Beyond the Donation: Can We Use Digital Technology to Do Good Without Causing Harm?
How digital philanthropy, artificial intelligence and data protection are changing the way we support vulnerable communities in Kenya.
A new conversation begins
Welcome to the Pathways of Promise Kenya blog!
We are pleased to open this space for conversations about children, families, dignity, social protection and the responsibilities that come with supporting people facing difficult circumstances. Through this blog, we hope to share ideas, reflect on emerging challenges, explore practical solutions and learn from people working to make communities safer and more inclusive.
For our first article, we turn to a question that may not immediately come to mind when we think about charity or philanthropy:
As we use digital technology to help people, how do we ensure that the same technology does not expose them to harm?
Today, organizations can receive donations online, communicate with supporters through social media, store programme records in cloud systems, publish impact reports on websites and use artificial intelligence (AI) to help with everyday tasks. These developments create exciting opportunities, particularly for small and emerging organizations seeking to reach supporters and use limited resources effectively.
Yet there is another side to this progress. A photograph published to encourage donations can reveal someone's identity. A personal story shared to explain a social problem can expose a family to stigma. Information collected for a legitimate programme may find its way into an unrelated report, online platform or AI tool.
The intention may be generous. The consequences, however, may be much more complicated.
At Pathways of Promise Kenya, we believe that this is a conversation worth having—not only among technology experts or large institutions, but also among community organizations, donors, volunteers, policymakers and anyone who wants to contribute to positive social change.
1. Digital philanthropy: an opportunity and a responsibility
Philanthropy has always involved relationships: someone recognizes a need, another person or institution offers support, and resources are directed towards addressing that need. Digital technology has changed how these relationships are formed and maintained.
A small nonprofit can now share its work with supporters far beyond its immediate community. Online donations may make giving more accessible. Digital records can help organizations track contributions, coordinate activities and prepare reports. Social media can draw attention to issues that might otherwise receive limited public visibility.
Artificial intelligence adds another dimension. Depending on the tool and the task, it may help an organization draft routine correspondence, organize research, prepare administrative templates, translate non-confidential material or structure a funding proposal.
For emerging organizations, these tools can be particularly attractive. They may provide ways to strengthen administration without immediately requiring a large team or expensive technology infrastructure.
But digital capability should not be measured only by how quickly an organization raises funds, how many people see a post or how efficiently a report is produced. We must also ask whether the systems we use are appropriate for the information they handle, whether people understand how their information may be used, and whether the organization can prevent foreseeable harm.
A successful online campaign is not necessarily an ethical one. A well-designed website is not automatically a safe one. And a powerful technology is not inherently responsible simply because it is being used in the service of a good cause.
The challenge is to make digital tools work for people without treating their privacy or dignity as the price of receiving assistance.
2. When telling a story can expose a person
Many charitable organizations depend on public communication to explain their mission and encourage support. Stories can help people understand circumstances they may never encounter personally. They can challenge stereotypes, encourage solidarity and make social issues more visible.
However, storytelling becomes ethically complicated when the people featured are experiencing hardship, discrimination, violence or other forms of vulnerability.
Imagine a photograph of a child accompanying a fundraising appeal. The organisation may intend to communicate urgency and inspire generosity. But what might happen when that photograph is copied, shared outside its original context or encountered years later by someone who knows the child's family?
What if a caption reveals that the child's mother is incarcerated? What if a photograph includes identifying details about a location, school or family relationship? Even without a person's name, several details combined may make identification possible.
These questions are especially important for children affected by parental incarceration. A child should not have to carry a permanent digital record of a parent's circumstances simply because someone wanted to raise awareness or funds.
Similar concerns apply to survivors of gender-based violence, trafficking and sexual exploitation, as well as people experiencing homelessness, illness or severe economic hardship. Publishing personal histories or identifiable details may expose people to unwanted attention, stigma, harassment or further victimization.
Once information circulates online, removing the original post cannot guarantee that every copy will disappear.
This does not mean organizations should never share stories. It means they must think carefully about whose story is being told, who benefits from its publication, what information is necessary and what risks might follow.
A person's difficult circumstances should never become a condition of their public exposure.
Organizations can communicate their work through anonymised examples, aggregated information, illustrations, descriptions of programmes and explanations of community needs. They can show supplies being prepared, volunteers working, services being delivered and progress being made without unnecessarily revealing the identities of those receiving support.
Ethical storytelling is not about making social problems invisible. It is about making them visible without making the people affected less safe.
3. Consent matters—but it is not the whole answer
One common response to concerns about photographs and personal stories is that permission was obtained before publication. Consent is important, but ethical practice requires us to look beyond whether someone said yes.
Does the person understand where the material will appear? Do they know it may be shared beyond the organization's own website? Have they been told how their information will be used and whether they can change their mind? Can they decline publicity without affecting their access to assistance?
These questions matter because relationships involving aid are rarely equal. A person seeking support may feel that agreeing to a photograph, testimonial or public account is expected, even when nobody explicitly says so.
Children require particular care. Their understanding of the long-term consequences of online publication may be limited, and adults must not assume that a photograph is harmless simply because a child appears happy in it. Appropriate consent, the child's views, their best interests and the possibility of future harm must all be considered.
For people experiencing violence, exploitation or other serious risks, even apparently ordinary information can have safety implications.
Responsible organizations should therefore ask two separate questions: Do we have an appropriate basis for using this information, and is using or publishing it necessary at all?
The second question is often overlooked.
Sometimes, the safest and most respectful decision is not to collect the information, take the photograph or publish the story. No individual should have to trade their privacy for a blanket, food, school support or another essential service.
4. What does artificial intelligence change?
Artificial intelligence is creating new possibilities for charities and civil society organizations. It can help with certain administrative tasks, support research and generate first drafts of public-facing material. Used thoughtfully, it may free up time for work that requires human attention.
However, AI systems introduce additional questions about confidentiality, accuracy, bias and accountability.
Consider a simple example. An organization has notes about a child or family and wants to prepare a report. Someone might copy those notes into an online AI tool to summarise them. That person may be focused entirely on saving time and may not realise that the information is sensitive or that the tool has its own data-handling arrangements.
The concern is not that every AI tool necessarily misuses submitted information. The concern is that organizations may share information without sufficiently understanding the tool, its settings, its terms or the risks involved.
Personal details about children, health conditions, family circumstances, violence, incarceration or a person's location should not casually be entered into public AI systems. Information should be assessed before it is shared, and tools should be selected according to their suitability for the task and the sensitivity of the material.
AI-generated content also needs human review. A system may produce inaccurate statements, invent details, misinterpret a person's circumstances or reproduce harmful assumptions. A polished paragraph is not proof that the information is true.
The risks become even more serious when AI-generated images or narratives are used in communications about vulnerable people. An invented image presented as a real beneficiary, or a fabricated account presented as a genuine experience, can mislead donors and undermine trust. Images that resemble real people may also raise dignity, consent and representation concerns.
For an organization such as Pathways of Promise Kenya, sensible early uses of AI may include drafting general administrative templates, organizing research questions or preparing an initial outline for a public report. Sensitive beneficiary records should remain outside such tasks unless a specific use has been carefully assessed and appropriate safeguards are in place.
AI should support human judgement, not replace it. Decisions affecting someone's access to support, safety or rights require appropriate human responsibility and oversight.
5. Protecting information is part of protecting people
Digital safeguarding is sometimes treated as a technical matter best left to an IT specialist. In reality, it begins with everyday organizational decisions.
What information do we collect? Why do we need it? Who can access it? How long should we keep it? Where is it stored? What happens when a volunteer leaves or a staff member changes roles? What would we do if a phone containing programme information were lost?
These are practical questions that organizations of every size should consider.
A few foundational principles can make a difference.
Collect only what is necessary. An organization should not collect personal details merely because a form makes them easy to request. Each item of information should serve a clear and legitimate purpose.
Limit access. Not everyone involved in a programme needs access to every record. Information should be available only to authorised people who need it for their responsibilities.
Use secure systems. Appropriate passwords, multi-factor authentication where available, protected devices, secure backups and careful file-sharing practices help reduce avoidable risks. Access should be reviewed when roles change.
Keep information for a defined purpose. Organizations should establish sensible retention and deletion procedures rather than keeping sensitive records indefinitely simply because storage is available.
Prepare for problems. A data breach or accidental disclosure should trigger a clear response. Organizations need to know whom to inform internally, how to contain the problem, how to assess potential harm and which notification or reporting obligations may apply.
In Kenya, the Data Protection Act, 2019, and related regulations provide an important legal framework for handling personal information. The Children Act, 2022, also forms part of the wider legal context for protecting children's rights and welfare.
Compliance matters, but good practice should go further than asking whether a procedure satisfies a legal requirement. Organizations should consider the dignity and safety of the people affected by their decisions.
For smaller nonprofits, responsible practice does not necessarily begin with sophisticated software or expensive digital systems. Clear procedures, restricted access, careful communication and a culture of accountability can provide a practical foundation.
6. What does this mean for Pathways of Promise Kenya?
Pathways of Promise Kenya is concerned with children affected by parental incarceration, including children living with their mothers in prison. This work brings questions of dignity, family circumstances, safeguarding and public communication into particularly sharp focus.
We want people to understand the needs that exist and the importance of supporting children and families. We also recognize that raising awareness must not come at the expense of the people whose experiences draw attention to these issues.
As our organization develops its programmes, communications and fundraising activities, these questions are relevant to the choices we make about photographs, stories, records, donation systems and digital tools.
How can we demonstrate the needs our work seeks to address without identifying individual children unnecessarily? How should program information be separated from material intended for public communication? What safeguards should guide the use of digital platforms and AI? How can donors receive meaningful accountability without being given access to private information?
These are questions we believe should be addressed deliberately, rather than only after a problem occurs.
This article is part of an emerging conversation about the kind of organization we want to build. It does not suggest that every safeguard discussed here has already been implemented, or that our organization has completed an evaluation of its digital practices. Instead, it sets out principles that should inform our development and invites others to reflect on how such principles can be translated into everyday work.
We believe the people at the center of social support should be treated as individuals with rights, agency and dignity; not simply as examples of need.
That belief should be visible in our administrative decisions as well as our public messaging.
7. Donors, technology providers and the wider public have a role
Responsibility for safe digital philanthropy cannot rest with nonprofits alone.
Donors can ask organizations how they protect personal information, whether their communications respect the privacy of beneficiaries and how they demonstrate impact without unnecessary exposure. They can support organizations that make safeguarding and responsible governance priorities, not merely those with the most emotionally compelling fundraising campaigns.
Technology providers can make privacy protections easier to understand and use, provide clear information about data handling and design systems that help users identify risks before information is shared.
Policymakers and regulators can support awareness of data protection obligations and make accessible guidance available to organizations with limited resources.
Civil society networks and researchers can help develop practical standards, share lessons and examine how digital risks affect different communities. Organizations can learn from one another rather than treating safeguarding as an isolated internal concern.
Members of the public also have a responsibility. Before sharing a photograph or story about someone receiving assistance, we can pause and ask whether sharing it is appropriate. Does the post reveal private information? Does it respect the person being represented? Would we be comfortable with the same information about ourselves or our own children circulating indefinitely?
These questions are not intended to discourage generosity. They are intended to make generosity more responsible.
Digital technology can expand our ability to support one another. The goal should be to ensure that this expansion also strengthens respect, trust and accountability.
A conversation we invite you to join
As Pathways of Promise Kenya begins publishing through this blog, we want this space to be more than a place where we share updates. We want it to encourage thoughtful discussion about the realities of protecting children and communities, the responsibilities of organizations and the practical choices that shape social impact.
Our starting point is simple: doing good should not require people to surrender their privacy, dignity or safety.
Digital platforms and artificial intelligence offer opportunities that organizations should be able to explore. But innovation should be accompanied by reflection, safeguards and a willingness to question practices that may cause harm, even when they are well intentioned.
We recognize that these issues are complex. Organizations operate with different levels of funding, expertise and capacity. There will not always be one simple answer to every practical question. That makes open discussion, shared learning and honest reflection even more important.
We would love to hear your thoughts.
Do you think charities and nonprofits give enough attention to the privacy and digital safety of the people they support? How can organizations tell compelling stories and remain accountable to donors without exposing beneficiaries? What responsibilities should donors and technology companies share? And how should smaller organizations in Kenya approach the use of AI when their resources and technical capacity are limited?
Please share your reflections in the comments, and share this article with others who may find the conversation useful. Respectful disagreement, practical suggestions and different experiences are welcome.
Thank you for joining us at the beginning of this conversation. We look forward to learning with you as Pathways of Promise Kenya continues to develop its work.
Pathways of Promise Kenya : supporting dignity, safeguarding and thoughtful action for children and communities.