Author: Vu Le

Hi everyone, if you’re free this week on September 26th at 4:30pm Pacific Time, please join White House Includes Nonprofits (WHIN)’s virtual gathering to rally the sector to support Harris/Walz and to push for nonprofits to have a seat at the table in the upcoming administration. See the details and register here. Another session is scheduled for October 24th at 4:30pm Pacific Time; join one or ideally both!

I spent a lot of this weekend working on the book, while simultaneously resisting the urge to throw my laptop off a cliff and run away to live a simple life in a small fishing village in another country. Which apparently is a very common temptation for people who attempt to write books!

…

Read full article here.

Hi everyone, the virtual rally to get nonprofits better representation within the White House, and ideally the Harris administration, has been changed from October 24^th to October 17^th at 4:30pm Pacific Time, so please note that in your calendar. It’s free; register HERE.

Over the past four years, one of the most heartening things I’ve seen is the rise of the Community-Centric Fundraising (CCF) movement. Organizations are doing really awesome and creative stuff, such as asking their donors to support other nonprofits, getting rid of long-held practices such as “raising the paddle,” and using nontraditional metrics for assessing fundraising success. You can read about a lot of the cool stuff colleagues are thinking and doing at the CCF Hub, edited by the brilliant Chris Talbot-Heindl.

It’s also been heartening for me and other CCF proponents to receive fewer annoying and misinformed comments on this topic: “CCF people don’t care about raising money at all; all they do write angry beat poetry about taxes!” “Woke is broke, and it must be true because it rhymes!” “Vu Le hates donors and thinks you should punch every donor you meet in the face!”

However, the growth of the movement has also come with some alarming feedback I’ve been getting from more than a few colleagues across different geographic areas. It seems that some organizations and fundraising teams have been using their engagement in CCF as a shield and an excuse from having deeper, more meaningful engagement with equity practices, and in the process perpetuating inequity. Here are some examples of that:

• Participating in regular CCF discussions, but still ignoring or ostracizing the voices of women of color and other marginalized people when they bring up dissonance with CCF principles
• Prioritizing easy CCF-aligned actions, while avoiding examining and resolving serious issues such as lack of diversity in senior leadership; gender and racial wage gaps; and other concerns
• White senior staff asking lower-seniority staff, who are more likely to be of marginalized identities and who are paid less, to take on unpaid additional CCF-related work

A while ago, I wrote about the concept of Equity Offset, where equity-aligned actions in some areas are used to justify inequity in other areas. It’s like carbon offset, where actions such as paying to plant some trees, in itself a great thing to do, risk allowing people and corporations to feel good about themselves and continue polluting the planet. This seems to be happening occasionally with CCF, and we need to do a better job recognizing and mitigating it:

…

Read full article here.

Hey everyone. If you are on LinkedIn, you may have seen posts by two of my favorite accounts: Crappy Funding Practices, which publicly names and calls out the malarkey and shenanigans of certain funders (while occasionally giving kudos to really awesome ones), and The Home for Wingless Unicorns, which publicly names the organizations that do not disclose salary on their job postings, because not disclosing salary perpetuates inequity.

Generally, the feedback to these groups has been positive and encouraging. But once in a while, there’s the predictable “Why are you being so mean to people? Why name and shame?! You’d get your message across so much better if you just offer chamomile tea to people and speak to them in a calm soothing voice while swaddling them up like a baby!”

OK, I exaggerated a bit. But here’s a recent response to a CFP post that called out a funder who gives six micro grants of $500 each, and who discloses on their website that they get over 4,000 applications each round:

“in this situation, a phone call would have done it. Publicly lambasting a single human is against our energy. Sheesh. All of us have had to learn new paths. Let’s lose the self-righteous angle to it all and be kinder. I actually think that this approach is destructive, not helpful.”

First of all, this is not “a single human” but an organization; and second, as CFP points out in its post, this funder wastes approximately $400,000 of the sector’s resources each round, at the conservative estimate of 4,000 applicants spending 1 hour each on the application at an average cost of $100 per hour in grantwriting time. Nearly half a million dollars of sector resources, for $3,000. Sheesh. I need some chamomile tea.

