Op-ed From MacKenzie Scott Reject Evokes Sympathy and Scolding

To the Editor:

The anonymous lament from a MacKenzie Scott reject — “My Nonprofit Was Ghosted by MacKenzie Scott. It Still Haunts Me” (July 30) — raises a lot of issues that will be familiar to nonprofit leaders waiting for their ship to come in. But it’s a fact of philanthropic life that rejections are the norm, grants the exception, and that both excellently run organizations and stumbling nonprofits tend to bat average.

In response, nonprofits need to diversify their funding, anticipate rejections, and adjust to the reality that too many nonprofits are competing for not enough money. The Scott competition, for example, likely favored larger nonprofits: The average Scott grantee’s revenue was five times larger than typical nonprofits.

The world feeds the fed, not the hungry. The disheartened applicant writes that “every nonprofit leader I know dreams about getting a MacKenzie Scott grant. For many of us, it is the holy grail.” But there is no grail, no low-hanging fruit, and no slam dunk.

There’s just hard but rewarding work.

Thomas Boyd
Nonprofit development consultant
New York

To the Editor:

Kudos to the author of this op-ed for underscoring the human toll of these interactions and also the way in which the infusion of capital for some can distort a whole field. Demonstrating an understanding of the ecosystem and making decisions transparent seem essential. This type of ghosting behavior is a hallmark of the power dynamics and, sadly, the disrespect that continue to characterize the donor landscape.

Is providing feedback and even resources for improvement so hard? The idea of honoring the tremendous social change work in the world, even if you can’t fund all of it, should be a starting point for donors, not a celebrated rarity.

Riva Kantowitz
Founder
Radical Flexibility Fund

To the Editor:

Landing a whale of a gift from a donor such as MacKenzie Scott is a fun dream to ponder for many nonprofits. The anonymous author in this recent op-ed isn’t alone in that feeling. Most nonprofit workers want to help people, so who wouldn’t be excited by the idea of receiving such a transformative gift?

But a nonprofit’s time, resources, and emotional energy might be better spent focusing on a fundraising plan that spreads the risk between various donors and provides several opportunities to receive funding. Having worked as an advisor to grant makers for 20 years, I’ve seen first-hand why such a strategy makes sense.

I always tell my clients that donating significant dollars to charity is one of the riskiest things they can do with their money. Doing so without the sufficient due diligence employed by MacKenzie Scott with the anonymous author can lead to disappointment for the donor and sometimes adverse outcomes for the nonprofit.

To help ensure donors’ hard-earned dollars are used effectively, I encourage them to consider a nonprofit’s governance, management, financial position, and program results. Sometimes this helps donors give confidently, and other times they need more information. I encourage them to limit the administrative burden on the prospective grantee, but often significant time and energy are required to complete the process. Once that due diligence is finished, donors typically decide to fund the organization. Occasionally, however, they don’t.

The anonymous author seems to expect success from just one or two interactions with a philanthropist. But that’s risky considering that giving in America has been stuck at roughly 2 percent of GDP for more than 40 years, and that more than 50 percent of American households don’t donate a penny. The odds of hitting a home run with one donor are low.

Instead of expressing dismay when a donor decides not to give, fundraisers should evaluate what worked and what didn’t, and then adjust accordingly. If working with one donor presented a disproportionate administrative burden, consider preparing beforehand so basic, organizational information a potential donor might request is readily accessible. This especially applies to small organizations with limited development staff.

Organizations can use a platinum level GuideStar profile, for example, as a handy tool to easily share important information about their nonprofit with a potential donor. They should use their judgment based on publicly available information about the prospective donor and trust their gut to determine if the due diligence conversations are going the right way. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Whatever the development strategy, keep a positive mindset. Remember there are plenty more fish in the sea.

Jeffrey R. Pickering
President and CEO
Indian River Community Foundation

To the Editor:

This op-ed seems to be arguing that the MacKenzie Scott grant process is somehow unfair because the author didn’t receive an explanation for why their nonprofit was rejected. But how is that different from any standard vetting from a foundation? While a grant maker practicing trust-based philanthropy might offer a lengthy phone call to provide an organization with feedback on why they didn’t get funding, many donors won’t do that.

The author was apparently put off because organizations they considered peers or lesser than their nonprofit received grants. But grant rejections are never equitable since the grant maker has criteria, justifications, and interests that a nonprofit will never know about.

At the end of the day, someone will make decisions that seem incomplete or incomprehensible to applicants. Those who don’t receive funding simply need to accept that.

Allen Smart
Principal
PhilanthropywoRx