Image via Wikipedia

Among members of the philanthropic, political and healthcare sectors, a loud snap was distinctly heard today, as the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation suffered a sharp case of whiplash. In a statement this morning, Komen rescinded its decision to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood for breast health programs – a decision whose announcement 48 hours earlier had unleashed a clamor of protest, rapid reaction and retaliation. Possibly the most prominent critic, who spoke with his fortune as well as his words, was NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who promptly pledged $250,000 in matching funds for donors to support Planned Parenthood and help replace the slashed funds, approximately $700,000. Another $100,000 challenge grant was announced this morning by Livestrong, the cancer-fighting organization founded by survivor Lance Armstrong.

In addition to these prominent funders, the Komen Foundation heard quick and sharp criticism from thousands of women, many of whom are the grassroots activists who have fueled Komen’s fundraising over the years with walks, pink ribbons, purchases and more. The strong and committed base that Komen has amassed through these activities has helped it garner numerous sponsors who are happy to get behind its important work, and equally happy to share in the rosy glow of such a positive brand. All of this makes it even more perplexing, given Komen’s acknowledged success and savvy, that it would have undertaken such a risky — and as it proved, potentially destructive — step.

While disagreement with the initial decision was certainly not universal, the overwhelming sentiment was an angry sense of betrayal — that a foundation dedicated to protecting women’s health should allow political pressure to dissuade it from supporting a long- established program that gives low-income, marginalized women breast screenings they could not access elsewhere.  And using the tools that have become ubiquitous in fundraising and activism – social media and publicity – the large community that has developed ties to Komen wasted no time in voicing their disapproval. From group emails among sisters and friends, to tweets by commentators in all walks from public health to politics to PR, to Facebook posting of links to encourage donors to meet the Bloomberg challenge, a rapidly growing wave of protest accompanied calls for action.

Whether the Komen decision was well thought out or not, its series of stumbles indicates it was unprepared for the reaction its announcement provoked. According to The New York Times, Komen board member and Washington lobbyist John Raffaeli said the foundation had hoped it was making a “quiet ending” to its relationship with Planned Parenthood. Raffaeli directed criticism at Planned Parenthood, in fact, for “using Komen’s decision to raise money.”

Nancy Brinker, who founded Susan G. Komen to fight breast cancer in memory of her sister, at first maintained the position that the decision reflected a tightening of grant-making procedures that were intended to make grantee organizations more accountable, but the indications that Planned Parenthood had been singled out mounted as the controversy escalated. Planned Parenthood has been a lightning rod for political controversy in recent years, and the arrival of political figures in Komen leadership – and the departure of Mollie Williams, managing director of community health programs – coinciding with the decision on Planned Parenthood, heightened concern that the underlying agenda was political.

The Susan G. Komen Foundation has built a world-class reputation for raising and channeling millions of dollars to the worthy cause of defeating breast cancer, and has created one of the top brands in this field. It may have taken its supporters’ loyalty for granted in venturing into this sea of controversy. I suspect it will need to look around carefully, once it swims back to shore, to see whether it has lost any of its longstanding friends and allies. Its statement today indicated that current funding would not be cut, leaving some to wonder what the future would bring. It would be a shame for Komen, or Planned Parenthood for that matter, to have to focus on such distractions in years ahead, rather than their vital missions of serving so many women.

Related articles

• Komen Changes Reason for Planned Parenthood Cuts (newser.com)
• Susan G. Komen officials resign in protest (piedtype.com)

Share This Post

Peter Drucker recognized that leading from any position or rank requires more effort than traditional leadership roles demand because it isn’t something we’re acculturated to practice.  He said, “The [person] who focuses on efforts and who stresses his downward authority is a subordinate no matter how exalted his title and rank.  But the [person] who focuses on contribution and who takes responsibility for results, no matter how junior, is in the most literal sense of the phrase, ‘top management.’”¹

When asked for her views on the matter of unrealistic short-term goal expectations, my fundraising colleague Patrice Hieb responded from two perspectives:

1) From the perspective of the support staff

2) From the perspective of the VP/CEO

As Patrice described it, the vice president for advancement comes back from the board’s strategic planning session with grand ideas she(2) wants to implement immediately. Because she has been distracted with wrapping up the last capital campaign and gearing up for the next, she hasn’t brought the team together to plan the coming year. At the staff meeting she shares her excitement and begins delegating several mailings and events she wants to see happen in the immediate future. The support staff is worn out from the celebration gala they just finished, and even though they like some of the ideas, they realize the expectations are unrealistic for the timeline the vice-president demands.  They are tempted to “lose it” and direct the demands back at her.  They want to say, “Could YOU manage to do this in such a short period of time?”  But wisdom prevails.

After throwing some sideways glances at each other, the staff members begin to make suggestions, each one building on the other.  First, they recommend a staff planning session that would allow them to refocus, regroup and rejuvenate.  It’s entirely possible, of course, that the vice-president truly doesn’t realize how mentally and physically worn out the support staff personnel are.  Another staff member suggests they poll board members to see who would be involved in implementing some of the new ideas, and of course this means that the staff needs to flesh out the suggestions and thereby not only be better prepared for implementation but also have more input and buy themselves some badly needed time.  Finally, they request a chance to prioritize and map out a timeline of what can be reasonably accomplished.

