Skip to main content
Category

Fundraising

Jun 02

Giving circles’ influence

By Feature, Fundraising

By Dr. Angela Eikenberry and Jessica Bearman, the Center of Philanthropy, University of Nebraska |

Ever since giving circles — groups of individual donors who pool their money and other resources and decide together where these should be distributed — emerged as a philanthropic trend, we have speculated about their impact. Do donors give more or give differently because they are involved in a giving circle? Do they become more engaged and active in their communities? Are they more politically active? Until now, the evidence of giving circles’ impact on donors was mainly qualitative. This study examines, in a more comprehensive and quantitative manner, the impact of giving circles on their members’ giving and civic engagement.

Members of giving circles give more, on average, than donors who are not in giving circles. Although this finding is tempered when income is taken into consideration, giving circle member self-reports and interviews suggest that giving circles cause members to increase their giving. Different activities within the circle also influence giving. For example, donors involved in a circle’s grantmaking decision process give the most overall. When donors are more engaged in a giving circle, are in a giving circle longer, or are in multiple giving circles, their giving is higher.

Button Text
May 28

Keys to a master fundraiser’s success

By Feature, Fundraising

by Dan Schipp at Johnson Grossnickle Associates |

During my years at JGA I have had the opportunity to work with several score development officers. When it comes to effectively soliciting gifts, there is one who I would put at the head of the class. This individual wishes to remain anonymous, so I’ll refer to him as “Joe.”

A donor once said of Joe, “He’s not flashy or pushy, but he is persistent and he gets the job done.” Joe, by the way, successfully solicited three seven-figure gifts from this donor . . . for one campaign!

Recently I sat down with Joe for a conversation about how he approaches inviting gifts for his organization and why he feels he has done so well at it.

The first thing Joe said to me was, “You can’t have an ego. You can’t be in it for yourself. The mission of your organization must be primary.” I heard the words of Hank Rosso, the founder of The Fund Raising School, echo in Joe’s response: “When you are knocking at the door of the prospective donor, you have to kick your ego aside and let your cause – its mission, vision, and values – walk into that home.”

Button Text
May 26

The time bank solution

By Feature, Fundraising, Leadership

By Edgar S. Cahn and Christine Gray, TimeBanks USA, Stanford Social Innovation Review |

Thirty-five years ago, one of us (Edgar S. Cahn) started to experiment with a new way to link untapped social capacity to unmet social needs. He created a practice known as “time banking” — a mode of exchange that lets people swap time and skill instead of money. The concept is simple: In joining a time bank, people agree to take part in a system that involves earning and spending “time credits.” When they spend an hour on an activity that helps others, they receive one time credit. When they need help from others, they can use the time credits that they have accumulated.

Long before Occupy Wall Street, time banking represented a commitment to pursuing a more equitable and inclusive economic order. Those of us who developed time banking wanted to show that a different kind of currency could exist alongside the dollar. We refused to give money a monopoly on the definition of value. The money-based market system fails to reward many types of critical work — the work of raising healthy children, building strong families, caring for the elderly, revitalizing neighborhoods, preserving the environment, advancing social justice, and sustaining democracy — and we believed that there should be a way to honor and reward that kind of work.

Button Text
May 19

Government reimbursement rules

By Feature, Fundraising, Sustainability

By Council of Nonprofits |

Governments at all levels – local, state, and federal – that hire nonprofits to deliver services are now required to reimburse nonprofits for the reasonable indirect costs (sometimes called “overhead” or “administrative” costs) they incur on behalf of governments when federal dollars are part of the funding stream.

The new mandate is embedded in grantmaking rules that the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) put into effect at the end of 2014. In addition, the new OMB Uniform Guidance streamlines and clarifies cost allocation and other rules related to government grants and contracts, removing some areas of confusion and inconsistency while treating more of a nonprofit’s expenses as direct (reimbursable) costs.

Button Text
May 12

Putting overhead under scrutiny

By Feature, Fundraising, Indianapolis, Sustainability

By Lynn Sygiel, editor, Charitable Advisors |

So you donate money to your favorite charity, and you find out later that the money went to buy a new roof. Or new computers. Or to replace the muffler on the company van that shuttles needy clients around the city. Was this a good use of your money?

For many people, any conversation about money is difficult.

But when the conversation is about overhead or unrestricted dollars, and it’s between a nonprofit and a donor, it can be even more difficult.

Six years ago, in the Stanford Social Innovation Review, Ann Goggins Gregory and Don Howard wrote about what they called the nonprofit starvation cycle and challenged foundations to start an open conversation about overhead and analyze the true cost of running a nonprofit. They cited statistics from a five-year study by IU’s Lilly Family School of Philanthropy and the Urban Institute’s National Center for Charitable Statistics, which reviewed more than 220,000 IRS Form 990s and surveyed more than 1,500 organizations with revenues over $100,000.

At the time, the nonprofit sector equated low overhead with high performance and best allocation of dollars. Donors depend on online rating sites such as Charity Navigator or GuideStar to help them give wisely. If there’s a perception that a nonprofit spends too much on overhead, it can have a negative effect on donations.

Indiana grantmakers have started a conversation to address the issue.

Last year, the Indiana Philanthropy Alliance included the topic at its annual statewide conference for grantmakers. There were two sessions that took on the topic, said Marie Beason, director of professional development and special initiatives for IPA.

“It included both sides — not only the direct costs of overhead but true costs of programming. It was a very rich conversation,” said Beason.

Besides a keynote address by Bob Lupton, author of Toxic Charity, five Indiana foundations shared experiences about what it truly costs a foundation to run all the programs it funds and operates.

Based on the responses to these sessions, IPA felt there was an opportunity for additional conversations on the topic. So in early June, they are hosting five IPA/GIFT regional forums facilitated by Lupton. Besides outlining the elements of toxic charity, the sessions will provide foundations and nonprofit partners an opportunity for frank communication about achieving results, using these practices.

While Beason has seen some change, she said conversations have been more casual. She also cautions that no two nonprofits are created equal when it comes to overhead.

“It comes up, I’m sure in every internal grant application review committee. We have not found a format or template that has been strong enough to lead us to a formal initiative, but what we have learned is that folks want to learn more.”

At McCoy, President John Brandon said it is a regular internal staff conversation, and annually with his finance and budget committees.

In the last five years, he has broached the topic with donors, too.

“We have had conversation fairly regularly with donors and givers because I think we have to help them understand the true cost of doing business,” he said.

Sometimes, though, the toughest conversations he has about overhead are in his own head.

“I’m justifying allocating money in my budget to buy that or pay for that and even though it’s not direct programming expense and it improves the quality and effectiveness of our organization. We’re trained to say, ‘Let’s do more with less.’ If we spend hours and hours trying to figure out how to do more with less, we’re wasting time and effort, that we could really be putting into more effective things,” he said.

Without accurate data, and open communication with funders, both argue it is difficult for donors to know what actual costs are.

“So instead of making excuses for overhead,” said Beason, “I do see a movement afoot to really articulate the importance of the work, the importance of the investment and the outcomes, rather than, “Oh, we’re sorry but we could really do this for much cheaper.’

“It all leads back to communicating the value of the work. Oftentimes the nonprofits come begging, which is not the appropriate mindset to raise funds. Now I’m seeing a shift both in donors as well as foundations to recognize it more as an investment,” she said.

The Nonprofit Finance Fund (http://nonprofitfinancefund.org/), according to Beason, has done a great job articulating overhead costs associated with a cup of Starbucks coffee and how that might equate to the nonprofit sector.

Beason suggested that nonprofits start by asking:

  • What is the true cost of programming?
  • What are the real outcomes and not just outputs of what the organization does?
  • What are the things that work and how does the organization build support for that?
  • What are the donor’s expectations?
  • Why is this an appropriate funding source?
  • What will the nonprofit gain from this funding source that will that allow it to effectively reach the outcome that it is hoping to achieve?

