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.

Great Planned Giving Story: Do you know who your donors are?

Grace Groner was exceptionally restrained with her money.

Her clothes came from rummage sales. She never owned a car. She lived in a one-bedroom house.

She was orphaned while quite young, and came of age during the Depression. Thus, her character was naturally frugal.

She had very fond memories of her college days. So she set up a small scholarship program for her alma mater, Lake Forest College. She told them she planned to contribute more upon her death. But no one guessed it would be such a huge gift from one living so modestly.

When she passed away in January, at the age of 100, her attorney informed the college president what that gift added up to. Groner's estate was worth $7 million.

Here's the college president's reaction:



I'm glad that the college was stewarding her lifetime gifts; clearly, they knew her and had the opportunity to thank her while she was alive. I can just imagine that Grace derived some pleasure out of knowing the secret surprise that they'd receive upon her death.

She worked as a secretary for Abbott Laboratories for 43 years. In 1935, she bought 3 shares of Abbott stock for $180. Those three shares are the asset that blossomed into $7 million.

The millions should generate more than $300,000 a year for the college. The money will help dozens of Lake Forest students pursue internships and study-abroad programs that they may not have had the chance to take advantage without Groner’s hefty donation.

Aside from the $7 million donation, she also left her small house to the college, which will house scholarship winners who benefitted from her donation.

But this story is one to add to the host of others told through the years: you never know which of your donors has the capacity to make a transformative gift to your institution. That's why it's incredibly important to be nice to ALL of your donors. Thanking the "little old lady" who sends in $5 twice a year is just as important as fussing over the six- and seven-figure donors. Fundraising basics 101, I know, but one of those fundamentals that is all-too-easily forgotten. Stories like this one provide a reminder.

A generous spirit; a life well-lived. Thank you, Grace Groner.

Great Stewardship from DonorsChoose

I just got an "impact report" today from a school teacher in Oakland.

Back in April, I went to DonorsChoose.org, an online charity that makes it easy for anyone to help students in need. Here's how it works:

1. Public school teachers from every corner of America post classroom project requests. The requests range from pencils for a poetry writing unit, to violins for a school recital, to microscope slides for a biology class.

2. You go to their site and browse project requests. The project is described by the teacher, but also shows detailed cost breakdown of exactly how the money will be spent. (I chose to help a reading intervention teacher in Oakland, California, who wanted to help fourth and fifth grade students get up to grade level at their Title I school. By reading parts of the books aloud, she found, the students are eager to actually read the books for themselves. Her students needed eight books in U.S. history content:

• Longest Journey: The Story of the Donner Party
• Cowboy Marc
• Gold Fever!: Tales from the California Gold Rush
• The Dirty Thirties
• From Slave to Cowboy: The Nat Love Story
• Birmingham 1963
• Cherokee Rose: The Trail of Tears
• The Story of Jamestown

The cost of this proposal was $161, which included a very reasonable fulfillment fee to DonorsChoose.)

3. Find the project that makes your eye twinkle and evokes a good feeling in your heart; give any amount. You can browse and search by city/state, grade level, subject area, teacher type, cost and/or by keyword. You can screen for projects that are close to their goal, located in an economically challenged area, have matching gift offers and by resource type such as books vs. technology vs. supplies vs. field trips or guest speakers.

(I gave an very modest sum, as I was out of work at the time. Within a day, I received a personalized thank you email from the teacher -- not an auto-generated thank you but one that referenced the remarks that accompanied my gift. Impressive!)

4. Once a project reaches its funding goal, DonorsChoose orders and delivers the materials to the school. (In my case, the teacher posted the project on February 28. It took seven donors, acting together, to reach the goal within a few weeks.)

5. Then, you get photos of your project taking place, a thank-you letter from the teacher, and a cost report showing how each dollar was spent.

If you give over $100, you'll also receive hand-written thank-you letters from the students -- a nice touch, for sure. But what's even better from my point of view is that you can give as little as $1 and get the same level of choice, transparency, and feedback that is traditionally reserved for someone who gives far more. They call it citizen philanthropy.