Patrice goes on to present a second problem of unrealistic short-term goal expectations, this time from a vice-president’s perspective.  This fundraising professional has received a directive from the board to add a new element to and increase the dollar goal of the current capital campaign which was supposed to be wrapping up in the immediate future. None of the board members have been directly involved in fundraising, so they don’t understand the challenge of finding new donors on short notice or going back to ask for an increase in current pledges. In addition, there is already a celebration event on the calendar and printed materials for the event have been designed, although not printed. The vice-president realizes her team is burned out on this campaign, so feels caught between the board and her team.

What should the vice president do about this directive from the board?  She might request a time at the next board meeting to review the new element and discuss the priorities and any possible new donors the members may have in mind. This would be a major attempt to get buy-in from the individual members to be involved in the fundraising to reach the new goal within a timeframe that allows for the campaign to wrap up as planned. An even better idea would be that she turn to the development committee to look at donor lists and the overall campaign plan and create allies who can influence the rest of the board.  However, if (as occurs in some instances) she is not allowed access to the board, or there is no development committee, she is really in a quandary.  Then she might turn to a trusted major donor who truly is supportive of the campaign and ask for advice.  This person in turn could influence his peers.

Ultimately some suggestions for managing the nightmare of handling unrealistic short-term goal expectations with at least some panache and professionalism might be the following:

1)      Determine what motivates this expectation.  Is it genuine enthusiasm, or lack of empathy, or simply lack of knowledge of what’s going on?  Sometimes understanding why a leader makes these kinds of unrealistic demands may lead to a natural and sensible solution.

2)      Whenever possible, hold a level-headed discussion with the leader who is making these demands, but make sure you have your facts in place and have a reasonable argument on why movement toward a goal should take a more careful and slower pace.

3)      Anticipate these kinds of dilemmas by creating allies with whom you can discuss the matter of staying on course, of being judicious in making decisions that may seem or are precipitous.  These allies can sometimes influence peers better than you who are being asked to perform the risky if not impossible task.

4)      Finally, learn to differentiate between enthusiasm and recklessness and not react in a similarly irresponsible fashion as the demands made on you!

2 In these columns on Fundraising/Leadership Nightmares we alternate use of gender instead of the cumbersome “he or she.”

Comments, suggestions, even arguments are most welcome.  Our colleagues in nonprofit management and fundraising can always use fresh approaches, new answers to old questions, and thought-provoking ideas.  Dr. Lilya Wagner, CFRE, is an experienced fundraiser, consultant, editor and author, teacher and trainer. She can be reached at coplilya@cs.com.

Share This Post

Chances are, you or someone you know received a new wireless device for the holidays. One simple way to give back to the environment and your community is to recycle your old device and put it in the hands of someone who needs it. Not only will you be fulfilling a resolution to give back, you will also get the benefit of cleaning out your desk drawers to start the year fresh!

Image via Wikipedia

The best part – recycling these products and giving back to people in need couldn’t be easier! Many retailers have implemented recycling programs to help consumers recycle their phones and other electronics; one such retailer is Verizon Wireless. Through HopeLine® from Verizon, the company accepts wireless devices, batteries and accessories in any condition from any manufacturer or service provider. The phones can be dropped off at any Verizon Wireless Communications Store or dropped in the mail with a postage-paid label, and the company will either refurbish them or dispose of them in an environmentally sound way. These refurbished phones can either be put directly into the hands of a domestic violence survivor, or turned into cash grants for domestic violence organizations. Not only does your device go through the proper channels to get recycled, but it also ends up in the hands of someone who needs it.

I know your next question – what happens to the personal information on my phone when I send the device to a recycling program? We hear this question a lot, especially with the growing popularity of smartphones and tablets. The answer: As part of the refurbishing process, HopeLine scrubs all donated phones to ensure customer information is removed. In addition, in a few quick steps, you can remove all personal information yourself from your device:

1. Ensure that your service has been turned off and your account has been terminated from the device.
2. Make sure you have logged out of all social networking sites, emails, wireless networks and applications. Once logged out, you should ensure that your password information is cleared from the device. You can do so by returning to the social networking sites and checking to see if you are prompted for a user name and password.
3. Erase contacts from your address book, delete call logs, erase messages, and remove your stored photos, videos and other media. This can be done manually; in addition, check out your phone’s manual on the device’s website to find out how to reset the device back to its factory settings.
4. If you have a memory/SIM card inserted in the device, make sure to remove and store it in a safe place.

The New Year gives us a great opportunity to make a fresh start. All it takes is one simple action and a quick trip to your local Verizon Wireless store or post office drop box to make a big difference. Thanks to the efforts of consumers who donated their phones to HopeLine, more than 8 million no-longer-used wireless phones, batteries and accessories have been either refurbished or turned into cash grants to benefit victims and domestic violence organizations across the country, totaling more than $10 million.

Start the New Year off right – check off one of your resolutions and make a difference!

Elva Lima is Executive Director of Multicultural Communications and Community Relations for Verizon Wireless. For 10 years, Verizon Wireless has devoted its community service efforts to recycling through the company’s HopeLine® program. For more information on HopeLine, visit www.verizonwireless.com/hopeline.

Share This Post

As it turns out, NYPMIFA is proving to be a mixed blessing for the Empire State’s nonprofits.

Image via Wikipedia

And now Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, in a “clarification” memo released in March 2011, has implied that the unofficial grace period for New York nonprofits to come into compliance with NYPMIFA will eventually end. In fact, it has been fifteen months since the law’s passage, causing many to wonder if acting in good faith has already expired if your institution has not yet implemented NYPMIFA’s various administrative requirements.

