July 21, 2010

Bolder Gets Bigger

Posted by Jen Banks Abreu under Uncategorized | Tags: , |
Leave a Comment 

This news put a HUGE smile on my face today– Bolder Giving, a remarkable organization which I first got to know a few months ago and blogged here, has just been awarded a three-year $675,000 challenge grant from the Gates Foundation.  This award will support the work the nonprofit does in educating people about how they can make philanthropy a way of life, giving boldly and generously to the issues and communities they care about.

Apparently, Bolder Giving’s revolutionary and thoughtful approach to philanthropy has been inspirational for some of the deepest pockets imaginable.  Anne Ellinger, one of the founders of the organization, wrote in today’s email bulletin:

“Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet have launched a Giving Pledge that invites their fellow billionaires to publicly commit to give at least half their wealth, and we’re told that Bolder Giving’s work played a role in encouraging them!  Honestly, that was one of our most outrageous and hoped-for dreams when we launched the project!”

If you haven’t already gotten to know Bolder Giving, you can find their website here, or watch Melinda Gates talk about the Giving Pledge on the Charlie Rose Show here.

Don’t you just love it when good work gets its just reward?? :)

 

July 19, 2010

The Big “So What”

Posted by Jen Banks Abreu under Uncategorized | Tags: , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Yesterday the Times published an article on the lack of jobs for graduates of training programs for the recently unemployed.  What jumped out at me from this story was the gap between the program’s demonstrated success in training tens of thousands of people and the subsequent failure of these people to find jobs afterwards. It feels wrong and unfair.

Why did it jump out at me?  Because it is exactly the same thing that happens when a nonprofit program is designed around outcomes that ignore the big “so what”.

Consider the situation: a grant opportunity comes along for exactly the type of program your organization is best at.  Great!  You tackle the writing process focusing on what you know– program activities and how you perform them.  The application asks for outcomes and after scratching your head for a while you come up with some reasonable numbers: 500 clients served, or 2 new daycare centers, or 1500 hours of youth volunteer work.  Measurable outcomes, no?

No.

When you plan outcomes for a program, it is very tempting to think about the success of the process.  After all, as a staff member the first questions that come to your head are about logistics and how things will be accomplished.  Therefore, when you are structuring outcomes, the outcomes mistakenly become about the process– about YOU.

Instead, to be truly outcome-based, a program needs to keep its eye on the client. What is the change you wish to make in their lives?  The question you should be asking yourself is not “how many”.  The question is… well, look at the title of this entry.

For employment training programs, the outcome is instinctive– people should be better able to get jobs after they are done.  That is the whole point.  Of course, in the case of the struggling national economy there are plenty of complexities contributing to job loss and lack of job creation which the article does a nice job of outlining.  No program, however fantastic, is going to suddenly create jobs for successful participants.

Nonetheless, as your nonprofit designs new programs you should keep this in mind as a cautionary tale.  Why does it feel so unfair for the program to claim success for simply delivering job trainings to a certain number of people?  Why does it seem like an empty success? What’s the one question that keeps coming to the surface?

“So what?”

Don’t let it happen to you!

Online Resources on Outcome-based Planning
The Innovation Network Logic Model Workbook: A very practical and thorough way of thinking about outcomes as you begin program design and grantwriting.  Also, helpful worksheets at the back of the workbook!
Shaping Outcomes: This is a full online course, it seems, to introduce outcome-based planning and evaluation to novices.  It is targeted at libraries and museums, but the pieces I looked through were fairly applicable to any program planning.
Excerpt from Complete Idiot’s Guide to Grantwriting: A nice summary of process versus outcomes, with a sample grant piece written from both perspectives.  It is very clear which one is more compelling!
 

June 30, 2010

Innovation and Bureaucracy in the Same Sentence

Posted by Jen Banks Abreu under Uncategorized | Tags: , , |
Leave a Comment 

In the beginning of my career I had a surprising and monumentally rewarding experience working for The Man.  I worked in the press office for the City of New York Administration for Children’s Services as a communications associate.  In the midst of unglamorous daily routine, I got a peek inside the top level workings of the Giuliani administration and I got to hang around with some amazingly talented folks at the top of their game.  This was a time when child protection was changing rapidly in the city and the old way of doing things was simply not good enough anymore.  Innovation was flourishing, right in the middle of the country’s biggest city bureaucracy.

One of the innovators I met was a Deputy Commissioner at the time, Linda Gibbs.  I admit, I hadn’t thought about this energetic and rather brilliant lady in a while, but then I read this recent article in the Times, about a program she spearheaded to provide cash incentives to parents of children at risk.  (Read it– the details are interesting to say the least!)

The first time I read through the article, I thought– dang, that is some outside-the-box thinking!  Paying parents to parent their children, and paying children to do what is in their best interest.  It got me thinking about programs which are innovative versus programs which are proven.  How does an organization choose to balance the new and the old?  When is it time to take a leap and try something really different from the status quo?

On the one hand, funders love to be the first ones to fund a new idea.  Why?

  • It is more remarkable than funding something that has already been done before.
  • They get to put their ownership stamp on a project.
  • They get to be the ones to say, “We are only funding this for 2 years, then it has to be self-sustaining.”

Ahhhhh.  There’s the rub.

Nonprofits are encouraged to be innovative, because funders enjoy working on innovative programs, but then when the incubation period is done the funder leaves, satisfied, and the nonprofit has to figure out a way to keep supporting this programming.  Naturally, nonprofits are often reluctant to take a leap too far from the status quo, when the stakes are so high to keep it going on its own steam after such a short time.

All the same, nonprofits do make this leap all the time.  Finding new ways to do things because they are better– outside the box or not.  When I worked at ACS, there was a program associate whose name I can’t remember.  She saw that a significant number of kids were in foster care who had incarcerated mothers.  She also noticed that foster parents were not, on the whole, bringing kids to visit their mothers while they were in prison.  She found out that the reason for this was that the visitation room at Riker’s Island was so frightening to children, so bleak and unwelcoming, it was often more traumatizing than it was worth to bring the children there.  In addition, transportation to Riker’s was difficult and pretty scary in itself.

With barely any budget, this program associate set change in motion.  She worked with the Rose M. Singer Center on Riker’s to get permission to convert an unused visiting area room into a children’s visitation center.  A little paint, some donated toys and kid-friendly plastic furniture, coloring books and crayons– suddenly there was a place that kids could feel at home, despite the circumstances surrounding their mom and family.  She also worked to secure private bus transportation at set times during the week for foster parents and children, so that they would not have as many problems reaching the island.

Now, a decade later, the ACS Children of Incarcerated Parents Program has grown tremendously.  It “stuck”.

So– maybe the idea of paying parents to be good parents is off the wall.  But just imagine if nobody had been brave enough to try it.

 

June 1, 2010

3 “US Weekly” Approved Fundraising Sites

Posted by Jen Banks Abreu under Uncategorized | Tags: , , |
Leave a Comment 

copyright John Cuneo

My favorite airport guilty pleasure is a copy of US Weekly.  What is a layover without some pictures of Suri Cruise in her latest toddler couture, followed by a fact-light article on one or more Kardashian girls?

Okay, before I destroy all professional credibility here, let me get to my point.  My favorite page in that magazine is a regular feature called “Stars: Just like US!”  It is a collection of photos of celebs doing the most boring things imaginable: drinking coffee in the morning, wearing a hat, picking up kids from school, buying an ice cream, etc.  The point being, I suppose, that famous people have the mundane as well as the high drama in their lives.  They are as human as the rest of us.

That is an appealing thought, though I would use a different barometer to measure how celebrities are just like us.  Stars can use their fame to make the world a better place.  Audrey Hepburn worked with UNICEF to draw attention to disadvantaged communities across the globe; I grew up listening to U2 sing for an end to Apartheid; Princess Di was known for her humanitarian work championing the issues of landmine banning and help for AIDS victims– all this before Angelina hit the activist scene and set a new standard of celebricaring.

What’s that, you say– you aren’t famous? Nonsense.  You are on Facebook.  You are in a professional network, either in the office, on LinkedIn, through membership to professional groups or all of the above.  You are a member of a family, a group of friends, a neighborhood, the parents’ committee for the little league down the street.  You are known, loved, and trusted by many, and you don’t need a fat royalties check to prove it.  YOU are the spokesperson your charity has been looking for!

