Delivering the Case for Support – Part 3 of 4

Let’s take a look at the content that charities are putting out there these days. There’s quite a variety of communications. Mostly what comes across my computer screen or desk is newsletters. And a lot of those newsletters still have the “we do, we do” or “we need, we need” kinds of entries, but nothing compelling or motivating for donors to sink their teeth into.

It may be the case that those nonprofits that are publishing these newsletters have taken the term “newsletters” a bit too seriously. Maybe these folks feel that any missal that carries “news” or any word of what’s going on in the charity, will serve as a communication that “stays in touch with donors.” But this isn’t really what donors want to see.

It might also be the case that some of the board members, other volunteers or constituents have given development and marketing staff the idea that they want “news” from the nonprofit. I’ve heard comments such as “I just want to be kept informed of what’s going on here,” and “just let me know what’s happening from time to time.” But these comments, when carefully analyzed, are not exactly true and complete representations of what constituents really want to know.

What people won’t tell you is that they want to know how THEIR OWN involvement with the charity is able to help them feel good about themselves and their priority choices to support and be involved with ABC Charity. They can’t come right out and say this in a focus group or board discussion, because it makes them look more self-centered than they want to be seen. But, in truth, if you look at the donor’s eyes and check their interest level, you’ll find that there’s quite a difference between a “news” article and a motivational, compelling article that demonstrates how a donor’s gift went to work on a program recipient with unusual power and great results.

Consider this story from a recent nonprofit newsletter that I received:
“The ABC Learning Center is currently undergoing a beautification process; an ongoing project we call 'Making Learning Beautiful.' The center will be cleaned, repaired and reorganized. Our new and improved facilities will be awaiting a response from [foundation grant maker] in the hopes of adding radiant artwork and new computer desks and chairs for our students...”

Here’s another “news” article:
“People often wonder why we tutor our students at our site as opposed to our volunteer tutors meeting the children in their homes or in a public setting such as a school or library. After all, wouldn’t it reduce our overhead costs? Having our students come to our center is imperative! Here is a list of crucial program components that are received by our students and volunteers when coming to our site.....” And the article goes on to give a laundry list of program components with the reasons why each component is considered necessary to the learning process.

Now, if you’re really into decorating, you might feel like continuing with the first article to see what new decor features are a part of that project. Otherwise, it leaves the reader cold, because there’s no involvement that meets the donor’s or prospect’s self-interest, or their own needs, wants and values.

In the second article, if you’re an academic or researcher into methods of teaching, this listing of program components might be valuable. Does it motivate donors? Does it wake them up and make them feel alive and well and happy? Does it compel them to give sacrificially?

But if that’s NOT the case, then why have the newsletter in the first place? What I’m saying here is that the nonprofit’s constituents really don’t want “news” so much as they want to see themselves reflected IN the news; they want to have their own egos stroked, they want to see how their own objectives are getting met.

Maybe the trick here is to stop calling these communications devices “newsletters” and start calling them “motivational shots in the arm.” Maybe we should call them our “ego boosters” or our “inoculations” against our donors moving to another charity. In any case, what is needed here is not a piece with a lot of “news” articles, like a newsPAPER – we’re not needed as journalists here, we’re looked to as fundraisers, development professionals. So let’s “develop” some continuing interest and motivation in the donors and prospects with whatever we put out there for people to read. Otherwise the money we spend on these kinds of communications is simply wasted, because these “news” articles aren’t any more than mildly interesting.

“But,” you might say, “if these sorts of news articles aren’t helpful, what kind of information would help donors and prospects respond more positively?” We’ll deal with that tomorrow.

Delivering the Case for Support – Part 2 of 4

Well, the reason why a case for support isn’t just a list of “we do this, and we do that” is that this kind of recitative just makes donors’ eyes glaze over. Without knowing WHY this is important, no one cares except the administrators of the charity.

It is rather distressing to see textbooks on fundraising published today perpetuating this old, time-worn idea that the case for support is a document focused solely on the organization itself, and not on the donor. For example, Greenfield's "Fund Raising" or Seiler's "Developing Your Case for Support," or Pakroo's "Starting & Building a Nonprofit." These books talk about "the case." but apparently have no idea that the case for support that appeals to donors is the one that speaks of the organization's good works and need for money from the donor's perspective.

Take Greenfield, for example. What does he advise as the ingredients for a case for support? The problem or opportunity to be addressed, trends affecting the problem, your response to the problem, the role of the donor, your mission, your history, your goals and strategies and objectives, your organizational resources, your accountability and evaluation procedures, your future plans for your organization. This isn't a case for support, it's a recitative of an organization's strategic plan.

However, when we establish WHY donors should give, then we have the donor’s interest and attention in a way we did not have it before. So we want to avoid having a case for support that is a recitative of the strategic plan written from the standpoint of the charity’s administrators. We want to move to one that is written from the standpoint of the donor’s interest, or the donor’s possible need for information that is relevant to what the donor wants to achieve in society. Because, unless that first “hook” is set, the donor, quite frankly, just isn’t going to be that interested.

So let’s see if we can start out our case for support with a remarkable and attention-getting reason why the donor or the prospect should pay attention. How about a few of the following:
Secondary school: “Mary’s talents are going to go to waste because she can’t go to college. Why? Her teachers never understood the unique ways that Mary learns. You gift today helps us give Mary and 150 other students the education they need to become productive citizens of their community.”

Homeless shelter: “The Martin family has been living in a dumpster for 2 years. We helped them find, afford and move into a new home on Main Street last month. Your gift last year helped us provide new, affordable housing to 124 families like the Martins. The result? Family crises resolved, breadwinners back to work, children back to school. Life is good. Can you help again this year? It's important. You can make a difference.”

Safe house: “We saved Susan from being shot to death by her estranged and deranged husband. Your gift helps us protect Susan and 58 other women and helps them get the legal help and psychological counseling they need to keep going and make a new world for themselves.”

Food bank: “In the richest county in our state 20% of the population goes to bed hungry each night. You contribution can change that. Please make your donation today so others can have the food they need to keep going.”

After school program: “We not only kept Mike out of jail, but we have helped him discover a real purpose in his life: learning how to set up a business. That happened because people like you gave generously last year. We need your gift this year, too, because there are still 1000 more Mike's out there in our community who desperately need your help.”

Do you see the point here? If you don’t like these lines, then write your own. But that IS the point, that you should be writing more effective, compelling, motivating case for support copy based on the understanding that to get a donor’s attention, one must address a situation that the donor finds intolerable and wants to see fixed. Without that, a mere recitative of programs your charity has no use in a case for support.

Now, armed with that understanding we can write a case for support that might look like this:
1. There’s a crying need in our community that’s not going to go away without a lot of effort. (describe the specifics of the need – 1000 kids went to jail last year because they didn’t know what to do with themselves after school.”)

2. Our charity makes a difference. We’ve been around a long time and we know the kids. We know how devious their little minds are. And we’re getting remarkable results. The number of kids on the street has been reduced by 75% due to our programs.

3. Now there’s a new crisis (or opportunity, if you phrase it that way), because the facilities we use to help Mike and Susan are so crowded and small that we can hardly breathe around here! We can't serve them well because of our physical space limitations.

4. But our Board, in its wisdom and out of its concern for our community's well-being, has devised a plan to expand our physical plant and enhance our services to youth. This plan involves building a new service headquarters with advanced technologies that will do a lot more for community youth than we’ve ever dreamed of doing.

5. We will need $5.6 million dollars over the next three years to bring about this new expansion of physical plant and program enhancements. That’s an investment we are asking our community to make in order to ensure that our youth aren’t wasted and thrown away just because they don’t have anything to do with themselves after school.

6. Without donors like you, we can’t do this; but with your support we can accomplish service levels that will return this community to the halcyon days of old, just like you remember they were!

7. Your gift will be recognized and celebrated; even if you want to give anonymously, you will know that deep down we care about you and are grateful for your generosity, and the community will understand that your gift made it happen.

8. As a longtime member of our inner family, you will receive our regular updates on how we are using your money to make it possible for Mike and Susan and all kids like them to lead productive lives, go on to college and become standard-issue, regular American contributors to society.

Now, here’s a case for support that, regardless of the specific program attributes being described, brings the charity’s programs and needs face-to-face with the donor’s needs, wants and values. Now the charity’s work is described in ways that demonstrate how a donor’s concerns for social problems can be, and will be met through their donations.

Now that we have gotten specific about what a case for support is, let’s get down to this question of delivering that case for support to donors and prospects on a regular, frequent, persistent and consistent basis.

Delivering the Case for Support to Prospects, Part 1 of 4

My observation is that a great many charities give too little thought to delivering their case for support to their donors and prospects on a consistent, persistent and frequent basis.

For one thing, everyone seems to want to do this by remote control, so to speak. There’s the website and the newsletter and the email blast, and then folks stop because those are the easily automated ways of communicating.

But what do they typically do with those communications pieces? They write newsletter articles from their own viewpoint, not that of a donor or prospect. They write the website copy as if everyone visiting the site had the perspective of the executive director of the organization. Navigation generally suffers, too, on that count. You can’t find your way around the charity’s site unless you think like a nonprofit administrator! And the e-blasts come across as if the only thing a recipient donor or prospect had on their mind is that particular charity’s need.

There are actually three issues that need to be addressed here: first, the content of the communications that charities choose to put out there; second, the need to broaden and deepen the communication channels necessary to effectively get the case for support out to the people who can help the charity through financial support; third the definition of “case for support.”

Let’s start with the last one first, so we know what we’re talking about before we discuss how to get the CFS to the people who count.

The Case for Support, as I have come to understand it from a donor’s point of view, is a set of reasons why donors should support a charity.

Mostly what I see happening out there in the real world is that charities want to make their case for support a list of their programs, and a statement of why they sorely need funds to accomplish their mission. There are also many texts, such as those by Timothy Seiler, James Greenfield or Joan Flanagan, whose authors advise sharing all the various internal and planning items: your history, your mission, your goals, strategies and objectives, your organizational resources, etc. Everything is about the organization. NOTHING is about the donor!

But as tempting as I know that is to do, it nevertheless makes a donor's or a prospect’s eyes glaze over. This constant recitative of our programs and who they serve and down to the nth detail of what we do. This is NOT a case for support, in my opinion. It is just a list of programs. "We do this, we do that, we need this, we need that, therefore please give."

But there’s no motivation in it, nothing compelling, unless you read between the lines and understand that, for example, the reason we have this safe house is that there’s a maniac out there trying to get to Melissa to kill her, and the donor is standing between Melissa and certain mayhem or death. Now THAT’s compelling. But nobody says it that way, of course.

So, let’s take it a step at a time. What are the reasons why anybody should give to ABC Charity? Well, one would think that the best reasons to give would have something to do with the reasons donors do, in fact, say they support any charity. Here is a list of the reasons donors typically give to explain why they contribute generously to nonprofit work:
1. The charity has a long-standing history in the community, a squeaky clean image, and is getting great results with their programs.

2. The charity is accomplishing something remarkable that the donor wants to get done in the community, or in society at large.

3. There is a crisis or an opportunity in the community that the charity is addressing so that the donor can see the crisis is clearly resolved or the opportunity is clearly being met.

4. The charity has a definite plan for meeting the opportunity or resolving the crisis and the plan is both workable and “ironclad and copper-bottomed.”

5. The charity needs a defined amount of contributed cash to support this effort over a defined amount of time.

6. The charity needs the donor’s gift, and cannot, in fact, do the job without that support, which donors are asked to give.

7. The result of making a gift to the charity is that the donor will be thanked and recognized for their support.

8. Those who donate to this effort will be considered “one of the family” and will be kept up-to-date on how their money is being used and the results it is bringing in the community.

So, let's take the reasons why people give money to charity and transform them into a case for support that will meet the donor’s needs rather than just meeting the needs of the charity’s administrators.

And why is this so important? Because when we do that we will have a case for support that has its orientation in the donor's needs, wants and values; one that shares our nonprofit information in ways that meet those values and entice, motivate, compel the donor to give out of THEIR OWN motivations, values and needs, not out of our nonprofit administrative perspective.

Now that is a case for support! Stay tuned for the next post on this tomorrow.

“Faith” and Fundraising Part 3

Continuing with our thread from the past two days, which do you think comes first: the chicken or the egg?

Is it necessary that the myths, dogma and theology involving the afterlife necessarily precede doing good and loving humankind? Is it only the myths and dogma, then, that gives people faith, so that then they can be productive and be self-giving and have many positive relationships?

Or can people live lives that are productive, self-giving, self-assured, mature, reasonable, responsible and full of many positive relationships just by their own discernment and through their own nature? Is the only way we can achieve personal and societal charity, then, necessarily the result of priests deciding to invent the myths, dogma and theology involving the afterlife as a way to get people to conform their behavior in ways that ultimately can move society along in positive ways?

Question: Do we only get productive, self-aware, self-giving, positively relational human beings IF there is some sort of myth that they can believe about the afterlife? Is that the only source of grace and peace? Clearly, if we look at what has been produced by some of our world’s religions, this seems not to be the case. Far from giving us impetus to be kind and generous to others, religion with its myths and theologies has produced people who are going around bombing each other because of this belief in an afterlife. And, as I say, we've been doing the equivalent for centuries.

Or is there some natural state of being human, when all the factors come together just in the right way, that promotes health and maturity, and that includes productivity, self-awareness, self-giving and positive relationships all on its own without the myths?

I am inclined to think that the sort of being who breeds generosity and love of humankind occurs naturally, without benefit of religion or "faith," though perhaps not as often as we might wish. Or else that loving and caring come from other than religious roots.

It seems that the priests have attempted to manipulate people through the myths and dogma and theology in order to foster a "faith" kind of answer to life's Big Question that satisfies enough to permit human beings having this "faith" to set aside their baser nature and let their natural love and generosity come through.

Many people have had satisfying, productive, happy, healthy lives, full of good relationships, etc. and yet have not been people who "believed" the myths of religion. They simply developed a kind of "faith" in the world at large and in the "way things are," quite aside from any particular religious myth and dogma. Perhaps one can lead a moral, helpful, responsive life without religion.

We see throughout history how religious dogma, the myths and the theologies have repeatedly disintegrated into racial, class, gender, economic or political power wars and genocide. The mythical and dogmatic produce of the priests is used by the priests themselves and by believing persons, to bring about mob violence against unbelievers, economic wars, political power plays and other manifestations of greed, anxiety, fear, hostility and warlike nature.

So we now have, and have had for centuries, the Christians against the Muslims, the Muslims against the Hindus and Buddhists, and everyone against the Jews. And this is in response not only to humankind's essentially "sinful" or “baser” nature, if you want to use a Christian term, but also as a response to belief in the myths and dogma concerning an afterlife.

Consequently, now, we have people running around killing the guy next door because he has a different myth of the afterlife by which he lives. What kind of sanity is that? The very myth that was designed to help people be satisfied enough to feel nurtured and cared for has for centuries erupted as the basis for being out there killing and maiming and raping the people from the neighboring family, tribe, clan, village, state or country next door.

But one thing that we can see here in this country is that the myth about the afterlife, in all its various manifestations, has permitted also a kind self-giving of one's substance to help others who are needy, and this we call “philanthropy:”: the "love of humankind." Why do we love humans? Is it just because we have come to believe there is an afterlife, in which we can all feel secure, IF we do the "right things;" and we have been taught to understand this includes being self-giving and helping the poor, etc. called “giving back to the community?”

Many people have demonstrated that it is possible to figure out for one's self, quite apart from religious myths and dogma and theology, that such giving, right along with being productive, having will-power for the long haul, having a vision for the future, seeking well-rounded, mutually satisfying relationships, etc. will have a positive affect on the ability of humankind to grow and develop in positive ways. That being the case, we really don't need artificial insemination of the priests' myths, dogma and theology in order to make good things happen for the people around us.

But there's yet another aspect of this thread that we must explore. That is the fact that even when we know (from whatever source or impulse) what we need to do to help another person achieve his/her best personal goals or values, making the decision to do that -- at whatever small or large cost to ourselves -- is one of the most difficult decisions to make.

Regardless of our best intentions, the extent of our education and understanding of the human predicament, the height of our belief in the myths and theologies, or the fact that we know how to make moral decisions, making that decision to help the other person, or give them what they need for survival and enhancement, is still the most difficult of decisions.

So we'll hopefully see you on Monday with more on this theme. Have a great weekend -- and be kind to someone, give a little. If you can bring yourself to do that, it will be internally rewarding.

“Faith” and Fundraising Part 2

Back somewhere in the mists of time, someone at the dawn of the human age must have noticed that very few people around him/her had what we called in the previous post "natural faith." Those who did have this quality seemed to be extra-ordinarily productive, were self-giving, self-motivated, self-assured, maybe even self-actualizing people. They probably had the kind of relationships that were nurturing, mutually fulfilling and well-rounded. These people seemed to be able to put away the baser elements of human nature and let more positive qualities predominate.

Other people in the family, tribe or clan – in fact, probably the great majority of people observed by our long-ago sage -- seemed to let all the qualities of greed, fear, anxiety, and a warlike nature supersede any more peaceful inclinations. Whenever an incident would happen, most of the people would give in to these emotions. An opportunity for food or shelter would trigger greed; the mastodon triggered fear; the lack of resources would occasion anxiety; an aggressive move by a neighboring clan would provide the opportunity to make war on them and beat them into submission.

So this person somewhere in the dim dark past figured out that one of the most perplexing questions a human being can have is the question, "Isn't there anything after this life? Is all we get just one go-around at this existence? Does it have to be this mean and ugly, so absent of grace, beauty and peace?"

So, being very creative, our lone individual decided to invent a scenario for human existence in which there was an after-life, and he/she began to tell friends and neighbors all about it; how great life will be in the time beyond death, how the streets will be paved with gold, or whatever. This probably relieved the fears of our sage, personally, because the more she/he talked about this view the more belief in the scenario seemed to come alive. Not only that, but family, tribe or clan members gradually got the hang of it, and they too started to believe.

The "priests" of whatever religion this made-up story was about to become, came immediately to the fore. They, too, were motivated by greed, fear, anger and anxiety. They saw the opportunity available in other people’s fear and saw that they could cash in on this phenomenon, this new view of the universe that included an after-life. They saw ways to use this scenario to make a more secure life for themselves than those around them had. They did this by taking on the "duties and responsibilities" of perpetuating the set of beliefs, rituals and rites that came to be in vogue or dominant at any given time, and their work tended to satisfy the question about life after death, relieved the general anxiety of the population, and gave them some comfort. So people did what the priests of this new phenomenon called "religion" said to do in order to have their fears calmed and their lives made a little easier -- at least in their minds. So religions of one kind or another have been perpetuating this idea of an after-life ever since.

This has also turned out to be something of a civilizing agent, although the history of the various religions still has in it a lot of war and skulduggery. It became a way to get people to put down, put away, or at least to discipline their baser nature of greed, fear, anxiety and warlike nature somewhat so that they can be productive and have good relationships.

So the religions that developed served three purposes: First, it helped people to act in more socially appropriate ways that allowed civilization to grow and develop a more materially and emotionally comfortable existence. Secondly, it did so by relieving peoples' fears about this life being all there is to human existence, and giving some meaning and purpose to the daily drudge, helping people overlook the really rotten conditions they lived in, and the oppression of the greediest ones that, over time, robbed the other people of all they had, including their dignity and self-respect. Third, religions helped the priestly class develop a life for themselves that extended their own greed and fear through the power they developed over the people. It became intoxicating, self-aggrandizing, as they now had the power of even the rulers in their hands to manipulate.

Now, we need to link how faith and, ultimately, philanthropy grow out of the situation. It gets even more interesting, if you’re into this kind of thing. The next post will take a look at this.

“Faith” and Fundraising

Here's a train of thought having to do with religion as a stimulus for philanthropy and a motivation for engaging in the various activities of fundraising.

This was occasioned by attendance at the memorial service of a friend. During the service those assembled heard statements such as: "He was a true father to me; he had pride in what I did and let me know how proud he was of what I ended up becoming." We heard friends of the deceased say, "He didn't need to 'find himself.' He already knew who he was. He had faith, family and friends in his corner at the end." Another speaker said, "He had faith that everything would turn out all right."

Faith seems necessary for living a life that has the attributes of productivity, an ability to give of self and many, well-rounded, mutually-fulfilling relationships with fellow human beings. But is it religious belief, or the religious community's infrastructure and marketing mechanisms that are responsible for the giving of those who are religiously active?

