Avoid Burnout in 2016 with 3 Powerful, Simple Tips

The employee turnover rate at nonprofit organizations is shamefully high. A number of factors contribute to this, including burnout. While you cannot control all of the contributing factors, you can certainly manage some of them.

With that in mind, here are three powerful, yet simple, tips to help you avoid burnout in 2016:

Tip 1: Step back. Look at your organization in action.

As fundraising professionals, we spend a great deal of time focusing on tactics and numbers. There are good reasons for that. Effective tactics are essential for achieving fundraising success. Keeping careful track of the numbers helps us to know which tactics work best and indicates whether we’re on track to achieve our goals.

Unfortunately, if we overly focus on tactics and numbers, we can lose sight of what really matters. Remember, it’s not just about the money you are able to raise; it’s about what that money can accomplish.

To help avoid burnout, make sure to take the time to plug back into your organization’s mission. Remind yourself of the good you are helping your organization to achieve by helping it secure essential resources.

If you work for a university, take a walk through campus and stop to have some conversations with students. If you work for a hospital, visit the maternity ward. If you work for a homeless shelter, spend some time in the kitchen preparing meals and then have a meal with some of the recipients. If you work for a theater, attend a performance, meet some of the performers, and talk to some members of the audience.

It’s important to keep in mind that you’re not just raising money. You’re helping your organization achieve its worthy mission.

Tip 2: Talk to your donors.

A great way to re-energize yourself is to talk with your organization’s donors. I don’t mean just talk to donors about their next gift. Instead, contact donors to thank them personally and learn why they support your organization. Their passion will likely inspire you.

Not only will you benefit from talking with donors, your organization will benefit as well. First, your organization will be less likely to have a staff member (you) burnout. Second, donors will be happy to hear from you and, as a result of the call, will be more likely to continue giving to your organization and more likely to give more.

For more about this, read my post: “The Greatest Idea for Retaining and Upgrading Donors.”

Breaking News: Charitable Giving Incentives Made Permanent!

The US Congress has approved and President Barack Obama has signed the so-called Tax Extenders package that not only includes a number of charitable giving incentives, such as the IRA Charitable Rollover, it has made those incentives permanent.

An article in Forbes, prior to passage of the legislation, nicely outlines the measure’s major provisions including the key charitable giving incentives:

• deduction allowed for charitable contribution of real property for conservation purposes,
• taxpayers over age 70 1/2 may make donations directly from an IRA and will not be taxed on the amounts (up to $100,000),
• a shareholder in an S corporation will be required to reduce his basis in the S corporation’s stock under Section 1366 only for his share of the basis of property contributed by the S corporation; not the fair market value.

This is a tremendous moment for the nonprofit sector. Not only have these important giving incentives been renewed, they have been made permanent!

We all owe thanks to the staff and volunteers of the Association of Fundraising Professionals, particularly General Counsel Jason Lee. AFP has taken the lead in fighting to get these giving incentives and making them permanent.

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Michael J. Rosen on Capitol Hill.

For more than a decade, I’ve worked with my AFP colleagues, first as a member of the US Government Relations Committee, then founding Board Member of the AFP Political Action Committee, and then as Board Chairman of the AFP PAC.

Our efforts date back to assisting with the drafting of the CARE Act with then-Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA). The bill was co-sponsored by then-Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT). Despite the bipartisan effort, the CARE Act failed to pass. However, certain charitable giving incentives that were part of the CARE Act were adopted, on a year-to-year basis, including the IRA Charitable Rollover. It took a decade but, finally, the incentives are now permanent!

I’m proud to have been able to play a significant role on this issue. I’ve enjoyed working with other passionate volunteers and staff.

We also need to take this opportunity to thank The Charitable Giving Coalition and its member organizations along with every individual who has worked for this legislation.

Let’s take a much deserved victory lap! Let’s do an end-zone dance! Let’s toast this achievement! Then, let’s get back to work. There’s much to be done to promote the giving incentives.

To help you promote the IRA Charitable Rollover, The Council on Foundations has put together an excellent free, downloadable toolkit that includes:

• Talking points, a fact sheet, and web content;
• An event presentation;
• Tools that explain which available options might best serve donors;
• Donor and professional advisor advertisements.

You can download the Council’s “Charitable IRA Worksheet” for donors by clicking here. You can find the full toolkit by clicking here.

Are Bonuses a Good Idea for #Fundraising Professionals?

Twenty-two percent of American workers surveyed say they expect a holiday bonus, according to a recent report from Bizrate.com. While the report did not breakout the results, I believe that holiday and performance bonuses are far more common in the for-profit sector than in the nonprofit arena. However, should that be the case?

More specifically, should fundraising professionals receive bonuses?

Bonuses for fundraising professionals are not illegal. They’re not even unethical, if the charity adheres to certain guidelines. While the Association of Fundraising Professionals Code of Ethical Standards prohibits fundraisers from accepting compensation based on a percentage of funds raised (Standard 21), fundraising professionals are “permitted to accept performance-based compensation, such as bonuses” (Standard 22). However, bonuses must be “in accord with prevailing practices within the members’ own organizations and [cannot be] based on a percentage of contributions.”

Here are some potential advantages of offering bonuses:

• Attract fundraisers that are more talented.
• Retain the most talented fundraising staff members.
• Reduce the risk when hiring new fundraisers.
• Inspire fundraisers to give their all toward achieving goals.

Some of the potential problems with offering bonuses include:

• Donors might be concerned about how their gifts are being spent.
• Organizations would be less able to predict labor costs.
• Fundraisers might focus too much on the specific goals related to the bonus while letting other responsibilities slip.

Now, I need to hear from you.

Is There Just One Correct Way to Engage in #Philanthropy?

Peter Singer, a philosophy professor at Princeton University, seems to think there is just one correct way to engage in philanthropy. Not surprisingly, it’s his way, which he calls “Effective Altruism.”

While I agree with some of the elements of Effective Altruism, there are a number of points with which I disagree. Recently, both Singer and I had a chance to air some of our views on the national PBS program Religion and Ethics Newsweekly:

At the risk of providing you with a simplistic overview of Effective Altruism, here are some of its key elements and my concerns with them:

Donors should not make emotional decisions about philanthropy. They should devote serious thought and analysis when making giving decisions.

I agree that donors should make informed decisions, examine the efficiency and track record of charities, and understand how their gifts will be used. If more donors spent more time researching the charities they give to, there would likely be fewer fraudulent charities.

However, while donors should engage in more thoughtful, analytical giving — and many do — we should not ignore basic human nature and the findings of neuroscience research. It’s unreasonable to suggest philanthropic giving should be a solely intellectual exercise. The fact is that emotions are involved in almost every decision we humans make. This means, we need to give with both our heads and our hearts.

Individuals should seek to earn as much money as they can so they can donate more money than they otherwise could.

On the surface, this seems like a reasonable, worthwhile suggestion. However, in practice, this could create cultural and economic problems. For example, if everyone followed this advice, it could lead many charities to become understaffed, staffed with incompetent people, or having to take funds away from mission fulfillment in order to pay competitively much higher salaries.

Our society doesn’t just need lawyers and Wall Street traders, we need a diverse labor force, and we need people who will actually do good in addition to funding good.

Getting people to donate more does not just involve getting them to earn more. On average, Americans donate approximately two percent of personal income to charities. Without earning more, donors could certainly give more than the two percent average without having to make a serious sacrifice. The key is to inspire donors to want to do so. That’s where we get back to appealing to both hearts and minds.

Donors should give where it will do the most good.

Everyone who donates or volunteers their time wants to support effective organizations. But, how does Singer define “Effective”? It turns out he doesn’t just mean efficient and impactful. For Singer, effective is essentially synonymous with life-saving. Singer demonstrates this at The Life You Can Save, a website he founded, where all of the recommended charities focus on saving lives.

While saving lives is certainly noble, Singer doesn’t simply advocate for such charities. He ridicules donors who support charities that are not engaged in life-saving activities. Among his favorite targets are donors to the Make-a-Wish Foundation. He implies that people who donate to Make-a-Wish are guilty of murder since they do not, instead, give to a charity that buys mosquito nets to prevent malaria. You can read my analysis of a Singer anti-Make-a-Wish column here.

Actually, Singer himself is not always in favor of saving lives. For example, he has supported infanticide, what he calls “after-birth abortion.” Under certain circumstances, defined by Singer, he believes it is perfectly acceptable to murder babies. In Practical Ethics, he wrote:

Warning: The IRS Wants You to Do Something Dangerous

The US Internal Revenue Service wants you to do something foolish.

The IRS has proposed that charities acquire, record, and report the Social Security numbers of all donors who give $250 or more in any given calendar year. The IRS justifies the proposal by stating that “the collection of information is necessary to properly substantiate charitable contribution deductions under the exception to the general requirements for substantiating charitable contribution deductions of $250 or more.”

However, the proposed regulation is particularly stupid because it is completely unnecessary while being dangerous — to nonprofits and their donors — and costly to implement properly.

You can read the proposed regulation by clicking here. In addition, the website will allow you to share your comments with the IRS by December 16, 2015.

If adopted, compliance with the regulation would be voluntary, for now. Nevertheless, there are several reasons you should be very wary, including:

Voluntary Compliance Could be Made a Requirement.

If the IRS truly believes the measure is necessary, why wouldn’t it seek to change voluntary compliance to a requirement? The collection of Social Security numbers from donors is either essential or not. The IRS can’t have it both ways. Therefore, there is a strong possibility that the IRS is cynically hoping to gain acceptance for the proposal in stages, first seeking voluntary compliance before making it a requirement.

“Any proposed regulations that would create this has the potential for being a slippery slope,” David Heinen, spokesman for the North Carolina Center for Nonprofits, told Fox News.

The IRS Lacks the Capacity to Safeguard Data.

“Number one, the IRS has not demonstrated its capacity to hold this type of information from confidentiality and a security point of view,” US Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL), a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, told Fox News.

Mark Fitzgibbons, President of Corporate Affairs at American Target Advertising, echoed Roskam’s concerns when he told Fox News, “The IRS can’t keep its information confidential, they’ve been hacked.” ATA offers direct-response fundraising services.

There are two major security problems with providing the IRS with donor Social Security numbers: 1) The very real risk that the data would not be safe in the hands of the IRS, and 2) the public’s perception that the data would be at risk at the IRS.

Most Charities Lack the Ability to Safeguard Data.

The data security concern also applies to charities themselves. Few nonprofit organizations are capable of truly protecting donor data. Giving hackers and nefarious insiders easy access to donor Social Security numbers and other information puts donors at significant risk of identity theft. To mitigate that risk would cost charities an enormous amount of money.

“Charities are not well equipped to deal with this,” Roskam said. “We’ve had for-profit companies — some of the biggest companies in the world — that have spent millions and millions and millions of dollars trying to protect their confidential data. And it’s been hacked, and it’s been breached.”

Special Report: You Read about It Here First

[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. New subscribers will also receive a free e-book from researcher Dr. Russell James.]

 

At Michael Rosen Says…, I strive to introduce you to exceptional people with something valuable to offer fundraising professionals and nonprofit managers. I also endeavor to share useful tips and provocative opinions with you. From time-to-time, other media outlets take notice. Here are two recent examples:

Isabelle Clérié, Country Director, EGI in Haiti

I introduced you to Isabelle Clérié, a young fundraising professional. At the time, Isabelle was working in the U.S. She has since returned to her native Haiti where she is now Country Director for EGI, an NGO working to combat poverty by assisting and training emerging entrepreneurs.

Isabelle Clérié, Country Director, EGI in Haiti

Isabelle wrote a guest blog post which I published nearly four years ago: “Haiti: A Young Professional’s Compelling Lessons for All Nonprofits.”

The post focused on relief efforts following the 2010 earthquake in Haiti. In addition to providing some interesting insights into the relief efforts, Isabelle shares some valuable tips that can make any charity more effective.

Now, Forbes has discovered Isabelle and has highlighted her work in Haiti in a recent report: “Three Social Entrepreneurs Driving Growth And Change In Haiti.”

I congratulate Isabelle on the much-deserved public recognition she has received, and I applaud EGI for making a difference in Haiti.

I encourage you to read Isabelle’s post and the article in Forbes.

#GivingTuesday

My regular readers know that while I like the idea of #GivingTuesday, I have not been impressed with the results. In fact, I actually have some serious concerns about the occasion.

Recently, The Chronicle of Philanthropy interviewed me for the article “Giving Tuesday? More Like Gimmick Tuesday, Some Small Nonprofits Say.” This gave me the opportunity to once again share my thoughts on the subject. You can download the article and read what I had to say.

What Can a Steakhouse Teach You about #Fundraising?

Not long ago, I visited The Capital Grille where the chef served more than perfectly prepared steaks. At the end of the meal, he also served up a valuable fundraising lesson, albeit unwittingly.

Last week, in America, we celebrated Thanksgiving. This week, we marked #GivingTuesday. Inspired by both of those occasions, I’m going to share my Capital Grille experience with you.

At the end of a wonderful meal, some uneaten steak remained on my plate. There was no way I was going to let the succulent meat go to waste when I could use it to make a perfectly delicious sandwich the next day.

So, I asked our waiter to please wrap it to go.

I didn’t give the matter any further thought as I waited for the package to arrive from the kitchen. Up until this point, everything was pretty much routine.

However, when my to-go package of leftover steak arrived in a nice paper bag, I couldn’t help but notice a note tied to the bag’s handle. The note, hand signed by the chef, read:

We are glad you enjoyed your meal enough to take some home with you. Thank you for dining with us, we appreciate your business.”

I’m more than a half-century old. I dine out quite a bit. In my life, I’ve taken leftovers home on many occasions. However, this was the first time that my leftover package came with a hand-signed thank-you note!

Here are five takeaways for you: