Special Report: Damage Control–How to Counter Bad Press!

[Publisher's Note: “Special Reports” are posted from time-to-time as a benefit for subscribers and frequent visitors to this blog. “Special Reports” are not widely promoted. To be notified of all new posts, including "Special Reports," please take a moment to subscribe in the right-hand column.]

A number of nonprofit organizations have been in the news lately. Sadly, many of the recent big headlines have been negative. I’ve commented on some of these stories here:

Tragic Lessons of the Penn State Fiasco

Garth Brooks Sues Hospital for Return of $500,000 Gift

Actions of One Alleged & One Admitted Child-Rapist Impact You

Does Komen Have a Communications or Integrity Problem?

Now, I’ll have a chance to continue the conversation as a panelist for the webinar “Damage Control: How to Counter Bad Press!” The program, hosted by For the Charitable Community, will take place Thursday, February 23, 10:00 AM PST. My fellow panelists will include Penny C. Sansevieri, CEO and founder of Author Marketing Experts, Inc.; Richard LeSchander, Account Manager, PR Newswire; and Carrie Robers, CEO of For the Charitable Community.

You can learn more about this webinar and register by visiting the program site: “Damage Control: How to Counter Bad Press!”

That’s what Michael Rosen says… What do you say?

Haiti: A Young Professional’s Compelling Lessons for All Nonprofits

It’s been just over two years since a catastrophic, magnitude 7.0 earthquake hit Haiti. Today, the people of that small island nation continue to suffer.

What lessons should the nonprofit community have learned by now in order to better help Haiti? What lessons can all foreign aid organizations learn from Haiti that can be applied anywhere? What lessons can all nonprofit organizations learn from Haiti that will help them be more successful, whether they operate internationally or even domestically?

These were the questions running through my mind as I watched news coverage of the anniversary of the earthquake. Then, I learned that a friend of mine was back in the United States after returning home for Christmas to visit family and friends in Haiti.

Soon after her return to the U.S., I had lunch with Isabelle Clérié (@iclerie). For those of you who don’t know Isabelle, you should. She’s a sharp nonprofit young-professional. She’s done work for a number of non-governmental organizations in Haiti. She now works on the capital campaign team at the Franklin Institute, the largest science museum in Philadelphia. Isabelle holds a Master’s Degree in Nonprofit Management from Florida Atlantic University.

Isabelle and I talked about what she found in Haiti and the enormous challenges that remain there. I invited Isabelle to write a guest post that would begin to address some of my questions. I’m grateful that she agreed to write the following post.

Haiti has much it can teach us. I thank Isabelle, a Haitian with an American-education who is a nonprofit professional, for sharing her unique insights that can benefit us all:

  

Clean-up in Haiti with Oxfam's cash-for-work program. (2010)

During my last trip home to Haiti, I was repeatedly asked why I wasn’t working there. It was assumed that as a nonprofit professional, living in a country brimming with NGOs would naturally be “heaven” for me; with jobs aplenty, organizations of all shapes and sizes; it’s a veritable nonprofit buffet of opportunity! But, there are also enormous challenges.

The topic of NGOs in Haiti is a popular one, usually discussed under an umbrella of criticism and distrust. My intention here is not to point fingers but to shed some light so NGOs working in Haiti and in other underdeveloped countries, even those working in the U.S., can actually have the impact they advertise if they consider the following:

Be an anthropologist.

NGOs working in underdeveloped countries are too often guilty of ethnocentrism. They come with good intent and programs bursting with the potential to truly change the circumstances they exist to combat, but they do not consider the culture of the country and its people.

It is so important for NGOs to work with the people they are serving. I’m not saying to go out into a community and take a survey. I mean that before NGOs invest everything in a program or project they really need to get to know the community in which they’ll be working. Underdeveloped though it may be, Haiti is not without its ways of doing things. Despite the political climate, there are social conventions that, if observed, can save a lot of time and frustration.

Don’t assume that people are incapable because they are uneducated and do not assume that they don’t understand when they are being taken advantage of. The majority of Haitians may be uneducated, but ignorance is not stupidity.

Work together!

I know. So obvious and, yet, so uncommon. For nonprofits, especially those working in developing areas, working together does not have to mean sharing financial resources. In fact, collaborative efforts will save oodles of time and money.

I was working with a group that had undertaken to refurbish a girls’ orphanage in Haiti. I developed a framework for the project that identified and prioritized all of the components from construction, education, health, and even the self-esteem needs of the girls. I was adamant about working with other organizations and suggested that we work with different organizations in very much the same way that a business would get outside services (i.e.: printing and cleaning).

We wanted to have feminine health professionals not only perform regular exams for the girls, but also to hold sexual education seminars, and teach them about STDs and how they can protect themselves. I identified a group that did exactly that and proposed that the orphanage become one of their service recipients. We would determine a schedule for medical visits as well as the seminars and that’s that. No money is dispensed on our side, and the other group does what it does so well.

Breaking News: Brain Scan Study Gives Fresh Insight into Charitable Giving Behavior

An exciting new study from researchers at Texas Tech University used brain scans to garner fresh insight into charitable giving behavior. Specifically, the study looked at what motivates individuals to make a charitable bequest commitment as well as what de-motivates them. This is the first time that Magnetic Resonance Imaging has been used to examine charitable bequest decision making.

This blog post marks the first time that the breakthrough findings of the Texas Tech study have been released to the nonprofit development community. I am honored that Russell N. James, III, JD, PhD, CFP furnished me with a preview copy of his draft report, “Charitable Estate Planning as Visualized Autobiography: An fMRI Study of Its Neural Correlates.”  I thank James for providing me with the draft report and for allowing me to share it with you. I also want to recognize Michael W. O’Boyle, Ph.D. who co-authored the report.

While James has written a scientific paper with a suitably technical title, don’t be intimidated. My article will look at the data from a fundraiser’s perspective. If you want more detail or want to explore the science behind the findings, you can download the full report.

The three key findings of the report are:

 

• Bequest giving and current giving stimulate different parts of the brain. This suggests that different motivators and de-motivators are at work. While the report compares and contrasts the differences in brain activity where current versus bequest giving are concerned, I’ll limit myself here to a review of the findings related to bequest giving.

  

• Making a charitable bequest decision involves the internal visualization system, specifically those parts of the brain engaged for recalling autobiographical events, including the recent death of a loved one.

  

• Charitable bequest decision making engages parts of the brain associated with, what researchers call, “management of death salience.” In other words, and not surprisingly, charitable bequest decision making involves reminders of one’s mortality.

 

So, what do these findings mean for development professionals?

Fundraisers need to understand that charitable bequest decision making is about autobiographical connections, not numbers, such as taxes, or even the needs of the charity. James suggests, “Start conversations by working to trigger autobiographical memories associated with the charity, or the cause the charity represents. The goal is to lay-out for the donor how a bequest gift to the organization fits neatly into their autobiography.”

Does Komen Have a Communications or Integrity Problem?

Oh no! It’s another week and two more major nonprofit organizations are in the news, for less than an ideal reason. The big news is the result of a controversial decision by one of the organizations.

On January 31, 2012, the Associated Press broke the news that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation is halting future funding for virtually all Planned Parenthood affiliates. The report states, “Komen spokeswoman Leslie Aun said the cutoff results from the charity’s newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities. According to Komen, this applies to Planned Parenthood because it’s the focus of an inquiry launched by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., seeking to determine whether public money was improperly spent on abortions.”

Komen did not issue a formal statement explaining the decision before the news media got hold of the story. Komen senior staff initially rejected interview requests after the story broke; it took until February 2 for Nancy Brinker, Komen’s Founder, to sit down for a major television interview. Also, it took until February 2 for Komen to post a formal statement (in the form of a video) on its website. 

Komen did not get out ahead of this story. It did not immediately respond to the story. Instead, Komen sat quietly while people expressed their anger and speculated about the decision on Facebook, Twitter, blog sites, and in the mainstream media.

Once Komen senior staff finally responded to the firestorm, they made matters worse by contradicting, without explanation, their spokesperson’s comment to the Associated Press. A Washington Post article found, “It’s now less clear why Planned Parenthood lost the Komen funding. Komen had initially told the Associated Press that Planned Parenthood could not receive funding because it was under government investigation. But today, in no uncertain terms, Thompson [Komen’s President] indicated that the decision actually had very little to do with an ongoing congressional probe.”

Komen clearly has a major communications problem. Regardless of where you stand on the abortion issue, the facts speak for themselves:

 

• Komen did not proactively handle the situation by releasing the news itself. Had it done so, it could have more easily controlled the message.

 

• Komen did not react quickly once the story became public. This allowed the controversy to fester and public frustration to build. Had Komen responded swiftly, it might have been able to ease the minds of a huge number of people around the country who are concerned that the move by Komen could negatively impact the health of thousands of women.

 

• Komen did not get its story straight. It’s spokesperson gave one reason for the decision while the senior staff gave a completely different reason. The inconsistency encourages mistrust on the part of the public. It suggests that, at best, Komen staff are confused and/or sloppy. Or, at worst, it suggests that someone at Komen is not telling the truth. If Komen spoke with one, consistent, honest message, it could have engendered public trust rather than doing just the opposite.

 

For a comprehensive analysis of the Komen communications debacle, I encourage you to read the blog post from Kivi Leroux Miller at Kivi’s Nonprofit Communications Blog. The post includes videotaped news interviews with Komen and Planned Parenthood senior officials, sample Tweets, and a screen shot of the Planned Parenthood email appeal in response to the Komen decision. By the way, Planned Parenthood has done a brilliant job capitalizing on the controversy; I just hope the email appeal is truthful.

While Komen most definitely has some communications issues, it may suffer from an even greater problem: integrity:

Can a Nonprofit Return a Donor’s Gift?

Two relatively recent news events have raised the issue of nonprofit organizations returning gifts to donors:

 

• The mainstream media wanted to know if Penn State University should return donations to donors who ask for a refund or should Penn State stick to its longstanding policy of not returning gifts. Following the Jerry Sandusky child sex-abuse scandal, the University affirmed its no-refund policy in its official talking points.

 

• The mainstream media also took notice of a lawsuit filed by country music star Garth Brooks against INTEGRIS Canadian Valley Regional Hospital. Brooks sought the return of a $500,000 contribution. The media wondered if the Hospital should have returned the donation before things ended up in court.

 

Since much has already been said about whether gifts should be returned upon a request by a donor, I want to focus on whether a nonprofit organization can legally return a donation.

I’m not a lawyer. So, I decided to contact one. I spoke with a high-ranking state official who specializes in the regulation of nonprofit organizations. The official requested anonymity since we were discussing hypothetical situations.

Under certain circumstances, nonprofit organizations can refund a donor’s contribution. However, under other circumstances, returning a donor’s gift could result in a review by state authorities. Whether or not a situation results in state review will depend on a given state’s regulations, the impact returning the gift would have on the nonprofit, and the size of the gift in question,.

Different states have different laws and regulations governing nonprofit organizations. However, most, if not all, state rules are vague on the point of charities returning gifts. What states do recognize is that when a donor gives money to a nonprofit organization, that money is no longer the donor’s once accepted by the charity. Instead, the money is, in effect, owned by the public interest. Because nonprofit organizations exist to benefit the public interest, regulators will be concerned that gifts are used to further the public interest. Returning a donor’s gift could be contrary to the public interest. That’s the issue for regulators.

For example, a donor may want his $1 million gift returned. However, at the time of the request, the nonprofit may have already spent the money on construction of a new building. It may no longer be holding the donor’s money. And, it may not have sufficient cash on-hand to provide a refund. Or, providing a refund may substantially hurt the organization’s financial health. In such a situation, state regulators might find that returning the gift could be counter to the public interest and might move to block a refund.

Special Report: Winner of Free Book Contest Announced

[Publisher's Note: “Special Reports” are posted from time-to-time as a benefit for subscribers and frequent visitors to this blog. “Special Reports” are not widely promoted. To be notified of all new posts, including "Special Reports," please take a moment to subscribe in the right-hand column.]

We have winner!

On January 13, 2012, I published the post “Enter Now to Win a Free Planned-Giving Book.” Readers who commented on the post were entered into a drawing for a free copy of my book, Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing.

The winner of the free book contest is Rhonda Huber from Provena Health.

I thank everyone who participated in the contest by commenting, and I congratulate Rhonda!

I also want to thank Chris Kirchner, Executive Director of the Philadelphia Children’s Alliance, for agreeing to draw the winning entry. PCA is an organization that brings justice and healing to the victims of child sexual abuse, a crime impacting one in four girls and one in six boys.

If you’re interested in purchasing a copy of Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing, you will find it at your favorite book retailer or by clicking the link which will take you to The Nonprofit Bookstore (powered by Amazon). The book is on the official CFRE International Resource Reading List. For my work on the book, I received the AFP/Skystone Partners Prize for Research in Fundraising and Philanthropy making it the first time in more than a decade that an author has been presented the AFP/Skystone Prize for a book about planned giving.

That’s what Michael Rosen says… What do you say?

Special Report: Former Penn State Coach Joe Paterno Dies

[Publisher's Note: “Special Reports” are posted from time-to-time as a benefit for subscribers and frequent visitors to this blog. “Special Reports” are not widely promoted. To be notified of all new posts, including "Special Reports," please take a moment to subscribe in the right-hand column.]

Happy Valley Pennsylvania, home of Penn State University, is not happy at all today. Former Football Coach and NCAA legend Joe Paterno, 85, died on Sunday, January 22, after a fight with lung cancer. 

JoePa will be remembered as the winningest college football coach ever with 409 wins, 136 losses, and 3 ties. Under his leadership the Nittany Lions won two national championships. He achieved this remarkable record while insisting upon good sportsmanship and a commitment to academics. It’s interesting to note that it is not the football stadium at Penn State that carries Paterno’s name, it is the library.

Paterno will also be remembered for his role in the Jerry Sandusky child sex-abuse scandal. The Penn State Board of Trustees, and even Paterno himself, thought he could have done more. His actions or inaction in the case and his subsequent firing will always be part of his legacy.

The Paterno story is a complicated one. He was certainly not the perfect man of myth. But, there is no denying the enormous good he accomplished on and off the gridiron. 

For more about the passing of Paterno:

“Paterno Legacy Damaged by Scandal, but Not Erased”

“Amid Scandal, Revered PSU Coach Joe Paterno Dies”

“Fired Penn State Coach Joe Paterno Dead at 85″

For more about the Jerry Sandusky child sex-abuse case:

“Actions of One Alleged & One Admitted Child-Rapist Impact You”

“Tragic Lessons of the Penn State Fiasco”

That’s what Michael Rosen says… What do you say?

Garth Brooks Sues Hospital for Return of $500,000 Gift

The news about country-music superstar Garth Brooks this week was not about his latest appearance on stage. Instead, the big story was about his appearance in a courtroom as jury selection began in his civil lawsuit against Integris Canadian Valley Regional Hospital, Yukon, OK. Brooks is seeking the return of his $500,000 contribution since the Hospital has neglected to name a building after his late mother, as he asserts was the agreement.

Country Music Star Garth Brooks

This news story raises operational and ethical issues for all nonprofit organizations that we can explore now. As time goes on, there will be additional lessons to be learned about both fundraising and public relations. 

Despite many news reports on the subject, many of the details of the case are not clear including the timeline of events. As the trial proceeds, we’ll certainly get more information about what happened.

Here is what we know at this point:

• Brooks contributed $500,000 to the Integris Canadian Valley Regional Hospital, his hometown hospital, in 2005.
• Brooks filed his lawsuit in 2009. Brooks alleges breach of contract, revocation of gift/constructive trust, fraud in the inducement, and negligent misrepresentation/constructive fraud.
• Jury selection for the civil trial began this week.
• Beginning in late 2003 or early 2004, Brooks says that the Hospital courted his support and often discussed naming a building after his mother, even showing him mock-ups. Brooks asserts that the Hospital ultimately promised to name at least part of the facility after his mother.
• The Hospital asserts that the gift was unconditional.
• The Hospital has not named a building after Brooks’ mother.
• A Hospital official says the Brooks donation has not been spent and remains in a Hospital account.

Here are some questions I have:

• Is there a written gift agreement?
• Do any copies of the named-building mock-ups exist?
• If the gift was made in 2005, why hasn’t the Hospital put it to use?
• Why didn’t the Hospital return the gift since it’s just been sitting on it for six years?

While we will certainly learn more in the coming weeks, there are already some lessons we can learn from this story: 

Gift Agreements. If Integris and Brooks had a well written gift agreement in place, it’s doubtful that the situation would have ended up in court. When a donor makes a substantial contribution, it’s a great idea to put together a gift agreement that details what is to be given by the donor and when. And, the agreement should also outline what the nonprofit is offering in return and when. In addition, the gift agreement should detail how the donation will be used, for what and when. A solid gift agreement will ensure that both sides understand the nature of the relationship. Getting everyone on the same page is essential. A gift agreement will make it more difficult for either party to deviate from the understanding and it will avoid confusion and disappointment.

Even if Integris and Brooks did not have a written gift agreement, they still might have had a verbal contract. If the existence of a verbal contract can be proven, it is just as binding as a written contract. Brooks’ claims are based either on a written gift agreement or a verbal agreement. A well written gift agreement could have avoided a lot of stress for both parties. In any event, Integris should have done everything possible to avoid a trip to court and the resulting horrible, probably costly, publicity.

Special Report: Blackbaud Acquires Convio

[Publisher's Note: “Special Reports” are posted from time-to-time as a benefit for subscribers and frequent visitors to this blog. “Special Reports” are not widely promoted. To be notified of all new posts, including "Special Reports," please take a moment to subscribe in the right-hand column.]

Blackbaud announced this week that it has acquired rival Convio for $312 million. Blackbaud, with 25,000 customers, is recognized as the leading back-end technology solution for nonprofit organizations. Convio, with 1,500 customers, is best known for its web-based relationship management systems, particularly for advocacy and peer-to-peer fundraising.

It remains to be seen what the impact of the deal will be on the nonprofit sector and how long it will take the sector to feel the impact.

For more information about the sale itself, you can read the news article from The Statesman, the newspaper from Austin, TX, home of Convio. 

For a terrific analysis of what the acquisition might mean for the nonprofit sector, you can read the post at Your Part Matters, the blog site of Jeff Shuck, President and CEO of Event 360.

That’s what Michael Rosen says… What do you say?

Enter Now to Win a Free Planned-Giving Book

I always find January to be a bit of a let-down. By contrast, December is very festive with Chanukah, Christmas, Kwanzaa, Festivus, and New Year’s Eve. But January? January is dark, cold, and filled with post-holiday malaise.

So, I thought I would do something to bring a bit of fun into January.

In honor of the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Day of Service (January 16), publisher John Wiley & Sons and I will be giving away one free copy of my book, Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing.

MLK Day recognizes the birth of King while encouraging citizen action. Many in the nonprofit sector have embraced this day to promote volunteerism. Since my book helps nonprofit organizations secure much needed resources, I thought a planned-giving book give-away would be just one small thing I could do at this special time of year.

In a moment, I’ll tell you how you can enter to win. First, I want to say that I think planned giving is a very attractive way for individuals to support favorite charities, especially during challenging economic times.

A few years back, I was trying to explain to my oldest, childless aunt what it is I do for a living. I tried explaining planned giving. Grasping what I was saying, she asked, “Why on Earth would someone give to a charity after they’re dead?” I asked her, “What charities do you support now?” Among the organizations she supports is an animal welfare group. I then asked, “Who’s going to take care of the little puppies and kittens after you’re no longer here to keep writing checks?” Her eyes widened and, in that moment, I think I might have lost my inheritance.

Planned giving allows people to continue to support organizations they are passionate about after they are no longer here to keep writing checks. In addition, planned giving may help donors lower their taxes, pass money and property on to heirs in an efficient way, generate an income, or provide major gifts to organizations without making any sacrifice during their lifetime. All of these benefits of planned giving are magnified during challenging economic times.

For these reasons, among others, I strongly believe that now is a great time to talk with people about gift planning. Today, given economic uncertainty, individuals might be uncomfortable making a significant financial gift out of current cash. However, those same individuals might be perfectly willing to provide some type of deferred contribution or life-income gift.

Only 22 percent of Americans over the age of 30 say they have been approached by a nonprofit organization to consider a planned gift, according to a survey by the Stelter Company. Imagine how much more revenue would be generated if more nonprofit organizations asked more people for a planned gift.

Now, let me tell you how to enter the book give-away.

For your chance to win a free copy of Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing, simply comment below.