Are you over-connected and under-noticed?

There comes a point in every business where you simply hit a development wall. Nonprofits are no different.

In many ways, the internet connectivity we all prize (or maybe despise!) contributes to that sudden stop.

The internet of today is a cacophony of digitized noise. Try following a few Twitter feeds and see how much real thought goes into them and measure how much value you are getting from them.

   

In the rush to have the most likes, followers, retweets or comments it's easy to lose sight of the real purpose of all those connections.

In a business sense, connections are supposed to be about interactive communications that provide value for both sides.

Take a look at your own favorite sites. What keeps you clicking on them?

Is it just to kill time?  To keep score to see how many of your own comments are being commented on?  To have some sort of social life?  Because everyone else is doing it?

If your connectivity isn't producing value, why are you still doing it?

Case in point. I recently reconnected with a person I had known fairly well at one time; not a BFF exactly but we had a pretty close acquaintanceship until she moved away. This was a while ago…before Twitter even existed.

I ran into her at the grocery store, and while we were trying to do the whole catching up thing, she never took her eyes completely off her phone. Twitter was scrolling the whole time. At one point she did mention she was looking for work, but when I asked for particulars, she was busy re-tweeting something and didn't answer.

It didn't take very long for me to see that our face-to-face meeting was only occupying about 10% of her attention, and I did the "well, it was nice to see you…call me sometime" thing.

That's sort of what happens when you focus on just one outreach strategy. You get so busy trying to build a broad audience, you forget that you need to develop real focused relationships.

For instance, let's say one of your grantor targets or a major donor prospect doesn't accept LOI's and you have no contacts in common. Think about something you have or can create, like a white paper or case study that has value to them. Drop them an email and offer it to them, no strings attached.

 Your email might read like this:

I noticed that you are seeking information on X.  I (we) have a case study on X that may help you.  I (we) would be happy to forward it if you are interested."

All of a sudden you are connected. Will that always result in an invitation to apply for that $100K grant or a $1 million endowment? Maybe, maybe not. The purpose is to get on their radar, but by offering something of value, there is an upside for them to notice and contact you.

It gives you a chance to present your organization, prove that you have value to add to their mission, and gives you an excuse to connect again to get feedback on the offering.

This works. One nonprofit that tried this strategy received program funding for three years as a result of this kind of outreach.

     

If you don't have any material that you can offer, it could be time and money well spent to develop a case study, white paper, manual or other outreach material that goes beyond the typical brochure, tweet or Facebook posting.

If you or someone you know would like more information on implementing this strategy, give me a shout at rightwords@ida.net.

Are you sure your nonprofit needs money?

No matter the mission, the most often repeated line in most of my email is:

"If we just had more money we could (Fill in the blank)."

There is no doubt that money greases the wheels of philanthropy, but if you don't understand the  challenges of delivering your services, all the money in the world won't help.

Take the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. No shortage of money there. Yet a reprint of a Seattle Times article, posted January 3, 2015 in the Philanthropy News Digest, tells us that even the commitment of a quarter of a billion dollars doesn't guarantee success.

One interesting quote from the article mentions that the Foundation underestimated the difficulty of achieving their desired results due to the lack of even the most basic infrastructure in the areas they were trying to serve, indicating that someone was a little short in planning skills.

On a much smaller scale, a charity working with domestic violence victims was involved in a program to provide computer training, with the desired end result being that the women wouldn't need to depend on their abusers for income.

While they had some success, their program was only graduating about 12% of its participants, and was having trouble attracting funding after the initial $25,000 grant they received. The results just weren't there to impress new funding sources with the program's effectiveness.

When they approached me to find them at least $100K in funding for more computers and class space, I had to tell them that their results just didn't justify asking for that kind of money. To their everlasting credit, instead of firing me on the spot, they asked "why?"

The problem was that they had not anticipated that many of these women had less than a tenth grade education, and for some of them, even that education was over 20 years old.

While teaching them to use a keyboard was pretty easy (most of them had cell phones and knew how to text) some of them couldn't read well enough to understand the online help or even how to find it. All the classes did for them was to reinforce the idea that they were losers, and they simply quit coming to class.

It was like teaching someone how to use a hammer to drive a nail, without any knowledge of what driving that nail actually did to build a house.

It's easy to jump from "let's form a nonprofit" to expecting that your program will immediately get to its desired end result.

Money doesn't necessarily fix the ills of the world. It takes a lot of time and hard work, and sometimes more than a few false starts before you begin to achieve results that can attract more funding.

In the case of the nonprofit illustrated above, they had to back up, add a step, and focus on offering simple basic tutoring to improve math, reading and comprehension skills, an approach that did net them about another $20K in funding from their original grantor almost immediately.

As frustrating as it was, in the end the ladies they wanted so desperately to help got a lot more out of that approach, and many (81%) went on to successfully complete the computer skills classes and get jobs.

This all goes back to understanding the process of being a nonprofit. It's easy to see a problem, but a lot harder to plan a fully designed and effective program that  produces results worthy of continued funding.

The good thing about that problem is that you don't need much money to solve it. You do need a solid organizational plan, a willingness to learn to recognize and overcome obstacles and the patience to achieve it in baby steps instead of giant leaps.

If you do your homework, you can actually outperform even the Gates Foundation, and that's surely something you can be proud to report.

Holiday fundraising – Planning ahead

Many nonprofit organizations are looking at the end of the year, particularly in terms of revenue raised. Those that met or exceeded their goal have one thing in common – they thought ahead.

Every year about this time the internet blossoms with ads seeking help to "design a holiday appeal" or "boost our end-of-year giving campaign".

If you've waited until now to think about holiday revenue, you are about six months late.

In terms of grants, most foundations have already closed their application window for the year. While it is true that many grantors disburse a lot of their funding at year's end, they already know who is going to receive it.

In terms of local funding and many of the traditional campaigns such as Giving Tuesday (which occurs  December 2 this year) the participants have already been selected and the advertising, web pages, emails and even snail mail reminders have been delivered.

At best, your choices are social media blasts, and at this point that can throw you into competition with a maelstrom of carefully planned campaigns, many of them coordinated with big-budget marketing strategies.

Social media usually succeeds best with a broader, well-defined base of followers, so if your pages are mainly being visited by a few friends and relatives, social media may not immediately provide the oomph you need for serious fundraising.

One of the things that many organizations fail to account for is other people's budgeting.

Whether it is a huge foundation or your next-door neighbor, most available funding has already been allocated.

There is and will always be a certain type of last-minute donor, just as there are last-minute shoppers, but these tend to be one-time gifts.

Your goal is, or should be building  sustainable donor relationships well in advance of seasonal campaigns.

Seasonal campaigns rely on traditional marketing tactics. Building your contact lists, developing your media kits, lining up success stores or examples of need and tracking your appeal success rate all require implementing a cohesive plan with clearly defined steps and goals.

Any holiday fundraising is likely to  produce some revenue.  If you come up short of your goals, it might be a good time to consider preparing for the spring grant season, and begin developing next year's holiday campaign plans now by broadening your contact list and seeking out partners to help you expand your prospective donor base. 

The R.E.A.L. Formula for attracting grantors

There are approximately 1.5 million nonprofits vying for funding from approximate 100,000 foundations every year.  Standing out in that crowd requires a strong survival strategy.

There are a few core criteria that every funding source adheres to when sifting through grant applications. Those criteria can be summed up in the R.E.A.L. formula, as follows:

• Relevancy.  Does your organization's application match up well with the donor's mission, vision and geographic limitations?
• Efficacy – If the funder gives you money, will their mission get the most bang for the buck from your organization, or will it just enable you to keep the lights on a little longer?  Various sources have reported that between 30 and 60 thousand nonprofits disappear from the IRS database each year, prompting grantors to confine their support to those organizations that can deliver benefits well into the future.
• Accountability – Does your organization have a strong track record of transparency relative to your previous operations, outcomes  and funding partnerships? Can you provide concrete examples to prove your successes and verify your financial data?
• Legitimacy – are you a legally recognized nonprofit with good references and strong outcomes?

Increasingly, as detailed in an article by Rick Cohen in the Nonprofit Quarterly, foundations are simply refusing to accept unsolicited applications. While some of that reluctance is due to recent economic factors, it is also due to simply receiving too many applications from organizations that obviously can't accomplish their mission.

Other foundations are adding restrictions to application requirements, such as not funding startups, or those whose current revenues are under a preset amount. Most have always required that you provide copies of the long form 990, indicating that your revenues are above six figures.

All prospective grantors use some sort of rubric, either written or implied, to separate the wheat from the chaff. Failing to deliver on funder expectations in any of the above areas can and probably will kill your application.

Some  shortcomings I see often are a lack of data and an unprofessional public persona.

