New fundraising community under "construction"

Visit Peak Fundraising Leaders to see what the excitement is about.

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.

Key attributes for charity success

On the heels of the recession, our sector is poised for changes. Some of it will be self-initiated and embraced; much will be imposed by realities of new times. Most probably these changes will be reluctantly accepted, if not outright resisted.

In light of shrinking budgets, how can community benefit organizations create difference-making initiatives without simply doling out more money? The answer is IDEAS. Increasingly, we need to look at changing existing practices, changing old habits, challenging persistent mindsets, and using existing budgets better. Continuously, we must ask ourselves: "how can we improve what we have without increasing the dollars we invest?"


The status quo is not sufficient (never was, of course, but it's especially inadequate now). In an ongoing way, we need to measure ourselves against a measuring stick of what success looks like. Well, what does success look like for non profits?
An interesting survey of people in the sector was just released by nfpSynergy, posing that question.

The chart at left shows that more than half of all respondents thought that quality of services, quality of leadership, and strengths of values and vision were important in creating a successful, high-impact charity.

Financial soundness, the ability to work in partnership and the capacity to innovate were also considered important to charity success, with each of these factors selected by more than one third of respondents.

Lowest on the list:

• Modern IT strategy/attitude to digital media


• Strong commitment to diversity


• Internal communications


• Management of brand, image and reputation


• Campaigning and media/PR skills

The perceived importance of working in partnership increased from 30% in a similar 2007 survey to 40% in 2009. This finding may point to the increased difficulty of accessing funding when working independently, in light of the global recession.

Funds, funding, and fundraising really matter. While I suggested above that we need to figure out how to do more with what we've got, the fact remains that making ends meet is still a top challenge for nonprofits, especially those largely dependent on government funds. The sector badly needs and wants to grow other sources of income to make up for government shortfalls. Thus, charities' need for fundraising skill is increasing. More charities need to raise more of their funds themselves; if you can't afford to hire a development capacity, then existing staff need to become more highly skilled to adapt their fundraising to the new environment.

The online survey was conducted by nfpSynergy (a research consultancy dedicated to the nonprofit sector) in November/December 2009. Opportunity to participate was widely promoted, especially through Third Sector Magazine. There were 710 respondents.

National Volunteer Week is April 18 - 24

It's that time of year again! A time when nonprofit organizations across the nation will be celebrating the volunteers who help them be great. National Volunteer Week is a time to celebrate volunteers' accomplishments and honor their dedication to giving back.

Now would also be a great time to let the message of volunteerism spread by taking some time to get the people in your life involved. Whether you help them find a volunteer opportunity, or you invite them to join you, take a moment to help them connect with a cause that they're passionate about.

Facebook Beats Google as Most Popular Web Destination

Guess it had to happen, and it did, last week. Hitwise figures show Facebook's national domination as the most popular U.S. web destination. For the week ending March 13, Facebook grabbed 7.07 percent of all U.S. web traffic, barely beating Google's at 7.03 percent.

See the graph above; clearly Facebook has been steadily rising in traffic since last year. Traffic to Facebook increased 185 percent compared to the same week last year, whereas visits to Google increased only 9 percent.

Compared to the rise of social games on Facebook (like Farmville and Mafia Wars), there was little happening at Google to encourage traffic growth.

However, when measured by reach .... the percent of the U.S. population that visit ... Facebook still has a way to go. Comscore, another analytics firm, ranks Google as the top site by reach, with 81 percent of the U.S. population. According to Techcrunch, Facebook's reach ranking still has it behind Google (and Yahoo and Microsoft, for that matter) at 53 percent of the U.S. population.