New Online Course: When Changes Comes to Nonprofits (Ready or Not)

I have just added another online course to my Udemy offerings: When Change Comes to Nonprofits (Ready or Not!)

In this course I share several case studies from my experiences of managing through crises as an Interim Executive Director. In fact, an apt sub-title for the course might have been Confessions of a Serial Interim ED.

In the first few lessons, I give the details of a couple of successful mergers, and merger negotiations that were ended without an agreement. I also talk about organizations that seemed all but doomed, and how they rebuilt to be stronger than ever. And one organization that went into bankruptcy, and what factors led to that fateful decision. 

In the second half of the course, I share several of the tools I've used in these situations for program evaluation, organizational assessment, and partnership evaluation, for students to take back to their organizations to help them work through their situations.

I originally created this course earlier this year to deliver as a presentation at the annual meeting of the South Carolina Human Services Providers Association. I did that conference session in early March, and the response was very positive. I then knew that I'd need to adapt it to the online format and share with others.

If you're interested, please follow this link to learn more and register.

My other Udemy courses that are currently available are:

Basic Training for Your Nonprofit Board of Directors, and

Basic Grant Proposal Writing for Nonprofits.

Click on the course titles to learn more or register for classes.

Transitions and Updates

 Greetings blog readers! While I don't blog nearly as much as I used to, I'm still here, and still quite busy.

I'm in the midst of wrapping up an Interim Executive Director position, and already beginning another long-term contract and scheduling trainings for 2022!

First the Interim job... Since May of 2020 (second month of "shelter-in-place") I've been the IED for Friends of Oakland Animal Services (FOAS). I will always think of FOAS as my "pandemic position," as so much of the experience was colored by the ongoing response to COVID-19, and 95% of the work had to be done virtually, online.

The assignment started with a merger exploration. After several months of (Zoom) meetings with the other nonprofit we all reached the conclusion that, while we were all committed to some form of future collaboration, a full merger was not appropriate at this time.

We then turned our attention to getting ready to hire FOAS' first permanent Executive Director. This included putting fiscal controls into place, creating administrative policies and procedures, and getting our staff benefits for the first time. An old colleague from CompassPoint days came out of retirement to help us with interviewing stakeholders and doing an organizational assessment. 

FOAS has now brought on an excellent young ED who is well positioned to grow the organization over the next several years. I'm still on contract to provide some support as needed, but he's doing great.

My new long-term contract is with the Recovery Cafe Network. I had previously been the Executive Director for Recovery Cafe San Jose (2015-2019), and for the past two years I've been a founding Board member helping to launch Recovery Cafe Santa Cruz. 

Obviously, I'm a fan of the RC model, and feel it is a needed and successful approach to providing long-term support for addiction, homelessness, mental health challenges, and recovery from a thousand other life traumas.

My contract (part time) is to be a "California Catalyst," providing technical support and guidance to new emerging Cafes in the region, identifying others who may be interested in implementing the model, and developing some regional funding for all the local Cafes.

My online courses in Grant Proposal Writing and Board Basics are continuing, and doing well, and have led to my first East Coast in-person training contract! I will be doing a version of the Board training, and a session on dealing with organizational change in South Carolina in March 2022 (more on that later).

As the world seems to emerging from the worst of the pandemic into a new reality, I am pleased with where I am, and the work that I'm doing. I hope things are well for you, too. Thank you for reading.

New Online Course: Basic Training for Your Nonprofit Board of Directors

Today I'm very pleased to announce that my latest online course is now available on Udemy: Basic Training for Your Nonprofit Board of Directors.

Some of the things covered in the course are:

• Legal requirements for Nonprofit Boards in the U.S.
• Roles and responsibilities of Board Members
  
• Roles and responsibilities of Board Officers
• Tips for successful meetings, including Agendas and Minutes
  
• About Board Committees
• The Board's role in Fundraising
  
• Board recruitment, training, and evaluation

This course is for anybody who is on a Nonprofit Board, nonprofit staff who work closely with their Boards, or anybody who's simply interested in nonprofit leadership.

You can learn more about the course and register by clicking here.

When Not To Lead

To be a successful blogger we are told, "Be authoritative! Demonstrate your expertise!" etc. But the truth is, all any of us can ever do is to write from our limited experience, share the lessons we have learned, and hope it helps somebody in their own journey. In the end, we are all in a constant process of learning. Even the so-called experts and teachers - if they're good at what they do - are still learning.

This is generally a blog about nonprofit leadership (including fundraising and administration) written by a middle-aged (58), well educated (Master's degree), white (by most standards, but not to a few), cis male (although that never stopped any bullying by those who presumed I wasn't cis).

In relation to today's headlines, and the continued protests, counter-protests, and eruptions of violence in the wake of the murder of George Floyd by four Minneapolis police officers, this is not the time for my leadership, or for my voice to be the loudest one in the room. It is time for me and (in my opinion) people like me, to be an ally.

But, in my three decades of nonprofit service, what I've learned about being a leader and what I've learned about being an ally both rely on the same skill. That skill is knowing when to close my mouth and just listen.

Yes, I get the irony. I'm taking the time to talk about why I should shut up. You're under no obligation to read further.

Lao Tzu said that, "A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves."

My experience in life has been one of probably 98% privilege. I've had a few incidents with anti-Semites (a lost job, a bloody nose or two), but these are rare. In school days, long ago, my preference for longer hair and lack of skill or interest in sports led to a certain amount of anti-gay bullying (despite my not being gay).

