One thing about shelter-in-place; I’ve been going through notes and files and finding half-written ideas for blog posts that never made it here.
One such germ of a post began with a question from another website (I’ve lost the link, not sure where the conversation started), “Do Bequest gifts to your organization at least total seven to nine percent of all charitable gift dollars each year? That’s the national average.”
My response (now edited for posting):
Bequests may be 7-9% of overall charitable giving, but it’s wrong to assume that it’s an “average” that organizations should shoot for. That’s an overall figure for the sector, including organizations large and small. And including religious orders and nonprofit universities, which are “typical” (as dangerous a word as “average”) bequest recipients.
This made me wonder if there’s a better way to come up with a nonprofits' target bequest expectations. Rather than bequests’ overall ranking, maybe it would be more appropriate to look at it in relation to individual giving? After all, bequests are simply the final gift of the individual donors who we've properly stewarded for many years.
So, if individuals are about 74% of overall national giving, compared to bequests being about 8% (changes slightly year-to-year, but roughly the about that), then we’d say bequests, overall, are about 11% of individual giving.
Then, an organization could see if they’re doing well on bequests using that 11% of individuals figure.
IE: If individuals are 50% of your income, bequests “should be” 5.5%. If individuals are 25% of your income, bequests “should be” 2.75%. If individuals are 85% of your income, bequests “should be” 9%. IF that were a good benchmark.
Reality, however, includes many other factors. Do your donors skew older or younger? It seems likely that if you have older donors, you may be expecting more bequests. What is your average donor turn-over? Do you retain a high percentage of donors each year? Organizations that retain more donors, rather than churn them over, may be more likely to have higher bequests.
In the end, even when donors notify us that they’ve included us in their wills, bequests are never a “pledge” that you can count on. They will nearly always be unexpected, and are not something you can put in your budget. And, as they are frequently larger amounts, it may be that your board will designate them for an endowment.
Bottom line: Encourage planned giving. Be grateful for the bequests that do come in (and make it through probate). But don’t plan for them, and don’t fall into a trap of trying to benchmark where you “should be” in bequests.
Showing posts with label fundraising. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fundraising. Show all posts
Monday, May 04, 2020
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Top Three Takeaways from the Nonprofit Overhead Challenge
If you're not already talking about overhead, you should be, and you will be soon. Overhead, of course, is shorthand for what nonprofits spend on general management and oversight, fundraising, and membership development. In other words, anything that isn't directly mission-related programming.
Seems pretty basic, but there are often fuzzy lines between what we consider "overhead" and what we consider "programming" - a line that is not only fuzzy, but politically charged as more and more donors (individuals as well as foundations and government) are looking at our overhead-to-programming ratio as a means of judging our "worthiness."
Last Friday, I attended Stronger Together, a conference produced in collaboration by CalNonprofits, CompassPoint Nonprofit Services, and Nonprofits' Insurance Alliance of California (NIAC). Among the sessions I attended was The Nonprofit Overhead Challenge: Action Lab for Change, moderated by Jeanne Bell, CEO of CompassPoint, and paneled by Jan Masaoka, CEO of CalNonprofits, Hydeh Ghaffari, Partner, DZH Phillips, and Ann Goggins Gregory, COO of Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco. Here are my top three takeaways from the session:
1 - Hydeh Ghaffari: "The organizations showing 6% are playing with the numbers and the ones showing 60% need technical assistance."
2 - Ann Goggins Gregory: "Be willing to walk away from grants and contracts that have egregious reporting requirements and too strict limits on overhead. And share that reason, respectfully, with the funder."
3 - Jan Masaoka: This is important because there have been repeated attempts to pass laws saying too much overhead means a loss of nonprofit status.
Coincidentally, last week another collaboration was also bringing attention to the issue of overhead. GuideStar, BBB Wise Giving Alliance, and Charity Navigator released a public letter as part of their Overhead Myth campaign.
The members of the panel I attended Friday had mixed feelings about this. Many in the sector believe that the uber-focus on overhead is largely a creation of these organizations and their systems of ratings for nonprofits (particularly Charity Navigator). Jan was the most blunt, saying, "It's like the Gap saying 'Clothes don't matter, it's what's on the inside that counts'."
Jan is my former employer and a long-time associate and friend, but I'm a little more moderate in my criticism. I don't believe that they ever meant for overhead to become the single-most important measure of what nonprofits deserve funding. Still, it is undeniable that that is exactly what has happened. A study released today by the BBB Wise Giving Alliance found that "donors care more about how money is spent than results."
I have been in contact with the folks at GuideStar, offering this space for a guest blog from them about the Overhead Myth campaign. Hopefully we can present that soon, and continue this open dialogue.
Seems pretty basic, but there are often fuzzy lines between what we consider "overhead" and what we consider "programming" - a line that is not only fuzzy, but politically charged as more and more donors (individuals as well as foundations and government) are looking at our overhead-to-programming ratio as a means of judging our "worthiness."
Last Friday, I attended Stronger Together, a conference produced in collaboration by CalNonprofits, CompassPoint Nonprofit Services, and Nonprofits' Insurance Alliance of California (NIAC). Among the sessions I attended was The Nonprofit Overhead Challenge: Action Lab for Change, moderated by Jeanne Bell, CEO of CompassPoint, and paneled by Jan Masaoka, CEO of CalNonprofits, Hydeh Ghaffari, Partner, DZH Phillips, and Ann Goggins Gregory, COO of Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco. Here are my top three takeaways from the session:
1 - Hydeh Ghaffari: "The organizations showing 6% are playing with the numbers and the ones showing 60% need technical assistance."
Nonprofits have to educate themselves, and their staffs, about what qualifies as program, and what gets lumped in with overhead. Don't be afraid of asking your staff to complete more detailed timecards that accurately track how much time they spend in each program area, and when they are doing "general" or "oversight" work.
Learn what your true ratio is, understand it, and embrace it. You can't use a single rule-of-thumb ("14%!") to determine if your overhead is too high or too low. You need to understand the true cost of running your organization, and be able to defend when spending more on overhead is necessary to achieve growth and deliver on your mission.
2 - Ann Goggins Gregory: "Be willing to walk away from grants and contracts that have egregious reporting requirements and too strict limits on overhead. And share that reason, respectfully, with the funder."
A hard lesson - walking away from money on the table - but as a consultant I can attest to seeing many of my clients nearly ruined by contracts that cost more to administer than they were worth. Once you know what your true overhead costs are, be honest about them with your funders. If you need to subsidize a contract with other donations that cover the overhead, that's entirely fine and your choice, but you do yourself (and all of us) a dis-favor when you cover that up.
Remember, any contract that includes any Federal money (even when passed through your local municipality) has to include at least 10% for overhead. Is that enough? Consider that most service businesses run about 30-35% for their overhead.
3 - Jan Masaoka: This is important because there have been repeated attempts to pass laws saying too much overhead means a loss of nonprofit status.
In several state legislatures there have been moves (some more successful than others) to determine whether to limit tax-exempt status only to those organizations that have a low overhead. Whether or not your state has already discussed this or not, this is not a conversation that is going to go away anytime soon.
We cannot be afraid to talk to our legislators about why this is a bad idea, why overhead ratios are not the ultimate measure of a nonprofit's worthiness, and why ratios differ from nonprofit to nonprofit based on a number of factors. If we fail to act now to educate the public and the politicians, we risk losing our nonprofit status, and with it, our ability to achieve our missions.
Coincidentally, last week another collaboration was also bringing attention to the issue of overhead. GuideStar, BBB Wise Giving Alliance, and Charity Navigator released a public letter as part of their Overhead Myth campaign.
