I see in the latest Michigan Nonprofit Association newsletter "Links" that they have posted a series of what are supposed to be helpful comments for donors about how to choose charities for receiving donations.
One of these tips has to do with fundraising. The headline for this comment is "How much of your donation will go towards programming rather than administrative and fundraising exprenses?"
Under that heading, here's the text:
"Charities use your donations not only to carry out their charitable purposes, but also tio pay for administration costs and fundraising (which may include commissions to companies that solicit using telemarketing or direct mail). You have the right to ask exactly how your funds will be used. Althought there is no magic percentage in terms of how much money an organization should spend on overhead, it is smart to ask a charity what percentage of your donation will directly support programming."
What? You don't like fundraising? I mean, I know you don't like to DO it, but do you want to punish charities that do fundraising by not making your gift to those who engage in soliciting donations from the public? But how in the world do you expect, then, that a nonprofit organization is going to be able to meet the demand for services?
In my view the message that fundraising, or administration, is somehow "bad" or "inappropriate" or is somebody else's responsibility, is not a message we want to send to the donating public. It is just NOT appropriate for a donor to think that his or her gift ALONE out of all the others MUST go to programs, while anybody else's gift is OK to be used in these areas. Whoever thought of this doesn't understand the nature of community or the relationship nonprofits have within their communities to those they are helping.
Charities are scrabbling hard today for every dollar they can get, because the needs for service are drastically increased, the marketplace is overcrowded with underfunded charities, and donors tend to see themselves as limited in what they can give. We don't want to preserve the mis-perception or dis-information about fundraising and charitable giving that is already too prevalent on the Internet and in other media. The so-called charity "watchdogs" have already done too much damage in trying to use cost ratios to advise donors and in making "fundraising" seem like an undesirable activity.
But why do I say this? Let's get real, folks. Charities are not businesses; so ratios are inapplicable. They just don't work when the motivation for giving and volunteering isn't profit, but the satisfaction that comes from helping. The reward system for charitable giving and volunteering isn't efficiency, it's meeting needs of people who need help.
Administration? Salaries? In a nonprofit organization that's how we pay people to deliver the services that accomplish our mission. Without administration and salaries, we can't succeed in our mission; we can't meet peoples' needs; we can't do charitable work. It's as simple as that.
Let's take another issue: Charities have three sources of income: fees, government ontracts/grants and contributions solicited by fundraising from the public. Without fundraising activities, there is very little if any ability to provide services in most nonprofits today, particularly in the small- to mediumsized- nonprofits. If a donor is skittish about giving to a charity's fundrising efforts, they don't have the right understanding, because without those fundraising programs, the charity wouldn't be able to deliver much needed services to their target populations.
Take a look at it another way: the donor who supports charity fundraising effectively leverages their gift many times over, because the charity will use that gift to involve other donors and the number of contributions multiplies geometrically. The gift to fundraising is a gift that really gets a great deal more "bang" for the donor's buck than a donation to any particular program area. In the program area, the donation is used up. In the fundraising arena, the donation enlists hundreds and thousands of gifts from others.
Let's take a larger look. In the nonprofit world today, we exist in an over-crowded, under-funded philanthropic marketplace. This has been the case since the mid-1980s. What's happening is that the needs for the services nonprofits perform have doubled and quadrupled in the last 20 years, while government has been steadfastly getting out of the business of making our society better, having left that to the nonprofits. At the same time, the expectation of the American people has increasingly demanded that more services, more types of services, higher quality of services are made available to the public by nonprofit organizations. That means the costs of providing services are increasing as is the demand.
Now, put in the midst of that equation a "picky" donor or a charity "watchdog." What's the problem here? If you don't trust nonprofits to do the right, the honorable, the charitable thing with your donation, don't give. But, if you want to serve people, help people, help nonprofits meet the terrific need that's out there, then please realize that with nonprofits it's all one package: administration, salaries, fundraising and programs. Without all these parts, nothing can happen, no service can be given.
What's not to like here, if you're a donor? It's all part of the way a charity works.
Administration is people providing services.
Salaries are people providing services.
Programs are people providing services.
And fundraising brings in much needed revenue that helps pay for all the people who are out there providing the services.
Now, if you want to ask a charity how much the CEO gets paid compared to the mailroom clerk? That's a good question, one that can tell you a lot about the organizational culture and management practices of the charity. You want to ask about how much the menbers of the Board of Directors give to the charity each year? That's a REAL good indicator of what's going on. You want to ask about whether the charity uses fundraising consultants or other suppliers in telemarketing and direct mail? Good questions, but you need to go into this knowing more about those industries and their costs than most donors know. But it's still a good question to ask.
But, Please. In terms of trying to advise donors away from "administration" or "fundraising" give the nonprofits a break, OK? Charities need the money, urgently! And they need the latitude to put YOUR money, Mrs. and Mrs. Donor, to work where they know it will do the most to help them accomplish their mission.
The public needs to understand just how different the nonprofit sector is from the typical business organization. They're worlds apart, because the nonprofit is going to care about people, and about helping people, and about giving America a better society in which to live. You can't say the same thing about Bank of America or Lehman Brothers, or Bear Stearns and those financial houses or multi-national corporations, can you?
We urgently need to re-educate the giving public to counter the dis-information that's been put out there by the so-called "watchdogs" and others. Fundraiisng is NOT a bad thing to have happen. That's the way charities have existed for time out of mind. If fundraising doesn't happen, no charitable work can be done. OK?
Now, go make your donation to your favorite charity.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Nonprofits Influencing Public Policy?
Only two sectors make public policy in Michigan today: business and government.
For example, at the Mackinaw Conference each spring, you see the Chambers of Commerce coming together with representatives of the legislature and the governor’s office, but that’s all.
We see Business lobbying Government to make sure its interests and desires are heard. Business presses its case, and tells its stories, but no one else is invited.
For example, representatives of the Nonprofit Sector are not invited.
But look at this: the Nonprofit Sector in our state of Michigan is large and substantive. We employ nearly 10% of the workforce, some 440,000 people, and we have $179 billion in assets. We spend more than $60 billion each year to generate $108 billion in economic activity.