For instance, let's look at legitimacy. The first thing I do when approached by a new nonprofit client seeking grants is to look for them online. I'm looking for a website that actually tells me something about the organization and its key personnel and programs. I want to see some sort of evidence of positive outcomes. There should be a link to the financials and  a copy of their determination letter, or at least the ability to request them.

I am also going to check all the databases for verification of their nonprofit status, including the IRS website, if necessary. While I also check out social media, the most important thing for me is to see if they present well on first impression, since I know that any funding source will be doing the same.

Grantors that ask for a website URL are going to click on the link. Even if they don't ask, they may well include your online presence as a scoring metric.

Master the R.E.A.L. formula and your funding success rate is going to go up dramatically.

Don't know if you will fit the formula?  Drop me a line at rightwords@ida.net for a review.   

Is your charity meeting donor expectations?

Given the high trust level that charities are expected to measure up to, could you look a donor in the eye and swear that all their donations will go to the mission?  More importantly, should you?

Donor confidence is not just important to your nonprofit, it is critical. If donors get even a faint whiff of something a little off, it can take years to regain that confidence.

In an article on 9/11 of this year, the Huffington Post noted that  even the venerable Red Cross took a hit for misleading donors after 9/11/01. The article noted that in the wake of the problem, donor and public confidence in charities in general dropped from 25% approval in July 2001 to 18% by May of 2002.

Charities that lose donor confidence don't survive intact. Some may not survive at all. The above-referenced article also noted that out of about 300 9/11-related charities started after 9/11, only five were surviving by 2006.

The best way to retain donor confidence is to be able to prove effectiveness and be up-front with the donors regarding the use of funds.

Given what I do, i.e. grant writing and funding research, I see this statement a lot.

"Once we get some grant money coming in, we can use part of it to pay you."

Ah…no, you can't. Nor can you pay the back rent or the overdue power bill. Almost every RFP plainly states that funds may not be used to pay debts incurred prior to the grant award. This is known as "restricted" funding, i.e. the use of the funds is restricted by the donor to certain costs for defined programs.

Most of them also state that "usual and customary expenses unrelated to the delivery of mission-related goods and services" (or words to that effect) are not eligible to be paid out of grant funds. The exception would be any grant funds received that state the use of the funds is unrestricted, or may be used for "general operating support".

But what about those individual donors?  The ones that chip in a few dollars every month, or write one check a year?  Of course you would never outright lie, but should you sort of gloss over the fact that you are paying the utility bills with their money? After all, shouldn't they just know that you have to pay some administrative expenses out of donations?

Maybe they should, but they don't. However naïve it may be, casual donors think that every dollar buys a meal, a coat, a bag of dog food, or whatever else your appeal is highlighting.

The best way to avoid that is to either define the percentage of each donated dollar that goes to the charitable purpose, or state in the appeal that funds received are used for both general and program support.

In the beginning, that administrative percentage could be 50% or more. Once you have your infrastructure in place, it should be reflected in your program-to-administrative cost ratio.

Just don't over-promise. It is usually unrealistic to claim that your administrative expense-to-mission allocation goal is five or ten percent of total donations. If you've done a proper business plan, you should have at least a rough idea of what percentage of the money will eventually be used for organizational support versus program expenses.

Be sure to let donors know about the good things their money has purchased. If your food pantry  fed 100 people every Wednesday of the last year, put it in your year-end report and plaster it all over your website and social media accounts. If your program participants are willing, tell a few personal stories. Have an animal rescue?  Along with all the animals needing homes, have a page for those that found their forever homes.

Like your Mom always said…honesty is the best policy. 

More on Nonprofit Crowdfunding – Is it leaving the little guy out?

In  my September 13, 2013 post, Crowdfunding for Nonprofits - Hype or Hope, I presented an overview of this form of funding development. This follow-up offers a more in-depth look at how the process is evolving to provide better structure, protection and validation for both donors and nonprofits and some of the pitfalls of that process, particularly for smaller organizations.

The visible problem  

In the above post, after viewing some of the websites catering to this funding model I stated:

 " There didn't seem to be a lot of vetting of the projects and nonprofits for the donor's peace of mind. In some cases, there was no way for the donors to receive an accounting for whether the money actually resulted in tangible gains or completed projects."

Apparently I wasn't the only one who spotted this weak spot. Now there are various approaches to deal with it.

Anything that deals with collecting and spending OPM (other people's money) is generally viewed with some reservations by would-be supporters. There is a good reason why the California legislature is moving forward to pass a law to crack down on what they see as fraudulent fundraising practices in the charity sector.

That's one way to approach the problems of donor exploitation. Another way is for the industry itself to define parameters by which such campaigns can be vetted. It's the old government vs. private enterprise argument. Should government impose a one-size-fits-all regulation, or can the industry police itself?

Public perception vs. reality

Nonprofits on the whole don't want to cheat anyone. Not the donors, not the beneficiaries of their goods or services, and certainly not the nonprofit community as a group. The problem is that one well-publicized bad apple experience taints the whole sector, and no one understands that better than the nonprofits themselves.

The public, perhaps naively but certainly vociferously, demands that nonprofits, like Caesar's wife, be above reproach. They might shrug off insider trading on Clorox as an isolated event, but just let a charity slip up once, and the whole sector gets a black eye.

Then there is the public perception of what constitutes charitable giving. The Nonprofit Times in an article published June 1, 2014 notes that  donors seem to be having trouble differentiating between funding and fundraising.

Measuring honesty

Legitimacy is the keyword, but to have legitimacy, you have to have a standard.

Enter the Accountability Review Wizard as designed and distributed by  the Charities Review Council. This tool seeks to bring uniformity and legitimacy to a rating and certification process.

In a April 16, 2014 posting on the hosting website, the Charities Review Council states that this is the only cloud-based risk and assessment tool currently available. In addition, they promise to provide resources to assist charities to advance to meet the optimum standards.

This fee-based service requires that the charity have the usual documents to verify organizational and financial  legitimacy, and seems fairly reasonably priced, at .02% of the organization's annual operating expenses, rather than total revenue, and ranges at present from $100 to $3,000. That should make it affordable even for smaller charities.

Arguably, someone should also address the vetting of the platforms on which campaigns are posted. Enter the Crowdfunding Bill of Rights developed and sponsored by David Neff and Miriam Kagan and profiled on the Kimbia.com website. For a more in-depth look at this proposed toolkit,  check out the entire article in The Nonprofit Times referenced above. While this is primarily slanted at the donor, it does peripherally note that the fees charged by some of the platforms are quite high.

All this is a step in the right direction. The internet has a well-deserved reputation as a hotbed of scammer activity. Anything that is perceived as or results in reducing the risk for donors or investors is surely better than nothing.

 Or is it?

Are we measuring the right things?

The one problem I see with all of this is the attempt to define what constitutes an acceptable level of administrative costs vs. program investment.

The California legislature ran into this problem when crafting their law. Originally they had a set-in-stone ratio of program spending vs. administrative and fundraising costs. After some educational meetings with nonprofits, they discarded that number.

The problem arises when looking at the vastly different mission requirement costs for nonprofits, and the public perception of what is "good".

No matter who or what agency tries to arrive at that figure, it is going to result in assigning an arbitrary number as the optimum standard. That number will then be the benchmark for the general public to judge which organizations are "good".

This isn't a new problem. Every nonprofit rating website has some sort of arbitrary standard they use to assess nonprofits. That can be anything from a cost ratio tied to the revenue figure of the organization to the dollar figure of the key personnel salaries.

The problem there is that it doesn't necessarily present a total picture of your organization.

A nonprofit delivering a healthcare service may have salary and labor costs in excess of 50% of their operating budget due to the legal requirements to employ highly-trained licensed professionals. A all-volunteer group that collects food, clothing or books for the underprivileged may not have any salary costs, but  does pay out a substantial portion of the budget for fundraising to purchase the items distributed. Very new organizations may have high initial development vs. program  costs.

The above-noted Accountability Review Wizard, as a part of their method to assign a rating, does attempt to address this by having a range of acceptable program spending levels from 65 to 90 percent,  but even in that framework, they suggest that a 90-10 ratio of program to administrative spending ratio is the most desirable.

That just seems to further the notion that all nonprofits have to be broke to be effective.

And therein lies the problem with crowdfunding, particularly if it is an all-online event.

The strategy, which is growing exponentially year-over-year in dollars invested in charitable giving, needs to be more about educating the public.

That doesn't mean that developing these benchmarking strategies is ineffectual or wrong. They just don't go far enough.

Is there a logical next step?

To address that shortcoming, if you think it is a shortcoming, the nonprofits themselves need to be actively involved in providing educational tools that go beyond dividing numbers attained from the 990 or the financial statements to arrive at ratios.

For instance, should the mid-six figure salary of a CEO whose organization requires the holder that position to have multiple master's or doctoral degrees be equated to the $10,000 salary of a  CEO who oversees a newly-formed  local conservation group? The former may only utilize 1% of the organizations funding, while the latter might currently account for 40% of the revenue. Do the ratios tell the whole story?

What's acceptable should be somehow tied to the type of nonprofit and it's relative chronological development as it relates to effectiveness.

In that way, a donor, whether through crowdfunding or more traditional avenues, could assess whether the effectiveness of the organization is improving with the modifiers of age, growth and revenue. Is bigger better?  Should donors fund  developing management expertise in favor of programs during the first five years of the nonprofit's existence?

What about you?

This is an area that the nonprofits would seem to have to move from passive acceptance of other's standards to active participants in shaping those standards. Larger organizations know that, and some of them are doing it, thereby shaping the dialogue.

Smaller and newer nonprofits have a stake in this too. Crowdfunding is evolving into something much larger than a simple social media posting event. The organizations that stand to benefit the most are the little guys, the ones that can't immediately access large grants.

Your messaging needs to address the issues being debated and codified on a national scale by these larger platforms. Even if you choose not to be evaluated, you ignore current trends in shaping public perception at your peril.

You are the folks that constantly contact me to bemoan the fact that you can't compete in the traditional grant marketplace. This is your chance to make the dialogue about effective outcomes, not financial ratios. Make the most of it.

If you need help crafting a message, contact me at granthelp@ida.net, or visit my website at http://www.cloudlancerwriting.com. 

What comes after your URL?

For the third time this week, research on a nonprofit that contacted me for fundraising help landed me on a website that says nothing and more importantly, does nothing to help me learn about the organization. Two of them were simply a link to their Facebook page.

I wonder why some nonprofit websites tend to be so ineffective. Is it because the staff thinks that no one goes to websites anymore?  Do they think the sites are too expensive to develop? Do they take too much time to update?  I asked everyone of those three nonprofits for a comment

.

Only one got back to me, saying that they believe that Millennial/Gen Y donors are mostly on social media, so the website is superfluous. I don't think that demographic is the only one they should be pursuing, but for the sake of argument, let's accept that as a parameter.

Maybe websites were less important for a little while, but new research shows that  18-34 year-olds now prefer to visit websites before committing to a donation. Along with all the convenience of  mobile connections comes a healthy dose of risk, a problem that is getting worse after all the recent data breaches, and that may be driving donor behavior toward learning more before they donate.

Text-to-give was a big deal for awhile, but has since tailed off,  with only 15% of Millennials reporting that they donate in that way. Seventy percent report they do prefer to donate online, which means making your website and its donation feature both user and mobile-friendly is important.

As it is for most individual donors, mission is still the most important facet in that age group. Donors want to see your mission clearly described. "We help low-income mothers with daily challenges" isn't enough.

The first place most people go after the landing page is the "About Us" page. With the proliferation  of Smartphone users, that would seem to indicate that your landing page and "about" page should be one and the same. There has to be a reason for them to click through to the rest of the website.

Like their older siblings and parents, Millennials care about what you are doing with their donations. How and whether you are accomplishing your mission is important to them. Millennials tend to give smaller amounts, but they donate more often. If they are establishing a relationship with your nonprofit through your website, then the old saw that you only "get one chance to make a first impression" really rings true.

Short-form social media is excellent at doing what it was meant to do, which is up-to-minute dialogue and reporting. It's a fine way to announce events,  tell folks about the great new supporter you just got, or converse socially with your group. People of all ages and backgrounds use it and follow it.

It also has built-in limitations. Because it is meant to be informal, current  and colloquial, it may not be the best way to present your organization to potential new supporters.

Going beyond the Millennials, people in general are just a lot more aware of how they spend money now. They want to see things like links to annual reports and 990 returns. They want to know who else is supporting you. They want to know about your board and key personnel, and they are likely to look them up on the web for connections beyond your organization. They want to see some type of personalization, such as multi-year outcome reports or a story following someone who is benefiting from donor support.

You just can't get that much detail or present the historical context of your organization through the short form social media formats. Websites can often incorporate blogs that educate and inform both existing and new donors and keeps them connected to you.

    

 Your website shouldn't read like an e-book, but it does have to go beyond 140 characters, and it needs to project competence as well as compassion.

In some ways, an effective website is similar to a well done grant application. It should engage  on an emotional level,  but it also needs to inform and showcase your organization as the professional operation that you have created.

Need help with a website or other communications?  Email me and let's talk!