Meanwhile, here’s a criticism of our friends at The Home for Wingless Unicorns:

“The basis of this site is to shame organizations into changing behavior […] correct? Behavior modification 101 is that education and demonstrating positive outcomes are effective tools. Not outing or shaming.”

These types of response are so common and predictable. So let’s talk about Toxic Niceness. There seems to be two types of this unfortunate type of niceness. One is personal, where people can be so nice that they put others’ needs ahead of their own; here are some signs of that, and it’s good we all check, because I do see a lot of this in our sector, with our trademark propensity for martyrdom and all.   

But for this post, I’m talking about the other kind of Toxic Niceness, which I’m defining as the “expectation and perpetuation of pleasant, agreeable attitude and behaviors that ultimately work to reinforce the status quo of inequity and injustice.” Here’s how it plays out in nursing, where “niceness” is weaponized to silence nurses who try to change problematic systems.

Our sector attracts nice people. And for the most part, it’s great. There’s already enough assholery going on in the world; so niceness is vital and should be encouraged. But Toxic Niceness is not the same as Niceness, just like Toxic Masculinity is not the same as Masculinity. At its core, Toxic Niceness is a sign of White Moderation, which is what Dr. King warned was the biggest barrier to justice, this prioritization of niceness and civility above equity.

And all of us do it from time to time. We often focus our energy on making sure people don’t feel bad, and that we all get along, than we are on addressing inequity and injustice. Often, there is little analysis of the power dynamics, white privilege, patriarchy, or other factors at play in the situation. And it happens frequently in our line of work. I receive this type of feedback all the time, such as last year, when I said “philanthropy has often become a hobby for the wealthy” and it started a firestorm, where people became super upset at my hurting the potential feelings of unspecified donors and demanded I apologize for being so mean.  

A significant part of our work is to find inequitable systems and use whatever means we have to fix them. And to do that, we need to think critically. Before you jump in and use a “niceness and civility” lens to criticize people and movements that are trying to address harmful practices, stop to consider whether you’re engaging in Toxic Niceness. Ask yourself these questions:  

…

Read full article here.

Hey everyone. If you are on LinkedIn, you may have seen posts by two of my favorite accounts: Crappy Funding Practices, which publicly names and calls out the malarkey and shenanigans of certain funders (while occasionally giving kudos to really awesome ones), and The Home for Wingless Unicorns, which publicly names the organizations that do not disclose salary on their job postings, because not disclosing salary perpetuates inequity.

Generally, the feedback to these groups has been positive and encouraging. But once in a while, there’s the predictable “Why are you being so mean to people? Why name and shame?! You’d get your message across so much better if you just offer chamomile tea to people and speak to them in a calm soothing voice while swaddling them up like a baby!”

OK, I exaggerated a bit. But here’s a recent response to a CFP post that called out a funder who gives six micro grants of $500 each, and who discloses on their website that they get over 4,000 applications each round:

“in this situation, a phone call would have done it. Publicly lambasting a single human is against our energy. Sheesh. All of us have had to learn new paths. Let’s lose the self-righteous angle to it all and be kinder. I actually think that this approach is destructive, not helpful.”

First of all, this is not “a single human” but an organization; and second, as CFP points out in its post, this funder wastes approximately $400,000 of the sector’s resources each round, at the conservative estimate of 4,000 applicants spending 1 hour each on the application at an average cost of $100 per hour in grantwriting time. Nearly half a million dollars of sector resources, for $3,000. Sheesh. I need some chamomile tea.

Meanwhile, here’s a criticism of our friends at The Home for Wingless Unicorns:

“The basis of this site is to shame organizations into changing behavior […] correct? Behavior modification 101 is that education and demonstrating positive outcomes are effective tools. Not outing or shaming.”

These types of response are so common and predictable. So let’s talk about Toxic Niceness. There seems to be two types of this unfortunate type of niceness. One is personal, where people can be so nice that they put others’ needs ahead of their own; here are some signs of that, and it’s good we all check, because I do see a lot of this in our sector, with our trademark propensity for martyrdom and all.   

