July 22, 2004 | Read Time: 5 minutes
Organizations that advocate for social justice don’t usually look to Prada, Tiffany, or Mercedes-Benz as their role models — but they should.
Just as the luxury-goods market is courting the affluent baby boomers, so too should social-justice groups, which face some of the most enormous challenges in their history.
As the generation that came of age in the 1960s and flocked to work at nonprofit groups prepares to retire, many social-justice groups will lose their top leadership over the next decade. Not only do these organizations have to nurture new leadership, but they do so at a time when more resources than ever are needed to fight to protect the advances they have made. In many cases, old battles won in the past now have to be waged again. Yet foundation and government grants are harder to come by because of the economic turbulence of the past few years.
Indeed, while many social-justice groups are worried about the staff-leadership gap that will occur with so many retirements, they fail to look closely enough at the potential leadership and financial contributions that could be made by the boomers who marched for women’s rights, clean air and water, nuclear-weapon freezes, and so many other causes, but who chose other professions. Many of those boomers are now well-paid lawyers, doctors, tenured professors, entrepreneurs, or other types of professionals. They and their family members could become strong advocates and generous donors who could transform the operations of social-justice groups. These workers have substantial discretionary income and community influence, and as the American economy continues to be based more and more on service and knowledge industries, most will be continuously employed and earn good salaries for years to come.
The resources already available to America’s professional class are stunning. The NewTithing Group, a San Francisco group that seeks to encourage the wealthy to give more, estimates that from 1997 through 2000 the number of taxpayers earning adjusted gross incomes of $100,000 or more rose 51 percent, to 10.9 million Americans. Over the same time, the aggregate assets of taxpayers earning $100,000 or more grew 88 percent, from $8.4-trillion to $15.8-trillion.
Far too little of that money is finding its way to the public-service organizations that make sure America cares for its homeless, its hungry, its abused, its illiterate, and the children who have been left behind. Giving USA, the yearbook of philanthropy, reports that last year, of the $240-billion donated to charities, only 7.8 percent went to human services, 5 percent to “public-society benefit,” and only 3 percent to groups that protect animals or the environment.
Smart fund raisers for social-justice causes will find it easy to engage donors with the wherewithal to give more. Just like their wealthier friends who make multimillion-dollar endowment and capital-campaign gifts, and just like their less-affluent friends who tithe to neighborhood churches, financially successful professionals respond to the personal touch.
Yet, too often, social-justice organizations dismiss those donors because they erroneously assume it would be easier to raise money in other ways — at the very same time that too many are wasting time and effort on ineffective fund-raising methods. What’s more, some organizations wrongly assume that those who spend a lot on themselves won’t make significant charitable gifts, or that only those with a long track record of major gifts will give meaningfully, and that, most of all, they won’t speak up, either as advocates for a cause or to enlist others to give.
My experience teaches me otherwise. These donors, just like their counterparts in other neighborhoods, are hungry for involvement, want to feel a part of something bigger than themselves, and remain concerned about the issues that filled their young lives.
Instead of assuming that high-income high spenders won’t give, or that celebrity-driven campaigns will automatically yield substantial gifts, the valuable and scarce time of executive directors and fund raisers should be spent cultivating the powerful, local networks of high-income, influential business leaders and community members, people who know just how much their community will benefit if social-justice causes have more resources.
To be certain, it might seem more efficient to go after the one donor who can make a $10,000 gift instead of seeking $1,000 apiece from 10 well-to-do professionals. But here’s why that isn’t always the best way to go:
- Every one of those $1,000 donors could become an issue advocate, if they received the proper education and help from a nonprofit group’s staff. That could mean 10 letters would be sent to a city council member or governor or U.S. senator, instead of one.
- Affluent professionals have wide circles of like-minded and similarly financially situated friends, who can also be asked for large gifts. And, of course, the higher up the professional ladder these donors sit, the more remunerative and influential their networks can be.
- High-salaried professionals are mobile, so they are often faced with the challenge of making their way in a new city or town. When they arrive, they often give to their new church or synagogue or their children’s new school. But they could also give to the organizations that serve the broader community. One need only ask. Indeed, just because these donors have moved around so much, they know how important public advocacy is to building healthy neighborhoods.
It’s not only hospitals or United Ways or churches and synagogues or other “safe” charities that can reap the financial benefits of getting people personally involved in a cause and encouraging them to spread their interest to their friends and colleagues. When more affluent professionals start asking each other, for example, “Did you hear about the toxic-waste dump or the kids with no schoolbooks or the abused women with no shelter?,” the number of donors and advocates will rise quickly.
Just as the personal was political in 1968, the personal is political in 2004, as the polarized red and blue electoral maps make clear. And that map also illustrates just how important it is for people of all income levels to engage in a spirited dialogue about our future. Now it’s up to the leaders of the social-justice movement to reach out to the Americans who can lead the charge.
Rebecca Sive is a Chicago consultant to nonprofit groups.
