Nolo’s Fundraising Tips for Busy Nonprofits

I was having dinner with friends recently, and out of nowhere, one of them began excitedly describing her experience of having donated $10 to a Haiti-related charity via a mobile phone text message. Her words, more or less, were: "It was so easy! I didn't have to call a number or fill out a form -- all those steps that might normally make me feel like I'd taken on a chore and might want to give up in the middle. Within seconds, I'd made the donation, and felt good about it."

For readers not familiar with this form of giving, here's what the mobile phone donor literally experiences: They're told (via various marketing means) that, by simply typing a numeric code into their mobile phone, and then typing in a word, they can make a donation of a particular amount -- usually $1, $5, or $10 (the max).

For the American Red Cross's Haiti efforts, for example, donors were advised to text the word, "HAITI" and send it to 90999. Donors then get a message asking them to confirm their wish to donate, to which they'll hopefully respond by typing the word, "yes" back, at which point they get another automated confirmation message. When their mobile phone bill comes, they'll see the extra charge representing their donation.

My friend isn't the only one who's finding it easy and satisfying to give via text message. If you look at recent press reports, a number of charities -- particularly those raising funds for Haiti -- are making good use of donors' urges to do something to help right now, immediately, with no unnecessary steps. As Verizon spokesman Chuck Hamby said to Richard Mullins for an article in The Tampa Tribune, "People want to do the right thing and give. When you make it as easy as tapping out a one-word message, people respond."

The numbers are, in some cases, eye-popping -- especially given that the mobile donation systems limit people to $10 per text message or $25 per cause (apparently to protect people from having their kids start happily pressing buttons on their phone). The American Red Cross reported as of January 14, 2010 having raised more than $5 million for Haiti via text-message donations. (See Consumer Reports blog.) 

Of course, such big numbers are partly explained by the fact that fundraising for emergency relief efforts tends to dwarf (or even take away from) fundraising for ongoing needs. Meanwhile, Consumer Reports noted that the American Red Cross's intake was more than three times the amount of money that all U.S. charities had raised via text in the last two years combined.

Nevertheless, the success of the American Red Cross's effort may have awakened audience awareness that texting is an available and easy way to give. What's more, texting as a giving method is reportedly helping charities reach potential new donors who are otherwise hard to connect with, particularly young people or those in minority communities.

Okay, so how realistic is this as a fundraising method for small-ish nonprofits? The numbers still look a bit iffy. The widely acknowledged go-to place for setting up such arrangements is the MGive Foundation. It currently charges a one-time setup fee of $500, plus $399 a month (at its lowest program level) for ongoing services with a one-year minimum contract, plus a per-transaction fee of 35 cents and 3.5% of the donation. This obviously works best for large nonprofits with a big public presence. (In fact, to sign up, MGive requires that your revenues be at least $500,000 per year.)

The fees would be worth the price even for a smaller nonprofit, of course, if the dollars coming in swamped the up-front investment -- but the case studies shown on its website don't indicate that any small or local nonprofits have seen dramatic results. In fact, one of the success stories mentions Defenders of Wildlife (a nonprofit with overall annual revenues of $31 million in 2008) having raised around $2,000 via texting within a two-month period, also during 2008 -- nice, but hardly an avalanche of money.

We're just at the beginning of learning how to use this giving method, however. As more nonprofits get on board, no information will no doubt be developed about how to engage donors' interest and get the maximum return on a text message campaign. It's probably worth keeping your eyes on this emerging possibility -- especially so that you don't try to get on board after its usefulness has peaked! 

During a recession may seem like the last time your nonprofit would want to go without the services of its executive director or other key managers -- but such thinking just means you haven't read the report, Creative Disruption: Sabbaticals for Capacity Building and Leadership Development in the Nonprofit Sector, published by Third Sector New England and CompassPoint.

Based on surveys of nonprofit executives who received grants to go on sabbatical, the report shows how their absence (of about three months) can help them recharge their batteries and return with new ideas and energy around managing and raising money for the organization. It can also help other staff learn new skills and perhaps get ready to assume higher-level roles within the organization.

The grants themselves (available from sources detailed within the report) typically cover the executive's salary during the absence (which could allow your organization to hire some temporary help) along with, in some cases, travel and related expenses, plus help for the organization itself during the transition. Sounds like a great way to avoid burnout and shake things up a bit!

Lest we think the news is all grim these days, here are reports of some nonprofits that have launched successful fundraising efforts despite the poor economy.

For example, the Salvation Army of Livingston County, Michigan reportedly brought in more than $180,000 in Red Kettle Campaign contributions over the holiday season, surpassing its 2008 total of $158,000. It took 900 volunteers working more than 1,150 hours, including bell ringers who stood out in the cold and snow for hours at a time, but they ended up overtaking even their own money-raising projections.

In Cape Cod, Massachusetts, the Needy Fund -- which collects money for local individuals residents to them pay for food, rent, mortgage payments, utility and heating bills, medical bills, and more -- is said to have surpassed its holiday fundraising goal of $625,000, having reached $665,611 by December 31st.

Up in Canada, the "Polar Bear Dip" (billed as Canada's Largest Charitable Polar Bear Festival, in which 600 participants this year jumped into icy cold Lake Ontario on New Year's Day) brought in a record $230,000 for charity. It will go toward third-world water projects.

Is there any common thread between these? To me it looks like basic people power. Even though many people these days have far less to give, a lot of them (or us) joining together to give of their time, or at least a little bit of money, can add up to a lot. And if there's a bright side to the recession, it may be that we're all developing more compassion for how quickly one's luck can change, and becoming more willing to help others who've gotten the worst of it.

