Posts tagged ‘right thing’

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 »

Advertisements
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 »

March 8, 2018

Update: Is the Nonprofit Sector Ignoring the #TimesUp Movement?

I’m surprised. You might be, too.

At the end of last month, I published the post “#TimesUp Alert: Nonprofit Organizations are Not Immune.” The post is one of my least read articles so far this year. By comparison, several old posts that I have not promoted for a long time have attracted far more readers during the past week. Given the seriousness of workplace sexual harassment and assault, I am disappointed that my post on the subject has not received more attention.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not whining. I’m simply concerned that an important, timely issue facing the nonprofit sector is apparently of little interest to fundraising professionals and nonprofit managers.

Why do you think my previous #TimesUp post has attracted so few readers?

It could be that folks do not believe it’s really a significant issue for the nonprofit sector; after all, we do good so we must be good. Or, it could be that nonprofit professionals don’t believe they have the power to bring change to their organizations, so they don’t bother thinking about it. Or, it could be something else. What do you think?

Interestingly, the percentage of post readers who responded to my one-question anonymous survey was above average. While the broader universe of potential readers might not have been interested in the article, those who did read the piece were highly engaged.

The poll was admittedly unscientific. Nevertheless, I owe it to those who responded to share the results:

read more »

February 27, 2018

#TimesUp Alert: Nonprofit Organizations are Not Immune

The nonprofit and philanthropic communities are not immune. We must face a sad truth: Sexual harassment and assault do not exist exclusively in Hollywood or even just the broader for-profit sector. The problems also fester in the nonprofit and philanthropic sphere. The issue is so serious for the nonprofit sector that the Association of Fundraising Professionals has recently issued a clear statement and planned steps to address the situation.

The victims of Harvey Weinstein made the world aware, in 2017, of the Hollywood movie mogul’s alleged despicable acts of sexual harassment and assault. The revelations led to the #MeToo social media movement that put the spotlight on other alleged perpetrators in the film and other industries.

As the year ended, the #MeToo movement evolved into the #TimesUp initiative. Megan Garber, writing in The Atlantic, described the transition this way:

The simple shift in hashtag, #MeToo to #TimesUp, is telling: While the former has, thus far, largely emphasized the personal and the anecdotal, #TimesUp — objective in subject, inclusive of verb, suggestive of action — embraces the political. It attempts to expand the fight against sexual harassment, and the workplace inequality that has allowed it to flourish for so long, beyond the realm of the individual story, the individual reality.”

The #TimesUp Legal Defense Fund, part of the new movement, set an initial $15 million goal, now $22 million. As of this writing, over $21 million has been raised from nearly 20,000 donors through GoFundMe.

Within the nonprofit sector, it’s easy for us to have a false sense of comfort. Some may believe others are addressing the problem adequately. Others may believe the problem is not that widespread among nonprofits because they are inherently good because they do good.

Unfortunately, there is ample anecdotal and statistical evidence demonstrating that the nonprofit sector faces the same situation as the rest of society when it comes to sexual exploitation, harassment, and assault. Wherever some people hold power over others, the door is open to sexual harassment and assault.

Consider just a few examples:

The Presidents Club. Over the years, this organization has raised over 20 million British pounds for various children’s charities in the UK. The cornerstone fundraising activity of this UK-based charity has been an annual gala for over 300 figures from British business, finance, and politics. On January 18, the group gathered at the prestigious Dorchester Hotel in London where they were joined by 130 hostesses.

A Financial Times investigative report found:

All of the women were told to wear skimpy black outfits with matching underwear and high heels. At an after-party many hostesses — some of them students earning extra cash — were groped, sexually harassed and propositioned.”

I can’t do this story justice. Please take a few moments to read the full Financial Times article. It’s stunning. Since the report was published, The Presidents Club has ceased operations.

Oxfam. Large international charities are not immune to scandal either. Oxfam officials this month released the findings of an internal investigation that found its country director for Haiti hired “prostitutes” during a relief mission in 2011. Furthermore, in 2016 and 2017, Oxfam dealt with 87 sexual exploitation cases as well as sexual harassment or assault of staff, according to a report in Devex. While the Haiti country director has resigned and Oxfam has taken steps to avoid exploitation and harassment in the future, the negative public relations and philanthropic fallout have been significant.

Humane Society of the United States. Wayne Pacelle, Chief Executive Officer of the Humane Society, resigned following sexual harassment charges filed against him, according to The New York Times. While Pacelle maintains his innocence, he also faced allegations of sexual relationships with subordinates, donors, and volunteers going back years.

While the anecdotes are alarming, they don’t really help us understand how vast the problem is. So, let’s look at the numbers. In the USA, nearly 1200 sexual-harassment claims were filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against nonprofit organizations between 1995 and 2016, according to a report in The Chronicle of Philanthropy. While a significant number, it likely only reflects a modest percentage of actual cases, most of which go unreported or are only reported internally.

read more »

February 22, 2018

What do Abraham Lincoln and Jennifer Lawrence have in Common?

President Abraham Lincoln and actress Jennifer Lawrence each learned something that can help your fundraising efforts. Before I tell you what that is, let me share a bit of history with you.

Earlier this week, the USA celebrated Presidents Day. Congress originally established the Federal holiday to commemorate the birth of George Washington, the nation’s first President, born on Feb. 22, 1732. At some point, the holiday also began to include Lincoln, born on Feb. 12, 1809. Then, all of the US Presidents were lumped into the holiday. Well, sort of. Despite its commonly excepted name — Presidents Day — it remains officially Washington’s Birthday.

To honor a President this week, I thought I’d share some wisdom from one of them. Then, as I was preparing to write this piece, I stumbled upon an article about Lawrence, and realized she has learned the same lesson as Lincoln.

Paraphrasing 15th century poet John Lydgate, Lincoln is believed to have stated:

You can please some of the people some of the time, all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can never please all of the people all of the time.”

Lawrence, definitely in a different league than Lincoln, has nevertheless learned the same lesson. While she likely had this insight well before this year’s British Academy of Film and Television Awards, she had a reminder of it resulting from an interview hosted by Joanna Lumley.

Lumley introduced Lawrence by saying, “And we start with the award for Outstanding British Film and who better to kick the whole evening off than the hottest actress on the planet? Soon to be seen in ‘Red Sparrow,’ it’s the ravishing Jennifer Lawrence.” The American actress then came out and modestly said, “Hi. That was a bit much, but thank you, Joanna.”

Following the exchange, the social media battle began. Some people thought that Lawrence was being “discourteous,” “a spoiled brat,” “rude,” and more. On the other side, there were plenty of people who sided with the actress with one even questioning, “How is that rude?”

Lincoln Memorial

Yes, you can never please all of the people all of the time.

That’s an important lesson for all of us.

Your fundraising plan will not make everyone happy. Your direct mail copy will not make everyone happy. The graphic design for your annual report will not make everyone happy.

At some point in your career, likely far more than once, you’ll hear, “We can’t do that here. We’ve never done it that way.” You might even have someone in upper management comment negatively on your direct-mail appeal because it’s not how she would write a letter to a friend — “Do you really need to use bullets and boldface?”

You get the idea.

You just need to understand that you will never make everyone happy all of the time. When confronted by senseless criticism based on emotion rather than knowledge, keep these five points in mind:

read more »

January 20, 2017

Now is the Time to Grow Up and Show Up!

Recently, pollster Frank Luntz, Founder of Luntz Global, said, “Grow up and show up.”

While the phrase has been used in a political context, it certainly applies to the philanthropic world as well.

Luntz was speaking about the nearly 70 (at the time) members of Congress who have decided to boycott the Presidential Inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20, 2017. He suggested that by failing to show up, these members of Congress are breaking with tradition, exacerbating an already divisive atmosphere, and failing to represent the portion of their constituencies who voted for Trump.

Luntz is not the first to use the line “Grow up and show up.” While I don’t know the origin of the phrase, I do know that liberals have used it as well. For example, a number of liberals used the phrase to encourage people to go to the polls and vote for Hillary Clinton.

