This is a fascinating topic, and I truly appreciate you having the courage to bring it up, Abraham. More people in this forum should be open to discussions like this. As someone who has worked in fundraising for nearly a decade, I share many of your perspectives and wanted to contribute my thoughts as well.
First, I completely agree that a disproportionate level of deference is given to a handful of major funders. In my view, the primary reason for this is the lack of funding diversity. When 30%–50% (or more) of an organization’s revenue comes from just a few key funders, it’s almost inevitable that their opinions will heavily influence strategic decisions. In many cases, this isn’t just a preference—it’s a financial necessity. However, I also believe that funders’ recommendations should be seen as valuable guidance rather than directives that must be followed unquestioningly.
Second, why do organizations give these funders so much weight? It’s not just about financial power. Many organizations trust that these funders, given their experience and broad oversight, are well-positioned to provide informed opinions, despite their team’s experience or not in the field. Ideally, these insights should be grounded in objective data rather than personal biases or professional relationships.
Third, I do think there’s a kind of “inner circle” of influencers who shape the broader conversation—especially in fields like animal welfare. This influence is likely exacerbated by the limited number of evaluators and the lack of diverse methodologies for assessing interventions, new organizations, and meta-level work. Without a variety of evaluative perspectives, the same voices tend to dominate.
That said, I’m really encouraged to see more diverse perspectives emerging in this forum. I look forward to more thought-provoking discussions like this in the future! (Disclaimer: The views I express here are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer).
This is a fascinating topic, and I truly appreciate you having the courage to bring it up, Abraham. More people in this forum should be open to discussions like this.
As someone who has worked in fundraising for nearly a decade, I share many of your perspectives and wanted to contribute my thoughts as well.
First, I completely agree that a disproportionate level of deference is given to a handful of major funders. In my view, the primary reason for this is the lack of funding diversity. When 30%–50% (or more) of an organization’s revenue comes from just a few key funders, it’s almost inevitable that their opinions will heavily influence strategic decisions. In many cases, this isn’t just a preference—it’s a financial necessity. However, I also believe that funders’ recommendations should be seen as valuable guidance rather than directives that must be followed unquestioningly.
Second, why do organizations give these funders so much weight? It’s not just about financial power. Many organizations trust that these funders, given their experience and broad oversight, are well-positioned to provide informed opinions, despite their team’s experience or not in the field. Ideally, these insights should be grounded in objective data rather than personal biases or professional relationships.
Third, I do think there’s a kind of “inner circle” of influencers who shape the broader conversation—especially in fields like animal welfare. This influence is likely exacerbated by the limited number of evaluators and the lack of diverse methodologies for assessing interventions, new organizations, and meta-level work. Without a variety of evaluative perspectives, the same voices tend to dominate.
That said, I’m really encouraged to see more diverse perspectives emerging in this forum. I look forward to more thought-provoking discussions like this in the future!
(Disclaimer: The views I express here are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer).