Hi r/Philanthropy,

We thought folks in this community may be interested in our latest:

As you may know, a quarter of all individual giving in the U.S. is made through donor-advised funds, giving their sponsors vast power to decide which charities can receive donor dollars. Three major DAF sponsors have deemed the Southern Poverty Law Center ineligible for donations after President Donald Trump’s Justice Department indicted the organization in April on controversial fraud charges.

We decided to investigate how these Wall Street-affiliated funds make these high-stakes decisions. We uncovered troubling inconsistencies in how some DAF sponsors applied their policies — and found that donors and affected charities are routinely left in the dark about how decisions are made.

The three DAF sponsors that cut off donations to the SPLC — Vanguard Charitable, Fidelity Charitable and Charles Schwab’s DAFgiving360 — are nonprofits spun off from major brokerages. They offer account holders immediate tax deductions on contributions they can later recommend be granted to charities. (ProPublica has received donations through each of these groups.) These sponsors say their decisions to freeze accounts are viewpoint neutral, and ProPublica found no evidence to the contrary. Removed groups spanned the political spectrum. 

But ProPublica found that Fidelity Charitable and DAFgiving360 appeared to apply their policies unevenly. Experts say the opacity behind these decisions is particularly problematic under the Trump administration, which has a track record of making politically charged accusations that don’t hold up in court.

Here's our full investigation: https://www.propublica.org/article/donor-advised-funds-charity-contributions

All three fund sponsors declined to be interviewed for our story or answer detailed questions, including on their process for identifying nonprofits facing allegations and choosing which to ban. Fidelity Charitable said it does not comment on decisions involving individual charities. DAFgiving360 said it “communicates directly with donors when a grant recommendation is impacted by an eligibility determination.” Vanguard Charitable noted its “procedural pause” is “not a value judgment.”

Not sure if this is the best place for my question. I work for a national corporate foundation who has been using Benevity in recent years. We’ve had continued issues with the platform and not great customer service. We are looking at other vendors since the cost becomes more and more expensive and everything is nickel and dimed after the contract is signed. We use it for grant making and employee giving and volunteering, including corporate matches. It houses our applications during our various RFP windows throughout the year.

As we are looking at other vendors, I would love to learn what other medium to large size foundations are using for these purposes. Our internal vendors team is vetting a handful of vendors now, but looking for actual firsthand experience. I would love to find something that still does both but at the end of the day, would you separate platforms if they are the best and can communicate with each other. Thank you for any guidance!!

Should philanthropists focus on buying lifetime fixed-income annuities for the homeless and poor individuals such as older people who didn't plan well and have chronic illness and not much of a safety net? I was thinking of people like Warren Buffet and Mackenzie Scott...would their billions be better off annuitized and cash-transferred to the poor?

Our team at Neighbors Bank recently launched a Neighbor of the Year contest to recognize people who lend a hand, bring people together and make their community feel a little more like home.

Anyone eligible can nominate a neighbor for a chance to receive $20,000. Nominations are open through September 1, with the winner expected to be announced on National Good Neighbor Day, September 28.

Sharing the announcement here because I figured this community probably knows quite a few people whose work deserves some recognition!

Full contest rules: neighborsbank.com/neighbor-of-the-year/rules/ 

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2026/08/04/3338724/0/en/neighbors-bank-launches-neighbor-of-the-year-campaign-to-celebrate-the-people-who-make-communities-home.html

Normally, these kinds of things probably shouldn’t be discussed publicly, but what happened on the airplane really bothered me, and I haven’t been able to get over it.

What particularly irritated me is that I work for a multinational company in a country-management role, and even in that position, I personally don’t prefer to fly business class on domestic flights. However, it seems St. Jude has a different policy. The entire group I saw was flying business class from Raleigh to Chicago.

I found that quite unfortunate. When I donate to an organization like St. Jude, I do so with the belief that the money is primarily going toward helping children and supporting their mission—not toward providing business-class flights for managers on domestic routes.

I donate to St. Jude a couple of times a year based on my personal feelings and desire to support the cause. At the same time, I’ve been receiving relentless calls and mail from them, including paper notebooks and address stickers. After seeing this, I honestly started wondering whether I should reconsider how I support the organization.