Moreover, now that the attorney general’s memo has cleared up many unsettled questions regarding NYPMIFA, it has become apparent that many New York nonprofits remain out of compliance with some or all of the Act. And the sanctions for not being in compliance with NYPMIFA may be serious, and may even include nonprofits having to refund money to their endowments, monetary fines, and other penalties that the Attorney General reserves in cases of willful noncompliance of the law.

So on the one hand, NYPMIFA is helpful in that it has eliminated the handicap of underwater endowments, those funds whose assets had fallen below their initial value and were therefore forced to curtail spending. Not until the funds were restored to the original levels could those endowments resume distributing money to beneficiaries and programs. However, under the new law, NYPMIFA allows underwater endowments to continue spending, provided they stick to the prudent guidelines the Act spells out. That’s good news, because it lets endowments continue to function without missing sound investment and spending opportunities.

On the other hand, however, NYPMIFA requires nonprofits to abide by a number of arduous new guidelines and administrative procedures in such areas as risk management, endowment operations and donor disclosure. In fact, NYPMIFA’s added requirements have a similar feel to Sarbanes-Oxley, forcing nonprofits to create and maintain significantly more documentation about their endowments and investments.

For example, the memo makes it very clear that nonprofits must retain all NYPMIFA-related documents, particularly the “contemporaneous” recordings of the Act’s eight-factor analysis for decisions regarding endowment spending rates. The Attorney General may request these at any time and nonprofits are expected to demonstrate good faith in complying and, if not, will face penalties.

The key question for nonprofits is this: When does this “good faith” grace period run out? Was it one year after the law was enacted, that is, this past September? Or is it two years, this coming September? The Attorney General’s memo was mum on the exact timeframe for good faith.

To compound the problem, many nonprofit executives responsible for making sure their organization is NYPMIFA-compliant may not even realize that the requirements exist, much less that they are now central to overseeing endowment funds and other investments.

So what does it take to be NYPMIFA compliant? As an attorney who has worked in the endowment area for over 15 years and has been one of the few writing publicly about NYPMIFA’s challenges since its passage, I have identified eleven NYPMIFA stipulations that nonprofit organizations must know about and comply with:

1. Written investment policy, which applies all funds invested – not just permanent endowments;
2. Demonstrated use of eight prudent investment factors listed in the statute, along with a few other prudent standards listed in the law;
3. Written diversification policy for investments;
4. Written conflicts of interest policy as it pertains to investment oversight;
5. Proof that “opt-out” notices were sent to available pre-9/17/10 permanent endowment fund donors;
6. Proof of how you determined which donors were unavailable for opt-out notices;
7. Unlike other states, New York not only assumes that your nonprofit will use their eight prudent factors for determining how much to spend from a permanent endowment fund, they REQUIRE that the analysis/discussions be recorded contemporaneously and made part of your institution’s permanent records;
8. The Attorney General expects that the contemporaneous recordings of the eight-factor spending rate decisions are not just conclusions but have real substance and even explain why certain factors may be irrelevant;
9. If you don’t want to record a separate eight factor analysis on every single fund, but prefer grouping similar funds, you must have a written “similar fund” policy that says how you are logically and prudently grouping your funds;

10. Maintain proof that you are not exceeding the 7% presumption of imprudence rule in NYPMIFA (based on 5-year rolling averages); and

11. Maintain proof that you are disclosing NYPMIFA’s warning notice on all written solicitations – presumably on any printed or electronic communications that involve the promotion of gifts to a permanent endowment fund.

With all of these potential areas of noncompliance with NYPMIFA, you have to wonder: When, if ever, will violation of NYPMIFA become a real issue?

The answer for any given nonprofit is this: It could happen in five months or in five years. Perhaps your organization could find itself squarely in the sights of the attorney general. Why? One angry endowment donor might complain. Or – as Attorney General Schneiderman has promised – his office may simply ask to see all of your NYPMIFA-related records. All nonprofits in New York may be subject, at some point, to an audit by the attorney general.

Thus, the question you have to ask yourself is: Do I want to commission my own audit of my organization’s endowments and investments to make sure I’m in compliance with NYPMIFA or do I want to wait for the attorney general to do it?

Join us for a Free Webinar on January 26

Title: NYPMIFA: What You Need To Know To Avoid An Unfriendly Attorney General Audit

Date: Thursday, January 26, 2012

Time: 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM EST

New York State’s Attorney General has made it clear that nonprofit organizations need to show good-faith compliance with NYPMIFA or face serious consequences.  Jonathan Gudema, NYPMIFA expert and principal at Planned Giving Advisors, LLC, will discuss what New York based nonprofits need to know to fully comply with NYPMIFA.  In addition, Mr. Gudema will provide sources from top law firms and regulatory bodies that can be used to help navigate specific NYPMIFA situations.

Space is limited.

Reserve your Webinar seat now at:

https://www3.gotomeeting.com/register/354652590

Jonathan Gudema, Esq., is an attorney and planned giving consultant who has worked with hundreds of nonprofits since joining the nonprofit community in 1997 and has written extensively on endowment management and NYPMIFA on his blog – www.theplannedgivingblog.wordpress.com. He recently launched his own firm – Planned Giving Advisors, LLC (http://plannedgivingadvisors.com/) – which offers planned giving consulting and endowment/planned giving audit and compliance services.