But for this post, I’m talking about the other kind of Toxic Niceness, which I’m defining as the “expectation and perpetuation of pleasant, agreeable attitude and behaviors that ultimately work to reinforce the status quo of inequity and injustice.” Here’s how it plays out in nursing, where “niceness” is weaponized to silence nurses who try to change problematic systems.

Our sector attracts nice people. And for the most part, it’s great. There’s already enough assholery going on in the world; so niceness is vital and should be encouraged. But Toxic Niceness is not the same as Niceness, just like Toxic Masculinity is not the same as Masculinity. At its core, Toxic Niceness is a sign of White Moderation, which is what Dr. King warned was the biggest barrier to justice, this prioritization of niceness and civility above equity.

…

Read Full article here.

A while ago, I learned about ASMR, which stands for Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response. You can read about it in the link above, but basically it’s audio and videos designed to give you positive, tingly feelings. There are videos where people pretend to shampoo your hair; others where they’re eating various foods and you can hear the crunching sounds their mouths make. Very interesting stuff, look it up.

Anyway, we need more positive, tingly feelings. Nonprofit work can be so stressful, especially when it comes to funding and fundraising. Luckily, we have amazing program officers who are supportive and encouraging. However, not everyone is fortunate to have those program officers in their lives, or if they do, those funders aren’t always available. So I made an ASMR video featuring a supportive funder. Listen to it when you’re stressed out about funding. For best effect, listen to it on a loop while wearing head phones and eating some dark chocolate in a supply closet.

…

Read full article here.

Hi everyone, I’m back from my break. I’ve missed you all, and I’ve missed ranting and shaking my fist about various things each week. Also, I need to get back to the grind, because my plan of starting a Nonprofit OnlyFans during the summer did not work out. Apparently, only three people wanted to pay $6 a month to hear me read grant award letters while dressed in button-down shirts from Ross Dress for Less: “‘Dear Unicycles for Tots, congratulations, the review panel has decided to provide your organization a three-year unrestricted grant of $50,000 per year. Thank you for your work.’ Mmm… yeah… unrestricted …oooh… multi-year…”

During the break, I had time to reflect, usually in my hammock while eating handfuls of Kirkland Signature semi-sweet chocolate chips, and I want to make some changes in my work and my personal life. Here are a few things that might affect this site:

I’m writing a book like a real boy! I signed a contract with Wiley to write a book. It will be about reimagining nonprofit and philanthropy and will synthesize all my ramblings into a cohesive book with chapters on boards, fundraising, capacity building, advocacy, etc. The manuscript is due in March, so I’ll be writing a lot. Hopefully, if I can get focused and not distracted all the time by parenting, TV shows, and general brain activities. The book is optimistically aimed to be released November 2025, in time for National Philanthropy Day. Please send thoughts and prayers, connections to people doing cool and revolutionary things whom I can interview, advice, and vegan chocolate.  

This blog will probably feature more videos. Because I’ll be doing so much writing for the book, I will likely do less writing for this blog because that many hours of writing each week might turn me all “The Shining.” The blog will still publish weekly on Tuesdays, but it may not always be a written essay. It could be one or more short videos, cross-posted on Instagram and Facebook. Expect more reels ranging from the serious to the ridiculous. I might throw in a spoken-word poem on board governance or a sock puppet show on general liability insurance. There will be more nonprofit ASMR, nonprofit fashion advice, and dating tips for nonprofit professionals. Quality will be inconsistent but most likely low, so apologies in advance.

…

Read full article here: https://nonprofitaf.com/2024/09/im-back-nonprofit-onlyfans-a-book-deal-and-other-news/

Hi everyone, this will be the last post for a while, as I’ll be taking July and August off from blogging and social media to focus on spending time with my family and possibly beginning writing a new book. I’ll be back on September 2^nd with a new post. Funders, donors, boards, and others with positional power, please keep shenanigans to a minimum while I’m away.

Meanwhile, this week on Thursday June 27^th at 10am Pacific Time, please join me and Common Future’s Co-CEO Jennifer Njuguna in a conversation where we discuss our sector’s propensity for fear and risk-aversion, especially in light of the pushback against DEI. It’s free, and auto-captions will be enabled. Register here.

