This week, Tennessee lawmakers withdrew funding for the Memphis’ bicentennial celebration as punishment for the city’s removal of two Confederate statues from a public park without the legislature’s approval. But residents of the city, who supported the removal in the first place, have largely replaced the money through crowdfunding, exerting ownership over their own history.
Crowdsourcing should be native to nonprofits, which are designed for collective action and fulfilling the public good. It would be a mistake to see this concept as foreign in the face of a crying need to recommit to substantive engagement as a core practice.
There are certainly lessons for nonprofits to take away from the rapid rise of crowdfunded charity about the importance of personal connection and the need donors have to feel they are personally doing good, but there is a flip side.
An Iranian-American journalist used the YouCaring crowdfunding site to raise support for last week’s earthquake survivors. YouCaring removed her page after she raised $2,000 in the first 30 minutes “because the country you provided is part of an embargoed region.”
Donor-Advised Funds, or DAFs, are a rapidly growing staple in the giving of individual donors. But they are also controversial. This important original article by IUPUI’s Patrick Rooney explores how their use may affect the charitable money flows in our modern giving landscape.
Local governments are turning to crowdsourcing to finance public services. Apparently, while residents may be resistant to city and state tax hikes, they are likely to donate money to government if they can have some say over where it goes. But how does this impact the role of government and resident participation?
To Access the Full Article, Please Login or Subscribe