But overall, my life has been one of middle-class, white privilege. I've driven away from traffic stops with only a warning and never thought "this is how I die" when I was pulled over. When shop owners have kept an extra close eye on me I've had the luxury of thinking "what a paranoid ass" instead of "what a racist."

So listening has done me well when serving organizations working with folks who don't share my experience. Listening first, and speaking later, has helped me in building mutual trust and understanding. Listening first, and speaking later, has helped me to recognize leaders, and nurture their skills, where others may have only seen need.

Listening first, and speaking later, has taught me that the most important question I can ask as a leader is, "How may I support you?"

Which brings us to this week. And to be a good ally, the most important thing I can do - the only thing I can do - is to ask the same thing, "How may I support you?"

I've taken answers from many sources, one of them being the Movement for Black Lives, and their Week of Action. Each day has a demand, and a list of suggested actions you can take in support of it. The actions are divided into "Safe," "Medium," and "High Risk."

Today (Thursday) the demand is Community Control. Communities need to control the laws, institutions, and policies that are meant to serve them, but all too often fail (and fail by design). That includes local schools, public budgets (budgets are political documents), and the police. One of my chosen "safe" actions is to write a blog about this (other actions I've chosen are not so safe).

For several years there was progress in many cities regarding community policing. Getting cops to actually live in the areas where they worked. Training them to be present in support of community, not just to show up and pull people out of the community. Policing as a preventive activity, not a strictly punitive one. This was good, but rarely truly brought policing to the full demand of Community Control.

Partly, because the counter-force to that effort has been stronger. There is a nationwide trend toward militarization of the police. Federal programs have sold surplus military equipment to local departments, turning police into an invading force, far beyond what is needed to "protect and to serve."

According to the ACLU, "Sending a heavily armed team of officers to perform 'normal' police work can dangerously escalate situations that need never have involved violence." And police have received training in the use of that equipment that goes contrary to the training they'd previously had in community policing.

Sadly, one of the factors making things worse are the police unions. Bob Kroll, head of Minneapolis's police union criticizes the community policing approach like this, "Certainly cops, it's not in their nature. So you're training them to back away. And it's just not a natural."

You know what else isn't "natural"? It's not natural for a 200lb man to kneel on another man's neck for over eight minutes and expect him to live, or for his three colleagues to stand by and watch.

So, back to theme of this blog. What can we, as nonprofit leaders, do today? We can truly listen to those who we claim to serve. We can elevate their voices where and when we can. We can add our voices as needed (and never loud enough to cover theirs). We can admit our privilege (be it white, Christian, CIS, male, or whatever the source or sources).

But whatever else, what we can do, what we should do, what we must do, is to take action.

"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented... Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must - at that moment - become the center of the universe." - Elie Wiesel

"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

The Virtual Interim ED

A few weeks ago I began a new consulting gig as the Interim Executive Director of the Friends of Oakland Animal Services (FOAS).

No big new thing there. I've taken Interim ED assignments half a dozen times before. But I've not taken an assignment like this during a time of official Shelter-in-Place orders (but, really, who has?).

Previously, the only "virtual" consulting I've done has been limited to very short engagements. A few conversations, and advice, dispensed by phone or email. I've also been conducting my Basic Grant Proposal Writing course online, but again, for each student, it's a limited amount of contact and a few messages exchanged while they complete the class.

This is an entirely new adventure, with my work - at least to start - being conducted entirely online, via email, phone, and a seeming endless number of Zoom and Google Meet video calls. It's a very different experience, having staff that I've never in person, and building relationships with them, and with my Board members.

Hopefully, it won't be too many more weeks before the Shelter-in-Place restrictions in the Bay Area ease to the point where we can meet "in real life," but even after that, it won't be a daily thing. This is a small organization, with no actual office space. They mostly worked remotely already. When shelter-in-place ends, many of our regular meetings may be in person, but the bulk of the work will still be done remotely.

At FOAS, our work is changing along with the rest of the world during this global pandemic. We will find ways to transform the organization that will be stronger and even more successful than before shelter-in-place. This is a new and different way for me to be an Interim ED, but the challenge is exciting, and I'm looking forward to seeing what develops.

Budgeting for Bequests

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.

Introducing Online Training in Grant Proposal Writing

From 2003-2018 I presented the class Basic Grant Proposal Writing Skills for Nonprofits at the Community Foundation Santa Cruz County about three times each year. During that same period, I also did custom versions of the class for several individual organizations and smaller coalitions of nonprofits.

All-in-all, well over 1,000 individual nonprofit professionals have gone through my grant proposal writing trainings, and have been very satisfied with the results.

Over the last month or so, I've updated the materials again. This time, with the goal of translating it into an online class. I'm quite pleased with the results, and am officially launching the class today.

I've divided the course into eight major presentations, plus three short lectures, in over three hours of video. All of the lessons have downloads, including the slides, worksheets, and other resources.

The major lessons are:

1. The Charitable Giving Landscape
2. Making Your Fundraising Case
3. Getting Ready for Grants
4. Starting Your Proposal
5. Goals and Outcomes
6. Methodology, Evaluation, and Sustainability
7. Budgets
8. Putting it All Together

Throughout the course I put an emphasis on the modes of communication, good storytelling, and what funders are looking for (including strong outcomes statements).

The cost of the course will be $64.99 (students at the Community Foundation typically paid $65/each for the same material), but, to get the course launched, I am offering it to my regular readers for only $9.99 through this link (limited time offer).

Please let me know your reaction to the course, and if you have any ideas for what online course you'd like me to develop next!

I'm Back

After four years of working as a "permanent" full-time Executive Director, launching a start-up nonprofit, and only taking a few short-term consulting gigs from existing clients, I am once again available for new opportunities.

