Recently, I attended my very first academic conference — ARNOVA — in Indianapolis. ARNOVA is the global summit for scholars studying the social sector, and I was there with many of my colleagues and professors from the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy’s new doctoral program, which I’ve been part of for the last year and a half.
Prior to arriving at the conference, I was a bit anxiety-ridden, as the idea of an academic conference felt a bit alien to me. I wasn’t sure what to expect. (Okay… I suspected it might be a little slow. I was wrong.) My academic friends — especially Elizabeth Searing, who deserves a major shout-out — gave me a helpful primer on “how these things work,” and soon enough I went from anxious to genuinely excited.
It turned out to be phenomenal. Meeting scholars whose research I’ve been reading for years — especially on fundraising — and having the chance to spar with them about issues we’re all passionate about? Energizing.
I learned so much that I didn’t want to keep it to myself. Below are some of the insights that stood out. I hope you find them as interesting as I did.
Mid-Level Donors: The “Black Sheep” of Fundraising?
One theme surfaced repeatedly: mid-level donors — however defined — often fall through the cracks. Small donors are typically seen as having limited impact, major donors get cultivated intensively, and mid-level donors? Many nonprofits consider them too unpredictable to develop as their own strategic category.
This “black sheep” dynamic came up explicitly in a few sessions and implicitly in many more.
The Elusive Definition of “Everyday Donors”
The phrase “everyday donors” is used constantly in our sector, yet I couldn’t find a single definition that people consistently agree on.
Important category. Fuzzy boundaries.
“Diversity Whiplash” Is Real
Another term I heard across multiple presentations was “Diversity Whiplash.”
It refers to organizations that rapidly adopted DEI initiatives in 2021 — some because they believed it was the right thing to do, others to align with donor expectations — only to roll them back just as quickly when the political and cultural climate shifted in 2024–2025.
Why the reversals?
fear of government scrutiny?
concerns about legal exposure?
trying to keep up with what they felt donors wanted?
No one seemed entirely sure, but the whiplash itself is undeniable.
And the suggested antidote?
Diversify your revenue base.
(Which begs the question: shouldn’t we already be doing this?)
DAFs as a “Holding Tank”
As my regular readers know, I’m a huge fan of DAFs in general, and I’ve personally used them for over a decade. With the “diversity whiplash” issue, some donors, I learned, are temporarily parking their charitable dollars in DAFs “until the climate cools off.” This might make sense in the short term, but becomes problematic if it turns into a long-term strategy.
After all… who decides when the climate has “calmed down”?
“Leveraging Awe”: A Surprisingly Powerful Fundraising Tool
“Leveraging awe” was another term I heard repeatedly. It’s used in education, business, and marketing, and I think it’s applicable to fundraising. Various research suggests that leveraging awe can result in:
enhanced cognition
reduced stress
improved executive function
increased prosocial behavior
sparked curiosity
inspired learning
In the nonprofit sector, the best way to create and to leverage awe is to use the power of storytelling.
If you can’t tell a compelling story about your mission, successes, and challenges, now is the time to fix that. Two of my favorite guides to compelling storytelling are Esther Choy’s Let the Story Do the Work and Russell James’s The Storytelling Fundraiser.
990s, Watchdog Agencies, and Overhead
The IRS 990 made many appearances. I heard again that nonprofits often “adjust” their reporting — particularly overhead — to match donor expectations. This happens internationally, too.
Most watchdog agencies rely heavily (or entirely) on 990s when assigning ratings.
And when the underlying data is distorted, so are the ratings.
It’s a vicious cycle — one many of us know all too well.
Fiscal Sponsorship: A Black Box for Donors
I also wondered how organizations operating under fiscal sponsors are evaluated by donors.
Short answer: They usually aren’t.
Nonprofits using fiscal sponsors don’t have their activities or finances listed separately in 990s, and watchdog agencies don’t rate them independently. A donor could theoretically sift through the fiscal sponsor’s vast 990… but realistically, who’s doing that?
Fiscal sponsorships are an important tool, but it’s important to understand the inherent implications for transparency, comparability, and donor trust.
Other Interesting Terms I Picked Up
A few other concepts floated through various presentations:
“Medium Rich”: A loosely defined descriptor of someone’s wealth; definitions vary dramatically by geography and personal perspective.
“Cognitive Empathy”: Discussed especially in relation to donor motivation and fundraising practice. Worth thinking about.
“PSM” (Public Service Motivation): A recurring theme in discussions of nonprofit leadership and workforce behavior.
Final Thoughts
Attending ARNOVA was an eye-opening experience — energizing, surprising, and full of ideas I’m still processing. It also left me feeling encouraged: the academic conversations happening right now are deeply relevant to what donors, fundraisers, and nonprofits are grappling with on the ground.
If you were at ARNOVA this year, I’d love to hear what stood out to you.
And if you weren’t, I hope these insights gave you a tiny taste of what’s happening in the research world that shapes the work we all care about.
Thank you to everyone who has joined us as a premium subscriber! Your support makes it possible to dive deeper into the conversations shaping the future of philanthropy.
Premium subscribers are invited to our exclusive monthly Power Hour, where I lead thought-provoking discussions with industry leaders on the most pressing topics in giving today. These interactive Zoom sessions are your chance to connect, learn, and collaborate with like-minded changemakers.
Not a premium subscriber yet? Upgrade your subscription now to join the next Power Hour and gain access to all premium content!
As always, these newsletters will remain free of charge—because saving giving starts with everyone.
Thank you for being part of the revolution!
—The Saving Giving Team
“Diversity whiplash” example: temporarily parking charitable dollars in DAFs “until the climate cools off.”
We are living in a social/cultural climate crisis as well as a global climate crisis. Parking charitable dollars during a firestorm? Until it cools off? Someone please explain this logic?!