Share This Post

Marc Hardy, director of the Nonprofit Executive Education department at the University of Notre Dame puts a practical, profession-oriented look at this question—“What if my boss doesn’t understand my job?”

Probably the most dominant comment I hear from development officers is that bosses need to understand that the relationship with the donor is more important, in the long run, than getting a certain donation within a certain time period for a certain project. For instance, one person shared with me that the secret to his success is asking donors what they are trying to accomplish with their philanthropy. If the officer’s organization does not have a program or cause that matches the donor’s objective, he always tries to suggest other organizations that might help the donor achieve the desired outcome. This might seem counter-productive in the short-term, but it first and foremost lets the donor know that the officer is focused on the donor’s desired mission and not his or her money. Second, it builds a deep trust between the donor, the officer and the  institution that can have major positive benefits down the road in terms of an even larger major or planned gift.

Marc goes on to put this professional dilemma into a larger context.  “Given that some studies suggest that the transfer of wealth in the next 30 to 40 years will yield at least $6 trillion dollars in charitable bequests, the largest ever, this could be a very good advice–even more so since these studies were made before Bill Gates and Warren Buffett started ‘The Giving Pledge,’ which has encouraged more than 50 billionaires to pledge 50% or more of their wealth to charity. This is far and above the traditional 15% of wealth that is usually bestowed for charitable uses.”

Then Marc adds the clincher:  “Given these predictions, it seems that bosses truly need to be thinking long-term about development instead of focusing on short term fundraising quotas.”

Obviously the purposes of these columns on “leadership nightmares” aren’t designed to cover each topic thoroughly but to share some pointers on how to handle challenging leadership problems, and what my three colleagues have suggested above may lead you to think of your own next steps and maybe even solutions.  In summary, perhaps the following actions might be helpful in overcoming the situation of “My boss doesn’t understand what I do.”

1.      There is no substitute for good planning which promises outcomes and has a strong rationale included for doing what you do.  This plan should have the input of staff, board development committee, and others who add credibility to your plan.  Share this plan with the boss, asking her to sit down with you as you go over it briefly.

2.      Report to the boss, as promised in your plan.  Promise periodic updates focusing on results.  Include hard-to-quantify steps along the way toward showing the results, so the flow of activity is clear and ends in a measurable.

3.      Ensure there are clear accountabilities in your plan, with promises of results.

4.      Use influential people or groups to motivate your boss toward action, and to make her desire to be part of a successful effort.  Perhaps you can make an ally of a major donor—without ever divulging that you may have problems with your boss, of course—or a volunteer who is particularly enthusiastic.

5.      In appropriate ways share information about what works in fundraising, what the trends are, what the experts are saying, what successes organizations similar to yours are experiencing and why, and what the research states.

6.      Above all, conduct yourself in a professional manner.  Even if your position is under mild (or at times, severe) attack, keep your cool, maintain a professional demeanor, don’t get riled up by questions that may range from innocent inquiry to negative criticism.

7.      Ultimately, as San Francisco fundraiser Tony Adessa concludes, if your situation shows signs of becoming untenable, consider dusting off your resume.  Not all battles are winnable.

Comments and questions are welcome!

Related articles

• “My Boss Doesn’t Understand My Job!” (onphilanthropy.com)
• How can I work effectively under multiple bosses? (career-advice.monster.co.uk)
• The four things that have to change in fundraising (nonprofitmarketingblog.com)
• A Big Legacy? (philanthrocapitalism.net)

Share This Post

What drives a woman to power?
Michelle Bachelet was the daughter of an air force general loyal to the Chilean President Salvador Allende, the world’s first democratically elected Marxist president.  When the socialist Ricardo Lagos was elected president in 2000, Bachelet was first named Minister of Health and in 2002 the Minister of Defense. In that role, she was also the head of the military, an area which overwhelmingly remains in the male domain. What drove her to the position, we asked. “Our democracy was broken…There was a lack of a bridge between the military and the politicians” she explains, and for that she needed power. “There are two sources of power, one is the power from position, the other power from knowledge” she says. That’s why she studied military strategy at Chile’s National Academy of Strategy and Policy and at the Inter-American Defense College in Washington.

Image via Wikipedia

Were there any occasions where she felt she was at a disadvantage because she was a woman?  “There are always challenges when you start something new, and of course, people thought I might have a hidden agenda… That’s why you work openly and select a good team.”

Do women choose “soft power” issues such as development and social needs over the “hard-power” matters such as national security and defense policy?  She protests. “There is nothing soft about social issues… Social protection, housing, education, these are important questions demanding serious economic and social decisions…true, women find these issues closer to heart…” Also true, she adds, “there are structural barriers against women’s participation in security [areas].”

An unorthodox politician at the national stage
When Bachelet was elected as Chile’s president in January of 2006, she promised “citizen democracy” based on greater participation and gender equality. Half of her cabinet members were women. How did she ensure she did not appoint a woman over a qualified man in her selection? “I can easily reverse the question” she quickly responds.  The governments and cabinets around the world have more men than women. “How do they ensure they are not appointing a man over a qualified woman?”  Both men and women have to be qualified, that’s why there are such things as “ selection criteria.” The bottom line is “equal representation will give you comprehensive policies that better represent the realities of your country.”

She believes quotas work. Of the 28 countries that reach or exceed UN’s 30 percent goal for women representation in elected legislation, at least 23 have adopted the so called positive discrimination.  Turkey is one of the countries that has not.  At 14 percent, women’s political participation in Turkey falls significantly below the European average of 22 percent.

Currently there are 19 elected heads of states or governments, I say softly, not really intending it as a question. “It is now 20” she corrects me, referring to the recent election of Thailand’s Yingluck Shinawatra as Prime Minister. Not all powerful women are “gender sensitive,” she says, recalling a meeting with a group of women executives in Davos.  “Some don’t like the gender perspective; they tell me I am here not because I am a woman but because I am good at what I do.” Those women are fortunate, believes Bachelet, “they have been born in a cuddle of gold” or they don’t realize they came to where they are “despite” being a woman.  Especially young women in the developed world who don’t face discrimination personally are not aware of the “structural conditions that disable woman.” It is clear Bachelet sees a responsibility for women in the position of influence to empower and enable other women.

Do women really have a choice?
Most women do not work, because they don’t have the choice, but some prefer to stay home or choose the “mommy route” in their careers, sacrificing their professional ambitions for family. Should all women work? If so why, I ask her, conscious of the fact that most of UN’s focus is on the developing world, where women are still struggling for basic rights.

“Every woman’s situation is different” she responds. The key question we should ask ourselves is whether women “really” have a choice. “Our job is to make sure when a woman chooses to work, they can work, that they don’t have to choose between their reproductive rights and their jobs, and that they have access to affordable child care.” There are multiple benefits of working, she adds, “income, independence, possibility for growth, social contacts, and contribution to the economy.”

The same principle applies to the tension globalization has created between modernization and traditional values to an extent that it has dissuaded some governments from promoting women’s rights.  Should a woman have the choice to cover her body, or is that an inherently degrading act for women? Again, it is a matter of “real,” informed choice, Bachelet explains.

A solid track record
Bachelet’s most loyal supporters were people from the poorer districts of Santiago. She succeeded as a single mother and a self-professed agnostic in a conservative, Catholic country.  It was only in 2004 that Chileans were given the right to divorce, despite fierce opposition from the Roman Catholic Church. During her presidency, she signed a decree allowing the morning-after contraceptive pill to be given to girls as young as 14 without their parents’ consent.

As a defense minister she improved access for women to the military and the police force, and saw that women would be admitted for the first time to the naval academy. As president, she made sure that women had the right to breastfeed at work. Not only did she turn around Chile’s economy during the financial crisis, she established ambitious social protection programs for women and children, despite it. With the billions she saved from the revenues of copper sales, Ms. Bachelet’s government legalized alimony payments to divorced women and tripled the number of free child care centers for low income families.

Despite some criticism that she was too hesitant to call on the military to respond to Chile’s earthquake, she left office with an 85 percent approval rating, the highest since Chile went from dictatorship to democracy in 1990. And she had done it all, alone, without a prominent husband that typically propelled other women to become presidents in Latin America.

Macho to maternal: a new kind of leadership style
Chosen by Ban ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General, for her “uncommon ability to create consensus,” Bachelet is often described as the “Anti-Thatcher.”  She is one of the first women leaders to reject male codes of power and embrace female characteristics of leadership. What is the Bachelet leadership model, I ask. “I am a doctor by training” she says, “I see someone having a heart attack, I will act” she says, not call a committee meeting. But she believes in “building legitimacy in what you want to do…strong alliances, speaking the truth… people must have ownership. This is especially true for the UN… Every region can have a particular approach, it is not fire-works, [empowerment] has to be sustainable and progressing, inclusive, with everyone’s participation.”

Ayca Ariyoruk is the Director of Communications and Outreach at Turkish Philanthropy Funds (TPF). TPF is a New York-based community foundation that serves as a vehicle to channel social investments among the Turkish-Americans eager to address the needs in their communities, particularly in Turkey.

Related articles

• View from the UN on the Future for Women (onphilanthropy.com)
• Michelle Bachelet Empowers The World (forbes.com)
• Chief of UN gender entity urges “bold action now” to end violence against women – Xinhua (news.xinhuanet.com)
• Bachelet Appointment Puts Women and Girls Up-Front on the Global Agenda (prweb.com)
• Michelle Bachelet Has a Mission (thedailybeast.com)

Share This Post

The landscape on this World AIDS Day is an unlikely constellation formed by a diversity of players, transformative scientific research, and persistent chipping away at seemingly intractable obstacles. Appearing today at George Washington University in Washington D.C., President Barack Obama announced a new $50 million domestic commitment to fight AIDS  - $15 million to Ryan White Centers and $35 million in state aid – as well as a new goal of helping 6 million people get treatment by the end of 2013.

In a press conference to declare that we are witnessing “the Beginning of the End of AIDS,” the American president was joined by satellite by President George Bush, from Tanzania, and President Bill Clinton. President Obama called upon other nations to step up their commitment to achieving this challenging goal.

Musician-activist Bono put his star power to work on this World AIDS Day, heaping praise on the United States for what he called “the greatest heroic act since America jumped into the Second World War,” in media venues from Time Magazine to the Op-Ed page of The New York Times to the ceremonies in Washington.

Michael Elliot, head of ONE,   the organization co-founded by Bono which hosted events to mark the day, declared that while there was hope that we are witnessing the “beginning of the end of AIDS, “ there are still unmet commitments and he vowed “many people will keep this administration’s feet to the fire. “ Speaking with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell today, he declared  “many European  nations are generous funders, but some are having tough time economically, and it’s a challenge for them to follow the lead that the U.S. president established today.”

Nevertheless, African governments, too, are  putting resources to this fight, Elliot pointed out, and this is making a crucial difference. “This is an astonishing AIDS Day, and without diminishing what we still face, science, treatment and all sorts of other streams are leading in the right direction”

The early days of the AIDS crisis were as dark as could be imagined, with no treatment, and communities shunning the victims whose dangerous diseases were frightening.  Deaths were recorded on quilts, as family members and friends mourned those who had fallen. From young hemophiliacs to accomplished artists and talents, no one could be saved. The red ribbon appeared as a symbol of the fight, as activists waged an incredibly daunting battle.

Over the years, a concerted scientific research effort led to advances that could stave off the worst effects of the disease. Unfortunately, such good news only meant a reprieve for those lucky enough to live in parts of the world with access to medicines and the means to afford them.  Across Africa, millions faced death. Generations of AIDS orphans were not only an affront to humanity, but portended a risk to the security and stability of already fragile countries.

The response that grew  - largely in response to persistent activists like Bono – from President George Bush’s robust PEPFAR commitment to President Clinton’s negotiation of lower cost anti-retrovirals, to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s large scale intervention, to the partnerships formed by the Global Fund to  Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, has indeed turned the tide on the AIDS pandemic. An oversized red ribbon hung today outside the White House in declaration of the ongoing commitment of the current administration to the work that has brought the fight this far.

In a time-honored technique that should be the edification of fundraisers everywhere, Bono at once points to the truly great advances that have been achieved, and urges potential supporters not to take their eyes off the prize.  There is plenty of credit to be shared for coming this far, but only a renewed commitment to complete the work will pay proper tribute to those who made it happen. With 30 million human beings already lost to its cruel ravages, shame on us if we don’t defeat this monster once and for all.

Related articles

• [Blisstree] World AIDS Day: Obama To Announce New Treatment Targets At Forum By ONE And (RED) (blisstree.com)
• World AIDS Day 2011 – President Obama Presents Event w/ Bono & Alicia Keys (theuptownlounge.com)
• Obama sets new US goal on fighting AIDS – Reuters (reuters.com)
• World AIDS Day Around the Globe (oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com)

Share This Post

In this financial environment, your organization needs to operate as efficiently as possible, as well as pursue all appropriate sources of additional funding.

Image by leff via Flickr

Austin, Texas-based The Arc of Texas advocates for the inclusion of the more than half a million Texans with intellectual and developmental disabilities in all aspects of society. The organization is supported by three major grants and several entrepreneurial funding sources. Camille Atkins, The Arc’s chief financial officer, says, “Grantees face increased competition to win grants and increasingly strive to provide grantors with additional financial accountability.”

Here are five ways you can maximize your grant funding.

1. Manage your grant pipeline. Organizational leaders and staff members often spend too much time poring over spreadsheets in order to track grant applications and deadlines, create budgets, allocate funds, and report on performance. Using spreadsheets to manage grants is inefficient, error-prone, and labor intensive. That inefficient use of time takes away from the opportunity to research new grants, properly manage existing awards, and develop stronger grantor relationships. It can also distract from measuring success, reporting performance, and ensuring mission success.

One way to get out from under the chaos is to leverage grant management technology to apply for grants, track and receive funds, budget, and report success measures. The right solution can help you automate your grant application process; enable better collaboration within your organization; allow you to be more responsive to grantors; and provide you with immediate visibility into program performance and success.

“Using technology can cut the time spent analyzing data and preparing reports for funders in half,” says Atkins.

Using technology to measure grants can also help ensure you have a steady supply of grants in each stage of the grant lifecycle – application, distribution, and renewal – to ensure sustainability of your programs.

2. Create Stronger Grant Applications. Like every donor, grantors want to ensure their funds are going where they will do the most good. Show grantors why your organization is most deserving by establishing success measures and key performance indicators for every program. State your goals and defined success measures for the programs the grant will fund, and include program milestones along the way. These milestones can give you an opportunity to show grantors that you are serious about tracking progress, and gives you additional opportunities to engage the grantor throughout the life of the award.

Many grant applications lack the thoroughness of program budgeting and success measure definition. Utilize pro-forma budgeting tools within your grant management software to build a strong case that shows how you will be utilizing the funds for the best return on investment. With the business intelligence tools, you will be able to monitor and track your performance and give quick, visual presentation of your success when later reporting to grantors.

Provide your grantors with details about your strategies that will help ensure you achieve your goals.  Include community impact and specify how you will collaborate with other nonprofits organizations to maximize resources and success. Grantors are looking for shared resources and partnerships across nonprofits as a way to leverage and expand their impact. Lastly, build and present a sustainable funding plan. Create and show your long-term plan for the program and how it will transition into the community infrastructure.

3. Gain more grant renewals. Grantors want to know that you achieve or exceeded your initial goals for the funds they provided. The best way to ensure renewals is to continually measure, monitor, and report on the success measures established in the planning and grant application phase. Make sure your management team is actively involved in reviewing results, as well as collaboratively and dynamically planning program changes and strategies to ensure you meet your goals. Also, include budget tracking in your reporting to the grantor so they will have confidence in your stewardship of their funds.