(Quite frankly, I'd forgotten that I'd even made that small gift back in April. But today, when I received the progress report, I was re-engaged all over again. I read the post-project thank you from the teacher. I saw the pictures of fourth and fifth grade kids reading the books I helped to buy. I reviewed the Live Update sequential stream of interactions, including notes from other donors sharing why they chose this project, with the teacher's personal thank you sent to each person contemporaneously. I felt a little sense of community around these like-minded people, strangers to each other who chipped in to make a little difference.)

Did the feedback make me feel good? Yes. Did the thank you reinforce that I'd made a good decision in making the gift? Absolutely. Was I prompted to go looking for another project to support? Of course I did.

The DonorsChoose business model is an exceptionally well-designed example of how technology can be used by a charity to actually personalize the giving process. I gave a modest gift. But I know more about the recipient, have had more interaction with her, and received a report to reinforce my choice ... far higher quality and quantity interaction than I've gotten from faceless organizations to whom I've made far larger gifts without so much as a thank you. Kudos to them.

By the way, if you're a teacher who has a project that needs to be funded, you can go here.

How to ask for a gift ....

Here's a video snippet from the HBO show, Entourage. Matt Damon and Bono are featured as they ask Vince (played by Adrian Grenier) to make a gift to their favorite cause (a children's hunger charity).

Now I wouldn't actually suggest you ask the way Matt Damon does here, but there are some lessons embedded in the video.

Among them:

• Total absence of call reluctance (since he believes in his cause, Matt Damon asks everyone!)


• Asking for involvement in addition to monetary support


• Persistence and the importance of follow-up


• Importance of making your own gift first (because donors, even if they don't ask, will KNOW in their gut whether you've done your part)


• Framing the ask amount in relation to capacity and what other leadership donors have given


• Ask as part of a team, in person (see how much more effective the ask gets when LeBron James joins Matt in the ask)


• How to make it past gate-keepers ("He Jason Bourne-d me!")


• Linking back to the cause when making the ask ("it's for the kids!")

Warning: Some crude language here. Click here to watch.

USA TODAY launches online community, "Kindness: New Ways We Give and Volunteer"

We could joke and call it Philanthropy-Light. Or Giving-Digest. But our nation's top-selling newspaper has launched its newest online community, and its theme is charity, good causes, giving, and giving back.

No small audience: the print and online editions of USA TODAY reach more than 5 million a day. Here's how they're positioning the online community:

Kindness is your daily source of inspiration and guide to making a difference in fresh and exciting ways, no matter where you are. Each day, this site will unearth unique stories of giving with exclusive interviews, fresh takes on news stories, plenty of tips, and links to interesting resources. But we're also building a community, and we look forward to hearing from you.

The community can be found here. You can see a lot there, but of course, you have to register and all that to participate in commenting, connecting, blogging, posting in (or creating) forums ... the usual social networking stuff. But it's all under the USA TODAY brand. No doubt there will be an on-going promotion of it. Who knows? Maybe it will become a generalized philanthropy portal for those who are interested, attracting donors and organizations alike.

(USA TODAY also published its third annual philanthropy section in the newspaper, entitled "Sharing in the USA.")

Customer Service Week, October 5-9

In 1992 the U.S. Congress proclaimed Customer Service Week a nationally recognized event, celebrated annually during the first full week in October.

Of course, this makes about as much sense as having a seperate Customer Service Department. EVERY week should be Customer Service Week, just as responsibility for customer service should rest with everyone in your organization, not just one department. For your organization, providing really great customer service can be THE difference between thriving and going extinct.

There are lots of ways to encourage a culture of service in your organization. Ways that won't work include:

Writing a memo
Making a speech
Imposing new behavior standards ("Smile, dammit!")

Genuine change happens when people buy in. A way to start that is to have a simple conversation about it.

So on this occasion, let me offer you something for free. Here's an exercise to help you get the conversation started. Use it at your next staff meeting, or even in the lunch room.