Or, take a look at values and experience among Nonprofits. Michigan has some complex social problems involving many, varied, powerful interests that need to be brought together to devise creative solutions.
Transportation, community development, corrections, health care, homelessness, education, economic development, just to mention a few.
Nonprofits have the skills to bring people together to solve problems adn meet needs.
Nonprofits also have the set of values that focus energy for creative solutions tp problems.
Nonprofits have a nearly 250-year history of solving problems and meeting needs.
So why aren’t Nonprofits at the Public Policy Table with business and government?
The answer, unfortunately, is very clear. In fact it’s embarrassingly simple.
While corporations and local businesses have joined together to talk through their common problems, and forge legislative agendas to help them, we in the Nonprofit community remain isolated behind the walls of our silos, afraid to collaborate, hesitant to reach out to each other, and reluctant to discuss what we need..
At the same time, we have a very serious situation that needs our attention:
The Michigan Legislature has developed a structural budget deficit of enormous proportions. For at least two decades, we’ve argued over a steadily shrinking pot of dollars.
Rather than deal with the issues that created this problem, legislators keep trying to cut their way to a solution. Every year more cuts. They cut cities, education, they cut nonprofits. They cut the very things we need most to keep our state vital.
Why has this happened? Legislators are fearful, or reluctant, to make substantive changes, or have vested interests in the way things are. So nothing is done, as the pot gets smaller.
But in the midst of this situation there is a solid place for Nonprofits and Government to work together. Government values and Nonprofit values are much closer than the values of Government and Business.
On the one hand, Business values are: the bottom line, continued accelerated growth of company size and profits, and continued growth of opportunity.
But business growth ignores education, disregards neighborhoods, discounts communities, and rejects setting aside more resources to make our society a better place for all of us to live.
On the other hand, Nonprofit and Government share values of the public good. Both sectors have a history of providing necessary services for building strong communities, increasing individual capability, providing education and training.
We share concerns for community revitalization and sustainability. We both have abilities for solving complex problems that involve many competing interests.
So it’s natural that the Nonprofit community should be a powerful and effective Partner of Government in the setting of public policy.
Another thing we must do is increase resources, so that the overall state revenue pot is large enough to do the job of governing well.
But business doesn’t want to pay more taxes. And many of our voters are simply not educated enough to consider allocating more of their resources for the common good. Even though they would benefit.
So the time is right for Nonprofits to come together:
1) to remind the legislature of the responsibility Government has to the greater good of all;
2) to advocate for increased resources so nonprofits can do what we do best
3) to encourage legislators, putting the power of the Nonprofit Sector behind their efforts to do the right thing.
One problem that faces us, as I mentioned before, is the silos out of which many of our nonprofits operate.
We need to change this: we need to start lowering those silo walls and cooperate, collaborate, and advocate for Nonprofit values, a high level of education for our citizens, and the creation of sustainable neighborhoods and communities.
We can do this by starting to meet together to form a general Nonprofit Sector legislative agenda that will provide all kinds of nonprofits the resources and conditions to do a better job of making society better as we each pursue our various missions more effectively.
This is our challenge. If we work together we can make the Nonprofit Sector an effective partner with Government in pursuit of our mutual values. And that’s good for all of us.
For example, at the Mackinaw Conference each spring, you see the Chambers of Commerce coming together with representatives of the legislature and the governor’s office, but that’s all.
We see Business lobbying Government to make sure its interests and desires are heard. Business presses its case, and tells its stories, but no one else is invited.
For example, representatives of the Nonprofit Sector are not invited.
But look at this: the Nonprofit Sector in our state of Michigan is large and substantive. We employ nearly 10% of the workforce, some 440,000 people, and we have $179 billion in assets. We spend more than $60 billion each year to generate $108 billion in economic activity.
Or, take a look at values and experience among Nonprofits. Michigan has some complex social problems involving many, varied, powerful interests that need to be brought together to devise creative solutions.
Transportation, community development, corrections, health care, homelessness, education, economic development, just to mention a few.
Nonprofits have the skills to bring people together to solve problems adn meet needs.
Nonprofits also have the set of values that focus energy for creative solutions tp problems.
Nonprofits have a nearly 250-year history of solving problems and meeting needs.
So why aren’t Nonprofits at the Public Policy Table with business and government?
The answer, unfortunately, is very clear. In fact it’s embarrassingly simple.
While corporations and local businesses have joined together to talk through their common problems, and forge legislative agendas to help them, we in the Nonprofit community remain isolated behind the walls of our silos, afraid to collaborate, hesitant to reach out to each other, and reluctant to discuss what we need..
At the same time, we have a very serious situation that needs our attention:
The Michigan Legislature has developed a structural budget deficit of enormous proportions. For at least two decades, we’ve argued over a steadily shrinking pot of dollars.
Rather than deal with the issues that created this problem, legislators keep trying to cut their way to a solution. Every year more cuts. They cut cities, education, they cut nonprofits. They cut the very things we need most to keep our state vital.
Why has this happened? Legislators are fearful, or reluctant, to make substantive changes, or have vested interests in the way things are. So nothing is done, as the pot gets smaller.
But in the midst of this situation there is a solid place for Nonprofits and Government to work together. Government values and Nonprofit values are much closer than the values of Government and Business.
On the one hand, Business values are: the bottom line, continued accelerated growth of company size and profits, and continued growth of opportunity.
But business growth ignores education, disregards neighborhoods, discounts communities, and rejects setting aside more resources to make our society a better place for all of us to live.
On the other hand, Nonprofit and Government share values of the public good. Both sectors have a history of providing necessary services for building strong communities, increasing individual capability, providing education and training.
We share concerns for community revitalization and sustainability. We both have abilities for solving complex problems that involve many competing interests.
So it’s natural that the Nonprofit community should be a powerful and effective Partner of Government in the setting of public policy.
Another thing we must do is increase resources, so that the overall state revenue pot is large enough to do the job of governing well.
But business doesn’t want to pay more taxes. And many of our voters are simply not educated enough to consider allocating more of their resources for the common good. Even though they would benefit.
So the time is right for Nonprofits to come together:
1) to remind the legislature of the responsibility Government has to the greater good of all;
2) to advocate for increased resources so nonprofits can do what we do best
3) to encourage legislators, putting the power of the Nonprofit Sector behind their efforts to do the right thing.
One problem that faces us, as I mentioned before, is the silos out of which many of our nonprofits operate.
We need to change this: we need to start lowering those silo walls and cooperate, collaborate, and advocate for Nonprofit values, a high level of education for our citizens, and the creation of sustainable neighborhoods and communities.
We can do this by starting to meet together to form a general Nonprofit Sector legislative agenda that will provide all kinds of nonprofits the resources and conditions to do a better job of making society better as we each pursue our various missions more effectively.
This is our challenge. If we work together we can make the Nonprofit Sector an effective partner with Government in pursuit of our mutual values. And that’s good for all of us.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Raising Taxes to Make Society Better
I am impressed by the fact that there seem to be a huge number of people out there in our state of Michigan (members of both parties) who are not very well educated, and who think of "government" as something quite other than and quite apart from themselves. Consequently, their basic stance is that the smaller the amount of taxes they pay the more they personally take home and the less they have to "bother" with the government.
It's as if they're saying "starve the greedy bums and they'll go away." What they just don't understand is that the government is all of us; we all have a responsibility to the communities in which we live to share the cost of the very necessary services we organize on our own behalf. And I think it's simply because nobody they respect and trust has ever told them any different,
I used to be one of these kinds of people, when I was in my 20s and 30s. I had a family of 5 kids, three from another marriage, and 2 of my own. On a fundraiser's salary with the Salvation Army it was devilishly hard to make ends meet. It was even harder to think of possibly helping myself and my family "move up" to a better level of lifestyle. That was, of course, the general impulse of the time -- get a life together that was measurably better than whatever your father and mother had enjoyed.
During those years, thinking about taxes was like thinking of how to avoid a plague; I did not think of how every cent of the taxes I paid was coming back to me and my family in terms of protection, rules and regulations that provide safety and comfort, conveniences, services, or some other beneficial way. "The government" was just another complication in my life that detracted measurably from that life I was struggling to make.
Yes, I had my Civics Course in high school. But the problem with that course was that while they told us what the government was organizationally and how it worked, they didn't emphasize a most critical point: that our government is all of us together organizing a) to provide a regulatory environment that keeps us from stepping on each others' toes, and b) to provide services that we all need and use daily. I just never "got it" for a long time. It wasn't until I got a lot closer to municipal government through a Michigan Municipal League project I was involved in that I finally began to see things in a different light.
So I'm thinking that what we need to do is embark not so much on a propaganda campaign relative to taxes or relative to specific issues that force us to raise taxes for programs we desperately need to function, but on educating people, helping folks out there throughout our state and nation, who don't have anything in the way of an education, to learn how THEY ARE the local government and the state government and the federal government. We need a method of helping them, as adults, now out of school, to identify themselves as part of a community, like they can feel part of a church group, or a community group, or even the gang of guys at the local bar.
It's not that most people don't have some sort of community roots, it's that they somehow have missed the message that they ARE their government and that whatever is their fair share needs to be paid in order for them to live as decently as we all do in this country. And that there are both protections and advantages as well as responsibilities in this. That's probably where our lack of allowing education to have a high priority for our state has doomed us to have to maintain government in the face of such incredibly isolationist and provincial attitudes about the individual's and the community's responsibility.
I will admit that there may well be the occasional folks who just say "me first and the hell with the other guy" or who say "I'll give as little as I can so I can get more services for free than the next guy." Just your basic "free-riders." But I think this kind of intentionality and meanness about it all is pretty rare.
So maybe what we need to do is produce a video that does a persuasive and compelling bit of this educating; something that would help people identify personally with their government as a piece of themselves that they need to
take care of.
Anybody interested in that? That's the sort of thing I do pretty well. And I wouldn't mind lending a hand with this sort of effort. Though I would need some help in doing it. Then we could take such a thing and put it all over FaceBook and YouTube and MySpace etc. and link it in to Twitter and make tweets out of it, etc. And the video would tell the story in a fresh, compelling, believable way that government is us all, organizing to do what serves our needs.
One more thought, and then I'll quit: I believe we need today a careful balance between the community and the individual. Our system, which combines capitalism and democracy in very unique ways, is very much based, in this country, on a high level of advocacy for the individual's rights. And justly so, given where we came from. But it's not all a one-way deal.
We need also, however, to be protective of the community's well-being and we together need to be insisting on and educating people in their responsibility, or their need to act responsibly toward the communities in which they find themselves. Not IMPOSING it from outside, but educating and motivating people ABOUT it. So they can modify their stereotypes and their behavior and become responsibile members of the community.
Throughout history we can see instances where individuals fight their way to the top or are born at the top of the heap and rule others: (monarchy, and feudal estates right down to democracy in America with the tycoons and the poverty-stricken struggling in competition as we worked hard to evolve a middle class larger and more powerful and economically self-sufficient than both.
Then we have various instances of where the community or the nation is considered foremost. which would take us from socialism and communism, even some forms of fascism, down to democracy in Japan as it is practiced today, with a strong emphasis on the community in the midst of a democratic form of government.
But somehow I think we need to get that mix of co-responsibility back and forth between individuals and community ironed out and expressed a little more evenly.
Democracy and capitalism together is our system; sure, but it can be improved with some careful consideration for both individuals and the communities in which they find themselves. I guess I'm just an old "tax and regulate Democrat" at heart. Sure I want my rights as an individual protected, absolutely. But I am also needed as a responsible and responsive member of the community group in which I live, do business and function.
James Madison, in the Federal papers dealt with "factions" as groups of people who gathered together to exploit their own views or actions to the exclusion of, and perhaps to the detriment of, others. So our founding fathers framed a constitution that allowed us to continually re-invent ways of dealing with such people, according to the times in which we have lived.
But what the founding fathers did not address as helpfully is the way in which communities do have both a moral and a practical claim on individuals, just as individuals must work out their claims on the communities in which they live. It's a two-way street that Americans have had relatively little opportunity to practice, in my way of thinking. I believe it's a fragile balance, too. Too much emphasis on either one can complex problems; and that has happened at various junctures in our history as a nation.
I've been re-reading Richard Hofstadter's "The Era of Reform," (1870 to 1920) and it seems that this period of history presaged our own era. Populists and Progressives, working out the relationships between individuals and community, trying to wrest justice for individuals from the community. But not necessarily giving attention on the individual's responsibility back to the community as a place from whose decisions we all do benefit.
It's as if our whole history is the expression of fear that community (the municipality, the state, the nation) would take over and squash the individual -- which, of course is the anxiety from which our system was birthed, and the basis out of which we so denigrated the socialist and communist experiments of the early 20th century.
And under these regimes, "The State," (we always seem to talk in this kind of discussion of "governments" rather than seeing communities of which individuals are a part) operating as monarchies and oligarchies or in totalitarian systems, has attempted to act on behalf of the people (the community) with disastrous effect.
But have we really worked out the best way to do democracy and capitalism together? I think here's a wrinkle here that needs a further bit of ironing. Mostly it needs educating and motivation. We need to keep working on this issue of the individual and the community. Each has responsibilities to the other, some of which seem to have gone unrecognized. Each need certain rights and freedoms. It's a balance we need to strive for.
It's as if they're saying "starve the greedy bums and they'll go away." What they just don't understand is that the government is all of us; we all have a responsibility to the communities in which we live to share the cost of the very necessary services we organize on our own behalf. And I think it's simply because nobody they respect and trust has ever told them any different,
I used to be one of these kinds of people, when I was in my 20s and 30s. I had a family of 5 kids, three from another marriage, and 2 of my own. On a fundraiser's salary with the Salvation Army it was devilishly hard to make ends meet. It was even harder to think of possibly helping myself and my family "move up" to a better level of lifestyle. That was, of course, the general impulse of the time -- get a life together that was measurably better than whatever your father and mother had enjoyed.
During those years, thinking about taxes was like thinking of how to avoid a plague; I did not think of how every cent of the taxes I paid was coming back to me and my family in terms of protection, rules and regulations that provide safety and comfort, conveniences, services, or some other beneficial way. "The government" was just another complication in my life that detracted measurably from that life I was struggling to make.
Yes, I had my Civics Course in high school. But the problem with that course was that while they told us what the government was organizationally and how it worked, they didn't emphasize a most critical point: that our government is all of us together organizing a) to provide a regulatory environment that keeps us from stepping on each others' toes, and b) to provide services that we all need and use daily. I just never "got it" for a long time. It wasn't until I got a lot closer to municipal government through a Michigan Municipal League project I was involved in that I finally began to see things in a different light.
So I'm thinking that what we need to do is embark not so much on a propaganda campaign relative to taxes or relative to specific issues that force us to raise taxes for programs we desperately need to function, but on educating people, helping folks out there throughout our state and nation, who don't have anything in the way of an education, to learn how THEY ARE the local government and the state government and the federal government. We need a method of helping them, as adults, now out of school, to identify themselves as part of a community, like they can feel part of a church group, or a community group, or even the gang of guys at the local bar.
It's not that most people don't have some sort of community roots, it's that they somehow have missed the message that they ARE their government and that whatever is their fair share needs to be paid in order for them to live as decently as we all do in this country. And that there are both protections and advantages as well as responsibilities in this. That's probably where our lack of allowing education to have a high priority for our state has doomed us to have to maintain government in the face of such incredibly isolationist and provincial attitudes about the individual's and the community's responsibility.
I will admit that there may well be the occasional folks who just say "me first and the hell with the other guy" or who say "I'll give as little as I can so I can get more services for free than the next guy." Just your basic "free-riders." But I think this kind of intentionality and meanness about it all is pretty rare.
So maybe what we need to do is produce a video that does a persuasive and compelling bit of this educating; something that would help people identify personally with their government as a piece of themselves that they need to
take care of.
Anybody interested in that? That's the sort of thing I do pretty well. And I wouldn't mind lending a hand with this sort of effort. Though I would need some help in doing it. Then we could take such a thing and put it all over FaceBook and YouTube and MySpace etc. and link it in to Twitter and make tweets out of it, etc. And the video would tell the story in a fresh, compelling, believable way that government is us all, organizing to do what serves our needs.
One more thought, and then I'll quit: I believe we need today a careful balance between the community and the individual. Our system, which combines capitalism and democracy in very unique ways, is very much based, in this country, on a high level of advocacy for the individual's rights. And justly so, given where we came from. But it's not all a one-way deal.
We need also, however, to be protective of the community's well-being and we together need to be insisting on and educating people in their responsibility, or their need to act responsibly toward the communities in which they find themselves. Not IMPOSING it from outside, but educating and motivating people ABOUT it. So they can modify their stereotypes and their behavior and become responsibile members of the community.
Throughout history we can see instances where individuals fight their way to the top or are born at the top of the heap and rule others: (monarchy, and feudal estates right down to democracy in America with the tycoons and the poverty-stricken struggling in competition as we worked hard to evolve a middle class larger and more powerful and economically self-sufficient than both.
Then we have various instances of where the community or the nation is considered foremost. which would take us from socialism and communism, even some forms of fascism, down to democracy in Japan as it is practiced today, with a strong emphasis on the community in the midst of a democratic form of government.
But somehow I think we need to get that mix of co-responsibility back and forth between individuals and community ironed out and expressed a little more evenly.
Democracy and capitalism together is our system; sure, but it can be improved with some careful consideration for both individuals and the communities in which they find themselves. I guess I'm just an old "tax and regulate Democrat" at heart. Sure I want my rights as an individual protected, absolutely. But I am also needed as a responsible and responsive member of the community group in which I live, do business and function.
James Madison, in the Federal papers dealt with "factions" as groups of people who gathered together to exploit their own views or actions to the exclusion of, and perhaps to the detriment of, others. So our founding fathers framed a constitution that allowed us to continually re-invent ways of dealing with such people, according to the times in which we have lived.
But what the founding fathers did not address as helpfully is the way in which communities do have both a moral and a practical claim on individuals, just as individuals must work out their claims on the communities in which they live. It's a two-way street that Americans have had relatively little opportunity to practice, in my way of thinking. I believe it's a fragile balance, too. Too much emphasis on either one can complex problems; and that has happened at various junctures in our history as a nation.
I've been re-reading Richard Hofstadter's "The Era of Reform," (1870 to 1920) and it seems that this period of history presaged our own era. Populists and Progressives, working out the relationships between individuals and community, trying to wrest justice for individuals from the community. But not necessarily giving attention on the individual's responsibility back to the community as a place from whose decisions we all do benefit.
It's as if our whole history is the expression of fear that community (the municipality, the state, the nation) would take over and squash the individual -- which, of course is the anxiety from which our system was birthed, and the basis out of which we so denigrated the socialist and communist experiments of the early 20th century.
And under these regimes, "The State," (we always seem to talk in this kind of discussion of "governments" rather than seeing communities of which individuals are a part) operating as monarchies and oligarchies or in totalitarian systems, has attempted to act on behalf of the people (the community) with disastrous effect.
But have we really worked out the best way to do democracy and capitalism together? I think here's a wrinkle here that needs a further bit of ironing. Mostly it needs educating and motivation. We need to keep working on this issue of the individual and the community. Each has responsibilities to the other, some of which seem to have gone unrecognized. Each need certain rights and freedoms. It's a balance we need to strive for.
We're "Free," But From What?
In this country we have a long, proud and loud history of "freedom." Freedom from tyranny, principally. The tyranny of monarchy, oligarchy, aristocracy, despotism totalitarianism and fascism. Freedom from government that oppresses the individual either politically or economically. Freedom for the individual to do whatever he/she wants to do. Along with that we have, over the last two hundred fifty years, developed the set of rights which we are willing to accord to the individual. And we protect these rights militantly and vociferously. We have also developed the symbols, the institutions, the infrastructure to reinforce that belief in the rights of the individual. So, in this respect we are "free."
But we still have further to go in the journey of our development as human creatures. For example, we must get ourselves to the point where we are free of the tyranny of employers and the work place; the work place must become more humane, and more in concert with our environment, so that productivity and sustainability don't fight each other at the cost of our planet, human lives or personal integrity.
We need also to get ourselves free from the effects of our ignorance, our fears and anxieties, our stereotypes -- the stuff that's in our (individual and free) heads. This is the stuff that keeps us from making the decisions that will help us most.
Right now, the thing we need most, the thing we need that will do us the most good, especially in Michigan but also generally across the nation, is education. Yet ignorance, fear, greed, anxiety, stereotypes all are forcing people in legislatures and in the hustings to relegate education not to the top of the priority list but somewhere down at the bottom of the list.
That's hurting us. That keeps us robbing the future and calling it "gross domestic product." (from Paul Hawken in his Commencement address at Portland U.) Lack of a state and national highest priority emphasis on education keeps us from advancing because it robs us of the creativity we need to come up with solutions to our problems that we desperately need; but, instead, we keep trying the tired old solutions over and over again. Just trim the budget, cut the budget, one more time.
So we argue in our Michigan legislature about a few hundred million dollars in a pie that is getting smaller and smaller the longer we refuse to deal with Michigan's corrections system and health care. And the longer we refuse to raise the taxes we need so desperately to upgrade the level of education for our people so we can make something of our society in the new "Age of the Unthinkable.". (See Joshua Ramos' new book by that title.)
In the words of Arthur Miller, the playwright, in his book "Chinese Encounters" which he co-authored with his wife Inge Morath, the photographer at the end of the 1970s, this is "the paradox of human need bound to the human resistance to change." That's quite a phrase, isn't it? Even though we need greatly increased education so desperately, yet we resist the changes necessary to make that happen. We argue about which dollars we're going to cut from the budget instead of building the budget we need and then selling it to the people of the state as their bounden duty and responsibility to do it.
But we still have further to go in the journey of our development as human creatures. For example, we must get ourselves to the point where we are free of the tyranny of employers and the work place; the work place must become more humane, and more in concert with our environment, so that productivity and sustainability don't fight each other at the cost of our planet, human lives or personal integrity.
We need also to get ourselves free from the effects of our ignorance, our fears and anxieties, our stereotypes -- the stuff that's in our (individual and free) heads. This is the stuff that keeps us from making the decisions that will help us most.
Right now, the thing we need most, the thing we need that will do us the most good, especially in Michigan but also generally across the nation, is education. Yet ignorance, fear, greed, anxiety, stereotypes all are forcing people in legislatures and in the hustings to relegate education not to the top of the priority list but somewhere down at the bottom of the list.
That's hurting us. That keeps us robbing the future and calling it "gross domestic product." (from Paul Hawken in his Commencement address at Portland U.) Lack of a state and national highest priority emphasis on education keeps us from advancing because it robs us of the creativity we need to come up with solutions to our problems that we desperately need; but, instead, we keep trying the tired old solutions over and over again. Just trim the budget, cut the budget, one more time.
So we argue in our Michigan legislature about a few hundred million dollars in a pie that is getting smaller and smaller the longer we refuse to deal with Michigan's corrections system and health care. And the longer we refuse to raise the taxes we need so desperately to upgrade the level of education for our people so we can make something of our society in the new "Age of the Unthinkable.". (See Joshua Ramos' new book by that title.)
In the words of Arthur Miller, the playwright, in his book "Chinese Encounters" which he co-authored with his wife Inge Morath, the photographer at the end of the 1970s, this is "the paradox of human need bound to the human resistance to change." That's quite a phrase, isn't it? Even though we need greatly increased education so desperately, yet we resist the changes necessary to make that happen. We argue about which dollars we're going to cut from the budget instead of building the budget we need and then selling it to the people of the state as their bounden duty and responsibility to do it.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Donor-Centered Fundraising
Some say there is a crisis in nonprofits' inability to acquire and then retain new donors. Maybe we're not being donor-centric enough. First, it might be helpful for you to read Penelope Burk's "Donor Centered Fund Raising" and get the benefit of her extensive research into the giving habits and preferences of the Baby Boomer and Gen-X demographic cohorts. Then here are some thoughts about what to do next:
The first thing boards, executives and fundraisers in nonprofit organizations need to do to gather the money they're leaving on the table (yes, even in the midst of the recession there's money out there to be had!) is to re-think and re-write the case for support for their organizations so that their donor prospects can see how they can achieve their objectives through the nonprofit organization's work.
The Ike generation is about gone. We're having to re-program ourselves to the Baby Boomers, the Gen-Xers, Gen-Y and the Milleniums -- the generational cohorts brought up on television and the movies. So if the case for support doesn't meet THEIR needs (forget about the charity's needs), they're not going to listen. And if it doesn't talk and move, they're not going to pay any attention. We must re-think our use of media. Yesterday's color brochure is today's video, podcast, web presentation. So, yes, costs of production are up because the media are richer and more powerful. But we've got to pony up and invest in our fundraising infrastructure in order to make the oxytocin run and get the money that's out there.
The second thing we need to do is invent metrics that tell us just how much real sustainable "good" we're doing in society and how we're changing society for the better. These demographic cohorts want to see progress; they want to know that their gifts are making a difference. Doing good is just not enough any more. We must know that we're changing things, and we must report that to our donors and to the prospects we hope to solicit. We can keep new donors if we are attentive to their needs.
Yes, we must be donor-centered. But in doing that we have a ton of work and a good deal of investment ahead of us. New metrics with with to judge the outcomes of our service mission, and new infrastructure for fundraising and reporting to our donors what they are accomplishing through our work; these are the tasks on which we should focus to keep our donors giving to our causes.
Board members, executives and fundraisers need to think more about their donors than they think about their own needs and those of the organization they represent. But they also need to invest in new tools of infrastructure and capacity-building. Which means, in turn, that resources will need to apportioned differently and we need to scrap the idea that "every penny should be given to program."
There will be more on this theme, stay tuned.
The first thing boards, executives and fundraisers in nonprofit organizations need to do to gather the money they're leaving on the table (yes, even in the midst of the recession there's money out there to be had!) is to re-think and re-write the case for support for their organizations so that their donor prospects can see how they can achieve their objectives through the nonprofit organization's work.
The Ike generation is about gone. We're having to re-program ourselves to the Baby Boomers, the Gen-Xers, Gen-Y and the Milleniums -- the generational cohorts brought up on television and the movies. So if the case for support doesn't meet THEIR needs (forget about the charity's needs), they're not going to listen. And if it doesn't talk and move, they're not going to pay any attention. We must re-think our use of media. Yesterday's color brochure is today's video, podcast, web presentation. So, yes, costs of production are up because the media are richer and more powerful. But we've got to pony up and invest in our fundraising infrastructure in order to make the oxytocin run and get the money that's out there.
The second thing we need to do is invent metrics that tell us just how much real sustainable "good" we're doing in society and how we're changing society for the better. These demographic cohorts want to see progress; they want to know that their gifts are making a difference. Doing good is just not enough any more. We must know that we're changing things, and we must report that to our donors and to the prospects we hope to solicit. We can keep new donors if we are attentive to their needs.
Yes, we must be donor-centered. But in doing that we have a ton of work and a good deal of investment ahead of us. New metrics with with to judge the outcomes of our service mission, and new infrastructure for fundraising and reporting to our donors what they are accomplishing through our work; these are the tasks on which we should focus to keep our donors giving to our causes.
Board members, executives and fundraisers need to think more about their donors than they think about their own needs and those of the organization they represent. But they also need to invest in new tools of infrastructure and capacity-building. Which means, in turn, that resources will need to apportioned differently and we need to scrap the idea that "every penny should be given to program."
There will be more on this theme, stay tuned.
Reply to Nonprofit Quarterly article
Ruth McCambridge of the journal Nonprofit Quarterly has written an article sent by email today entitled: "Late Payments and Other Tough Stuff." In this brief but excellent article she relates the following comments from an executive director of a nonprofit organization that receives state funds for a local service population:
"One executive director told me that the state contract that comprises most of her budget requires that her organization never turn anyone away or even put them on a wait list. But they have just been informed that the state will not pay for any work done under this contract since mid April until September -- and the amount they will be owed at that time will be between $700,000 and $800,000. The organization has a credit limit far less than that so this makes the near future nerve wracking at best. In short, the state has forcibly taken a loan from this small organization while the agency worries about how to make payroll and tries to convince vendors to wait to be paid. Says the executive, 'We've always had to "slow pay," and all the providers have always found a way to make it through so there's never really been a huge up-in-arms, "this-has-got-to-stop" reaction.'"
Here in Michigan this type of situation is being experienced by hundreds of our nonprofit organizations as our state is in dire financial straits. But the financial crisis in Michigan comes as a result of two independent factors. Let's first take a look at this situation, then at the question involving payments to nonprofit service providers.
First in Michigan, for more than a decade, there is the refusal of the state legislature to deal with corrections and health care, while these two expenditure "lions" eat up the state's revenue in greater shares every year. We have a structural budget deficit that isn't going away, and we don't have the moral and political will to stop this from happening. All the legislators, in both parties, are afraid to deal with these two issues because they may well lose their jobs. ANd they would lose their jobs because the clear solution is that taxes are going to have to be raised, or else our standards and preferences in the fields of correcitons and health care are going to have to be drastically altered. Neither is a popular decision among Michigan's people, who pretty much want everything for themselves and nothing for the society -- we won't allow taxes to be raised, and we want to be comfortable in the niches we've created for ourselves individually given the present healthcare situation, and we really want people we don't like to be locked away with the people who are dangerous to us. So this means that each year the bulk of whatever revenues come to the state are going to continue to be eaten away by these two hungry lions.
Second, there's the worldwide Depression, or Recession -- whatever you call it, it's bad and growing worse, and thanks to the greed and avarice of the excessivly paid executives and managers of insurance companies and the financial and banking institutions of our country. Whatever it is, it's wreaking havoc with our states budget and presumably that of all the other states. And here in Michigan we have the death of the automobile industry to top it all off and make things even worse.
The result, then, is that property taxes and income taxes are not enough to make the state of Michgan's budget balance EVEN IF the above two issues of corrections and health care could be solved instantly overnight. So the consequence is that our state legislators and our governor just keep trying to cut, and shave, and cut, and shave the budget's expense column, and we're making public policy by dint of paring down the budget.
This is the chicken's way out. Legislators are not fulfilling the responsibilities of being elected officials; they're afraid of making the tough policy decisions that deal with issues we've had now for decades but have refused to face squarely. Even to the point that they have used the Federal bailout money to try to balance this year's budget.