The members of the panel I attended Friday had mixed feelings about this. Many in the sector believe that the uber-focus on overhead is largely a creation of these organizations and their systems of ratings for nonprofits (particularly Charity Navigator). Jan was the most blunt, saying, "It's like the Gap saying 'Clothes don't matter, it's what's on the inside that counts'."
Jan is my former employer and a long-time associate and friend, but I'm a little more moderate in my criticism. I don't believe that they ever meant for overhead to become the single-most important measure of what nonprofits deserve funding. Still, it is undeniable that that is exactly what has happened. A study released today by the BBB Wise Giving Alliance found that "donors care more about how money is spent than results."
I have been in contact with the folks at GuideStar, offering this space for a guest blog from them about the Overhead Myth campaign. Hopefully we can present that soon, and continue this open dialogue.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Crowdfunding Roundup for Nonprofits
It seems that with the rise of Kickstarter and IndieGoGo, crowdfunding is on everybody's minds these days, but what's a nonprofit to do?
First, let's clear up what we mean by crowdfunding, and how it differs from traditional online fundraising. Crowdfunding generally refers to grassroots efforts to raise money for a project or product that is in development, directly from the eventual purchasers.
An example would be a musician who raises money from fans to produce his next CD (bypassing the traditional record company investment relationship). Rather than wait for the CD to come out, and then buying it, a fan will contribute $10 or $20 toward its production in exchange for a copy of the eventual product at some later date. In this way, crowdfunding is just an internet spin on the old subscription business model.
For nonprofits, it is distinguished from traditional online fundraising in that it is focused on distinct, separate campaigns for specific purposes. Whereas traditional online fundraising is continuous (the "donate now" button that's always on your website) and for more general usage, you would use crowdfunding for a time-limited, specific dollar goal, for a particular project or special use.
Before you begin crowdfunding, consider what projects or needs you will be raising money for, and think about which story you want to tell.
The Organization's Story: This is the most like traditional fundraising. The story is about your organization itself, your mission, and all the people you serve. A typical crowdfunded story might be, "By helping us purchase a new van you enable us to feed more hungry, home-bound seniors by doubling the number of meals we can deliver each day."
The Donor's Story: The real power of the internet comes from the ability of individuals to connect directly with each other. In crowdfunding, this is usually seen in the form of turning donors into fundraisers and helping them tell their social networks why they support your nonprofit. A typical story might be, "I'm going on a 50 mile bike ride to raise funds and awareness of this cause that affects my family." (Here's my fundraising page for the Alzheimer's Association Walk.)
The Client's Story: Even more powerful than the donor's story is the story of the end beneficiary: the clients you serve, and the person directly helped by the donation. Surprisingly, of all the crowdfunding sites I've found, only Benevolent.net focuses on telling these stories. A typical story might be, "I am graduating from a job training program, but need to purchase tools and a uniform before I can accept a job; your donation helps me reach my goal of providing for my family."
Of the hundreds of crowdfunding websites that have launched over the last few years, here are the 20 I have found that are either specifically for nonprofits, or most adaptable to nonprofit use:
When choosing a platform, remember that each of these sites has to cover their own overhead costs, from credit card fees to web-servers to programmers and staff. Read the fine print carefully to understand their fee structure.
Also, if the site itself is not run by a nonprofit, and if the funds do not go directly to your organization, there may be a question of tax-deductibility of the donation. Again, make sure you read all the FAQs.
Finally, you do not need to limit yourself to using just one platform, but be careful not to over-extend yourself and set up on so many that you have lots of half-funded campaigns that never complete.
First, let's clear up what we mean by crowdfunding, and how it differs from traditional online fundraising. Crowdfunding generally refers to grassroots efforts to raise money for a project or product that is in development, directly from the eventual purchasers.
An example would be a musician who raises money from fans to produce his next CD (bypassing the traditional record company investment relationship). Rather than wait for the CD to come out, and then buying it, a fan will contribute $10 or $20 toward its production in exchange for a copy of the eventual product at some later date. In this way, crowdfunding is just an internet spin on the old subscription business model.
For nonprofits, it is distinguished from traditional online fundraising in that it is focused on distinct, separate campaigns for specific purposes. Whereas traditional online fundraising is continuous (the "donate now" button that's always on your website) and for more general usage, you would use crowdfunding for a time-limited, specific dollar goal, for a particular project or special use.
Before you begin crowdfunding, consider what projects or needs you will be raising money for, and think about which story you want to tell.
The Organization's Story: This is the most like traditional fundraising. The story is about your organization itself, your mission, and all the people you serve. A typical crowdfunded story might be, "By helping us purchase a new van you enable us to feed more hungry, home-bound seniors by doubling the number of meals we can deliver each day."
The Donor's Story: The real power of the internet comes from the ability of individuals to connect directly with each other. In crowdfunding, this is usually seen in the form of turning donors into fundraisers and helping them tell their social networks why they support your nonprofit. A typical story might be, "I'm going on a 50 mile bike ride to raise funds and awareness of this cause that affects my family." (Here's my fundraising page for the Alzheimer's Association Walk.)
The Client's Story: Even more powerful than the donor's story is the story of the end beneficiary: the clients you serve, and the person directly helped by the donation. Surprisingly, of all the crowdfunding sites I've found, only Benevolent.net focuses on telling these stories. A typical story might be, "I am graduating from a job training program, but need to purchase tools and a uniform before I can accept a job; your donation helps me reach my goal of providing for my family."
Of the hundreds of crowdfunding websites that have launched over the last few years, here are the 20 I have found that are either specifically for nonprofits, or most adaptable to nonprofit use:
- Benevolent.net - nonprofits create low-dollar campaigns (up to $700) tied to client needs and stories
- Causes.com - primarily for petitions, but can people/orgs can fundraise as well, Facebook widgets
- CauseVox.com - organizations create custom fundraising sites
- CrowdRise.com - organizations or individuals can set up fundraising campaigns of any size
- DonorsChoose.org - teachers set up campaigns for classroom needs
- FunderHut.com - users create campaigns for nonprofits or "projects"
- Fundly.com - fundraising for "individuals, non-profits, schools and political organizations"
- Fundraise.com - organizations get supporters to set up personal fundraising pages
- FundRazr.com - create social media fundraising campaigns, payments through PayPal
- GoFundMe.com - individuals create campaigns for their own projects or favorite charity
- HealthTechHatch.com - "dedicated to launching early-stage innovations in health care"
- HousingOne.org - basic furniture needs for those leaving homelessness (Silicon Valley only)
- IndieGoGo.com - raise funds for projects of all types, not primarily for nonprofits, but could be
- KickStarter.com - raise funds for projects of all types, mostly creative (art, music, publishing)
- Kiva.org - raises money for micro-loans, mostly in developing countries
- Raise5.com - users volunteer to do small tasks for buyers in exchange for donations to charity
- Razoo.com - organizations or individuals can set up campaigns; good widgets for web & Facebook
- RocketHub.com - raise funds for any use (business, social, arts)
- StartSomeGood.com - "ventures" (not all nonprofit) fundraise for social change
- WeDid.it - organizations set up campaigns for specific projects
When choosing a platform, remember that each of these sites has to cover their own overhead costs, from credit card fees to web-servers to programmers and staff. Read the fine print carefully to understand their fee structure.
Also, if the site itself is not run by a nonprofit, and if the funds do not go directly to your organization, there may be a question of tax-deductibility of the donation. Again, make sure you read all the FAQs.
Finally, you do not need to limit yourself to using just one platform, but be careful not to over-extend yourself and set up on so many that you have lots of half-funded campaigns that never complete.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Giving With Impact - The Benevolent Way
I've blogged endlessly about the importance of storytelling in fundraising. Last month I wrote specifically about the human need to feel and show empathy for others, and its relationship to fundraising.
Yesterday the connection between empathy and giving was demonstrated again in an article on Bloomberg Businessweek about the online donations going directly to the victims and families impacted by the Boston Marathon bombing (Bombing Victims Get Millions as Internet Redefines Giving).
I'd like to point out one quote from that article from Kevin Berg Kartaszewicz-Grell, a research director for Crowdsourcing Inc., that really got to what I've been thinking and writing about:
Benevolent connects small dollar donors directly to low-income individuals with one-time needs that can help set them on the path to self-sufficiency. Each need is verified (and posted by) a local nonprofit that knows the individual in need, and is responsible for ensuring that donations are used as directed.
The needs can be anything from uniforms or tools for someone to start a new career, to computers or books for a returning student, or even dentures or eye glasses that are needed to turn a life around. The dollar amounts range from a couple of hundred dollars up to a $700 maximum.
The real power of Benevolent lies in the stories. Needs are presented in the first person by the individuals themselves. There is great dignity in the way they explain their current situation, and great pride in explaining the steps they are taking to correct it. Once somebody gives to a need, they are sent updates as the need is fully funded and again when it is fulfilled.
And now for a little announcement: I believe in the Benevolent model so much that I have joined the team. I am now a Community Engagement Manager for Benevolent.net, and will be working to help Silicon Valley and Bay Area nonprofits take advantage of the website, using social media and crowd sourcing, to meet the one-time needs of their low-income clients
While Benevolent will be taking up the lion's share of my time and efforts, I will also still continue some of my consulting on the side, such as grantwriting workshops at Santa Cruz County Community Foundation, and other "done in a day or two" projects, such as board retreat facilitation.
I'm excited to be a part of this important turning point in fundraising, and to be working with such a great team. Please check out Benevolent.net and let me know what you think!
Yesterday the connection between empathy and giving was demonstrated again in an article on Bloomberg Businessweek about the online donations going directly to the victims and families impacted by the Boston Marathon bombing (Bombing Victims Get Millions as Internet Redefines Giving).
I'd like to point out one quote from that article from Kevin Berg Kartaszewicz-Grell, a research director for Crowdsourcing Inc., that really got to what I've been thinking and writing about:
"It is easier for you to understand the impact of your dollar if you give it directly... With traditional sources, your money goes into a pot with a lot of other people's money. You're impact is larger when you go directly to the people in need."That concept - direct giving, from person to person - is the idea behind a new fundraising site, Benevolent.net. Previously, only major donors ever really got to know the full impact of their gifts. Now, with the growth of crowd sourcing and micro-philanthropy, even a $10 or $20 donor can see and feel the value of their gift in very meaningful ways.
Benevolent connects small dollar donors directly to low-income individuals with one-time needs that can help set them on the path to self-sufficiency. Each need is verified (and posted by) a local nonprofit that knows the individual in need, and is responsible for ensuring that donations are used as directed.
The needs can be anything from uniforms or tools for someone to start a new career, to computers or books for a returning student, or even dentures or eye glasses that are needed to turn a life around. The dollar amounts range from a couple of hundred dollars up to a $700 maximum.
The real power of Benevolent lies in the stories. Needs are presented in the first person by the individuals themselves. There is great dignity in the way they explain their current situation, and great pride in explaining the steps they are taking to correct it. Once somebody gives to a need, they are sent updates as the need is fully funded and again when it is fulfilled.
And now for a little announcement: I believe in the Benevolent model so much that I have joined the team. I am now a Community Engagement Manager for Benevolent.net, and will be working to help Silicon Valley and Bay Area nonprofits take advantage of the website, using social media and crowd sourcing, to meet the one-time needs of their low-income clients
While Benevolent will be taking up the lion's share of my time and efforts, I will also still continue some of my consulting on the side, such as grantwriting workshops at Santa Cruz County Community Foundation, and other "done in a day or two" projects, such as board retreat facilitation.
I'm excited to be a part of this important turning point in fundraising, and to be working with such a great team. Please check out Benevolent.net and let me know what you think!
Friday, March 15, 2013
Empathy for Sale
I've written about the power of storytelling in fundraising many times
over. I've also written about the ethical question of organizations
sharing their client's stories (see Who's Story is it Anyway?). Well, here we go again...
Last weekend, walking along Pacific Avenue in Santa Cruz, I spotted a gentleman behind a card table set up on the side walk. He appeared to be in him mid-50s, neatly groomed long gray hair, comfortably dressed, ready to be of service. The sign on the front of his table read, "Free Empathy."
Certainly empathy is something that frequently seems to be in short supply in these stressful times, but, I would argue, so are opportunities to show empathy. People are hungry, not just to find somebody to listen to their troubles without judgement, but to reach out and comfort somebody else as well.
By now you've likely heard the story of Karen Klein, the school bus monitor from upstate New York, who was videotaped by a group of young boys who were bullying her to tears. One empathetic person who came across the video on YouTube decided to send Klein on "the vacation of a lifetime" and created an online campaign to raise $5,000 for that purpose. That amount was raised in a few hours. By the time the campaign ended, 32,000 people had given over $700,000.
Each donor could see the total already raised, and knew that the target amount had been reached hundreds of times over. And yet they still gave. The campaign was bigger than simply reaching out to Karen Klein with a virtual hug. The donors wanted to make a statement. They wanted to be part of a movement.
Yes, there are official nonprofit organizations who work on bullying issues that they could have donated to - some of you probably think that would have been a better investment, and you might be right - but the campaign for Klein's benefit offered something more tangible. A story. A story and the chance for direct philanthropic empathy.
Many people I've met over a couple of decades in the nonprofit sector believe that they are highly empathetic, and I believe that's often true. Thinking about which nonprofit staff I've known to be highly motivated and effective workers, versus those who simply go through the motions as burned out bureaucrats, the difference is often empathy. The best workers are those who connect to their client's stories, who feel their pain, and share their joys. Indeed, this is why we are in this sector. The stories are why we do what we do.
So, let me ask you this... Why do some of us expect our donors to be any more connected to our organizations and motivated to support our causes without knowing our client's stories? Why do some of us believe we can raise the funds necessary to do our jobs while hiding every detail of the lives of those we serve?
Yes, protect people's privacy, get permission to use testimonials, etc., etc. You know the drill. But most donors want something beyond a tax deduction. They want a connection. They want a human face. They want a chance to empathize. Just like you do.
Speaking of storytelling... Video is a great way for your organization to share your stories, and the DoGooder Video Awards each year recognize great achievement in nonprofit video storytelling. If your organization has a video you're proud of, you have until March 22 to enter for this year's awards. Head to the DoGooder webpage to learn more.
Last weekend, walking along Pacific Avenue in Santa Cruz, I spotted a gentleman behind a card table set up on the side walk. He appeared to be in him mid-50s, neatly groomed long gray hair, comfortably dressed, ready to be of service. The sign on the front of his table read, "Free Empathy."
Certainly empathy is something that frequently seems to be in short supply in these stressful times, but, I would argue, so are opportunities to show empathy. People are hungry, not just to find somebody to listen to their troubles without judgement, but to reach out and comfort somebody else as well.
By now you've likely heard the story of Karen Klein, the school bus monitor from upstate New York, who was videotaped by a group of young boys who were bullying her to tears. One empathetic person who came across the video on YouTube decided to send Klein on "the vacation of a lifetime" and created an online campaign to raise $5,000 for that purpose. That amount was raised in a few hours. By the time the campaign ended, 32,000 people had given over $700,000.
Each donor could see the total already raised, and knew that the target amount had been reached hundreds of times over. And yet they still gave. The campaign was bigger than simply reaching out to Karen Klein with a virtual hug. The donors wanted to make a statement. They wanted to be part of a movement.
Yes, there are official nonprofit organizations who work on bullying issues that they could have donated to - some of you probably think that would have been a better investment, and you might be right - but the campaign for Klein's benefit offered something more tangible. A story. A story and the chance for direct philanthropic empathy.
Many people I've met over a couple of decades in the nonprofit sector believe that they are highly empathetic, and I believe that's often true. Thinking about which nonprofit staff I've known to be highly motivated and effective workers, versus those who simply go through the motions as burned out bureaucrats, the difference is often empathy. The best workers are those who connect to their client's stories, who feel their pain, and share their joys. Indeed, this is why we are in this sector. The stories are why we do what we do.
So, let me ask you this... Why do some of us expect our donors to be any more connected to our organizations and motivated to support our causes without knowing our client's stories? Why do some of us believe we can raise the funds necessary to do our jobs while hiding every detail of the lives of those we serve?
Yes, protect people's privacy, get permission to use testimonials, etc., etc. You know the drill. But most donors want something beyond a tax deduction. They want a connection. They want a human face. They want a chance to empathize. Just like you do.
Speaking of storytelling... Video is a great way for your organization to share your stories, and the DoGooder Video Awards each year recognize great achievement in nonprofit video storytelling. If your organization has a video you're proud of, you have until March 22 to enter for this year's awards. Head to the DoGooder webpage to learn more.
Monday, January 07, 2013
Basic Grant Proposal Writing Workshops
For several years now I have been honored to teach nonprofit workshops through the Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County. This year, I will be teaching three sessions of "Basic Grant Proposal Writing" on:
We pack a lot of information into these sessions, but they're always lots of fun, with about 12-15 people attending per session.
We start with a quick review of the charitable giving landscape, then move on to:
We pack a lot of information into these sessions, but they're always lots of fun, with about 12-15 people attending per session.
We start with a quick review of the charitable giving landscape, then move on to:
- Building your case for funding:
- Understanding your organization's assets
- Clarifying your Mission
- Knowing what story you're telling
- Writing a successful grant proposal:
- Types of proposals/submissions
- The standard components, section by section
- Focus on Outcomes!
- Putting the proposal together and submitting
- After the Proposal - Next Steps
Monday, June 11, 2012
The Five Stages of Nonprofit Board Fundraising
In the 1960s, Dr. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, working with terminally ill patients, hypothesized her five stages of grief, popularized in her 1969 publication of On Death and Dying. Since that time, the Kübler-Ross model has been applied to just about any form of personal loss, including job loss, divorce, death of a loved one, surviving natural disasters, and even incarceration.
Imagine my surprise when I realized that nobody had yet applied the Kübler-Ross model to fundraising by nonprofit boards of directors! So, here, without further ado, are the Five Stages of Nonprofit Board Fundraising:
Imagine my surprise when I realized that nobody had yet applied the Kübler-Ross model to fundraising by nonprofit boards of directors! So, here, without further ado, are the Five Stages of Nonprofit Board Fundraising:
- Denial - "I don't think board members should be required to fundraise." - "I don't know anybody with money anyway." - "I was asked to join the board for my other skills." - "Don't we have staff for that?" - "We're a nonprofit, we're supposed to live on the financial edge!"
- Anger - "My friends will hate me if I add them to the mailing list!" - "If I give myself, why do I also have to 'get'?"- "I give so much of my time, you want my money too?" - "If the staff were doing their jobs, this wouldn't be necessary." - "It's the politicians' fault that we can't raise enough money!" - "I never should have joined this board."
- Bargaining - "If I serve on the audit committee, can I get out of working on the event?" - "I brought in my old PC for the intern to use, that's worth something, right?" - "How about if I just mention I'm on the board in my family Christmas letter, that'll save you on printing and postage!" - "Tell you what, I know the name of a foundation that makes grants..."
- Depression - "The economy is going to clobber us anyway, so why bother?" - "We can't compete with all those nationally known nonprofits." - "Nobody really gets our mission anyway." - "There's no point in even asking before the next election cycle, or two..." - "I read in NPQ that even the big guys can't raise any money these days."
- Acceptance - "Do we have any brochures I can bring to my Rotary meeting?" - "Let me find out about my company's corporate philanthropy policy" - "Hey, if we each commit to just a small amount we can close that budget gap!" - "How can we expect others to spread the word and raise money for our cause if we're not willing to do it ourselves?"
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Honoring Donor Intent
This seems like such a basic, "Fundraising Ethics 101" topic that I'd never have to write a post explicitly about it, but it seems that even high profile nonprofit organizations need to be reminded: Donor Intent is King!
This month started with the news that country star Garth Brooks had won his million dollar lawsuit against a regional hospital. The issue was over a donation Brooks had made with the understanding that a building would be named for the singer's late mother.
A week later came headlines that the Ray Charles Foundation was demanding the return of several million dollars the late singer had donated to Albany State University in Georgia for a performing arts center that was never built.
Now, today we learn that Johns Hopkins University is being sued over the alleged misuse of millions of dollars from the estate of Elizabeth Beall Banks. This dispute revolves around farmland given on the condition that it be used for agricultural research and development, but now will be home to nearly five-million-square-feet of construction.
These are obviously high profile cases involving millions of dollars and well known organizations and donors, but the principles involved are the same for $25 donations to local nonprofit groups. You must follow through on your promises to donors. If funds are designated for a particular purpose, it is your legal and ethical obligation to use it for that purpose and that purpose only.
Raising funds with a pitch for one program or project, and then using them for another is a bait-and-switch con that will come back to haunt you. You may think you did well in the short run, but in the long-term you will lose donors, you will lose honest staff and board members, and you will risk your organization's reputation and future.
When dealing with large donations, do your best to set clear expectations with your donor, write out exactly what the purpose of the donation is, and have it signed. This donor agreement is not just for designated funds, as in the cases above, but especially important if you think the donation is unrestricted. The donor's signature on an agreement that you can use the funds in whatever way is needed to support the mission will protect you if they - or their heirs - ever come back and say the funds were designated.
Such clear, written agreements also protect the donor. And, with such well-publicized scandals putting us all under the microscope, offering your donors such transparency and guarantees will help ease their doubts about your integrity.
Tim Newell, Elizabeth Banks' nephew and one of the principals in the case against Johns Hopkins, explains, "You hate to lose faith in the entire system. ... All donors have the right to be assured that gifts be used for the reason they were given."
This month started with the news that country star Garth Brooks had won his million dollar lawsuit against a regional hospital. The issue was over a donation Brooks had made with the understanding that a building would be named for the singer's late mother.
A week later came headlines that the Ray Charles Foundation was demanding the return of several million dollars the late singer had donated to Albany State University in Georgia for a performing arts center that was never built.
Now, today we learn that Johns Hopkins University is being sued over the alleged misuse of millions of dollars from the estate of Elizabeth Beall Banks. This dispute revolves around farmland given on the condition that it be used for agricultural research and development, but now will be home to nearly five-million-square-feet of construction.
These are obviously high profile cases involving millions of dollars and well known organizations and donors, but the principles involved are the same for $25 donations to local nonprofit groups. You must follow through on your promises to donors. If funds are designated for a particular purpose, it is your legal and ethical obligation to use it for that purpose and that purpose only.
Raising funds with a pitch for one program or project, and then using them for another is a bait-and-switch con that will come back to haunt you. You may think you did well in the short run, but in the long-term you will lose donors, you will lose honest staff and board members, and you will risk your organization's reputation and future.
When dealing with large donations, do your best to set clear expectations with your donor, write out exactly what the purpose of the donation is, and have it signed. This donor agreement is not just for designated funds, as in the cases above, but especially important if you think the donation is unrestricted. The donor's signature on an agreement that you can use the funds in whatever way is needed to support the mission will protect you if they - or their heirs - ever come back and say the funds were designated.
Such clear, written agreements also protect the donor. And, with such well-publicized scandals putting us all under the microscope, offering your donors such transparency and guarantees will help ease their doubts about your integrity.
Tim Newell, Elizabeth Banks' nephew and one of the principals in the case against Johns Hopkins, explains, "You hate to lose faith in the entire system. ... All donors have the right to be assured that gifts be used for the reason they were given."
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Whose Story is it Anyway?
I am one who has always believed in the value of good story telling in fundraising. Nothing earth shattering in that statement. Most anybody who has been successful in nonprofit fundraising - whether writing grant proposals, doing direct mail, or creating event programs - will tell you the same thing.
Even with foundations (and others) seemingly more focused than ever on outcomes and measurements, when I teach proposal writing I always caution my students from getting so caught up in the numbers that they forget the human element. Data and statistics, I tell them, may help make the case, but it's putting a face and a story to that data that gets signatures on checks.
With that in mind, I also believe that nonprofits who want to be effective at fundraising should always be on the look-out for good stories from the people they serve, encouraging them to (if possible) write out their experience of how the organization helped in their own words. These can be used in proposals, letters, speeches, etc.
For years this was considered good advice, and was appreciated by my students and clients alike. Until earlier this year.
The program staff of an organization I was working with all very strongly felt that using these real stories - even with names and identifying details changed - was a violation of their client's trust and privacy, ethically questionable, and akin to an act of violence.
The clients had been through rough times and did not have much. What they did have was their personal story, and to take that from them was beyond exploitation. Unless the client voluntarily and without prompting offered, "I want you to use my story to market the organization," there would be no compromise on this position.
I completely understood where the program staff was coming from on this, and the importance of being respectful of telling somebody else's story. But I also know the reality of trying to raise funds for even the best of causes without the ability to talk about the organization's success in terms of the success of the individuals it serves.
I have no simple answers with this blog post, other than to inform and ask permission before using a client story in your organizational material. But what do you think?
Are the stories of your client's success so important that it justifies exploiting them to raise money? And while the circumstances that brought a client to your nonprofit may be their private affair, don't you have some right to talk about how you helped them out of those circumstances? Please comment below - I'd love to know how you handle this delicate issue.
Even with foundations (and others) seemingly more focused than ever on outcomes and measurements, when I teach proposal writing I always caution my students from getting so caught up in the numbers that they forget the human element. Data and statistics, I tell them, may help make the case, but it's putting a face and a story to that data that gets signatures on checks.
With that in mind, I also believe that nonprofits who want to be effective at fundraising should always be on the look-out for good stories from the people they serve, encouraging them to (if possible) write out their experience of how the organization helped in their own words. These can be used in proposals, letters, speeches, etc.
For years this was considered good advice, and was appreciated by my students and clients alike. Until earlier this year.
The program staff of an organization I was working with all very strongly felt that using these real stories - even with names and identifying details changed - was a violation of their client's trust and privacy, ethically questionable, and akin to an act of violence.
The clients had been through rough times and did not have much. What they did have was their personal story, and to take that from them was beyond exploitation. Unless the client voluntarily and without prompting offered, "I want you to use my story to market the organization," there would be no compromise on this position.
I completely understood where the program staff was coming from on this, and the importance of being respectful of telling somebody else's story. But I also know the reality of trying to raise funds for even the best of causes without the ability to talk about the organization's success in terms of the success of the individuals it serves.
I have no simple answers with this blog post, other than to inform and ask permission before using a client story in your organizational material. But what do you think?
Are the stories of your client's success so important that it justifies exploiting them to raise money? And while the circumstances that brought a client to your nonprofit may be their private affair, don't you have some right to talk about how you helped them out of those circumstances? Please comment below - I'd love to know how you handle this delicate issue.
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Reading the Fine Print on Micro-Donations
October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and we're seeing pink everywhere to remind us of that fact. Many charitable organizations are involved in this effort, and many have entered into cause marketing agreements with various corporations to receive donations on products sold with the pink ribbon logo. Donations are mostly small, such as $0.10 for purchasing specially marked packages of Dannon Yogurt, to several dollars on a new pink Kitchenaid blender.
Cause marketing is not new, but it's certainly been receiving more and more attention. One recent survey found that "Mothers and Young People Are Most Likely to Buy Products Tied to a Cause." Certainly, they make the purchaser of the product feel good about their choice, and certainly it makes the producer of the product look like a good corporate citizen. But how effective are these arrangements for most nonprofit organizations as fundraising vehicles?
There's no question that such co-marketing agreements work well for certain large, national organizations, such as Susan G. Komen for the Cure. They are "The" breast cancer charity to many people as a result of their leadership in cause marketing. But how about your local food pantry?
As a result of writing this blog, barely a week goes by when I do not hear from a marketing organization that would like access to my readers to promote "a fantastic new way to raise money for your cause." Typically, it involves the nonprofit selling some product or service, unrelated to their mission, and keeping a small percentage of the sale. "This product sells itself," I'm always assured in these emails.
You'll notice, I haven't been passing those along to you. It's always been my opinion that these small-scale cause marketing agreements are a distraction. Grassroots organizations need to maximize their interactions with their supporters, and squandering those contacts with a sale they only keep a small portion of comes at their loss, no matter how good the product might be.
I also believe it's misleading the donor as well. If I were planning on giving you a $25 donation, and you sell me a $25 item, in my mind we're done. I've given you the budget I had for you. That you are only keeping $3.75 of that $25 doesn't occur to most donors. Selling instead of raising not only distracts, it decreases your potential donations.
Here's my rule of thumb:
"When you ask for small donations, you'll only get small donations."
You can quote me on that.
But this subject comes up for me today as a result of Twitter. This morning, my twitter feed was full of warnings to "read the fine print." It turns out that it's not so easy being pink, and consumers are starting to catch on that "cause marketing" may be more marketing and less cause.
Many of the tweets were forwarding on that "Just because you bought the pink blender doesn't mean you made a donation." The fine print indicates that you must first register your product on a certain website before Kitchenaid passes along any of their profit to Komen.
And Dannon Yogurt? You also need to enter a code from each package lid on the website for your ten cents to pass through to the National Breast Cancer Foundation. And, they'll only pass on the dimes up to a maximum donation of $1.5 million.
Of course, $1.5 million is nothing to sneeze at, and going Pink for October is wonderful for raising awareness of Breast Cancer. But as a cautionary tale for small, locally-based nonprofits, it's instructive. Before entering into any marketing agreements, read the fine print. Both from your organization's perspective, and from the point-of-view of your donor.
How much money are you really likely to raise? How much staff time is it going to take? Would you raise more from your list with a simple ask instead of a sale? Is the product something you really want to be associated with? Are there maximums on donations? Any loopholes or gotchas that might prevent you from collecting all that your donors think they've given you? In the end, who will benefit more, your organization or the company you were promoting?
Cause marketing is not new, but it's certainly been receiving more and more attention. One recent survey found that "Mothers and Young People Are Most Likely to Buy Products Tied to a Cause." Certainly, they make the purchaser of the product feel good about their choice, and certainly it makes the producer of the product look like a good corporate citizen. But how effective are these arrangements for most nonprofit organizations as fundraising vehicles?
There's no question that such co-marketing agreements work well for certain large, national organizations, such as Susan G. Komen for the Cure. They are "The" breast cancer charity to many people as a result of their leadership in cause marketing. But how about your local food pantry?
As a result of writing this blog, barely a week goes by when I do not hear from a marketing organization that would like access to my readers to promote "a fantastic new way to raise money for your cause." Typically, it involves the nonprofit selling some product or service, unrelated to their mission, and keeping a small percentage of the sale. "This product sells itself," I'm always assured in these emails.
You'll notice, I haven't been passing those along to you. It's always been my opinion that these small-scale cause marketing agreements are a distraction. Grassroots organizations need to maximize their interactions with their supporters, and squandering those contacts with a sale they only keep a small portion of comes at their loss, no matter how good the product might be.
I also believe it's misleading the donor as well. If I were planning on giving you a $25 donation, and you sell me a $25 item, in my mind we're done. I've given you the budget I had for you. That you are only keeping $3.75 of that $25 doesn't occur to most donors. Selling instead of raising not only distracts, it decreases your potential donations.
Here's my rule of thumb:
"When you ask for small donations, you'll only get small donations."
You can quote me on that.
But this subject comes up for me today as a result of Twitter. This morning, my twitter feed was full of warnings to "read the fine print." It turns out that it's not so easy being pink, and consumers are starting to catch on that "cause marketing" may be more marketing and less cause.
Many of the tweets were forwarding on that "Just because you bought the pink blender doesn't mean you made a donation." The fine print indicates that you must first register your product on a certain website before Kitchenaid passes along any of their profit to Komen.
And Dannon Yogurt? You also need to enter a code from each package lid on the website for your ten cents to pass through to the National Breast Cancer Foundation. And, they'll only pass on the dimes up to a maximum donation of $1.5 million.
Of course, $1.5 million is nothing to sneeze at, and going Pink for October is wonderful for raising awareness of Breast Cancer. But as a cautionary tale for small, locally-based nonprofits, it's instructive. Before entering into any marketing agreements, read the fine print. Both from your organization's perspective, and from the point-of-view of your donor.
How much money are you really likely to raise? How much staff time is it going to take? Would you raise more from your list with a simple ask instead of a sale? Is the product something you really want to be associated with? Are there maximums on donations? Any loopholes or gotchas that might prevent you from collecting all that your donors think they've given you? In the end, who will benefit more, your organization or the company you were promoting?
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Shooting The Fundraising Dog
Way back when I was barely a teenager, National Lampoon magazine was the utmost in risque humor. One famous and classic example of their pushing the limits of the acceptable was their January 1973 cover featuring a dog with a gun pointed at his head and the text, "If you don't buy this magazine, We'll Kill This Dog."It was distasteful, it was outrageous, it was offensive, it was shocking, and it was, ultimately, just plain funny. It's also a great example of the fundraising strategy used at one time or another by nearly every one of us in the nonprofit sector. Don't believe me? How about this email subject line that just landed in my inbox: "Urgent Request: More than 24,000 children will die today but you can help."
This is what we've all been taught to do: Illustrate a need and create a sense of urgency! Buy the magazine or the dog gets it.
We all know the importance of our organization's mission, and understand our dependence on the good will of others to fund the work, but don't you think it's time to put the guilt trips aside?
Perhaps I just contributed to the death of 24,000 children, but I deleted that email. I didn't even read it first. Now, had the headline told me about 24,000 children saved (fed, clothed, housed, schooled...), I would have been curious.
Lead with your success and your strength, and I will want to be a part of that. More bad news and guilt, I really don't need right now. I'll bet a lot of other donors feel this way as well. Let's put that poor dog out of his misery and put the gun down, once and for all.
Friday, August 06, 2010
What's Better than 40 Billionaires?
There's been a lot of media attention this past week for the Giving Pledge, an effort organized by Warren Buffett and Bill & Melinda Gates "to encourage the world's wealthiest individuals and families to commit to giving the majority of their wealth to philanthropy." The publicity and many of the news stories focused on the first forty billionaires to sign the pledge, and the approximate dollar value of those pledges (at least $120 billion).
Of course, this is wonderful news, and we all applaud each of the billionaires signing on to the pledge. but, as Jeremy MacKechnie points out on idealist.org, Small Change Adds Up to More Than a Billionaire's Bucks. Jeremy writes,
No, the Pledge is still of great value to all of us in the nonprofit sector, if we put the appropriate spin on it when asked by our donors or the media how it will effect us.
The key is that Gates and Buffett never intended for the billionaires to cure all our problems. Their intention was to lead by example and to encourage giving by all, not just billionaires. As Larry Ellison said in his statement, "Warren Buffett personally asked me to write this letter because he said I would be 'setting an example' and 'influencing others' to give... I hope he's right."
So, when you get those questions about whether your organization will benefit from the Pledge, remember its purpose: "To encourage giving." Your message must be a positive one thanking all your small donors, and recognizing that they're your strength, not bemoaning that you can't get your hands on all that billionaire cash.
Of course, even without the prodding from Buffett and Gates, research has borne out that regular folks have always been more generous than the wealthy when it comes to charitable giving. So, with a little more encouragement from the Billionaires Club, who knows what you can do with your individual giving plan this coming year!
Bottom line, 40 billionaires pledging to give half of it away is really very nice, but small, individual donors are still the backbone of any fund development plan. Of course, if you need help with the fund development plan, you can check out my book on the subject ;^)
Reminder, I'm now on twitter under the name NonprofitKenG.
Of course, this is wonderful news, and we all applaud each of the billionaires signing on to the pledge. but, as Jeremy MacKechnie points out on idealist.org, Small Change Adds Up to More Than a Billionaire's Bucks. Jeremy writes,
"While some of the money will go directly to nonprofit organizations, the majority will end up in the private foundations that the donors started themselves, like The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and will then be funneled into other nonprofits through grants or used to support the foundations' programmatic work."Of course, the full potential of $120 billion won't be donated to those foundations at one time, and once endowed, the actual payout of it as grants may be over the course of many decades. So, yes, this may increase over-all foundation spending ever-so-slightly, but it's not the immediate cure-all donation that some of the media hype is implying. In the idealist article, Jeremy has another important reminder:
"Individual donations (like yours) currently make up 75% of U.S. philanthropy while foundations make up only 12%. Collectively, individual donations are more than six times larger than those of our friends in the billionaires' club."So, what does that mean for you and your nonprofit, and more to the point, does it mean that the Billionaires Pledge is worthless to us?
No, the Pledge is still of great value to all of us in the nonprofit sector, if we put the appropriate spin on it when asked by our donors or the media how it will effect us.
The key is that Gates and Buffett never intended for the billionaires to cure all our problems. Their intention was to lead by example and to encourage giving by all, not just billionaires. As Larry Ellison said in his statement, "Warren Buffett personally asked me to write this letter because he said I would be 'setting an example' and 'influencing others' to give... I hope he's right."
So, when you get those questions about whether your organization will benefit from the Pledge, remember its purpose: "To encourage giving." Your message must be a positive one thanking all your small donors, and recognizing that they're your strength, not bemoaning that you can't get your hands on all that billionaire cash.
Of course, even without the prodding from Buffett and Gates, research has borne out that regular folks have always been more generous than the wealthy when it comes to charitable giving. So, with a little more encouragement from the Billionaires Club, who knows what you can do with your individual giving plan this coming year!
Bottom line, 40 billionaires pledging to give half of it away is really very nice, but small, individual donors are still the backbone of any fund development plan. Of course, if you need help with the fund development plan, you can check out my book on the subject ;^)
Reminder, I'm now on twitter under the name NonprofitKenG.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
Money Follows Involvement
All too often, I hear people saying that they're afraid to ask their volunteers for donations, because "they've already given so much" with their time. On the contrary, I have always been a firm believer in the idea that money follows involvement, and the rule of thumb that 90% of volunteers will also become donors. Today comes another study to confirm this vital link between your organization's volunteer and fundraising activities.
The new study, by Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund and VolunteerMatch, found that volunteers give 10 times as much to charity as non-volunteers, and that two thirds of those volunteers contributed to the the same nonprofits where they donated their time. Could that figure have been higher if we were not so shy about asking our volunteers for donations? I believe so.
The pool of volunteers (and potential volunteers) out there is huge:
So, what's your excuse for not using more volunteers in your organization, or for not including them in your fundraising campaigns?
The new study, by Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund and VolunteerMatch, found that volunteers give 10 times as much to charity as non-volunteers, and that two thirds of those volunteers contributed to the the same nonprofits where they donated their time. Could that figure have been higher if we were not so shy about asking our volunteers for donations? I believe so.
The pool of volunteers (and potential volunteers) out there is huge:
The study showed that 72% of adult Americans (18 years old and older) have volunteered at some point in their lives, and 43% are currently volunteering or have within the past 12 months. More than a fourth (28%) have never volunteered.Don't think that the 28% indicates any lack of interest. For many of them, it's simply a matter of not knowing how to connect, or being offered the right opportunity. Only one third of the non-volunteers indicated a "lack of interest" as their primary reason for not volunteering.
So, what's your excuse for not using more volunteers in your organization, or for not including them in your fundraising campaigns?
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Fundraising Success You Can't Buy
These days more and more nonprofit agencies are looking to online social networking tools and sites, such as Facebook, to see how they can use them to increase donations (and if you're not on Facebook, why aren't you?). Well, here's a great Facebook fundraising success story:
So, yes, it is quite possible to raise large amounts of money using social networking sites. This is not the only such success story I have come across, and they come from Facebook, from Twitter, MySpace, and beyond. But - and it's a huge but - the secret to nearly each of the success stories I have read is giving up control.
An old expression about good press coverage is that it's like "advertising you can't buy." Well, good viral fundraising is pretty much the same. To be truly "viral" it has to come from your supporters, not your staff, and it has to come on their schedule, not yours, and it has to be their ideas.
Now, that doesn't mean you should be doing absolutely nothing. You should be setting up your Facebook fan page and cause page, and have a Twitter account, and each should be linked and pushing content to your official web site (well-equipped with donation buttons).
Start using these tools as extensions of your current campaigns and to bring in new donors who prefer electronic methods of communication and participation. But don't expect dollar miracles overnight. The magic comes when one of your supporters (or potential supporters) has a "grocery angel" experience of their own and decides to launch their own campaign.
When they do, you'll want to be ready, and easy to find, with an established online presence that they can point to. Because, if you're not online, in place, and ready to receive those donations, another organization will be.
Visit the $93 Club on Facebook (may require Facebook login)
The story began Aug. 11, when Jenni Ware of Redwood City lost her wallet at Trader Joe's, and a woman standing behind her in line — Carolee Hazard of Menlo Park — offered to pay the stranger's $207 grocery bill. The two exchanged addresses. Ware found her wallet later that day and repaid her grocery "angel" $300 - with $93 extra to perhaps get a massage.The result for Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, where it all began? Nearly $10,000 raised for Silicon Valley's hungry in a week — the most raised in such a short period of time, according to the food bank.
But Hazard asked her Facebook community what her friends would do with the bonus amount. Swift electronic responses urged Hazard to give the money to charity - the local food bank, since the act of kindness began in a grocery store.
Hazard, a green activist and former Genentech biochemist, loved the idea, and she not only sent in the $93 that Ware had given her as a "thank you," but matched that amount herself. So did a Facebook friend. And another. And another. Kids have pitched in 93 cents. And since the story has been pushed out on Facebook's own site, others are donating what they can, too, even $9.30.
Hazard has since started the "93 Dollar Club" on Facebook, where people across the globe can easily read the story and comment on the good karma phenomenon. There are links on that page where people may donate to their own food banks close to them. And commenters say they are reading - and giving - from Iran, Israel, Spain, Portugal, Turkey, the Czech Republic, Australia, Hungary, Sri Lanka and beyond.
So, yes, it is quite possible to raise large amounts of money using social networking sites. This is not the only such success story I have come across, and they come from Facebook, from Twitter, MySpace, and beyond. But - and it's a huge but - the secret to nearly each of the success stories I have read is giving up control.
An old expression about good press coverage is that it's like "advertising you can't buy." Well, good viral fundraising is pretty much the same. To be truly "viral" it has to come from your supporters, not your staff, and it has to come on their schedule, not yours, and it has to be their ideas.
Now, that doesn't mean you should be doing absolutely nothing. You should be setting up your Facebook fan page and cause page, and have a Twitter account, and each should be linked and pushing content to your official web site (well-equipped with donation buttons).
Start using these tools as extensions of your current campaigns and to bring in new donors who prefer electronic methods of communication and participation. But don't expect dollar miracles overnight. The magic comes when one of your supporters (or potential supporters) has a "grocery angel" experience of their own and decides to launch their own campaign.
When they do, you'll want to be ready, and easy to find, with an established online presence that they can point to. Because, if you're not online, in place, and ready to receive those donations, another organization will be.
Visit the $93 Club on Facebook (may require Facebook login)
Friday, July 17, 2009
Upcoming Workshops
For those who've written to ask, I've got a couple of public workshops coming up soon. Both will be held at the Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County, 2425 Porter Street, Suite 16, Soquel, CA.
Grant Proposal Writing 101 - Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. - This is an introductory workshop for those new to proposal writing, and unsure of what elements to include or what foundations are looking for.
Fundraising Planning in the New Economic Environment - Thursday, September 24, 2009, 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. - To survive the current crisis will require a plan. This short workshop provides a few tools for you to use in getting your plan started.
Please see the Community Foundation's website (www.cfscc.org) for more information, fees, and online registration.
Grant Proposal Writing 101 - Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. - This is an introductory workshop for those new to proposal writing, and unsure of what elements to include or what foundations are looking for.
Fundraising Planning in the New Economic Environment - Thursday, September 24, 2009, 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. - To survive the current crisis will require a plan. This short workshop provides a few tools for you to use in getting your plan started.
Please see the Community Foundation's website (www.cfscc.org) for more information, fees, and online registration.
Monday, May 04, 2009
Nonprofit Marketing and Fundraising Zone
I am pleased to announce that as of today, the Nonprofit Consultant Blog is part of the Nonprofit Marketing and Fundraising Zone. The Zone is a topic hub started by Katya Andresen, Nancy Schwartz, and Kivi Leroux Miller for collecting and organizing information around these topics.
I'm honored that my posts will be in the company of posts from some of my favorite nonprofit blogs, including Donor Power Blog, Getting Attention, Kivi's Nonprofit Communications Blog, Studio 501c3, and several more.
You will find a link to the Nonprofit Marketing and Fundraising Zone in the sidebar to the right, along with a search form to find articles on that site compiled from this blog and each of the other participating blogs.
I'm honored that my posts will be in the company of posts from some of my favorite nonprofit blogs, including Donor Power Blog, Getting Attention, Kivi's Nonprofit Communications Blog, Studio 501c3, and several more.
You will find a link to the Nonprofit Marketing and Fundraising Zone in the sidebar to the right, along with a search form to find articles on that site compiled from this blog and each of the other participating blogs.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Good news for fundraisers
Did I say "good news"? In this economy? Yes, I certainly did. This last January Cygnus Applied Research polled 17,365 people with a history of charitable donations to ask them about their philanthropic plans for 2009. The results (as reported in The Chronicle of Philanthropy) may surprise you:
A final bit of caution before thinking this news is an open invitation to all sorts of fundraising plans:
- 52% of donors said their gifts would be on par with 2008
- Only 17.5% planned to give less than last year
- Of those who were committed to a multi-year gift, 87% said they would pay on time
- 42.5% said they would give to a charity they had not supported in the past if someone they knew was seeking the gift
- 40.3% said they would give for the first time if the charity was working directly to help people hurt by the recession
- Only 16% said they would not consider supporting a new organization
A final bit of caution before thinking this news is an open invitation to all sorts of fundraising plans:
Forty-one percent said they had stopped donating to at least one nonprofit group in the past five years because they felt overwhelmed by appeal letters, while more than a third said they were concerned organizations spent too much on fund raising.As a result, online donations are expected to become more popular, while telemarketing, door-to-door canvassing, and direct-mail appeals may be less successful.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
A Plan to Survive
Today I gave a presentation on Fundraising Planning in the New Economic Environment at the Nonprofit Forum in Redwood City. The Forum brought about 200 nonprofit professionals from throughout San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties to the conference center on the Oracle campus to share strategies for surviving the current economic collapse.
I've taught on the topic of fundraising planning many times over the years, and, of course, have my book out on the subject, but the question I had to ask myself in preparing for today was, "Has the current economic situation changed how we should approach the subject?"
The answer was simply, "No." Good planning is still good planning. The process I outline, and the tools I include, are valid in any economy. The plan that each of them creates for their agencies, of course, will be different today than it may have been a year ago, but the process is the same.
The most important thing was simply to take the time to plan, properly analyzing their funding mix, identifying gaps, establishing realistic goals, and working the plan.
Yesterday, while doing my final preparations for the conference, I came across this posting of a new study by Retriever Development Counsel with a few characteristics of nonprofits that are surviving the recession. Those characteristics include:
The plans were all different, and all unique to the organizations that made them. There's no right or wrong plan. The only mistake is failing to plan.
Maybe in a good economy you have the luxury of sitting back and "just letting the money roll in" without any design or thought to how it's going to happen. But today we don't have the time to take chances like that. The time spent planning will be paid back to you with security and sustainability.
I've taught on the topic of fundraising planning many times over the years, and, of course, have my book out on the subject, but the question I had to ask myself in preparing for today was, "Has the current economic situation changed how we should approach the subject?"
The answer was simply, "No." Good planning is still good planning. The process I outline, and the tools I include, are valid in any economy. The plan that each of them creates for their agencies, of course, will be different today than it may have been a year ago, but the process is the same.
The most important thing was simply to take the time to plan, properly analyzing their funding mix, identifying gaps, establishing realistic goals, and working the plan.
Yesterday, while doing my final preparations for the conference, I came across this posting of a new study by Retriever Development Counsel with a few characteristics of nonprofits that are surviving the recession. Those characteristics include:
- Those nonprofits with diversified funding, good management, and "learning cultures" seem to be coping much better than others.
- Successful nonprofits appear to be putting more focus on development activities, particularly donor relations, including cultivation of major donors.
The plans were all different, and all unique to the organizations that made them. There's no right or wrong plan. The only mistake is failing to plan.
Maybe in a good economy you have the luxury of sitting back and "just letting the money roll in" without any design or thought to how it's going to happen. But today we don't have the time to take chances like that. The time spent planning will be paid back to you with security and sustainability.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Walking for Early Literacy
On Saturday May 10 I will be taking part in the Human Race, a fundraising event for Silicon Valley nonprofit organizations. The Human Race is an annual event produced by the Volunteer Center of Silicon Valley that brings together hundreds of organizations from Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. Taking part in an event like this provides each organization a "ready-made" fundraising event, without the hassle, effort, or costs of developing one of their own. Volunteer Centers throughout the state and nation hold similar events - Check it out for your own nonprofit.
I will be doing the 5K walk to raise funds for Grail Family Services (GFS), an organization in East San Jose that I have been serving on a consultant basis as Interim Executive Director for a little over a year now. And, of course, I'm asking for your support - Click here if you can pledge any amount of money to help our efforts.
GFS "fosters learning and the empowerment of vulnerable families with young children through the delivery of programs that educate, develop leadership skills, and build a sense of community." All GFS programs target parents and their young children ages 0-9, and are designed with community input to address the issues most important to the neighborhood. This approach enriches the child, as well as the parent, and helps them each on the path to success in school, in work, and in life.
Your sponsorship of my Human Race participation could mean:
I will be doing the 5K walk to raise funds for Grail Family Services (GFS), an organization in East San Jose that I have been serving on a consultant basis as Interim Executive Director for a little over a year now. And, of course, I'm asking for your support - Click here if you can pledge any amount of money to help our efforts.
GFS "fosters learning and the empowerment of vulnerable families with young children through the delivery of programs that educate, develop leadership skills, and build a sense of community." All GFS programs target parents and their young children ages 0-9, and are designed with community input to address the issues most important to the neighborhood. This approach enriches the child, as well as the parent, and helps them each on the path to success in school, in work, and in life.
Your sponsorship of my Human Race participation could mean:
- $25 – five new books for the GFS Children's Library.
- $50 – developmentally appropriate toys for GFS' child care program.
- $100 – case management services for one parent.
- $250 – four weeks of subsidized child care services for one low-income toddler.
- $1,000 – eight weeks of literacy services to boost the reading skills of one child.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Donors Versus Nonprofits
My postings on fundraising fees and rates get a lot of hits, and sometimes some heated discussion. My recent posting Yet more on percentage-based fundraising was no exception.
While some people have agreed with me that, "it's about time that donors put the needs of nonprofits ahead of their own," others have taken great exception to that. One such person is Barbara Ruth Saunders, who this morning wrote:
Do donors really think that it is their place to mold nonprofits in their image and that the people who've dedicated their careers and their lives to serving their communities require such direction and babysitting from people who've never done such work?
Apparently so. Personally, I've had just about enough.
While some people have agreed with me that, "it's about time that donors put the needs of nonprofits ahead of their own," others have taken great exception to that. One such person is Barbara Ruth Saunders, who this morning wrote:
Aren't nonprofit organizations, in fact, supposed to be the vehicle by which DONORS direct their resources to goals which are socially important to the DONORS? The board should be determining how the organization can serve the goals. The staff should be executing the programs that support those strategies. But, I have a huge problem with the notion of nonprofits as being a means for a handful of grandiose people to exercise their social aims with other people's money!To which I replied:
That said, the immediate client of the fundraiser is the organization; the fundraiser helps the organization assure the DONORS that it is aligned with the DONORS' ultimate intentions.
Thank you, Barbara, for your impassioned post, but I do respectfully disagree with your assertion that "nonprofit organizations [are] supposed to be the vehicle by which DONORS direct their resources to goals which are socially important to the DONORS."Was I out of line here? Have concepts of charity and philanthropy become so antiquated that there is no longer even a pretense of the donation being a gift?
I'd put phrase it more like, "Nonprofit organizations are supposed to be the vehicle by which a COMMUNITY achieves the goals that are socially important to it."
If a donor finds that particular nonprofit is doing work that he/she/they/it believes in, they should support that nonprofit.
But when the donor becomes the focus, nonprofits drift from their missions and only chase the money. Program decisions are made, not based on what is most needed or most effective, but based on the question, "What's fundable?"
Donors need to actually trust the professionals within nonprofits to know how to best achieve their mission. If donors don't trust nonprofits, they should simply invest their money elsewhere.
Your notion that nonprofits are "a handful of grandiose people [exercising] their social aims with other people's money" is simply insulting and only demonstrates your incredible disdain for nonprofit staff.
Do donors really think that it is their place to mold nonprofits in their image and that the people who've dedicated their careers and their lives to serving their communities require such direction and babysitting from people who've never done such work?
Apparently so. Personally, I've had just about enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)