Human-Centered Fundraising for Greater Impact: Shared Power Models
Scaling Major Gifts. Strategies, action steps, and ideas for scaling major gifts by Tammy Zonker, Major Gift Expert & Keynote Speaker.
How Do I Share Power With Donors and Communities in Major Gifts?
Shared-power fundraising means the people your mission serves and the donors who fund it help shape decisions together, instead of staff deciding for one group and asking the other to pay. The most practical way to start is small. Pick one real decision, invite a few major donors and community members to the same table, be clear about who decides what, and report back on what you did with their input.
This is for major gift officers, development directors, and executive directors who want deeper donor trust and stronger community legitimacy at the same time. After reading, you'll be able to:
Explain what "fundraising with, not for" looks like in a major gifts program
Choose a shared-power model that fits your size and culture
Invite donors into shared decision-making without saviorism or tokenism
Pilot one simple shared-power experiment this quarter
Let’s get into it
There's a phrase I’m hearing more and more at recent conferences. "Human-centered fundraising."
I love it. And I've noticed something. When we say it, some people hear "donor-centered" and others hear "community-centered." Then the two groups look at each other across the room like they're on opposite teams.
They aren't. In my experience, the strongest major gift programs in 2026 are combining the best of both. Donors are treated as partners, not ATMs. Communities are treated as experts, not case studies. And both get a real seat at the table.
That's what I mean by shared power. It's fundraising with, not for.
What does "fundraising with, not for" look like in practice?
Mostly, it's small and visible shifts.
Instead of writing the case for support in the office and testing it on donors, you build it with community members first.
Instead of a donor briefing where staff present the plan, you hold a working session where donors and community members shape it together.
Instead of a report that tells donors what happened, you send one update to everyone who helped decide. What you heard, and what you did.
The donor still gives. The community still benefits. What changes is who gets to shape the work.
What shared-power models can a major gifts program use?
I've seen four models work well at organizations of every size.
Combined advisory tables. A small group of major donors and community members who meet together, not separately, to advise on one program or initiative.
Participatory funds. A pool of donor dollars where community members help decide how it's spent, borrowing from participatory grantmaking.
Co-designed gift opportunities. Community members help define the need and the solution before you ever bring it to a donor.
Shared decision-making on one initiative. You name in advance which decisions belong to the community, which to donors, and which to staff.
Why should I name decision rights ahead of time?
Naming decision rights ahead of time is what turns shared power from a nice idea into something people can trust. Without it, everyone walks into the room with a different assumption about how much say they have. In my experience, the gap between those assumptions is where things go wrong.
I've found it matters for four reasons.
It prevents tokenism. Community members have often been "invited to share their voice," only to find out later that the decision was already made. When you say upfront, "This decision is yours," and then honor it, you prove the invitation was real.
It reassures donors. A major donor's biggest worry about shared power is being pushed aside. A clear map shows them exactly where their judgment counts, so they're not guessing or quietly feeling left out.
It protects staff and the board. Some decisions can't be shared, like legal compliance, hiring, or budget limits. Saying so at the start keeps you from walking back a promise halfway through. That does more damage to trust than never making the offer at all.
It heads off conflict. Most blowups in collaborative work aren't about the decision itself. They're about someone finding out they had less power than they thought. Clarity early saves a lot of repair work later.
What does a decision map look like?
A family literacy nonprofit I know received a $150,000 commitment from a donor couple to launch a new reading program for parents and young children. Before the first planning meeting, the development director drafted a one-page decision map and shared it with everyone at the table.
Parents decide when and where sessions happen.
Parents and staff decide together which books and materials to use.
Everyone decides together how success is measured.
Donors decide the scope of their gift.
Staff decide who gets hired to lead sessions.
The board holds fiduciary oversight.
Here's how it played out. The parents chose Saturday mornings at the library branch near the bus line, not the weeknight sessions staff had assumed. Attendance in the first group was far higher than the organization's earlier evening programs. The donors helped define success as "families still reading together six months later," not just "sessions attended." And because everyone knew up front that hiring stayed with staff, nobody felt overruled when the program director was chosen.
At the end of the year, the donor couple renewed their gift. When the development director asked why, the wife said, "We always knew where we fit. And we got to watch parents make decisions we never would have thought of."
That's the heart of it. A decision map doesn't limit anyone's power. It makes the power real by telling everyone exactly what they own.
How do I invite major donors in without saviorism or tokenism?
This is where good intentions can go sideways, so I'll be direct.
Saviorism shows up when the story casts the donor as the rescuer. Shift the roles. Donors are partners and learners. Community members tell their own stories.
Tokenism shows up when one person is asked to "represent" a whole community, or when input is gathered after the decision is already made. Invite more than one voice, bring people in early, and pay them for their time and expertise.
I've found that most major donors welcome this. Many are tired of being sold to. When you say, "I'd love for you to sit alongside the families we serve and help us figure this out," you're offering something rare. Real proximity to the work.
How do I communicate voice and accountability to donors and communities?
Use a simple "You said, we did" update. Send the same one to donors and community members. List what you heard, what you decided, and what you couldn't do and why. That last part builds more trust than you'd expect.
AI can help here. Ask your AI assistant to sort meeting notes into themes, draft a first version of your update, or turn a long session into a one-page summary. Then edit it so it sounds like a person, not a report. And keep anything personal about community members out of public tools.
What to focus on next week
Look at one recent major gift. Who shaped it? Staff, the donor, or the community?
List the community voices you trust. Program alumni, parents, neighborhood leaders, frontline staff.
Name two or three major donors who've told you they want to be closer to the work.
Pick one upcoming decision that could be shared.
A Quick Story
A youth arts organization I worked with had a $60,000 summer program fund that staff allocated each spring. Last year they tried something new. They brought three major donors, two parents, and two program alumni together for two evenings to decide as a group. The alumni pushed for evening studio hours because so many teens work summer jobs, something the donors had never heard. Two of the three donors increased their gifts the next year. One told me, "That was the first time I really knew what my money was for."
Try this next week
Here's one practical experiment in shared power you can pilot. Call it a Shared Table.
Draft a one-page invitation for one real decision with real dollars attached, and invite three major donors and three community members.
Sketch a one-page decision map like the one above. What the community decides, what donors decide, what staff decides, and what you decide together.
Set a stipend for community participants before you invite anyone, even if a modest one.
Want to take a deeper dive?
This week on The Intentional Fundraiser Podcast, I share the story of a shared-power initiative that deepened trust with both donors and the community, plus how to frame this work with your board.
Listen now to: Human-Centered Major Gifts
I'd love to hear from you
Where does power sit in your major gifts program right now? Who's at the table, and who isn't yet? Hit reply and tell me. I read every response.
You don't have to redesign your whole program to share power. Start with one table, one decision, and a few more voices. That's how trust grows.
If you want the complete guide to bringing human-centered fundraising to your organization, I wrote a whole book about it. Calling All Heroes: Combining the Best of Donor-Centered and Community-Centered Fundraising for Greater Impact walks you step by step through building a program where donors and communities both have a real seat at the table. Grab your copy here.
Keep scaling,
Tammy Zonker
Major Gift Expert + Keynote Speaker
Founder + President of Fundraising Transformed
President of Modern Institute for Charitable Giving
Subscribe to The Intentional Fundraiser Podcast
Book me to Keynote Your Next Event
Reserve your spot at our upcoming Excellence in Major Gift Fundraising Seminar
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. Who is this approach best suited for?
This approach is designed for major gift officers, development directors, and executive directors who want to deepen donor trust and community legitimacy at the same time. It works especially well if you already have a few major donors who've asked to be closer to the work, and relationships with program participants, alumni, or community leaders who'd welcome a real seat at the table.
Q2. How much time should I expect this to take each week?
Most fundraisers can get started with about one to two hours per week focused on planning one shared decision, inviting participants, and following up after each session. The more important piece is consistency. Protect this time on your calendar so it doesn't get swallowed by internal noise and year-end pressure.
Q3. What if my organization is small and I wear multiple hats?
The principles still apply, but you may need to scale the tactics. Start with a lighter version you can realistically sustain, perhaps one Shared Table with three donors and three community members, one decision, and two meetings. Expand as you see results.
Q4. How do I know if it's working?
Look for early signals like donors asking deeper questions about the work, community members coming back for a second session, richer CRM notes about donor values, and faster, warmer yeses. Over time, you should see this reflected in stronger donor retention, larger and multi-year commitments, and more community members becoming advocates and donors themselves.
Q5. Where does AI fit into this, if at all?
AI is there to reduce friction, not replace your relationships. Use it for sorting session notes into themes, drafting "You said, we did" updates, and preparing plain-language briefing sheets before a meeting. Keep sensitive information about community members out of public tools, and keep the human work of listening, facilitation, and relationship-building firmly in your hands.