Here's hoping for more good news in the new year!  

 

 

Here's an alarmist headline for you, from the Consumer Reports Money Blog: "What's a donor to do when a charity watchdog lowers its standards?"

The article expresses concern (if less outrage than the title would imply) over the BBB Wise Giving Alliance's recent announcement that, in considering whether to accredit a nonprofit, it will look at whether at least 55% of its expenses were used for charitable programs, as opposed to fundraising and administration. That's a reduction from the former 65% standard. Their reasoning was that the economy is making it difficult for nonprofits to fundraise. They also said that their standard for spending on fundraising will go to 45% of contributions, up from 35%.

Is this a "lowering of standards" that should make donors worry? I don't think so.

In fact, the very idea that there's something nefarious about spending money on administration and fundraising strikes me as inappropriate. What is fundraising, except an effort to raise community awareness and get people involved in a cause -- so that the cause can be supported an maintained? Why should we consider that activity divorced from actually doing the programmatic work? And even if the two are separate, do donors expect fundraisers to work for free? This might have been realistic in an era when board members had extra time to play with, but nowadays, everyone who isn't desperately looking for a job is working darned hard to keep the one they've got. Paid fundraisers are a must, and the good ones don't come cheap.

Sure, I get it that some organizations have let their top employees milk the funding while the programs suffered (though not as wealthy as corporate CEOs). But to punish every organization for the few who've gone too far seems like overkill. There's got to be a better way to judge which organizations are doing good work. 

It was only a matter of time before Marge posed nude for a charity calendar, right? Don't miss it, November 15th. The episode is called "The Devil Wears Nada." 

I'm getting weary of studies that tell us what we already know: donor giving is down, foundations have less money than ever, and so forth.

But now, there's a recent study that helps nonprofits actually do something about their need to raise funds: It's from the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, and apparently for the first time, has correlated motivations for giving to income and education levels. It found, to quote their press release, that:

• Among lower-income donors (income less than $50,000), the phrases that resonated as a motivation for giving were helping to meet basic needs or helping the poor help themselves.
• Donors with income between $50,000 and $100,000 were more likely than donors in either higher or lower income groups to say that they gave to "make the world better."
• Among donors with income of $100,000 or more, the phrases selected as motivations for giving included "those with more should help those with less" or "making my community better."

Here's the full press release.

I'm reading a fascinating book called The Food of a Younger Land, by Mark Kurlansky. It's a compilation of long-lost material from the files of the Works Progress Administration, which created the Federal Writers' Project in order to put writers to work. And a bunch of them were given the task of describing regional food and food-related traditions.

The various essays provide a marvelous cross-section of American life in the 1900s -- and what cross section would be complete without a little charitable work? Enter Mr. John G. Saunders, City Sergeant of Richmond Virginia. He made a name for himself creating great vats of "Sergeant Saunders' Brunswick Stews" and selling it by the quart -- at 50 cents per, which must have seemed like a lot during the Depression -- in order to support the American Legion and other causes.

Before you're tempted to recreate this intriguing bit of history, here's a quick look at the recipe for 600 gallons of Sergeant Saunders' stew:

240 veal shins
12 beef shins
780 pounds chicken
48 pounds bacon (as a substitute for squirrel)
1,800 pounds Irish potatoes
18 bushels celery
600 pounds onions
24 dozen bushels carrots
360 pounds cabbage
150 gallons canned tomatoes
72 gallons canned corn
48 pounds butter
salt, pepper, and thyme

This mountain of ingredients must all be put into iron cauldrons and stewed for six hours.
Hmm, hiring a caterer starts to look pretty good, yes?

This new study and report in the Stanford Social Innovation Review, by Ann Goggins Gregory and Don Howard, probably won't surprise anyone in the nonprofit sector -- you've probably long gotten used to working on an ancient computer at an even more ancient desk -- but it sure is nice to hear some sympathy from a respected source. And some acknowledgment that there's only so much that nonprofits can do themselves to shift resources toward basic infrastructural needs (and thus greater efficiency down the line), when every nonprofit knows that the funders have their eye on the nonprofits' spending ratios.

It's the funders who need to wake up and realize that, in order to prevent a few nonprofits from misusing donors' funds, the vast majority are toiling away in conditions that border on the Dickensian. Take it from someone who -- not that long ago -- had to take a disk to her home computer every time she needed to print out a grant proposal.

They're at it again in Britain, with a calendar featuring local women, being raffled off to support a cancer foundation. It's not clear how much is being bared on the calendar itself, but the raffle tickets have photos of the women's thighs -- and ask people to guess who they belong to. Here's the story in the Lancashire Telegraph.

It's quite the hit in Ribchester, apparently. (That's in the Ribble Valley, of course.)

All very reminiscent of the movie Calendar Girls, starring Helen Mirren, Julie Walters, and John Alderton. (A must-see for anyone in fundraising.) The plot involves middle-age women posing nude for a calendar in order to raise money for a local hospital.

Not that I'm suggesting anything.

Guidestar recently issued a survey showing how family foundations -- in other words, small, local, family-owned foundations with typical endowments below $10 millions -- prefer to be approached by grantseekers.

It's an important topic given that, as Guidestar points out, competition for philanthropic dollars is so high that the chances of getting a grant from one of the major, richer foundations are "slim to none."

The most important part of their survey-based advice has to do with the importance of personal relationship-building to these grantors. They really, really don't want to receive an impersonal, out-of-nowhere grant proposal!

Also notice that (at last), they prefer you get in touch via email. That should make it easier for any organization whose E.D. or development staff don't like picking up the telephone for a cold call (and know 1,000 ways to procrastinate that task).