Balancing the Mission Checkbook

The reports of success for online giving are still pretty mixed.  It’s likely that a significant shift from other payment forms will take several more years.  However, there are a number of positive experiences in online giving.

Here are three examples of innovative and creative ways that nonprofits are raising money online.

1. Modest Needs

Modest Needs offers an online forum to make direct contributions to individuals or nonprofit organizations to address a very specific, and usually modest, request for help. It’s kind of like Kiva’s direct lending model – but with direct contributions instead. Through Modest Needs, donors can see the very direct impact of their gift.

If it sounds too good to be true, I have a testimonial from Susie Brown, Executive Director of Child Care Works that they were able to pay for a capacity building project very quickly with funding through Modest Needs.

2. United Way’s Give 5 Now

You may have already read about the United Way’s Give 5 Now campaign. Watch their YouTube video about the importance of supporting urgent needs now. I hope that you can’t, and don’t, resist the urge to give at least $5.

3. Social Media

Social networks have exploded in the last year. I love Facebook, and was impressed by a recent fundraising campaign that Pillsbury House Theatre launched on their Facebook page. After giving a small amount, the updates and status reports that I received made me feel like a part of the campaign.

Give List uses blogging and Twitter to spread the word that there are ways to give even if you don’t have extra cash. The list starts with 71 ways you can give and then spreads and multiplies through an online community.

Even if it takes a while for online giving to match the dollars of more traditional forms, these example show ways that online strategies are different, fast, and direct.

Don’t be a Scrooge – give online now.

The New York Times published an article this week about the Gilmanton New Hampshire Year-Round Library Association and their efforts to raise money for operating costs. Led by dedicated and committed volunteers, a facility has been built by moving and refurbishing an 18th century barn, but no funds are in hand to open the doors. The article reports that they are “looking for someone who will provide at least $1 million for a private endowment” to support the ongoing operating costs. Wouldn’t every nonprofit like to “find” someone who will donate $1 million! This is a case for Mythbusters – Nonprofit Finance Edition.

There are no magic donors. In the article, one of the volunteers hopes that “Maybe someone out there has had a dear loved one that’s passed away, or a child or parent they’ve given everything possible to, and this would be a special new gift.” I don’t mean to pick on the volunteers for their effort. And I certainly love the picture of the barn/library, having grown up in New England with a lot of time spent in a picturesque, cozy library. I hear that kind of wishful thinking elsewhere, though, and am concerned that the myth of the elusive, secret donor is dangerous. Hoping and waiting for One Big Gift that solves everything might just be an excuse not to do the hard work of fundraising. Now, as always, fundraising involves identifying those who care about the cause, building relationships, making the case, and demonstrating responsibility – step by step.  I recommend this recent blog post from PhilanTopic that smartly translates the core principles of donor cultivation and planning into useful advice for today.

If you’re like me, you’re reading a lot of reports, surveys, and advice right now looking for useful data and direction. To help you cull through this material, Nonprofit Assistance Fund has launched a new blog, Nonprofit Harvest.  Our goal is not to post every available resource, but to consistently provide useful content that will help nonprofits.  I encourage you to read the blog, share resources you have found helpful, and offer your own suggestions for how nonprofits can navigate this challenging economy.

How can you appeal to donors at a time when costs and demands for services are increasing? How about a letter or email detailing your line by line budget increases? Probably not – because what it costs to provide services isn’t compelling. It’s what results from the services that makes the case. By results, though, I don’t just mean a nice story or picture. I mean results. I’ve been reading and hearing more and more frequently about measuring, quantifying, and communicating the results of nonprofit programs, but somehow we (as a nonprofit community) still seem to be coming up short in public perception.

Once again, a study reports that public confidence in charities is declining. Less than 20% of respondents expressed the highest level of confidence in charities’ practices in using financial resources or in managing programs and services. This annual survey, conducted by Professor Paul Light from NYU’s Wagner School of Public Service, was recently summarized in The Chronicle of Philanthropy. Professor Light was the speaker at Charities Review Council’s Annual Forum in Saint Paul last week. After summarizing the survey results and trends, he focused on two key factors related to confidence. The essential question about confidence, he said, is whether or not the public (and your donors) believe that charities spend their money wisely. Not about what line items are in your budget, or how much is spent on program vs. management – the concern is whether money is spent wisely to accomplish something of value. The second, parallel question is how a nonprofit conveys and demonstrates their value. What benefits occur because of your program? Harlem Children’s Zone’s annual report, for example, is full of data about results, progress, and success. The data demonstrates that money is spent wisely because the results are so real. Professor Light repeated his mantra several times – measure something!

Right now, about 25% of the nonprofits that we are working with pretty closely are in the midst of a capital campaign, are just finishing their campaign, or have plans to launch one in the next year or so. The meaning of “capital” campaign is evolving, and about one-third of these campaigns include a substantial amount of flexible working capital and infrastructure investment in addition to traditional bricks and mortar. (This is an important trend that I’ve written about before.) Looking at the campaigns and organizations as a whole, it’s clear that the campaigns that are going well were thoughtfully planned out, based on feasibility studies, and focused on donors with whom the nonprofit already had a relationship. The campaigns that have floundered or dragged on were based on some broad assumptions about who “should” support them, plugged numbers to fill out the budget, and the planning happened along the way. These observations lead right to the basics of capital campaigns – lots of planning, being realistic, committing the time and people, and monitoring everything as you progress.

Capital campaigns also demand consideration of external factors, including the competitive impact of other capital campaigns and of economic trends. We in Minnesota can thank the Minnesota Council on Foundations for conducting a survey last month on Capital and Endowment Campaigns in Minnesota, 2007-2008. The survey reports on 62 current and 72 planned campaigns for buildings, endowments, and infrastructure investments. The largest campaigns are for colleges and universities, with human services and health care a distant second and third. Interestingly, the higher ed, health care, and arts organizations expect most of their funds to come from individuals donors, while human service nonprofits expect about half to come from grants. This week’s Chronicle of Philanthropy reports in “Feeling the Squeeze” that some large capital campaigns are running into some resistance from large donors concerned about the economy. The examples in the article, which is only available in its online format to subscribers, indicated that gifts were delayed or stretched out, but that the campaigns continued to be successful in a different environment.

If you are beginning to plan a new fundraising push – whether you call it capital campaign or not – you need to understand the trends, the local landscape, and how many other “asks” will be in the mail.

Continuing on this theme, how effective are nonprofits at making the case for unrestricted support? Rather than bemoaning the lack of unrestricted funds, what can we learn? An article in last Sunday’s New York Times, “Here’s My Check, Spend It All At Once”, connects the current financial challenges at the American Red Cross to their Donor Direct policy established in response to the fallout about the use of funds donated after the September 11 attacks. When the Red Cross commits to direct all of your donated funds wherever you choose, what donor wouldn’t take the opportunity to be the master of their own philanthropy? The long-term results, though, may be the kind of deficits that the American Red Cross is facing. Was the Donor Direct policy an extreme reaction – did the Red Cross go too far as a reaction to a communications and PR problem?Following the references in the Times article, I compared the online fundraising messages of the American Red Cross and of Doctors Without Borders. The choice of how to direct donations is the first question for a donor at the American Red Cross. While the option “Where the Need is Greatest” is the first choice offered, specific funds are immediately listed below. The FAQ section even offers more options:

I don’t see the fund that I wanted to donate to. What do I do?
Due to space limitations, we are limited in how many funds we can make available for online donations. If you would like to donate to a fund that is not listed, please contact Donor Services.

Contrast this with the Doctors Without Borders website, which provides a concise summary of how funding is used to carry out their programs. Note that the information doesn’t offer the donor a choice to designate their funds to a specific use. In the FAQ section, in fact, Doctors Without Borders makes the case for unrestricted gifts:

Can I earmark my donation for a certain area/project?
We appreciate your interest in supporting our programs. While it is possible to have your gift directed toward a specific program or country where we are currently working, we ask that you contribute unrestricted funding. By not restricting your contribution for a specific emergency or project, you will enable us to allocate our resources more efficiently and where the needs are greatest.

All of these appeals and messages rely on trust, of course, and donor trust is what the American Red Cross must rebuild. Every nonprofit should care about this, because the public’s perception and confidence in the Red Cross is a good indicator of confidence in all nonprofits.

I find it interesting that I’ve read and heard quite a lot lately about foundation leaders discussing the relative merits and challenges of moving some of their grantmaking from program and project grants to general operating support. The New York Times recently published a re-framing piece on this by Denise Caruso, “Can Foundations Take the Long View Again?” The members of GEO (Grantmakers for Effective Organizations) have been engaged in a long discussion and analysis on this topic. They have published several thoughtful guides (free registration is required to view them). What I don’t think I’ve heard is a comparable discussion from nonprofit leaders about how much impact and long-term value their clients and communities would gain from more general operating support. If you are the director of a nonprofit, you may think that is an obvious statement – but I don’t think that connection is made very well. There are several issues involved, including different terminology and understanding of budgets.

What is a general operating grant? Is it a grant to pay for overhead expenses, or is it funding to provide comprehensive support for the organization’s mission and activities? Too frequently, the term is used as in this excerpt from an article, “General operating money is certainly one of the more difficult categories of funding to secure, mostly because it’s a lot less appealing to the funder. Let’s face it, paying rent is not nearly as sexy as helping people fulfill their potential as human beings.” STOP saying that. This is the kind of thinking and woe-is-me mentality that can’t make the case for general operating support. There is an implicit choice in this article: We have $10,000. Should we spend it on rent, or should we spend it to help people fulfill their potential as human beings? How about this instead: Let’s spend it on rent, salaries, benefits, supplies, and phones to operate our effective, innovative programs that help people fulfill their potential.

Do we need some new terminology to cut through this mess?

• General Operating Grant: Apparently, this is a grant to pay for distracting, hard to justify, and uninteresting expenses (like rent and phones).

• Program Grant: A grant that is restricted for a defined set of activities and outcomes that fit with the organization’s mission. All expenses included in the program budget, including salaries, rent, and supplies, are needed to carry out the program’s goals.

• Core Mission Grant: A grant provided to an effective organization to use as their leaders direct in order to support and achieve their mission. Some of the funds may be spent on immediate program and organizational needs and some on long-term investments, such as program development, staff training, and technology.

According to Caruso’s article, “The majority of foundation leaders polled in the studies acknowledged that unrestricted operating funds were better and more effective for grantees. But they continue to focus their grantmaking on project support, they said, because they prefer its clear-cut results.” Flexibility is the key value of core, or operating, support. Think about how you can make the case that flexibility will enable your nonprofit to be more responsive to community, better prepared for the future, and more effective in all of your programs and activities – that’s results.