As I enter this break, I just want to acknowledge that I am exhausted. I’ve never felt so tired and beaten down in my career. I know many of you can relate. We did not sign up for this work—the work of making the world better—thinking it would be easy. Many of us have been doing this for decades, and we’ve seen some horrendous things. But I don’t recall a time when things were this bad, when morale was this low, when the whole world is in crisis, and our efforts to stop the chaos and inequity and injustice feeling so futile.

But I don’t want to dwell too much on everything that has been awful. In these past few months, as the world seems to have gotten so much worse, I find comfort and strength in seeing the courage and conviction that so many people display, in our sector as well as in the world in general. The protests happening across the globe against g3nocide. The student encampments spreading across universities. People are putting their livelihoods, reputations, safety, and even their lives on the line to fight injustice and to create an equitable world.

Read full article here.

Hi everyone, if you’re free on June 27^th at 10am Pacific Time, please join me and Common Future’s Co-CEO Jennifer Njuguna in a conversation where we discuss our sector’s propensity for fear and risk-aversion, especially in light the pushback against DEI, and what we need to do about it. It’s free, and auto-captions will be enabled. Register here.

A few months ago, I posted a short video on Instagram that talked about our conditioning to be excessively thankful to donors, comparing it to a ridiculous concept I made up called “Husband-Centered Marriage” where every time a husband does the dishes or something that contributes to the family, he gets a handwritten thank-you note: “You did it! Because you loaded the dishwasher, our family is stronger. Our community is better because of you!”

Imagine a whole industry is formed on how to thank husbands better, how to retain their loyalty to avoid divorces. Workshops at conferences teach people about what husbands want. “Make sure you don’t talk about your needs and accomplishments, because husbands don’t care that it’s your 40^th birthday or whatever. The limelight must always remain on your husbands and how their contribution is helping them to achieve THEIR goals of making the family better.”

Now, if you threw up a little reading the above, that’s the whole point. It’s gross. In a functioning marriage, partners should do their part without the constant (and asymmetric) requirement of gratitude. Sure, everyone should have respect and appreciation, but it should be mutual. One party should not be expected to chase after the other one, thanking and groveling, when they both theoretically have the same goals but contribute in different ways to achieving those goals. Why would it not be the same with donors and funders?

Husband-Centered Marriages may not be a perfect analogy for our traditional fundraising philosophy and practices that places the needs and whims of donors firmly in the center. But if we reflect on it, it may be more relevant than we think, considering the gender dynamics in fundraising. As our colleague Kat Ferreira puts it:

“The US nonprofit industrial complex is rooted in our broader patriarchal gender disparities. This is not a secret. Social services and charitable causes were often referred to as ‘women’s work’ for generations. It’s well known that the sector has been predominantly staffed by underpaid women while leadership roles were/are predominantly staffed by well-compensated men. These gender power dynamics at play within the nonprofit sector absolutely extend beyond internal organizational culture to include donor relationships, too.”

Extending on Kat’s words, there are significant gender dynamics in fundraising and philanthropy, starting with its origin, where women played a significant role. This leads to the current state, where 80% of fundraisers in development are women (18% are men, and 2% are a different gender).

Despite the majority of development professionals being women, there are still significant disparities and challenges. Women continue to be paid less than men. More men still are at higher levels of leadership. And anywhere from 25% to 76% of fundraisers have experienced sexual harassment and assault, and while it does happen to men, because of the demographics of our fundraising profession, women experience it more, and more likely from men.

Meanwhile, though women donors have been gaining in prominence, with 64% of donations being made by women, donor power is still significantly concentrated among men due to general societal distribution of wealth and privilege.

When examined through the lens of gender and patriarchy, many of our traditional philosophies and practices around fundraising are extremely problematic. Fundraisers, who are mostly women, are encouraged to cater to donors and funders, with the most powerful ones tending to be men. We use gross language like “dating your donors” or “courting donors.” We expect fundraisers, who are again mostly women, to endure horrible behaviors from donors, who again are often men, for the sake of meeting fundraising goals and sustaining programs and services, leading to sexual harassment and other serious problems.

Here are a few things we need to do as a sector:

…

Read full article here.