Now, given this state of affairs in Michigan, my response to the situation with the nonprofits receiving cuts to their allocations to provide social services is this: If a state agency is going to a)set a condition that no one can be turned away or put on a wait list; and b)cut the amount of funding they pay for nonprofits to provide social services, and c) continue to be late payers to those charities, I see only one response that can really be made to this administrative type of public policy making: the nonprofit should stop serving the people, return any state monies held, and simply go out of business. Period.
There's really no other way to deal with this type of situation. Any move the charity's board or executive might make to try to stay in business and meet the needs of whatever service population we're talking about simply serves to set up a co-dependenr relationship that permits the state to have its cake and eat it too. If the charity keeps trying to stay alive and meet the needs of the service population, then the people are served off somebody else's dollar. They are served because the charity has gone out into the philanthropic marketplace and asked willing contributors to step up to meet the shortfall the state has occasioned. But that "shortfall" is pretty huge, so donated funds are not likely to cover adquately for very long.
State legislators first need to make just and sustainable public policy and then carefully thought out budgets need to be constructed to pay for its enactment of policy, in good economic times or bad; then taxpayers need to pony up to paying to make society better through presumably raised taxes, levied to meet the state's obligation or commitment to the maintain the social safety net. This would alleviate the need for contributors and donors being asked by the charities normally receiving state funds to pay for providing services.
The current situation just means service continues to that service population even though the state is not responsibly meeting its obligation for seeing to it that certain populations are served and their guidelines (no one turned away) are followed.
The state, any state, good economic times or bad, can't have it both ways. A state should not try to put the burden on nonprofits to pick up the slack and somehow find money to continue services when the taxpayers and their elected representatives will not raise taxes to keep the state's commitment to making society better. Public policy shouldn't be made in this co-dependent way. But that's what Ruth McCambridge's executive director is facing. We already have an over-crowded, under-funded philanthropic marketplace, thanks to Reaganomics and the conservatices' policies for the last thirty years. Now the recession brought about by their financial practices makes things even worse.
There is one other issue raised in this article, and it is this: that contributors to charity cannot, in the midst of a Depression or Recession that is international in scope, ever hope to give enough money to fulfill a state's obligations, or the federal government's obligation, to making society better and care for people in need. What we need is a strong commitment by a state or by the federal government to meeting peoples' needs and carrying out their responsibility for a livable and sustainable society as a TOP priority, recession or no, in good times or bad.
If we just stop serving the needy, and the many people who receive state and charitable services, then hopefully there will be enough hue and cry in the streets, enough tragedy and death reported by the media, enough expression of dissatisfaction with the state of things by knowledgeable people, and (god forbid) even mob action in the streets, that the state's legislators or federal elected officials will be forced to raise the taxes necessary to keep their commitment to the quality and sustainability of the social fabric. If nonprofits keep rolling over and refusing to end services and go out of business when states make these draconian cuts, we'll never get any further than we are now in having a public policy that, at both the federal and state levels, provides what people need to live in a society that is peaceful, just and sustainable. The voters won't be moved out of selfishness and complacence, the legislators won't be moved to act courageously, until disaster happens. You'd think we would have learned better by now, but we're apparently going to repeat a scenario that has been seen time and again: no action until disaster strikes.
We shouldn't be trying to keep these nonprofits going in the kind of rock-and-a-hard-place siutation that is described in Ruth McCambridge's article.
"One executive director told me that the state contract that comprises most of her budget requires that her organization never turn anyone away or even put them on a wait list. But they have just been informed that the state will not pay for any work done under this contract since mid April until September -- and the amount they will be owed at that time will be between $700,000 and $800,000. The organization has a credit limit far less than that so this makes the near future nerve wracking at best. In short, the state has forcibly taken a loan from this small organization while the agency worries about how to make payroll and tries to convince vendors to wait to be paid. Says the executive, 'We've always had to "slow pay," and all the providers have always found a way to make it through so there's never really been a huge up-in-arms, "this-has-got-to-stop" reaction.'"
Here in Michigan this type of situation is being experienced by hundreds of our nonprofit organizations as our state is in dire financial straits. But the financial crisis in Michigan comes as a result of two independent factors. Let's first take a look at this situation, then at the question involving payments to nonprofit service providers.
First in Michigan, for more than a decade, there is the refusal of the state legislature to deal with corrections and health care, while these two expenditure "lions" eat up the state's revenue in greater shares every year. We have a structural budget deficit that isn't going away, and we don't have the moral and political will to stop this from happening. All the legislators, in both parties, are afraid to deal with these two issues because they may well lose their jobs. ANd they would lose their jobs because the clear solution is that taxes are going to have to be raised, or else our standards and preferences in the fields of correcitons and health care are going to have to be drastically altered. Neither is a popular decision among Michigan's people, who pretty much want everything for themselves and nothing for the society -- we won't allow taxes to be raised, and we want to be comfortable in the niches we've created for ourselves individually given the present healthcare situation, and we really want people we don't like to be locked away with the people who are dangerous to us. So this means that each year the bulk of whatever revenues come to the state are going to continue to be eaten away by these two hungry lions.
Second, there's the worldwide Depression, or Recession -- whatever you call it, it's bad and growing worse, and thanks to the greed and avarice of the excessivly paid executives and managers of insurance companies and the financial and banking institutions of our country. Whatever it is, it's wreaking havoc with our states budget and presumably that of all the other states. And here in Michigan we have the death of the automobile industry to top it all off and make things even worse.
The result, then, is that property taxes and income taxes are not enough to make the state of Michgan's budget balance EVEN IF the above two issues of corrections and health care could be solved instantly overnight. So the consequence is that our state legislators and our governor just keep trying to cut, and shave, and cut, and shave the budget's expense column, and we're making public policy by dint of paring down the budget.
This is the chicken's way out. Legislators are not fulfilling the responsibilities of being elected officials; they're afraid of making the tough policy decisions that deal with issues we've had now for decades but have refused to face squarely. Even to the point that they have used the Federal bailout money to try to balance this year's budget.