So: here is my altruistically inclined version of “Stars– just like us!”  Take a look at these three sites sponsored by celebs which will help YOU become a celeb-sized fundraiser for your organization:

1. Six Degrees: www.sixdegrees.org

What does the phrase six degrees make you think of?  Yes, indeed– Kevin Bacon has a fundraising site in partnership with Network for Good, that bastion of online best practices for nonprofits.  With the tagline, “Be a Celebrity for your Cause,” Six Degrees works through a system of badges, which are just pint-sized fundraising tags containing a photo/logo, a video, a paragraph on the nonprofit, and– of course!– a one-click way to donate to the cause you are promoting.   Anyone can create a badge for their favorite organization or cause, or search the database to see if one already exists.  Once you find or make the badge of your choice, you can add it to nearly anything online– websites, email signature tags, MySpace pages, Facebook, etc.  This way, visitors to any number of sites can see the cause, choose to donate, or choose to copy the badge themselves and spread the work even more.  Six Degrees is a wonderful system for giving your supporters a “call to action” that does not require a tremendous amount of money on their part, but could help them RAISE a nice chunk of money for your cause.

(Just like US Moment: Celebrity friends of Bacon have created their own cause badges, which you can view and donate to, as well.)

2. Crowdrise: www.crowdrise.com

Six Degrees badges are the ultimate in portability and flexibility, but they only allow for minimal amounts of information to be spotlighted.  Crowdrise, founded by the socially conscious Edward Norton, works with the creation of whole pages for a cause.  It can be for a special event, marathon, volunteer project, or general support– in any case, as the creator of the page you have incentive to make it as compelling and entertaining as possible because points are given to pages based on the votes the page receives from the community, as well as for every dollar raised.  Top point earners are given foursquare-style honors and rewards, and those who donate to help you meet specific weekly goals will be entered to win Crowdrise prizes like MacBooks, iPods, Kindles, and more.  They also have guaranteed prizes, like crowdrise hoodies, hats, and messenger bags.  Stuff you WOULD give to your friends to say thank you, if you could, right?  By getting people to view and vote on your page, or to donate for your 5K fun run through THIS site, it will benefit your charity, give your friends a chance to win some celebrity swag, AND give you the pat on the back you deserve.

3. ONE: www.one.org

Bono.  Bob Geldorf.  Christy Turlington Burns.  That great actress from Friday Night Lights and Spin City, whose name I can’t remember.  And those are just the celebrities on the home page.  All of Ocean’s Eleven is showing support somewhere, as well!  ONE is an organization dedicated to eradicating extreme poverty around the globe.  It was founded by Bono, and is a really fantastic example of a group of celebrities lending their “cool” to an organization to generate buzz, big financial support, and bring attention to an important issue.  How YOU can use it: ONE’s site is a one-stop shop (pardon the pun) with information on a variety of issues which contribute to extreme poverty.  After you learn a few of the facts, there is a great action page which will let you take action however you feel most comfortable: signing petitions, engaging local media, lobbying congress, or just wearing the cool tshirts and wristbands.  That’s it!

(For nonprofits: I know this site can’t be used to support YOUR coffers, but the action area of this site is really worth a look.  Does your website have an area where potential supporters can TAKE ACTION instead of donating cash?  It should.)

So– what are you waiting for?  Dodge the paparazzi and go be a fundraising superstar!

 

April 27, 2010

Leveraging Big Cost Share: 4 Tips

Posted by Jen Banks Abreu under Uncategorized | Tags: , , |
Leave a Comment 

Good news for innovative organizations that work for improved economic opportunity, youth development, and schools: the Social Innovation Fund (SIF) grants have just finished their first round of submissions in a competition which will award roughly $50 million in grants during the first year alone.  The SIF office, created courtesy of the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, just announced that 260 organizations collaborated to submit 69 applications for funding.  This new initiative has been lightning quick from conception to delivery, and a first-hand account of the recent public information conference call indicates a transparency and inclusiveness of remarkable proportions for a broad government program.

I did say there was good news here, not just old news– although the applications deadline has passed for this year, funding is expected for five years, with an annual application phase.  In fact, the funding will increase each year, topping out at $100 million granted in 2014.  If your nonprofit missed out this year, there is plenty of time to plan a coalition for the future.

Along with the golden lure of funding, however, one thorny thing stood out to me when reading through the grant requirements.  The proposal must have a very significant cost-share of 3:1, with at least a 1:1 match of cash. Lead organizations not only have to commit to delivering a great program with measurable results, they also need to partner with private funders to win the award.  For SIF, it makes complete sense.  They are not just handing out money that will eventually have to dry up—they are creating coalitions of committed partners and LEVERAGING the money they invest.  This program intends to leverage hundreds of million dollars into over a billion.

For the little ol’ nonprofit looking to contribute to this program and maintain their bottom line while doing it… leveraging can be tough.  In fact, this can be a deal-breaker for smaller organizations looking to find a place in a larger program as a viable subcontractor.  There is no magic wand to make cost-shared money appear, unfortunately, but with almost a whole year to plot and plan, it should be possible for just about anyone.  Here are a couple of tips on how to start.

1. Connect with the “big dogs” in your area

Smaller nonprofits just aren’t going to have the capacity to manage a multi-million dollar grant.  That is the whole purpose of this grant– to allow for existing organizations to work together, build on their strengths, and collaborate rather than compete.

Yes, yes, it sounds like common sense.  But in practice, it may require a bit of pride swallowing.  I’ve worked at small nonprofits where the larger, shinier, richer nonprofit down the street doing similar work can seem like the enemy: getting funding, press, donors, and employees you want.  A general feeling of David versus Goliath, tortoise versus hare, Red Sox versus Yankees begins to build.   Take a deep breath, and try to forget all that baggage before you pick up the phone.  Because yes, you should pick up that phone.

Call their Development Director.  Be ready to let them know why you think they would benefit from having you as a partner on this grant.  Be ready to set up a meeting to discuss specific roles and strengths you will bring to the table.  By the time this is done, if your coalition takes advantage of the management strengths of the bigger organization and the niche strengths of the smaller ones, you will have a great shot at a funded proposal.

2. Approach committed partners early

There is nothing more impossible than coming up with cost share cash support when you are working with a teeny tiny deadline.  Start planning your approach early.  Figure out which of your bigger donors— people, corporations, or foundations—would agree to a matching donation for your organization.  If you strategize early and approach those with whom you already have a good relationship, this becomes an opportunity for them to invest in something big, and not a last-minute call for a big favor from the development office.

3. Pay for some of your own staff time

This is an in-kind cost share, meaning it will not qualify as part of the 1:1 cash cost share.  However, if you have staff members who will be putting time into this project you can consider making a portion of their time not part of the grant money requested.  Staff accountants, administrative support, the Executive Director, the VP overseeing the implementation of the grant– these are traditionally positions paid for wholly or partially out of non-grant general organizational dollars, and if you credit the percentage of time they spend on a new grant still paid out of the nonprofits general coffers, not by the grant, then you have the beginnings of some significant (and meaningful, in the reviewer’s eyes) cost sharing.

4. Get personal when getting donated items

For school programs, there are many physical items that may need to be purchased: books, videos, laptops, office supplies, etc.  If you can get local stores to agree to donate these supplies in return for a nice tax break and some well-placed program advertising, then you are increasing cost share and actually decreasing the cost to the grant.  A tip on approaching these businesses?  See if any Board members have existing working relationships with some, or if any of the school districts you work with already have an in-kind program with any business in particular.  Starting with an existing relationship can certainly increase your chances of hearing a “yes”!

 

February 18, 2010

The New Face(book) of Searching Online

Posted by Jen Banks Abreu under Uncategorized | Tags: , , |
Leave a Comment 

Facebook has scored a double knock out this month, and the implications for organizations and nonprofit social networking are amazing.  Two pieces of news:

1) Facebook has surpassed Google as the top source for directing internet traffic to web biggies Yahoo and MSN.  (Full story here.)

2) Facebook has surpassed Yahoo and is now the number two most visited site on the web, right behind Google.  (Full story here.)

This is pretty incredible news– Facebook’s purpose of connecting friends and family networks has transformed into a function formerly only filled by official search engines.  Facebook has created a trusted network so pervasive that people are navigating the web based on what they read on their friend’s pages, and the sharing of links on the site is a major driver of traffic elsewhere.

What struck me immediately was how much this reflected a reality that nonprofits and fundraisers already know.  When a donor is being asked to contribute, who can best represent your organization to get the results you want?  An impeccably credentialed development director who has met the potential donor a few times, or the Board member who is a good friend and business colleague?

People trust what they hear from friends, family, colleagues, and others with whom they have a trusted, existing relationship.  The emergence of Facebook as a powerhouse of a web traffic cop– directing people to sites, organizations, and news that is interesting– well, that is the essence of why social networking is a free marketing boon for nonprofits, drawing upon long-standing best practices and letting your supporters do your recruiting for you.

So if you aren’t using Facebook yet… what are you waiting for?

 

January 22, 2010

Talking the Real Economy

Posted by Jen Banks Abreu under Uncategorized | Tags: , , |
Leave a Comment 

Just this week, the Nonprofit Quarterly debuted a new feature for 2010: The State We’re In.  The premise is a great one: reports we hear about the economy bouncing back often don’t seem to be possible, given what we see happening to real people.  Unemployment is rampant, which means there is still a tremendous need for services and a dip in donations.  If the economy is improving, why can’t we see it?

That is where this feature steps in: it will follow the impact of stimulus money and the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) funding on state economies and talk about what that means specifically for nonprofits.

Sound dry?  Kind of.  But NPQ does a great job of reducing the info to three key indicators: the state’s budget deficit, the state unemployment rate, and the state stimulus package.  Given these three factors, each state has its own particular weather report.  High levels of economic distress mean stormy times for nonprofits.

But to me, the most interesting feature is a social networking one.  Nonprofits can log in, share stories, and learn what others in the state are doing to successfully combat these economic challenges.  There are only 14 states at the moment, but judging from the few I checked out, this has the potential to be a great and unique source of on-the-ground intel about how the “real” economy shapes up in 2010.  Check it out here!

 

January 21, 2010

The Big Guns: Government Grants

Posted by Jen Banks Abreu under Uncategorized | Tags: , , |
1 Comment 

Hello!  Happy Holidays!  Joyous New Year!

Wait… that was a while ago?  Hmmm.

I really have to start with an apology for my month-long absence.  I know that this will fall on understanding ears, though, when I tell you it was because of a recent project: a federal grant due January 20.  In just under a month, my client and I put together a fantastic proposal (thanks to their advance prep and existing capacity) and now… I am ready to sleep.  Sound familiar?

But here I am– itching to blog nonetheless, mainly because this grant was for a first-time applicant for federal funding.  As we worked through the draft versions of the proposal, I realized that as they were going through this for the first time I was being reminded of the lessons I learned during my own days as a newbie.  Over the course of the month, I collected a series of these “a-ha!” moments on various sticky pads and paper scraps and today I want to share them.  Federal grants are often idealized as the ultimate in cushy money–not exactly true.  Bureaucracy is a cruel mistress.  If you have the capacity to do it, federal funding is a blessing and certainly worth pursuing. However, nobody should go into it without the proper guide and fair advance warning. After all, would you tackle Everest without a Sherpa? Exactly.

With that in mind, here are my Scrap O’ Paper Ramblings courtesy of a month in the shoes of a federal grants novice.

1. No Square Pegs and Round Holes

The effort and time required to apply for a federal grant is significant.  The biggest mistake you can make at the outset is thinking that you will win the grant with a project that is almost what the Request is looking for, or that your organization almost has the required experience and focus necessary.  You are simply not going to win as a first-time applicant with no track record and a mediocre fit between what they want and what you provide.  There isn’t enough time to go around as it is in most nonprofits—if a federal grant comes along that looks like an almost, let it pass.  Like Mama said, it pays to wait for Mr. Right.

2. Register Early, Register Often

In an effort to streamline their processes and save a few thousand trees from becoming 100-page proposals each year, federal grants are almost all centralized through a submission site: www.grants.gov.  This is a mixed blessing.  On the one hand, it means that the morning of submission is not spent in front of a copier for hours, collating papers.  On the other hand, as a first-time applicant you may spend the morning in front of your computer instead, troubleshooting a series of monumentally trivial “errors” and having to resubmit a few times.

The organization I recently worked with had done their homework well and gotten their registration done as they needed to in both grants.gov and eRA Commons.  Within each registration, they had assigned roles to various staff members: Signing Officer, Authorized Organizational Representative, Principal Investigator, E-grant Representative, and on and on.  In this web of roles, every incongruity may be construed as an error.  There needed to be cross-approval of roles within the organization, even after registration was finished.  There needed to be no discrepancy between the address as written on the proposal and as written in each line (Street vs. St., Suite on the same line as address or next line, etc.)  With this demand for detail, it is not surprising that the first time around, proposal submission can take a few tries before achieving success.  So—register early, so that you are approved before the grant submission date.  And be prepared to submit early as well—with a 5 pm deadline, facing logistical obstacles at 9 am is far and away preferable to facing them at 4:30 pm.

