Whole Foods: A Success Story in For-Profit Leadership In Giving

I was one of the masses who joined in the voucher “feeding frenzy” on September 13^th.  I don’t know if I’m proud of this or not but I know a good deal when I see one.

Living Social offered me $20 worth of groceries at Whole Foods for $10.  I shop at Whole Foods regularly so it didn’t take more than a second to figure I was saving $10 with the voucher.  I bought it.

So did one million other people.

Yes – they sold out in 24-hours.  At times, the site noted they were selling 80 vouchers per second.

And the most interesting part of this campaign was one I hadn’t even noticed at first.  For every voucher sold, Whole Foods donated 5% of the sales price to its Whole Kids Foundation, a “nonprofit organization the grocery chain started to help schools improve nutrition.” 

If you go to their Facebook website you can vote (by Sept. 30^th) for one of three choices for how the funds would be spent: (a) Teacher Nutrition Education  (b) School Garden Grants or (c) Salad Bars to Schools.   

What does this say about the changing face of corporate philanthropy?

Whole Foods not only ensured that it kept me as a loyal customer, it made me aware of their foundation and generated funding for it at the same time!

Did they really donate 5% of the full selling price of the vouchers?  Selling out a million of them at $10/each would generate $10 million (imagine the interest…).  The foundation would have made $500K off that success!

I hope that my math (and my assumption) is correct and that $500K goes to one of the “choice” activities they’ve targeted.

Even more, I hope that other leaders in for-profit organizations, especially those with foundations, see the beauty of this campaign.  They should recognize how funds can be generated for foundations and nonprofits they have created or with whom they choose to affiliate or partner. 

We need more “good works” leadership.  And it’s a win-win for the consumer as well as the company and the nonprofit. 

Well done, Whole Foods!

Is philanthropy dying? (Part 2)

Last week I attended the DMA Nonprofit Conference in NYC.  It had been a few years and I’m pleased to report that the programs are much more engaging than I remember in years past.  From the keynote speaker to the session in general I found them of interest.  One session entitled The Retention of Attention: Metrics Beyond Donations that was exemplary.

The panel for this session was:

• Ashley Delamar, Div. Dir. of Dev., The Salvation Army/NSC Divisional HQ’s
• Jacqui Groseth,  Marketing & Comm. Dir., Union Rescue Mission, Los Angeles
• Glenn Waterman, Dir. of Dev., The Leprosy Mission Canada
• Moderator: Bill Jacobs, President, Donor-Central

After the presentations, I had the opportunity to ask the question I posed in my last blog: based on my conversation with an E.D. of a nonprofit based in NYC, and the changes she is witnessing in how fundraising is conducted, what does the future of “philanthropy,” or  major giving, look like?  

The panel gave great answers. In general, they all stressed that we need new metrics for donor involvement (sound familiar to those reading my blogs.  In particular, they talked about what motivates younger donors.

The late 20s/early 30s donors – the “up and coming” – want to be more involved in the mission of the organization.  Ashley Delamar indicated that he had a significant donor who pressed for certain goals that were not on The Salvation Army’s “agenda” but that were of importance to the donor.  Instead of turning down – or turning away – this potential funding and donor – they requested that he become involved in the process of realizing his vision for the organization and for his goals.  They “engaged” him to a much fuller extent into the workings of the organization – thereby realizing his dream, achieving his goals, gaining far greater achievements for the community, and cultivating further engagement and donations from him (and his colleagues). 

It appears that the “new paradigm” is to seek and allow these newer/younger donors to be more involved.  To engage them in the "process."  They seek to be more involved in the direction of the organization – so the new reality is allowing them to be involved, to “step up” and help bring new focus to the issues that excite and commit them.  This makes them more embedded and more valuable. 

I was excited and encouraged to see that there are paradigm shifts going on so that, as always, we are adopting to the “new generation” of donors.  I encourage you to let me know of other changes you see taking place in the world of major donors. 

Is “philanthropy” dying?

I recently had the privilege of speaking with the Executive Director of a nonprofit involved in cancer research/funding.  She described the changes she is witnessing in how fundraising is conducted and voiced her concern about the future of what has classically been defined as “philanthropy,” or  major giving. 

Her logic is as follows: if younger donors are giving through new channels (i.e. online, mobile) on impulse, with small donations, because of specific events and not because of an emotional or intellectual involvement with a cause or an organization, what will does this mean for the development of major donors in the future?   Major donors – those who give in very large amounts – are few and far between.  They are cultivated over time and, over the time, they have usually aligned themselves with cause(s) with which they have a passion, ranging from academia (where they went to school, for example) to the arts to others in the sciences, environment, social justice, etc.   

Major donors, as a general rule, have been cultivated.  They become associated with an organization because of their passion or involvement with the mission.  Most importantly, however, their donations end up funding roughly 50 - 60% of the operating costs for a nonprofit…

But where are we today?  Younger donors can make a “quick hit” donation via mobile or other digital device in an instant – on an emotional whim.  What’s a $10 or $25 or even $50 donation if you can afford it?  For major catastrophes or other “events” this works fine.  But this is not helping to cultivate the idea of involvement or mission that grooms major donors for the future.

So what are E.D.s and Development offices to do?  How do they cultivate future donors?   Do they hope that they can match the sexy digital “quick hits” of the “event” driven causes?  Do they stick to the tried and true fundraising techniques that have worked in the past, and hone their targeting skills?  Do they continue to work on personal relationships with donors – focusing on the new young wealth and developing them? 

Is the model truly broken?  Or is it simply a matter of using what’s traditionally worked in the past, testing new ideas and methods, and continuing to reshape what philanthropy can be for the future?

What are your thoughts? 

Face-to-Face Connections

I just returned from one of my favorite rituals: attending the National Assoc. of College & University Mail Services (NACUMS) conference.  Yes, it’s a limited audience – so the show is small and intimate.  Perhaps that’s what makes it such a pleasure to attend. 

After five years it feels more like a reunion than a conference or trade show.  Familiar faces and friends get hugs (not your usual vendor greeting).  We get to sit down and talk or go out for dinner over the course of a few days.  And I get to hear what people are really thinking.  Not the usual “five minutes” before we all move on, feet tired, bleary-eyed typical show surroundings.     

No, this show is different because of its small size. And it helps to bring back what’s important in business – relationships.  Because, in truth, people buy from people.  Even in a business environment relationships matter.  Perhaps more so in a nonprofit environment.

With all our advanced technologies and our ability to “stay in touch” and “reach out” digitally, it’s important to remember that the face-to-face interaction is still the basis for everything.  Meeting someone in person makes a world of difference.  Seeing facial expressions, learning body language, understanding other perspectives in conversation.  And I think that everyone – in nonprofit and for-profit organizations – needs to remember that all our current “personalization” techniques are just an effort to replicate this special relationship.

   

I cherish the personal interactions at NACUMS and look forward to returning again next year.  Perhaps this brief reminder will inspire you to reach out and rekindle a connection, too. 

Craving Social Responsibility

I rarely (read: never) write about the company I currently work for (Pitney Bowes).  However, something interesting that happened last week made me decide to include them in my blog today. (Note: PB has no input or responsibility for anything I write here.) 

Because of a particular project I’ve been working on, we created a press release entitled “Pitney Bowes Adds Social Responsibility to Connect+ Printer Capability.”  I won’t go into the details of the campaign – suffice it to say that the new campaign seeks to promote national nonprofit organizations.  The hope and goal of the campaign is that it will increase these nonprofits' visibility and (hopefully) donations to their cause(s).

What I found most interesting was media reaction to the news. We had pick-ups from over two dozen publications, ranging from Philanthropy World Magazine to msn.com.  From large to small.  From for-profit to nonprofit. 

It’s striking that the market is craving social responsibility from corporations.  Media outlets are looking for examples of it.  People want to see companies making their mark in this direction.  Companies, as well, seem to want to know how it’s done.  The public, in general, wants to know that companies are involved in this type of activity.

I think it’s wonderful that Pitney Bowes is engaged in this direction.  But more importantly, I think it’s critical that we notice the public (and media ) is not only engaged but eager and on the lookout for this type of attitude and action. 

It’s a call for us all to realize there’s far too little of it going on.  Far greater need.  And there may be far greater success for everyone concerned if more would think in this direction – in both the for-profit and nonprofit sectors. 

Survey results (yawn): 2/3 of Executive Directors plan to leave. The shocker? 1/3 plan to stay!

On Monday, the results of the newest study on nonprofit leadership were released by CompassPoint Nonprofit Services and the Meyer Foundation.  They’d surveyed 3,000+ executive directors on issues ranging from career paths to boards and the impact of the recession on their organizations. The results of the survey were very similar to other types of studies that have been done recently, essentially stating:

• Boards are not performing their duties as they should be (in this case, almost half had not reviewed the Executive Director’s performance within the past year).
• The recession is having a large negative impact from the recession (again, no surprises).  
• Nonprofit organizations have dwindling operating reserves, if any. 
• Few organizations are providing executive coaching, though respondents feel it is  “a very effective professional development” tool.   

I’m not quite sure why organizations keep funding this type of research.  Perhaps to continue to validate the findings of the previous one, two, three studies? 

What surprises me, thinking about the depths of the economy, the lack of support from Boards, and the stress of the executive position, is that 1/3 of nonprofit leaders want to stay in their roles.  Bless their dedication and strength!  

So - let's say we get it now.  Let's say we see that nonprofit leadership is stressed and in serious trouble.  What do we do?   I suggest that’s what we need a study to figure out – let's get some answers.

I have one suggestion.  How about starting with better executive compensation?  I’m not talking about millions here – I do believe in staying within a reasonable range.  But I object to the extremely low pay they usually get.  It limits the market of who can afford to take these positions. 

Let’s actually treat these leaders - their positions - as if their organizations, staff, and all the thousands (millions?) of people they serve depend on them.  (Not to mention the animals, the planet, the arts, and other worthy causes…)  I suggest we stop worrying about what it might “look like” and think more about paying them what they actually deserve for their work.  Let's think about the value of the role to society.  How's that for a project. 

As I said, it's a suggestion… your thoughts? 

De-listed as a Nonprofit by the IRS? No great loss...

It’s official – 275,000 organizations have been listed by the Internal Revenue Service as no longer tax-exempt because they did not file the required documents.  You can search on this list, thanks to the Chronicle of Philanthropy link.

I took a look at my hometown just to get a sense of the injustice.  To be honest, I can’t say I’m too appalled.  Of the 50 entities listed, the majority appear to have been set up in someone’s apartment or house for a cause they felt was worthy and then left relatively dormant over time. 

Don’t get me wrong - I have nothing against worthy causes set up by individuals.  I did so myself years ago.  However, if they aren’t going to be ongoing – if they aren’t aware enough to “keep up” with regulations like this – my feeling is they can’t be too concerned with their nonprofit status, so why should I be?

It appears that the larger, more “ongoing” concerns are NOT listed and still ok with the IRS.  So I'm not worried losing programs for children getting daycare or homeless shelters or food pantries. 

How can I be so callous and make such a blanket, value-laden statement?  Here are some of the names I came across:

• Blue Knights Motorcycle Club
• Boon Family Foundation Inc.
• Independent Order of Odd Fellows
• John & Mildred Wright Foundation
• Quidditch Foundation, Inc.  

Now, I have nothing against motorcycle clubs, fans of Harry Potter, odd fellows who associate with one another, or family foundations.  I just think that if you set up one of these entities you have a responsibility to either keep it up or let it go.  The IRS has stated that they haven’t kept these up so - so now they have to re-do their efforts or let it go (with regard to their nonprofit status). 

Believe me, I’ve ranted about issues with the IRS changes previously – I have no love for their changes to the 990 (which I think have done nothing at all with regard to changing behavior).  However, in this case, I don’t think they’ve done much harm at all, except maybe to wake some sleepy people up.

What do you think?  

What did new IRS 990 Forms get us? Board Compensation at Health Insurers?

I’m visiting the same topic from last week because one of my colleagues – someone who asks great questions in the nonprofit arena – asked the same question I’ve been asking.  Why is it that one would put the phrases “board compensation” and “nonprofit” in the same sentence?

Well, they are on the new 990s. 

But they were on the old 990s, too! 

Has the changed form changed practices?

No. 

Not at health insurers. 

But apparently the state of Massachusetts is asking some good questions – and trying to legislate that board members of nonprofits should not be compensated for their “volunteer” work, as they are at most of the 22,000 nonprofits in the state.

Two large health insurers, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care and Tufts Health Plan have refused, stating it “is the industry norm and they must do this to attract directors, and that their members ‘committed significant time and effort to their board duties’.”  

I applaud what Massachusetts is trying to do.  Basically, health insurers are either in or out – they are nonprofits or they’re not. Nonprofit boards are volunteers.  For-profit boards can be compensated.  Which is a health insurer?  I want to know! 

And did the "new" 990s find all this?
No, they didn’t. 

The citizens of Massachusetts started this in 2009.  

I still don’t see how the 990s have made any difference at all, except taking a lot more time to fill out…

Thoughts?

What did new IRS 990 forms get us? Two Cups of Tea?

I’ve been wondering if all the changes the IRS put forth into the 990 forms actually made a difference.  A couple of years ago the IRS changed the 990s in reaction to the scandals and misappropriation of funds that had gone on at various nonprofits.  The changes were designed to make such acts less likely to occur. 

So has it worked?

Well, what were the changes?  Without going into details, they broadly covered a few categories, such as:    

a) a new section on governance, with the idea that good governance would equal good operations.

b) more detailed reporting for the compensation of officers and others affiliated with the organization. To make sure all forms of compensation were being reported.

c) expanded reporting regarding program services and exempted activities, as well as payments made to contractors in excess of $100K.

In all, they sound virtuous.  So how did we get Greg Mortensen’s scandal with “Three Cups of Tea” and the Central Asia Institute?   Did the 990 catch him?

I went back and looked.  The most recent 990 they post is from 2008 (unfortunately) but it’s revealing:

a)      There were only 4 board members.  Wow.  One of them was Greg himself.  Doesn’t look good, does it?

b)      Greg makes $180K in total compensation - a nice living - and not out of line. The head of our local United Way makes a lot more than he does.

c)      Expanded reporting doesn’t really say much…

But Part III says it all.  And Part III is no different than it used to be.  The “Statement of Program Service Accomplishments” clearly indicates that 41% of revenues are spent overseas on programs and 47% are spent on “domestic outreach and education, lectures & guest appearances in the U.S.”  So while Greg may earn a modest sum, the nonprofit is supporting the sales of his book, his lecturing, and the promotion of his book and cause in the U.S.

Since 91% of his funding, per the institute’s website, comes from individual donors, I bet they’d find this interesting. 

Not to take away from Greg – it appears that his organization is helping to educate 13,630 young students – boys and girls - in Pakistan and 28,475 students in Afghanistan.  He is certainly to be commended for this.  The list of schools is impressive.   

I’m  just thinking his funders might like to see the pie chart divided a little differently – with 47% (or more) of funds going to programs overseas – and even less than 40% going to promote the cause in the U.S.

So what has the new 990 done?  Not much that I can see.   It was the people within the organization, as well as some outsiders who were watching the reporting, who blew the whistle on Mr. Mortensen.  I don’t think the change in reporting did it…the old forms would have told this story just as well as the new ones do.

I’d like to see if the 990s are really ending corruption.  I doubt it.  It’s just being reformatted – for the astute to go and find.  Let me know if you see a difference somewhere that I’m missing.

Thoughts on Joplin, MO and the believability of change

My heart goes out to all those who have been afflicted in Joplin, MO.  With the videos, the media coverage, the tweets, as well as the nonprofit and humanitarian outpouring of assistance, they have truly been in the spotlight this week.
 
But that’s this week.  In the past weeks and months there have been disasters all over the world – tsunamis, flooding, storms, not to mention - aside from the strange weather - birds falling from the skies, fish dying.  The world didn’t end last weekend but something strange sure is going on – different in the past few years than in the years when I was growing up (I feel like I'm sounding old...).
 
Which brings me to the title of my piece – believability.  Why is it so hard for some people to believe in climate change?  In weather patterns changing?  In conditions all over the world being significantly different now than they used to be?  And by significant, I’m talking in statistical terms, not just the observation that it seems different than it used to be. By real, scientific measures, it IS different. Ice caps are melting.  The alps have less snow.  The list goes on and on.


Yet there are many in the world who do not see this, or believe it.  I attribute that to the influences in their lives.  Influences of people, religion, upbringing, education, geography – the list can go on.  Whatever those influencers are, they seem to be in opposition to the evidence.  Weather and temperature - as we know it - are different.  Geographies are changing.  And this shift is straining people and resources all over the world.

Perhaps it is time we look at the causes of what influences people’s belief systems – why they can’t “see” climate change – weather conditions doing their worst – what it does to humans and to nature.  For it is only by understanding what influences belief systems that we can truly communicate, understand, and – perhaps – move forward - to deal with the world as it evolves into something very different. 

Why Nonprofits Should Care About Losing E.T.

Stories from the L.A. Times, The Seattle Times, and NPR, among others, have described the funding problems of the SETI Institute in Mountain View, CA.  The Institute now lacks sufficient funds to operate the monitoring arm of the Allen Telescope Array, a field of radio dishes that scans the skies for signals from extraterrestrial civilizations.  

According to the Seattle Times, “the timing couldn't be worse,” as “1,235 new possible planets had been observed by Kepler, a telescope on a space satellite.  Fifty or 60 of those planets appear to be about the right distance from stars to have temperatures that could make them habitable.”

Sound familiar?  Ever have funding for a program in jeopardy just when you thought it could do the most good?  

The elephant in the room is the results.  SETI has been around since 1984, with 42 radio dishes scanning deep space since 2007, and not a peep has been heard from E.T.  

What nonprofits can learn from this is that results do matter.  Yes, federal funding is tight.  Yes, California is in crisis.  And yes, there is still a chance that a white knight will appear before June 1^st.  But the big question remains: who else is willing to fund an idea?  A vision?  A goal, no matter how lofty and wonderful – when there is the possibility that there will be no results?

Funders like to see results . They want E.T.  Or at least progress.  

As a nonprofit, be sure that you are the best storyteller of your results – your successes, what you’ve learned along the journey.  The best way to secure and continue funding from donors is to show them how their dollars have made the world a better place.

What Nonprofits can Learn from Skype and MySpace

The activity this week of these two very different sites – Skype and MySpace – may seem unrelated to nonprofits.  But Skype’s sale to Microsoft for $85M and the valuation of MySpace at 25% of its previous value provides some good lessons.

Skype is a nice success story.  It illustrates how being early in the game – helping to create the game – can help you to become a leader.  We use skype as a verb now, the way we use google as a verb.  Skype makes a difference in the way we think about technology and the way we communicate.  While Microsoft (and others) may speculate about possible overvaluation, they now own a certain share of the market and, just as importantly, have kept it away from their competitors.

MySpace, on the other hand, is the story of a site that was in early but had no barriers to entry and, over time, did not change enough to remain “relevant.”  It was copied and “done one better.  So it lost it’s standing as the leader and, though it was “hip” for while, it fell out of fashion.  It was replaced, technologically, and culturally. 

I may have simplified a bit in my summations of each, but I think I got the gist of each right.  The real question is: what relevance does this have for nonprofits?

Like Skype, if you’re providing a service that is unique – if you do something no one else does in an area – crow about it.  Get your constituents to tell their stories.  Record their testimonials.  Grow your fan base.  “Own” your market.  Most importantly, prove your worth.  Show how you’re making a difference.  This is what funders want more than anything else.  Illustrate results.

Don’t fall into the MySpace traps.  Those include being blinded by “popular” programs – what is fashionable at the moment or what others are doing.  Or starting a new program because some funder likes the idea and wants to back it, though it's not on target with your mission.  Stick to the knitting.  Do what you do best.  And stay up-to-date with technology that can help you manage your programs in a cost-effective way.

Being focused on your mission and your results never goes out of fashion and will always be “valued” by your funders.

What Skype and MySpace Teach Nonprofits

The activity this week of these two very different sites – Skype and MySpace – may seem unrelated to nonprofits.  But Skype’s sale to Microsoft for $85M and the valuation of MySpace at 25% of its previous value provides some good lessons.

Skype is a nice success story.  It illustrates how being early in the game – helping to create the game – can help you to become a leader.  We use skype as a verb now, the way we use google as a verb.  Skype makes a difference in the way we think about communication.  While Microsoft (or others) may speculate about possible overvaluation, they now own a certain share of the market and, just as importantly, have kept it away from their competitors.

MySpace, on the other hand, is the story of a site that was also in early but had no barriers to entry and, over time, did not change enough to remain “relevant.”  It was copied and “done better."  So it lost it’s standing as the leader and, though it was “hip” for while, it fell out of fashion.  It was replaced, both technologically and culturally. 

I know I've simplified here with my summations of both cases - but the real question is: what relevance does this have for nonprofits?

Like Skype, if you’re providing a service that is unique – if you do something no one else does in an area –  crow about it.  Get your constituents to tell their stories.  Record their testimonials.  Grow your fan base.  “Own” your market.  Most importantly, prove your worth.  Show how you’re making a difference.  This is what funders want more than anything else.  Illustrate results.

Don’t fall into the MySpace traps.  Those include being blinded by “popular” programs – what is fashionable at the moment or what others are doing.  Or starting a new program because some funder likes the idea and wants to back it (if it is not on target with your mission).  Stick to the knitting.  Do what you do best while continuing to innovate, working out how to do it better.  And stay up-to-date with technology that can help you manage your programs in a more cost-effective way.

Being focused on your mission and your results never goes out of fashion and will always be “valued” by your funders.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy vs. The Nonprofit Times - surprise!

Considering how big the Chronicle of Philanthropy is, next to its competitor, The Nonprofit Times, you’d think they’d make more of their stories available for the general public.  Even the New York Times lets you read some of their stories for free before they ask you to subscribe!  

Times are tough for news outlets – this everyone knows.  Especially in the nonprofit sector.  But the Chronicle should take a lesson from what The Nonprofit Times is doing and learn. 

I’m seeing special television podcasts that are extremely well-done, timely, and informative.  I’m reading articles that are relevant –for free – and I can easily scan current industry data.  I’m able to read back issues on any topic I can find.  Way to go NPT - you're becoming more relevant, more important, and more meaningful.  Oh, and maybe worth subscribing to?

I applaud the changes and efforts that The Nonprofit Times has made (fyi, I have no ties to this publication and never have).  Whether I’m curious about how nonprofits are reacting to Osama Bin Laden’s demise, the latest in cause marketing (i.e. Lady Gaga’s work with the Robin Hood Foundation), or the Average Pay of the Nonprofit CEO, I know where to go.   

If I were the Chronicle, I’d be looking over my shoulder right about now.   

What can nonprofits learn from the royal wedding?

Rosabeth Kantor wrote a great article on “Why CEOs Should Watch the Royal Wedding,” explaining her three points:

1. Don’t ever underestimate how much sentiment sells – people love romance
2. “Brilliant brand management is multi-media and cause-related” – pay attention to the sophistication of media use, from websites to twitter feeds, etc., as well as the tie-ins with various nonprofit organizations. 
3. “Events are double-edged swords. They focus attention not only on the message but on the cost of getting out the message, which can undercut the message.”  The opulence of the event can outrage people – so there is a “backlash” against the event itself.

Nancy Schwartz retweeted the article as relevant, also, for nonprofits - which I applaud!   And got me thinking of even more tips for nonprofits, gleaned from the marriage-mania:

4. Personality sells.  Like our U.S. movie-stars, the royals are “beautiful people.”  Think People Magazine.  So if you can, get a celebrity to lead your campaign, or speak at an event.  Just be careful of your choices as they are always scrutinized in the press and may reflect on you.  

5. Never underestimate the popularity of youth.  While baby-boomers are statistically still the largest donors, it seems that we all love the “newest” and the “latest.”  So keep up with the hottest media (for engaging donors), the newest techniques, and keep engaging youth in your campaigns and in your donor list.  It will pay off both in the short and the long run… 

6. The devil is in the details.  How did Time magazine squeeze out an issue based on stories of the wedding?  By delving into the minute details of everything from the guest list to the Facebook tirade by one soldier against the wedding to drink recipes!  Lesson learned?  When you tell the story of your nonprofit, be clear about the details of your success… they do matter.  Remember: interesting stories can emerge from any number of strange, related resources!

Enjoy the wedding on Friday… and learn from the kitsch and coverage!

  

 

 

Religious Holidays - Religious Giving

A week replete with religious holidays has made me thoughtful about the health of all religious organizations.   

This sector, which comprises about 70% of all nonprofits, appears to be in dire straights – perhaps even more so than other sectors.  Why?

One theory is that it is not only because of the economy, but also because the current “generation” of donors is not nearly as generous as those that have come before.  An article in last fall’s New York Times notes “baby boomers in 2000 were donating about 10% less to religious bodies than their parents’ generation did at a comparable age in 1973 – and almost 25% less than those parents, by then ages 62 to 76, were donating in 2000.”  

The result?  “From storefront chapels to Sun Belt megachurches to suburban synagogues, across denominational lines, religious institutions are reeling from a decline in donations,” reports the Times.

The answer?  The Times article noted how, despite the economic times, it is harder now to get younger generations to feel involved enough in religion.  Involvement, we know, leads to donations.

Perhaps the answer is the message religious institutions are sending.  If congregants are less involved, maybe it's because their institutions aren’t as relevant to their daily lives.  If religion is to “keep up” with modern times – as it has in the past – it must continue to “evolve” - to “involve” its congregants in new ways.  For instance, how many are keeping up with social media, tweeting updates to their congregants?  How many congregations leaders post a blog of their weekly sermons, or post thoughts from their younger members?  

My suggestion? To stay current – and viable – religious nonprofits (like the examples I found above) need to stay nimble and reach out to find out what their congregations want.  If you don’t ask, you won’t know.  An involved congregation is one that will start donating again.  

 

What does $4/gallon gas mean for nonprofits?

If it hasn’t hit your state already, it will soon.  What are the repercussions of rising gas prices if you’re a nonprofit?

Everyone in the U.S. doesn’t suddenly get poorer - but they might feel it.  For “middle America,” and even upper-middle class America (the bulk of donors these days),  the pinch at the gas pump can have the halo effect of making them think even harder about their spending.  The logic goes something like this:  

“It costs $50/$60/$70 to fill up my tank now – more than just a few weeks/months ago – and if I do that once/week from now on, what does that mean for my budget?  My salary hasn't gone up that much – how much do I have to cut my spending from now on to keep up?” 

This kind of mental process can hurt nonprofits as American review their “discretionary” spending, in an effort to “cut back” and “tighten the belt” again.  Just when the economy was showing signs of progress this can have hurtful effects.

What to do?

·        Tell your story - how donations have made a difference to your organization.  Show that you’ve made a difference in utilizing – wisely – every dollar you’ve received.

·        Show how the smallest donations help - $1/day feeds X, $25 saves Y.  Small denominations do help!

·        Make sure you communicate with your members/donors when you’re NOT just asking for money, so they feel an ongoing part of your organization (and your success) – not just pocketbooks

Don’t let the rising price of gas get you down.  Use leadership and creativity to rise above it with your mission and your accomplishments.

How Technology Can Have Impact!

I don’t typically follow up a previous blog entry with more on the theme, but this week’s “phenom” of the eagle’s nest on camera and great use of social media is a great example of how technology can truly help drive a nonprofit’s goals.

The brilliant folks at The Raptor Resource Project, in Decorah, IA, set up a live webcam on an eagle’s nest and throughout this past week viewers had the privilege of watching three eggs hatch, as well as the care and nurturing of the eaglets.  When I observed today, over 135,000 people were watching the events unfold - LIVE. 

The mission of The Raptor Resource Project is “to preserve and strengthen raptor populations, to expand participation in raptor preservation, and to help foster the next generation of preservationists.”  There have been over 13,000 Facebook “Likes” (as of my writing); Twitter has been glowing with postings about the progress of the eagle hatchings; and more "traditional" news stories have covered the growing popularity of this story as it unfolds.  All this interest and publicity shows quite clearly that the organization's goals - of outreach, of informing, and of capturing people's interest in raptors - are being reached with this project. 

Kudos and congratulations to the Raptor Resource Project team for utilizing webcam technology and social media resources to expand and enhance their goals and mission!  I hope other nonprofits will begin to think creatively about how they might "show" the beauty and real success of what they do, so that the general public can fully appreciate it and, in the end, provide the much needed funding.    

There is no excuse

I don’t believe there’s an excuse for not using technology to its greatest advantage when your goal as an organization is to (a) fulfill your mission, and (b) raise funds.  There has to be a way that technology can help you do one or the other or both.

An article in the Chronicle of Philanthropy, Nonprofits Lag on Tech Use, shares some  Zoomerang survey results generated “from over 500 staff members and volunteers at nonprofits.”   

·        40% indicate their nonprofits do not have a website 

·        68% stated they do not use social media to help market or run their organization

·        5% indicated they collect payments using mobile technology

·        27% stated they use websites to collect payments

With national unemployment figures still near 9%, so volunteers are abundant, it seems to me that free I/T help is available if you look hard enough for it.  What excuse is there for not having a website?  Or a Facebook page? 

Yes, it may be hard to set up mobile technology for payments – but 5%?  How many national nonprofits are missing the boat now because of the new, younger donors who are willing to donate small amounts quickly?  Or even early adaptor, older donors who like the convenience of mobile donations? 

Maybe I’m out of line here – what do you think?  Is there any excuse at all not to leverage technology to its fullest to help achieve your goals?

What do Elizabeth Taylor and ABC’s “Secret Millionaire” teach nonprofits?

What is the lesson to be learned from Elizabeth Taylor and ABC’s “Secret Millionaire”?  If I tell you now you won’t read on…

Liz Taylor was instrumental in raising of funds for AIDS and giving voice to a cause, in the 1980s, that had been muffled by fear and prejudice.  Many feel that, because of her, the fight against AIDS made huge advances and, more importantly, other funding and other voices were brought forward to help in the cause.

ABC’s new show, “Secret Millionaire” is about rich individuals who go out into impoverished communities and learn about the nonprofits that are “doing good,” giving out money to various organizations.  I’ve seen an episode and I can tell you that it is not at all condescending towards the causes or the individuals.  Instead, it raises them all up to heroic status and, as one would expect from network television, tugs at the emotions. 

What both teach us about major donors is that is it all about passion.  Both Elizabeth Taylor and the Secret Millionaires are (or become) passionate about their causes.  And that passion comes from first-hand experience - or being touched personally by the cause.  In the case of Elizabeth Taylor, much has been made of her friendship with co-star Rock Hudson, who had AIDS himself, as well as others she was close to in the entertainment world.  The secret millionaires witness and share the experiences and struggles of leaders in the nonprofit world.  This experience grows into a profound respect and admiration for their cause(s).  It is because of the dedication and the giving they witness that they become so passionate. 

Nonprofits must always remember this lesson: that (a) personal involvement and (b) passion are key for engaging major donors and supporters.

  

Nonprofit Leadership for Disasters

The events that have taken place – and are still unfolding – in Japan certainly give pause when it comes to thinking about nonprofits.  There are many different types of nonprofit organizations and sometimes I think that, while our hearts pour out to the ones in desperate need, it’s important to think about disaster relief organizations and how the dollars that rush are being amassed and allocated.

I searched for writing on this subject and here’s just a sampling of what’s out there.

On Monday, the Chronicle of Philanthropy totaled up the donations and published them, noting that the American Red Cross had amassed the most, at over $19 million, and Save the Children had raised $2.5 million.  Many others, ranging from the Salvation Army ($980K) to Catholic Relief Services ($450K) were also collecting for the cause.

Bloggers like Joanne Fritz on About.com has some good nuggets of advice on how not to run a campaign based on her experience – advising the relief organizations on how not to frustrate their well meaning donors. But perhaps the most thoughtful was from Stephanie Strom, from the New York Times:

Disasters, particularly those epic enough to earn round-the-clock news coverage, are a fast way to get donors to open their wallets. So it was no surprise when nonprofit groups, starting with the American Red Cross and moving down to small charities, scrambled to raise money to help the victims of the Japanese earthquake and tsunami.  But wealthy Japan is not impoverished Haiti.  And many groups are raising money without really knowing how it will be spent – or even if it will be needed. The Japanese Red Cross, for example,has said repeatedly since the day after the earthquake that it does not want or need outside assistance. But that has not stopped the American Red Cross from raising $34 million through Tuesday afternoon in the name of Japan’s disaster victims.

As Stephanie asks, what is the best path for us as generous American donors to take?  Or, indeed, what direction should nonprofits take when it comes to helping in a world where some countries need more assistance than others?

Clearly, there are leadership roles that need to be asserted here.  Being true to the missions and goals of an organization are key.   Allocating resources (amassing resources) where they are most needed is another issue.  Perhaps more thought, and reasoning logic, behind what programs are most worthy – even in crisis - would best show how these agencies are “good stewards” of their donor dollars. 

Indeed, it is something to consider when opening your wallet to be generous and good, in the face of disaster. 

Empathy for those you want to influence

I’m a bit late to the party but I want to share an interesting article, Influence Without Authority, by Jenka Soderberg from the Stanford Social Innovation Review.  She writes about an experience she had role-playing in a class which she didn’t particularly like but which made her reflect on her own experience at a nonprofit.  While she helps people daily, she also took time out to work in New Orleans in the post-flooded days of Hurricane Katrina.  Here, she reflects on the class exercise as it related to her “office” reality: 

Despite my initial misgivings… {the experience} got me re-thinking the interactions I have with one particular co-worker that borders on adversarial. Having empathy with someone trying to exert control within the workplace is a bit more difficult than helping people stranded in a flooded city. But it’s definitely possible. And I think being able to look at any situation from another person’s perspective is always a good tool to have in my toolbox.

Too often I believe we think about leadership and influence in terms of what’s “out there” in public.  We consider leadership in our profession, our community, our greater network or society.  We forget that sometimes the hardest type of leadership happens every day, in the grind of working with the same people in an office or even at home, in our family environment. 

Perhaps it’s hardest to be a leader when you’re tired and worn out on a Friday afternoon.  Or early Monday morning.  Perhaps that’s where true leaders shine.   

Leadership and influence in these types of environments is partly about empathy, as Soderberg points out.  It starts with putting one’s self in the shoes of another and rising up.  Perhaps we should work hardest on this with the people we see every day. 

How do you measure influence in the nonprofit world?

I’ve become intrigued with the concept of influence  - perhaps because of the “buzz” about influence on Twitter with Klout, PeerIndex, as well as other measurements.  Or perhaps because of what’s going on in the Middle East.  Or perhaps it’s because I’m just compelled by the idea that nonprofits can be influential in their communities.

But what is influence and how does one measure it?   

Beth Kanter, someone who’s thought a lot about the issue of influence on Twitter and other social media networks, was one of the first to shout that numbers – the following of the masses – does not equal influence.  In a blog from back in 2009 she states: “…there’s more to influence besides numbers, there is also affinity.”  She summarizes her argument, advising: “don't get distracted by meaningless metrics like the number of followers, and value the relationships.”  And I agree with her – it’s about relationships and value.

If influence is about relationships – how does one measure these?  I suggest thinking beyond the communities served by an organization and including the communities in which nonprofits operate, as well as other communities, such as funders, donors, and businesses or the public at large. 

I would argue that the most influential nonprofits are those whose reach far exceeds their “designated” constituency.  For national examples, I’m thinking of the Susan G. Komen Foundation "For the Cure", which has spawned fabulous pink-glove videos as well as walks and events all over the U.S., touching well beyond its “designated” constituency. 

I’m thinking, for example, of the Special Olympics, which offers inspiration to many more than just the athletes who compete, or their families.  I'm thinking of UNICEF, which not only helps those whose funds it serves but which also taught a generation how to ask for donations (remember those orange boxes of change at Halloween?). 

There are many others that have pierced the national culture in ways we all recognize.  And there are those that have similarly pierced their local communities.  

How would you measure influence in the nonprofit world?  

Teaching Nonprofit Leaders is Big Business... Show me the Money!

Have you noticed how many organizations promise to “teach leadership skills” to nonprofits?  They’re jumping on a great trend.  Nonprofits are losing their babyboomer leaders to retirement in droves – now and in the next ten years.  So there’s a real, a perceived, and a future “gap” in leadership for the social sector.

How do we fill the leadership “gap?”  Since there wasn’t funding, planning, or vision to do much in the way of succession-planning in this sector, there’s a scramble going on to either recruit older “for-profit” leaders to try their hand in nonprofits. Or there’s the idea that newer, younger professionals can be taught the skills they need.

That’s where the business of “teaching nonprofit leaders” comes in.  There’s quite a few of them – just google it.  HBS has jumped in with both feet.  Peter Drucker has joined in.  Others, especially in D.C., where nonprofits are prolific, are in the fray.

What I want to know is – where are the results?  Who are the successful graduates?  What are the “benchmarks” for these great schools and leadership programs?  Show me the money! 

What have these leaders gone off and done after these training sessions?  What successes can be attributed to what they learned?  Skills they picked up?  Networking they did or learned to do? 

Don’t get me wrong – as someone with more education than I ever needed I’m all for training and believe in it fervently.  I even do it myself!  I’d just like to have some of these “schools” and programs tracking the success of their graduates – the way other institutions do. 

The Sunny Side of the Tax Law

A recent New York Times article, Tax Cut Deal Could Benefit Charities, illustrates how nonprofits can benefit from recent changes to the tax law.  Though the changes have been called “tax cuts for the rich,” there are some gift-and-estate tax advantages that personal wealth advisors see as a way to direct more funds to nonprofits. 

With regard to gift and estate taxes, the new law exempts donations of $5 million per person.  As the article points out, this means a couple is now able to give or bequeath up to $10 million in any combination of assets “tax-free.” 

Why is this good news? Because estate planning and donations made through wills is strong.  Statistics have shown that while 8% of those individuals who die every year leave funds to nonprofits, double that number - 16% - who do estate planning, plan to leave funds for their favorite charities.

The math of the interest stream from these assets can often add up to significant amounts.  In addition, for assets held long-term for a nonprofit, to provide an ongoing asset stream for others (perhaps an older living relative), the final capital amount can also be substantial.  

What can nonprofits do to be proactive about this?  Reach out to their wealthier donors and talk to them about estate planning.  Show how they are currently good stewards of the dollars they are receiving.  Illustrate how they are thinking about and planning for the future, also.  Give donors a reason to be passionate about their future, too.