3 Key Considerations for Last Minute Donors

A last-minute post for last-minute donors.  Whether you're seeking the tax break and the receipt for the year that is ending, or just trying to finish 2012 on a positive note, it's not too late to give. It's also not too late to give wisely.  Here are three key considerations before you make your year end gift.

1. PASSION
   Is this a cause you care passionately about? Has this organization touched your life or helped others you love? Is this a cause you truly believe needs your help?  Sometimes we're swayed by a powerful image, or a great charity marketing campaign, but that impulsive decision may not be the one that will bring you the most happiness. So while making a gift is better than none at all, consider if there isn't a better "fit" for your generousity.
2. RESEARCH
   What other organizations focus on the area(s) you're most passionate about? Is there a better fit, or more direct way, for your gift to work? Websites like Charity Navigator (focused on the USA) or Charity Intelligence (Canadian but with a much smaller database) can be a big help on this front. Even a quick review of these sites may provide you with new insights about how best to direct your charity giving.
3. IMPACT
   Most charities are very efficient with your donated money, but does your intended target really need your gift? How many years of operating funds does the organization have in reserve? More than just cost per dollar raised (e.g. cost of fundraising), it's important to know if you're getting real impact for every dollar donated. For example, if your charity helps students, has their cost per student been going up or going down over the last few years? And if the answer is up, have they been offering new and enhanced programs... Or are their costs going up at a rate faster than inflation? 

My point is that, as I've said before, giving from your heart and from your head is important. Even if you're making a last minute donation, there is still time to do it right! 

The Only Metric that Matters!

As my inbox has filled with requests for donations and gifts to deserving organizations over the waning days of 2011, I've been reminded of a few insights from my clients and conversations this month.

My first observation was in response to a query about why we all get so many "Asks" around the Holidays. The main reason we all get so many Asks this time of year (whether by e-mail, direct mail, phone calls or other ways) is that people give this time of year.  Whether it's the "spirit of the season" or just the fact that taxable deductions for the calendar year ending force donors' hands, some charities will receive the vast majority of their donations over the last many weeks of any calendar year.  Fundraisers know not to miss a single opportunity to raise funds (particularly as their fiscal year end comes up!), so if this is giving season then you can expect to get a lot of requests!

The other observation was based on a reminder from a client conversation a few weeks ago. I was asked to give advice on which metrics were best used in marketing and communication with prospects in order to get their attention and sell the organization's value. My reply was that ideally you would want to highlight areas that were of most concern to this potential donor.  And my client's response was that this meant that all the other important measures of impact, effectiveness and efficiency weren't much good if we weren't addressing needs that were important to that prospective donor.

And that's a simple truth. If your organization if making a difference and changing lives, doing so efficiently and using every dollar well, then in the end the only metric that matters is what the donor wants done with their money.  If you are busy saving whales, and the donor wants to end hunger, you're unlikely to get their donations. So at this time of year as you get so many asks for your giving, ask yourself what impact do you want to have? In the end, so long as the recipient organization meets certain "baseline" criteria, then the only metric that matters is what you most want to see changed!

Wishing you a happy, healthy and prosperous 2012.

The Corporatization of Charities?

Charities can and should learn a lot from their peers in the for-profit world about best practices and management models. As I've written here in the past this sharing is not without risk of translation errors, while at the same time clearly too valuable not to pursue.  However, there is a risk of something far more worrisome within this corporate - charity relationship on the horizon.

It's clear that governments are stepping back from previous granting levels as they seek to further reduce taxes and simultaneously address deficits (Globe & Mail). The unstated assumption appears to be that someone else will step in to fill the funding void, lest we find critical supports failing. However, there are only so many revenue avenues and they all have limits or issues.  For example, charitable donations by individuals in the USA are often cited as a benchmark for growth here in Canada, but the aggregate numbers are skewed since a significant part of US giving goes to churches and religious groups. Giving levels in many other charitable sectors are actually already quite close, so based on US benchmarks there may not be much room for growth.

Growth in Corporate donations is also frequently cited as an anticipated source to fill revenue shortfalls for charities. However, as various articles have pointed out, this is not without its own challenges.  Here are some of the issues that arise as we pursue corporate donations as the bulwark for charities:

• Corporations are by definition focused on profits. Thus, for some corporations this will result in their "donations" being about what they can gain from their "gift". This has a real potential to mutate charities as they seek to obtain the funds they need.
• Metrics matter, and measuring program Impact for charities is the new normal. However, what Corporate donors seek to measure may not actually be well aligned with the true Mission of recipient organizations. The catch is the Golden Rule - the one with the gold gets to make the rules.  So there is a real risk that charities will measure what their corporate donors say matters, not what needs to be measured.
• Many issues that charities seek to address are highly complex and deeply rooted. These problems won't be solved quickly or easily. Corporations are well-schooled however in the world of ROI and quarterly results. This is not to suggest that there can't be learnings, but the risk is that as charities become ever more reliant on corporations this "short term" thinking will diminish true long-term Impact and solutions.
• Some corporations provide their support to charities through provision of their services and expertise.  It's a great model, but if governments steadily erode their financial support to charities, and corporations shift increasingly into this model of pro-bono work, who will fund keeping the lights on and pay the rent?

Many Charities would and do welcome greater corporate support. And there are many corporations that are already generous, thoughtful, strategic and energetic partners with the charities they support. The question that needs to be asked is how much should charities be forced to rely on corporations, and how do we avoid the pitfalls noted above? Most importantly, a public debate on what kind and level of support we want charities to receive through our government is clearly needed in the near future.

The Science of Making the Ask

In case you're wondering, the "Ask" is fundraising-speak for closing the deal or putting your offer on the table.  It's when all your cultivation efforts to understand the interests and motivations of your prospective donor come together in one place.

My experiece, and all the training I've ever received, indicates that it's always best to go with another person to the meeting for the Ask.  If you're staff, the thinking is that you should go with a volunteer or contact of the prospect.  The logic is that:

• One person can be watching the body language while the other speaks
• Two people make for more accurate memory of the meeting and any points raised
• The staff person can handle any "technical" questions, and the volunteer or contact reinforces the personal nature of the relationship
• Since the volunteer or contact has also already made a gift this puts the Ask on a more authorative level (e.g. I've given and I invite you to do so as well)
• Since "like gives to like" the volunteer or contact is assumed to be at the same "level" as the prospect

It turns out however that there is another, more important reason to have a second person present.  A variety of studies have shown that people are more likely to give, and feel better about their giving, when they are being watched!

The most recent issue of Advancing Philanthropy has an article that summarizes several examples where even having a pair of eyes printed on a poster asking for a donation generated higher giving.  And another example where the pleasure of giving is measurably higher for the donor when done while being watched.

So next time you're ready to make an Ask, be sure to bring a friend!

Giving to the Charitable World: With your Heart and your Head

The topic of how best to have real impact in the charitable world came up in a conference last weekend. Obviously one way to make a positive difference in the world (charitable and otherwise), is to work in the sector. That’s what I chose, but years ago as I researched my options I got some advice that has stuck with me: you don’t have to work in a charity to make a difference for a charity.

So if you're not going to work in the sector how might you have your impact?

One great way to do that is to make a gift. You can give your time (volunteer), your talent (sit on a Board or do something related to your skills), or your "treasure" (making a monetary or in-kind gift). Millions of Canadians give very generously every year, and lives are transformed and saved through their kindness and spirit.

It’s usually our hearts that compel us to give, but I’d like to suggest that giving with your head is pretty smart too. Assuming you’ve found a charity that inspires your heart, here are three ways you can help ensure your gift is given with some forethought that you may not have thought about.

1. Some charities need your gift more than others do. If you've got a few charities that might make your giving list, consider how much “surplus” each organization has generated in the previous few years. How much of a "reserve" do they have? You want some money for the lean times, but could they keep operating for years without your gift? Ask for each charities’ Audited Annual Financial Report – particularly if an abbreviated version isn't on-line.
2. Dig deeper than just the numbers. Despite the first point, you’ll also want to understand a bit about how funds that are raised are used: do they offer robust, impactful programs and activities? Just knowing that a charity doesn't spend much on fundraising or operational costs actually tells you very little. A youth centre can show very low costs if they’re only open one day a week and have little to offer the youth they serve, but then would you really want to support such a meagre program?
3. Lastly, get really close to your short-list of charities. Maybe you want to make a "trial gift", of a smaller amount to see how they respond. Or better yet, volunteer and spend some time at your top charities. Which one do you really like now that you know it better? And best yet, your gift will be that much more valuable to you once you know the people and programs you’ll be helping!

Happy giving! From the heart and the head.

One Way Out of the Box

My last post before Christmas raised the issue of adhering to donor wishes, and given most people’s understandably imperfect knowledge of every charity, questioned whether the "donor always does know best". Since this generated some interesting conversations, and ultimately a question of what might be done to address the issues raised, today I’m revisiting this topic.

One conversation was effectively about what is known as the "Charity starvation cycle". This is the process where either due to the Charity’s desire to see every penny raised go to programs, or due to a lack of donor support for infrastructure and capacity (or a combination thereof), charities are "starved" of the basic necessities to effectively and efficiently run their operations. This harms long-term sustainability and even the actual impact of the very programs that are being supported so aggressively. One suggested solution was to aggregate infrastructure and capacity needs to make them more interesting to donors.

The other conversation was about donors, and in particular the expectations of donors of larger gifts as compared to annual campaign or "smaller" donors. We all know that different things motivate different donors to give, but the point was made that larger donations often come with expectations. Special recognition might be part of it (e.g. naming rights within Capital Campaigns, etc.), but it was argued that primarily larger donors primarily expect more "impact" from their gift. The sense was that their goal is to be "transformational", hoping to move the Charity to entirely new heights or in new underserved directions. The suggestion was that unless the annual campaign and "smaller" donors took care of the infrastructure the charity couldn’t expect these larger gifts.

And to a point I agree. By definition annual campaigns are all about funding the day-to-day operations of the charity. Yet if the annual campaign is only enabling the charity to live "hand to mouth" are they forever trapped without access to "big" gifts?

Obviously there are other fundraising streams to consider, and creative tools generate more revenue from existing streams. But I believe even within this big donor / small donor paradigm there is the potential to break out of this box. While I was with Junior Achievement we were successful in receiving a significant multi-year corporate gift that included infrastructure funding elements required to help implement the desired programs. I appreciate this isn’t exactly the same as an individual donor making a transformational gift, but there are applicable insights.

First, fundraising is a relationship game. You need to get to know your prospect long before they become a donor, and that allows for two-way communication, including discussing the existing capacity of your charity. In our case we were able to show we were very lean already, and without support for capacity we wouldn’t be able to act on the gift.  Thus, in some rare cases a charity may have to walk away from gifts that don't include the right balance of support, or are simply unexecutable at the time. And I note as a sidebar that this can actually be a big positive in the long run: http://www.dwb.org/news/article.cfm?id=1644&cat=field-news

Second, truly deep donor relationships allow for education. This opens a whole new avenue for skilled fundraisers. I believe there’s an opportunity for good communication to show prospective donors of larger gifts how part of their gift can have even more impact – be even more transformational – if some portion of their gift goes to infrastructure and capacity building. So it need not be about aggregating the infrastructure needs or trying to ‘sexy’ them up in some way: simply being clear on the need can go a long way. Certainly that was my observation of the corporate gift we received.

Deep relationships. Solid communication. Complete transparency. Doing these things takes time, time that may not be cost-effective with every donor. But ultimately it’s the charity’s responsibility to help donors of all sizes to understand the charity's unique needs. And this is a key part of the solution to finding the way out of this particular box.