The following perspective outlines the present state of ambivalent giving in the aftermath of Covid-19 and suggests considerations for the future of donor-to-ministry relations. Highlighting the significance of technology and self-sufficiency, this analysis inherently addresses the digital and financial learning curves that were exposed as a result of the worldwide presence of Covid-19. (1)
. . .
In the years preceding the Covid-19 outbreak, investment portfolios in the U.S. experienced rapid growth, translating into record giving. Americans gave $449.64 billion in 2019—a 5.1% increase from 2018. Corporate giving increased to $21.09 billion—a 13.4% increase. Foundation giving increased to $75.69 billion—a 2.5% increase. (2) Then came travel restrictions, lockdowns, and economic uncertainty. March 9, 2020 saw the largest single-day point plunge for the Dow Jones Industrial Average, setting off fears of a recession.
Yet, as of this writing, the market has risen to a new all-time high. The two main contributors were the discovery of a vaccine and unparalleled stimulus packages. Government stimuli included checks to individuals, corporate help, infrastructure funding, and aid to combat Covid-19. These monetary infusions kept interest rates down, thus encouraging the market rebound and increased giving.
In contrast to the markets, small businesses affected by emergency regulations had shrinking profits and little growth. Many establishments closed, leaving people jobless. If those who were out of work gave to missions, it likely came from savings or a stimulus check. In addition, church attendance decreased significantly and many parishioners were hesitant to give digitally. Giving online and educating in the world of Zoom was a learning curve for both donors and ministries. The ability for ministries and missionaries to effectively communicate to donors via technology became more critical than ever.
Interestingly, during the Covid-19 era, Christian organizations reported mixed results. Some mission agencies and ministries saw donor bases diminish, which forced elimination of staff and projects. Others realized increased giving. Why?
Two dynamics may have contributed. First, on the financial side, risk management is a key factor when faced with funding choices during a crisis. Donors hesitated to fund new and unproven projects. The tendency is to stick with missions known to have an established track record.
Second, on the personal side, Covid-19 compassion played a part in helping to alleviate suffering. Ministry partners on the field experiencing depression from isolation decided to return home. Others stayed to help, despite the risks. In turn, churches, individuals, and foundations stepped up to the financial challenge. The capability for ministries to communicate their needs via technology suddenly became vitally important.
Still, most organizations feel the impact of travel aggravations, which hinder on-site visits, personal evaluations, and donor interactions. The inability to host fundraising events contributes to the lack of personal touch with donors. Whether the nonprofit in question be a missionary, evangelistic mission, or social organization, the capacity for virtual communication has become essential for these organizations to establish and maintain close relationship with donors.
In the years following the Covid-19 outbreak, it is likely that uncertainty will persist. Donors may consider the potential of other Covid-19 outbreaks with more potent strains. Will regulations again interrupt business growth and travel? Will the global economy ever recover? Will proposed corporate and individual tax increases reduce giving? Higher rates next year may increase the short-term giving of larger donors as they try to lower their taxable income. But, in the long-term, their portfolios may contract. In light of these uncertainties, two major considerations have surfaced from the rapid arrival of Covid-19 and its lingering effects on ministries and donors (along with other looming crises such as war and natural disaster).
First, donors should take into account the necessity of a ministry having a strong media presence and commanding use of technology as a significant tool. Investment in media equipment and personnel is required for the implementation of video, internet, and social media to carry out and promote ministry. This need is not going away, (3) even though in-person ministry and personal contact between organizations and supporters are preferred.
Second, donors should encourage and aid overseas ministry partners to explore ways of becoming more self-reliant. Covid-19 still has the potential to hinder travel and cause another market downturn. In some places, political policies prevent funds from reaching ministries. (4) There are ways donors may consider helping a ministry become self-sustaining.
For example, from a financial position, donors might consider “impact investing” as a means of starting and participating in foreign companies and organizations for the purpose of generating a continuous financial return for both ministry and missionary. These investments can be made through certain public charities, such as Impact Foundation. (5) Earnings from the in-country corporation can be a means of long-lasting support for the designated ministry.
From a spiritual perspective, donors may encourage ministries to focus on national pastors and teachers. The national church will be as strong or as weak as its pulpits. Training national pastors (6) to be godly men who can handle the Word of God accurately is essential for the long-term ministry impact in any country. They may be the next leaders of the funded ministry someday. This training may also include women, counselors, teachers of youth, etc. in their vital biblical roles in ministry.
Finally, one practical prospect might be for donors to consider funding the training of national leaders in administration, finance, and operations. These leaders, by necessity, may replace missionaries who leave the in-country ministry due to another Covid-like pandemic, political conflict, or disaster.
The “donor” may apply to individuals, churches, or foundations. This donor wishes to remain anonymous.
https://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-giving-statistics, citing “Giving USA 2020.”
Use extreme wisdom and caution. The same media that promotes a ministry to a favorable audience may someday promote it to a hostile regime.
Laws passed recently in some countries prohibit certain ministries from acquiring funds from outside of the country.
The Master’s Academy International (TMAI) is an excellent resource and conduit to invest in national pastors (https://www.tmai.org).