The most recent issue of the Philanthropy News Digest, one of our favorite newsletters published by the Foundation Center, shows the danger of drawing conclusions from headlines alone.
In the October 25, 2005 issue there are two stories in particular that caught our attention:
The first story, "Giving to Top 400 Charities Up 11.6%, Survey Finds," reports on a Chronicle of Philanthropy story that indicates the top charities are now raising more than they did in the booming economy of the late 1990s. According to the Philanthropy News Digest story, "Few large nonprofits say they have seen a significant slowdown in contributions in fiscal year 2005, despite concerns about possible 'donor fatigue' in the wake of the series of natural disasters around the world."
However, an opposite conclusion is reached in the very next story, which the newsletter picked up from The Washington Post. This story, "Increase in Natural Disasters Worldwide Contributing to 'Donor Fatigue,'" reports on the complaint by some international relief organizations that the recent disasters "have soaked up funds that might have gone to other international crises and have contributed to a serious case of 'donor fatigue.'" Perhaps.
Clearly, this second story is narrower than its over-generalized headline. The story is limited to other international relief organizations not associated with the recent international disasters or to those that have less public visibility than their more famous counterparts. Is it any wonder that contributions may have fallen for those organizations? There is, however, no proof for a statement that tries to suggest that dollars that went to the recent disasters "have soaked up funds" that might have gone elsewhere. And there is absolutely no basis to conclude that donations in general have fallen off due to "donor fatigue."
We recommend looking a bit deeper at those stories that bemoan a drop in contributions and recommend keeping in mind the worldview and realities of the observer.