The leadership team at Family Health Centers of San Diego, the second largest Federally Qualified Health Center in the nation based on number of unique patients, manages more than 100 active grants. Anthony White, assistant director for grant support & special projects, says the organization uses grant management software to track performance measures across the organization. “The software’s scoreboard feature gives us a quick snapshot of each grant throughout the project period, so we know if we’re ahead, on track, or in need of making adjustments to ensure success by project end.”

Make sure you show the impact your programs are having within the community. Include pictures to help connect the funders to your organization and its mission. Through regular communication and timely reporting, develop a two-way communication with your grantors. Take the initiative to build genuine communication by providing additional information, reporting and results of your programs. Regularly contact your funders for reasons that don’t involve asking for funds. This will ensure that both parties understand the perspective, goals and expectation of each other and will lead to a deeper and more permanent funding relationship.

4. Make your grant management process more strategic. As funding is critical to your organization, grant management should be a top-level and strategic priority. It cannot be led by administrative or contract grant writers.

Strengthen collaboration across your organization to make the process more strategic and more effective. Engage everyone from the board of directors to administrative employees. Utilize contacts, knowledge, and networks to maximize research and target funders.

Another way to make grant management more strategic is to prioritize your research.

“Correctly aligning funders with your organization’s goals can result in stronger engagement, greater renewals, and more opportunities for long-term funding,” adds Atkins. “Your organization’s senior leadership team should have quantifiable metrics for measuring and reporting on grant funding.”

Keeping and distributing scorecards can also help you build accountability and top-of-mind focus.

5. Seek long-term, engaged and aligned grantor partnerships. As mentioned previously, it is important to research, develop, and pursue relationships with grantors who will be committed for the long-term. Begin to think in terms of fewer funders, with greater investment, for a longer period of time. The correct alignment of goals and priorities will offer opportunities for this type of relationship. Utilizing the two-way communication and relationship development you have established to increase renewals will allow you to explore more enduring grant funding relationships and partnerships.

Develop unique ways for the funders, beneficiaries, and organization to share in the success and impact of your initiatives. Building visible and experiential interactions will deepen the relationship and be evident in the return on investment – maximizing your connectivity, partnership and funding.

Finding grant management technology that works for your organization can allow you to automate processes and collaborate effectively so you can help ensure your organization has the necessary investments to serve its mission, constituents, and communities.

Joan Benson is a product marketing manager for Sage North America’s Austin, Texas-based Nonprofit Solutions business unit. She can be reached at joan.benson@sage.com or through her Twitter handle, @Joani_B_. Benson has worked in the not-for-profit space for eight years and in product marketing/management for 15 years. She began her career in the accounting and manufacturing sector, where she developed expertise in cost accounting, operations, and product development.

Related articles

• Leap of Reason: What Nonprofit Leaders Should Know About Impact and Funders (onphilanthropy.com)
• What If Funders Really Acted Like Purchasers? (ssireview.org)

Share This Post

Public funders—and eventually private funders as well—will migrate away from organizations with stirring stories alone, toward well-managed organizations that can also demonstrate meaningful, lasting impact.

But Morino, who has preached a mantra of measurability and impact for nonprofits for the last 15 years, is right. And Leap of Reason is terrific resource for nonprofit managers and board members, as well social entrepreneurs, foundation leaders and informed individual donors. A nice story simply won’t get it done.

Nor should it; nonprofit organizations, churches, and foundations are granted an extraordinary privilege in the United States – they exist tax-free in exchange for the social benefits they promise. Increasingly, suppliers of capital to social causes are demanding measurable impact. And Morino (who I’ve known since the mid-90s) points out that this trend will only increase in an era of diminishing public sector spending on nonprofit organizations. Those funders will migrate away – and indeed, I’ve seen this  in my work with nonprofits. What Morino calls “managing to outcomes” involves showing real, provable social benefits to those paying the bills – and this goes beyond the raw numbers of people served, to showing how they’re served, and in many cases, the scale at which the organization tackles major social challenges.

I have to say: this kind of thinking can sometimes be frustrating for hard-working nonprofit managers toiling in the trenches in underpaid jobs with over-long hours. Particularly in the social services sector, the managers can rightly say they’re changing people’s lives every day – with programs that may not scale in the investment sense, or provide clear-cut metrics for societal impact. Yet kids get early childhood intervention, young moms get support, addicts get treatment, etc. To these folks, the work is clearly needed – though the philanthropic dollars are increasingly difficult to find.

Morino is aware that some of the management-speak in his book might put off a few readers. “I use the term ‘performance culture’ with some trepidation. I know it’s radioactive for some, especially those in the education field,” he writes. But his chapter on organizational culture really isn’t threatening – it’s inspiring. Morino encourages strong, questioning, creative people in positions of nonprofit management. “In my experience, people who improve, innovate, and adapt are curious souls and self-learners. An organization’s culture should encourage people to ask questions, seek advice, do research, improve what they do and how they do it, help each other, push each other’s thinking, probe, nudge, adapt, look at things from different vantage points. All of these behaviors lead to improvement and innovation for the organization and the individuals who are part of it.”

Leap of Reason is packed with good advice in three sections: Morino’s opening monograph on impact, a framework for planning, and a section with essays and resources for more in-depth reading and follow-up work. As a consultant who often works on strategic plans and development roadmaps, I particularly value the savvy framework section and will undoubtedly use some of the key questions and models there in my work.

