http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/ en Copyright 2010 Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:59:13 -0800 http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/ http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification
 Over 350,000 nonprofits failed to file the 990-N or 990-EZ form this year and face revocation of their tax-exempt status if they don't file by the new October 15 deadline.

The smallest nonprofits eligible to file the Form 990-N (e-Postcard) must simply file the required information electronically by the new October 15 deadline.

Other small nonprofits that file Form 990-EZ can participate in a one-time voluntary compliance program. These nonprofits must file their forms with a checklist by October 15, and pay a compliance fee of $100, $200, or $500, depending on their size.

For more information, see Every Nonprofit's Tax Guide, by Stephen Fishman (Nolo) and the IRS website at www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=225705,00.html and  ]]> http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/07/form-990n-and-990ez-lateniks-i.html http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/07/form-990n-and-990ez-lateniks-i.html Taxes Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:59:13 -0800 Fundraising (or Friendraising) Through Social Networks," the prevailing sentiment seemed to be that no one knew how spending your time to establish a presence for your nonprofit within the social networking world was going to make any money -- but felt that they should probably do so anyway. After all, with 350 million users then on Facebook -- which number has since gone up to 500 million -- being left out of the conversation seemed like a bad idea.

Now, more and more reasons to join up with this, as well as other social networking sites, seem to be emerging. For example, JPMorgan Chase just announced 200 charities that will each receive a portion of a $5 million grant -- chosen solely based on votes by Facebook users.

In another example, Beth Kanter, author of The Networked Nonprofit, offered in her blog today a couple of anecdotes about nonprofits that have parlayed their social networking contacts into new foundation grants and board members. 

I suspect more stories are yet to come. In the meantime, getting started is one of the easier things you'll ever have face in the realm of new technology -- with the added benefit that you'll get to see all your friends' baby pictures. 
]]> http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/07/why-get-your-nonprofit-on-face.html http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/07/why-get-your-nonprofit-on-face.html Online fundraising Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:48:35 -0800
Now, I've never met anyone like her before, or since. But it has made me wonder, when I attend fundraising events, whether she or someone else who wasn't closely connected to the organization would, in fact, have a good time.

In many cases the answer is no -- especially if one's purpose in attending is to meet new people. Most guests at gala events arrive with their own group of friends, sit with their friends, and talk to their friends and only a select few others all evening. Board members and volunteers tend to be either reconnecting with each other or chatting up major donors. An outsider could feel pretty isolated.

Given that your planners already have plenty on their plate, I'm not suggesting restructuring the entire event for my sample-of-one single-woman friend. But it does make me wonder whether there are simple ways to get people out of their core groups and mixing a bit more at such events. Meeting like-minded people might even serve to increase their connectedness with the nonprofit they've chosen to support.

Making sure to have nametags might be a good start. But when will they make use of these in introducing themselves? It's helpful to leave some time for guests to walk around and mingle -- perhaps while looking at displays about your nonprofit's work, or getting a drink --  before sitting at their designated tables. Guests at any event get very territorial, and once they're attached to a table and chair, it's hard to move them.

You might also deputize any board members or volunteers who aren't otherwise occupied to keep an eye out for guests who've arrived alone, and make sure to greet them and introduce them to others who might share their interests.  

Of course, if your nonprofit's membership is big enough, you could go all out and have a "singles-only" event, dedicated to mingling. But you might face the situation described to me by another friend who attended such an event in support of a local animal shelter: "It was fun, but mostly women who attended -- the few men in the room looked kinda overwhelmed." 
 
]]> http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/07/your-fundraising-gala-is-it-a.html http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/07/your-fundraising-gala-is-it-a.html Special events Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:06:10 -0800
Here are key portions of the original email. I've changed the organization's acronyms, but only from other acronyms -- collections of letters that gave me no clue as to what the organization was called, much less what it did:

"Please help us get the word out to your Bay Area friends, relations, and colleagues that ABCD will hold an informal gathering in Oakland on [date] at the [location]. . . . ABCD movement leaders will offer an overview and update on our movement's exciting new initiative:  the EFGHI Leadership Institute.

Huh? I kept reading, just to see whether I'd get more information about the organization's mission and why I should support it. Nope: Just descriptions of plans to construct various buildings, and instructions on where I could give online.

