Outstanding idea?! ... Let the donors select the research projects to fund

For the 30 years I've been in community benefit work, the conventional wisdom of non-profit voluntary health organizations (like American Heart Association, where I worked for 21 years, or March of Dimes, where I worked for 8 years, or American Cancer, or American Lung, or American fill-in-the-blank-with-a-disease-or-body-organ) was that one of the values that the organization adds is its expertise in selecting the most scientifically meritorious or promising research projects to fund.

As a consequence, these organizations have traditionally frowned on donors who wanted to restrict their gift to a specific scientist or institution, and certainly nixed the notion of letting the donor actually choose which project their money funded. The closest we could get was accepting very large (six or seven figure) gifts restricted to very broad research areas.

Plus, the financial accountants put down any effort to attract this kind of support. Their reasoning: the cost of tracking all of this and making sure a specific gift went to a selected project ... well, that outweighed any possible benefit.

So, even if you wanted to restrict your gift to the broad function of research (as opposed to education or community programs), you still had to give at a certain level ($1,000 or $5,000) to make it worth even bothering with from the charity's perspective.

But of course, that was before the technology-assisted online tools of today. Now, in the United Kingdom, a unique way to support cancer research has been launched. It allows the donors to:

• choose which area of their work they want to support


• choose the specific project that most interests them


• follow the developments of the work they've helped to fund

Projects that need funds are described with a blurb about the science behind it, where the work is happening, and a photo/bio of the investigator, together with a thermometer showing how much has already been raised, and how much more is needed.

True, the charity, Cancer Research UK, has already committed to supporting the projects they promote. In this sense, a donation is not really leading to a go/no go decision on whether the project will proceed.

But the donation is, strictly speaking, restricted. It won't go to any other purpose. And once a project reaches its target, the system automatically stops accepting donations for it, and adds new projects to the site for donors to choose from.

It's all currently in beta, but I think it's a fascinating trend, and I'll very much be looking forward to the results. I would predict increased donor satisfaction and retention for repeat gifts. Plus, there's big potential for donor involvement, with donors becoming fundraisers, spreading the word about a project that's piqued their personal interest, using the usual social media forums.

Donors can form Giving Groups to join together, forming a little community, as it were, of friends and family, with all their gifts going to the same project.

Like I said, tradition-bound health organizations have hated this concept in the past. They have long disliked accepting funds with strings attached, even for efforts that are directly aligned with their purpose and plans. I understand their preference for unrestricted funds that can be used for whatever the organization thinks it needs. But the mindset still flies in the face of developing a donor-centered philanthropic culture.

This whole notion is crowdsourcing at its best ... trusting the wisdom of the many over the elite, behind-closed-door decisionmaking of a few.

I hope it succeeds big time. It will go to prove a point of view I've been espousing for years: Restricted gifts are not a bad thing when they are restricted to something you've already decided you wanted to do anyway. To the extent that donors choose a specific project, such resources are "fungible," meaning the funds that were committed to this approved project can now be freed up for something else the organization wants to do.

It's a no-brainer, if you ask me ... and it will be interesting to see how quickly the "disease" organizations catch on here in the US.

How I got into non-profit work (and a recommended read)

Cass Wheeler was the longtime Chief Executive Officer of the American Heart Association. He was with the AHA for more than 30 years -- 26 of them at the National Center -- and served as CEO for 11 years. He retired early this year.

All of that's on the public record. Less known is that Cass hired me into the American Heart Association in Texas, my first "non-profit" gig. Back in 1980 (which seems like eons ago but is only 28 years) he took a chance on a younger, 20-something kid with a background in marketing and PR. I was responsible for spreading the AHA message in 20 media markets in Texas. I learned lots about how to work with a "jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none" generalist staffing structure and eager volunteers organized in any Texas community large enough to have a Dairy Queen. He paid me peanuts! It was a great job.

Cass is quite a guy: personable and brimming with positive energy, he listens and supports and persuades. He is, in short, a very effective leader. Cass ensured that the American Heart Association saved lives by taking for-profit strategies and adopting them in the not-for-profit setting. That was a fairly radical concept at the time.

Of course, he's written a book. And it's a pretty darn good one. I don't think he had this ghost-written -- it has his voice throughout. And reading it brought back many episodes -- the good, the bad, and the just-plain ugly -- from my AHA stint.

I took that first AHA job thinking I'd be there a couple of years; I stayed with them for 21 years. AHA was always good to me, allowing me to stretch and grow. If there was more to be done than my job called for, they would encourage me to take on additional responsibility. It prepared me for each next step ... the move to California, helping to re-structure 18 separate corporate entities into one affiliate, switching from communications and planning to revenue development, learning to manage all of the programmatic enterprises, discovering how to work with volunteers and boards, and, ultimately, finding and loving major and planned gifts work.

My ability to teach and present to adults ... my understanding of complex systems ... my skill at coaching and mentoring staff -- all of these skills have their roots in the AHA, and I shall never forget that.

Back to Cass' book: In the for-profit world, success first and foremost means ... well, that you turn a profit. For organizations in our community benefit sector, however, the challenge is much different. To be successful, we must make money, yes, but for a larger purpose. So the key becomes finding and keeping your mission and purpose, creating your vision, and making it a reality.

Under his leadership, the AHA went from a pretty dis-organized organization (heading every which way at once) to what could be called the benchmark of a thriving nonprofit. He increased revenue from $400 million to $800 million, sure. But more importantly, he launched some incredibly innovative programs. The narrative in his book describes how they were conceived, planned, and executed.

Not all of the examples are from AHA, but he dwells mostly on some really stellar management and leadership principles that he's professed and lived by through the years. I learned a whole lot from him, both directly and indirectly, while at the AHA. Often, in consulting, a client will pose a question. The answer pops into my head, seemingly without thought or effort. And the client will wonder: "How do you know this stuff??" Well, in truth, I learned much of it right there as part of the heart association.

In You’ve Gotta Have Heart, Cass Wheeler displays how to move beyond theory and intention to actually get results. He riffs on mission, on finding and keeping the best staff, the importance of focus. And on how to stay relevant, and how to apply for-profit best practices in our sector.

Perhaps it's not the most thought-provoking book --there's no single, defining "aha" moment here (though I confess I might be too close to the content to judge this, and others might find it). But the book is filled with honesty that makes it a case study from Cass' fine career. It's practical. There's a lot of good stuff here. Leaders of community benefit organizations -- large and small: put this book on your reading list!