stewardship – Page 14 – The Healthy Non-Profit

The Twelve Days of Resource Development: Days 4, 5 and 6

December 20, 2011 DonorDreams Fundraising

The holiday spirit is in the air and Santa is loading his sleigh. Holiday music is on everywhere you go, and people are drunk on egg nog and fighting back sugar induced commas brought on by eating too many cookies. For all of these reasons, I thought it might be fun to focus on the following holiday inspired question: “What would be the twelve days of resource development if such a song was written?”

On Monday, we kicked things off with Days 1, 2 and 3 . . . and I asked readers to weigh-in with what they thought Days 4, 5 and 6 ahould be.

I want to thank Barb Allen from the Boys & Girls Clubs of Metro Atlanta and Susan Rudd from Boys & Girls Club of Bloomington (Bloomington, Indiana, of course which is the driving influence behind The Center on Philanthropy) for jumping in with two great suggestions.

So, let’s take a moment to recap:

On the first day of resource development, my favorite donor gave to me . . . a signed pledge with a large increase over last year’s gift level.
On the second day of resource development, my favorite group of fundraising volunteers gave to me . . . a commitment to work pledge cards and help putting together our special events.
On the third day of resource development, my favorite resource development committee gave to me . . . three key written plans spelling out success in 2012 (e.g. resource development plan, prospect cultivation plan, and a donor stewardship plan.

Here is what Barb and Susan suggested yesterday:

On the fourth day of resource development, my most engaged and best donors gave to me . . . four fun cultivation parties that helped open the door to a warm group of new (and generous) prospects.
On the fifth day of resource development, the kids at the Boys & Girls Club gave to me . . . five truck-loads of holiday goodies and hand-decorated ornaments that will be given to some of the Club’s best donors. (personally, I love this idea soooo much more than “five golden rings” LOL)

Since only two subscribers weighed in with suggestions yesterday, “the sixth day” was left up to me to determine.

On the sixth day of resource development, my major gifts program gave to me . . . six program staff employees who helped the resource development staff and major gifts volunteers put together a “menu of opportunities” (thus signifying elimination of organizational silos and a healthy partnership between the resource development and program departments)

Phew . . . it is getting more and more difficult to come up with ideas, which is why I sincerely appreciate both Barb and Susan for jumping in with great ideas yesterday.

There are more than 125 of you out there who subscribe to the DonorDreams blog and we need your help to finish this project. We have six more days of resource development to go and the hill is getting steeper. Please use the comment box below and weigh-in with an idea.

Remember, there is no such thing as a stupid idea. Additionally, please don’t forget that we can all learn from each other. I bet there is someone out there today who will read the comments from Barb or Susan and have a “EUREKA . . . AHA MOMENT”. This has happened to all of us at some point in time. So, why not give a gift to the resource development community and “pay it forward” this holiday season with the small gift of inspiration for a fellow fundraising professional?

Here’s to your health!

Erik Anderson
Founder & President, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC
www.thehealthynonprofit.com
erik@thehealthynonprofit.com
http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847
http://www.facebook.com/eanderson847
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847

Donors are friends and NOT food!

December 15, 2011 DonorDreams Fundraising

Welcome to Thursday of individual giving week where we’re looking at different individual giving strategies as a way to replace dwindling pools of government funding. We’re using characters from the movie “Finding Nemo” to look at various individual giving strategies.

“Crush the Turtle” helped us look at special event fundraising on Monday. Tuesday’s post focused on “Marlin” and direct mail. Yesterday, Dory helped us peek at some of the considerations around ePhilanthropy. Today, we’re looking at the granddaddy of all individual giving strategies — an annual campaign driven by personal solicitation approaches.

Let’s turn to the shark characters from “Finding Nemo” to look at this classic individual giving strategy. Why the sharks? Here is the “Fish Friendly Shark Pledge” that Bruce the Shark took when we first met him on the silver screen:

“I am a nice shark. Not a mindless eatin’ machine. If I am to change this image, I must first change myself. Fish are friends. Not food.”

When I read this movie quote, I was transported back in time to a Boys & Girls Clubs of America leadership training in which I participated with my friends Paula, Teri and Tom. The “Fish Friendly Shark Pledge” reminded me of our team’s motto: “Donors are not ATMs.”

Let’s back up and start at the beginning. I’ll circle back to the sharks in just a moment.

Annual campaigns that are powered by personal, face-to-face solicitations are one of the most classic individual giving strategies employed by many of our most successful non-profit organizations:

United Way’s annual campaign utilizes face-to-face group solicitations in the workplace.
Boy Scouts’ “Friends of Scouting” (FOS) campaign utilizes face-to-face solicitations. Some of these approaches are in group settings (e.g. Pack meetings) and others are one-on-one with local business leaders and scouting alumni.
Boys & Girls Clubs’ “It Just Takes One” (IJTO) campaign utilizes one-on-one, face-to-face solicitations with existing donors and qualified prospects from the community-at-large.

These kinds of campaigns are “classic” and ultra succesful because face-to-face solicitations are proven to be the most successful way to raise funds. National statistics demonstrate that 75-percent of prospects/donors who are asked in-person end up making a contribution of at least 50-percent of what the volunteer solicitor asked them to contribute.

Whoa! Compare this 75-percent success rate with direct mail’s response rate of 0.5-percent to 3-percent. Then consider that the response rate for an email campaign can vary wildly — lower than 0.5-percent or upwards of 10-percent from what I’ve seen — depending on how warm the list is.

Of course, nothing comes close to touching 75-percent!

However, there is always a “catch,” and in the case of annual campaigning and personal solicitation strategies “the catch” is that most fundraising volunteers are scared to death of it. Nevertheless, utilization of best practices can lower fear levels to something manageable. Here are just a few things your agency will want to use if it decided to use this classic individual giving strategy:

Develop a great case statement
Provide volunteers with good solicitation materials
Make sure volunteer solicitors have personally made a contribution before asking them to solicit their friends
Don’t overload volunteer solicitors with many more than 5 prospects
Be diligent with your prospect assignment process and only ask volunteer solicitors to visit prospect they know. NO COLD CALL!
Bring in an experienced training professional to teach volunteer solicitors about the 12-step process on how to make an effective face-to-face solicitation.
Develop and use “accountability tools” to help volunteer solicitors stay focused.
Find ways to inject a “sense of positive urgency” into the campaign. (I don’t mean using crisis messages. I am referring to deadlines, challenge gifts, campaign goals, etc)

Thoughtful use of the annual campaign and personal solicitation technique as a tool in your individual giving toolkit can net your agency amazing results in a very short period of time compared to the years-and-years it might take to develop a successful direct mail or ePhilanthropy program.

So, here is where “Bruce the Shark” from Finding Nemo comes into play . . .

Soliciting someone using an annual campaign personal solicitation technique is . . . well . . . very personal. It is relationship-based, which means the relationship needs to be fed in a very different way than you might interact with mail donors or online donors. Donors with whom you visit and ask for a contribution in-person expect updates on how their contribution is being used. They usually want to hear from you . . . newsletters, phone calls, personal follow-up visits, invitations to receptions, etc.

“Know Thy Donor” . . . and figure out how they like to be kept informed
because you’ll pay the price if you use a “cookie cutter approach” for this group of donors!

When an agency doesn’t follow-up and build upon the relationship, that donor feels used. They feel like an ATM, and you look like a shark who is just out there preying upon people’s good nature.

So, my final words today are this . . . 1) add an annual campaign with face-to-face solicitation at the heart of your approach to your agency’s individual giving toolbox and 2) develop a really good stewardship plan that grows the relationship between your agency and the donor. You may want to even develop your own version of the “Fish Friendly Shark Pledge“.

Does your agency run an annual campaign and visit with donors in-person? How is that working for you? What is your success rate? What does your stewardship plan look like? How do you communicate ROI, program outcomes, and community impact information to your donors? If you developed your own version of a “Donor Friendly Pledge,” what would it sound like?

Please use the comment box below to share your thoughts because we can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Online giving: Evolve or else?!?

December 14, 2011 DonorDreams Fundraising

Welcome to Wednesday of individual giving week where we’re looking at different individual giving strategies as a way to replace dwindling pools of government funding. We’re using characters from the movie “Finding Nemo” to look at various individual giving strategies. Monday’s post was all about “Crush the Turtle” and the thrill seeking mentality of special event fundraising. Yesterday’s post focused on direct mail. Today, we’re looking at ePhilanthropy through the eyes of “Dory” (the regal tang fish whose voice you recognize as Ellen DeGeneres):

“Give it up old man, you can’t fight evolution, I was built for speed!”

There is currently a debate raging in fundraising circles between traditionalists and futurists.

Futurists argue that giving trends all point to donors giving via your website, email, social media, text messaging, and e-video campaigns.

Traditionalists sound more like Jeff Brooks who said in his recent blog post titled “The case against innovation“:

“When you get bored with letters and change everything so it’s cool and innovative, you force people to spend energy and time figuring out your new conventions. That’s energy and time they don’t have, or don’t care to spend on such a stupid task. No matter how cool you’ve made it, you’ve put a wall around whatever you’re trying to communicate. You might think it’s a very low, easy-to-climb wall — but it’s still a wall, and that means fewer people are going to get your message.”

I personally find middle ground between these two camps:

Online giving increased by more than 30-percent in 2010 compared to 2009.
It is estimated that approximately 7-percent of all charitable giving was secured online in 2010.
Average size gift statistics for online giving is starting to look remarkably similar to direct mail data.
The trend arrow over the last decade is unmistakable.

(Note: A special thanks to Blackbaud and their analytics division for keeping an eye on these trends. You can find a Blackbaud widget that links to similar kinds of information at the bottom of my website.)

The reality is that it can be somewhat expensive for many non-profits to get into individual giving strategies involving technology. However, the good news is that they don’t need to live on the “bleeding edge of technology”. Agency can and should start to take small steps towards the future. For example, even small organizations can add a “donate now” button to their webpage, set-up a Facebook and Twitter account, and start experimenting with both listening to donors and nudging them toward online giving opportunities.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I recently read somewhere (I honestly can’t remember where or I would cite the source), that there is likely lots and lots of “cross pollution” between different individual giving strategies. Here are a few examples to illustrate this point:

A donor gets a letter in the mail and they are inclined to make a contribution. However, they see your agency’s website address embedded in the letter and go online to make that donation out of convenience.
A donor is solicited using a face-to-face solicitation strategy. They sign the pledge card. When the pledge reminder arrives, they go online to pay their pledge because it might be more convenient.
A donor receives an email (doesn’t matter if it is for solicitation or stewardship purposes). They then receive a visit by a fundraising volunteer who asks them to make a pledge. They sign the pledge card because it is convenient rather than dig through their cluttered email inbox for that donation link.

Everything is getting more and more interconnected. For this reason, I am all for investing a little time and money in ePhilanthropy because the decision isn’t about which tool to use with individuals. The decision involves which tools to use in concert with each other.

Don’t go crazy by focusing exclusively on lots and lots of new technology. Start small. And by all means, don’t use technology to replace your existing solicitation tools (e.g. mail, pledge cards, fundraising volunteers, etc).

Remember, the more tools you have in your toolbox to connect with individuals the more likely it will be that you are able to engage what is clearly the largest slice of the charitable giving pie chart — INDIVIDUAL DONORS.

What is your organization doing right now in the arena of ePhilanthropy? Website? Email? Text? Electronic video? Social media? Do you have a written ePhilanthropy plan in place that delineates which online tools you’re using and which tools are used for cultivation vs solicitation vs stewardship? Please take one minute to share using the comment box below a nugget about where you’re at because we can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Whoa! Special events and individual giving

December 12, 2011 DonorDreams Fundraising, Planning

We ended the last week with a close-up look at what many non-profit organizations are doing to adjust to a restriction in government funding. Click here to read the post titled “Sir Isaac Newton was right about nonprofit organizations“. I ended Friday’s post with a promise that we would look at individual giving strategies from different angles this week. Today, we will look at special events as an individual giving strategy.

I thought it might be fun to look at individual giving through the eyes of those Disney characters from the movie “Finding Nemo”. Why this movie? Because this movie was all about a father who in his search for his lost son learned how to take risks and also discovered his son is capable of taking care of himself. In some ways, I think that individual giving for non-profit agencies kind of follows the same storyline.

Let’s take that scene in the movie where Marlin (the father clown fish) is talking to Crush (the turtle) about Marlin’s experience with jellyfish:

Crush: “Oh, I saw the whole thing, dude! First, you were like, whoa! And then we were like, WHOA! And then you were like, whoa.”

Marlin: “What are you talking about?”

Crush: “You, Mini-Man! Takin’ on the jellies. You got serious thrill issues, dude.”

LOL . . . I think special events are a little bit like this scene from “Finding Nemo”. They are fun. They are not for the faint-of-heart. Too many might actually be dangerous for your organization. However, they are something you probably need to do if you want to “find” donors.

As we talked about on Friday, there are many fundraising volunteers who are fearful about asking friends to make a direct charitable contribution. However, special events feel different from asking for direct contributions because there is a trade involved — you give me $50.00 and I giving you a ticket to a dinner. Quid pro quo.

Unfortunately, there are too many non-profit organizations who just kept adding more and more events to their resource development plan every time there was a shortfall in revenue. Now, they have an unbalanced resource development program, and much like a car with unbalanced tires this can be a recipe for danger.

I won’t go into a long diatribe about how special events aren’t a very efficient way to raise money from individuals. This is a well-worn path, and you can find countless blog posts from me on the subject. However, you may want to click here to read Charity Navigator’s study on special events and how they cost (direct + indirect costs) the average non-profit agency $1.33 to raise $1.00.

All that being said, every non-profit organization needs to have one or two well-run special events built into their annual resource development plan because:

They will bring in some money for your agency (if you factor out indirect costs like staff time),
They are a soft way for new prospective donors to learn more about your agency,
They are a fun way for your agency to engage new volunteers, and
They have a cultivation and stewardship effect for many prospects and donors especially if the event has a “mission-focus”.

However, please keep in mind that too much of a fun thing is never good for anyone. I recent had an opportunity to interview more than 40 donors. I asked the donor if they prefer to make a charitable contribution using an event vehicle or a direct solicitation from a friend armed with a pledge card. In EVERY interview, the donor came back and said without hesitation that they would prefer the friend and the pledge card.

Remember . . . events have their place. Keep them to a minimum, but do those few events very well. Keep the event mission-focused with an eye to introducing new prospects to your agency and demonstrating to existing donors that their contributions are making a difference. Most importantly, keep in mind that special events are only one of many solicitation strategies you will employ in your efforts to secure more individual giving to compensate for the receding tides of government funding.

How does your agency ensure its special event program doesn’t get out of hand? Do you evaluate every event? If so, what metrics do you use?

Here’s to your health!

Lessons from an e-video that will make you cry

December 8, 2011 DonorDreams Fundraising

So, my good friend Marissa sent me this tweet a few days ago:

@eanderson847 Check out this video showing what can be done with just $1. Microphilanthropy at it’s finest. youtu.be/9DXL9vIUbWg

Please grab a tissue and click the link. The YouTube video is about 10-minutes long, but I promise you that it is well worth your investment in time.

As I watched the e-video, lots of different thoughts raced through my head including:

This video demonstrates the intense power of stewardship.
The producers remind us that while major gift donors are incredibly important to our non-profit agencies, we need to remember that charitable contributions that aren’t so major need to be treated as transformational. Why? Because they are!
The video’s point of view is that philanthropy, regardless of how small, is powerful. Not just for the person who receives it, but also for the person who gives it.
This video reminded me that there are differences between “fundraising” and “resource development” and “philanthropy”. In my mind, “fundraising” is the act of soliciting a donor for a charitable contribution. “Resource development” speaks to the overall process — prospect identification & evaluation, introduction, cultivation, solicitation, stewardship, and the continuous feedback loop moving forward. “Philanthropy” is the love of humanity and goes beyond just giving money and includes volunteerism, mentoring, emergency response, etc.
This video points to an often overlooked trend called “microphilanthropy” that all non-profit professionals need to be aware. We need to understand this trend first and then analyze what it means. Is this growing trend something that can affect non-profit resource development and donor trends? Sure it can! . . . How? . . . I’m not sure, but it warrants our attention and time. Click here to check out an interesting blog calling itself the “1DollarClub.org” to read more.
This video also smacked me across the face and was a reminder about another emerging trend — non-profits are using the internet, social media, and e-videos to steward donors in an increasingly digital world where more and more people just don’t have time for traditional stewardship activities and tactics. ePhilanthropy is here to stay and it is evolving every day!!!

Wow! Thank you, Marissa (by the way, she is the blogger at One World One Plate and I think everyone who loves food should go check out her work).

After viewing the e-video, did you have any thoughts that struck you like a lightning bolt? Is your non-profit organization using online videos as part of its resource development plans and efforts? If so, how? Please use the comment box below and share your revelation. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Goldilocks and the three board members: Part 2

December 6, 2011 DonorDreams Board development, Fundraising, resource development

Yesterday, my post titled “Goldilocks and the three board members” talked about a very cold bowl of porridge that involves non-profit boards who fail to evaluate their executive director every year. In doing so, they set their agency up for failure, liability and <gulp> perhaps even personal liability if the D & O Insurance carrier deems coverage null and void because the board failed to make a “good faith effort” to carry out its fiduciary responsibilities.

Today, I would like to talk about that VERY HOT bowl of porridge. This, of course, is when a board goes way overboard with the annual performance plan and year-end evaluation.

In this scenario, the board president thinks they “own” the organization and take their leadership position way too seriously. They decide that their time at the helm of the ship will go down in the history books as the “Golden Age” of your non-profit organization. They see the executive director as a “direct report” and use the performance plan and year-end evaluation processes to micro-manage OR change behavior of the person occupying the executive director’s chair OR drive the executive director screaming from the room (so either they or a friend of theirs can take over).

If this seems far-fetched, please trust me when I tell you I’ve seen it happen more often than I care to admit.

It is typically true in my experience that the board member who is being very aggressive usually has some very legitimate issues. However, their aggressive approach makes them look like an egomaniac or a big jerk. Sadly, those issues never get dealt with because the focus becomes personal rather than organizational. As a result, the organization and the clients it serves end up the big loser.

The interesting thing I’ve seen is how the other board members in the room deal with this individual. The group usually tries to “pacify” and give them total authority to do whatever they want with the executive director’s performance plan or year-end review.

This “accommodating move” by the board is meant to shut the instigator up, but it never seems to work out that way. The annual performance plan and year-end evaluation resemble something straight out of a carnival fun house with those weird mirrors. Annual performance objectives turn out unmeasurable and read something like this:

Improve staff morale
Be a leader in the community
Move all of our accreditation scores up one level

It looks and feels really muscular and accountable, but when you peel the layers of the onion back nothing makes any sense. How do you measure improved staff morale? Is it realistic to focus on all accreditation categories (even the ones you’re already doing well in)? What is a leader and how do you determine that?

Next thing you know everything feels subjective. Feelings get hurt. Emotions run high. And the board volunteers who thought they solved the problem by “brushing off” the loud squeaky wheel in the board room, find themselves in a much worse situation. It always turns into a trust issue between the board and their executive director. However, it sometimes turns into impending legal action involving things like: harassment, hostile work environment, or retaliation.

Trust me when I say the really hot dish of porridge is not the solution. Please tune in tomorrow, and we’ll talk about what a normal situation might look like.

Have you ever been involved in a situation where one board member is really “hot to trot” about the annual performance plan or year-end evaluation for the executive director? Have you ever seen it turn out OK? Do you have any examples of just “horrible” performance plan objectives that just didn’t make sense?

Please share . . . we can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Goldilocks and the three board members: Part 1

December 5, 2011 DonorDreams Board development, Fundraising

I suspect we all remember the story of “Goldilocks and the Three Bears“. This porridge is too hot! This porridge is too cold! This porridge is just right! I’ve recently stumbled upon a very similar version of this story involving non-profit executive directors and board volunteers around the related concepts of annual performance plans and year-end evaluations. For the next three days, I thought it would be fun to look at each of the bowls of porridge and talk about the pros or cons.

Today’s bowl of porridge deals with when board volunteers shirk their fiduciary responsibilities and fail to evaluate their executive director.

I have run into a number of friends recently who confided in me that they haven’t been evaluated. In some cases, they haven’t been evaluated in a number of years. Of course, in many of these cases, it has become an issue because it is a tough time to be at the helm of a non-profit organization. As criticisms increase and board volunteers try to ratchet up accountability, up pops the ugly revelation:

“Ooooops, if things have been getting so bad, why haven’t you felt the need to evaluate me. We might have been able to make some course corrections if you had taken your fiduciary responsibilities seriously before we got to this point.”

The other side of this coin, of course, deals with the executive director’s annual performance plan (e.g. chart of work). In my experience, when executive directors aren’t getting evaluated, they typically don’t have a very well-defined performance plan with measurable metrics. This management tool is developed and handed to the executive director 12-months prior to their review. This way they know exactly what they need to do to succeed and how to proactively affect their year-end evaluation.

Again, in my experience, boards end up passing on the year-end evaluation because they didn’t do a good job of developing a performance plan, and now they don’t feel like there is anything concrete to measure their employee against. So, they end up taking a pass.

And the vicious circle continues until the non-profit organization skids into the ditch and fingers start getting pointed.

While it is easy to throw board members under the bus, I also want to hold my executive director friends accountable, too. Good non-profit professionals know how to support a board and keep them from falling down on the job. I’ve seen many non-profit CEOs pencil draft their own performance plans and year-end reviews and hold their board’s hand through these processes.

All of this also ties into fundraising and resource development. Rest assured that when fingers start getting pointed, donors ask tough questions and judgements get passed. Remember, the executive director is probably the face of your non-profit organization and many of your donors have likely fallen in love with this person.

I’ve seen it too many times. The organization fractures, accusations get made, donors ask tough questions, and everyone comes out looking bad. In the final analysis, public trust gets violated and donors put their checkbooks away until things get cleared up.

There is one cautionary word that I need to toss out there to board members about this very cold bowl of porridge. I know many of you think you don’t have any personal liability that comes with sitting on a non-profit board of directors because your agency purchased Directors and Officers Insurance. However, it is not outside of the realm of possibility that your D & O insurance company will not cover you in an employment related lawsuit if you failed to complete annual performance reviews of your executive director. It is foreseeable that the insurance company will say “there was a lack of a good faith effort” on the part of the board, and then you will be personally on the hook.

So, get off the couch and take that cold bowl of porridge to the microwave oven and warm it up before it is too late! For those of you who might be looking for a resource guide, click here for a great manual from The Enterprise Foundation. Tomorrow, we’re going to look at that next bowl of porridge which is way too hot. So please stay tuned.

Does your board of directors struggle with evaluating its executive director? If so, what strategies are you using to bridge this gap?

Please use the comment box below and share your thoughts. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Welcome to a new philanthropic era: The Age of Women Power!

December 2, 2011 DonorDreams Board development, Fundraising, Planning, volunteers

I used to jokingly say to various board members at my former agency that if our non-profit needed to get something done (e.g. organize a special event, put together a strategic plan, etc), then we should recruit a bunch of women to help us do it. I’d usually finish making my point by saying, if you want to talk an issue to death and get nothing done, then put a bunch of men in the room. (Note to readers: Whenever I said this it was always said “tongue in cheek” and I was kidding. Of course, I was only kidding slightly because I think there is some truth to it.)

I share this story today because my good friend, Boys & Girls Club of Oshkosh Development Coordinator Anne Lemke, sent me a fabulous email a few days ago about “What Women Want” which is whitepaper written by Katherine Swank from Target Analytics, a Blackbaud Company. After reading the paper, I just could resist sharing a few of the highlights with you today:

nearly half of the top wealth-holders in the United States are women,
women have increased their combined wealth by more than fifty percent in the last 10-years, and
women have a net worth of over $6 trillion.

Katherine does a masterful job of profiling what an affluent woman looks like. I suggest you read the whitepaper and burn that picture into your head because it is surprising. In fact, you probably know a number of women who fit the profile. Having this profile picture burned into your non-profit brain is important because as Katherine says so perfectly:

“Affluent women may also be identified by their willingness to both donate and volunteer at higher levels than their male counterparts. Women, on average, donate twice as much to charity and make three times the number of donations as men.”

So, some of you might be reading this post and thinking to yourself: “OK, I just need to start asking women for money and I’ll be fine.” If this is what you’re hearing me say, then please stop yourself! The reality is that women are different from men, and you’ll need to change your resource development strategies and tactics if you are going to appeal to this very powerful donor segment. Again, Katherine puts it best when she said:

“While I can’t claim to know what all women want in every situation, over twenty-five years in philanthropy has taught me that what women want is simple: to be asked their opinion and for their answers to be listened to and acted upon. They seek equality in the workplace, an ever-equal sharing of the ‘load’ from their male partners and counterparts, and to make the world a better place, both close to home and halfway around the world. Elementally, women want their lives to make a difference in the lives of others. To accomplish this through philanthropy makes women feel empowered.”

Translated into language men might understand better: “You need to cultivate, solicit and steward women different from.” Oh heck, who am I kidding . . . let me translate this even more clearly for my non-profit male friends out there: “Go hire and recruit some women to help you with this incredible important and transformational shift that your non-profit agency needs to make.”

I suspect this trend will change more than just your agency’s approach to resource development. It will also likely affect your board development, marketing, and volunteer recruitment & management efforts. Right?

Oh yeah . . . go download Katherine’s whitepaper and read it. Click here to get your copy. It really is a great read!

So, what are your thoughts? Are you already seeing this philanthropic trend in your community? How are you responding to it? Have you addressed it in your strategic plan or resource development plan? If so, how?

Please take a quick moment and share your thoughts using the comment box below. After all, we can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Non-profits and Sunshine Laws?

December 1, 2011 DonorDreams Board development, resource development

Have you ever participated in an interesting conversation that inspired you enough to go do some research? Last night I had one of those moments, and what I found was so interesting I just had to share it with you this morning.

So, last night I was out enjoying a nice dinner with a non-profit board volunteer when the conversation turned to the subject of board meetings and how the local newspaper covers their agency.

He said, “Erik, the problem with making difficult discussions in the board room is that we’re subject to the Open Meetings Act.”

I said, “Really? I don’t think so. The Open Meetings Act is aimed primarily at government and public institutions.”

He responded with, “Erik, with as much government money as our agency takes, we are covered by this law and have to let the public and press into our meetings.”

If you know me well, then you know that not knowing an answer to something like this just drives me crazy. So, when I got back to my hotel room, I just popped open Google and started digging.

Ah ha! The first thing I found validated my point of view. The Illinois Open Meetings Act specifically exempts non-profit organizations. Click here to read more.

However, as with most things in life, nothing is simple or that clear cut. The next thing I found online was from Ann Taylor Schwing. She provided a dizzying number of bullet points pointing to various numbers of possible scenarios when the Open Meetings Act might extend beyond government entities and into board rooms of private organizations.

Click here to read more and see if your agency might fit into some these exceptions. After I consumed Ann’s work, my head started spinning and went into overdrive. For example:

One of the exceptions that Ann points out is: “whether the functions performed by the private entity would otherwise be performed by a public body, or were performed by the public body before the creation of the private entity“. Well, this certainly should give many agency’s a moment to pause and consider.
Another of the exceptions Ann highlights is: “the extent to which public entities may control the entity in question and the extent to which the entity is autonomous“. This got me to start counting the number of non-profits in my hometown who were recently quoted in the newspaper as saying, “If my city funding gets cut, we’re going to end up closing our doors.” As the Church Lady used to say on Saturday Night Live, “Well now. Isn’t THAT interesting?”

OK, you’re probably wondering what all this means and if it necessitates any action on your part. Here are just a few of my thoughts:

I would click the aforementioned links and do some research. No one wants to be surprised by a newspaper report or a disgruntled donor or client who demands access to your board room. I like to live by the general rule that “Prior Proper Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance”. 🙂
If the second bullet point sounds like it might describe your agency (e.g. your agency is so reliant on government money and your ‘independence’ is compromised), then you should engaging board members in a discussion around whether or not this is OK with them and what to do about it. After all, this is a quintessential “board governance” issue that the law calls on them to wrestle with. Right?
There is a bigger picture issue here as it pertains to non-profit transparency. You might want to start engaging board volunteers in a discussion around whether or not opening your board meetings to the public (e.g. donors, clients, neighbors, etc) is a good idea. And if it is, then how do you function in that public space and still get sensitive board business accomplished.

Some of you are probably thinking “Erik, are you crazy?” Well, maybe I am, but ask yourself this: “do donor have a right to attend governance meetings as an investor in your organization?” More to the point, I’ve seen some non-profit organizations model themselves after publicly traded for-profit organizations by hosting an annual meeting that is open to the public and is seen as a stewardship opportunity for donors.

Does your agency host an annual meeting that is open to donors and the public? If so, please tell us what it looks like and what is discussed in the comment box below. Has your agency ever been pressured by the press or the public about the Open Meetings Act? If so, please share with us what happened.

Come on folks! We can all learn from each other. Please take a moment to weigh-in.

Here’s to your health!

Taking a page out of GE’s playbook

November 30, 2011 DonorDreams Uncategorized

Have you ever been watching television, trying to zone out during the commercials, when all of a sudden “WHAM!” a powerful advertisement grabs your attention and almost moves you to tears? Come on! I know it has happened to most of you, and I am no exception.

I was most recently the victim of such an occurance last night. I was in my hotel bed watching television and trying to avoid doing work. Out of nowhere came this General Electric (GE) commercial . . . the ad was about cancer survivors who were given the opportunity to meet the GE employees who built the medical machinery that helped save their lives.

If you haven’t seen it, grab a tissue and click here to view the YouTube video of it.

It wasn’t more than 5-seconds after this commercial ended that I had these two thoughts:

This GE commercial is the same thing as a non-profit organization’s “case for support” for their annual campaign pledge drive. The only difference was that it was in video format instead of a written case statement.
Putting cancer survivors in the same room as GE employees was so powerful. It was almost like GE was stewarding their employees by reminding them of how powerful their gift of labor really is to everyday people who are trying to work through personal crisis.

I think the thing that got me most was when the employee at the end of the commercial says: “[It was] one of the most heartwarming events I’ve ever experienced”.

Earlier this week my Monday blog post titled “What gets measured gets done” spoke to the power of benchmarking. Tuesday’s blog post titled “Taking a page out of NPR’s playbook” highlighted National Public Radio (NPR) as a potential benchmarking opportunity for agencies looking for a successful road map to reduce dependency on government funding.

Today’s post continues on this week’s theme of benchmarking; however, the twist is that non-profits can also learn from and benchmark their for-profit cousins. For example, this GE commercial has me wondering:

Does putting employees together with the people who benefit from their efforts improve employee retention? If so, how significant is the retention? Can the same effect be produced if non-profit donors are given more regular access to the people whose lives they changed (e.g. your customers/clients)?
Does creating this commercial and storyline help GE’s sales force more effectively articulate the case to purchase this particular product? If so, how significant is the improvement in sales? Can the same effect be produced in board members and volunteer solicitors who are reluctant to solicit charitable contributions to the annual campaign?

I’ve been hearing way too often from non-profit professionals that donors don’t have time for personal stewardship visits and touches. I’ve also recently had the opportunity to spend lots of time with a number of donors, and they don’t seem to be saying the same thing. What I am hearing donors say is they are sick and tired of one solicitation after another after another. They look forward to events where they can see, hear, and touch the charity’s mission.

I am going to hold onto the visual imagery of how those cancer survivors and GE employees looked when they met for the first time. Am I wrong or was it powerful? They were moved to tears, right? Heck, I was moved to tears. My “fundraiser’s gut feeling” is telling me that there are many valuable take-aways for non-profit organizations from that commercial. I suspect successful non-profits are tapping into that same raw power and emotion when it comes to donors and those folks you serve everyday.

Yes, we can learn a lot from each other as non-profit professionals, but I suspect we are limiting ourself. If we expand our world, we can learn a lot from everywhere we look everyday. Don’t just benchmark organizations that are just like you . . . expand your horizons and look at for-profits that you can benchmark, too.

While benchmarking multinational corporations might not be realistic for many of you, I bet there are a number of small businesses in most of our backyards that will work equally well.

What did you take away from the GE commercial as it relates to your non-profit work? How do you connect your donors to mission in similarly powerful ways that don’t involve more solicitation (e.g. special events don’t count when answering this question)? How does your organization track the effectiveness of those personal and powerful stewardship touches? Have you ever done any benchmarking? Who? And what was the result of your experience?

Please use the comment box below to weigh-in with an answer to any of these questions. Remember, we can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!