We’ve spoken, in a previous blog, about how to engage new nonprofit board members. You are looking for “the 5 C’s”: connections, capacity, care, community and cooperation. Your candidate is most likely to join your board because she cares about your mission and may have other personal motivations.

It is in everyone’s best interest to clearly define the terms of engagement up-front. It’s a joint responsibility. Time, money and process are the three biggest issues and there are lots of ways to dampen board members’ enthusiasm and effectiveness.

Let’s start with board meetings.

Are schedules and agendas set well in advance? How many meetings are you expecting a board member to attend? How long will they be and will travel be required? Will expenses be reimbursed? How much preparation will be required? Is there clarity about who will decide what?

One organization sent me a 90 page package of information the day before my first board meeting. I scrambled to read it. Then the bulk of the meeting was spent reviewing the same materials. Other, smarter trustees hadn’t bothered to look at them.

My view was that the organization should expect us to be prepared and commit to getting us well-curated materials 10 days in advance. (Too often the board gets information that is way too detailed or “motherhood and apple pie.”) Then we could use our meeting time for discussion and decision making. More work for all of us perhaps but a much more productive and satisfying experience.

Committee work can suffer from similar problems and warrants the same discipline starting with a clear definition of roles. A friend of mine agreed to serve on a nonprofit’s finance committee and then discovered that the job came with (significant) involvement in the audit committee. Oops.

Board members often are expected to be donors too; it’s important to lead by example. One common question is whether they should be required to make a financial contribution at a specified level. Opinions vary but I am a believer in giving according to one’s means and getting a sincere thank you from the institution for whatever that may be.

My final bit of advice is to avoid “nickel and diming” tactics. A donor signs up for an annual gift. Then there’s the gala, and the matching gift campaign, and the special program drive and the… Frustrated, my solution has been to say “Here’s the money. Apply it to whatever you like but please don’t come back for more and make me feel bad.”

I find it useful to think about philanthropy as a series of concentric circles with increasingly expansive efforts to tackle a social problem: tactical activities treat symptoms of problems while strategic activities address root causes and transformative philanthropy impacts the entire system.

The boundaries are fluid and each set of activities is important but generally the time frame, sustainability and scale/scope of impact will increase at each level. The challenges will increase too – the complexity of issues, the need for collaboration, and the level and kinds of resources required.

Social Impact at Many Levels

Philanthropy has evolved into an amazing array of ways that you can work as an individual or leverage your personal resources – in an established institution or a start-up organization, and within and across public, private and nonprofit sectors – to solve social problems.

The optimal strategy will partly depend on how you frame the problem and what personal resources you can bring to bear including time available, expertise and experience, financial resources, and networks of relationships and influence.

Problem Solving Strategies (Illustrative)

Let’s take the environmental sector, as an example, keeping in mind those fuzzy boundaries.

At the tactical level, you might volunteer for a neighborhood park clean up, buy a Sierra Club membership or offer your grant writing services to the local Audubon Society. Good for you!

At a more strategic level, some people have funded marine reserves, championed the development of urban green spaces, launched venture funds for green transportation, started alternative energy companies… the list goes on and on.

Then there are individuals who aim for systemic change by, for example, lobbying for carbon taxes, founding a nonprofit for educating the public about climate change, or serving on national and international bodies – as a staff or board member – such as the Environmental Defense Fund.

What does this mean for you, as someone who wants to have an impact? We come back to our philanthropy survey respondent’s advice to dive in… at whatever level and in whatever form you can. Other advice: Start early and be intentional; set aside some time and money and evolve how you use it.

Smart Giving is part of a larger life story that often includes many efforts – overlapping and/or sequential – to make a difference. I believe that most people want to solve a problem but deciding which problem, when and how requires looking externally (problems/opportunities? options/alternatives?) and inwardly (values? priorities? resources?) and making choices.

Smart Giving Choices (Some Examples)

As a philanthropist, what you care about will change, perhaps in a predictable fashion (like getting involved in your child’s school) or perhaps not (like experiencing a cataclysmic event). But one constant, I would attest and many others would agree, is that more often than not it is a wonderful experience.

The generational issue goes beyond fundraising too.

Peter Brinckerhoff, author of Generations: The Challenge of a Lifetime for Your Nonprofit, notes that most nonprofits have worked at staff and board diversity in terms of gender and ethnicity but few have considered generational diversity. He also offers some interesting tidbits about generational roles:[1]

• The Silent Generation (born 1925-1945, 30 million) are still very active in nonprofit management, funding and volunteering.
• Baby Boomers (born 1946-1962, 80 million) make up 70% of nonprofit senior management and 65% of nonprofit board membership.
• Generation X (born 1963-1980, 45 million) make up a large part of the US nonprofit work force.
• Millennials (born 1981-2002, 70 million) have been raised on “service projects” by their Boomer parents.

Millennials do bring new philanthropic attitudes and expectations, and may require new kinds of information and engagement. Here are some frequently noted Millennial characteristics and some implications for fundraising:

• They are not particularly loyal to institutions but are passionate about specific causes and helping people. They are idealistic but also like to think of themselves as investors and want to see impact. They’ll start their own charity if they don’t like what they see. (Communicate your mission powerfully. Demonstrate concrete results through stories and metrics.)
• They were born on this side of the digital divide; technology is like oxygen to them. They live a life of constant connectedness via social media, websites and search engines, and mobile technology. (Cross them off your direct mail list. Don’t expect them to show up at the gala. Beef up your website and online giving. Consider a social media campaign.)
• They tend not to compartmentalize their giving from the rest of their lives. They buy products that support charitable causes and like to participate in work place philanthropy. According to the Millennial Impact Report (2013), over half are interested in monthly donations. (Don’t assume they will respond to big campaigns or one-off events. Be creative.)
• They want to do. They want to be inspired and actively involved. (Try activity-oriented fundraising events with youth appeal or a “young professional” group. Provide volunteering opportunities where they can interact and use their skill sets.)

So yes, the world is changing and Millennials are different. But take heart; at the end of the day, it comes back to the 4 Questions and answering them from the donor’s perspective. Your average Millennial may not give big now but if you can draw them in and keep them connected to your cause, you may be able to form a lasting relationship that will pay off later.[2]

[1] “Understanding the Different Cultures of Different Generations” 

[2] Sources include “What Makes Millennials Give to Charity?”
and “How Millennials Are Disrupting Traditional Charitable Giving”
and “Generational Gap: Giving to Charity” 

Let me start by saying that I like needs lists almost as much as recognition opportunity lists. (Yes, I am being facetious.) My basic objection is that they both tend to be institution-centric laundry lists.

But in reviewing the hospital’s list, it occurred to me that another problem is that needs lists – and fundraising communications in general – all too often fail to explain the why’s and the how’s, in terms that are meaningful to donors.

Take this sampling of items from the hospital’s list of philanthropic support needs:

• Hybrid operating suite – Surgical theater equipped with advanced, flexible technology to enable minimally-invasive surgery, facilitated through intra-operative 3D imaging.
• Pediatrics – Advanced neonatal care and elevation of nursery to II-B level to care for babies born prematurely, or with life threatening neonatal disease.
• Geriatrics – Support for the Quimby Center’s fellowship and House Calls program provides training for the next generation of geriatricians and better care for seniors.
• Healing garden – Plans are being made for the creation of a healing garden for patients and families.

My pen was itchy. This felt heavy on the how’s and light on the why’s. Here’s what happened when we took a quick stab at some edits aimed at building a stronger case for why this is important:

• Hybrid operating suite – To improve patient outcomes and decrease recovery time, we need to invest in a surgical theater equipped with advanced, flexible technology that will enable minimally-invasive surgery, facilitated through intra-operative 3D imaging
• Pediatrics – To better serve patients with more complicated pregnancies and births, we need funding for advanced neonatal care and elevation of nursery to II-B level to care for babies born prematurely, or with life threatening neonatal disease.
• Geriatrics – Geriatric care is a growing and critical need for our aging community. We seek support for the Quimby Center’s fellowship and House Calls program provides training for the next generation of geriatricians and better care for seniors.
• Healing garden – Experience shows that hospital healing gardens provide solace and relief from stress. Plans are being made for the creation of a healing garden for patients and families.

As a donor, I found the brief cases much more compelling. Knowing why each opportunity is important for achieving the hospital’s mission of providing compassionate, top notch care to local communities makes a difference. (Remember Question 1: “Are you doing important work?”!)

Some organizations err in the opposite direction: lofty or vague why’s and not a lot of how’s. Donors, especially significant donors, will want to know how their gift will make a difference. (That would be Question 3.)

For example, one ballet company’s “Donate” web page begins by noting that ticket sales account for just 40% of “all the great work you see at the City Ballet” and then goes on to list membership categories with benefits ranging from a monthly e-newsletter to special events, guest vouchers and opening night parties. I wondered, how would my money be used?

Another ballet company’s “Support” page was more forthcoming: “You have helped us to become one of America’s finest ballet companies and we thank you. Your gift will allow our artists, musicians, crew and staff to continue to offer diverse programming as well as in-depth education and outreach programs to our State’s students, teachers and special-needs individuals.”

It also offered targeted giving opportunities for such things as supporting an innovative production of the Nutcracker and contributing to a scholarship program for young dancers. Another nice touch was a “Request a donation” offer (on a first come, first served basis) of free tickets to qualifying nonprofits.

As a donor, I found the second company’s pitch much more tangible and motivating.

Most people don’t think of fundraising as serving a donor’s needs, and the notion of “fit” between donors and organizations is hard to describe. My mind wandered to a recent shoe shopping experience, and I decided to use that as a metaphor for how a donor thinks.

Here’s how my story went. (I found a way to tie it into G2G’s four donor questions, of course.)

First, what kind of shoes am I looking for? Why do I want them? What function do they need to serve? The answers could range from wingtips for a job interview or high heels for a party to basketball sneakers or walking shoes.

(That would tie to “Are you doing important work?” The donor first needs to decide what cause they care about, what problem they want to solve.)

Let’s say the answer is dressy shoes. Now, where to buy them? We decide to visit the local mall. There are many options as you stroll through the four levels.

Some stores are easy to walk by; Olympia Sports, for example, doesn’t sell dressy shoes. The Walking Company’s “comfort footwear” probably won’t fit the bill either. (You may pop in though, if you see something you like in the window or spot a great sale.)

Then what? Price? Selection? Service? Your buying criteria and how you prioritize them may lead you into or out of Coach (small selection of their own, luxury brand) or Lord & Taylor (“service, quality and, most of all, style”) or or Payless Shoes (“get great deals on shoes”).

(This harkens to “Are you well managed?” Stores – and nonprofit organizations – have different business models. A shopper – or donor – needs to find one that resonates.)

You decide you want a designer look. Lord & Taylor has something that might work but not in the color you want. Nordstrom’s? A friendly salesperson helps you find another good candidate, in the color you want and that hard-to-find half size. But the price! Maybe Payless will have something.

You pop in and immediately are overwhelmed by the disheveled racks of shoes. Not likely to have something you want, you decide. You’re headed back to Nordstrom’s when you remember that there’s a DSW Designer Shoe Warehouse (“The latest shoes at great prices”) just a few miles away. Off you go.

(That sounds like “Will my gift make a difference?” It’s about the “give-get,” whether that is the right shoe at the right price or the impact you want on a cause that you care about.)

The DSW store is huge but it has attractive displays and is easy to navigate. You find something you like quite quickly, at a reasonable price. You’re not 100% sure about the color though; will they accept returns? The clerk at the sales desk assures you that would not be a problem. Success! Maybe you should check out their boots too, while you’re here…

(This one is easy: “Will the experience be satisfying to me?” A pushy salesperson, a long checkout line, a no-refund policy or a dinnertime telephone solicitation, a mistake on your donation tax receipt, lack of information about how your money is being used… there are many ways to off-put a shopper or a donor. The experience matters and will affect not only the transaction at hand but whether you remain a loyal customer.)

Here’s the feedback I got after my talk: “Thank you for taking the time to talk with us about fundraising. No one will ever forget your shoe shopping story!”

I choose to take that as a compliment. Hopefully, the message came across that that fundraising is not about begging but rather about understanding the customer and, if you have something they want, providing an easy and enjoyable opportunity to help you advance your mission.

The Boys & Girls Clubs of the Peninsula (BGCP) offers what I consider to be a much better model for annual reporting. I have shared their Report to Stakeholders with several nonprofits and invite you to take a look at it. 

Why do I like it?

The report offers lots of facts and impact-oriented metrics, addresses all of its stakeholders, and takes a long term perspective that reassures the reader that BGCP leadership knows what it’s doing. It essentially reads like a business plan.

It also addresses all of its stakeholders including its three customers: youth, schools, and funders. For funders, it is easy to find the answers to G2G’s four questions: Are you doing important work? Are you well managed? Will my gift make a difference? Will the experience be satisfying to me?

BGCP’s Executive Director (ED), Peter Fortenbaugh, was kind enough to talk with us about their annual report. We’d like to share his explanation of the inspiration for it, what’s involved in developing it, and why it is worth doing.

Our report partly reflects my business experience preparing a company to go public. If you’re asking for an investment in a business, you must present the need your company has identified and describe your solution for it, backed up with data. We’re also asking for an investment in our organization, if you will, so we need to be just as disciplined about making our case.

BGCP’s development director when I became ED suggested the report. Part of the reason to do it is for me as ED. I need to be prepared to answer the question, “How are we doing?” It’s a forcing mechanism once a year to hold yourself accountable with full transparency on what has worked and failed, and an opportunity to get agreement on goals.

The report has helped us gain a lot of supporters. Not everyone cares about it but many sophisticated donors do, so it helps us stand out. We want and are able to get board members who challenge us and ask: “Why is this bad and and this good?”

Developing the report is not a “do it and you’re done” kind of exercise, and it’s not really a lot of extra work. It’s more a compilation, a pulling together of things that we do to plan and manage our activities on an ongoing basis. The metrics, for example, are all things that we are tracking internally anyway.

It also becomes a template of sorts for a lot of grant writing: “Here’s our story and our message.” Every grant and granting organization is different, of course, but you can cut and paste and massage for the particular audience you are addressing.

Thank you, Peter!

A growing body of knowledge in psychology and neuroscience suggests that altruism is good not just for the beneficiaries but also for the benefactors. The argument is that helping others makes us happy, and even leaves us healthier and able to live longer lives.[1]

I must admit to a certain amount of skepticism about some (well, most) of what happiness experts – yes, they exist – say. But I was impressed by the authors’ willingness to subject themselves to MRI scans to see what happens in the brain when people help others by donating to a good cause.

The experiment was conducted at the University of Oregon by Ulrich Mayr and Wiilliam T. Harbaugh, who have been studying the science of altruism for over a decade. It goes like this:

• The pleasure zones of the brain include the nucleus accumbens, the septum, the caudate and the insula. These hot spots, which are quite close together, respond to pleasure of all sorts.
• Research subjects’ brains were scanned as they were told they had received gifts of money and they were given the opportunity to voluntarily give money to charity.
• Parts of the nucleus accumbens showed more activity when gifts were received and adjacent parts lit up when people made donations.
• The results suggested that people vary significantly in the pleasure they derive from giving, and about half of the subjects seemed to get more pleasure from giving than receiving.

Interesting. Researchers now are trying to figure out why people feel happy when they give.

In particular, they are trying to distinguish between what they call vanity (gaining respect of others for being generous) as opposed to selfless altruism. My research on donor motivations hasn’t included any MRIs but I would agree that different people give for different reasons.

I believe that philanthropy offers the opportunity to satisfy each of the four dimensions that make us feel successful in life including, yes, happiness. The three others are achievement, significance and legacy. (See Figure 1)

I am somewhat uncomfortable attaching value judgments to any motivation for doing good, especially when one gift can supply more than one satisfaction (e.g., finding a cure for a disease afflicting a family member) and the impact – on both the beneficiary and the benefactor – tends to be cumulative.

Figure 1. Elements of Success

One study that I find interesting was conducted a decade ago by Jonathan Haidt, now a professor at NYU’s Stern School of Business. It suggests that we each have a preset happiness level, and that one of the few things that will actually raise it is to connect with a cause greater than ourselves.

A Path Appears describes other research including a study that followed 268 Harvard students from college to old age, and concluded that altruists aged more gracefully. Another study showed that giving reduces stress as measured by blood pressure. Conclusion: Give and you will be happier and live longer.

I will leave it to you to judge for yourself. I don’t know if I’m fully convinced but it does make me feel even better about both my giving and my fundraising. Perhaps we technology-enabled 21^st century folks are just catching up with the wisdom of the ages….

Some Happiness and Giving Quotes

If you want happiness for an hour, take a nap.
If you want happiness for a day, go fishing.
If you want happiness for a year, inherit a fortune.
If you want happiness for a lifetime, help somebody.
– Chinese proverb

They who give, have all things; they who withhold have nothing.
– Hindu proverb

The happy man lives well and does well.
– Aristotle

For it is in giving that we receive.
– Francis of Assisi

I slept and I dreamed that life is all joy. I woke and I saw that life is all service. I served and I saw that service is joy.
– Kahlil Gibran

I don’t know what your destiny will be, but one thing I do know: the only ones among you who will be really happy are those who have sought and found how to serve.
- Albert Schweitzer

Since you get more joy out of giving joy to others, you should put a good deal of thought into the happiness that you are able to give.
– Eleanor Roosevelt

[1] A Path Appears: Transforming Lives, Creating Opportunity, Nicholas D Kristoff and Sheryl WuDunn, Vintage Books, 2015, page236.

So, start “being careful” from the start, when you are crafting the gift agreement. For example, when we decided to rename a Harvard building in honor of a generous donor, we specified that if the building were to be torn down, the donor’s name would go on another building.

Some organizations build in a standard clause with an expiration date of – say, 75 years – for naming rights. Others have learned from harsh experience to prepare for the worst; one institution found itself chiseling the name of someone convicted of a felony off one of its buildings. (Yes, that’s now a clause.)

“Being careful” also involves being sensitive to the donor (and/or his or her family) if and when the time comes to retire a donor name. I am happy to offer a positive example from my own experience.

My great-great-grandfather Thomas Dee was a prominent businessman in Ogden, Utah, where I grew up. After his death in 1905, his nine children made substantial donations to several town institutions. An elementary school was named in recognition of the family’s contributions to the Ogden School Foundation.

After serving faithfully over several decades, the Dee Elementary School was slated for closing at the end of the 2015/2016 school year. Plans were underway for the construction of an innovative new school focused on STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) at a nearby site, to replace it. School District leadership proposed that a new name reflecting the school’s new mission be selected.

I learned about this from a Dee family member who still lives in Ogden.

The District had approached him about the name change early in 2015. He said he was fine with it but observed that other family members might feel differently. He suggested that the District write a letter explaining the change and the reason why to Dee family members.

The District’s Director of Communications began working on a letter, circulated a draft to a few family members for review, and requested an address list for as many family descendants of Thomas Dee as we could muster. The plan was to issue the letter before the renaming was publicly announced.

It was a good letter, acknowledging the significance of the Dee family name in Ogden and all the contributions it stood for both historically and currently.

Even more importantly, the entire process was thoughtful and empathetic. There has been no family backlash that I know of; I certainly was fine with the change. The District now has kicked off a public campaign to invite names for the new school that reflect its new mission.

Well done!

If potential donors and volunteers are not aware of existing needs, they will be less likely to engage in philanthropic behavior. Also, more often than not people respond to a perceived need, rather than an objective need.[1]

So, at a minimum, you must get your story out there. And you must communicate it in a way that resonates with whoever you are trying to convince of the worthiness of your cause. Here’s the critical part: You cannot make the assumption that they see the world the same way you do.

There are very few things that everyone agrees on. Let’s take a relatively straightforward example. Your kids deserve a good education, right?

Your town concludes that aging facilities, advancing technologies and changing demographics calls for a new elementary school that will require a significant investment. How will the parents of a five year old react? Yes! And a retiree on a fixed income? Oh great, higher taxes.

The more controversial the cause, the more challenging and important the communications will be.

The Movement Advancement Project (MAP) is an interesting case study. Founded in 2006, MAP is an independent think tank that provides research, insight and analysis to help speed equality for LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) people.

Whatever your position on gay marriage, there is a lot to learn from the care with which they communicate their message, and the impact that changing from a rights-based argument to a love-based argument has had on public opinion and ultimately the law.

MAP offers resources to help educate and persuade public audiences (e.g., policymakers, media and the American public) and help support LGBT movement audiences (e.g., LGBT organizations and funders). Effective messaging is a core program area, with resources and information about how LGBT organizations can frame issues and run communication campaigns. Among its premises:

Like any movement for social justice, the success of the LGBT movement requires advocates to communicate… in ways that emphasize common ground emotional connection and shared values. And it requires framing conversations in ways that allow non-LGBT audiences to understand the harms LGBT Americans experience through their own eyes.

MAP’s “The Art and Science of Framing an Issue” presents a 12 step approach for answering the question, “What is this about?”  Its “Communications Campaign Best Practices” offers a useful framework and tools for effective campaigns. 

Have effective communications helped the LGBT cause?

MAP also tracks and analyzes the LGBT movement’s progress, pointing to advances that while not entirely due to communications of course, would suggest “yes.” For example, 89% of Americans support equal employment rights for gays and lesbians compared to 59% in 1982, and 57% say homosexuality is acceptable versus 34% in 1982.

In educating people about your cause, make sure to do it from their perspective. And be sure to use their language. Language is about sense making, about how someone thinks about the world. If I’m promoting public education, and someone’s politics tend to the right, I may talk about our duty to help the poor. With someone in the liberal camp, I’ll phrase it as achieving the goals of equal opportunity.

Getting to Giving regulars will note that this is not the first time that I have got on my bandwagon about communications. Here are two other blogs that may be of interest: “The Art of Simple Nonprofit Communications” and “Top Ten Tips for Effective Communications.”

[1] The Palgrave Handbook of Global Philanthropy, edited by Pamala Wiepking and Femida Handy, Palgrave Macmillan, NY, June 2015

“A philanthropist is anyone who gives anything – time, money, experience, skills, and networks – in any amount to create a better world,” says Giving 2.0 author Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen, founder and chairman of Stanford PACS (Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society). We heartily agree! Giving 2.0: Transform Your Giving and Our World is a call to action and a comprehensive guide to giving for individuals of every age and income level. It is complemented by online tools and resources.

Joining a Board: What You Need to Know is written by two business school professors; Marc Epstein (Rice) and Warren McFarland (Harvard). It offers people who take their business experience and serve a nonprofit useful information on a variety of topics including the role of board members and the structure of the board, financial strategy and board oversight, philanthropy, the complex relationship between the chairman of the board and the CEO, performance management, and much more.