If I'd already known about the organization, the email would, I assume, have made sense. But even then, I wonder, would I have been moved to give? How about a little reminder of why their mission and projects are important to me? What's more, the email's writers clearly didn't give even half a thought to the prospect that their well-meaning supporters would forward the email to others. They should have! 
]]> http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/07/fundraising-oops-of-the-week-p.html http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/07/fundraising-oops-of-the-week-p.html Online fundraising Special events Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:38:13 -0800
For example, one character, July, who does international humanitarian work, shocks another (and the audience) by explaining that she never votes in U.S. elections. Her rationale turns out to be one of the most thought-provoking moments in the play: It's because she didn't grow up with the level of economic privilege that gives her friends a blind faith in their ability to effect societal progress. From her and her family's perspective, she has truly never seen voting make a difference.

The other blind spots explored by the play didn't seem as clear-cut or satisfying, at least after a single viewing (I haven't read the script). But the play has left me "seeing blind spots" everywhere I turn. And where better to ferret these out than in one's fundraising plan?

An example turned up in a book I read recently, called Effective Church Finances: Fund-Raising and Budgeting for Church Leaders, by Kennon L. Callahan (Jossey-Bass). Callahan says that many U.S. churches conduct their primary drive for member pledges in October -- despite the fact that, statistically speaking, October has been shown to be one of the most difficult months in which to raise money, as people pay off their summer vacation expenditures and parents cope with the expenses of the new school year.

Why October? It dates back to when our economy was based on agriculture, and farmers would have just brought in the autumn harvest. By now, probably few church fundraisers remember that fact -- while the need for an October pledge drive has become their particular blind spot.

Does your organization have its own blind spots? Asking questions like, "Why do we always do things this way?" is a good way to start finding out. Another way is to think of ways you can test your assumptions about what works. For example, let's say you've always sent four-page letters in your direct mail appeals to potential new donors. You can test the effectiveness of this strategy by dividing the mailing group in half and sending a two-page letter to some and a four-page letter to others. Then compare the results. If you're surprised, congratulations -- your vision just got closer to 20/20.

]]> http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/07/fundraising-blind-spots-what-a.html http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/07/fundraising-blind-spots-what-a.html Donor pledges General fundraising Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:11:35 -0800
Now, as part of your holiday weekend activities, I recommend turning on the telly -- well okay, YouTube -- for a review of the Merchant Banker/Charity sketch. In this lesser-known sketch, a somewhat hapless fundraiser (played by Terry Jones) who's collecting money for an orphans' fund, enters the office of a rich merchant banker (played by John Cleese). In fact, the merchant banker is not only rich, but describes himself as owning "the most startling quantifies of cash," and explains, " I'm very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very rich."

The fundraiser asks for a one-pound contribution. Cleese expresses multiple types of disbelief and confusion and . . . well, take a look, and then come back for the lessons to be learned from this sketch.

Lesson 1: Ask for an appropriate amount. The banker wasn't exactly showing signs of being a willing contributor, but even so, asking for a mere pound in this setting made the fundraiser and his cause appear insignificant. Beneath notice, even.

Lesson 2: Talk to the donor in language he or she can understand. As a businessman, this banker was all about quid pro quo. Even though the "quo" wasn't going to involve direct benefit (other than the little flag offered by the fundraiser, to which Cleese said, "It's a bit small for a share certificate isn't it? Look, I think I'd better run this over to our legal department"), the fundraiser should have been prepared to explain how the banker would benefit. He could have, for example, pointed out the the banker benefits personally from improving his own community, from the increased prestige of being known as a contributor, or whatever else.   

Lesson 3: Know a bit about the tax law. When Cleese, trying to understand the purpose of giving a pound, says, "A tax dodge," the fundraiser says, "No, no, no." I don't know about British tax law, but in this country, the answer would be, "Yes, because we're a 501(c)(3) organization, your gift will be fully deductible to the extent allowed by the law." Why the qualifiers at the end? Because you don't want to put yourself in the position of offering actual tax advice, the law in this area is complex, and whether the donor will reap tax benefits depends in part on his or her personal situation, for example on whether he or she itemizes deductions. For more information on this, see Nolo's free article, "Tax Deductions for Charitable Giving: The Nonprofit's Responsibilities."  

Lesson 4: A return gift won't seal the deal. The banker couldn't even tell what the little flag that the fundraiser offered was. And donors are becoming increasingly aware that a return gift from a charity diminishes the value of their contribution and, if it's worth more than a token amount, of their tax deduction. 

Lesson 5: Revel in the fact that you don't actually have to sell something. Toward the end of the sketch, after the fundraiser has assured Cleese that, "lots of people give me money," Cleese says, "What, just like that?" As the light dawns, Cleese exclaims, "Good lord! That's the most exciting new idea I've heard in years! It's so simple it's brilliant!" And indeed it is. Your nonprofit is in the enviable position of  offering an intangible good that will never break or be cast aside, but allow donors to themselves become part of a greater good. Use that to your advantage! Or, to use a final Monty Python quote, "Always look on the bright side of life."

