By Jen Pendleton, vice president Indiana, Aly Sterling
Launching a capital campaign is like moving into a new home. If you want the transition to your new home to run smoothly, you’ll need to plan ahead.
The same can be said of capital campaigns; a lot of preparation goes into a capital campaign so that your nonprofit can reach or even exceed its goals.
In case you’re not familiar with the term, a capital campaign is an intense effort undertaken by a nonprofit organization to raise a specific dollar amount within a defined period of time. The purpose of a capital campaign is to fund a specific project, usually something significant and concrete such as a new facility or equipment.
If you want to plan a capital campaign for your nonprofit, we’ve come up with a step-by-step guide to help you along the way. Here are the nine steps we’ll cover:
By Una Osili, director of research, Lilly Family School of Philanthropy
Looking for some good news to start off the year? Nonprofit organizations and the people they serve can find encouragement in the anticipated charitable-giving climate.
Giving in the U.S. will grow by 3.6 percent in 2017 and by an additional 3.8 percent in 2018, according to The Philanthropy Outlook 2017 & 2018 produced by Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy researchers and presented by Marts & Lundy, a leading fundraising and philanthropy consulting firm. The Outlook generates projections for year-to-year growth rates in overall giving; giving by type of donor; and giving to education, health, and public-society benefit nonprofits.
All types of donors are expected to increase giving in both years:
Growth in giving by foundations will lead the way (5.9 percent in 2017 and 6.0 percent in 2018).
Estate giving is expected to increase by 5.4 percent this year and 5.2 percent next year.
Giving by individuals is predicted to grow 3.0 percent and 3.2 percent respectively.
Giving by corporations will lag behind the other sources of giving, rising by just 2.4 percent and 2.7 percent respectively.
Health, education and public-society benefit organizations — the three types of nonprofits addresses in the report — are all expected to see considerable. Giving to health is predicted to grow by 8.5 percent in 2017 and 7.9 percent in 2018. Giving to education is projected to rise 6.3 percent in 2017 and 6.0 percent in 2018, continuing recent years’ trends. Philanthropic support for the public-society benefit subsector, which includes United Ways, human and civil rights nonprofits, national donor-advised funds, and other similar types of organizations, will also be strong, with growth of 5.2 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively, boosted in part by continued growth in contributions to donor-advised funds.
Marts & Lundy President and Chief Executive Officer Phil Hills counsels that “The increase in philanthropic support across the entire sector provides organizations with the opportunity to increase services in a time of expanding need. For education and health, access and innovation will likely be significant issues to address. Student debt, rising costs of patient care and the need to continue funding for life-changing research will continue to be focal points for giving.”
The Outlook indicates that continued growth in the overall economy, as reflected in the value of stocks, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and household income, will drive the rise in philanthropic giving this year and next. Explanations of the economic factors and conditions likely to influence the predicted changes, implications of the results, and suggestions for nonprofit professionals and fundraisers in light of the anticipated giving climate are included in the report, which is available free of charge at www.philanthropyoutlook.com.
Una Osili is director of research and professor of philanthropic studies at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy and professor of economics at IUPUI.
Throughout the years, I’ve received questions from not-for-profit organizations (NFP) regarding the costs and benefits of changing to a fiscal year-end. I’ve seen organizations transition from Dec. 31 to fiscal year-end for many reasons, but the overarching motive is the budget challenge. Many organizations with individual-driven contributions receive a majority of revenues in the fourth quarter of the calendar year. With a calendar year-end, many NFP organizations are waiting for generous donors to contribute last-minute for personal tax reasons.
This article touches on some of the benefits and costs of changing to a fiscal year-end.
The IRS states a fiscal year should coincide with the organization’s natural operating cycle. These are some example questions:
What is your organization’s most significant quarter for revenue generation?
Do you rely mostly on individual giving, traditionally taking place near the December 31 year-end?
Are you an educational institution where a significant portion of tuition is generated in the fall?
Are revenues mostly generated in the summer months,g., zoos?
By Jamie Levine Daniel and Suzann Lupton, School of Public and Environmental Affairs at IUPUI
Creative placemaking refers to a collaborative process we can use to help shape public spaces in order to maximize shared value. More than just promoting better urban design, creative placemaking facilitates creative patterns of use, paying particular attention to the physical, cultural and social identities that define a place and support its ongoing evolution.
Installation of public art, such as the murals along the sides of building in the Mass Ave. District, and community beautification projects are just a couple of examples of how Indianapolis has embraced this evolving field.
With community-based participation at its center, an effective placemaking process capitalizes on a local community’s assets, inspirations, and potential, and results in the creation of quality public spaces that contribute to people’s health, happiness and well being.
Many organizations across the state are interested in helping to build strong, creative communities. Not as many, however, understand the physical, financial and human resources needed to lead these efforts.
To address this need, the Indiana Arts Commission recently created the Capacity Building Partnership Program. The goal of the program is to develop and support initiatives that “further develop the professional skills of the staff of cultural organizations, community leaders and individual artists” and strengthen the connection between people and the places they share.
One project of this program is a placemaking capacity-building workshop organized and hosted by SPEA at IUPUI and presented by several Indiana organizations with deep knowledge and experience in placemaking. One goal of this workshop is to move the discussion of programs and service provision away from inputs and outputs, and toward a broader conceptual discussion.
Of course, understanding the basics is important and questions of interest include: Should we do this? Who is this for? Who wins and who loses if we allocate resources here? If we decide to move forward with an initiative, what happens after the program ends? How will we know if the initiative did what we wanted it to do?
To address these questions, the workshop will include a Creative Placemaking 101 session and “Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper,” a session designed to generate low cost, introductory creative placemaking actions. Local stakeholders Big Car, Prosperity Indiana, the Harrison Center, the Hamilton County Convention and Visitor’s Bureau, the Polis Center, Indiana Housing and Community Development, the Office of Community and Rural Affairs are among the organizations that will help lead those discussions.
Additionally, the workshop will examine some of the assumptions that are made about programs and service delivery; hone external and political environmental assessment skills (e.g., asset mapping, building social capital, assess the political climate, creating alliances); and building networks that cross local, regional, demographic and wealth boundaries.
The workshop’s focus is on arts and culture, using the lens of creative placemaking, but this approach can be used to examine public and nonprofit service delivery across subfields.
If this piques your interest, keep an eye out for the early summer 2017 event. We will have complete details of time, location and registration information finalized in January.
Jamie Levine Daniel is an Assistant Professor of Nonprofit Management at the IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs at IUPUI. She holds a doctorate in public policy and management from the John Glenn School of Public Affairs at Ohio State University.
Suzann Lupton is a Clinical Assistant Professor of Nonprofit Management and Director of Academic Affairs at the IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs at IUPUI. She is a doctoral candidate in philanthropic studies at IUPUI and a graduate of the Robert H. McKinney School of Law.
By Angela White, senior consultant and CEO, Johnson Grossnickle and Associates
Major gift donors are crucial for the ongoing sustainability of your nonprofit’s mission. In fact, high net-worth donors often provide as much as 94 percent of the funds for nonprofit campaign initiatives. So, it is important that we understand their giving patterns, preferences and motivations.
The 2016 U.S. Trust® Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy released this week provides nonprofits with valuable insights on this important donor demographic. It is the sixth edition of the biennial study, researched by the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy and U.S. Trust.
The report surveyed 1,435 U.S. households with a net worth of $1 million or more (excluding the value of their primary home) and/or an annual household income of $200,000 or more.
On Dec. 7, I have planned a webinar with Una Osili, Director of Research at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, and Claire Costello, Managing Director of the Philanthropic Solutions Group at U.S. Trust. We will review in depth the findings and discuss how nonprofits can use this data to structure their major gift fundraising program. Please register now to join us!
In the meantime, here are 10 of the key findings from the report:
High net-worth (HNW) Americans are exceedingly generous, with more than 91 percent of HNW households donating to charity in 2015, far surpassing the 59 percent of donors in the U.S. general population.
The average gift size of HNW households ($25,509) is 10 times greater than general population households average gift ($2,520).
The volunteer rate among the wealthy (50 percent) is double that of the general population (25 percent). This is an important figure, as the study found 84 percent of wealthy individuals donate to at least some of the organizations where they volunteer and volunteering HNW households gave 56 percent more than those who did not.
Most HNW households intend to continue to give at this generous level in the future (55 percent) or even increase their giving (28 percent) in the next three years. Just 3 percent of HNW households plan to decrease their giving in the next three years.
High net worth donors gave to an average of eight different charities and a variety of causes. “Basic Needs” were the charitable category supported most frequently, with 63 percent of HNW households having donating to those charities in 2015, followed by religious (49.6 percent) and health charities (40.2 percent).
Religious and basic needs organizations received the highest share of HNW charitable dollars in 2015. Religious organizations received 36 percent of overall dollars given, basic needs followed at 27.9 percent and education received 12.4 percent.
High net worth households were motived to give primarily because they believe in the mission of the organization (54.1 percent). Other top motivators were believing their gift can make a difference (44 percent) and personal satisfaction (39 percent). Only 18 percent of donors said they were motivated to give because they would receive a tax benefit.
HNW donors indicated they believe charitable giving (45 percent) and volunteering (31 percent) have the greatest potential for positive impact on society, far above voting for a political candidate (13 percent) or impact investing (3 percent).
More than half (54 percent) of the HNW donors indicated that they are concerned about the impact their donations may be having, and 78 percent indicated they don’t follow up with charities to evaluate the impact of their donation.
High net-worth donors envision themselves making a charitable bequest, indicating that they expect to leave 12 percent of their wealth to charities – an important beacon of future planned giving opportunities for nonprofits.
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 our 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 depth in strategic planning and data analysis.
The reality of modern business is one of ever-accelerating evolution and change.
New technologies can uproot and transform entire industries, from new service models to new devices to new ways of working. These realities put tremendous pressure on organizations to adapt quickly.
But evolving just to keep up can be messy and aimless. Rethinking your business, however, should be intentional — and that’s why we at SmallBox use the design thinking process.
Design thinking is a problem-solving methodology that puts people — specifically, your audiences — first. One of the benefits of this human-centered approach is that it’s empathy-heavy on the front end.
By Stefanie Krievins, coach and founder, The Heart Projects
One of the great equalizers among humans is that weekly we all have a total of 168 hours. From the CEO to the receptionist to the HR director to the development director to the case manager, it’s the same number.
As 2016 approaches its end, each of us has a choice as to how to spend those hours and how to meet end-of-year goals. We can either ….
Create a productive focus by actively managing time, calendar, work priorities and interactions with colleagues; or
Allow being overwhelmed and bad stress to overtake mood and communication style, leaving us with a tendency to try to multi-task and take on too much work.
Admittedly, most of us are somewhere in between. There is a way to have more of the first option, however, and that means learning the seven disciplines of productivity.
However, productivity is more complex than just time management.
Many people think they can just manage their time better in order to get all of their work done. Time management is just one important aspect of productivity.
The HR director who manages her time well will keep a scheduled one-hour meeting to one hour. The HR director who manages her productivity will ask:
What needs to be accomplished in this meeting?
Do we need a meeting?
If so, can it be completed in a 30-minute walking meeting, instead of just sitting in the conference room?
Who are the critical people who must be there to make the best decisions?
Since this topic is of strategic importance, what’s the best morning block of time to book so we can all bring our sharpest thinking?
What will be removed from our workload or pushed out until the next quarter if we’re adding work to our plates? Let’s add this to the agenda.
Find the focus you need to hit your goals through these seven disciplines.
Productivity combines these seven disciplines that lead to having more impact:
Focus: Your mental and physical focus are on one thing attime and you manage your relationships, calendar and physical space to make that happen.
Impactful work criteria: You ask a series of questions to ensure you’re doing work that is meaningful to you and your role within the organization.
Presence: You’re self aware and in the moment.
Time management: You’re realistic with your time and create flexibility in your day for the unexpected.
Energy management: You tackle the work that requires the most thought and creativity in the morning. You also take small breaks, drink plenty of water, and eat well throughout the day so you don’t create the afternoon slump.
Decline others’ expectations and priorities: You say, ‘No,’ more than you say, ‘Yes’ because you have focus.
Priority setting: Chances are you have multiple items on your to-do list right now. They’re not all urgent or important. When you manage your priorities you’re able to rank them based on their level of importance and urgency.
Focus is essential because there will always be more need than resources in this nonprofit work.
Focus allows the first choice to be goals and then meet them while feeling in control, successful and less stressed. A lack of focus causes too many goals, the addition of new goals throughout the year and then disappointment from a lack of success.
Ultimately work suffers because of this lack of focus: poor work products, missed deadlines, “forgotten” tasks, poor communication, etc.
Your job isn’t to do it all. Instead, it is ALWAYS to do the work that matters. Instead of trying to do it all, have it all, be it all, having focus creates productivity. This means taking radical personal responsibility for time, emotions and so much more.
These seven disciplines can have a profound effect on your work and ability to end 2016 knowing that everything was accomplished given the resources available. Don’t let this year end without really focusing in on what truly matters. Next year will begin even stronger because of it!
Stefanie Krievins is the founder and coach for The Heart Projects. She offers training and coaching for individuals and forward-thinking organizations. Programs include executive coaching, life/career coaching (especially for nonprofit staff or those who want to have a nonprofit career), strategic-plan execution and the Problem Solvers School.
By Matt Jarzynski, vice president of human resources, Synergy
Employee turnover presents a complex challenge to any organization. The reasons behind it are vast and the consequences are significant. And when you’re in the HR hot seat, it’s your job to face the terminations, resignations and retirements before they risk affecting your company’s productivity, morale and bottom line.
But if the rate at which people are leaving is on the rise, you’re also faced with the challenge of overcoming high employee turnover.
Getting behind the stats
If you’re like most companies, we’re guessing you have a fairly straightforward ratio percentage that represents turnover. Average ratios vary wildly from industry to industry, but you should have a handle on what works best for you and your organization. The problem is, once that ratio gets uncomfortably high, a simple statistic isn’t going to give you enough information to be able to resolve it.
The first step to overcoming high employee turnover is to understand why that turnover exists in the first place, and the only way to do that is by digging into the details. Behind that straightforward turnover ratio, can you determine what fractions represent different types of resignation or terminations? Is there a trend behind which department people are leaving from the most? Are people leaving for personal reasons like spousal relocation or family matters? Or are they quitting because they’re burned out or suffering in a toxic work environment?
The answers to these questions depend upon asking people why they’re leaving. From there, you can begin to determine the larger problem at hand and exactly how you can resolve it. Because we can’t easily prepare for scenarios outside our control, the following steps make the assumption that people are leaving because of a problem you can actively influence.
Hiring more effectively
Sometimes resolving high employee turnover starts back at square one, with your hiring process. Bad hires can quickly lead to high turnover rates, whether in the space of just a few days or weeks or even months. The occasional bad hire is fairly inevitable, but if you notice a series of them, the problem likely goes deeper.
It may be that someone was hired too quickly because of an urgent opening, or that steps were skipped like reference checks or a full onboarding process. Or it might have been that the job description didn’t accurately describe the position and responsibilities the person was hired for. Or cultural fit might have been neglected, hiring someone with only a view of their technical skills.
Nailing down an effective recruitment strategy and hiring process can help you mitigate the risks and costs of high turnover down the line.
Matt Jarzynski has over 25 years of experience in human resources management and joined Synergy in 2002 after holding similar positions with two Chicago insurance brokerage companies. He served as vice president of human resources at Near North Insurance and as regional vice president of human resources for the Marsh & McLennan Companies, the world’s largest insurance broker. A native of Chicago, he began his human resources management career at Reliance Insurance, a national property and casualty insurance operation in Philadelphia. A graduate of DePaul University in Chicago with a dual major Bachelor of Arts degree in management and psychology, Jarzynski also holds the certification of senior professional in human resources (SPHR).
By Bill Stanczykiewicz,director of The Fund Raising School, Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy
As Election Day approaches, nonprofit leaders might be worrying that the big money donated to the presidential campaigns will lead to smaller results in their nonprofits’ next fundraising campaigns.
That’s understandable since, according to American National Election Studies, 40 percent of Americans contribute to political candidates, parties or PACs. As the primary season concluded in mid-June, the Center for Responsive Politics reported that nearly $1.3 billion had been raised by individual candidates and super PACs to support various presidential contenders. This already is more than half of the total spent in 2012 by President Obama and Republican contender Mitt Romney, who raised and expended nearly $2.4 billion on their campaigns.
While these dollar amounts are substantial, campaign account receipts are subpar when compared with Americans’ philanthropic activity. According to Giving USA 2016, $373.25 billion was donated to nonprofits in 2015. Of that total, nearly $265 billion was provided by individuals.
In addition, an analysis of data of political and charitable gifts between the years 2000 and 2010 conducted by the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy for Giving USA Foundation’s Spotlight revealed that “charitable giving constitutes 98 percent or more of all charitable and political giving combined.”
The report concluded, “Despite the increase in political donations in recent years, charitable giving by American donors far exceeds the total amount political organizations receive from political donors of all kinds.”
Importantly, while donor motivations vary, research and data indicate that most people do not reduce their charitable giving in favor of political contributions in a presidential or any other election year.
“I think that’s exactly right,” said Diana Aviv, chief executive officer of Feeding America, who serves as a visiting fellow at the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.
Aviv added, “Generally speaking, people compartmentalize. For politics, they’re going to give so much, and for their regular philanthropy they’re going to give so much. If there’s a disaster or a crisis, they’ll give something else.”
That is why the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy advises simply: “Organizations should continue to ask for donations, even in election years.”
In fact, Giving USA data reveal that charitable giving increased – even after adjusting for inflation – in seven of the last eight presidential election years. The only exception: 2008, which was the beginning of the Great Recession.
Characteristics of political campaign contributors
While financial support for presidential or other political campaigns does not appear to decrease donations to charity, fundraisers can still benefit from knowing about the typical characteristics of political donors as they conduct fund development research and prepare for meetings with prospective donors.
For example, the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy’s report notes that households are more likely to contribute to a candidate for elected office or to a political party as the residents become older, have higher levels of education, are retired and have higher after-tax income. Households with children under the age of 18 are less likely to financially support a political campaign.
Interestingly, geography matters. Residents in Midwestern and Western regions of the United States are more likely to give money to a political candidate or cause, while people who live in rural areas are less likely to donate politically.
Gender distinctions also are evident. For example, a listing of the 2012 presidential campaign donations of $200 or more by the Center for Responsive Politics reveals that 62 percent of the donors were men who contributed 65 percent of the campaign cash.
And yet the data on individual donors also serve as a reminder of how the number of contributors to political campaigns is relatively very small when compared with philanthropy. Just under 550,000 individuals donated at least $200 to either Obama or Romney or their various supporting parties and organizations. Meanwhile, the latest wave of the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy’s Philanthropy Panel Study shows that 59.7 percent of Americans – in a nation of more than 300 million people – make charitable gifts each year. In fact, more Americans give than vote.
Perhaps you’ve arrived for a meeting with a prospective donor and discovered that she has a yard sign for a political candidate on her front lawn. Or maybe you’ve concluded a donor meeting and in the parking lot you see a bumper sticker for the donor’s favorite candidate on his car.
Fret not. Even if those signs reflect financial support for the candidate, research shows that political contributions do not detract from charitable giving. So keep asking!
Bill Stanczykiewicz is director of The Fund Raising School at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. He previously served as president and CEO of the Indiana Youth Institute.
A version of this article appeared in The Chronicle of Philanthropy.
The Fund Raising School: https://philanthropy.iupui.edu/professional-development/fundraisingschool/index.html
Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy: https://philanthropy.iupui.edu/
Nonprofit organizations that receive government contracts or grants may be hit hard by the overtime rules that go into effect in December. Many of them have agreements that obligate them to provide services at fixed reimbursement rates that won’t reflect the higher costs resulting from the new rules. This article addresses those concerns and offers two solutions promoted by the National Council of Nonprofits.
The U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) long-awaited final overtime rule will have a significant effect on practically every industry and profession in the country.
And the nonprofit sector isn’t immune. Managers in the sector actually may be scrambling later in the year to comply with the requirements, which go into effect on December 1, 2016. Major changes may be required, particularly as the final rule relates to government grants and contracts.
A recent report by the National Council of Nonprofits (NCN) addresses these concerns and offers solutions government units and funders may have to take.
Background information
Under the new DOL rule, the standard salary level used to determine whether executive, administrative and professional employees and computer professionals are eligible to receive overtime will increase from $455 per week ($23,660 per year) to $913 per week ($47,476 per year) for a full-time worker beginning in December. In light of this, the NCN surveyed organizations with government grants and contracts asking for practical insights on putting the new rules into effect.
Its report on the survey refers to “operational anxiety” among groups trying to figure out how to pay the new required additional costs in very tight, or even declining, revenue environments while providing the same level of services. It concludes that government units may have to be convinced to make accommodations in order for nonprofit organizations to maintain their current levels of service.
The report is widely viewed as a “call to action” for the network of state associations the NCN represents.
Uncertainty and misunderstandings
Because of the uncertainty over the new rules — and misunderstandings in some quarters — certain groups are likely to be affected more than others. This could include organizations where demand for services is unpredictable (for example, groups involved in crisis response or caring for the elderly and disabled), and groups who rely on small donations to keep running. These nonprofits complain that they can’t expect donors to increase contributions just to compensate for higher salaries. And of course, reductions in staff or cutbacks in hours aren’t appealing options for many organizations.
More than half of the 1,000 survey respondents represented human services providers. Arts and education nonprofits comprised another 19%. Most of those surveyed had an annual operating budget between $1 million and $10 million.
The vast majority of respondents reported that their existing government contracts don’t take these higher costs into account. And unlike for-profits that can raise prices or governments that can raise taxes or cut services, nonprofits with government grants and contracts typically are contractually bound to provide services at fixed reimbursement rates that won’t reflect the higher costs imposed by the new overtime rule.
Two solutions
According to the report, 69% of respondents said there isn’t a provision in their existing grants and contracts to reopen or renegotiate the agreements to secure additional reimbursements. Moreover, 28% weren’t sure if their contract allowed adjustments, while just 3% were certain such a clause did exist. One-third of respondents said they expect to cut staff and services to cover the higher costs.
The report offered two solutions to the “conundrum” presented by the new rules:
Grant and contract reopeners. Nonprofits need ways to reopen or renegotiate government grants and contracts either to receive reimbursement rates that incorporate the increased costs or to adjust performance obligations.
Short-term transition support. Private funders can provide additional resources during the interim phase of putting the rules into effect (the first couple of years) and offer emergency funds that will enable groups they support to conduct compliance audits, develop updated job descriptions, implement time-management systems, and make other upgrades to human resources systems.
Government revisions needed
Since the new costs are the result of changes to federal law, the NCN says it seems appropriate for the federal government to give direction to government program officers at the federal, state, tribal and local levels on how to revise existing grants and contracts to ensure that nonprofits are treated fairly.
[content_box box_type=”normal”]
Different Strokes …
The Department of Labor issued additional guidance relating to two types of employers in the nonprofit sector.
Educational institutions. Under a special exemption, many white-collar employees at higher education institutions aren’t subject to the salary level test or are subject to a different salary level test. Therefore, the new salary level won’t affect them.
For instance, the requirements for a white-collar exemption don’t apply to bona fide teachers. In addition, an alternative salary level governs academic administrative personnel that help run higher education institutions and interact with students outside the classroom. These personnel are exempt from the overtime requirements if they are paid at least the entrance salary for teachers at their institution.
State and local governments. There are several provisions unique to state and local governments relating to compensatory time (comp time). Notably, state or local government agencies may arrange for their employees to earn comp time instead of cash for overtime hours.
Most state and local government employees may accrue up to 240 hours of comp time. Law enforcement, fire protection and emergency response personnel, as well as employees engaged in seasonal activities (such as employees processing state tax returns), may accrue up to 480 hours of comp time. An employee must be permitted to use comp time on the date requested unless doing so would “unduly disrupt” the operations of the agency.
[/content_box]
Stephanie L. Allgeyer graduated from the College of Mount Saint Joseph with a B.S. in accounting. Her public accounting experience includes auditing, review, compilation and business advisory and tax return services for a wide range of clients. She is involved in the firm’s audits ranging from construction, manufacturing and nonprofits, to governmental, financial institutions and retirement-plan clients.
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 our 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 depth in strategic planning and data analysis.
