Skip to main content
Monthly Archives

July 2017

Jul 31

Moving from starving to thriving

By Sponsor Insight

By Zachary Kester, JD, LLM CFRM, Charitable Allies

Spending too much on overhead is bad. But how much is too much?

While scholars agree that the 15 percent line implicitly reflected in Part IX of the Form 990 is too low, what’s the sweet spot? And, maybe more importantly, what do funders think?

Both scholars and funders are coming to recognize the importance to programming quality of spending adequately on overhead.

Over the past several years, the landscape has been changing. As more people realize that such costs have little to do with the effectiveness of a nonprofit, the focus is shifting toward a nonprofit’s impact.

General attitudes are changing despite the fact that charity watchdog groups are at odds about the extent to which the overhead ratios are helpful in assessing nonprofit organizational strengths. Charity Navigator has spearheaded The Overhead Myth campaign while Charity Watch maintains that overhead ratios are essential to assessing charitable effectiveness.

The Nonprofit Starvation Cycle is “leaving nonprofits so hungry for decent infrastructure that they can barely function as organizations — let alone serve their beneficiaries” according to Ann Goggins Gregory in the groundbreaking publication that first identified the Starvation Cycle. The Starvation Cycle involves nonprofits habitually spending inadequate funds on overhead such that a lack of infrastructure interferes with daily programming.

Think about that day you and your coworkers fought with a $30 printer for several hours when a $100 printer would regularly and reliably print without issue. That wasted time is equal to wasted money. This is the cycle in a nutshell.

The cycle “starts with funders’ unrealistic expectations about how much running a nonprofit costs” and is fed by “nonprofits’ misrepresenting their costs while skimping on vital systems — acts that feed funders’ skewed beliefs,” according to Goggins Gregory. This is exacerbated by the fact that individual donors are more likely to give when they are told that 90 percent or 100 percent of their donation goes directly to programming.

Alleviating the starvation cycle

The first step to alleviate the starvation cycle is in the nonprofit’s hands. The organization’s leaders should and analyze the ways in which their nonprofit currently operates.

By delving deeper into understanding what the nonprofit organization needs to create a solid infrastructure, members of the board and those on staff can begin to develop a clear foundational need. Without a strong office support system, a nonprofit will be unable to function, just as a typical for-profit company would if they did not spend money on cultivating a well-balanced framework. One example in the Goggins Gregory study was a nonprofit’s, “furniture [was] so old and beaten down that the movers refused to move it.”

A nonprofit is well-advised to take the time with its staff and board to truly reflect on what is necessary for the nonprofit’s daily operational needs. If these basic necessities are not matching up with results, then it’s a sign an organization could be in serious trouble.

The second step in changing this cycle is to change the way donors view the concept of overhead. Funders must be comfortable knowing that part of their grant may go toward maintaining a successful office space. Of course, the amount spent on overhead should be reasonable. Some funders permit an agreed upon percentage of its dollars be used for the administrative needs of the nonprofit.

On the flipside, foundations and government funders must alleviate the tension nonprofits feel when they receive a grant. If these funders can begin to change the entrenched perception that all (or nearly all) overhead is bad, then nonprofits would feel more comfortable using part of the grant in order to continue running efficiently.

Together, funders and nonprofits can work together to alleviate the typical challenge of the starvation cycle. In fact since last year, the Ford Foundation permits grantees to use 20 percent of each grant award for overhead — effectively setting up the organization for success for having allocated enough funds to cover grant compliance and administrative costs.

If your nonprofit is struggling to make ends meet, take a look at what exactly makes up its overhead funding. Sometimes spending more there will increase success.

Attorney Zac Kester provides generalist and strategic nonprofit legal and consulting services. He holds a Master of Laws, a post-law school advanced degree, in which he studied the unique needs of tax-exempt nonprofit organizations. His legal and consulting career has focused on nonprofit organizations.

With highly experienced legal and training personnel, Charitable Allies provides all manner of legal and educational services for boards, officers, management and staff of myriad charities throughout the sector. From basic one-time questions about a single matter to training for boards and officers to complex reorganization or merger of activities, Charitable Allies is your go-to cost-effective provider of legal services for your nonprofit organization.

Contact Zac Kester, Executive Director, at 317-333-6065 or zkester@charitableallies.org with any questions.

Jul 31

Domestic Violence Network: 20 years of fighting domestic violence

By Feature, Leadership

By Lynn Sygiel, editor, Charitable Advisors

Nonprofit networks vary in shape, size and mission. Some are satellites of national organizations and others establish connections and facilitate collaboration.

Ask Tracey Horth Krueger or Kelly McBride about the Domestic Violence Network (DVN) in Indianapolis, and they’ll tell you that after 20 years, it is still vibrant and relevant. That is in large part because of its ability to adapt and respond to community needs, according to Horth Krueger, the network’s first executive director, and McBride who has been in the position for the past 3½ years.

In reality, the network has been around since the 1980s, first as a grassroots movement. Regular monthly meetings were informal conversations that provided opportunities to collaborate and make connections. At those gatherings, direct service providers would discuss what they needed to support their work, but would then leave and return to clients and caseloads. There wasn’t an entity or staff support that would advance those initiatives between meetings.

“In 1997, the decision was made to try to secure funding to get a staff to really build the domestic violence network,” said Horth Krueger, who is now CEO of the Indiana Coalition to End Sexual Assault. “In my opinion, everything that is DVN now is built on what preceded it for the 10 years or 15 years prior to that. It is an extension of the work that that committed group of advocates has been doing in this city for years.”

DVN started with three employees and now brings numerous nonprofits to the table, including at least a half dozen area domestic violence shelters. One initial obstacle was overcoming nonprofits’ fear that such an entity, while worthwhile, would add to the competition for existing funding dollars. Organizations wanted to be set apart and be attractive to funders on their own.

“It was Mayor Peterson, a strong advocate for this work, who was able to say, ‘We’re a team, let’s keep our eye on the ball, we do much better when we’re working together.’ And then backed it up with having his deputy mayors in the meetings and involved. It was a great opportunity for DVN to really grow because we had support,” said Horth Krueger.

“What we were saying was, ‘Let’s come at this from a position of power. We’re going to be way more powerful if we’re working together than if we’re continuing to have the walls up,’” said Horth Krueger. “We were really shifting the conversation and saying that is an issue that cannot operate in isolation. We really need each other.”

While DVN’s mission has remained consistent – engage the community to end domestic violence through advocacy, education and collaboration – its delivery has not. Education and training have adapted to what’s happening in the community. DVN has always served in a coordination role.

“As we’re learning what national best practices are, we’re bringing those here, but at the same time we’re learning about what our city is doing. We’re merging those together, so that they fit everyone’s needs,” said McBride, who is a trained social worker.

While Horth Krueger is no longer involved in the day-to-day, she thinks the network also works because it focuses on the broader issues. As a former reporter/anchor at WRTV-6, she worked to bring visibility to the issue. First with the Safe Haven Campaign, which was designed to raise funds for additional transitional housing for victims of domestic violence. That campaign resulted in the opening of Coburn Place, a transitional housing and support service for domestic violence victims. The campaign, which is ongoing, was also designed to raise awareness about domestic abuse.

“That campaign did a phenomenal job at breaking through perception. It was just telling the stories of people that you might watch and think, ‘Whoa, it attacks all of us and our preconceived notions about others.’ So it’s really opening up all of us to be thinking about, ‘God, this really could be happening in my own family.’ And that’s powerful,” said Horth Krueger.

Staying focused on trends and identifying gaps in services gives the network the ability to look more strategically and more comprehensively at community needs and ultimately prevent domestic violence.

“DVN is not serving the needs of victims day in and day out, which is precious important work and needs to be the focus of nonprofit organizations. A community needs that other piece where an entity can be stepping back and looking more broadly,” said Horth Krueger.

That’s a role DVN has embraced since its beginning. In 2000, Peterson’s first year as mayor, he led more than 100 citizens in a roundtable discussion that prompted a call for a community action plan to end domestic violence. DVN took the lead, and the Family Violence Community-Wide Plan was issued in 2001.

Four years later, a second mayor’s roundtable identified new priorities for addressing domestic violence, including public awareness and education, economic justice, health and legal issues, prevention and targeted outreach to Hispanic populations. The second formal communitywide plan, Peace in our Homes: A Call to End Domestic Abuse in Central Indiana, was released in 2009. It was a catalyst to establish a coordinated community response.

In 2013, the Community-Wide Plan to End Domestic Violence 3.0 was released by DVN and used the Results Accountability framework. There was a focus on making a measureable improvement in the quality of life for entire communities.

Plans varied in duration from three to five years.

McBride said putting Band-Aids on things is not enough.

“We provide funds for emergency transportation, we have these great shelters to help victims, but how can we stop it in the first place. Domestic violence does not exist in a silo. Our domestic violence victims are coming in with mental health issues, addictions issues and everything else,” said McBride.

The newest community plan is focused on intersections and how poverty and domestic violence are intertwined and how crime and domestic violence are interconnected. It is designed to dive into the root causes of domestic violence, and change the issue in six months. The first — economics – resulted in a study of housing for domestic violence victims. Behind the scenes, a committee will continue the work for the duration of the plan.

“That is such an important conversation because it is all tied together. And if you can solve one or make headway on addressing one of these societal ills, it will have a positive impact on the rest. I see that as the very critical role that they are filling now and are leading it,” said Horth Krueger.

Marion County and the doughnut counties are the focus for the network, and participation is free. It represents people in the Greater Indianapolis area who serve domestic violence victims, and includes not only the shelters and the advocacy programs, but also law enforcement, the legal community and work in hospitals.

“It’s the full continuum and what needs to be in place to address the needs of victims and hold perpetrators accountable and prevent abuse. It’s the repository of all of this information about who’s doing what in the community and how,” said Horth Krueger.

DVN publishes two reports a year – “The State of Domestic Violence in Central Indiana,” a compilation self-reported by the nonprofits that serve the population and which provides a snapshot of the number of clients served. It’s designed to present an update on the state of domestic violence in Central Indiana based on similar reports compiled in 2014, 2013, 2011 and 2008.

The second report connects data from the IMPD, Julian Center and the Marion County prosecutors’ office to get a better understanding of what domestic violence looks like in the criminal justice system. The report hasn’t had consistent funding, but currently has government funding, and will put out preliminary statistics in the fall .

“That’s more of the arrests and the convictions. What does recidivism look like? Are we seeing domestic violence reported to the police in more spots within Marion County? That doesn’t mean it is happening more, it’s just reported more there. So then we’ve taken that data, and we share with our network and our partners and then we can help identify better prevention strategies or intervention strategies,” said McBride.

Most funding is local, but DVN holds a national grant in partnership with IMPD, the city, Julian Center and the prosecutors’ office. Called the Baker One Initiative, it is an IMPD-led policing initiative to identify high-risk offenders early in order to prevent homicide or serious assault. The original project, started in Mecklenberg County (Charlotte area), North Carolina, in 2002, has proven successful in preventing lesser crimes from escalating to seriously violent or fatal acts.

“Baker One Initiative’s initial data shows that it is working,” said McBride. “We’ve applied for several other federal grants in partnership with those folks as well, and we should find out about those in the next couple of months.”

While funding ebbs and flows, McBride said it is important that programs remain consistent. Recognizing that a service provider could lose funding for a program, for example, DVN assumed the responsibility for youth and employer education.

“There were people doing that, but their grants would ebb and flow. So if they lost a youth-prevention grant, then they would lose that program. So it wasn’t sustainable within the community,” said McBride.

“We’re not only educating our advocates but our community members. And we also educate high school and middle school students on how to identify and respond to teen-dating violence, what a healthy relationship looks like and what consent looks like,” said McBride. It’s been in place for three years this fall, and it has branched out to include a youth network once a month to engage peers in healthy relationships.

While the advocates’ network still meets the first Tuesday of the month, there are now trainings to provide ongoing support. In addition, DVN offers best practice trainings nine months of the year, and there is a monthly wait list. The remaining months DVN hosts a commemoration and holiday party, and a retreat to focus on self-care for direct service providers.

What’s next? In an ideal world, Horth Krueger sees the network working to make domestic violence unacceptable like Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

“The perpetrator is the one making them leave home, and so why are we putting it on the victim to relocate to a part of town they’ve never lived in, not that they have anything against that part of town, but they don’t know where the grocery is, they don’t know where the drugstore is, they don’t know the schools. So the movement has had to be aware of that and try to make those accommodations so they don’t feel completely removed from all they know.

“The housing issue is huge, but I think we need to think differently about the housing issue and maybe we don’t bring everybody to one building. We have scattered sites. We need to be out in these communities, we need to have partnerships with different organizations.”

[content_box box_type=”normal”]

Lessons learned

McBride and Horth Krueger have been immersed in the issue of domestic violence. And over the 20 years Domestic Violence Network in Central Indiana, they’ve learned a thing or two about how networks function.

They were willing to share some practical tips for nonprofit networks in order to stay relevant.