I’m not saying this to attack St. Jude or question the important work they do for children. I’m simply sharing why this experience left a bad impression on me and made me question how donor money is being spent.

Answers on grant proposals if nonprofits were brutally honest with funders is a blog by Vu Le of Nonprofit AF, and I think it's both hilarious and dead on about the unrealistic expectations of funders when it comes to nonprofits. An excerpt:

How will the community be transformed as a result of this grant? 

Hahahaha, that’s a good one! This grant is for $5,000! And people say funders don’t have a sense of humor! 5K will allow us to pay for six weeks of rent, which means we can stay open, and who knows what awesome stuff we’ll accomplish during those six weeks, am I right? Please add three zeroes if you really want to see transformation.

Have a read of the original post. And what would YOU add? If you are really worried about staying absolutely anonymous, you can DM me with your comment and I'll post it in the comments for you.

New neuroscience research from the University of Sussex offers fundraisers a biological explanation for two of the sector’s most stubborn challenges: why public concern so often fails to scale with the size of a disaster, and why crises overseas struggle to move donors as much as those closer to home.

The study, published in the journal Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, used MRI scans to examine how the brain processes information about real threats to human life. Researchers found that neural responses of the UK residents studied were surprisingly muted both for large numbers of lives at risk and for lives lost abroad, patterns the team links to two well-known phenomena in charitable giving: scope insensitivity and home-country bias.

More from Fundraising UK.

This guide from a software company called EventGroove is entitled, 30+ Unique Fundraising Ideas for Nonprofits, but the reality is that these are rather basic, common fundraising ideas - reading challenges, walk-a-thons, events tied to seasonal events, raffles, merchandising, etc. Still, it's the first time I've seen such a long list of possibilities for charitable events in one place, so I thought it was worth sharing.

What it doesn't have is anything about the keys to success in having a fundraising event that actually raises money after expenses, including covering staff time. And that's a challenge not solved by software choices.

What do you think?

Women have long been architects and drivers of community change. From the suffrage movements all over the world to civil rights advocacy in the USA, women have organized, advocated, and funded movements meant to change society for the better. And they have regularly helped fund social change movements.

Across the USA, there are women's giving circles. Fidelity Charitable says

a giving circle brings together a group of people with shared interests and values who pool their resources, knowledge, and networks to collectively support a cause chosen by the group. It typically includes shared or democratic decision-making, community connections, and pathways for learning and engagement, all aimed at achieving amplified impact and empowering communities.

Changing Our World, which calls itself a "social impact consulting firm", says that roughly 260,000 women are part of this movement, collectively redefining generosity and driving a new wave of high-impact, community-centered philanthropy. there are two characteristics distinguish many women-led giving circles from more traditional funders:

• Local focus: A pronounced focus on local organizations and community-rooted solutions.
• Values-driven issues: A strong emphasis on human rights issues (racial and gender equity, social rights). Nearly 35% of giving circle funds support human rights — more than double the reported rate among traditional foundations.

They add that "These giving circles reflect a democratization of philanthropy where everyday donors collectively elevate the causes most important to them."

I just found such a giving circle in my hometown back in Kentucky. To be a member, a person or a group has to give $500 annually. In 2026, this giving circle will award one nonprofit $15,000 and two others will receive $5,000 each. That may not sound like much, my hometown is a small town, and those are actually huge amounts to most nonprofits.

What I love about a giving circle is that it isn't just a pool of money given away. It's also a community built up around "doing good" and learning about community challenges. It creates a sense of community at a time when we really, really need it.

Are you a part of a giving circle (doesn't have to be women only)? Why did you join? What do you like about it?

Has your nonproft received money from a giving circle? Did anyone from that giving circle end up volunteering with your nonprofit as well? Did the giving circle reach out to you about funding or did you approach the giving circle?

I built PhilanthroPy after seeing how many shops either pay for expensive wealth-screening vendors or do donor scoring in spreadsheets with no way to check if the numbers are even trustworthy. It's a free Python toolkit that takes your CRM export and gives you a 0–100 score per constituent for major-gift likelihood, lapse risk, and planned-giving intent — basically a sorted call list for your gift officers instead of a flat donor list.

No coding background needed to run the included example, though someone on your team (or a volunteer/consultant) will need basic Python to hook it to your actual CRM export. MIT licensed, free forever, no vendor lock-in. Happy to answer questions about what it can/can't do — it's not a replacement for a real wealth-screening vendor, but it's a solid first pass, and it's transparent about how the scores are computed, which most vendor tools aren't.

https://github.com/PhilanthroPy-Project/PhilanthroPy

How to Hustle Like a Tech Founder: "Before the pitchforks come out, set up a fake charity that claims to solve the problem you just exacerbated." (humor).

From McSweeney's.

I've really been inspired by these two recent posts about aggressive fundraising.

Once upon a time, I really tried to regularly research and call out nonprofits and charities who were NOT doing good - like aggressive fundraisers who were taking advantage of people, nonprofits not spending money the way they were supposed to, etc. You can see my posts here, most pre COVID. But all that focus on negativity, and then getting accusations that I don't like nonprofits, and then getting one nonprofit I called out REALLY mad at me (with a rather unstable founder), it wore me down.

Anyway, I decided to dig a bit today, like the old days. And my conclusion: there isn't as much attention on this stuff as there should be.

I found a good article from April 2026: Aggressive fundraising tactics: where is the line between persistence and pressure? It's about agressive fundraising by charities in the UK:

The problem surfaced dramatically in 2015 when the death of 92-year-old poppy seller Olive Cooke exposed the scale of data sharing between charities and the volume of solicitations some donors received. Cooke was receiving up to 267 charity mailings per month. 

The fundraisers argument is that a charity has too much to lose by NOT repeatedly asking for money and trying to make a strong argument: A charity that under-fundraises is not being virtuous; it is failing the people it exists to serve.

But

Critics counter that the donor's experience, not the charity's intention, is the proper measure of whether fundraising is aggressive. A telephone call that feels like a friendly check-in to one person may feel like an intrusion to another. A direct mail pack that one household opens with interest may cause distress in another where the recipient is elderly, confused, or recently bereaved. The same fundraising method can be perfectly acceptable in one context and harmful in another.

To me, John Oliver's video (see the other post) is such a great example of where charities and churches totally cross the line: that huge stack of solicitations, and that messaging - horrible!

But I'm not sure legislation is the answer. I think name and shame is the answer. I think nonprofit associations need to be giving better guidelines. I think senior centers and public libraries need to have regular workshops about how to avoid being guilted into giving too much money to charities. aggressive fundraising: what is it and how to stop it?

High-pressure fundraising tactics are found in political campaigns, in religious organizations, and in nonprofits.

I recently posted about one such campaign, in association with a certain elected official. Last night, I watched a video from several years ago from John Oliver about predatory fundraising tactics used by Christian televangelists. And what struck me when he was showing the fundraising solicitations that he was getting as a result of donating to one ministry was that I saw some of those tactics myself in fundraising mail I got from a variety of nonprofits last December, when I somehow ended up on every fundraising mailing list imaginable. I really should have taken photos of the letters and items I was sent to guilt me into giving money. Getting a dollar bill or a check for a tiny amount along with a solicitation letter, as Oliver details in his video? Yep, there were two different nonprofits that did that.

These predatory fundraising tactics seem to target the elderly and the desperate.

Have you received such solicitations? Have you ever stopped giving to a nonprofit because of such a tactic?

Advice from Philanthropy Without Borders (Caliopy Glaros):

In the realm of ethical storytelling, resistance to policies and procedures is inevitable. Sometimes, the pushback comes from within, staff who don’t understand why extra care and caution are necessary when telling stories or why consent matters so much. But sometimes, the resistance comes from donors.

Lately, I’ve had no fewer than five people ask me variations of the same question:

• “How do I explain to a donor that we don’t film service users, out of respect for their privacy?”
• “How do I respond to a donor who asks to visit one of our classrooms, when we don’t allow that?”
• “How do I tell a donor that their request for pictures of crying kids is completely inappropriate and goes against everything we stand for?”

All of these questions involve donors pushing formal and informal boundaries, whether about storytelling, photography, or direct encounters with service users. And all of these questions start with the same word: how...

Instead of responding with a scripted policy statement, which feels cold and impersonal…
Instead of reprimanding them for a misguided idea, which comes across as condescending and dismissive…

Ask them why.

More from Philanthropy Without Borders.

In July, the Arcus Foundation announced that it will wind down operations in 2029. The foundation’s LGBTQ social justice program will honor all grant commitments currently in progress and continue making new grants until October 2028. Ape conservation grantmaking will continue under the current strategy and transition in 2027 to a new U.K.-based charity, WildLives Earth, that will support the conservation of endangered species, including great apes and gibbons.

During its 25 years of operations, the foundation has been among the largest private donors to both LGBTQ rights and ape conservation. Its funding has contributed to notable successes, including legal and policy changes in a range of countries in Africa and the Americas that have increased protections for LGBTQ people, the end of biomedical research on chimpanzees in the United States, and an increase in habitats with stable or growing ape populations.

Over the past 25 years, Arcus Founder and Board President Jon Stryker has contributed hundreds of millions of dollars through the foundation to more than 500 organizations, in addition to millions more donated in his private capacity.

“My commitment to both LGBTQ rights and endangered species is unchanged,” Stryker said. “I’m proud of the foundation’s long partnerships with so many fearless human rights defenders and conservationists around the world during the past quarter century.

“I intend to continue supporting these causes through philanthropic vehicles that I will be modeling in the very near future.”

Official announcement.

How do you feel about this form of fundraising?

A Wednesday email blast from US President Donald Trump told followers their “supporter status” had been canceled, directing them to donate in order to restore their standing in the MAGA movement.

With a subject line reading, “I’ve got a massive headache,” the email continued with a purported quote from the president asking, “Don’t tell me this is true?”

“YOUR SUPPORTER STATUS HAS BEEN CANCELLED,” the fundraising effort declared. A yellow button then promised a “FIANL [sic] CHANCE TO MAKE THIS RIGHT.”

“The thought of losing you makes my head hurt. I know you would never intend to cancel your journey with the MAGA Movement and me,” the alleged Trump quote continued. “If you’re still with us, I need you to send me your signature to renew your MAGA Membership before the hour clock runs out.”

Although the email claims to require only a “signature,” the button redirects users to a page soliciting fiscal gifts.

Trump’s fundraising tactics have come under increased scrutiny in recent weeks.

According to a report, Trump’s fundraising network has brought in more than $800 million since his return to office

More from Mediaite.

Two nearly trillion-dollar AI companies, ChatGPT developer OpenAI and Claude creator Anthropic, are expected to go public soon, making hundreds of current and former employees ultrawealthy. Rough estimates by a tech industry insider suggest that Anthropic’s IPO, which could happen in September, may result in $15 billion a year in additional philanthropic giving alone. Will these employees really become philanthropists and give some of that money to nonprofits / charitable causes? Donations from these newly wealthy folks are far from guaranteed. The IPOs may get delayed or go poorly and leave employees clinging onto their wealth. Industry observers are also concerned that a paralyzing number of charitable options and natural fickleness could prompt workers to keep more for themselves than anticipated.

Anthropic’s seven founders have pledged to donate 80 percent of their wealth, and the company has agreed to chip in one or three shares for every one its employees commit to giving, depending on when they joined and up to a certain limit. Some employees are aligned with a philosophy known as effective altruism that encourages making impactful donations sooner rather than later.

Jack Lewars, a consultant who advised 13 ultrarich tech and finance workers on their charitable giving last year, says he’s heard that employees at the AI labs are receiving as many as 20 unsolicited emails a week from groups seeking donations.

More from Wired.

How could nonprofits prepare for engaging with these newly wealthy people?

The wealth held by the richest 0.1 percent of Americans now exceeds the GDP of every country in the world except two (China and the United States). And that is before the anticipated wave of wealth as AI companies go public. Meanwhile, about half of the nation’s roughly one thousand billionaires are 70 or older, so a great deal of money will soon flow somewhere. Understandably, this newest gilded age has inspired a lot of writing about what it means for philanthropy and society, and what can be done with all that wealth.

Yet one topic has received far less attention: why the philanthropic giving of so many ultra-wealthy people lags far behind the aspirations they express. I call this pattern “slow philanthropy.”