  ]]> http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/07/fundraising-lessons-from-monty.html http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/07/fundraising-lessons-from-monty.html General fundraising Taxes Mon, 05 Jul 2010 09:19:41 -0800 Sweet Deals: School Fundraising Can Be Healthy and Profitable," by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (and authored by Joy Johanson and Margo G. Wootan).

Wow! It's a couple years old (2007), but given how many kids selling cookies and candies on behalf of their club, team, or school still cross my path, remains highly relevant. And the report doesn't pull any punches, making the case that, "Given rising obesity rates and children's poor diets (only 2% of American children eat a healthy diet), it is no longer acceptable to sell junk food to children through school fundraisers."

I would even take it a step further and say it's not acceptable to sell this stuff to anyone. Although adults are held more responsible for their actions, the statistics are equally dire: Around one third of the U.S. population is classified as not merely overweight, but obese. And the U.S. Centers for Disease Control says that obesity increases the risk of a whole host of health troubles, such as coronary heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, many cancers, hyptertension, high cholesterol, stroke, and so on.

Even people who keep their weight down can, through poor dietary habits, put themselves at risk for a number of diseases, such as cancer, bone loss, anemia, and more.

Having a child selling candy -- and candy for a good cause, no less -- is just an unfair way to tempt an already-unhealthy populace. There are alternatives, as the report describes -- granola bars, fruit, and non-food sales items. Hopefully with a little creativity, the nonprofit community will come up with even more healthy options.  
]]> http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/06/fundraising-by-selling-sweet-h.html http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/06/fundraising-by-selling-sweet-h.html General fundraising Marketing Tue, 22 Jun 2010 14:46:03 -0800
But more and more, the field of fundraising is full of high-quality, easily accessed information about how to do things right. And in some cases, those working at established organizations with good access to mentoring and training should know better by now! So why am I seeing misguided practices like the following?

1) Just got an email with the subject line, "Larger Donors We Need Matching Funds." Huh. Is this addressed to me? Just how large do I have to be to be considered a "larger donor?" Is it measured by weight or volume? (Yes, I know what they mean, but do the rest of the email recipients?) And if I already knew I was a "larger donor," would I appreciate being taken for granted in this manner, as if my history of large donations were just a tap to be turned on as needed? I doubt it. There's nothing about this subject line that makes me want to open the email.

2) Passing by a table near the front of my local Safeway recently, I noticed a stack of used books for sale, in support of a local charity. Good idea! But rotten execution. I've never seen a pile of books more in need of some culling. There was a guidebook to Seattle schools from the year 2001 -- and we're in Oakland. There were other reference books just old enough to be useless, but not old enough to be antiques. And the overall look of the books was cheap, cheap, cheap. At least they didn't have to worry about shoplifting. But, as is typical, I didn't want to paw through the pile any further in hopes of treasure. At a certain point -- and I say this with due reverence for books -- a few of them simply need to be recycled, just like with an old newspaper. Sales of used goods to the public are most successful when people can see a good proportion of quality among the junk.

3) I got yet another appeal letter from a certain national organization, despite having requested, several months ago in writing, that it stop sending me appeal letters. As I explained to them, I'd like to continue subscribing to their lovely magazine, but was annoyed by the fact that I could never tell from the letters whether my subscription was about to run out or whether this was just another appeal for money. The language of the letters seemed intentionally vague. Too bad, because I might have considered their side-appeals but for this annoyance factor. In any case, I called them and have supposedly been removed from the appeal-letter list. We'll see -- they haven't shown much efficiency around my separate requests to change my address (started off okay, then reverted to the old one!?).

Ok, that's all for now. Will presumably get back to acknowledging all the great work done by hard-working, creative, and committed fundraisers next week.   
]]> http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/06/oops-notsoeffective-fundraisin.html http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/06/oops-notsoeffective-fundraisin.html General fundraising Online fundraising Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:04:38 -0800
As if that weren't impressive enough, it represents an increase of almost 1.6 million volunteers since 2008, and the largest one-year increase in the volunteer numbers since 2003. Women, particularly working mothers, were among the most active.

For more details and numbers, see the Volunteering in America 2010  report by the Corporation for National and Community Service.

In the meantime, the key question is, ARE YOU READY? Volunteers can perform a number of valuable tasks for an organization, from the menial to the skilled professional, in some cases reducing the need for paid staff.

Yet because many volunteers report being turned away by groups unable to handle them, or worse yet, quitting on their own because they didn't feel their time was being meaningfully used, you've got to think ahead of time about how to best choose, train, assign, and supervise them. I've learned this lesson the hard way, having had volunteers walk out because they were bored by the tasks assigned them -- and I've myself quit volunteer jobs because I felt my time was being wasted standing around waiting for instructions. 

Creating a volunteer program that both helps your organization and satisfies the volunteer's desire to feel needed, well used, and perhaps reach other goals such as learning new skills -- or even meeting other single volunteers (see previous post, "Volunteering for Charity May Lead to Romance!") -- isn't easy. But there's a lot of good advice out there on how to make it work, starting with this article, "Nonprofit Volunteers: Top Five Tips to Keep Them Coming." 
]]> http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/06/record-rise-in-volunteerism-is.html http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/06/record-rise-in-volunteerism-is.html Getting volunteer help Recession strategies Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:06:52 -0800 Videos: Hot New Communication Tool, or Waste of Time?" mentioned journalists' observations that the videos that draw people in the most are those that manage to incorporate humor.

As if in response, the Pew Research Center just reported a study showing that 50% of adult Internet users watched humorous or comedy videos during the year studied (2007); more than watched any other category of video. Educational videos came in 2nd, at 38%.

So, if your organization can combine humor with education, you should be able to get some serious viewership!

]]> http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/06/its-official-humorous-videos-w.html http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/06/its-official-humorous-videos-w.html Online fundraising Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:08:39 -0800 Michael Stein, for example, who writes the blog Internet Strategy for the Nonprofit Sector, has described videos as "a great way to showcase your organization's mission and work," and "a growing trend in nonprofit communications." You can check out various tips for using video effectively on his blog. 

But then, wearing my other hat as a real estate writer/editor, I attended a NAREE conference recently during which top journalists from around the United States described their growing frustration with video: It takes away from their other responsibilities; even if you have spare time, filming, editing, and preparing the video takes up a heck of a lot of it; and in the end, very few readers click to watch.

(In one of those classic moments where you can't tell whether you're part of a representative majority or just hanging around with fellow Luddite outliers, I and other audience members leaned to each other with comments like, "Yeah, I never click videos either, they take too much time for too little substance.")

So, what gives? Is creating videos a worthy use of time for nonprofits but not for real estate writers? I doubt it. It's not as though the audience is completely different -- people who buy or sell homes also give to charity.

 Is this perhaps a situation that fits my in-laws' favorite maxim of, "If you're not going to do something well, don't do it at all?" This might be closer to the truth, given that anyone who's online is exposed to new video offerings, both serious and humorous, every few minutes. The novelty is wearing off, though I did laugh at the "4 Laughing Babies" one. Presumably the journalists I was hearing from weren't doing too badly at their video-making efforts, but they'd probably be among the first to say that being a good writer doesn't automatically make someone a good videographer.

Perhaps the most telling nugget of information came from Lauren Beale of the Los Angeles Times, who noted that, among the reporters she works with, the ones whose videos attract a significant audience are the ones who have natural camera appeal and know how to use humor. (No wonder I clicked on those laughing babies!) Everyone is looking for a watchable persona, and the lift and stimulation that humor provides.

But not everyone can do humor. And those who can't shouldn't necessarily try. We've all groaned at the efforts of someone who, trying to lighten up a speech or talk, opens it with a bad joke. Besides, we're talking now about creating videos that represent the work of charitable organizations, which isn't necessarily thigh-slapping material.

Is the inevitable conclusion, then, that unless you've got a natural comedian on your staff who can magically make oil spills and hungry people funny, give up on the video and retreat to the familiar territory of writing newsletter articles? I wouldn't go that far.

Let's think about the mental zone entered by someone who is able to create humor. It usually means the person isn't just cranking out content, but has let the topic enter his or her consciousness in a deeper way, to bring forth a unique personal perspective. What's more, the person cares enough about the audience to want to share the information with them in a way that's genuinely engaging.

That's something anyone making video can aspire to. To me, the takeaway lesson is, don't create videos indiscriminately. Create them if and when you've got a staff person -- or maybe a young intern -- who's really inspired about presenting the content. It will help to have some visual material that you feel like people just hafta see -- the very kind that you'd email a friend. If you make just a few compelling videos, you'll ultimately get a lot more eyeballs on them than with a slew of mediocre ones. (Uh oh, I guess my in-laws have the last word on this one after all.)  
]]> http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/06/videos-hot-new-communications.html http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/06/videos-hot-new-communications.html General fundraising Online fundraising Mon, 07 Jun 2010 08:02:36 -0800 Here's the Princeton press release, and the full text of the speech.
]]> http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/06/cleverness-is-a-gift-kindness.html http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/06/cleverness-is-a-gift-kindness.html General fundraising Tue, 01 Jun 2010 11:02:20 -0800 Is Your Favorite Charity Spying on You?'" And you've got to give the author, Anne Kadet, credit for coming up with some colorful tidbits in what could have otherwise been a dull account of how fundraisers research potential major donors. My personal favorites were what I'll call the "swimming pool example" and the "major donor in the hospital example."

In the swimming pool example, Kadet says that the "increasingly sophisticated technology" used by prospect researchers includes using "satellite images to eyeball the size of your swimming pool." The bigger your pool, one presumes, the greater your net worth. That's almost too good to be true. What a fun job, that lets the prospector sit around and ogle people's properties from above! Is that a Rodin sculpture in their back yard? A Maserati in the driveway?

Unfortunately, I suspect that such efforts more often yield views of rooftops and cement. And let's not forget that anyone and everyone can use the same technology to view the exact same things, and for much less socially useful purposes than making sure to ask an appropriate amount when soliciting a donation to the homeowner's favorite cause. 

Now for the major donor in the hospital story. The article says that, when wealthy patients are admitted, they "may enjoy a bedside visit from a 'patient relations director' who offers concierge services. Extra pillow? Free parking passes for visiting friends? The director will make it happen."

By the way, I'm quoting here from the print version of the article in the June, 2010 issue of SmartMoney -- the online version was shortened a good bit.

That example, if true, is admittedly shocking. It's one thing to use research to help design an approach that's attuned to the donor's financial and personal situation, it's another to give special treatment to someone who is a client, not merely a supporter of one's life-sustaining services. The professional fundraising community has been expressing outrage at the article in general -- for example, see  the Working Philanthropy Blog, quoting the Association of Professional Researchers for Advancement's statement, and Sarah Connor-Smith's defense in her InFomentation blog -- but I haven't seen anyone address this part of the article head on.

The bottom line, of course, is that we're in a society that hasn't yet come to terms with the amount of information that can be discovered about each of us via public records, most of them available online, via a few taps on the keyboard. So of course we may feel spied upon, whether we find out that it's a nonprofit doing the information gathering or, more likely, a credit card company or retail catalog mailer.  Until we all get more comfortable with that fact, the real takeaway from this article is simply that nonprofits must continue to employ information gained via such research with subtlety and care, following the ethical guidelines already widely employed. (I guess opening a meeting with, "Dude, big pool you've got there," is out.) 

]]> http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/05/charities-spying-the-dataminin.html http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/05/charities-spying-the-dataminin.html Tue, 25 May 2010 09:18:19 -0800 Berkeley East Bay Humane Society's fire last night, a dozen cats who died.

Today is usually my day to walk dogs at the Humane Society, and I was looking forward to seeing some of my favorite four-footed friends. Instead, I stopped by this morning to find people in tears and staff trying to figure out what was next, with their offices gone or unusable.

But in terms of disaster response, their handling of the situation can offer lessons for any group facing something similar. First off, everyone there has remained positive, assuring the media and other contacts that they plan to rebuild -- and to keep on finding care for the affected animals and placing them for adoption in the meantime. That's crucial for anyone making a donation, because no one wants to think it will go to a lost cause, or to merely reduce the insurance company's liability.

Second, they've made themselves available to the press, with plenty of coverage explaining to people how they can help, where to donate, and how the donations will be used. 

Technology has been a help to them. Even without an office, they've gotten onto email and started sending out messages to volunteers and other supporters, alerting them to the situation and what can be done.

Here's hoping the response leads to a speedy rebuilding, and a better-than-ever space for the animals! In the meantime, think about your own nonprofit's disaster preparedness -- would you be ready with off-site lists of supporters and means of reaching out to them? What steps can you take now to make the tasks easier?  
]]> http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/05/kudos-to-berkeley-east-bay-hum.html http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/05/kudos-to-berkeley-east-bay-hum.html Fundraising kudos Thu, 20 May 2010 13:27:16 -0800
The problem seems to be that many groups had never had to file Form 990 before, because their annual receipts were under $25,000. And they didn't notice the new law passed in 2006 saying that even these small groups had to at least file an "e-postcard" version of the form.

The LAST CHANCE date to file is: May 15, 2010.

For details, see Nolo's article, "Many Nonprofits Must File IRS Form 990-N to Stay Tax Exempt."
]]> http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/05/form-990-file-it-now-or-else.html http://www.nonprofitfundraisingblog.com/2010/05/form-990-file-it-now-or-else.html Taxes Thu, 13 May 2010 11:18:00 -0800