I find it interesting that both sides of the political spectrum have embraced “Grow up and show up.” Ah, common ground! So, what does this mean for fundraising professionals?:

1.  Sometimes, we need to work with people (e.g., staff, board members, prospects, donors, etc.) we don’t particularly like or agree with. To me, grow up means we need to have the maturity and professionalism to separate our personal selves from our professional selves. We need to do what is best for our organizations and the entire nonprofit sector.

2.  We need to take action. To me, show up means it’s not enough to feel one way or the other; it’s not enough to pay lip-service to an issue or cause; it’s not enough to sign a petition; it’s not enough to participate in a protest. We need to back up our words with substantive action.

Let me share a personal example with you:

Years ago, the CARE Act was under consideration by Congress. The Act bundled a variety of charitable giving incentives including the IRA Charitable Rollover. At the time, I served as a Board Member, and eventually Chair of the Board, of the Association of Fundraising Professionals Political Action Committee.

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) with Michael J. Rosen at CARE Act rally.

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) with Michael J. Rosen at CARE Act rally.

The lead sponsor of the CARE Act was Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), He didn’t just lend his name to the Act or pay lip-service to it. He passionately believed in helping the nonprofit sector and, therefore, he actively worked for passage of the bill and partnered with Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) as lead sponsors.

At the time, Santorum was not popular among a large group of AFP members. As a conservative, he was anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage. I was contacted by a number of angry AFP members who did not want the AFP PAC to contribute Santorum’s re-election campaign and who did not want me working with him for passage of the CARE Act.

Despite the objections of some AFP members, the AFP PAC contributed to the Santorum campaign. The AFP PAC also contributed to Lieberman’s campaign although some AFP members objected to that as well. The AFP PAC exists to promote philanthropy, period. In the Senate, Santorum was the most supportive of the nonprofit sector. The contribution was appropriate.

I also continued to work closely with Santorum on advocacy efforts to secure passage of the CARE Act. It was the right thing to do for the nonprofit sector.

read more »

September 27, 2016

Are You Doing Something Wrong Without Even Knowing It?

Most fundraising professionals are good people trying to do good things. Most fundraising professionals believe they are ethical and, therefore, will routinely choose right over wrong.

However, what do you do when confronted with a situation where there is no clear right or wrong option? What do you do when you encounter a dilemma beyond your experience? What do you say when a donor or board member questions your actions?

That’s where fundraising ethics comes in. Ethical standards help us be the kind of people we want to be. Ethical standards guide us as we navigate fundraising challenges so that we can achieve the best results for our donors, beneficiaries, and organizations.

rights-stuff-cover-from-rogare(Toward the end of this post, I’ll tell you how you can get two FREE white papers that explore the ethics issue in greater detail.)

Unfortunately, many find that the existing fundraising ethics codes in use around the world are inadequate. That’s why Rogare, the fundraising think tank at the Plymouth University Hartsook Centre for Sustainable Philanthropy,  has undertaken a major, new ethics project.

Rogare seeks to develop a new normative ethics theory that balances the interests of donors and charity beneficiaries. This will empower us to more consistently make good decisions and take the right actions. That’s good for donors, charity beneficiaries, and nonprofit organizations.

Ian MacQuillin, Director of Rogare, explained it this way on The Agitator blog:

Ethical theories are intended to help us think through how to make better decisions in doing the right thing, and this is what our work at Rogare, with the help of people such as Heather McGinness, is trying to do, particularly to ensure that we do the right thing by our beneficiaries as well as our donors. We need ethical theories to help us make better decisions every day in our lives, precisely because knowing ‘right’ from ‘wrong’ is often such a morally grey area. Fundraising is really no different.”

For example, we can probably agree that we should not tell lies. However, imagine the following scenario: You’re scheduled to meet a wealthy donor for a noon lunch. You arrive at the restaurant early to make sure everything is perfect. At 12:05 PM, the donor has yet to arrive. At 12:10 PM, the donor has not shown up, and you have not received any messages. At 12:15 PM, you begin to wonder if you have the wrong day and begin to get annoyed. Finally, arriving 20 minutes late, the donor comes through the door. After greeting you, the donor says, “I’m sorry I was running late. I hope it’s okay.”

In response to the donor in the scenario I’ve described, you could say, “Well, as a matter of fact, I was becoming annoyed. You know, you could have sent me a text message to let me know you were running late.” Or, to put the donor at ease, you might choose to lie and say with a warm smile, “Oh, don’t worry about it. It’s no big deal. I’m fine.” Hmmm, maybe lies are not always bad.

My example is admittedly a bit silly, even simplistic. My point is that things we think are black-and-white don’t always remain such. That’s why ethical frameworks and decision-making models are so important.

Okay, now it’s time for the FREE stuff.

read more »

September 13, 2016

Is Social Media Hurting Your #Nonprofit Organization?

We’ve all heard the stories of social media success. President Barack Obama was perhaps the first US presidential candidate to raise a significant amount of money via social media. The Ice-Bucket Challenge generated awareness and raised over $100 million for the ALS Association in addition to millions more for other ALS charities. Countless charities have raised vast amounts of money through crowd funding campaigns and other social media campaigns.

Despite the success stories, there is a dark side to social media that can actually hurt your nonprofit organization.

Let me share a cautionary story involving Ursinus College. It reveals how, when used improperly, social media can embarrass your charity, cause supporters to abandon the organization, and reduce contributions.

Here’s what went horribly wrong:

Got to love a janitor with a ‘Ban Fracking Now’ sticker on his bucket. Barack is clearly reaching his target demographic.”

“Yoga pants? Per my DTW visual survey, only 10 percent of users should be wearing them. The rest need to be in sweats – or actually get dressed.”

“Just saw an Aborigenese in ‘full gear’ talking on an iPhone. What’s next Ben Franklin driving a Tesla?”

“Bruce Jenner [Caitlyn Jenner] got 25 K for speaking engagements. Caitlyn gets $100K. What wage gap?”

Those are just four of the, ahem, colorful tweets posted on Twitter by Michael C. Marcon, an insurance executive and 1986 Ursinus graduate. These tweets, and others from Marcon, might have gone unnoticed except for one thing: When they were posted, Marcon was a member of the Ursinus College board of trustees and, as of July 1, he served as Chairman of that board.

some-failed-tweets-by-irish-typepad-via-flickrRecently, several of Marcon’s tweets were publicized on Facebook by Jordan Ostrum, an Ursinus senior, and later on Odyssey by Haley Brush, an Ursinus English major. She told Philly.com, “The tweets that were sexist made me really uncomfortable…. Comments like that are really inappropriate for someone in his position.”

David Bloom, another member of the Ursinus board, made an even stronger statement about Marcon’s tweets when he resigned in protest. He said, “I read strong evidence of an elitist, racist, sexist, body-shaming, anti-LGBTQ, exclusive-minded and generally intolerant individual.” He also called for Marcon to resign.

Ostrum was the first to publicly raise the issue of contributions when he said, “I pledge to not donate money to the Ursinus College Annual Fund while Michael Marcon remains on the Board of Trustees… If he remains on the board, they are saying yes [to] his behavior. I will say no — with my money.”

Days after the news story broke and Marcon met with administrators, faculty members, and students, he resigned from the board. In a written statement, Marcon said:

read more »

August 19, 2016

Could Your #Nonprofit be Forced to Return a Donor’s Gift?

Officials at Vanderbilt University got schooled. They learned, the hard way, that nonprofit organizations cannot unilaterally void the terms of a gift agreement without returning the donation.

This is a story that keeps on giving. It provides an important lesson for all nonprofit organizations about the requirement, ethical and legal, to honor donor intent.

The tale begins in 1933 when the Tennessee Chapter of the Daughters of the Confederacy donated $50,000 to the George Peabody College of Teachers to build a dormitory named “Confederate Memorial Hall.”

Confederate Memorial Hall (2007)

Confederate Memorial Hall (2007)

In 1979, Peabody was merged into Vanderbilt becoming the “Peabody College of Education and Human Development at Vanderbilt University.”

After years of discussion, according to Inside Higher Ed, Vanderbilt decided in 2002 to drop the word “Confederate” and rename the building simply “Memorial Hall.” The University took this action without gaining the approval of the Daughters of the Confederacy or returning the gift.

After taking Vanderbilt to court, the Daughters of the Confederacy received a Tennessee Appeals Court ruling in 2005 that ordered the University to either keep the original name of the building or refund the donation … in inflation-adjusted dollars. That $50,000 gift from 1933 is now valued at $1.2 million.

As reported in Inside Higher Ed:

The appeals court unanimously rejected Vanderbilt’s argument that academic freedom gave it the right to change the name. Vanderbilt argued that the Supreme Court has given private colleges considerable latitude in their decisions. But the appeals court said that was irrelevant because the agreement to name the dormitory ‘Confederate Memorial Hall’ was between a donor and a charitable group — and the government never forced the gift to be accepted.”

In its ruling, the Appeals Court stated (emphasis is mine):

We fail to see how the adoption of a rule allowing universities to avoid their contractual and other voluntarily assumed legal obligations whenever, in the university’s opinion, those obligations have begun to impede their academic mission would advance principles of academic freedom. To the contrary, allowing Vanderbilt and other academic institutions to jettison their contractual and other legal obligations so casually would seriously impair their ability to raise money in the future by entering into gift agreements such as the ones at issue here.

It took quite some time but, with money raised from anonymous donors, Vanderbilt paid $1.2 million to the Daughters of the Confederacy and renamed the building this month in accordance with the Court’s judgment.

Unfortunately, this has not brought this story to a happy conclusion. Vanderbilt has damaged its reputation by revealing its willingness to “casually” disregard donor intent.

I stand firmly with the Appeals Court decision. How I feel, or anyone feels, about the old Confederacy or the word “Confederate” on the building is irrelevant in this case. Instead, there are two powerful governing issues involved here:

read more »

June 30, 2016

It’s Time for You to Speak Up!

A jury recently convicted U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA) of federal racketeering, bribery, and conspiracy, a total of 22 criminal charges. Days later, Fattah resigned his Congressional seat. The court will sentence him in October. He is likely to appeal.

The saga of yet another corrupt, unethical politician might not normally attract much attention from the nonprofit sector. However, this particular story should. And you should be outraged.

Among other things, prosecutors argued that Fattah used charities he created to funnel funds for his personal benefit:

  • Funds were stolen from a Fattah-founded charity to repay an illegal $1 million campaign loan.
  • Fattah created a fake charity that received federal funds that were then misappropriated.
  • Fattah-founded charities were used to launder stolen funds.
  • Fattah-controlled groups received federal grants, but tried to cover up what happened to that money when officials conducted financial audits.

Furthermore, a Daily News investigative report stated:

…nonprofits founded or supported by the Philadelphia congressman have paid out at least $5.8 million to his associates, including political operatives, ex-staffers and their relatives.”

Despite Fattah’s abuse of the public trust, his Democratic Party colleagues have been tepid in their reactions:

U.S. Rep. Bob Brady (D-PA) — “It’s a shame to have something like this happen.”

Hear No Evil... by MASK Productions via FlickrPhiladelphia Mayor Jim Kenney — “The jury spoke, and the criminal justice system went forward.”

Ed Rendell (former Philadelphia District Attorney, former Philadelphia Mayor, former Pennsylvania Governor, and former Chair of the DNC) — “We’re not all bad. We’re not all evil.”

U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) — “Heartbreaking.”

While the responses from the political sector have been weak, the nonprofit sector has been infuriatingly silent. Where is the Association of Fundraising Professionals? Where is the Pennsylvania Association of Nonprofit Organizations? Where is Charity Navigator? Where is The Chronicle of Philanthropy?

I was very frustrated by the deafening silence from the nonprofit community. Instead of a yawn or a shrug, we should be condemning Fattah’s abuse of the public trust and his misuse of nonprofit organizations because his misdeeds negatively impact the credibility of all nonprofit organizations. We should be demanding that the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General investigate Fattah and his charities. If appropriate, Fattah should be charged with violations of the state’s laws governing charities and the charities should be held to account.

Then, I realized something. I have a platform. Therefore:

read more »

%d bloggers like this: