyal and generous donors." The report also stated, "Inherited wealth conferences are the mainstay ofour efforts to bring in new donors and keep up and grow with new ones." In addition to conferences, staff reported that they relied on three approaches to raise money: direct mail, personal visits, and special events. These are standard fundraising practices in public foundations and other philanthropic organizations (see, e.g., hiles 1993; Klein 1988; Seltzer 1987). Two years later, in a staffreport to the 1990 annual meeting, which I attended , staff fundraisers were worried about not being...