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!

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?

• 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.

In just the past week, our hypothetical charter school director has seen these reports:

• State charter schools program is ‘out of control’, reports the Star Tribune in an investigative article about the use of bonds for financing of 18 buildings for charter schools.
• The Pioneer Press reported Strapped St. Paul charter school to close midyear on the decision by the board of directors of Skills for Tomorrow school to close at the semester break because of declining enrollment.
• Last week, in Payment shift makes rough waters for charter schools Minnesota Public Radio provided background and examples of the impact on charter schools of the state’s new deferred payment schedule for all public school payments.

While each news story is accurate, it does not paint an accurate overall picture. The individual schools don’t have the chance to explain all of their plans, budgets, and curriculum philosophy to the community. I have a deep enough understanding of charter schools to respond to each with the comment that “it’s more complicated than that.” I don’t want to gloss over some very real issues with finance, leadership and governance at some charter schools, but I am trying to figure out why this small group of nonprofits is such a magnet for news, investigation, and opinion.

As some background, Minnesota was the first state in the nation to create “charter schools.” Today Minnesota has about 150 operating charter schools, with roughly half in the Twin Cities Metro area, and the remainder in Greater Minnesota. Together, these schools serve about 33,000 students. Charter schools are true public schools. They are created by state law, are funded by government, and are subject to most state laws governing public education. They cannot charge tuition and they cannot discriminate in admissions. They are subject to state graduation requirements and the mandates of the federal No Child Left Behind legislation. Structurally, charter schools are both nonprofit corporations and independent school districts.

This structure presents complexities that affect both governance and financial management. As I detailed in a previous entry, Charter school myths and realities, the reality is that the management quality of most charter schools in Minnesota is on par with the management of nonprofit organizations overall. The vast majority of charter school directors and teachers are hardworking, mission-focused, committed educators, and I thank them for their work.

For such a small group of organizations, charter schools attract an awful lot of attention, scrutiny, and criticism. As a community, we feel strongly about education and about the use of taxes and public funds. Charter schools are right in the middle of both.  The field needs to find a way to communicate their value to the community – unless they like opening the paper every day to read another report about problems.

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.

What a stark contrast, then, to read The Bridgespan Group’s recent article The Nonprofit Starvation Cycle about the causes and consequences of weak infrastructure at many nonprofits:

Organizations that build robust infrastructure—which includes sturdy information technology systems, financial systems, skills training, fundraising processes, and other essential overhead—are more likely to succeed than those that do not. This is not news, and nonprofits are no exception to the rule.

The judges for the Minnesota Cup business plan competition certainly know this about business. But what would be the questions raised by a corollary panel reviewing nonprofit plans? Unfortunately, I think they would focus on overhead ratios rather than the importance of having the right systems, structure, and technology to implement the plans, along with sufficient operations and finance staff. The infrastructure that’s encouraged for growing business is overlooked (or undermined) for nonprofits.

The Bridgespan Group believes that this starvation cycle begins with funders:

Our research reveals that a vicious cycle fuels the persistent underfunding of overhead. The first step in the cycle is funders’ unrealistic expectations about how much it costs to run a nonprofit. At the second step, nonprofits feel pressure to conform to funders’ unrealistic expectations. At the third step, nonprofits respond to this pressure in two ways: They spend too little on overhead, and they underreport their expenditures on tax forms and in fundraising materials. This underspending and underreporting in turn perpetuates funders’ unrealistic expectations. Over time, funders expect grantees to do more and more with less and less—a cycle that slowly starves nonprofits.

I think that the authors describe the cycle perfectly, but you could replace the word “funders” with “boards of directors” or several other nonprofit stakeholders just as accurately. The burden of breaking the starvation cycle is shared and will require us to understand the real value of infrastructure in accomplishing mission. Start with this question: what could you achieve in the community if your organization had the structure – systems, facilities, processes, staff – that were needed for long term success? What would you need to make that happen, and how much would it cost?  For the entrepreneurs at the Minnesota Cup, their potential investors understand the importance of seed funding to build the staff and systems needed for success. We in the nonprofit world need to learn the language and incentives to advocate for infrastructure funding critical for community success.

Yet, in another article advising us about charitable giving, 5 Tips on How to Stretch Your Charitable Dollars published in the New York Times online published by the AP and picked up by the New York Times and other newspapers, overhead is (once again) emphasized:

Tip #2: EXAMINE CHARITIES CLOSELY. Do the same due diligence on your donations that you would your investments or your business…
Pay especially close attention to the overhead. Anything above 9 to 14 percent is out of line and signifies that too much money goes to staff or office space and not enough to the beneficiaries, according to Stephanie Risa Stein, managing director of New York-based Philanthropic Capital Advisors LLC.

Here’s my soapbox

I agree that it’s wise to “Do the same due diligence on your donations that you would your investments or your business.” But when I review an investment opportunity, I review based on the expected criteria for a successful business – profitability, market share, and returns. I don’t review their overhead and management costs. So why would overhead be the criteria for a charity?

I’d like to re-write this “tip.”

EXAMINE CHARITIES CLOSELY. Do some due diligence on charities before you donate, just as you would for an investment or business opportunity. Pay especially close attention to how successful the nonprofit has been at achieving its mission. Do they provide information about how effective their programs are and what impact they have on the people and communities that they serve? Do they have a way to measure and communicate progress and/or success?

I put these two types of “due diligence” to the test with five Minnesota nonprofits that I have supported in the past. I looked at the 990s on Guidestar and found that their overhead ratios ranged from 5% to 17%. Then I looked up web sites and annual reports. Here’s what I (a donor) care about:

• St. Stephen’s Human Services provided food and shelter to 6,000 very poor adults and children
• CommonBond Communities houses 7,850 residents in quality affordable housing
• Admission Possible had a 99% success rate in students admitted to college
• Ten Thousand Things presents astounding theater to people in homeless shelters and prisons
• Minnesota Fringe Festival creates connections for audiences and artists that’s the envy of theater communities in many other cities (the 2009 festival starts this Thursday).

Which of these has the “best” overhead ratio?

I don’t care.

I care that they are effective nonprofits that can tell donors what they do and why it matters. Why would a donor rather examine overhead? Before someone jumps on this point, I agree that 90% on fundraising is completely unreasonable, but that kind of organization can’t demonstrate real results anyway. So can we stop using overhead as the primary criteria for donors – please?

One positive comment about this article – Rich Cowles, Executive Director of Charities Review Council is quoted with good advice for donors about budgeting and planning their giving. Nice national recognition of the Council’s good work and solid reputation.

What I’ve missed most were the Small Business Development Centers that offer workshops and one on one help and the SBA loan programs that provide crucial growth funding. In a way, Nonprofits Assistance Fund and other capacity building organizations have filled this role for nonprofits.

Potential Nonprofit Resources

I’m very glad to know that the beginnings of some new resources for growing strong nonprofits are contained within the Serve America Act, passed in the last week in both a Senate version and House version. The President is expected to sign it next week. The amendment that creates a new program for nonprofit capacity building is summarized here by Independent Sector.

Housed within the Corporation for National and Community Service, the bill authorizes $25 million over five years to provide organizational development assistance to small and mid-size nonprofit organizations, in particular to “strengthen small charities around our country, especially where resources are scarce.”

I’m hopeful that we can get these resources out in the community soon, focused on building strong community organizations that know how to balance mission and management. I’ll keep waiting for an SBA loan program for nonprofit businesses. In the meantime, if you are in Minnesota and need working capital or a line of credit, Nonprofits Assistance Fund’s loan fund is here.

Considering the importance, scale and scope of the economic proposals, I am really disappointed that that the number one, highest priority, most important issue for many in the nonprofit world is the proposal contained in the President’s budget that would limit the extent of deductions for charitable contributions for those in the highest tax bracket, reported here in the Chronicle of Philanthropy.

Typical of the outcries in response is a statement from Independent Sector:

Independent Sector believes that this change could be a disincentive to some donors who might further cap their gifts on account of the new limit.

Most of the comments made by our well-known leaders include the phrase “In these hard economic times” and forecast doom if this change comes to pass.

I’m disappointed in this knee jerk reaction that’s just a version of NIMBYism at a time when we really need to pull together and work for the greater common good, which may involve sacrifice. Beyond that disappointment, I’m skeptical that doomsday will come. First of all, the change wouldn’t be effective until 2011, so it won’t impact donors “in this tough economic environment.” And if you really believe that your donors are in it for the tax deduction I think that you need to re-write your case statement. Surveys, like one conducted in 2006 by Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University for Bank of America, report that over 50% of the high net worth people interviewed would not decrease their giving even if there was no tax deduction at all. From what I’ve read, the tax deduction is more likely to impact the timing and form of a gift rather than whether a gift is made. It’s easy to get this form confused with substance. Consider this from Charity Navigator’s blog:

The data that we have seen over the years has shown a big spike in donations through our site during the last several days of the year, especially on December 31st which of course is the last day to make a qualified tax deductible charitable contribution (see our Tax Benefits of Giving article). This data indicates to us that the tax benefits really do motivate people to donate.

This logic needs checking – do the tax benefits “motivate” people to donate, or have we in the nonprofit world trained our donors to give in December regardless of their motivation? The New York Times article Limiting Deductions on Charity Draws Ire quotes several other experts about the relationship between tax deduction and reasons for giving and their confidence that taxes are at the low on the list.

Even if this tax code change would have an impact on total giving, it’s important to focus on the forest, rather than the leaves on the trees. The proposed federal budget blueprint represents a seismic shift in priorities and structure. I agree with blogger John D. Columbo’s comment:

So let’s not turn this into a doomsday scenario, folks. The truth is, if Obama can fix our health care system, charities as a whole (and everyone else, from GM to the local barbershop) are going to be much better off in the long run.

Independent Sector’s statement (quoted above) includes only one other paragraph about the rest of the 140 page blueprint for the federal budget:

The budget outline also calls for winding down spending for the war in Iraq, boosting funding for domestic priorities, and creating a “reserve fund” of $634 billion to cover health care expansion. The President has stated that his outline will cut the deficit in half by 2013.

Well, maybe that doesn’t seem that important to them.

Last December I posted an entry in response to a Wall Street Journal column by Sally Beatty in which I chafed at her observation that charities were not accountable enough about how they used donated funds. She said:

“It’s time to make sure our gifts are being used as intelligently as possible. Instead of showering hard-earned dollars on charities and hoping for the best, we need to demand clear, detailed information on the results of their efforts. We ask the government and public corporations to be transparent and accountable. Charities should meet the same standard.”

It seemed that a lot of business leaders held this same view of nonprofits. It seems like a good time to revisit this notion and ask about whose standards of accountability to use now.

In the past few months we heard about the three page proposal from the Secretary of the Treasury asking for a $700 billion check to intervene in the financial meltdown (that ended up to actually be a blank check). The bailouts have continued, leading columnists like Floyd Norris of the New York Times to shout, Accountability needed with bailouts. Most recently, when executives of the Big Three automakers struck out with a request for their own bailout, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said:

“It’s all about accountability and viability. Until we can see a plan where the auto industry is held accountable and a plan for viability on how they go into the future — until we see the plan, until they show us the plan, we cannot show them the money.”

Ask any nonprofit executive director or grant writer to guess how far they would get with a foundation or government agency if they submitted a three page request, or if they sat down at a site visit without a detailed project plan, budget, and evaluation outcomes. The answer is, not far.

Here’s a suggestion for how the nonprofit sector can contribute to the bailout – we can teach workshops and classes on accountability for government agencies and public corporations. Maybe it’s a new earned income opportunity.