Posts tagged ‘nonprofit’

May 22, 2018

New Research Proves Cash Is Not King in Fundraising

If you want to raise significantly more money for your nonprofit organization, you need to diversify the types of gifts you seek from individuals. That’s what successful charities do to raise significantly more money each passing year. Conversely, relying solely on cash contributions will likely stunt your organization’s growth.

Those are the key conclusions of a newly released study by Prof. Russell James III, JD, PhD, CFP®, philanthropy researcher at Texas Tech University. The study examined more than one million filings with the Internal Revenue Service by nonprofit organizations.

The following chart reveals that, from 2010 to 2015, nonprofits that consistently received gifts of stocks or bonds grew their contributions six times faster than those receiving only cash:

James’ study found the results are not limited to just those years. When looking at three-year rolling averages, organizations consistently receiving non-cash gifts grew much more quickly than those receiving only cash contributions. The study identified the same general growth pattern regardless of the starting size of the charity or the type of charitable organization.

James observes:

Beyond simple opinions or war stories, the previous results conclusively demonstrate that organizations raising non-cash gifts experience dramatically greater growth in total contributions, both contemporaneously and over the long term. Why? This is likely due in part to the effects of mental framing.

First, it is important to understand that wealth is not held in cash. Census bureau estimates suggest that only about 3% of household wealth is held in cash and checking accounts. When fundraisers ask for cash, they are asking from the ‘small bucket.’ This makes a psychological difference because it changes the reference point for the gift. The same gift may seem ridiculously large when compared to other checkbook purchases (elective expenditures from spendable income), but quite small when compared with total wealth (other non-cash assets). Donors who have never made a gift from assets may simply never have considered giving from wealth rather than giving from spare income. This is particularly important considering findings from experimental research demonstrating that people are much more willing to make charitable donations from irregular, unearned rewards (such as might occur with an appreciated asset) than from regular work earnings.

[Second,] gifts of appreciated assets are also cheaper than gifts of cash because the donor avoids capital gains taxes. This special benefit is particularly important under the new tax law, because it applies to all donors, even non-itemizers who can’t use charitable deductions.”

Intuitively, most fundraising professionals have already known what the James study now proves. So, if fundraisers know they should be seeking cash AND non-cash gifts, why do so many ask for only cash or merely make a feeble attempt to get non-cash donations?

James answers:

read more »

Advertisements
May 18, 2018

Thank You For Your Support!

With this post, I want to thank you and share some practical information about plagiarism.

Last week, I revealed how I was the victim of plagiarism. Someone lifted a portion of one of my recent blog posts, altered the intention of my words, and purposely misattributed them to someone else in an article he wrote attacking the Association of Fundraising Professionals.

Now, I would like to thank you and everyone who supported me with blog comments, tweets, emails, and phone calls. Professionally speaking, the support confirms that my confidence in our profession is well placed. Personally speaking, the support warmed my heart and let me know that I am not alone.

At times, such as in last week’s example, plagiarism is an intentional act. At other times, plagiarism is accidental.

When I spoke with a friend, a college faculty member and former fundraising professional, he confirmed that what I had experienced was clearly an act of plagiarism. He also told me about a website that provides the academic community with useful information for good people who want to better understand what plagiarism is and how to avoid it. The website Plagiarism.org says:

Plagiarism is a common (and often misunderstood) problem that is often the result of a lack of knowledge and skills.”

By creating a better understanding, the website seeks to reduce incidents of plagiarism in schools and throughout society. “What is Plagiarism?” an article at the website, tells us:

read more »

May 9, 2018

Setting the Record Straight about Jimmy LaRose

Jimmy LaRose, founder of the Inside Charity website and co-founder of the National Association of Nonprofit Organizations & Executives, continues to be a controversial figure in the nonprofit sector. However, I have refrained from addressing his statements that trouble me.

Until now.

LaRose recently copied portions of one of my recent blog posts, altered their intention, and purposely misattributed them to someone else in an article he wrote attacking the Association of Fundraising Professionals.

When I confronted him with what he had done, he admitted to and defended his actions. Furthermore, he refused to apologize or delete the article at issue. In his last email to me, despite the fact that I never mentioned NANOE in my communications to him, he wrote, “NANOE’s Board of Directors has directed our staff to forward all your communications to counsel.” Do you think he might have sent me that message in an attempt to intimidate and silence me?

Well, you deserve the truth. Therefore, I will not be silent.