Even skeptical, harried nonprofits should spend some time with Leap of Reason for another, very practical reason – it provides clear and actionable insight into the thinking of a prominent major funder, a truly involved philanthropist. Mario Morino has been working on building a more engaged form of philanthropy for a decade and a half, and many foundations and major donors now walk in his footsteps. For that reason alone, Leap of Reason should be on the bookshelf of every nonprofit leader I know. But there’s another reason as well: better-managed, more sustainable nonprofit organizations won’t just be better bets for donors – they’ll be better for the people who need them as well.

Related articles

• High Performing Philanthropy: To What End? (tacticalphilanthropy.com)
• Information – “the single best basis for improvement” (philanthropy.blogspot.com)
• Mario Marino on “Underperformance in Philanthropy” Debate (tacticalphilanthropy.com)
• What If Funders Really Acted Like Purchasers? (ssireview.org)

Share This Post

Is there anyone of us fundraising professionals who has not been asked at some time in our lives, “What do you really do?”

In my case, my previous careers were quite clear and in most cases considered respectable — high school music and English teacher, PR professional, teacher of English as a second language, university professor, and so forth.  But when I became a fundraising executive about 25 years ago, my own parents would look at me quizzically and ask, “What do you really do?”

This and similar questions which address the general public’s puzzlement and mild confusion about us and our profession can be amusing, although admittedly at times disconcerting as well.  The latter is definitely the case and state of mind if our own bosses direct such a question to us — “What do you REALLY do?”

Given what we know about the serious role and responsibility of the leader of an organization in engaging in fundraising efforts, being asked “What do you really do?” is cause for major concern.  This critical question might be followed by some version of these additional questions:

• Why do you have to spend so much time outside of the office?  Can’t you do your job while on site?
• What’s with this expense report item about a lunch?  You want our organization to pay for it?
• Why do you need me to go with you on that visit?  Can’t you do it by yourself?
• You want ME to help you plan for fundraising?  What did I hire YOU for?!
• You want to talk to board members?  No way.  That’s just not the protocol around here.
• Why do you need such a big budget?  Are you being frugal or are you a spendthrift?  Sure looks like the latter!

These and many other possible questions are clearly a sign of a problem situation.  As Tony Adessa, a fundraising professional in San Francisco, explains,  “If your boss doesn’t understand your job, a very delicate situation exists.  For you to succeed in your development role, at least in the long run, this situation will have to change.  There is no easy way out or “quick fix,” but – with some careful analysis and planning – she can be educated, and progress can be made.”

Tony, who has successfully raised funds for a number of organizations while also maintaining a career in music (a career where it’s quite clear regarding “What do you do?!”) goes on to explain.  “Initially, you will want to establish a baseline and take stock of the situation.  Begin by asking yourself questions such as “How long do I want to work for this person?” and “How long do I need to work for this person?”  Your answers will shed much light on your plan and course of action; for example, if you need to work for this person, what you choose to do and how you go about doing it may suggest a more conservative, less risky approach.  Some bosses are sure they know it all, while others only think they do – and may be open to being educated.”

Tony has some practical suggestions for how to proceed with a strategy that will, possibly, eliminate or at least minimize the problem of a boss not understanding what you do as a fundraising professional.  First, proceed by imagining that your boss is your most highly coveted donor.  Then, just as you would for a real donor, conceive a highly personalized cultivation plan tailored to your boss’s persona, based on answers to questions such as: how long and how well have you known him?  What pleases and displeases him?  How does he learn most readily (e.g. verbal communication, technological applications, etc)?  How big is his ego?  The bigger it is, the more care will need to be taken not to seem superior to him in the educating process.   If there is a third party – someone both of you know and implicitly trust – asking this person to intercede on your behalf can soften and minimize the impact of what otherwise would be potentially more forceful (and personal), coming directly from you.  Understanding and effectively using psychology will be instrumental in helping achieve your goals.

Susan Harlow, Vice President for Development and Community Outreach at the Good Samaritan Hospital in Los Angeles, has these suggestions to share.  “For most of us in this profession, we would feel lucky if we only had one “boss” or person who assumes a level of authority (board chairs, volunteer leaders, deans, CEOs, fund development committee chairs, auxiliary presidents, etc) and they usually come with varying degrees of knowledge about the philanthropic process. My response as to how to handle this situation is the same for each: education, education, education–in a variety of ways and as often as possible.”

Susan relates an experience by which she handled a problem situation regarding an unknowledgeable boss.  “My previous position was as the Vice Chancellor of Advancement for a large public university in California. While the needs were great, there had been little strategic philanthropy for the campus in its 50-year history. The result was well-meaning but unsophisticated efforts on the part of the deans as it pertained to fundraising and little intentional efforts on the part of the other leaders.  I launched a monthly newsletter for the deans, senior leadership and the Chancellor. I had the top development director from each college/unit send me a monthly report of highlights. From that I edited an executive summary with successes, strategies, and partnerships. An additional section was always an educational piece on various aspects of building a successful fundraising program, national trends or highlights, etc. The result was a transparency that had never existed before, a little friendly competition among the deans, and a focus for conversations across the campus at all levels that hadn’t taken place before.”

Susan also initiated a quarterly speaker series on philanthropy topics that was attended by the same group which received the newsletter. She found that as her various “bosses” understood the process better so, too, did the conversations with her actual boss improve and reflect overall goals and strategies.

In the next installment of this column, Marc Hardy, director of the Nonprofit Executive Education department at the University of Notre Dame, will look at some important implications of this question for a professional fundraiser’s relationship, not only with her boss, but with important donors.

Share This Post