- New white paper expands the typology of ‘disintermediation’ – all the ways other actors displace nonprofits in giving, asking for support, and providing aid and help
- Disintermediation is marked by whether or not a charity retains control in, and of, relationships with stakeholders – applies particularly to fundraising re donors
- New concept of ‘citizen fundraiser/ing’ goes beyond ‘volunteer’ to describe fundraising done by lay people outside the remit of the fundraising profession
- More detail on how other actors, particular companies, are delivering services and providing help to people in need
- Expanded typology is first step in mapping the routes that charities could take to ‘reintermediate’ into the relationships and processes from which they are displaced
- Seeking partners to co-create a toolkit to help charities reintermediate.
A joint project between the international fundraising think tank Rogare and Kingston University Business School in London has expanded the typology of disintermediation in the nonprofit sector, which was first published in the Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing (now just Journal of Philanthropy) in 2023.
The expanded typology – presented in the new white paper Death by a thousand cuts: How other actors are displacing charities from giving, asking for support, and providing help – is the first phase of a four-phase project that will help charities ‘reintermediate’ into the relationships and processes from which they are being displaced. You can download the paper and find out full details of the project here.
As well as considerably expanding the subtypes and variants in the typology (full details in the notes for editors section), the new white paper introduces two new ideas.
1) Who controls stakeholder relationships?
Who maintains control in relationships with stakeholders has emerged as a key marker for determining whether a nonprofit has been displaced. This is perhaps most relevant for forms of disintermediated fundraising. If charities have access to donors to steward relationships with them and make further asks, then any fundraising done by external actors or suppliers is more likely outsourced.
But if those external actors restrict charities’ access to donors and guard their data, then the fundraising has been disintermediated. Some types of fundraising products – such as personal giving apps and shopping websites – use donor privacy as selling point.
The new paper incudes philanthropy advisors, donor advised funds and giving circles as ways that charities can be cut out of and displaced from relationships with donors. Based on ideas presented in supplementary discussion paper written by Rogare Critical Fundraising Network member Cherian Koshy (vice president of Kindsight in the USA), we argue that not only can philanthropy advisors displace charities from asking for support, but they can also take over as the “primary interpreters and stewards of donor intent, inserting themselves as the central locus of decision-making, relationship management, and impact evaluation”.
- See pp48-49 of the white paper for more detail and info on the notion of control, and to see a graphic that maps types and subtypes according to how much control a charity has (or does not have). To read more about philanthropy advisors as a form of disintermediation, see this page on Critical Fundraising.
2) Citizen fundraisers
We found that the term ‘volunteer’ is no longer sufficient to describe and encompass all the ways that people conduct raising money for good causes outside the remit of the fundraising profession and traditional charities.
Adapting the concept of ‘citizen journalism’, we have introduced the idea of citizen fundraising and citizen fundraisers.
‘Volunteer’ implies that someone is acting within the parameters of established charity processes – there has to be something they can volunteer for – such as when engaged in community fundraising.
But citizen fundraising is a repositioning of control, ownership and agency over and in the fundraising process, and citizen fundraisers will act on their own initiative, outside the control or even knowledge of nonprofits they might be fundraising for.
And citizen fundraisers often raised funds for causes that have no connection with traditional charities, such as when crowdfunding for medical expenses or to fund new creative projects.
- See pp24-25 of Death by a thousand cuts for more detail and info citizen fundraisers or see here on Critical Fundraising.
Next steps in the project
The overall objective of this joint Rogare/Kingston University project is to help charities to find ways back into the relationships and processes from which the actors described in the typology are displacing them. The project has four phases.
Phase 1 is the one we have just completed, to expand the typology.
Phase 2 explores the reasons why people might prefer to help directly, and identifies the motivations and reasons that stakeholders cut charities out of philanthropic processes. We aim to publish a paper on this towards the end of the Northern hemisphere autumn/fall of 2026.
Phase 3 examines the regulatory and ethical issues that emerge as disintermediation of giving, asking and service delivery becomes more widespread, with a discussion paper published before the end of 2026.
Phase 4 will enlist the input of the fundraising profession in identifying the ways that charities could reintermediate. Throughout 2027, we will arrange a series of webinars, seminars and roundtables – based on our ideas from the first three phases – to get the input of practitioners. The Chartered Institute of Fundraising in the UK has committed to work with us on Phase 4 and we will be looking for other partners in Europe. Our aim then is to produce a toolkit for reintermediation towards the end of 2027 or early in 2028.
“We should welcome new ways for people to act generously, while being clear-eyed about the risks of fragmented relationships, weakened accountability and charities losing the ability to understand and engage their supporters. The challenge is not to defend every existing model. It is to demonstrate where charities and professional fundraisers add distinctive value, and to adapt where they do not.”
Ian MacQuillin, director of Rogare – The Fundraising Think Tank, says:
“We are all looking to grow giving and reverse what seems to be a decline in donations to charities. But what the move towards a ‘democratised’ disintermediation of charities tells us is that giving could be substantially grown, without any of that growth ever going near a charity bank account.
“Looking ahead a decade, if the majority of giving were disintermediated in a way that provided money directly to beneficiaries, would this be in the best interests of people who currently rely on the services provided by charities?
“While fully recognising that charities have no right to claim this space – that it has to be demonstrated and earned – and that in some, possibly many, cases, alternative ways of helping might indeed be the best ways, it might still be that charities are the most effective and efficient channels though which people who want to help can provide that help for those who need. If that is the case, then we need to find ways to reintermediate into the relationship and processes from which we are currently being cut out.”
Dr Rita Kottasz, associate professor at Kingston Business School, says:
“Should we accept a shrinking third sector when nonprofit mission and expertise still have so much to offer? Or is the right response to welcome more providers, precisely because the demand for help has never been greater? We need the map before we can begin to answer them.
“The beneficiaries we care most about are not donors but the people at the end of the pipeline – those who depend on well-coordinated, professionally-managed help. If charities are displaced by actors who cannot match charities’ expertise or safeguards, the risk to those people is real. If charities can understand where they have been cut out, and why, they can think far more clearly about what must change.
“This expanded typology is the necessary first step. You cannot plan a route until you have a map.”
We were able to undertake this work at Rogare thanks to the ongoing generous support of our Associate Members: ST (Stephen Thomas Ltd), Ask Direct, GoalBusters, Giving Architects, Chell Perkins, Fundraiser in the Room, and our strategic partnership with the Chartered Institute of Fundraising. Their support ensures all Rogare’s reports and other outputs are freely available to the fundraising profession – https://www.rogare.net/publications.
Critical Fundraising 