Charity Apps Love 'em and Hate 'em

As nonprofit professionals, we're always interested in ways to increase giving and reach new donors. Several new websites and mobile apps also seek to do just that. Some for better, some for... well, let's just say that sometimes even the folks who want to help us don't quite get it.

Let's start with what I find to be the best of this set, CharitySub. The premise is simple, and just an updated spin on giving circles. Rather than a small group of friends pooling their resources to make a sizable donation to a local cause, it's potentially thousands of like-minded strangers pooling their resources online to create an impact.

CharitySub is short for Charity Subscription, and the subscription fee is $5 per month. At the start of each month, all subscribers are presented with background information on three different nonprofits working on a particular cause. Subscribers then select where they want their $5 to go to. The next month, three more nonprofits are presented.

For the new (younger?) donor, who would like to learn more about nonprofits and various causes, and be reminded to try to give a little each month, CharitySub could be a great door-opener.

The folks at Johnson & Johnson have entered the mobile photo market with their new Donate A Photo app. Rather than encouraging direct philanthropy, as CharitySub does, Donate A Photo seeks to harness the power of "slacktivism" to fuel Johnson & Johnson's corporate giving.

Users install the app and use it to share their photos to twiiter or facebook, just as they would with most any other photo app, but with the added graphics promoting Donate A Photo and Johnson & Johnson. In exchange, J&J will donate $1 for each photo you post (one photo a day limit per user) to your chosen cause.

Finally, we come to Budge. What can I say about Budge other than, with friends like this, who needs detractors. Yes, if people use this app, it will result in donations to charities. But it hardly encourages philanthropy. Quite the opposite. In their own words, "charity can be a bit of a drag" and "drain the bank account." But they also believe people are "fundamentally good" so they devised the Budge.

With the Budge app, users challenge their friends to contests and games. The loser of the contest "has to" make a micro-donation to a charity (no explanation of how small a donation "micro" is given). That "winners" don't give to charity - charity's only for losers - is simply not the message I think any of us want to promulgate. Thanks, but no thanks.

By the way, the apps reviewed above all came to me through a technology newsletter I get each day called Netted. Each day they send new sites and apps; yesterday's just happened to focus on charity apps.

On another note, I will be teaching a free lunchtime workshop, "Can Crowdfunding Help Your Nonprofit Raise $ and Supporters?" at the Community Foundation Santa Cruz County on Thursday, August 1st. I've got some great research into the preferences of young donors, and how to reach them through crowdfunding. Yes, I'll be talking some about Benevolent.net, but that's only part of the story.

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:

1. Benevolent.net - nonprofits create low-dollar campaigns (up to $700) tied to client needs and stories
2. Causes.com - primarily for petitions, but can people/orgs can fundraise as well, Facebook widgets
3. CauseVox.com - organizations create custom fundraising sites
4. CrowdRise.com - organizations or individuals can set up fundraising campaigns of any size
5. DonorsChoose.org - teachers set up campaigns for classroom needs
6. FunderHut.com - users create campaigns for nonprofits or "projects" 
7. Fundly.com - fundraising for "individuals, non-profits, schools and political organizations"
8. Fundraise.com - organizations get supporters to set up personal fundraising pages
9. FundRazr.com - create social media fundraising campaigns, payments through PayPal 
10. GoFundMe.com - individuals create campaigns for their own projects or favorite charity
11. HealthTechHatch.com - "dedicated to launching early-stage innovations in health care"
12. HousingOne.org - basic furniture needs for those leaving homelessness (Silicon Valley only)
13. IndieGoGo.com - raise funds for projects of all types, not primarily for nonprofits, but could be
14. KickStarter.com - raise funds for projects of all types, mostly creative (art, music, publishing)
15. Kiva.org - raises money for micro-loans, mostly in developing countries
16. Raise5.com - users volunteer to do small tasks for buyers in exchange for donations to charity
17. Razoo.com - organizations or individuals can set up campaigns; good widgets for web & Facebook
18. RocketHub.com - raise funds for any use (business, social, arts)
19. StartSomeGood.com - "ventures" (not all nonprofit) fundraise for social change
20. 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.

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:

"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!

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.

The Waiting is NOT the Hardest Part

...  A Proposal for Uniform Feedback of Grant Application Denials

From Guest Blogger: Brian Leitten. Mr. Leitten is an experienced non-profit leader and consultant, chief executive and attorney. He provides consulting services nationally to non-profit and healthcare leaders from his office in Port Orange, Florida. He can be reached at Leitten Consulting - consulting.leitten.com. 

Every year I assist clients in preparing grant applications that are submitted to 30-50 different private, community and corporate foundations and government agencies. The grant applications could be as simple as a letter of intent or a letter introducing the non-profit and explaining the grant request; or it could require a multi-page write-up with a significant number of supporting documents. Often, the foundation or agency has a very particular format that the application and supporting documents and it is generally the case that no two grant applications require exactly the same information presented in exactly the same format. In short, uniformity has not yet come to the grant application process.

Once the hours or days of preparation have been invested, the grant application is thrown into a virtual 'black hole'. After submitting the application, applicants wait to receive a decision. Most foundations are excellent at acknowledging receipt of a grant proposal, but from there communication falls off a steep ledge. Some grantmakers do provide a target date for making decisions on submitted grants; many do not. Non-profits can do nothing but wait. Many times they never hear back from a grantmaker on the outcome of the consideration of their application. I know of one application that was approved, a check was mailed (to the wrong address) and eventually canceled because the grantmaker (without bothering to inquire) assumed that the money wasn't wanted.

I find myself disagreeing with song writer and rock musician Tom Petty when I hear him sing 'The Waiting is the hardest part'. For me and the clients I serve, the waiting is the 2nd hardest part. The hardest part is receiving a denial letter with no explanation or feedback about why your proposal was not funded. Unfortunately, the typical denial communication goes something like 'Thank you for your application. We receive many more applications for support than we are able to accommodate and we will not be able to provide funding for your request'. This type of response is nothing more than a forced nicety and provides no help or feedback to the grant applicant. Without feedback, non-profits are unable to improve their grant submission process. This means that they could continue to submit grant applications containing flawed elements with no awareness of the problem and that grantmakers could continue to receive and waste time reviewing grant applications that have no chance of success.

It struck me that adding one rather simple step could greatly improve the feedback loop and eliminate the costly waste that continues to hamper the grant making system. I propose adoption of a uniform, one -page feedback sheet that would accompany all denial letters and emails. The feedback sheet would contain a list of common reasons for denial that could easily be checked off without adding any significant time burden to the denial communication process. It's likely that one or two issues led to a decision not to fund, and the checklist would be an easy and convenient way to deliver that message. This would provide extremely valuable information to the applicants that can help them improve future applications and not waste time seeking grants for which they have no chance of receiving. For the grantmakers, it would provide a wonderful opportunity to improve the quality and relevancy of future applications and avoid significant amounts of future time spent reviewing applications that they will end up turning down.

I submit the following one-page feedback sheet as a starting point for creating a uniform communication tool for grant application denials:

(click here to see full-size image)

This kind of uniform feedback would be a major step forward in enhancing the grant application process for non-profits and the foundations and agencies that support them. It would eliminate or reduce a significant flaw in the current process and return "The Waiting' to the top of the 'Hardest Part' list.