Forces for Good - Donor Engagement a Critical Practice for High Impact Nonprofits

Leslie Crutchfield and Heather McLeod Grant outline six critical components that are common to great social sector organizations in their book Forces for Good.  One of the six focuses on donors and volunteers.  "Create meaningful experiences for individual supporters and convert them into evangelists for the cause, "they write. 

Just what is a meaningful experience?  Their examples include special events that engage volunteers and donors in the work of the organization, as with Habit for Humanity and Teach for America, and VIP events such as Environmental Defense Fund's exclusive rafting trips or the Heritage Foundation's invitation-only VIP gatherings.

Each of the experiences described are highly focused on the work of the organization and the social needs they are working hard to meet.  When organizations forget the mission in creating and executing their special events, volunteers and donors begin to forget which charity event they are attending.  It's just another party.

Every event hosted by a non-profit offers the opportunity to provide new insight into the organization's work, and even more importantly, the reason behind their existence -- why is everyone building a house, or rafting a river, or eating another chicken dinner.

There is not enough hard data that shows the net benefit of investing in building strong donor relationships.  But Forces for Good is an excellent invitation to explore why some nonprofits are so successful in maximizing social change. 

The Audit You Didn't Write That Everyone's Reading

Today's e-Jewish Philanthropy Online had a nice piece on how organizations must understand that the internet is more than a place to publish a newsletter or put out standard PR.

"Online, the authenticity of an organization’s impact and relationships is king. We have entered what I like to think of as the ultimate audit – of individuals, businesses and institutions. We are no longer simply what we say we are. Rather, we are the sum of our searchable reputation; ratings, followers and reviews that tell others the truth about what we have to offer. This is both powerful and frightening."

Indeed, it's easy to think we control what information there is about our organizations, clients' experiences, donors' experiences, employees' experiences but, in fact, those days are over.  

Donors Say One Thing But Do Another

The NonProfit Times recently conducted some interesting research which Paul Clolery writes about in the March 1 issue. More than half of philanthropic contributions in the United States are to religious organizations.  That's a longtime standard.  However, when the Times surveyed donors about what they thought needed funding, the largest group (35%) answered "education." Religion was fourth, after health and civic and community organizations.

What should fundraisers make of this? Look to the for-profit market. It is well established that people say one thing and do another. We are far more complicated beings than fundraisers have ever given us credit for being. We should be doing a lot more research on people's giving behaviors. It might help organizations waste less money, leaving more to spend on actually accomplishing their missions. 

Tin Cup or Tin Ear?

The other day I received a piece of direct mail from Oxfam, the international famine relief organization. I have supported Oxfam as a pledge partner for at least 10 years, and I assumed that the mailing was an invitation -- which I receive at least annually -- to increase the amount of my monthly support.

As someone who makes my living advising organizations on how to build donor trust and increased giving through best practices in stewardship and donor relations, I was impressed that a message on the outer envelope noted that Oxfam meets Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance "...standards of operation, spending, truthfulness, and disclosure" and that it is "rated highly by leading charitable watchdog organizations, including the American Institute of Philanthropy." These are important reasons why I have been a longtime Oxfam supporter.

So imagine my surprise and chagrin when I opened the envelope and read the beginning lines:  "Here's what you won't find accompanying this letter:  address labels that "guilt trip" you into giving; an expensive calendar that you don't need (and we can't afford)...." Actually, what I did find as I read a generic "first-ask" letter was an organization that, for all its wonderful work, hit a very sour note in donor relations.

Although my support for Oxfam is modest -- about $500 per year -- I  was annoyed to receive this letter. It seems reasonable to expect a sophisticated fundraising operation like Oxfam's to be able to manage purchased list data for a mail appeal to exclude existing donors, particularly those who, like me, demonstrate their commitment and loyalty to the organization every month.

Receiving this solicitation made me wonder whether I actually matter to Oxfam as anything other than a check writer. That's the kind of response that no organization raising money today -- large or small -- really can't afford.

Donors Want More

Check out “Wealthy Donors Are Demanding a Bigger Voice in Catholic Schools,” from the February 7, 2011 New York Times.  The story is about wealthy donors who want more accountability and transparency from the schools they help. Fundraisers often use the term “investment” to make a compelling case to business-savvy donors for supporting cultural and social causes. If we follow the term “investor” to its logical outcome it shouldn't be a surprise when donors want to know about return on their philanthropic investments, to have concrete data on which to base their choices and, increasingly, to have a say in how decisions are made in the organizations they support.,  Philanthropic investment may be different from Wall Street, but in a world with increasing demand for transparency, accountability, and purchaser satisfaction, we will need to rethink some of the ways we engage and involve donors.  Much good can come of it.

Is There An Upside to Telling Donors When Things Go Wrong?

An interesting blog for the Chronicle of Philanthropy highlighted a new effort by a Canadian non-profit, Engineers Without Borders Canada,  to be upfront about their own mistakes and "to get a seemingly simple but virtually non-existent practice adopted throughout the development sector.”

They have a website which explains the effort called  admittingfailure.com.

Do donors and prospective donors want us to admit failure?  Sometimes the truth is a powerfully good thing and increases an organization's credibility; sometimes it is the last thing people really want to hear.  Whomever is the first to gain the publicity on telling the truth will certainly receive acclaim.  

It's a bold move to emphasize the power of collective learning over the fear of potentially upsetting a funding source.  A donor I worked with many years ago, who over the course of our working relationship gave several million dollars to the charity that employed me said recently that it was the quality of our relationship that made the organization I worked for stand out among other charities.  It was, I think, our willingness to be optimistic but honest that set us apart. 

New Years, New Resolutions, New Studies to Help You Out

Several studies have been released lately that should be useful to philanthropy professionals.  Three of interest:

The Non Profit Research Collaborative:  November Fundraising Survey  This is a collaboration groups including the AFP, Foundation Center, and National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS).  The news was neither terrible nor wonderful.  Here is one piece of news:  larger organizations seem to be fairing the best.  Why is that?  Are they able to afford to maintain a presence in donors' lives? Are they considered a safer investment? 

A second report is the Online Giving Study by Network for Good, True Sense Marketing and sponsored by AOL.  While it clearly serves the company's purposes, it offers some interesting data that they kindly shared with the rest of us.  It's clear that donors give more when they give through an organization's branded site versus via social media or a generic giving page.  The challenge is to engage donors in a more intimate and emotionally coherent way. Unfortunately the report doesn't offer many ideas about how an organization can foster that engagement.

Finally, as the link on the end l start offers, here is a link to the new IRS Report on 2010 and 2011.  Thank you GuideStar for getting that information out to all of us.  More scrutiny is coming along with a fairly dramatic increase in staying in the IRS to pursue non-profits.