When Independence Is a Bad Idea — 3 Reasons for Nonprofits to Keep Depending on Donors

Whether the sentiment is new or just new to me, more and more nonprofit leaders are looking at ways to eventually become “completely self-sustaining.” By this, they mean that they would like to build enough of an endowment or revenue generation programs that they no longer need to rely on donors.

I believe this is a mistake for most nonprofits. It is true that businesses can do much good without reliance on donations, and there may be some social enterprises which would be better with a non-donor driven business model. However, for the typical nonprofit, the desire for donor independence misunderstands the foundational nature of the relationship. The proper relationship is one of interdependence. Much like the relationship between bees and flowers, where bees pollinate the flowers and the flowers feed the bees, both donors and nonprofits benefit from their connection. 

The pressure to sever this tie often stems from a faulty view of fundraising that sees it as a necessary evil to be eradicated as soon as possible. I see fundraising as part of the five essential ministries listed in Ephesians 4:11-13: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Biblical fundraising can rightly be viewed as a teaching ministry opportunity to be honored, not eliminated.

To be clear, efforts to become partially self-sustaining should be encouraged. If a nonprofit is already diligently building healthy relationships with donors, it may be able to generate additional revenue through income-generating social enterprises. By growing the pie, they create financial resilience and make donors more confident. They also create opportunities to empower clients to “pay it forward” and develop useful skills, especially those dealing with mental or physical challenges and who are unable to perform duties in a manner that adds to the revenue base of a self-sustaining social enterprise.

But should a charitable organization become completely self-sufficient? I don’t think so. Here are three reasons why nonprofits should maintain at least partial dependence on support from a donor base:

1) It helps a donor do good deeds

Doing good deeds is what donors want to do, understanding the principle that “it is more blessed to give than to receive.” By maintaining at least a partial reliance on donors provides them with opportunities to partner in the work when volunteering their time may not be an option. Often the time invested by a donor in generating resources to steward for charitable purposes precludes their own ability to volunteer time and energy onsite themselves. Their finances are how they partner. To eliminate the need for their investment is to rob them of opportunities to partner with the nonprofit in doing good work.

2) It helps an organization stay on mission

The matching of a donor’s passion with a nonprofit’s mission is a beautiful thing. When it’s not “your money,” you’re more likely to be conscientious about the results you report to the one who gave it. A mission that measures outcomes and is able to report those to a donor who truly wants to see a return on his or her investment in the work is likely to have some exciting donor meetings every year. And sharing outcomes doesn’t have to be all about “wins.” Sharing the failures and discussing lessons learned gives an opportunity for the donor to know the nonprofit better and speak wisdom into it, too. Maintaining at least partial dependency on donors heightens a nonprofit’s fiscal responsibility which helps the non-profit stay on mission.

3) It helps both parties dream bigger

If a nonprofit’s current budget can be met by their own social enterprising efforts, and donors are no longer needed but want to be part of the work, somebody isn’t dreaming big enough. The vision of an organization can be unleashed by a mutually dependent relationship between the ministry and its donors.

By maintaining a mutually dependent relationship donors get to do good deeds, the organization is more likely to stay on mission, and both parties get to dream bigger. There’s a lot to like about that dynamic, so why work to eliminate it?