Both Brandon and Beason agree this has to be a two-way conversation, and it is critical to have open conversations about how each partner – donor and nonprofit — can benefit from the work.

“It’s not just the foundations understanding that personnel and insurance, and utilities and fully funding a program is important, it’s also getting the nonprofits to understand how best to plan for, manage and raise funds for those line items effectively,” she said.

May 12

The human factor

By Feature, Fundraising, Sustainability

What’s the best way to solicit donations for a charity? New research suggests that telling donors that none of their money will go toward overhead may be very effective at raising money. But it also comes with a few potential pitfalls.

In a study published in Science on Thursday (10/30/2014), a team of researchers showed that giving people the opportunity to donate directly to a charity program — with a promise that the money wouldn’t go to overhead — was far more effective than either matching donations or letting donors know about existing seed money.

Button Text
May 05

Cooper Union inquiry puts nonprofits on notice

By Feature, Fundraising, Governance

By James B. Stewart, New York Times |

In what should be a ringing alarm for nonprofit boards across the country long accustomed to minimal scrutiny or accountability, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman of New York has signaled that the laissez-faire approach to nonprofit governance is over.

Mr. Schneiderman’s office has sent letters to the board members of Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, the prestigious college founded in Manhattan in 1859 by the philanthropist Peter Cooper on the premise that it be “open and free to all.” Last year, after the school said it faced financial ruin otherwise, it began charging tuition.

The investigation, reported earlier by The Wall Street Journal, is focusing on the board’s management of its endowment; its handling of its major asset, the Chrysler Building; its dealings with Tishman Speyer Properties, which manages the skyscraper; and how it obtained a $175 million loan from MetLife using the building as collateral, according to people involved.

Button Text
May 05

From projects to people

By Feature, Fundraising, Governance

By Ken Banks, Ashoka fellow, Stanford Social Innovation Review |

Bill Siemering was about to jump in his cab to make an airport pickup when his home phone rang. It was the vice president of the MacArthur Foundation. “I was shocked,” said Bill, “when he told me I was being awarded a MacArthur Fellowship.” That phone call proved to be the turning point of his life.

He never did make that airport pickup.

Years before, Bill had been the director of programming of National Public Radio (NPR), where he had created the first signature program in public radio, All Things Considered. He had also crafted NPR’s first mission statement, and while vice president at WHYY-FM in Philadelphia, he was instrumental in bringing Terry Gross and Fresh Air from a local to a national audience. Not bad, you might think.

Despite blazing a trail, though, Bill had eventually found himself out of work; at that time, there just weren’t many opportunities in his sector. As he put it: “I’d spent over 30 years practicing the art and craft of my profession and had no way to use it. I felt like a pianist who lost the use of his hands.” Out of frustration and the need for a job—any job—he started training to be a driver for a car service at Philadelphia airport. He was about to go on his first driving assignment when he got the MacArthur call.

Button Text
May 05

Eight common innovation traps

By Feature, Fundraising, Governance

By Gabriel Kasper & Justin Marcoux, Stanford Social Innovation Review |

Innovation, it seems, is easier said than done.

Despite growing interest in applying innovation methodologies to social sector challenges over the past decade, more often than not, philanthropic efforts to support innovation fall short.

That’s because the processes, strategies, and structures that funders need to deliberately seek out and support innovation are often quite different from the ones they use for traditional grantmaking—a lesson many funders learn the hard way.

In our SSIR article “The Re-Emerging Art of Funding Innovation” last year, we highlighted many specific approaches that innovation funders are now using. But we find that many grantmakers still end up falling into one or more “innovation traps”—common mistakes that can prevent them from succeeding as they try to find and fund breakthrough social change.

Some of these traps are challenges related to execution and implementation; others are more conceptual, rooted in the way organizations think about what innovation is and what it can achieve. As you read through the eight common innovation traps below, ask yourself whether your organization has faced one or more of these problems, and consider sharing your experience in the comments.

Button Text