Chapter 29 - the initiative nearly lost donors when we gave women more choice
Our revised survivor-directed model cost us two donors.
They wanted cleaner outcomes.
Numbers.
Percentage leaving abusive households.
Percentage obtaining protective orders.
Percentage completing recommended safety plans.
We had changed our metrics.
Now some women received months of financial counseling without leaving.
Some sought legal information and never filed.
Some returned to partners.
Some separated and later reconciled.
Messy.
One donor representative said:
“How do we know we aren’t enabling dangerous choices?”
I answered:
“We don’t always.”
She looked shocked.
I continued.
“We reduce barriers.”
“We provide accurate information.”
“We fund legal advice.”
“We create emergency options.”
“We assess imminent danger.”
“But competent adults remain allowed to make decisions we would not make.”
The donor withdrew.
Seven figures.
I felt sick.
Conrad heard.
“Want me to call?”
I laughed.
“No.”
“Checking.”
Good.
The loss forced us to shrink expansion plans.
Painful.
Then something unexpected happened.
Smaller donors increased support after our new model became public.
A family foundation joined.
A legal-services network matched emergency funds.
Within eighteen months the gap closed.
Not magically.
Slowly.
May you like
The program survived without changing its principles back for convenience.
That taught me more about power than winning ever had.
Related Stories