3. Play CSI with the RFP

The federal grantor who writes the Request for Proposal will spell out for you exactly what you need to do, and in how many pages, and in what font, and what keywords you should use while writing it.  However, it takes a gift for dissection to get to the heart of all that.  Amidst 10-12 pages of bureaucratic writing lies the key to giving them what they want, and it is up to you to find it.  For me, the best strategy is to go through the RFP several times.  First time: the basic details, such as eligibility, due date, total funding amounts, and any restrictions. Second time: what content they are looking for, and what keywords they use to describe it.  If they say “social networking tools” and “media literacy”, you don’t say “social mediums” and “journalist trainings”.  Third time:  what the pieces of the grant are, and what the requirements are.  You should see a section that tells you just what the section titles are, and how long each section should be. You may see links to help you fill out SF424 forms—these are good but bulky!  Leave enough time to go through all of these details thoroughly before you ever write a word, so you know what the end result will look like and can plan accordingly.

4. The Jargon Jinx

This is a tenet I (and most of us) learned back in high school: KISS.  Which means, for grantwriting, that you should remember to keep your language understandable for someone who doesn’t know a thing about the topic.  Sure, the reviewers may know what your favorite acronyms mean, but what if they don’t?  Acronyms, technical jargon, and “program-speak” are all things to avoid in a grant application.  And no—if you are a program expert, you probably won’t be able to edit yourself properly.  Give it to a friend, spouse, or cousin.  Make sure it is someone you can count on to be honest with you and who has no reason to understand what you are talking about prior to reading this draft.   By explaining key terms and keeping the grant readable, you will win over the hearts of the poor reviewers who have far too many pages to go through—and increase the chance that your grant will be looked at in detail.

And… that brings me to my last point:

5. Save the Rambling for Your Blog

Keep it focused, keep it well-edited, and keep it just long enough to tell the story of the program in a compelling way.  If you feel the need for excessive color commentary and purple prose—follow my lead: start a blog!

Now it’s off to catch some rest, but I’ll be back to ramble more soon.  In the meantime, if you have any of your own favorite tips and suggestions for newbies to the federal grants game, post them here.  Look forward to hearing them!

 

December 11, 2009

Giving BIG

Posted by Jen Banks Abreu under Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , |
[6] Comments 

I was a bit blown away by an online seminar I participated in last week.  The theme was giving BIG.  As in, giving away to charity as much as or more than you keep for yourself to live on.  The concept intrigued me, and I thought… err… there is no way that masses of people would do this!  A few altruistic angels, but… I just couldn’t get my head around it.

Take, for example, one of the seminar participants, Tom Hsieh.  He and his wife have a one-year-old and live in L.A. with an average yearly income of $200,000.  Now the kicker– the Hsieh family only lives on the median household income for America ($46,000), and gives the rest away to charity every year.  That’s three quarters of the family income earmarked for charity and a commitment to philanthropy as a way of life.

After listening to Tom speak about how he arrived at his personal decision to live within modest means and make a huge impact on the world around him, I started to think it was possible.  Possible that as a development professional, you could think of this as a fundraising tool by appealing to a donor’s desire for charity as a way of life– not just for planned giving with future assets, but for giving NOW.

There was another philanthropist in the discussion, Anne Ellinger.  She is not only a big giver herself, she is an expert in the art of big giving.  Ms. Ellinger and her husband founded a nonprofit called Bolder Giving and she actively encourages donors to examine how much they can give, and how big giving can play a role in their lives.  According to Ms. Ellinger, the process starts with some self-examination.  It takes courage to strike out on a path off the norm, to commit to giving so much when you don’t see yourself as a Rockefeller.  The first step for giving big is to decide what your goals are for your giving, and examine what you value and what you can commit to in order to accomplish these philanthropic goals.

So, in the end, it sounded familiar– speaking with donors about what they want to accomplish as philanthropists rather than attacking them with a sales pitch about your nonprofit.  This is a standard and successful approach for donor development, to be sure.  What is new and fresh, however, is the perception that anyone can be a philanthropist.  Whether someone makes $50,000 a year or millions, that is inconsequential in a way.  The important thing is helping them find a personal strategy for giving at whatever bold level suits them and their goals.

I know that this discussion certainly opened my mind to how non-trust-funded folks could be encouraged to examine their own role as philanthropists, not just donors.  If you are interested in learning more, take a look at the discussion thread here, and check out Bolder Giving for its great resources page.  And as you approach the donors in your own files in the upcoming year, be BOLD!  It may just open up a whole new world of support for your organization.

 

December 1, 2009

Dipping Your Nonprofit Toes into Social Networking

Posted by Jen Banks Abreu under Uncategorized | Tags: , , , |
[3] Comments 

I’ve worked at enough nonprofits to know that the subheading running through most heads right now is something like, “Without Wasting All Your Time On Something That Doesn’t Bring In Money Or Help Programs.”  With resources stretched tight at many nonprofits– never moreso than lately– it may seem a bit fatuous to expect that on top of a normal 11-hour day, there is an employee hanging about who would like to update the Twitter feed or make a YouTube video.

Now, I’m not going to tell you that developing a Facebook following and an e-newsletter and a YouTube community are going to fill the coffers in the first year.  Or the second year.  Or possibly the fifth.  Short term monetary gain is not a compelling reason to do it.

So why do it at all, then?  Because statistics show that donors who contribute the most money to nonprofits every year are fifty years and older.  Which means that ten years from now, the first huge surge of Facebooking, blogging, Twittering donors will start making big contributions to those organizations that reach out to them effectively.  I am no fortune teller, but I have a feeling that will not be the organizations who exclusively do once a year snail-mail appeals.

Cultivating today what will bear fruit tomorrow– isn’t that what development is all about?  Creating bridges between a donor and a cause is something that social networks are uniquely positioned to do.  Donors are empowered to be ambassadors and activists: asking Facebook friends to check out a new Cause they joined, or submitting a 30-second video to promote universal healthcare, or getting real-time updates out to a group of people who care about a particular legislation.  These are roles that used to be played only by expert nonprofit staff– now, by relinquishing just a bit of control, your nonprofit can gain the power of thousands more voices.

Will this pay for program overhead, necessarily?  No.  But it may just garner you loyal supporters for years to come.

So when you are ready to wiggle those toes in the cool waters of social networking, here are a five top tips on how to successfully start that won’t tax your current budget or require oodles of staff time:

1.Pick The Right Social Networks

Going from zero status updates to 5 different websites, a blog, and a vlog may be setting yourself up for failure at the start.  Instead, be strategic: do you want young people who can volunteer for you and get their friends to help out?  Maybe MySpace is right for you.  Do you have alumni who want to connect, share stories, and create a warm fuzzy feeling that engenders generosity?  Nothing better than Facebook!  Whatever your needs, know what they are and choose 1-3 social networking tools which you believe will help you in tangible ways– even if it’s not monetary at first.

2. Fill Your Networks with Exciting, Viral Content

Is anything more depressing than a Youtube video of a guy behind a desk, giving a jargon-laden speech about why his nonprofit deserves your cash?  Unfathomable program talk will not win your cause friends and supporters, no matter how well-intentioned.  Instead, try pithy, compelling updates and links via Twitter.  Or edgy and provocative videos made by clients instead of staff.  Be aware that people have lots of things to capture their attention at any given moment.  Be fun, be informative, be grass roots– and most of all, be interesting!

3. Provide a Way for Donors to Get News and Give You Money Online

Websites are not social networking per se, but they are still a worthwhile point to touch on.  If your website does nothing else, make sure that it can a) provide pictures and news stories that illustrate the great work your organization does, and b) give visitors a one-click way to support you with donations.  Network for Good is a wonderful resource not only for all things web-related, but also for a free online service that allows nonprofits to receive and track their online donations without the hassle of bank fees.

5. Update Frequently: 7 to 1 Rule Still Applies!

Whether you are using Twitter, Facebook, or e-newsletters, you won’t be very effective if the only time your supporters hear from you is when you want something.  A wise mentor of mine once told me about the magic seven to one ratio: donors should hear from you seven times with something that interests them for every one time you ask for something that interests YOU.  Think of social networking as a great and inexpensive way to keep you and your organization on a donor’s mind with exciting and weekly updates.  That way, when you want to ask for money or volunteers, they will feel more inclined to help you out.

And finally– how about you?  Social networking horror stories?  Great successes?  Extra tips?  Feel free to share in the comments!

 

Next Page »