Now, given this state of affairs in Michigan, my response to the situation with the nonprofits receiving cuts to their allocations to provide social services is this: If a state agency is going to a)set a condition that no one can be turned away or put on a wait list; and b)cut the amount of funding they pay for nonprofits to provide social services, and c) continue to be late payers to those charities, I see only one response that can really be made to this administrative type of public policy making: the nonprofit should stop serving the people, return any state monies held, and simply go out of business. Period.
There's really no other way to deal with this type of situation. Any move the charity's board or executive might make to try to stay in business and meet the needs of whatever service population we're talking about simply serves to set up a co-dependenr relationship that permits the state to have its cake and eat it too. If the charity keeps trying to stay alive and meet the needs of the service population, then the people are served off somebody else's dollar. They are served because the charity has gone out into the philanthropic marketplace and asked willing contributors to step up to meet the shortfall the state has occasioned. But that "shortfall" is pretty huge, so donated funds are not likely to cover adquately for very long.
State legislators first need to make just and sustainable public policy and then carefully thought out budgets need to be constructed to pay for its enactment of policy, in good economic times or bad; then taxpayers need to pony up to paying to make society better through presumably raised taxes, levied to meet the state's obligation or commitment to the maintain the social safety net. This would alleviate the need for contributors and donors being asked by the charities normally receiving state funds to pay for providing services.
The current situation just means service continues to that service population even though the state is not responsibly meeting its obligation for seeing to it that certain populations are served and their guidelines (no one turned away) are followed.
The state, any state, good economic times or bad, can't have it both ways. A state should not try to put the burden on nonprofits to pick up the slack and somehow find money to continue services when the taxpayers and their elected representatives will not raise taxes to keep the state's commitment to making society better. Public policy shouldn't be made in this co-dependent way. But that's what Ruth McCambridge's executive director is facing. We already have an over-crowded, under-funded philanthropic marketplace, thanks to Reaganomics and the conservatices' policies for the last thirty years. Now the recession brought about by their financial practices makes things even worse.
There is one other issue raised in this article, and it is this: that contributors to charity cannot, in the midst of a Depression or Recession that is international in scope, ever hope to give enough money to fulfill a state's obligations, or the federal government's obligation, to making society better and care for people in need. What we need is a strong commitment by a state or by the federal government to meeting peoples' needs and carrying out their responsibility for a livable and sustainable society as a TOP priority, recession or no, in good times or bad.
If we just stop serving the needy, and the many people who receive state and charitable services, then hopefully there will be enough hue and cry in the streets, enough tragedy and death reported by the media, enough expression of dissatisfaction with the state of things by knowledgeable people, and (god forbid) even mob action in the streets, that the state's legislators or federal elected officials will be forced to raise the taxes necessary to keep their commitment to the quality and sustainability of the social fabric. If nonprofits keep rolling over and refusing to end services and go out of business when states make these draconian cuts, we'll never get any further than we are now in having a public policy that, at both the federal and state levels, provides what people need to live in a society that is peaceful, just and sustainable. The voters won't be moved out of selfishness and complacence, the legislators won't be moved to act courageously, until disaster happens. You'd think we would have learned better by now, but we're apparently going to repeat a scenario that has been seen time and again: no action until disaster strikes.
We shouldn't be trying to keep these nonprofits going in the kind of rock-and-a-hard-place siutation that is described in Ruth McCambridge's article.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
New Research from Cygnus and Penelope Burk
I have just seen two pieces written by Penelope Burk on her blog that reveal what she is learning in her newest study of 22,000 donors across the U.S. about their attitudes towards giving to charity and their thoughts about giving in a bad economy.
If you don't already subscribe to her blog, you might want to consider that possibility. This new survey has some incredible results in it, and most of them are counter-intuitive to the way most fundraisers, executives and nonprofit board members think about fundraising. Here are jus two examples:
1. Look at this quote: "But even before we start analyzing the results, I already know one thing — the days of fundraisers as the gatekeepers of philanthropy are over. Donors are in charge now, and they are making independent and provocative decisions about who they will support and how much they will give based on whether or not charities address their growing concerns; and at the top of their list is over-solicitation." Burk has a lot more to say about over-solicitation and whose fault it is and how it can be corrected. She is principally talking about direct mail.
Here's the URL: http://www.cygresearch.com/burksblog/?p=195
2. Here are some quotes from the donor surveys that demonstrate donor attitudes. Burk says, " Americans’ determination to give in spite of hardship, or their deep regret if they have to cut back on their philanthropy. Many included a phrase like, “Please let not-for-profits know that….” " There are quite a few quotes at this URL, many will make you stop and think seriously that donors are truly marvelous!
Here's the URL: http://www.cygresearch.com/burksblog/?p=198
I saw these two entries and thought immediately of the tremendous implications this ongoing research has for fundraising practices and procedures. It's a constant learning experience, and fundraisers need to stay continually vigilant and flexible to meet the demands of donors.
Best regards to each and all,
If you don't already subscribe to her blog, you might want to consider that possibility. This new survey has some incredible results in it, and most of them are counter-intuitive to the way most fundraisers, executives and nonprofit board members think about fundraising. Here are jus two examples:
1. Look at this quote: "But even before we start analyzing the results, I already know one thing — the days of fundraisers as the gatekeepers of philanthropy are over. Donors are in charge now, and they are making independent and provocative decisions about who they will support and how much they will give based on whether or not charities address their growing concerns; and at the top of their list is over-solicitation." Burk has a lot more to say about over-solicitation and whose fault it is and how it can be corrected. She is principally talking about direct mail.
Here's the URL: http://www.cygresearch.com/burksblog/?p=195
2. Here are some quotes from the donor surveys that demonstrate donor attitudes. Burk says, " Americans’ determination to give in spite of hardship, or their deep regret if they have to cut back on their philanthropy. Many included a phrase like, “Please let not-for-profits know that….” " There are quite a few quotes at this URL, many will make you stop and think seriously that donors are truly marvelous!
Here's the URL: http://www.cygresearch.com/burksblog/?p=198
I saw these two entries and thought immediately of the tremendous implications this ongoing research has for fundraising practices and procedures. It's a constant learning experience, and fundraisers need to stay continually vigilant and flexible to meet the demands of donors.
Best regards to each and all,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
