Offices for Charities - 3 Good Reasons to Ensure Price is NOT the Sole Criteria

It's been an interesting time to live in Toronto over the last few weeks. And today felt like the first real day of summer. So by the time I arrived at my second meeting today I was feeling more than a little cranky about our Mayor and not just a little bit overheated. Imagine my pleasure then to arrive in an oasis of cool bright space, with trees, lovely architecture and carefully designed areas that were both accessible and inviting. I felt calmer (and cooler) immediately...

All this in a space that houses a charity.

I've expressed before my concern over not spending enough on charitable infrastructure and "back of house" support, but clearly this is an organization that has had a great opportunity to afford a lovely space to pursue their Mission.

And then I worried that maybe it was "too rich", that Mission had suffered due to spending too much on the space. Maybe they would have been better off if their sole criteria in creating this space was to find the cheapest place at the cheapest price?

Here's why I don't think that's the case:

1. For-Profit organizations clearly believe that nice spaces help attract and retain talented staff. Charities need to attract and retain talented staff too, so while they may not need to be quite as fancy as Google's new home in Toronto, deciding on price only can't help morale either. And if better space has this positive affect on staff, imagine the value for the clients and patients this charity serves...
2. Productivity goes up when the work/office spaces are flexible, attractive, have the right tools and allow for appropriate privacy and quiet. So if charities are seeking to be as efficient as possible with donated money, increasing productivity makes sense.
3. Nicer space may actually make the Ask easier. Few prospects want to donate to renovate a tired Class C building to a bare minimum standard. But having seen the impact on people I was prospecting when I showed them the drawings of a truly remarkable renovation capital campaign I can attest to the value of dreaming bigger than just about rock bottom pricing!

Price will always be king. But perhaps more charities should take a page from the For Profit world and make aspiring to better working spaces nobility as well.

5 Advantages of Charities Owning Their Offices - and the Risks

We ran a seminar on real estate for charities last week, and a number of Executive Directors, Directors of Finance, and CFOs came out to share best practices, enjoy coffee and muffins, and review “Real Estate for Charities 101”.

If you ignore the largest (e.g. YMCA, etc.) or longest-standing (e.g. settlement houses, etc.) organizations, certainly most charities today are leasing their spaces. So one of the themes that we explored, especially since we have recently completed several projects where charities and foundations have purchased their own buildings and office spaces, was the pros and cons of buying / owning versus leasing / renting.

As I work with charities it’s easy to see the allure of owning your own space.

• Can be leveraged – in difficult financial times or to fund a project the option exists to take out a mortgage / secured line on the property
• Provides cost certainty – other than the fairly predictable cost increases in utilities, the main cost (the mortgage) can be predicted very accurately for years to come
• Potential for “upside” – your payments build equity and not the landlord’s bottom line, plus with no “middleman” owning can save money over time, and  you could even take in tenants or fellow charities to help them / increase your own revenue
• Greater control – while some landlords may not like / or even allow certain charities (or the mission or clients they bring into a building) this is less of an issue when you own
• Profile and pride – having a central location can bring greater confidence to prospective donors, allow for marketing and sponsorship opportunities, and give the staff and stakeholders a central theme to rally behind

However, the challenges and risks with owning a building for charities and non-profits are significant. Obviously a building is not very “liquid” so if cash flow is a concern it might be better to have the funds simply earning interest in a fund, bonds, or even just a bank account. Buildings require upkeep, so a reserve fund and on-going capital costs must be accounted for. For some organizations owning a building can send the wrong message to donors: “I don’t want you to put my gift towards your building, I want it to support your programs” goes the donor’s thinking.

Finally, a purchase of a building is a massive exercise. It can distract you from your Mission. Moreover, since charities are often looking at older “bargain” spaces, issues of hazardous materials and building code violations are more frequently a concern than in newer spaces.

So among many other topics, the bottom line from our Real Estate for Charities 101 seminar was that if purchasing your own office building or office spaces in on your wish list, do make sure you get the best possible professional advice and map out a clear strategy towards this goal.

Top 3 Charity Trends in 2012 Reviewed

This time last year I predicted the Top 3 Charity Trends in 2012, and it's time to see how I fared.

1. My first prediction was that many small and medium sized charities would disappear in 2012.

Well, sadly I was was right, but I also predicted that others would use this "crunch" to innovate and reinvent themselves, and it turns out that was true too. For example, Touchstone Youth Centre closed its doors in November due to financial challenges. After over 20 years and providing outreach and shelter for thousands of young people, they were gone.  However, the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada (LDAC) took a different tack, and became a national association and plans to fulfill its mandate via a web-based presence. A final example is that of the Ontario Mental Health Foundation. They're still around, but due to a decrease in provincial funding and their own reduced return on investments, they have temporarily suspended a number of research fellowships. Net result? Fewer charities, reduced impact, but less spending. Without any way of assessing impact and value and which charity closes and which survives beforehand, there's no way of knowing whether the "right" charities closed or not. Or whether the right programs / initiatives died on the vine or not either.

2. My second prediction was that big charities would get bigger in 2012.

Many larger organizations celebrated their best year ever in 2012 in terms of revenue. However, in this new Darwinian world of charitable survival it's NOT really about who is most fit (e.g. who has the most impact and who is best equipped to deliver on their Mission) but rather who has the deepest pockets, the best fundraising campaigns, and the best top-of-mind awareness. So in the case of big charities the obverse from the small charities that closed is true: of those that grew, who really had the best impact and delivered the best value per donated dollar?

3. My final prediction for 2012 was that charities would increasingly think and in some ways act more like for-profit businesses.

This is a tougher result to review. Certainly I heard a lot at AFP Congress and other events about Social Entrepreneurs and Social Enterprises, but maybe I missed the breakthroughs we all keep expecting.  MaRS and others talked about Social Impact Bonds, but again even with Governments starting to get involved my sense is only modest change has occurred.  I can vouch for charities becoming far more savvy about their back-of-house operations, looking to squeeze already lean budgets to find a few more dollars. For example, the number of calls I get about how charities can partner to save money on rent (hubs, co-locations, etc.) has gone up dramatically. And the number of organizations that are looking to buy their own office and program spaces and grown as well.

Stay tuned for the 2013 predictions shortly!

5 Reasons Why Charity Mergers Work

Based on the for-profit track record, charities should stay away from mergers. Given that many academic studies find that a large proportion of for-profit mergers actually decrease profits and efficiency why would charitable organizations risk this path?

As discussed previously merging charities has risks, but I'm increasingly of the opinion that the benefits outweigh the challenges. Here are 5 key reasons why merging can and does make sense.

1. Like-minded organizations that come together to focus on a single issue or cause can accomplish far more than each working alone. What's been called "collective impact" is all the buzz right now in the charitable world simply because it works: just ask Advancing Philanthropy!
2. My contention is that there are simply too many charities - think about the number of different organizations that have overlapping Missions or seek to duplicate the work already being done by another group.  With 161,000 charities and non-profits in Canada alone surely there's room for fewer to do better work with reduced confusion and re-work.
3. In the spirit of reduced confusion, clearly mergers would allow precious donor dollars to be more accurately and effectively applied.  And the obverse is that fewer charities would also allow donor dollars to support more impact and less overhead: two charities that merge into one only need one photocopier, one reception area, and one kitchen microwave, not two of each.  Also, with fewer competing messages for donations it would be easier (and more cost effective) for vital charitable messages to break through and be heard.
4. The charitable world is all about passion, but like money there are only so many volunteers and so many donated hours to go around.  A merged organization would (ideally) draw on the strengths that existed in the originals, ensuring that 1+1=3.
5. The best reason to pursue mergers, collaboration and collective impact in the charitable world is that it's very hard to do.  Albeit a simplification, in the for profit world the firm with enough money can buy out the one that's smaller.  In the charitable world that doesn't work (donor backlash, government regulations, volunteer boards, etc.), and organizations that seek to "merge" need to find common ground and shared passion.  The same volunteers and varied stakeholders that can make decision-making within charities so challenging present natural barriers to ill-considered collaborations.  So the fact that it takes so much work and trust to merge mean that it is likely the outcomes will be better in the long run.  Remember, money can't buy you love...

I'm personally aware of several great examples where charity mergers, collaboration and collective impact are already working well, and expect we'll see more examples in this tough economy. It appears that 1+1 does indeed equal 3.

Charities: The Big Get Bigger

That there are economies of scale is no secret to anyone in the charitable or for profit worlds. As I've blogged in the past, what is less well understood is that the positive, self-reinforcing cycle where bigger organizations generally get bigger is far more pronounced in the charitable world than the for profit sector.  For starters, it is estimated that the top one-tenth of 1% (0.12%) of all Canadian Charities receive 37% of all tax-receipted donations made by all Canadian individuals and corporations. So there are a very few very big charities, and many thousands of very little ones.

The news that an Ipsos Reid and TrojanOne study recently concluded that the Canadian Cancer Society and their pan-Canadian fund-raising event, Relay For Life, gained the top ranked ‘Most Valuable Property’ status helps explain one aspect of why this is the case. In the search for donor support, having sponsors for events (particularly corporate sponsors who can pay top dollar for bigger and higher-profile events) is critical. This study surveyed 1,016 Canadians for their impressions of charitable events, measuring:
1. Personal Involvement
2. Creating the Moment
3. Impact on the Cause
4. Sponsor Fit
5. Responsible Management
6. Heritage
7. Uniqueness

That the Canadian Cancer Society runs a memorable, exciting event is not surprising. And, with hard work and solid advertising, given their size and expertise they can attract many participants. So I'm confident that the Canadian Cancer Society absolutely deserves this 'MVP' status for their event.  But when the survey asks about memorable events in a market with thousands of smaller events that may be just as touching, enjoyable, well-managed and so forth, it's virtually a self-fulfilling prophecy that the only the largest will get enough mentions to "win".

Thus, this survey has the potential to drive more corporate sponsors to support the largest and highest profile events, possibly further challenging the smaller less well known events.  Also, while I appreciate that the survey was not intended to measure "hard" metrics such as attendance or viewership, I also wonder if what was also being proven was another variable: most donors give with their heart and less through research. For example, if this survey had included data on Fundraising costs as percent of donations, would the rankings for "Impact on the Cause" have been the same?

In the end, if this survey drives new donors and fresh perspectives to the charitable world then it has more than served its purpose from my point of view. But it may also serve to further cement the pre-eminence of the biggest, most established event properties: the big will only get bigger. To make it even better next time around perhaps a winner can also be celebrated in categories such as "Best New Property", "Best Small Property" and "Best Value to Sponsor".

One Hopeful Number for Charities

Many of my posts lately have focused on the challenges the charitable sector faces, and how difficult it's been for many to survive.  Of course, charities have tremendous strengths too.

A short list of these positive attributes include:

• Passionate, motivated and dedicated staff, volunteers and supporters
• A reason for being that stirs true commitment, beyond a simple profit motive
• Generally lean and efficient operations
• Favourable tax and financial supports

And counter-intuitively, I would also include the fact that there is increasing demand for the services that most charities and non-profits provide.  It will be difficult for the sector to truly "collapse" when there is so much demand...

But the one most hopeful number is this: 71.5%.  That the percentage of employees in the "voluntary and non-profit" sector in 2008 who had a college diploma, a university degree, or a post-graduate degree.

In short, the hundreds of thousands of people working in this sector are also highly educated.  I don't think it's too far a reach to suggest this equates to a level of creativity, of thoughtfulness, and simple brainpower that bodes well for our viability.

Yes there are storms ahead, but the number 71.5% may well be one glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel.

The Drummond Report: Thoughts on Charitable Impacts

The recent publication of the Commission on the Reform of Ontario's Public Services' (Chaired by Don Drummond) report, "Public Services for Ontarians: A Path to Sustainability and Excellence" has generated a lot of press.  Having reviewed the full report, here are few thoughts on implications to the charitable sector.

There are 3 Chapters that have the most relevance to charities and non-profits.

Chapter 3 discusses the Commission's Mandate and Approach.  The recommendations in this section suggest that the provincial government not make across-the-board cuts, and seek to preserve investments where good value for money is being achieved.  The trick here will be determining what metrics are used, and who determines what "value" is important. The Report also clearly supports "privatizing assets and moving to the private delivery of services wherever feasible", but also suggests that this not be done "for ideological reasons".  While it is Federal government example, the track record with respect to Bill C10 (for example) suggests this may be easier said than done.  Regardless, charities should be aware that this paradigm of privatization is now firmly established as the model going forward.

Chapter 8 is all about Social Programs. Since many charities and non-profits operate in this arena the recommendations are of particular interest. My perspective is that most of these recommendations seem reasonable and align with current initiatives / themes already under discussion in our sector.

• Reform funding practices in the non-profit sector... reduce administrative costs by focusing on measuring outcomes rather than inputs. My only concern here is that measuring only outcomes can have unintended consequences!
• Improve the responsiveness of the government to the non-profit sector by creating one "window" through which all non-profits can engage all provincial ministries. This seems desirable so long as we don't create another huge ministry that actually adds costs and inefficiencies!
• Explore the use of Social Impact Bonds. They're all the rage right now, so we might as well jump on the bandwagon... And maybe they'll be a truly valuable addition to our funding toolbox.

Chapter 16 is focused on Operating and Back-Office Expenditures. The report gets a bit technical here and yet from my point of view misses a key opportunity.  While the Report is not focused on the charitable and non-profit sector, a clearer message that provincial funding would be looking to support organizations that were seeking "back of house" efficiencies through mergers, "hubs" and formal partnerships with other like-minded organizations would have been a big step.  Recommendation 16-9 does say that "consideration should be given to rationalizing and consolidating programs that regulate inter-related sectors or that could otherwise gain efficiencies from greater integration", but does not speak specifically to our sector nor to these sorts of efficiency opportunities.

The main message? That for better and for worse cut-backs and change are coming to the charitable world.  But then, you already knew that!

Everyone on the Charity Bandwagon

Having spent many years in the Consumer Packaged Goods (CPG) world I'm always interested in what happens in that sector. So I make a habit of filling out a survey once in a while as which companies are asking what questions can tell you a lot - and I'm not adverse to a coupon for free stuff once in a while.

I was particularly intrigued last week however when I noticed a question at the bottom of the multi-page survey: a detailed query on which types of charities I liked to support. So clearly the folks at the survey company are either getting interest from the CPG firms in this kind of data, or they believe there's money to be made in having this sort of info available for the CPG firms.  Either way it's another sign of how pervasive the links between corporate giving (and more broadly Corporate Social Responsibility [CSR]) and corporate business plans are becoming.

Whether this is actually good news for the charitable world is being hotly debated, but I believe the debate on the value of greatly increased direct corporate-to-charity giving boils down to simple question of motivation and leadership.  If corporations jump on the bandwagon because it's the "flavour of the month" this will distort charities as they seek to access these funds, and hurt them when the next new marketing vehicle is found. Worse yet, there is the risk that other donors will see through this thin facade of corporate largesse (e.g. "pink-washing" backlash) and begin to believe that all corporate-charitable partnerships are selfishly motivated, which is thankfully and clearly not the case.

But if this is part of a broader move to deeper and broader partnerships between corporations and charities then we all benefit.  In the long run the leadership of the CPG firms, and the CSR values that they infuse into their organizations, will determine the nature of this relationship for better or for worse.

5 Benefits to Government Cutbacks

Government cutbacks to charities and non-profits will likely do a lot of harm and undermine many aspects of what makes Canada such a special place.  However, in a contrarian way I can argue there will be some benefits.

1. While it won't happen overnight, eventually the pendulum will swing the other way.  As valued charitable services and societal supports erode and disappear, the problems they currently address will get worse. Ultimately there will be a clamour to support (either through donations or "forced donations" via government financing) the highly cost-efficient solutions that charities bring to problems.  And when this happens we'll be less likely to forget their value again so soon.
2. There are too many charities. The bad news is that due to cutbacks some fabulous and innovative new organizations won't survive (or ever see the light of day), but without the fertilizer of government funding at least some portion of the over-abundance of charities will diminish.  Think of it as a very haphazard and unwieldy pruning if  you will.
3. Lean times will force innovation. Fact is, charities by their nature are driven by passion, and that same passion to help others and make the world a better place won't be stopped for long by fewer dollars.  Volunteers, Board members, staff and supporters will (like they always do) step in to help pick up the slack. In so doing they'll all learn new skills, and the organizations still standing will be that much more resilient.
4. Cutbacks will actually allow for greater freedom of opinion and unfettered voices for change. We all know the expression "don't bite the hand that feeds you", and very few organizations that receive government funding are eager to risk offending this funder.  Some do and have clearly been targeted for cutbacks (e.g. women's advocacy groups). However, for organizations that can survive they will less constrained in their ability to speak.  Greenpeace certainly is a good example of this freedom provided by how they're funded.
5. Diversified revenue streams will have a positive effect in the long-term.  Once a donor (or company) is engaged in giving, in my experience they generally enjoy the experience and continue to be philanthropic.  So if the cutbacks encourage entirely new donors to ultimately step in, then we'll see new faces at the funding table once government does come back.

Painful? Yes, and likely hurting a lot of people who most need the help in the first place.  But not without some benefits.