There's two pages of quotes about customer service, meeting needs, reputation, and trust(they're all related, you know). Have people read through the quotes and then, in pairs or small groups, share which one they most responded to. I can almost guarantee an enthusiastic conversation will ensue, and perhaps some altered notions about who is responsible for keeping the customer.

Get your free copy: simply click here to sign up. Give me your name and email, and I'll send you the exercise right away.

And remember what Lewis Carol said:

One of the deep secrets of life is that all that is really
worth doing is what we do for others.

Cool News for (non-profit) YouTube Users: Annotations and External Links!

I've refrained from doing a lot of posting on social media. For one, even though I'm a long time user of LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, et.al., other people know more than I, especially about the nuts and bolts. For another, I don't want to do "me too" postings, joining the landslide of commentators and advice givers, immitating and repeating essentially the same old stuff.

But THIS is news. In fact, if you haven't already put up whatever video your organization has on YouTube, then now is the time to explore that. The last possible "excuse" is gone!

Michael Hoffman of See3 Communications explains the new, special YouTube Annotations functionality available only to organizations that are part of YouTube's Nonprofit Program. With this new functionality, you can create "buttons" inside the video player that allow your viewers to connect to an external page---your website, your donation page, a petition, a call to action, anything!

Annotation has been around for awhile, but they always had to link to another YouTube video. This is the FIRST TIME that YouTube has allowed traffic to be directed away from its site. Watch ...



Cool, right? Well, there's maybe ONE excuse remaining:

"I don't know where to start."
Then check out Gear Up for Giving, a series of tutorials, to help nonprofits and their supporters understand how to use key tools and techniques to create awareness, catalyze civic action and cultivate new supporters and donors for their causes. Watch this introductory video to learn more about social media. Then, go to Case Foundation for further information.



Kudos to YouTube and Case Foundation.

Personal blindspots: Doing what's in front of me to do, NOW

Confession time: There is part of me that LIKES complicated. The first time I heard about the KISS principle (the acronym meaning "Keep It Simple Stupid"), I HATED the idea.

I mean, I do get it in concept. Even I don't want to get bogged down in detail, or pursue the rabbit trail toward needless complexity.

But we've got a complicated world to deal with. It moves fast, and we try to tame it by creating process to codify and standardize.

My temperment naturally tips toward complicated over simple. Give me the chance, and I'll tend to create a flowchart or multi-step approach to address the most basic issues. But time and again, I'm reminded ... often painfully ... that simple and direct is better.

And it's taken me years to understand why that is.

Too often, my first impulse is to create a new system, invent a new rule, form a new standard. Too often that urge is, in reality, a ... (wait, I'm about to get the words out): ... a delaying tactic. There, I've said it.

For example, now is the right time to approach a likely supporter and say:

We're working on an issue/problem you care about. Here's how we approach our top priorities. Will you join in our cause?

Instead I'm tempted to say "a little more research is needed," "let's do one more cultivation move," or "today might not be the best time so let's wait for a few weeks."

Over the years, I've taught myself to catch myself doing this, and I usually do. Long ago I pledged that I would attend no more meetings with prospects where, at the end, the prospect is left to wonder "why didn't they ask?"

But my personal blindspot becomes glaring when I see it manifested in others. (Isn't that always the way?)

So ...

One of the best values I offer to others in my consulting is to be hyper-sensitive to delaying tactics, no matter how cleverly disguised or manifested. I'm always pressing to get people to admit that the time is now. My magic question: "What is it that we need to know about this person's ability or interests or motivation, that can be known, before we can make the ask?" Almost always, their answer: "Nothing." The inescapable conclusion: it is time to ask.

It sounds obvious.

But, clever procrastinators that we are, we can almost always find an expert reference from "the book" that says that we should cultivate before asking. So it always seems easier to cultivate, cultivate, cultivate, cultivate ad nauseum.

After stripping away all the excuses, we're left with a classic case of call reluctance. Get over it!

Too many opportunities are missed because we get wrapped up in procedures that we've created as stalling tactics in the name of building relationship. And then we fail to recognize that the moment is right. Done right, asking for the gift is the BEST way to build relationship. 99 times out of 100, the time to ask is NOW.

You are starting a new fundraising venture; how would you go about it?

In the course of qualifying for a potential project, I was just asked to respond in writing to four essay questions. I decided to share this result with you because it's kind of an interesting question. (You should have seen the other three!)
_________________

The possibility of starting with a blank sheet is intriguing. In my career, even when I have been brought in to create a new revenue stream, I have always inherited the history and culture of an existing organization with deeply embedded values and practices that limited what was acceptable within the environment. While I have spent a career creating change within such organizations, it is tantalizing to consider forming an organization from the ground up in its early stages.

Without hesitation, I would start with an in-depth conversation with the person or persons who initiated the new undertaking. First, I would seek absolute clarity on the endeavor’s justification, its raison d’etre. Whether it is organized as a for-profit or non-profit is beside the point. That’s the how, and right from the start, I need to understand the why. Or, said in another way, I want to know the void that would be created if the venture ceased to be. Surprisingly, not all organizations or founders are clear on this. They might be able to recite a mission statement by rote, but there’s no real understanding of the cause that is being championed or there is ambiguity about the unmet need that led to the creation of the organization.

At this early stage, it would acceptable, even desirable, if the direction of the project was not yet fleshed out. Nevertheless, I would attempt to discover the two or three driving forces behind the likely priorities of the organization, answering in broad terms the question: “How will the money be spent?”

Finally, I would query the founders on how they envision others being involved, answering the question: “What do we want others to do to support our cause?” This might range from lending expertise to being an ambassador in the community, referring us to others who might be interested, or opening doors to others who can influence the project’s outcome. Regardless, others would most certainly be invited to make their own commensurate investment in our work.

Following this exchange with the founders, I would cobble together a one-page tool for sharing the story of our purpose and our priorities, and presenting the opportunity to become involved. Later, this would evolve into a case for support and a formal funding plan or chart of gift opportunities. For starters, though, a simple plan for how much we need, over what period of time, and how we will get on our way is all that’s required to start the discussion with likely supporters. This plan might be as basic as declaring that we need ten angel investors at $x each. It might even entail approaching one benefactor to underwrite the entire project in its start-up phase. More likely, I’d draw a three-level pyramid (with one lead gift, several substantial commitments, and many moderate contributions, together totaling the start-up cost. Whichever approach I chose, I would make the total amount rational by framing it within the context of the vision. In addition, I would stamp the word “DRAFT” on the page.

Then, I would begin to find and single out a group of persons who are known to care (or are presumed to care) about the cause. In existing organizations with half-way decent fundraising records, the starting point is looking at people who are already giving to the cause or, failing that, identifying who may have benefited from past encounters and who might feel a measure of gratitude. Where no donor or beneficiary history exists, I would work to identify connections with the founder’s family, associates, friends, and acquaintances. I would seek out related or similar communities that have already organized themselves, both online and off-line, and that might share an interest in our issue. This process would not take too long, as the list serves only as a launching point for networking and conversation.

After that, I would work to personally visit with likely supporters, ideally one-on-one or, alternatively, in small groups. With each one, I would lay out the purpose and probable programs of the enterprise, and engage in a dialogue about the plan for funding. Knowing that they are being approached at the early stages of organization, I would ask for their response to the concept, and invite their involvement at a leadership level.

In a relatively brief period, a substantial amount of starting capital would be raised, and the program could commence. After some consensus has been built from early investors “buying in” to our plans, we can elaborate on the programmatic priorities and add detail to the development of additional supporters and revenue generation. We will, of course, continue to keep the early supporters engaged by updating them on what their investment has made possible and by finding opportunities for their ongoing involvement.
_________________

So, how would you have answered this question?

Community Centers Change Lives

Bet you didn't know it, but today is LGBT Center Awareness Day. Vital services are offered by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender community centers. I'm proud to serve as a volunteer board member for the Center in San Francisco.

LGBT community centers are the front doors to the LGBT community, and in the United States serve over 40,000 people weekly. They become the backbone of the LGBT community, reaching across metropolitan, suburban, and rural areas. Click here to find one near you.

While progress has been made, it is still challenging to "come out" in today's society. Often, people feel isolated, and don't find welcoming entree into being who they are.

Even in progressive, uber-liberal San Francisco, newcomers to the community -- whether arriving from Kansas or the City's Sunset district -- have to make their way through a confusing maze.
The San Francisco LGBT Community Center empowers those individuals to build community. Yes, San Francisco is rich with organizations and agencies serving specific needs of the LGBT community. The Center works to enable collaboration. Rather than duplicating existing services, The Center works alongside each of them, fostering connections and insuring that people in need find them.

The Center is not only a meeting place and shared headquarters space for dozens of groups (though that's important, too). It also provides activities benefiting the entire lifespan of LGBT people, from our KidSpace program (childcare for program participants) to elder services. I'm personally proud of The Center's youth support, HIV support, computer access, and economic development/business assistance efforts.

Click on any of the links to learn more, or to support the Center, click here.

And tell someone you know that today is LGBT Center Awareness Day!

Nonprofit Dating

I've frequently drawn the parallel between romantic courtship and the process of "romancing" a prospective donor. Something draws the two parties together (their eyes meet across a crowded room?). After some time, once you know this person is "the one" for you, the object is to pop the question at the right time. Presumably not the same evening you first encounter them ("hey baby, wanna get married?!") ... the premature ask. But also not after dating and going steady for years and years and years ... the "cultivate, cultivate, cultivate, cultivate, cultivate" phenomen.

Five or six weeks ago, I came across this video which pokes some fun at how some of us choose to speak when first approaching a prospect, the language set that sounds so stilted. Today, I ran across it again, and decided I just had to share it. So, if a nonprofit were a guy and the donor a girl, it might go something like this ... click and enjoy.

By the way, this was done using a free, do-it-yourself movie creation service called xtranormal. "If you can type, you can make movies," they say. You choose the setting, the characters, and then type in dialogue. Voila -- an animated movie that you can then blog, share on Twitter or Facebook or YouTube, or whatever. I immediately registered for a free account, but I didn't start playing around with it. Knowing me, I'd have gotten sucked into the tool for hours. But it seems like a great idea for animating a message inexpensively. It will be interesting to see how it is used by community benefit organizations.

September 11: Service and Remembrance

September 11, 2001 was a day of tragedy. In response, many people rallied as one to support families who had lost loved ones and to help in recovery efforts. A powerful spirit of service and sacrifice united a nation -- ever so briefly. The echo of that impulse to help still remains, as September 11th is now officially designated a National Day Of Service and Remembrance.

My own vision of volunteerism changed as a result of what happened eight years ago. We each have a personal story about 9/11: where we were and how we felt. But it is perhaps more important to remember 9/12 and the successive days, when individuals joined in community with each other. Yes, let's remember that lesson.

Opportunities to work towards positive social change abound. A great video linking the Twin Towers tragedy to how we can personally help people is here. I invite you to watch:

When will things start looking up? How will you know?

So there's lots of chatter about hints of recovery in many economic indicators. Maybe we've reached a turning point?

Let's look at some of the data.

• New home sales up 9.6% between June and July. (Sales of existing homes also up, 7.2%)
  
• Consumer confidence, especially expectation of where we'll be in six months, rose in August to the highest level since December 2007.
  
• Orders of durable goods rose for third time in four months in July (up 4.9%), beating consensus estimates
  
• Last week, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke told a financial conference that the economy is on the verge of growing again.
  
• Second quarter Gross Domestic Product declined "only" one percent, much less than expected
  
• First-time filings for state unemployment benefits fell by 10,000 to a seasonally adjusted 570,000 last week, marking the first drop in initial claims in awhile

Many scoff at this optimism, and for every positive data point it's easy to produce one to show the glass is half-empty. Caution is completely understandable and warranted.

But what does this mean for philanthropy? For your organization, in particular: How will you know when it's over? What indicators are you looking for? Average gift creeping back up? Direct response rates returning to "normal"? Corporate contacts no longer ducking your calls and interested in talking to you about sponsorships? Top investors willing to visit? To stay ahead of the curve, what signs are you monitoring to know when recovery is at hand? Or will you miss those signals?

To challenge you, I ask: What will you do first when you see those early indicators? What new practices will you roll out? What new initiatives will you pursue?

And then I will pose the most challenging question: What are you waiting for?

If you have a plan in mind for when things get better, what really is preventing you from going ahead and making those intentions a reality now? If that idea or strategy or tactic will be a good idea at some future "better time," I can almost guarantee you that it's a great idea now.

If there's any way to do so, get ahead of the curve. Implement those plans now.

Cool tool to visualize grantmakers and grants

I love maps. Something about them makes life understandable, helping me to know where I am and helping me to navigate how to get where I want to go. So, when I saw this, I knew I had to check it out.

The Foundation Center has just unveiled a nifty tool that maps data on grants and grant-makers. It's called Philanthropy In/Sight.

This interactive mapping tool was developed for grantmakers, policymakers, researchers, and others interested in the impact of philanthropy around the world today. It mashes up all the Foundation Center's rich data with the familiar Google maps interface. Clicking around reveals patterns of giving, funding relationships, areas where philanthropy has made an impact, and areas where opportunities exist to fill critical needs. Zoom out to see the data mapped internationally. Zoom in to see it displayed in a country, state, or county, or city.

Two databases feed this tool, with comprehensive information on:

97,000+ U.S. foundations and grantmaking charities, that can be filtered by:

Fields of Interest
Grantmaker Type
Total Assets
Total Giving
Establishment Year

1.6 million+ grants, filterable by:

Grant Subjects
Grant Amount
Grant Year
Grantmaker Type
Grantmaker Total Assets
Grantmaker Total Giving
Grantmaker Establishment Year
Grantmaker Name

Choose your filters, and data is displayed on a map. Then you can click-and-drill down for more specific information. You can also save or print your map to share with others.

All of this data, of course, is available in other formats and always has been. Prospect researchers have relied on this information for years, sifting through and looking for that needle-in-the-haystack -- the grantmaker perfectly suited to approach for their cause or project. But, for those of us who just think more visually, this is a boon.

Many people like tons of data. But, if you're the sort of person who gets a thick computer printout and skips past the details to the last page to see the bottom line, you'll love this. Me -- I'm one who sees the forest and doesn't so much like getting lost in the minutiae of the trees (or branches or leaves!) I really appreciated it.

A free trial is available, as is a brief tour . I've played with it, and might just have to subscribe myself. I certainly wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to a client organization who depends on foundation revenue.

Charitable giving drops in 2008, Giving USA report shows

Every year about this time, Giving USA releases its report on charitable giving for the previous year. Results for 2008 came out today.

Giving in the worst economic climate since the Great Depression exceeded $300 billion for the second year in a row, $307.65 billion to be precise.

The 2008 number is the first decline in giving in current dollars since 1987 and the second since Giving USA began publishing annual reports in 1956. Adjusted for inflation, total giving was down 5.7 percent.

Two-thirds of public charities receiving donations saw decreases in 2008.

Charitable giving being down when the economy has been down is not news, really. Who would expect any different? The good news: Charitable giving is still more than 2 percent of the US Gross Domestic Product. Meaning: Giving is as strong historically as it’s ever been. Relatively speaking.

As always, giving from individuals (vs. corporate or foundations) was by far the largest slice of all contributions, 75 percent of the total, in 2008. Interestingly, individual's giving was only down 2.7 percent.

Conclusions:

It could have been worse. People could have chosen to pull back on giving.

They didn't (relatively).

Individuals and families remain the best source for seeking support.

Want to know more details? Go here for a Giving Institute news release.

The Buddha said ...

If you knew what I know about the power of giving, you would not let a single meal pass without sharing it in some way.


- Buddha (563 BC - 483 BC)


There is joy in giving, and great power, too. (Who am I to contradict the Buddha?!)

Whoever we are, there are pieces of the divine within us, and I believe that is what we tap into when we share of ourselves and our treasure.

As a fund-seeker, I've had the delightful experience of watching the physical changes that occur when a person moves from contemplation to decision during the giving process. It's like an aura, radiating, an almost-palpable energy coming from within. (Sorry to go "new age"-y on you, but it is oh-so true.)

When done with the understanding that there's something deeply human about the act of sharing, those of us who facilitate this choice realize that it (the act of asking) is a natural and authentic interaction. The converse is also true: when done poorly, it does not feel good at all, regardless of the outcome.

Thank you, Buddha.

Call your legacy society members

If this doesn't apply to you, please forgive the nudge in advance. It isn't my intent to offend.

There are some basic self-evident strategies for planned giving. The mere mention of them results in people looking at me and saying, "Well, duh, of course."

Here's one: Everyone in your legacy society should be called at least once a year.

That's obvious. So obvious, that it might never have made it into your fund-raising plan. Or, so obvious, that it feels like an inconsequential and somewhat tedious task, one of those things you never quite get around to.

But it needs to be done. No excuses! That's right. I mean you. Whether your legacy society has 10 people, or 100, or one thousand. Every single one of those people deserves a call from someone in your organization at least once a year.

For one thing, it's simply good stewardship. Most of your planned giving donors have probably become legacy society members by virtue of a bequest intention. Well, remember, bequests are revocable. With the stroke of a pen, they can write you into the will for more (perhaps giving you the portion that was going to another cause that never talks to them). Or write you out of the will entirely (perhaps giving "your" portion to another cause that does stay in touch).

Second, it's an old rule of thumb that a planned giving donor, stewarded well, is likely to make a second planned gift within a couple years after their first legacy commitment. Old rules of thumb get that way because they are true more often than not. It's especially true for annuity donors, but holds for others as well. I guarantee it is one of the best uses of your time.

General mailings or your quarterly newsletter don't cut it. I'm not against a schedule of mailings; they just don't suffice for this purpose.

Here are a few guidelines:

Schedule time for them. Staying in contact with people shouldn't be a burden or a hassle. Most people only find the task tedious because they go so long in between contact that they feel nervous about getting in touch again, they don't know where to begin or because they feel like they need to "catch up" and they don't have the time to do so. Take some time in your daily routine to devote to staying in contact and it won't be so hard for you. Don't try to do all of the calls at one time. Spread them throughout the year, a handful each month, or each week.

Your call needn't be long. Just a “thank you” and a “how are you doing?” Yes, for many of your legacy society members, the phone rarely rings, so your call will be welcome. You can preempt a long conversation by saying "I only have 10 minutes before a meeting; I just wanted to say 'hi.'"

Your call shouldn't be scripted. In fact, it should feel spontaneous and completely unrehearsed. "I was going over some progress reports on the great work we're doing, I saw something that made me think of you, and I thought, let me just pick up the phone and call." If you haven't spoken to them in a long while, there's no need to try to bring them fully up to speed.

Two final notes:

If it's been a looooong while since you've spoken (perhaps there's been no personal contact since the gift opening?) ... Just say, "I'm sorry I haven't been in touch. I'd love to catch up when we have time but I just wanted to say hello and see how you are." Something to this effect will show that you are thinking of the person. Don't get trapped into thinking you have to make excuses or over-explain everything that has happened since your last contact.

If you can't reach them by phone, send a personal handwritten "I tried to reach you" note. Nothing pre-printed or canned.

Try not to get so wrapped up in your daily jobs responsibilities that you forget some of the people who are most important to your cause. You will feel great after one of these calls -- and that's reason enough right there to go ahead, pick up the phone, and call one of your legacy society members.

Women Play Prominent Role in Philanthropic Decisions

The Fidelity® Charitable Gift Fund today announced the results of a study of charitable givers in America showing that women play a prominent role in their households and communities when it comes to philanthropy. While this probably doesn't surprise anyone, there are some kernels of useful information in the study.

Almost half of women (46 percent) surveyed say they have the primary or sole decision-making role in their households for both how much money to donate to charity and which charities to support. Likewise, most men say they defer to their spouses on which charities to support (81 percent) and how much money to donate (83 percent).

Men overwhelmingly (92 percent) name their spouses as their primary influencer in charitable giving. Women are much more likely to name a wide range of influencers. While 84 percent name their spouse as an influencer, women also rely on extended family (24 percent), friends (23 percent) and co-workers (17 percent).

Hopefully, we're long past the time when causes planned their gift-seeking approaches primarily to the husband, almost totally excluding the wife. But even when the wife is present, even savvy solicitors can speak more to him than to her.

In my experience, in modern day, most couples have rules -- either stated or inferred -- for charitable decision making. Usually, each has a limit. Below the limit, he can say "yes" unilaterally. Below the limit, she can decide alone. But above the limit, both need to be a part of the decision.

Especially when we're asking for significant amounts, the lesson is that our visits should, whenever possible, be with both wife and husband. And while we're with them, we must listen to both parties. Deferring to the man is not only disrespectful to the woman, it ignores the fact that she's mostly in charge of making these decisions.

Four Categories
The study also classified four profiles of givers in America today that illustrate distinctly different approaches to philanthropy.

Mainstream Contributors
The majority of those surveyed (52 percent) fell into the "mainstream contributor" category. This group is the least likely to give more in challenging economic times because of greater need. When decreasing giving year over year, they are the most likely to keep the same number of charities and just decrease the amount they give. They are the most likely to know in advance which charities to give to. Their average total donations in 2008 were $6,842.

Empathetic Givers
One third (29 percent) of the survey participants fell into the "empathetic giver" group. These people give the most in challenging economic times because of need. They are the most interested in creating a family tradition of charitable giving by engaging their children and spouse. They are the most likely to respond to a cause when personally touched by a disease, illness or tragedy. Their total donations in 2008 averaged $7,287.

Reactive Contributors
Just 15 percent of survey participants are "reactive contributors." This group gives the smallest donations as a percentage of income. They are the most likely to cut back on charitable giving in challenging economic times. They are the least likely to think of charitable giving as part of their overall financial plan. Their total donations in 2008 averaged $3,687.

Pioneering Givers
The Gift Fund found that only 4 percent of its survey participants are "pioneering givers." They are the most likely to contribute to organizations that are lesser known or to support new causes. They give away the most money as a percentage of their income. They use credit cards and securities for donations more than any other group. They are more likely to be influenced by a philanthropist in the news and the most likely to want guidance from a financial advisor regarding charitable giving. Their total donations in 2008 averaged $7,347.

When strategizing your approach to a prospective investor, it might be useful to predict which of these archtypes apply.

Click here to read the news release.

Click here to read a six-page executive summary.

Are you a Development Professional? Find out here ...

I read lots of blogs. As a life-long learner, I just love soaking up lots of information from many sources. Sometimes, a tidbit inspires a blog posting here.

So far, since starting this blog, I've not directed readers to another blog to read a post, but I'm about to start. And there's no better blogger to start with than Tom Suddes at For Impact.

His nugget for today is power-packed truth. It requires no elaboration. It can't be made shorter, because his every word counts. I can't pull out and distill one idea to highlight before I send you there -- that would minimize the importance of the rest. And I don't disagree with any of it. That's just about the highest praise I can bestow on a blog post (not that Tom Suddes has been waiting for such a dubious honor).

So, without further comment, go, now, and read this post.