  1. Don’t become stagnant. Be flexible and adaptable and continue to pay attention to trends, issues and the needs of the community. The work is not black and white and has to be ever evolving.
  2. Relationships are key. Keep building and recognize that they can be ever changing.
  3. Do your homework. Find the influencers. Talk to people who’ve established networks or continuity. You’re never done. Talk to people who have been in your shoes.
  4. Don’t tie your efforts to a specific politician. If you tie the issue to an elected official, then you’re not thinking about sustainability. You want that support, and you want to be a priority to them, but you cannot become an office of because them.
  5. Listening is very, very important. It helps to have that skill set so that when you have multiple voices around a table, you can come to a consensus, and help people come to a consensus. You have to have the ability to listen and make sure that people feel heard and are heard. There are awesome ideas everywhere, and it’s important to elevate people’s ideas.
  6. Recognize that domestic violence intersects with almost every other social problem. With domestic violence affecting 1 in 3 women, and 1 in 7 men, you know someone who’s been touched by domestic violence. Keep asking: How can we pull together the community.
  7. Continue to work better and continue to communicate.
[/content_box]
Jul 24

The need for more basic philanthropy research

By Sponsor Insight

By Amir Pasic, Eugene R. Tempel Dean, Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy

Judging by the proliferation of research-inspired ventures, it may seem we’re in a golden age of philanthropic knowledge creation. But we are not focusing enough of our efforts on basic research.

Given the urgency of finding better ways to solve pressing social issues, it’s not surprising that the vast majority of research generated is applied research. Both the standard ways of doing philanthropy and the paradigm-bending (and busting) efforts to transform and disrupt conventional approaches come armed with research findings on what works, where there are strategic gaps in expectations and how some interventions are more effective than others.

This data-driven search for solutions is awesome and inspiring. Our current philanthropic research ecosystem is highly fragmented. Its inhabitants often belong to a variety of industries or professions whose connection to philanthropy is contingent on other interests and commitments. And today’s growing expectations of philanthropy are only likely to increase because of current political winds, and because total annual giving at $390 billion does not seem small compared to the nonmilitary portion of federal discretionary spending: $518 billion a year.

However, basic research also is needed to give more coherence to this burgeoning applied research engagement, and to give it a better chance at driving innovation. Shared fundamental questions unite applied and basic research. We just need to devote patience to pursuing basic questions, such as why do humans give? How does giving affect our social life? And how is giving connected to exchange relations in the market and to the power relations of authority?

A classic case for the value of basic research, The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge, was reissued this year by Princeton University Press. Written by the man who brought Albert Einstein to America, it argues that both deeper understanding and technological progress are best facilitated not by seeking immediately applicable solutions, but through “the unobstructed pursuit of useless knowledge.”

Such “useless knowledge” now resides in every smartphone built from “basic” discoveries that in their time did not have ready uses, ranging from electricity to relativity to quantum mechanics. In the social sciences and humanities, basic research leads to novel designs for our social institutions (think of social security and public health) and to the ways we form and express our identities and find meaning.

Alarm also is being raised about declining government investment in basic research, including by the president of MIT and the head of the Institute for Advanced Study, Einstein’s academic home. Realistically, philanthropy will fund only a small portion of flagging government support for basic science research. But even a campaign to fund basic science through philanthropy would benefit from better fundamental understanding of philanthropy.

We’re likely to see many more efforts to tap into philanthropy or to regulate the flow of financial resources into it. The decisions made would be improved by better understanding of what “it” is. Is philanthropy a tax dodge, the outsourcing of government, an agent of pluralism, or is it its own thing that reflects a fundamental feature of the human condition? It can be all of these things, but the last point merits more attention.

We often hear suggestions that the private sector or the government would do philanthropy’s work better. One can make that argument, but it is one that seeks not to improve or understand philanthropy, but to substitute it for something else.

This suggests that basic research on philanthropy is not going to succeed by walling it off from other disciplines and ways of approaching human nature and social interaction. But at the same time, if there is a basic puzzle to investigate that focuses on the how and why of human generosity, we cannot simply follow the practitioners and thinkers who consider philanthropy an offshoot of market behavior or authority relations that can be managed and understood better by using only these more established lenses.

There is a surge of applied research activity to draw upon.

Every association or forum for discussing the effectiveness of philanthropy is bringing its own research to the table. Just glance at the work of our established infrastructure organizations such as GuideStar, the Foundation Center, the Center for Effective Philanthropy and Independent Sector, not to mention the consultancies that advise foundations on big bets or generate interpretive strategic templates such as “collective impact.” They are generating ever more sophisticated and useful syntheses, deep dives, case studies, data tools and research reports.

The Gates-funded “Giving By All” initiative is fostering a range of applied research on interventions that might facilitate more donations by the public at large.

Even following the Stanford Social Innovation Review only begins to reveal the expanding universe of applied research and experimentation.

Our field is replete with excellent associations and consultants who serve as the McKinseys and Bains of the philanthropic world.

However, we are not so blessed with the equivalent of the multitude of excellent business schools in the world of commerce that build knowledge and allow us to discern among the flurry of urgent insights by providing rigor and the perspective of broader and longer context.

In the academic world, we have simply not kept up with the pace of innovation and experimentation that is being driven by research-savvy practitioners. We have not done an adequate job of building the connective sinews, as basic and applied research do not progress in isolation. They benefit from cross-pollination and creative tension between curiosity driven basic questions and applied discoveries.

As the first school of philanthropy, we have a role to play in pursuing the basic questions and engaging them with the repertoire of fundamental data generation and applied work for which we are already known.

But we are not alone. For example, The Human Generosity Lab is “the first large-scale transdisciplinary research project to investigate the interrelationship between biological and cultural influences on human generosity.”

And more broadly, there has been dramatic growth in the number of academic programs that teach about philanthropy. These are mostly found in schools of public affairs and public policy, where “nonprofit management” is a growing line of instructional business. But here too, more connective tissue needs to be grown to connect data-driven innovators on the one hand and scholars outside the professional school domain on the other.

Our understanding of philanthropy and our quest to make it more effective will benefit from embracing curiosity-driven research that seeks to understand what ties our disparate concerns together in the pursuit of basic questions about human generosity.

Amir Pasic, Ph.D., is the Eugene R. Tempel Dean of the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy since 2015. Prior to joining IU Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, Dean Pasic was vice president of international operations at the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE). Previously, he was associate dean for development and strategic planning at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) and the executive director of the Foreign Policy Institute.

Jul 17

Use people strategy as your competitive advantage

By Sponsor Insight

By Mike Bensi, advisor, FirstPerson

I was flipping through some old school papers I’ve hung on to for far too long and found my notes from Michael Porter’s book, Competitive Advantage. If you haven’t heard of Michael Porter, here’s a great summary of him and the business ideas and strategies he’s shared over the years.

In this particular book, Porter said companies win over their competitors by being cheaper or by being different — being perceived by the customer as better or more relevant. There are no other ways.

While Porter was speaking to competition within business, we can apply this to the competition for talent we’re experiencing today. Companies have two ways to gain an advantage over other companies looking for the same talent: pay the most or be so different from other companies it’s easy to draw in and keep top talent.

Playing the numbers game is not sustainable, and applicants don’t rank this in the top criteria when looking for jobs. Companies must reflect on how their people strategy is better and different than other companies. To accomplish this, think like Porter and create a “value chain” within your employee lifecycle. This value chain should focus on five stages of your employee lifecycle as a series of activities which link together. With it, you’ll be better able to show talent how you stand out from the rest.

Button Text
Jul 17

Homeless resources in Indianapolis

By Feature, Programming

This week, Indianapolis Star reporter, Maureen Gilmer, wrote a story about seeking help for a homeless mom. The story referenced the Street Outreach Rapid Response Team, and other nonprofits that acted immediately to secure a spot for this family. To learn more about Indianapolis’ services, read her article.

Just like that, within three hours, a desperate young mom and her kids were rescued from an uncertain future. I was astounded at how quickly this family got the help they desperately needed, but at the same time, I know there are others who aren’t as lucky as Brown and her family.

These kinds of street rescues are what Street Outreach Rapid Response Team and Professional Blended Street Outreach are built to do. The rapid response team is actually a network of 67 people representing 22 organizations in the city — shelters, hospitals, mental health agencies, veterans’ groups, even animal welfare advocates.

“We’ve identified gaps in services available on the streets for people, and we’ve brought those folks together to help those most vulnerable,” said team coordinator Melissa Burgess.

When an email goes out to the group, “everybody jumps up and is ready to help if they’re able to,” she said.

Button Text
Jul 10

Fiscal Responsibility Primary Goal of Board

By Sponsor Insight

by Yvonne de Calonne & Michelle (Micki) Siner

Certainly, complying with self-dealing rules and following the letter of the bylaws are requirements of fiscal responsibility. But they may be just the minimum requirements.

Here are three ways for boards to further exercise their fiscal responsibility.

1. Assure the agency stays within its budget

Prepare a realistic budget. It is always appropriate to budget based upon educated estimates of the actual costs and revenues of intended services. But these estimates should not ignore the history of the budget item.

Neither history nor the estimate should stand as the lone criterion of a budget item. Justify the budget variances. At each board meeting, receive a report from staff on actual expenditures compared to budget. Significant variances – say, 10 percent or greater – should be explained.

A plan should be presented to bring the budgeted item back into line to accomplish the agency’s budget goals for the year. While it is important to correct unfavorable variances – spending too much –do not overlook under-spending. Money not spent as planned, such as advertising or program development costs, may result in revenues missing budget later in the period.

Adjust the budget when needed. Occasionally, the budgeted items may prove invalid. A program may not begin because of permitting or personnel issues. A major event may disrupt revenues or require overtime. When this happens, create a new budget for the remainder of the period with these events taken into consideration. The budget for unaffected line items remains unchanged. Then, once again, the agency is working with an achievable budget.

Button Text
Jul 05

Giving USA indicates growth in philanthropy across all nonprofit sectors

By Sponsor Insight

By Angela E. White, CFRE, senior consultant and CEO, Johnson, Grossnickle and Associates

Giving USA released its annual estimates of U.S. charitable giving in June for 2016, and the results show overall growth during a presidential-election year filled with national tumult and impending policy changes. Giving USA 2017: The Annual Report on Philanthropy reports that total giving in our nation reached $390.05 billion in 2016, an increase of 2.7 percent over 2015. This total is the highest since Giving USA began tracking this data 40 years ago.

Published by Giving USA Foundation, a public service initiative of The Giving Institute, Giving USA is the longest running and most comprehensive report of its kind in America. It is researched and created by the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.

Despite volatility in economic and political arenas in 2016, each of the nine major categories of charitable organizations realized growth in giving. This has happened only five other times during the past 40 years (1976-2016). The increase continues a positive growth trend, indicating that charitable giving has overcome losses from the 2008 recession, although growth has slowed and is considered moderate overall.

Giving by individuals showed strong growth — an increase of 3.9 percent (2.6 percent adjusted for inflation), continuing to be the largest source of charitable giving. Research indicates that this growth may be attributed to an increase in gifts from the general population rather than from mega-gifts — currently defined as gifts exceeding $200 million — as in recent years. This strong growth boosted total giving and offset the drop in bequests (-9 percent). Bequests are not predictable and frequently fluctuate from year to year and are not influenced by economic factors.

“In 2016, we saw somewhat of a democratization of philanthropy,” notes Patrick M. Rooney, Ph.D., associate dean for academic affairs and research at the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. “The strong growth in individual giving may be less attributable to the largest of the large gifts, which were not as robust as we have seen in some prior years, suggesting that more of that growth in 2016 may have come from giving by donors among the general population compared to recent years.”

Organizations in the arts (6.4 percent), health (5.7 percent), the environment (7.2 percent), and international affairs (5.8 percent) experienced significant growth in giving. Growth in the arts may indicate the effect of assertive and innovative fundraising practices. And, research suggests growth in environment and international affairs could have been impacted by a new phenomenon borne of the contentious political climate: rage donations. These donations are a reactive reflex for some donors, given out of frustration in response to post-election policy changes.

Education, while still very strong, saw slower growth in 2016 (3.6 percent) than in recent years, which may be related to the drop in mega-gifts.

What does all this mean for future nonprofit fundraising? The recession is officially behind us with a seven-year growth trend, but new challenges lie ahead. Philanthropy trends show Americans continue to give generously even in uncertain times, though their giving priorities may shift a bit with the issues at hand.

For example, the predicted cuts in government support of specific programs could put pressure on philanthropic support of basic needs charities and other human services and public-society benefits organization.

It is important to remember that as the national economic climate changes, so can donors’ passions and giving patterns change. Different and innovative approaches to cultivate prospects and donors may be called for to increase giving and move your organization forward.

We encourage you to download a free copy of the Giving USA 2017 highlights or order your full copy of the report at givingusa.org.

Angela E. White, CFRE, has been instrumental in JGA’s success since 1996, when she joined the JGA team. In 2011, she became CEO of JGA, responsible for providing day-to-day leadership to the firm and guiding the JGA staff, while continuing to provide tailored consulting services directly to its clients. White has a high level of expertise in philanthropic consulting in healthcare, education, social services, arts and faith-based organizations. She also has considerable knowledge and experience in strategic planning and data analysis.