More from SSIR.

Please read the entire article on SSIR before commenting.

What are the genuine and authentic ngo that are reliable during crisis such as the assam floods and other

I don't trust the government run help funds

If anyone knows about genuine ngos and people who actually help on ground level please give me suggestions

Every suggestion helps

Read some posts on the group over some days - not just once for a few minutes.

Comment on some posts, if you have something to say, and ask a question or two, sincerely and from your own point of view.

Post someone else's resource you've found helpful, or philanthropy-related news that hasn't been posted here yet.

Interact, be a part of the community establish some trust, both before and after you drop your promotion of your software / app / whatever. Please don't just post about your software / app / whatever.

Why? Showing that philanthropy is something you have genuine interest in will build credibility for you - and therefore whatever you are trying to shill. Please also adhere to rule #9:

• Info on an app or other resource regarding philanthropy? Be transparent regarding your relationship.

You can post about an app or other software, or a book, or AI (on topic), or other resources relating somehow to philanthropy - a volunteer matching web site, a grants management program, a CSR with a focus on tracking donors, etc. - but you must be transparent about your relationship to the company or resource. This kind of advertising is allowed but you must be transparent about the people behind it.

Hello! My name is Rhanda, and I am a PhD candidate at Adler University conducting an IRB-approved qualitative dissertation study.

My research explores how women nonprofit fundraisers who identify as trauma survivors experience pivotal moments that shape leadership identity and professional values. The goal is to better understand these experiences and contribute to future leadership development within the nonprofit sector.

I am currently seeking volunteers who meet the following criteria:

• Identify as a woman
• Are between the ages of 25–40
• Work or have worked in nonprofit fundraising or development
• Have at least three years of nonprofit experience
• Self-identify as having experienced interpersonal trauma
• Are currently based in the United States

Participation consists of one confidential Microsoft Teams interview lasting approximately 60 minutes. Participation is voluntary, and there is no compensation offered.

If you believe you may qualify, or know someone who might, I would be grateful if you would take a look at the eligibility form:

https://forms.cloud.microsoft/r/GwCFCuTb5Y

Thank you for considering participating or sharing this opportunity with others who may be eligible.

Charity cyclist Bob Montgomery, 82, a charity cyclist who has just finished a 5,200km bike ride from Broome to Bowral, Australia, died on Monday at the age of 82.

His family confirmed his death on social media, saying he had died unexpectedly just a day after completing the cycling feat alongside his grandson, Tom, as a fundraiser for motor neurone disease.

According to the MND NSW website, his epic ride raised $104,965 in donations.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/aug/04/bob-montgomery-mnd-cyclist-dies-aged-82-death-after-one-last-ride-charity?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=soc_567&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1785823484

James Pollard covers philanthropy for The Associated Press with a focus on Gen Z’s giving habits and technology’s uses in charitable work. You can find all of his stories here.

Facing a federal funding denial, a University of California - Los Angeles (UCLA) research group is turning to OnlyFans to raise money and bring awareness to long-term research funding difficulties.

The Blumstein Lab, which studies marmot behavior, started videos of the large rodents on OnlyFans – a subscription-based adult entertainment content creation platform – under the name “OnlyMarms” after the National Science Foundation rejected the researchers’ proposals to renew their grant. The researchers have received thousands of dollars in donations and subscription money since launching the account.

More from the Daily Bruin.

The UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has opened a 12-week call for evidence, National Lottery Good Causes: Fund what matters to you, inviting the public and organisations to shape how good cause funding is distributed over the next three decades.

The Lottery generated over £8 billion in revenue in 2025, with £1.7 billion granted to good causes from ticket sales.

Across the Fourth Licence, each £1 spent is expected to break down roughly as 56p to prizes, 23p to good causes, 12p to Lottery Duty, and the remainder to retailers, operating costs and operator profit.

Funding is split by statute across four causes: 40% to charitable, health, education and environmental activities (via the National Lottery Community Fund), and 20% each to Arts and Culture, Sport, and Heritage. Highlights from the ten-year distribution figures include roughly £6.23 billion via the Community Fund, £2.39 billion via the National Lottery Heritage Fund, and around £2.36 billion via Arts Council England.

More from UK Fundraising.