I published my blog post “Are Donors the Hidden Enemies of Charities?” on April 16, 2018. On May 6, 2018, the LaRose article “Is There a Secret Reason AFP (Association of Fundraising Professionals) Is Hating On Donors?” appeared at Inside Charity.

In my post, I reported on the findings of The Harris Poll survey report conducted for AFP and The Chronicle of Philanthropy. While I recognized that most donors are good people, I did point out that some donors do bad things. The Harris survey found that 25 percent of women and 7 percent of men, who are members of AFP and who were surveyed, report having been the victim of sexual harassment. In the cases cited, 65 percent of the perpetrators were donors.

In his article, LaRose attempted to discredit the survey report though he offered no evidence of his own.

Neither AFP nor I are demonizing all donors. We are simply giving voice to the survey respondents who have said that donors sexually harassed them. This is a real problem that some of our fellow fundraising professionals have faced. It’s something that we should not ignore.

Toward that end, I suggested some actions that individual nonprofit organizations should take:

1.  Have the organization’s board adopt a sexual harassment policy. If a policy already exists, it should be reviewed with an eye toward improving it. The policy should define sexual harassment (regardless of the source), map the reporting process, and explain the consequences of harassment. The policy should also make it clear that no donation is worth mental or physical harm to staff or volunteers; people should be clearly valued more than money.

2.  The senior management team or board of the organizations should set policies regarding meetings with prospects and donors. The policy should include answers to several questions including:

  • Where is it appropriate to meet with a prospect or donor?
  • When should more than one person from the organization meet with a prospect or donor at the same time?
  • When dining out with a prospect or donor, who should pick-up the check?
  • What prospect or donor behaviors should not be tolerated?
  • How should misbehavior be treated in the moment and following an incident?

3.  Procedures should be adopted for providing feedback to prospects or donors who misbehave so that they understand that their missteps are inappropriate and unacceptable.

4.  Staff and volunteers (including board members) should be provided with the policies and trained to ensure they understand all of the provisions of the policies

5.  As part of training, make all staff and volunteers aware of the problem. For example, share the Harris Polling report with them along with a printed copy of the organization’s sexual harassment policies.

6.  Re-assure staff and volunteers that they will be fully supported, and that they will not be penalized or lose their jobs for filing a legitimate complaint.

In LaRose’s article, he lifted the questions I asked in item two above. He then mislead his readers when he introduced the questions by writing, “In response to The Chronicle of Philanthropy’s ‘poll’ AFP’s IDEA Committee (Inclusion, Diversity, Equity and Access) has just announced another set of provisions they’re going to burden you with after they determine the proper answers to the following questions.”

To the best of my knowledge, the AFP IDEA Committee has not adopted my questions to guide its discussions. The questions I posed were clearly mine and mine alone. As I stated in my post, the questions are just some that should be addressed as nonprofit organizations discuss their own policies and procedures. I did not ask AFP to impose such a requirement on nonprofit organizations. It would have been foolish to do so because AFP has no mechanism for such an imposition even if it wanted to issue such a mandate.

By twisting the intent of my words and by providing incorrect attribution, LaRose has erected a straw-man.

LaRose writes:

read more »

May 4, 2018

The Dark Side of the Fundraising Profession

People join the fundraising profession because they are good folks who want to do good. They want to make the world a better place. That’s why I entered the profession. It’s probably why you did, also. Unfortunately, not all fundraisers are good people. Unfortunately, even good people occasionally do bad things.

Our professional organizations have created ethical codes and standards of professional practice to guide our behavior and to help earn public trust. We even have mechanisms to hold fundraising professionals accountable to those standards.

Now, a local organization has attracted national attention, but not in a good way. It’s a story that tests the integrity of the Association of Fundraising Professionals, CFRE International, and the entire fundraising profession. It’s a story that will ultimately reveal whether or not we are willing to hold fundraisers accountable. It’s a test of whether our ethics codes and professional standards are merely nice words on paper or whether they truly help define fundraising as a profession.

The story I am referring to involves the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. I won’t repeat the entire story here. The Chronicle of Philanthropy has already done some excellent reporting on the matter, and I’ll provide links at the end. For now, I’ll just take a moment to summarize the reports.

Former employees of the Foundation “accuse Mari Ellen Loijens, the Foundation’s top fundraiser, of engaging in emotionally abusive and sexually inappropriate behavior.” The Chronicle further states:

The Chronicle article, based on several months of interviews with 19 former employees, raised questions about the leadership of Loijens, who oversaw fundraising at the community foundation. While many say she deserves credit for helping raise significant sums at Silicon Valley — which at $13.5 billion in assets is larger than Ford or Rockefeller — former employees said she demeaned and bullied her staff, made lewd comments in the workplace, and on at least one occasion sought to kiss a woman working for her.”

Two days before The Chronicle published its findings, Emmett Carson, Chief Executive Officer of the Foundation, announced that an internal investigation of the allegations is being “conducted by Sarah Hall, a Washington, DC, based senior counsel at Thompson Hine and a former federal prosecutor.” According to The Chronicle, “The Foundation said in a statement that the ‘investigation into alleged incidents of misconduct will continue, and at the conclusion of that investigation SVCF will take whatever action is necessary to preserve the integrity of our organization.’”

On April 19, 2018, a day after The Chronicle published its report, the Foundation confirmed that Loijens had resigned.

On April 26, 2018, The Chronicle reported that the Foundation’s Board placed Carson on indefinite, paid administrative leave. Greg Avis, a founding Board member and former Board Chair, has been appointed interim CEO. The investigation continues and has been expanded.

On May 2, 2018, Silicon Valley Business Journal reported that Daiva Natochy, the Foundation’s Vice President for Talent, Recruitment and Culture, has resigned.

The Silicon Valley Community Foundation has many issues. The allegations of bullying and sexual harassment leveled against Loijens are just part of the problem. However, Loijens alleged behavior is not just a problem for the Foundation; it is a challenge for the fundraising profession as well.

Loijens behavior, if true, could be construed as a violation of the AFP Code of Ethical Standards. Specifically, Loijens alleged behavior appears to be in conflict with the following provisions, at a minimum:

read more »

May 3, 2018

Who Wins as a Result of New ACGA Decision?

For the first time since 2012, the American Council on Gift Annuities has approved an increase of its suggested maximum payout rates for Charitable Gift Annuities. The rates will be rising by 0.30 to 0.50 percent for those ages where most annuity contracts are done. The ACGA will publish the final rate schedules by May 15, with the new rates becoming effective on July 1, 2018.

The rate increase will make donors the winners of the ACGA decision. Beginning in the second half of the year, CGA donors will be able to receive more income than they previously could in recent years.

A CGA is a gift mechanism that allows donors to make a gift to charity, and then receive an income for life. A CGA contract sets the rate and terms with the donor. The rate is dependent on the age and gender of the annuitant(s), and the number of annuitants.

For charities, the higher CGA payout rates will make this planned-giving instrument more attractive to donors and, therefore, could generate more gifts. So, charities are another winner.

The ACGA summarizes what conditions its board considered when setting the new rates:

Generally speaking, the ACGA’s suggested maximum rates are designed to produce a target gift for charity at the conclusion of the contract equal to 50 percent of the funds contributed for the annuity. The rates are further predicated on the following:

An annuitant mortality assumption equal to a 50/50 blended of male and female mortality under the 2012 Individual Annuity Reserving Table (the 2012 IAR);

A gross investment return expectation of 4.75 percent (which is up from the previous return assumption of 4.25 percent) per year on the charity’s gift annuity funds;

An expense assumption of 1 percent per year.”

If your organization has a CGA program, you’ll want to reach-out to your prospects and donors to let them know about the CGA opportunity and higher rates. The new rate schedule provides a good reason to contact people about CGAs.

When communicating with people about CGAs, remember to encourage them to think about establishing a CGA with a gift of appreciated property (e.g., stocks, bonds, real estate). This will provide the donor with the added benefit of avoiding capital gains tax. Your organization will also benefit. Nonprofits that experienced greatest growth in their CGA programs, as well as average CGA gift size, emphasized gifts of appreciated property compared to cash, according to a recent ACGA report.

If your organization does not already have a CGA program, you might want to consider starting one. While managing an in-house CGA program can be administratively burdensome, there are third-party organizations (i.e., community foundations) that can administer your program for you.

Whether you manage the program in-house or out-source it, your organization will still be legally responsible for making payments to donors. While the CGA rates are designed to allow approximately 50 percent of a gift to ultimately go to the charity, there are many instances (particularly during the Great Recession) when that was not the case and charities received less than 50 percent, nothing, or were in a negative position. CGA programs are not without risk.

When marketing your CGA program, be careful to avoid a common mistake:

Do NOT sell CGAs as investments.

There are three reasons to avoid “selling” CGAs as an investment:

read more »

April 27, 2018

The Best Way to Ensure Your Volunteers Do Not Fail

Let’s make sure our volunteers do not fail. Let’s do a better job of recruiting and retaining volunteers while helping them be more successful. Remember, when volunteers are more successful, our nonprofit organizations are more successful.

This is the second part in a series of posts about volunteers. I’m publishing this series for three reasons:

  • It’s National Volunteer Month.
  • Volunteerism is on the decline in the USA, and we can and must reverse that trend.
  • Volunteers are a valuable resource to the nonprofit sector. They serve as organization ambassadors, provide free labor, and donate generously. We need them!

In the first part of the series, we looked at how to avoid major pitfalls and manage volunteers more effectively. Now, we will consider the best way to ensure that your volunteers do not fail. The result will be a win-win relationship between your volunteers and your organization.

Once again, we’re fortunate to receive some terrific insights from Kelly Ronan on Twitter. Kelly is an Indiana State University Bayh College of Education Scholars-to-Teachers Program Scholar and a candidate for the Certified Nonprofit Professional credential offered through the Nonprofit Leadership Alliance.

Kelly believes that a robust orientation program for volunteers, as part of a training effort, will help them avoid failure and, instead, meet with success. So, before tossing your volunteers into the proverbial deep-end of the pool, make sure they first receive a solid orientation consisting of the eight key elements Kelly suggests:

 

An effective orientation will provide an overview for a volunteer that is new to your organization, and a refresher for a returning volunteer. It will provide a general understanding of who the organization is, what the organization does, and how volunteers play a key role.

The following eight elements will make your volunteer orientation great, and will help ensure that your volunteers have a meaningful experience as they help your organization.

1.  Make volunteers feel like they belong!

The “belonging” atmosphere should begin the moment you make contact with the new volunteer, whether that is speaking on the phone or through emails. Be sure to reach out to a new volunteer while the excitement of volunteering is still fresh on their mind. Hosting an orientation is a powerful way to engage volunteers and help them get off to a good start.

Once they reach orientation, it is time to make them feel like your organization is the right fit for them. Have your volunteers get connected with staff and other volunteers. Consider planning a fun ice-breaker activity or planning for partner/small group interaction as part of your orientation. It is important that your new volunteers feel welcome and appreciated.

2.  Effective, meaningful communication is key!

No one likes to feel lost. Orientation is the time to state, in appropriate detail, what is expected of volunteers. This includes things like behavior standards, dress codes, confidentiality, time commitments, and more. Taking the time to address expectations up front can save a lot of time further down the road once the volunteer has started their assignment. Remember that you can’t expect your volunteers to meet expectations that you haven’t clearly defined.

3.  Share the mission of organization!

Just like staff members, volunteers should know your organization’s mission. They need to know what they are putting their time and talent towards. Sharing a bit of history about the organization, the mission statement and goals and objectives are helpful to a new volunteer. This also helps them to see how their role as a volunteer fits into the organization’s plan. Additionally, you can include a brief description of programs, and you may want to share some impacts your organization has had on the communities it serves.

4.  Review policies and procedures!

read more »

April 25, 2018

Avoid the 7 Deadly Sins When Working with Volunteers

Given that this is National Volunteer Month, I want to acknowledge the often unsung heroes of the nonprofit sector.

Like monetary donors, volunteers are supporters. We need to recognize that and act accordingly. Volunteers are a valuable resource for nonprofit organizations. They provide essential free labor. They serve as ambassadors in the community for your organization. They donate twice as often as non-volunteers do. They are just as likely as donors to include a charity in their Will. People who volunteer and donate are far more likely to include a nonprofit organization in their Will compared to people who do only one or the other. Volunteers are supporters!

Unfortunately, volunteerism is on the decline in the USA. This will be potentially costly to the nonprofit sector.

As I pondered the problem of declining volunteerism, I had the good fortune to “meet” Kelly Ronan on Twitter. Kelly is an Indiana State University Bayh College of Education Scholars-to-Teachers Program Scholar and a candidate for the Certified Nonprofit Professional credential offered through the Nonprofit Leadership Alliance.

I’ve been impressed with the material about volunteerism that Kelly regularly shares on social media. So, I invited her to share some of her insights and wisdom with us. I’m happy to report that Kelly has generously accepted my request, for which I am grateful.

Her guest post below looks at some best practices in volunteer management that will help you more effectively recruit and retain volunteers:

 

There are three key best practice areas when it comes to volunteer management. By mastering these three areas, you will help your nonprofit organization to more effectively recruit and retain volunteers. You’ll also help ensure that each volunteer’s experience is a good one thereby developing a valuable ambassador and potential donor.

1.  Start Off Right

To get off on the right foot with volunteers, you need to avoid missteps. But, that’s not enough. You also need to understand what motivates each individual so you can meet their needs.

Let’s first look at the many potential mistakes we can make with volunteers. For example, let’s consider Energize’s “7 Deadly Sins of Directing Volunteers” with this listing:

  1. To recruit a volunteer for a cause or program in which you do not believe.
  2. To sign a person up even if he or she is not right for a vacant volunteer position you need to fill, or to ask a volunteer to take on a role that misuses or underutilizes that person’s talents.
  3. To restrict a volunteer’s effectiveness by not providing adequate preparation, training, or tools.
  4. To ask salaried staff to work as a team with volunteers if you yourself do not have volunteers helping with the responsibilities of your job.
  5. To be so concerned about your own job security that you do not stand up and fight for the needs and rights of the volunteers you represent.
  6. To offer volunteers certain opportunities and working conditions, and then not deliver.
  7. To waste a volunteer’s time – ever.

You need to be honest, ethical, and fair with volunteers, just as you would be with staff. You also need to understand what motivates them. Let’s get one thing straight: Volunteers don’t volunteer just to get that happy, fuzzy feeling inside. Everyone volunteers for their own reasons. So firstly, determine the motivation of your volunteers. VolunteerHub offers more in their post here, but these were the common reasons for volunteering that they found:

  • Individuals have a personal tie to a nonprofits mission, goals, and values.
  • Individuals are looking for opportunities to meet and network with new people.
  • Individuals have a moral compass to do good.
  • Individuals are in search of skill-building opportunities.
  • Individuals want to practice leadership capacities.
  • Individuals are looking for ways to build their personal resume.
  • Individuals were asked to participate in a volunteer opportunity.

All of this means, when it comes to motivation, that you’re going to have a diverse group of volunteers. I can see how the thought of communicating effectively with all of them may seem intense. So, let’s take a moment to look into forming a communication strategy.

2.  Setting Up a Communication Strategy

read more »

April 20, 2018

Do Not Make this Big Error with Your Next Challenge Grant

I’ve seen it frequently. Fundraising professionals often make a big error when using a challenge grant. And they compound that error unethically by misleading prospective donors. It’s a common issue that is costing the nonprofit sector a fortune.

What’s the huge mistake? Fabrication of a bogus challenge grant.

True challenge grants are great. When a fundraising professional inspires a donor to provide a challenge grant, the nonprofit has a powerful tool to encourage greater contributions when making an appeal.

Typically, a challenge grant will match new and increased support to a charity. Oftentimes, the match will be dollar-for-dollar, though other multiples can also be arranged. In the case of a dollar-for-dollar challenge, if a new donor gives $100, the challenge-grant donor will give the charity $100. If a $50 donor from last year gives $75 this year, the challenge-grant donor will give $25. Typical challenge grants are not unlimited; the donor will set a maximum total amount.

Using a challenge grant can be an excellent fundraising tool for four reasons:

1.  It encourages donor support by increasing the value of donations. For example, with a one-to-one match, new donors have their contributions effectively doubled, thereby significantly magnifying the impact donors can have.

2. It encourages donor support because donors do not want the organization to lose money. If a donor makes a new or increased gift, the charity will receive additional money from the challenge-grant donor. However, the converse is also potentially true.

If a donor does not give, the charity could lose out on some of the challenge grant. Therefore, while a challenge grant can increase the value of a donor’s gift, it can also create the impression of a cost to the organization if the donor does not give. Some donors are motivated by the concern, “If I don’t give my $125, the organization could miss out on another $125 from the challenge-grant donor. I don’t want to cost the organization $125.”

3.  It creates a sense of urgency to give now. Typically, challenge grants must be fulfilled within a narrow time-frame. So, prospective donors are encouraged to act now rather than delay their philanthropic decision. The sooner someone gives in response to an appeal, the more likely they are to give. People who set an appeal aside thinking they’ll get to it later, often do not.

The urgency created by a challenge grant is also useful for planned giving campaigns encouraging donors to include the charity in their Will (Charitable Bequest). People do not like to think about end-of-life planning, so it’s easy for them to keep delaying until it’s too late. A challenge grant creates a sense of urgency that can overcome what social scientists call personal mortality salience.

You can read about a fantastic challenge-grant campaign for planned giving in my book, Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing, beginning on page 188.

read more »

April 16, 2018

Are Donors the Hidden Enemies of Charities?

Donors are not usually the enemies of nonprofit organizations. Instead, they are the friends who provide much needed resources allowing charities to save lives and enhance the quality of those lives.

However, some donors at some times do become the enemy of the good. They behave in ways that humiliate and, at times, even endanger those with less power. That’s one of the disturbing findings of a new survey report sponsored by the Association of Fundraising Professionals and The Chronicle of Philanthropy and produced by Harris Polling.

Among nonprofit professionals surveyed, 25 percent of women and 7 percent of men say they have been sexually harassed. Of the harassment incidents cited, 65 percent of the perpetrators were donors with the balance being colleagues, work supervisors, and organization executives. Harassers are most often men (96 percent). The median number of sexual harassment occurrences personally experienced by survey respondents is three (which is why some of the statistics in the report add up the way they do).

“Harassment is always about power, so the results here might indicate that the real power in these organizations rests with the donors,” Jerry Carbo, a professor at Shippensburg University who served on a federal committee studying harassment in the workplace in 2015 and 2016, told The Chronicle. “I would normally expect to see a much higher response rate for supervisors.”

The most common types of sexual harassment experienced in the fundraising profession include: inappropriate comments of a sexual nature (80 percent), unwelcome sexual advances and requests for sexual favors (62 percent), and unwanted touching or physical contact (55 percent).

Mike Geiger, MBA, CPA, President and CEO of AFP, commented on the alarming findings:

The number of cases involving donors is eye-opening and points to a unique and very troubling situation within the profession. As we look at how to proceed with the data from the survey and begin developing anti-harassment education and training for fundraisers and others in the charitable sector, we will have a special focus on the all-important donor-fundraiser relationship. We know most donors have only the best interest of the cause at heart, but our message will be clear: no donation and no donor is worth taking away an individual’s respect and self-worth and turning a blind eye to harassment.”

Sadly, many nonprofit organizations fail to take appropriate action when they receive reports of sexual harassment, regardless of whether the perpetrators were donors or fellow staff. Consider the following:

read more »

April 13, 2018

Why are Fundraising Results Missing the Mark?

The nonprofit sector has an unfortunate secret. While not a well-kept secret, it is nevertheless something that receives too little attention. So, let’s take a moment to shine a spotlight on the issue.

Overall, American philanthropy has remained at approximately two percent of Gross Domestic Product for over six decades, with the percentage bouncing between 1.6 and 2.3 percent, according to Giving USA. Every year when the amount of money donated to charities goes up, the nonprofit sector pats itself on the back even though it is merely keeping pace with GDP.

Despite the massive growth in the number of nonprofit organizations, the significant increase in availability of educational materials, the production of helpful research, the professionalization of the fundraising field, and the rise of new technologies, the nonprofit sector has failed to budge philanthropy relative to GDP.

Now, as a committee convened by The Giving Institute begins to consider ways to grow philanthropy beyond the two-percent-of-GDP mark, I’ve written an article for the Association of Fundraising Professionals magazine, Advancing Philanthropy, that explores the challenge: “What Will It Take to Dramatically Increase Philanthropy?”

To answer that question, we need to understand how and why past attempts to do so have come up short, such as the insightful work of the Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs in the 1970s.

We also need to understand the broad societal cultural factors that are affecting philanthropy so that we can develop strategies for inspiring cultural change and/or adapt to factors beyond our control (e.g., decline in religious affiliation, erosion of social capital, drop in volunteerism, etc.). Furthermore, we need to understand the cultural issues within the nonprofit sector that block change and, ultimately, greater success.

We also must set a realistic, consensus goal for moving the philanthropic needle. While that goal should be bold, it should also be based on something other than a dream. A credible target mark will give us all something to shoot for.

As Henry David Thoreau once wrote:

In the long-run, [people] hit only what they aim at.”

While it will likely take at least a couple of years for The Giving Institute’s commission to do its work, you and I do not need to wait. There are things we can do now to begin to move closer to a more vital philanthropic mark, something greater than two percent of GDP:

read more »

%d bloggers like this: