Balancing the Mission Checkbook

Last month I posted this blog asking whether charity contests like Pepsi Refresh are ultimately productive for the nonprofits that participate. The cash is great when you win, but at what cost? In this Chronicle of Philanthropy article from last year, one executive director reported that he spent 75% of his time one month drumming up votes for a contest. Now we’re learning that even all that time might not be enough to win.  According to the New York Times article New Charges of Cheating Tarnish Pepsi Fund-Raising Contest for Nonprofits some contest winners used proxy voting, mass emails and other prohibited methods. I raised the question last month about whether contests help nonprofits build relationships with donors.  If the contest is won by gaming the system, then these aren’t about building support at all. It’s just about the cash.

I have a second concern about contest-style philanthropy. Is this an effective way to pick a charity? Do we care that Pepsi’s money may or may not be going to charities or projects that will have a real impact? I don’t know enough about the organizations that won money from Pepsi in 2010, but frankly some of the descriptions are pretty vague and evidence of results is hard to find.  There’s a lot of sincere intention and quite a few competitors are startup organizations, however some appear to have been started in order to compete for funding.

The nonprofit and foundation world has been encouraging donors to seek out high-performing charities, such as in this article by Sean Stannard-Stockton. Nonprofits are working hard to evaluate, measure and communicate impact. Charity contests don’t reward nonprofits with the best results or greatest impact on clients. They reward marketing.

The traditional cumbersome foundation process probably needs a different kind of refreshing, but I have strong misgivings about throwing review and evaluation out the window.  The Technology in the Arts blog asked some good questions last summer in a post about American Express’ online giving contest.

While increased online support and a focus on technology use to reach constituents could provide benefits in this funding model, the prom queens method of distributing support should probably be left where it belongs: high school. This model has no way of insuring the best organizations reap the rewards or that the most efficient and effective programs receive funding. Popularity does not always equal quality, but it will always decide the winner in this funding model.

It’s worth noting that while the marketing department promotes their online contest, PepsiCo Foundation still makes grants the old fashioned way, with criteria including evidence of proven success in the field or scope of work specific to the request, and a method by which to measure and track impact and progress. There is a difference between marketing and traditional philanthropy. Should that matter to nonprofits that need funding to do their work? I think it should.

Want to know who’s winning the Pepsi Refresh contest? According to Mashable, the contest received 61 million votes in 2010. That’s 61 million brand impressions for Pepsi. We have a winner!

Would you consider me a supporter if I made a $100 contribution? Absolutely. What if I didn’t send money, but if I clicked my mouse a few times? If it leads to a grant, I suppose you would. Is the popularity of online giving contests redefining what it means to support an organization? If so, the change is about more than technology and delivery. Voting, a la American Idol, creates a very different kind of relationship between me, the supporter, and you, the nonprofit.

This year, Pepsi has been awarding $1.3 million every month through the Pepsi Refresh project. Nonprofits, individuals, and businesses submit ideas and compete for your online votes to win the awards. 32 awards totaling $1.3 million are granted each month in amounts from $5,000 to $250,000. This broadly promoted voting for dollars ties in with Pepsi’s brand building, similar to the Chase Community Giving Facebook campaign and the Sam’s Club Giving Made Simple contest.

Projects in the mix for Pepsi Refresh include nonprofits of all sizes, like Teach for America, which received $250,000, and small organizations such as the Boys and Girls Club of Schenectady, which won a $25,000 grant. The project is open to individuals and organizations that are either very new or loosely formed. Past winners run the gamut from Operation Sweet Dreams, which received $50,000 to provide new PJs to low-income kids, to helloCHANGE, a youth anti-tobacco campaign that won $250,000 in March. To win the monthly competition, submitted projects must mobilize forces and generate lots and lots of votes. After registering on the website, anyone can vote for up to 10 projects a day.

The communications strategy needed to win these competitions is different from what is needed for “traditional” development. In fundraising, nonprofits have learned the importance of reaching out to make a connection that will motivate a donor. For an online contest, the goal is clicks, not dollars. Have you ever been bombarded during one of these contests? An organization that I greatly admire was a finalist for the Sam’s Club grant. They sent me emails every day, and I wasn’t even eligible to vote (I’m not a Sam’s Club member). I wonder if convincing someone to take a few minutes every day for a month to click a vote button builds any kind of a lasting relationship. After voting a few times, am I likely to become a donor or volunteer? If I didn’t make a personal commitment in the form of funds, what kind of relationship was started?

On the one hand I’m happy to see good organizations receive funding. Wellstone Action! won a $50,000 grant in September for a great project with Native American leaders. I’m all for it. On the other hand, though, I prefer philanthropy that builds lasting relationships.

Charity contests are likely to continue as businesses learn how to capitalize on social networks to build their brands and web presence. How can nonprofits use them to build relationships that matter?

What amount is the right size of donation for your organization? Most of us would laugh at the question and answer “$1 million, of course.” But ask again, with a dose of both reality and prudence. What is the amount that would have a long term, stabilizing impact on your organization if you could rely on annual gifts from many donors? It’s probably far, far below $1 million. It’s probably even below $1,000. Many nonprofits overshoot this number, though, chasing larger gifts and grants, thinking that bigger dollars are the answer. I’m not sure that’s ever a realistic strategy, but I think it’s too risky in the midst of the recession.

The Value of Smaller Gifts

I’m pleased that smaller gifts are drawing greater attention and wanted to highlight a few noteworthy examples. The article Save Our Ship in American Theatre Magazine describes the efforts of theaters to rebuild from financial struggles:

The hero who emerges from emergency campaigns is the small donor. Practically every artistic leader I spoke with used the words “grassroots” and recounted anecdotes about donated piggy banks. Over and over, artistic leaders said that it was not one single donor that saved them but rather many, many modest donations – gifts of $100 and $150 that added up to serious money.

The value of many, many small donations was proven on November 17th. At the end of the fundraising-palooza of Give to the Max Day, 38,778 gifts had been made totaling $14,000,406. That divides to a $361 average gift. Many of the most impressive Give to the Max Day campaigns yielded great numbers of both donors and dollars with pretty small average gifts. The organizations with the largest numbers of donors had average gifts ranging from $75 to $100. Organizations receiving the most dollars also had modest average gifts between $65 and $325.  Other examples of the power of small donations can be seen in the international response to the recent earthquake in Haiti, such as the American Red Cross raising $3 million as of 9am EST in $10 increments through a text message campaign.

In his book The Art of the Turnaround, Michael Kaiser describes the process of Alvin Ailey Dance Company’s financial recovery. He offers this advice:

Aiming to fill a deficit with one extraordinary gift is usually just a pipe dream. We need to focus on “right-sized gifts,” gifts that make sense given the budget and the profile of the organization. For the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater, with a $6-million budget and a $1.5-million deficit, $50 was too low and $1-million was too high. At Ailey, while we did receive larger gifts, we focused our fund-raising on $1,000 gifts. Our board felt comfortable asking for this amount from friends and associates, and this was an amount that would make a difference to us.”

If you prefer to hold out hope for large gifts and grants, be aware of the risks. The Minnesota Council on Foundations just released their 2010 Funding Outlook based on a recent survey. The survey found that overall funding by Minnesota’s foundations will stay fairly level in 2010 compared to 2009, for which we should be thankful. There is wide variation, though, in the grantmakers’ forecasts. More grantmakers expect decreases in giving in 2010 than expect increases: 30 percent expect to give less compared to 25 percent who expect to give more. At least 20% of foundations expect to decrease the number of grants awarded, as well.

Keep up the grantwriting, RFP submissions, and lunches with prospective large donors. But take Michael Kaiser’s advice to heart – make the priority for 2010 to build a reliable base of “right-sized” gifts.  They really do amount to something very important.

There was a breakthrough last week for nonprofits. In a joint announcement, Guidestar and other major charity “watchdogs” made a very strong case that overhead ratios are meaningless. The phrase used in the opening paragraph says the ratio is “useless for evaluating a charity’s impact.” Read the full release The Worst (and Best) Way to Pick a Charity This Year and then copy it to share far and wide. Some of the reasons for de-emphasizing this ratio cited in the announcement will be familiar to nonprofit leaders:

• It tells you nothing about the impact the charity has on the people it’s trying to help.
• It discourages charities from investing in tools and expertise that would make them more effective.
• The rules for determining overhead costs are vague and every charity interprets them differently.

Hooray! I’ve been one of many voices speaking out on this problem for a long time, most recently in the post Donors and Overhead: Maybe They Don’t Care. This step by some of the most prominent national watchdogs, especially Charity Navigator, is huge. Ken Berger, CEO of Charity Navigator, elaborated on his own blog:

We do concur with the fundamental truth that the most critical dimension in evaluating a nonprofit has to do with achieving meaningful results.

Charity Navigator has been criticized for relying too heavily on the overhead ratio and other simplistic measures for their rating system. Berger has been blogging about their plans to shift to a more comprehensive approach, and this announcement is a breakthrough.

This feels like a gamechanger because now we can stop arguing about whether overhead is an accurate measure of charity performance. It’s not. Clearing that hurdle doesn’t get us to the finish line, though. Everyone in the nonprofit sector should cheer that the watchdogs are encouraging donors to review the impact and effectiveness of nonprofits – but how? There is not a single, simple alternative method to evaluate the effectiveness of all nonprofits. It’s essential for nonprofits to invest some time and brainpower to figure this out.

The organizations behind the press release have their own approaches:

• Consumer reviews: The personal experience approach of Great Nonprofits relies on a broad network of people who are involved with nonprofits to submit comments and ratings. Users of the website can search and browse for stories that interest or inspire them. Think of this as the Amazon reader reviews or TripAdvisor comments equivalent for nonprofits.

• Experts: Philanthropedia, on the other hand, relies on panels of experts in four different fields to pool their knowledge and assessment of which nonprofits are the “top” in effectiveness. Their “mutual funds” of nonprofits can become your vehicle for giving. In some ways this is a global, scaled up version of how we’ve used the local United Way.

• Data: GiveWell has a laser focus on reliable research and evaluation at nonprofits to support anecdotal stories or claims about impact. Read about their low opinion of the way nonprofits currently evaluate effectiveness. If better quality outcomes supported by good evidence is needed, then GiveWell will be there pushing us all.

Whatever approach you trust or endorse, get to it now. It will take us a long time reverse course for all the donors, advisers, and institutions that have used the program cost ratio as a stand-in for value. You’re going to have to offer some other data to replace it. Make it mean something. Ken Berger of Charity Navigator issued this call to action:

The nonprofit sector must get its act together and make sure it is really helping provide meaningful change in communities and peoples lives. It is life or death for many of those we serve whether we are effective or not. So let’s work together to measure, manage and deliver what is really important to make our world a better place.

Three cheers, at least, are deserved for Grantmakers for Effective Organizations (GEO) new publication On the Money by Nancy Burd. You can download either the executive summary or full report from the website.

As summarized on the GEO website:

This publication highlights the financial challenges nonprofits face and the ways in which grantmakers are both improving the situation as well as perpetuating the problem.

The first section, Assessing the Problems, identifies five problem areas:

1. Restrictions on Funding
2. Misperceptions Around Sustainability and Growth
3. “Too Many Masters”
4. Onerous Grantmaking Practices
5. Knowledge Gaps

The other sections discuss Barriers to Smarter Grantmaking and Ideas for Grantmakers.

It’s impressive how in 28 pages the author distills a variety of ideas, research, and practices about the realities of financial instability faced by nonprofits. The report also provides helpful and realistic suggestions for grantmaking organizations based on practices that have already been developed and implemented by foundations.  The advice and guidance for funders is great, but this guidebook is a must read for everyone in our sector.

I’m pleased that GEO will be focusing on nonprofit finance and encouraging foundations to understand how “many prevailing approaches and practices in philanthropy can unwittingly create problems for the nonprofit sector.” Many nonprofits have experienced these unintended consequences and will welcome a dialogue on this topic.

However, nonprofit organizations also have a lot to learn from the report’s comprehensive overview of grantmaking. Misconceptions about the true cost of programs and capital needs apply equally (or more) at many nonprofits. We can’t expect a seismic shift in foundation practices and investment unless we nonprofit leaders understand and can effectively communicate what it takes to sustain ourselves.

Download this report, read it, and copy it for your board and senior staff.

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.