What is "faith" in the context of making charitable gifts?

"Faith," as observed in those who claim to have it, seems to consist of a person's ability to “see” the future, envision the possibilities that can happen, gain a sense of the circumstances and the concomitant actions that can bring about those possibilities.

"Faith" might also involve, the ability to dig in and work for those possibilities with a vigor and strength that makes them happen. "Faith" is often said to help its believers meet adversity head-on, overcome the blocks and barriers in one's path, while believing, knowing, "having faith" that the outcome will be positive and we have results somewhat along the lines envisioned, even though one is in the midst of the unknown.

"Faith," then, seems to be the ability to keep applying one's better nature throughout life, to the various problems and situations of life, without dissembling, and without letting one's baser nature (fear, anger, greed, anxiety, warlike nature) have sway over one's thoughts and actions. And here we might ask the question, "What motivates atheists to be good, or to give to charity?"

Those who have this quality of "faith" in a natural way seem to be rare. By “natural,” I mean not stimulated by religious dogma and training. If one is prompted by dogmatic proclamations that come from other peoples’ heads and by training that inculcates someone else’s thoughts, then that person’s “faith” is simply letting someone else do one’s thinking.

Having a sense of security in an unknown future that comes from observation of the present, tempered by the internally generated understanding that the future can be better and the intuitional “guessing” that points to the probable characteristics of that future is what I mean here by “faith.”. Some of the other factors that affect one’s “faith view” might include nurturing and supportive parents, a leadership personality forged by trying and failing/succeeding at leadership, a strong self-will or self-discipline able to be applied in a positive direction rather than for war and mayhem.

The quality of "faith" seems to vary with the extent of one’s ability to look ahead and see the possibilities as well as the time, effort and resources it will take to realize them. This also demands a certain quality of persistence of the vision of faith. This is the understanding of the amount of hard work it’s going to take to bring the future into being, even in the face of personal or professional opposition, many blocks and barriers, and frequent events that seem to defeat the vision.

Let’s pause to think this over, and we’ll continue in the next post.

Measuring Nonprofit Board Performance

So now we come to this aspect of our thread on board performance: What are appropriate elements of measurement for a board's work? What kinds of ingredients should we put into a job description and performance standards that can helpfully and effectively be used in board performance evaluation?

First, I would say that any board performance measurement vehicle needs to comprise two distinct parts: The job description and standards of performance for the board as a group; and the standards of performance for each member of the board.

For the performance evaluation of the board as a group, we might delineate the following areas of performance to be measures:

1. Strategic planning on a regular basis to reaffirm the social aims desired by the board for the institution and to update and provide mid-course corrections for the strategies that the board believes will bring about those social aims. This is also a good time to make sure that the policies the board has set are really achieving the results they thought would happen.

2. Management of the executive director – a regular procedure should be developed for the performance evaluation of the executive.

3. Program overview -- the board should be kept abreast of happenings locally and nationally, and within the organization to make sure that the strategies delineated in the strategic plan are actually working the way the board hoped they would. Otherwise mid-course corrections should be programmed into the board’s strategic planning review process. Staff should be providing regular reports on the agency’s programs and on local and national trends in the field of service.

4. Financial overview – the board should be reviewing the financial condition of the organization at least quarterly to ensure proper financial management. Staff should be providing regular reports to the board.

With regard to performance evaluation of individual board members, I think there would be at least the following specific areas:

1. How much money has the board member given personally or been able to raise from others?

2. Attendance at board and committee meetings should be well above 50%.

3. The extent to which the board member has advocated for and publicly supported the organization throughout the geographic area in which the charity is situated. Board members should be attending gatherings of other organizations in order to promote their nonprofit in the most appropriate ways.

4. Each board member attending board training sessions. These sessions should be a regular part of board meetings and should be programmed by the executive working with the board president. Topics might range from the latest strategic planning techniques to program developments, to fundraising techniques and strategies, to government and policy concerns in the field of service. Training sessions should be short but packed with information the board members need to know to do their work effectively.

These are some of the yardsticks we can use to measure board performance. You might be able to think of others. If so, I invite your comments.