So, what have I been doing these four years? I took on the challenge of being the first Executive Director of Recovery Cafe San Jose. And, yes, there were many challenges and frustrations, but it was also one of the greatest experiences of my professional life.

RCSJ is a healing community for those traumatized by addiction, homelessness, and mental health challenges. Through support groups, classes, community meals, and social activities, members build their recovery capital, recognize their self-worth, and achieve their personal goals.

When I arrived, the Cafe had only been operating for about one year, and was only open three days each week, and serving four meals. Of those meals, only one was prepared fresh in-house; the others were delivered by another partner organization. They are now open five days each week, and serving seven meals, all created in their own state-of-the-art, commercial quality kitchen.

In 2015, there were only had about 50 members who were actually participating in their Recovery Circles regularly. There were no consequences for missed Circles, and not much direction for what was expected of members besides showing up.

As I leave,  membership is over 160, with all members actively sharing in Circles and a number of other activities, and holding themselves (and their peers) accountable for being present and participating. When they're going to miss a Circle, they call in to make sure they don't lose their valued membership.

In 2015, the Cafe had a handful of Circles, and a few drop-in activities. Now there is a full schedule of Circles, a robust School for Recovery curriculum, and a Community Participation Program that uses one-on-one kitchen and barista training to build self-esteem and social skills, as well as job skills.

Then, the Cafe had not yet lifted any members up to be peer leaders. Now 30% of Circles are peer led, members have created School for Recovery classes, taken charge of the coffee bar, participated in a planning retreat and program committee meetings, and taken on other leadership roles.

Along the way we also did a $1.2 million renovation of the Cafe itself, financed through CDBG funds, and all the delays, bureaucracy, endless meetings, and hard work that implies. Not to forget operating programs at a different location while managing the construction at home base.

Even with all that, much of what we did in the last four years was behind the scenes. When I walked in, basic things like Worker's Comp coverage were lacking, the financial reports to the board had the same wrong figure in the "balance forward" space month after month, there were no policies on holidays, time off, or benefits, etc., etc. Needless to say, that was all corrected, and they are now in full compliance legally and with best practices of proper financial systems and reporting, and have completed several successful audits.

In those four years, I took RCSJ from being barely recognized or understood, to being held up by our peer organizations as a crucial part of the local effort to end homelessness, including being recognized by the Santa Clara County Behavioral Health Board as a "2017 Agency Community Hero."

But what I am most proud of and grateful for is the opportunity to have been a part of the lives of the Cafe members. It is their strength that kept me going and kept me humble. It is their example of striving for something better that inspired me to hold on to the highest ideals of what the Cafe can and should be.

It is sad to end this chapter of my career, but it is time to move on and apply these lessons in the next big challenge.

Guidelines and Sample Policy on Nonprofit Political Activity

In these contentious political times, those of us in the social services field may feel the need to be more vocal about policies that effect our clients and our missions, while simultaneously facing pressure to "not rock the boat" or be controversial.

Perhaps you have board members who (wrongly) believe that nonprofits cannot play any role in politics, and don't want you to take a stand on those very questions where your voice is most needed to be heard.

With mid-term elections barely six weeks out, the organization where I've been the Executive Director for the last 3-1/2 years has been asked to put our name in support of a couple of local ballot initiatives. To explain the law and put my board at ease, I have gone through several sources to put together the following guidelines and policy for engaging in political activity.

Please feel free to borrow and adapt this policy for use in your organization.

Policy and Guidelines for Political Activities

[THIS ORGANIZATION] encourages all of its board, staff, volunteers, and clients to be active and informed citizens, and supports the individual capacity of all to execute their prerogatives as citizens.

However, as a nonprofit corporation whose activities are regulated in part by Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, the Organization is prohibited from participating in political campaigns for candidates and is restricted in conducting certain lobbying activities. This does not restrict [THIS ORGANIZATION] from taking part in limited issue advocacy related to our mission, except in regards to spending limits for lobbying activities.

Violation of IRS regulations could have serious ramifications for the Organization, including loss of its tax-exempt status. Therefore, we provide these guidelines on the permitted use and restrictions of [THIS ORGANIZATION]'s resources for politically related activity by its board, staff, and volunteers.

These guidelines cannot address every potential situation. [THIS ORGANIZATION] reserves the right to amend or modify these guidelines at its discretion or as it deems necessary to comply with the regulations governing political activities of 501(c)(3) entities.

Allowable Activities:

Endorsing Ballot Measures

Ballot measure advocacy is an attempt to influence the passage or defeat of a law or constitutional amendment - not the election or defeat of a candidate. 501(c)(3) organizations are free to takes sides on ballot measures as a lobbying activity, subject to normal limits on lobbying. Ballot measure advocacy is a first amendment issue, not a matter of tax law. Any organization or individual is free to express their opinion for or against a proposed law or constitutional amendment.

As a 501(c)(3) organization that does not file the 501(h) form, [THIS ORGANIZATION]'s activity in this regard falls under the "insubstantial part test," meaning that [THIS ORGANIZATION] may only spend an "insubstantial" amount of money on lobbying efforts. "Insubstantial" is generally assumed to be 3-5% of annual spending. Any costs associated with endorsing or advocating for ballot measures, including related staff time, must fall under this threshold.

[THIS ORGANIZATION] chooses to only endorse and promote those ballot initiatives and proposals which are directly related to its mission and to the benefit of our clients. These would include, but not be limited to, initiatives related to [LIST KEY TOPICS RELATED TO YOUR MISSION].

The Executive Director is empowered to add [THIS ORGANIZATION]'s name and logo to any "sign-on letter" in favor of a ballot measure meeting the above criteria and initiated by a nonprofit partner or nonprofit coalition of which [THIS ORGANIZATION] is a part.

The Executive Director will bring all other endorsements, and any lobbying activity that will incur any expenses, to the Board of Directors for approval before signing or taking any action. If a timely endorsement is required before the next regularly scheduled Board meeting, unanimous approval by the Board officers (President, Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer) will suffice.

Promoting Voting

Nonprofit organizations classified as 501(c)(3) public charities may conduct nonpartisan "get-out-the-vote" activities and voter registration without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status. It is a legitimate charitable activity to support voter engagement and educate the public about the importance of voting.

[THIS ORGANIZATION] encourages all Board, staff, and volunteers to participate in all elections. We especially uphold and encourage the right of our clients, and all marginalized populations, to take an active role in our democracy. [THIS ORGANIZATION]'s staff may distribute voter registration materials and/or non-partisan voter information guides to clients, and/or allow other organizations to conduct nonpartisan voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities within the program site.

In these ways, [THIS ORGANIZATION] affirms its commitment to the "Vote with Your Mission" campaign of CalNonprofits. More information on this initiative can be found at calnonprofits.org/programs/voteyourmission

Running for Office

Board Members and staff may decide to run for public office while associated with [THIS ORGANIZATION], as is their right. To ensure compliance with IRS regulations and Organization policy, including conflict of interest and/or a conflict of commitment, a plan to manage potential conflicts must be established upon declaration of candidacy.

Plans must ensure that other Board Members and staff do not experience a compromised work environment or feel pressure to comply with the political goals of candidates.

An employee intending to seek public office must inform his/her supervisor and the Executive Director to develop a plan to avoid conflicts of interest. It is requested that this notification come as soon as the employee is considering becoming a candidate, but, in all cases, notification must be made no later than upon declaring candidacy.

In any case, the Board or staff member running for office may not solicit or accept funds or contributions for campaigns (their own or someone else's) from donors identified through donor rolls or other [THIS ORGANIZATION] records or directories.

Appearances by Candidates

Candidates for public office or their designees are welcome to appear at the program site or [THIS ORGANIZATION]'s sponsored events for non-campaign related activities, such as an educational or informational talk to [THIS ORGANIZATION], our clients, or our supporters.

Such appearances must satisfy the following criteria:

* The individual(s) is/are chosen to speak for reasons other than candidacy for public office.

* The individual speaks in a non-candidate capacity.

* The event and organization maintains a nonpartisan atmosphere.

* No specific organized campaigning activity occurs in connection with the event.

* The event involving a candidate should not be dictated by, or put under the control of, a candidate, their representatives, or any outside organization.

In no case shall [THIS ORGANIZATION] organize an event for the sole purpose of the promotion of a single candidate for any office.

Non-Allowable Activities:

Endorsing Candidates

[This Organization] will not endorse or promote individual candidates or political parties in any election, at any level of government, or take part in any form of partisan political activity.

Substantial Lobbying

While we affirm our free speech rights to engage in nonpartisan issue advocacy, such as endorsing ballot initiatives and engaging in get-out-the-vote activities, we recognize that as a 501(c)(3) organization that does not file form 501(h), [THIS ORGANIZATION] may only spend an "insubstantial" amount of money on such activities that may be interpreted as lobbying.

"Insubstantial" is generally assumed to be 3-5% of annual spending. Any costs associated with any such activities, including related staff time, must fall under this threshold on an annual, Fiscal Year, basis.

-->

Challenges of an Interim Executive Director

Several weeks ago I had the pleasure of being interviewed by Kirsten Bullock for her Nonprofit Leaders Network podcast. The conversation turned quickly to my experiences over the years as an Interim Executive Director.

Whether your organization is thinking of using an Interim ED, or whether you are a consultant thinking of getting into this sort of work, I hope you will find some advice in this conversation that will help you navigate the relationship successfully.

We talked about staff and board relationships, priority setting, advice gathering, communications, self-care, and the million other considerations to think about when entering into an Interim situation.

Kirsten asked great questions, and the time on the phone with her passed quickly. And she sent me a nice box of cookies when it was all over.

You can listen to our interview, as well as other great podcasts, at the Nonprofit Leaders Network website.

Back to the Future of Philanthropy

I received a kind email from Erik Anderson, of the Donor Dreams Blog, suggesting I take on the subject of The Future of Philanthropy for this month's nonprofit blog carnival. Easy peasy, right? Well maybe not.

In Erik's call for Future Philanthropy blogs he links to a TED Talk from 2007: Katherine Fulton on You are the future of philanthropy. I've watched the video a couple of times now, and Ms. Fulton makes some great points on several philanthropic trends (and I recommend you also watch it), but it didn't really help me answer the question of what I viewed the future of philanthropy to be.

Ms. Fulton begins her exploration with the establishment of the modern foundation form in the U.S. at the end of the 19th century by the Rockefellers, Carnegies, et al, but, indeed, the concept of philanthropy goes back to ancient Greece, meaning "love of humanity," and encompasses the giving of time, heart, and soul, as well as currency.

Even the story of "modern philanthropy" predates Rockefeller by at least 150 years, with the establishment of the Foundling Hospital in London. Established for the "education and maintenance of exposed and deserted young children," the Foundling Hospital is considered by many to be the first modern charity.

Wikimedia Commons

Not long after, "a group of London merchants and gentlemen" met to "discuss a plan to supply two or three thousand seafarers for the navy," founding the Marine Society. They, of course, sought sponsors and donors to support their efforts. Certainly that qualifies not only as philanthropy, but as professional fundraising, and maybe even crowd-funding.

Ms. Fulton references Warren Buffet, and another of her slides bears the image of Richard Branson, but what really differentiates these modern philanthropic leaders from Rockefeller and Carnegie, or even from the gentlemen who founded the Marine Society? Is it their motivation, is it their philosophy, or is it their tools?

Ms. Fulton describes the philanthropy of 100 years ago as "closed-small-slow-fragmented-short" and contrasts that with the "open-big-fast-connected-long" world of today's philanthropy.

"Closed-small-slow-fragmented-short" may seem a somewhat apt description of old philanthropy from today's perspective, but there's no evidence that it was seen as such in 1905, or that it was meant to be "closed-small-slow-fragmented-short" by intentional design.

What draws that comparison is not any change in the concept of philanthropy, it is all about the tools. 120 years ago, Andrew Carnegie building libraries across America was very open, connected, big,  long, and somewhat radical (okay, it probably wasn't "fast," but what was then?). Today his approach might be to distribute iPads to students instead, but his philanthropic ideals would likely be the same.

Even the much vaunted "democratization of philanthropy" is nothing new. If you read my blog, you know I absolutely love crowd-giving sites such as Benevolent, etc., but at their core, they are simply using new tools to expand upon the giving circles of previous decades that were, themselves, just updates of the old mutual aid societies that go back at least 250 years.

I guess what I'm saying is, the impulse to philanthropy is as old as society itself, and that the forms it takes always includes both, the "small and informal" (mutual aid to crowd-funding), and the "large and influential" (Carnegie to Gates). What evolves are the methodologies and tools.

There are certainly trends - I've lived through several: money for technical assistance, money for programs only, highly focused outcomes, more data, less data, forcing mergers, encouraging cooperation, and a few others - but those are changes in bureaucracy, not philanthropy.

So, I suppose my predictions for the Future of Philanthropy are as follows:

• New developments in technology - particularly communications technology - will continue to drive changes in how nonprofits and donors discover each other and build relationships.
• Trends in giving will continue to be driven by "thought leaders" emerging out of the currently dominant business sector (IE: Carnegie's steel then, Gates' high tech now).
• Despite the attention given to the "thought leaders" above, the real work of creating social change and improving the lives of ordinary people will always come in the form of peer-to-peer giving and assistance.
• Solutions-based philanthropy will continue to lose out to empathy-based charity (IE: eliminating poverty versus assisting the poor) as long as total giving remains at only 2% of GDP.

Solve that last problem, and then we can talk about real change and a brighter future.

Aligning Nonprofit Strategy with Donor Preferences

Last week I attended the "What Really Matters" webinar from Abila to discuss the findings in their latest Donor Engagement Study. There were a few surprises in their latest findings, and several confirmations of what we've always known, or at least should have sensed.

On of the key points that should be obvious, but bears repeating, is that Content is King. What you say is more important than the frequency with which you communicate, or even what medium or channel you are using.

And, when it comes to that content, what donors are most interested in is stories. Again, many of us have been harping on this for years, but too many nonprofits have still not heard the message: Your data may help get a signature on a large check, but to get to that point you need to share just one personal story of how your nonprofit has helped one individual.

When it comes to Abila's findings that should come as a wake-up call, the most startling is the how misaligned most organizations are with the preferences of their donors.

For example, while many nonprofits are dividing their donor lists by gift range, and are differentiating their strategies for large versus small donors, only 3% of groups are always dividing and strategizing differently by age group.

Age of donors matters! Each generation has different communications preferences, from what channel (mail, email, social media...), to the frequency, to the message. If you have the same strategy for reaching millennials as you do for their grandparents, one of them (at least) isn't going to be impressed.

As presenters Tad Druart and Rich Dietz pointed out, our donors are consumers as well, and they are used to communications from companies like Amazon or eBay that are highly differentiated and targeted based on dozens of factors. When we, as nonprofits, treat all donors like just another member of the herd, donors are noticing and turning away from us.

There's a lot more in the report, but I'll leave it up to you to discover. You can visit the Abila.com website to download the full report (it's free).

Did LinkedIn help nonprofits & leave nonprofit professionals behind?

Some time back I blogged about LinkedIn's (then new) Board Connect Service as a great new resource for nonprofit organizations. In the couple of years since, LinkedIn has built upon and expanded their vision of "LinkedIn for Good" and their offerings to nonprofits. I have taken part in a couple of free nonprofit technology trainings provided by LinkedIn and have enjoyed meeting their enthusiastic and caring team.

One of the great nonprofit tools they have is being able to search for professionals who are interested in volunteering or board leadership opportunities by their job skills, education, location, industry, and a host of other factors. Related to that, nonprofits can also use LinkedIn's job posting function to advertise for volunteers at 90% discounts.

As great as that is, and as much as I recommend the organizations I work with check that out, that's also the source of a potential problem.

It has recently been pointed out to me that these volunteer listings appear along with regular employment opportunities when LinkedIn members conduct a search.

On the plus side - and I'm sure this is why it was designed this way - it puts your volunteer listings alongside in front of job hunters who have not previously thought about volunteering. It grabs their attention and presents them with an opportunity they might otherwise have missed.

On the down side, for those of us who are nonprofit professionals, and who may be looking for (paid) career opportunities, it has made LinkedIn nearly useless as a job hunting tool. Simply put, the number of volunteer opportunities that come up in any search so greatly outnumber the (real) jobs that weeding through them all is a frustrating mess.

After learning of this problem I did a few test searches, from broad searches to highly filtered narrow ones. Each time I was overwhelmed with volunteer positions. In most of the searches I was finding only a handful of paid jobs for each 100 volunteer listings.

Using their advanced search tools, I was able to choose only jobs for experience levels of "mid-senior," "executive," and "director." While that dramatically cut down the total number of results, it still included volunteer opportunities.

To narrow my search to what should have only been paid opportunities, I searched for "Industry: Nonprofit," "Function: Consulting," and "Location: within 50 miles." Of the 146 results, there were only 4 paid jobs, and they were all listed on the final page of results. Of the four jobs, one was listed as being in Beirut, Lebanon... a little greater than 50 miles from my zip code.

It seems that with all their zeal for helping nonprofit causes, LinkedIn has neglected to take into account that it takes professionals who are dedicated full-time to those causes to make the organizations function.

Two suggestions:

1 - LinkedIn should make it easy to filter out volunteer opportunities. Yes, they do offer the ability to filter listings by salary range, but that is a premium feature to paid members only ($29.99/month), perhaps out of the budget for many nonprofit staff.

2 - LinkedIn could expand their LinkedIn for Good efforts by offering discounts to nonprofits on regular job ads as well. Perhaps not the same 90% they discount for volunteer opportunities, but something close to it. I know there are nonprofits hiring that I'm not seeing in my search results. Price is a factor.

The Business of Philanthropy - A Rant

I apologize in advance that today's posting here is going to be more of a rant than a helpful article, but I hope you will sympathize with my frustration. This comes from two articles I read yesterday that left me shaking my head, wondering if the world's gone crazy.

First, yesterday morning, I read Poor customer service at charities 'a key reason for high attrition rates', about a report released by Donor Voice called Donor Churn - How to stop it before it starts and why current approaches prevent this from happening.

Actually, I very much agreed with the thrust of the article and report, that you need to pay attention to your donors, and be responsive to their questions, before they drop you from their giving, not trying to make up after. The line that got me frustrated was this:

"Service in the non-profit sector is too often relegated to some distant corner of the organization and/or treated as a cost center."

Well, yes. It is a cost center! Donor relations is not free. The folks at Donor Voice know that - they make their living selling donor retention services to nonprofits. Not only is this not free, it is not program related either. It is overhead, and that's where my frustration lies.

With all the attention given lately to the overhead myth - the idea that looking at a nonprofit's ratio of overhead to program expenses is the best way to judge "effectiveness" - I found it baffling that this report could say their research finds donors want organizations to be more responsive to their inquiries, without mentioning that donors apparently don't want to cover the cost of that response.

If you've removed your phone number from your website to reduce inquiry calls (a finding of the report), explain why. If it was to save on overhead, say so! Or, just answer the phone, and educate your donors about the true costs of running your organization, and why your overhead is what it is.

But that article was just a minor irritation. What got me angry enough to write this rant was this:

Yesterday evening, I read the news about Lincoln Center getting set to rebuild - and rename - Avery Fisher Hall, the home of the NY Philharmonic. Fine. The hall was built in 1962 and renovated (and named) in 1973. I was built in 1961 and I could use a little renovation as well.

It turns out, however that the Fisher family isn't giving up their naming rights quietly or cheaply. While their original gift in 1973 was for $10 million, the ransom they will receive to release the Philharmonic from the deal will be $15 million (plus other perks).

Patricia Illingworth has summed up the situation perfectly:

"... Philanthropy is understood as the giving (and sometimes volunteering) for the love of humanity... The fact that the family required $15 million (plus other things) in order to relinquish their rights underscores that this is business and not philanthropy..."

The Fisher family received four decades of worldwide recognition, publicity, thanks, and kudos for their investment. Now they're also getting a 50% return on their money.

Not a bad deal for them. But what about the donors to the new hall? Who will be making the $15 million donation that won't produce a single note of music, and won't lay a single coat of paint on the rehabbed building, but will go entirely to the Fishers? Would you like to be the one making that pitch to one of your donors?

And what does that say to all of our potential donors about how our arts organizations (and other nonprofits) are being run? What does it say about how we manage our money or negotiate deals? No wonder donors are curious about our overhead rates and want to keep them low!

It's almost enough to make you want to remove your phone number from your website and stop responding to donors altogether.

Or, maybe, we could stop fearing our donors, stop babying them and trying to protect them from the realities of our world, and stand up to them when they have ridiculous demands that make a joke of philanthropy.

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."

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.

Nonprofits as the Equalizing Force

Today is Blog Action Day 2014. Each year, BAD organizes bloggers from over 100 countries to write on a single theme for one day of coordinated action. This year's theme is Inequality.

As I searched around for a particular subject to write on, it hit me that I could not narrow it down to a single aspect of inequality that I could relate to work in the nonprofit sector.

I considered writing about education, noting the disparity in the range of annual per-pupil spending (from $6,206 in Utah up to $19,522 in New York - a range that is politically inspired at least as much as it is a recognition of the range in cost of living), or that, on average, states spend four times as much per prisoner as they do per student (talk about priorities!).

Of course there is economic inequality. We've all heard (and in many cases written) about the growing gap between the 1% and the 99%... Despite the election of a Black President, racial inequality still persists, as shown these past months in Ferguson and elsewhere, also pointing out inequality of justice... Do I need to mention gender inequality, including the most basic question of how we define gender and the gender of who we love? Yes, I do.

For each of these issues there is a nonprofit connection, with agencies and activists working tirelessly to right these wrongs. But I also realized that virtually all nonprofits are addressing some sort of injustice or inequality. Arts groups seek to bring beauty and hope to places where neither exists. Health nonprofits seek to heal those without access to insurance. The list goes on.

As I've written before, much of what the nonprofit sector is about is to address market failures: the operation of a free market society will always create a certain number of citizens who fall between the cracks. If there were economic equality and equality of justice in all areas of our lives, there would be no need for many of our services, a profit-driven model for providing other services, and no justification for our tax-exempt status.

By and large, the nonprofit sector exists to address inequality. But does your organization just put a temporary band-aid on those harmed by inequality, or do you work to change the system and eliminate inequality?

And, getting to my point here, do you vote in line with that mission? Election day is coming up in less than three weeks. For the last several years CalNonprofits has reminded its members and constituents of the power of their vote and encouraged them to "Vote With Your Mission." Of course, you don't have to live in California to appreciate, and act on, that message.

Study the ballot in your state. Think about how each decision on that ballot might effect equality in your community. And then remember to vote.

Let the Commencement Commence!

Good afternoon graduates, faculty, administration, families, friends, and distinguished alumni. I am very pleased to have been asked to give this year's commencement address at this fine institution, even if I was a last minute replacement following the protests that accompanied your first several choices.

I am even more pleased that every single one of this year's graduates has chosen to move on to a career in the human services sector. I don't know if your parents, who paid for your education, are pleased, but I am.

I suppose I should start with some sort of inspirational quote. Some platitudes along the lines of, "This is America, and anybody can do anything they want, and as long as you want success, by gosh, you shall have it!"

But that would be an insult.

An insult to each of you, to imply that a good attitude is all it takes to succeed, and that your own hard work, personal attributes, and family connections have nothing to do with it.

But more to the point, it would be an insult to many of the people who are about to become your clients. As if to say, "You wouldn't be in this mess if you just learned to whistle your troubles away."

The reality is that not everybody has access to the same set of choices that you've had. Not everybody is even aware of the choices they do have. External factors, from the physical to the mental, from geographic to economic, have limited their options.

If they have a defeated attitude - and you will soon learn not to assume "low-income" as synonymous with "bad attitude" - it's only because they have earned it.

Everybody wants decent jobs and a decent place to live, and enough food that their children don't suffer. Yes, they want success. That's why they're about to show up in your new office asking for assistance.

You want an inspirational quote? How about Woody Allen: "Eighty percent of success is showing up."

The rest is hard work. And, boy, are you going to work hard! You will toil long hours in uncomfortable settings for low pay and you're going to love it. Because it's meaningful, or something like that.

Here's another quote for you: "I don't think I'm alone when I look at the homeless person or the bum or the psychotic or the drunk or the drug addict or the criminal and see their baby pictures in my mind's eye. You don't think they were cute like every other baby?"

Dustin Hoffman said that one, and it's good advice. Each time you see (or smell) an approaching client and you're tempted to roll your eyes, give a sigh, and regret taking on a career in the human services, do your best to find the innocent babe within their eyes.

And, yes, I have now twice defined your future employment as being in "the human services." Don't let the scope of your employment limit your mission to a single task. You may find yourself providing housing assistance, or job training, or maybe something related to health care. But your job is to help that individual person, the whole person, whatever they may need.

That means go the extra mile. Refer them to services you don't provide. Take a minute to reach deeper, and find out how you can truly help beyond processing them from one point to the next.

I'll leave you with one more bit of inspiration, this time from Mark Twain: "The two most important days in your life are the day you are born and the day you find out why."

You figure that one out for yourself.

Well, that's all I've got for you. I know your grandmother is waiting to take a picture of you with your cap and gown on and I don't want to disappoint her.

Good night, congratulations, and good luck.

Are You Treating Your Cats Like Dogs?

I love dogs. Who wouldn't? They're fun, happy, and above all, loyal. It doesn't take much to earn a dogs love... a scratch behind the ear in just the right spot, a tossed tennis ball, or dropped bits of food of any sort will do the trick. Dogs are easy.

I love dogs, but I prefer cats. Cats are seen as aloof. Cats can be fickle. Cats demand respect. Some people say that cats are incapable of love. I feel sorry for those people. Earning a cats love is much more rewarding than the easy affection that flows from dogs.

But this is a nonprofit blog, not an animal blog, so let's talk about your donors. Are you treating them like dogs or like cats?

There was a time when most of our donors were more like dogs. If you fed them once, they were yours for life. You could depend on tossing a stick, and having them come back to drop a check at your feet almost every time. At least, it seems like it was that easy.

Whether or not it was ever really that simple, times have changed. Donor loyalty is not something you can assume, or just press the right buttons to activate. Each donation must be earned. The donors preferences must be honored.

A few examples:

• Information Preferences: Most donors today want better information. Some may want better financial understanding, but many want to know about your impact. And that's not just the usual roundup of total numbers served, like the old McDonald's signs, but getting down to the who and how their dollar is helping.
• Method Preferences: Yes, some of your old dogs may still depend on your direct mail piece. Other donors may prefer responding to an email. Still others are looking for you on Facebook. It's not one or the other, it's as many channels as you can effectively manage.
• Campaign Preferences: Related to each of the points above, but your annual campaign for your total budget is not going to appeal to many of your cats. They may want to be a part of a specific project, with well-defined objectives and clear budgets, and they may be looking for this campaign on crowdfunding websites.

Does all this mean that I'm saying we're now the dogs, chasing sticks, jumping through hoops, and begging for treats? Heck no! I'm talking about mutual respect, with donors and nonprofit professionals working together to better our communities.

Being responsive, learning about our donors' preferences, and paying attention to subtle changes in what works (and what doesn't) keeps us on top of our game, and more effective at our work. It keeps us nimble. Like a cat.

The pictures on this page are of a couple of my neighbors, Emma and Rocky, visiting on my front porch.

Rocky - the pup - is sweet and lovable, and will play with any living, breathing thing on the street. We don't generally feed the neighbor's pets, but on this day he was choking on a bone he'd dug out of somebody's trash, and the only way to get it away from him was to tempt him with a bowl of left-over chicken. Rocky's great, but he's a bit of an idiot.

Emma - the kitty - is different. Emma is very particular about which humans she associates with, but when I come home from work, she runs across the street to see me. That is, if she's not already waiting on the railing. I have never fed her; she does not stay in our house. All she gets here is love and respect. Emma is my best friend on the block, and the only neighbor I truly and fully trust.

The FCC is Coming After YOUR Nonprofit!

I'm not sure how closely any of you have been following the legal battles over "net neutrality" but the FCC has issued new (draft) rules that would effectively kill it (along with the ability of most nonprofits to use the web as an inexpensive communications strategy), all while wrapping itself up in the language of net neutrality.

Net neutrality is the concept that all content traffic on the web should be treated equally, and that ISPs (the companies you purchase your internet access from, like Comcast, Verizon, etc.) can't pick and choose which content you access (as long as it's legal), or send you one website at a quicker download speed than another.

Net neutrality is why your website should load in a browser at the same speed as Facebook (taking into account that large photos or videos take longer than text). Net neutrality is how start-ups compete with the established net giants, like Google, Yahoo, Facebook, and Amazon. Net neutrality is the even playing field that gives all information and ideas a fair chance at finding an audience.

The new proposed rules from the FCC would allow ISPs to set up "fast lanes" for those content providers who can pay them the extra fees (the established net biggies), and put all other internet traffic into the slow lane, stifling conversation and innovation along with it.

Guess which lane most nonprofits will find themselves in (unless we each find a generous benefactor who will pay off all the ISPs for us)?

Bottom line for nonprofits: If this proposal is accepted, and these rules go into effect, it could be much harder (and much more expensive) for us to communicate with the public about our missions and the good work we do. If our sites load at 1996 speeds, donors, volunteers, and others interested in learning about our missions will not be very motivated to stick with us long enough for our homepage to load.

Here's a great article that explains what's happening, and what the dangers are (click here).

And here's a petition that you may sign onto (click here).

Remember, as nonprofits you have to be careful about endorsing particular candidates and parties, but you are allowed to inform, educate, and take part in public policy debates that effect your mission or your ability to do your work.

(NOTE: The final language of the proposed rules will be released at the FCC meeting on May 15. That will begin the official public comment period before the rules are formally adopted. Public comment will be at least 30 days, likely longer. Petitions and letters now are still helpful and may influence the draft that is coming on May 15.)

The Rational Aspect of Irrational Philanthropy

A few weeks back I was at a social gathering and, in conversation with another attendee, wound up talking about the use of crowdfunding to help low-income people over hurdles on their way to self-sufficiency.

She found it very interesting, and asked, "What country are they aiding?"

My reply, "Well, um, here. The U.S., including groups down the street, right here in Berkeley!"

She was a bit surprised, but pleased. Because we were talking about small dollar amounts, she had assumed that the donations were going elsewhere, where there would be more "bang for the buck."

Put your money where there will be the greatest impact, right? Isn't that what the big philanthropists do, and the example that they encourage us "everyday donors" ($25-50) to follow?

I remembered this conversation this morning reading Hewlett Ends Effort to Get Donors to Make Dispassionate Choices on Giving on the Chronicle of Philanthropy. Hewlett had been a major funder behind encouraging better and more effective philanthropy through the use of results- and impact-driven data.

Not that this focus on charitable ROI (return on investment) didn't have its critics. William Dietel, a philanthropy adviser and former president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, decried it as an "instant-gratification strategy driven by young, tech-savvy philanthropists."

But the woman I was speaking with at the party was not a young, tech-savvy philanthropist. She was a 50-something sculptor with empty pockets. Such is the extent to which the message of "effective philanthropy" has permeated the culture.

Of course, even with this mindset being promoted, there were still many donors (particularly smaller donors) who didn't bother with the research and just gave "from the heart." And that's how the debate was framed: giving from the heart versus giving from the head.

When Hewlett started the effort in 2006, then-president Paul Brest wrote, "Personal philanthropy may sometimes be so profoundly emotional as to be invulnerable to rational analysis."

And here's where we get to my problem with this so-called "rational analysis." As part of the whole, "nonprofits need to operate more like businesses" meme, the means for analysis are primarily market-driven tools for evaluating programs that exist because of market failures.

Anti-poverty programs are a direct response to the realization that the operation of a free market society will always create a certain number of citizens who fall between the cracks - who are not economically viable. Culture and arts programs, too, exist as nonprofits where and when the free market cannot or will not support them as businesses, so how can you evaluate them as if they were held to the same market principals?

So, why help one person in poverty in the U.S. when the same investment can help ten people, or maybe even 100,  in poverty elsewhere?

The "rational" person, using their head and all the correct data, knows that the third-world philanthropic investment will give them far better ROI and results. Effective Philanthropy Achieved!

The "irrational" person, using only their heart and a little common sense, knows that they are part of a community, and that if they allow poverty to grow around them it will become a cancer, raising crime, lowering property values, and decreasing that immeasurable thing called "happiness."

Yes, we need to evaluate our programs, and yes, as nonprofit professionals we need to be as effective as we can be with the limited resources at our disposal. But the idea that one can eliminate the heart from philanthropy is one that I'm very pleased to see fading.