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.
I recently had the pleasure of participating in a roundtable conversation with leaders from several Minnesota foundations about the Big Topic of general operating support. The meeting was convened by Minnesota Council on Foundations and published as the feature story in the new issue of Giving Forum. This issue includes the roundtable discussion as well as related stories about trends in types of support, current practices, and additional thoughts from other leading foundations.
I left the roundtable with a sense that this may be a good time to start moving on from this endless discussion/argument. As Juliet remarked, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other word would smell as sweet.” Today’s version is “General operating support, by any other name would help as much.” It was notable that the participants didn’t have a “line in the sand” definition of general operating support. The distinction didn’t seem to be nearly as important as you might think with these foundations that understand that program grants have to include all the costs of the programs. The foundations were not very concerned with tossing out gen op requests. They were focused on working with nonprofits doing good work in the community that matched their foundation’s areas of interest, and providing support – program, project, organizational – to help them to do that work. We talked a lot about flexibility, long-term relationships, trust, and shared community goals.
What are the goals? Foundations want and need to understand how the funds they provide are helping to meet needs in the community that match their priorities and interests. Nonprofits want and need funds to support programs that further their mission with some flexibility to respond to the changes that might occur. Both foundations and nonprofits want to help the community. Both also want to have trusting, honest relationships. Too often, unfortunately, these priorities have led to battles in the general operating vs. program grant war. Are the goals really all that different? I suggest that we move the last goal into first position – both foundations and nonprofits want to have trusting, honest relationships. These relationships require clear information, reliable decisions (no surprises on either side), real numbers, and a good match in mission and community vision. I know that you might say that the particular foundations represented at the roundtable are some of the most committed to creating these relationships (and they are). Fortunately they are also leaders in the foundation community.
By the way, it’s interesting to read your own words in a transcript, as I got to do with this Giving Forum. I cringed a little when I read this verbatim excerpt: Barr, “I hear [nonprofits] say that general operating pays the rent and program support pays for the work; that’s the worst accounting I’ve ever heard.” Harsh – but I stand by it.
This week has brought an interesting alignment in the discussion, or debate, about the future of philanthropy. Last Sunday, the magazine section of The New York Times was all about “Giving it Away” and trends in philanthropy. One particular article, “For Good, Measure” discusses a current hot topic: “Foundations are increasingly using “metrics” to determine if their grants are working. But can you really measure the return-on-investment of giving to a cause?” The article is one of many that I’ve read on this theme of trying to quantify impact, and it’s direct cost and value. An interesting article and we could debate many of the points. I really paid attention, though when, in a single day this week, two business leaders in Minneapolis asked me if I had read the article. They were impressed and very interested. That was a sign to me that this is moving from the conferences and into daily reality. On the heels of this article, Nonprofit Quarterly offered a preview of a new book, Just Another Emperor: the Myths and Realities of Philanthrocapitalism, by author Mike Edwards, opening with: “A new movement is afoot that promises to save the world by revolutionizing philanthropy, making non-profit organizations operate like business, and creating new markets for goods and services that benefit society. Nick-named ‘philanthrocapitalism’ for short, its supporters believe that business principles can be successfully combined with the search for social transformation.” Edwards makes a strong argument that this movement is the wrong direction for several reasons, chiefly that social transformation is an entirely different “product” than producing goods and services. The preview sparked a lively response in blogs and on NPQ’s Forum from leaders in the sector. There is an air of “think tank” to this for me, though. We can have a healthy, and undoubtedly lengthy, debate on theory, myth, and reality. Most of the nonprofit organizations that we work with every day are not immediately affected by this trend, if that’s what it is. Most charitable dollars are still received from individuals or from traditional grantmaking practices. For “service-providing” nonprofits, delivering the essential social services, health care, and education needed in the community, public dollars dominate and are unlikely to take a radical turn towards long-term “investment.” The growing awareness of philanthrocapitalism in the business world will require an equal awareness and response from nonprofits. If you think this debate can be ignored and relegated to the think tankers, I’d suggest that the discussion is important for us all to pay close attention to. Remember that there was a time decades ago that the basic structure of grantmaking was created. You wouldn’t want to be caught napping if the world that you know really changes. This topic relates to my post last week, which generated a comment recommending the book Good to Great and the Social Sectors by Jim Collins. Edwards also notes this short (35 pages) and valuable book - add it to your must read list.
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.
My last post of 2007 is a few suggestions and recommendations for your leisure time review.
Tucked in the Business section of the Saturday, December 22, 2007 New York Times was a wonderful story, Emerald City of Giving Does Exist, about the Twin Cities’ enviable amount of corporate philanthropy and commitment. I hope you don’t miss this in the flurry of the holidays. We may wish there was even more to go around, but we are the envy of many nonprofit leaders in other cities, and I thank the business community for that.I have three books to suggest. First, I recommend that everyone interested in developing great boards read Governance as Leadership: Reframing the Work of Nonprofit Boards by Richard Chait, William Ryan, and Barbara Taylor. This book, published in 2005 by BoardSource, starts with the premise that many boards do not really have a problem of performance, they have a problem of purpose. The book will open your eyes and mind to a new way of thinking about board roles and leadership.
The two other books were published in 2007 and offer interesting ideas and thinking on important nonprofit management topics. I’m still reading both of them, so my reviews will wait for another time. Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High Impact Nonprofits by Leslie Crutchfield and Heather McLeod Grant offers an analysis of twelve organizations that the authors selected based on their impact, reputation, and scale. One important finding was that the high impact nonprofits achieved this impact not only through their direct services, but also by deliberately rallying others to the bigger cause through networks.
ROI For Nonprofits: The New Key to Sustainability by Tom Ralser (published by Wiley) offers a detailed study of how to translate the work of nonprofits into the increasingly important frame of venture capital and business. Whatever your personal opinion of this trend, it is here now and it’s worth your while to understand it.
Finally, a few favorite blogs to read next year:
Cheers, and Happy New Year to you all!
