by Dan Schipp

Recently NTEN, Common Knowledge and Blackbaud released their third annual Nonprofit Social Networking Benchmark Report. The report summarizes data from a survey completed by more than 11,000 professionals from a wide spectrum of nonprofit organizations. It provides some interesting insights into how nonprofits are using commercial social networks (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc.) and house (or private) social networks. The 2011 report contains some surprising results. Here are a few of the key findings:

 1.  Facebook is still the leader of the pack and its lead is growing – Facebook is the most popular social network platform for nonprofits. 89% of nonprofits report having a presence on Facebook in 2011. In the last three years, Facebook usage by nonprofits grew from 74% to 89%. By comparison, Twitter declined slightly from 60% in 2010 to 57% in 2011. LinkedIn also dropped from 33% in 2010 to 30% last year.

2.  Commercial social networks are getting bigger – Nonprofits seem to be succeeding in their efforts to attract more supporters through social networks. The Facebook average community size for nonprofits increased by 161% to 6,376 members. The average Twitter follower base is up just 2% in 2011 to 1,822 followers but a huge increase of 535% from 2009 levels (287 followers.)

3.  Fundraising on Facebook is growing but it’s still a low-level effort – The number of nonprofit organizations successfully generating a small gift revenue stream ($1 to $10,000 annually) has risen each year from 38% in 2009 to 46% in 2011. The number of nonprofits raising $100,000 or more per year through social networks is very small but that number doubled this past year from 0.2% to 0.4%.

4.  Here come the newbies – Several social networking platforms made the survey for the first time. Among the newcomers, FourSquare led the way with 4% of nonprofits saying they had a presence on it. Other newcomers are Jumo, Vimeo (video sharing), Yelp (local search and review), Picassa (photo sharing), and the peer-to-peer giving sites: CrowdRise, FirstGiving, Razoo, and Causes, but each had a less than 1% usage by nonprofits.

5.  Surprise: master social fundraisers come in all sizes – Of the 27 organizations that raised more than $100,000 on Facebook last year (“the master social fundraisers”), 30% were small nonprofits with annual budgets less than $5 million. The average Facebook following of a Master Social Fundraiser is nearly 100,000 members – more than 15 times the general average. This number shows that it takes a big social community to raise big dollars by way of social networks.

I encourage you to read the entire 3rd Annual Nonprofit Social Network Benchmark Report. You will find other interesting insights into such topics as what departments are managing nonprofits’ use of social media, what types of organizations are the top performers, and what level of staffing are organizations devoting to social media.

 by Kris Kindelsperger

Several of our clients are in the midst of raising funds for large capital projects.  In all cases the ideal fundraising outcome is to raise 100% of necessary funds in cash.  Seems pretty straightforward.

In reality, the needs and preferences of donors must be factored into the equation. 

• Most donors lack the liquidity to write a check up front for the full amount of their gift. 
• Many donors make multiyear commitments stretching out five or more years. 
• Some gifts may be premised on the sale of a business, property, or other investment, the timing of which may be fluid. 
• Other donors may need to incorporate some form of gift planning that will cause the funds to come to the organization sometime in the future. 

It gets complicated.

One way to address these fundraising realities is to develop, in advance, a Funding Plan, or a road map that takes into account a series of assumptions and contingencies that fit the organization’s needs as well as its tolerances for risk.

Elements of a Funding Plan include:

• Realistic estimates of fundraising that include projected cash flow, the likelihood that major liquidity events (sale of property, for example) will occur in a specific time frame, and calculations on the present as well as future value of planned gifts.

• Determine the cost of building today versus in the future.  Are there significant savings to be had by building today when construction costs are relatively low?  What happens if costs rise, might they eclipse fundraising progress in three years?

• What is the cost of not completing the facility soon?  An academic building that will allow increased enrollment in revenue generating programs has a projected current revenue value as well as a lost opportunity cost.  If construction is delayed three years, how much revenue is lost?

• What is the organization’s ability finance debt? Whether short term construction financing or longer term debt, what is the cost to finance a project in interest and/or bonding costs?

Each of these points requires creating a set of assumptions and making judgments about what will likely happen in the future. Well conceived plans can allow organizations to create flexible funding strategies that can be adjusted as circumstances unfold, but may provide the opportunity to move ahead with construction while fundraising is still underway. 

In today’s economy waiting till all the cash is in the bank, may not be the most cost effective way to fund a new building.

by Andy Canada

Spend the day at your desk (or your favorite wireless hotspot) learning LIVE and interacting with leaders who are helping nonprofits engage the next generation. 

Can’t spend the whole day with us, don’t worry, your registration gives you access to the archived presentations for a full year.

This virtual conference will explore how to engage Millennials beyond the donation with real examples of activation, engagement and innovation; see fresh new uses of technology - from social media to mobile; and hear honest cross-generational dialogue about what works and doesn’t in organizations big and small.

Speakers include:

• Angela White, JGA
• Heidi Adams, LIVESTRONG
• Geoff Livingston, Zoetica
• Jacob Colker, Sparked.com
• Wendy Harman, American Red Cross
• George Weiner, DoSomething.org
• Erica Smith, Society By Design

And many more!

Our closing speaker Barbara Pierce Bush shares how she and her team at the Global Health Corps are leveraging the unique characteristics of Millennials across all sectors to address the global health crisis.

Click here to view the full agenda and read speaker bios.

Register Today! For only $75 per individual or $300 for an organization (up to 5 individual logins) your pass allows you to attend the summit, view the conference speakers online live, participate in conversations, and download the presentations anytime for the next 12 months.

by Kris Kindelsperger

In today’s economy, does a major comprehensive campaign make the most sense or is a series of smaller project based campaigns a better approach?

Two commonly used campaign strategies are the comprehensive campaign strategy and the individual project based strategy. Each offers their own advantages and disadvantages.

Comprehensive campaigns offer several advantages:

• One fundraising plan can address a range of important needs
• Their mix of components can better match the varied interests of donors in the campaign
• Their broad scope allows them to address high level strategic initiatives of the institution

While successfully run comprehensive campaigns can be truly transformational for an organization, they also have drawbacks to consider:

• They take longer to plan and complete
• They are more expensive to run
• They can push the limits of donor capacity
• They demand more of staff’s time and endurance

Individual project campaigns, on the other hand, are effective in:

• Achieving goals in a shorter amount of time
• Meeting an obvious and compelling need
• Minimizing the demand on donor capacity
• Lowering the risk of fatiguing staff

But consider where the individual project campaign falls short:

• Its singularity of focus might leave other important needs unmet
• Donors may find the project fails to pique their interest or meet their philanthropic goals

So which is the “better” of the two options? 

In times of transition or uncertainty, a project campaign may represent a good short-term way of staying engaged with your donor population.  Project campaigns can be a good warm up to a larger comprehensive campaign, testing staff and volunteer leadership and building capacity.

If a compelling strategic plan, proven capacity and strong staff and volunteer initiative is in place, a comprehensive campaign is likely the best use of institutional resources and a successful campaign can truly be transformational for the organization.

The best answer for you may not be one or the other, but rather a grouping of components that provide donor choice but at a smaller total goal that better aligns with capacity. 

This approach may offer most of the advantages of a comprehensive campaign while offering the shorter time frame and more focused approach of the project campaign.

For donors ages 20-35, celebrity endorsements offer little sway and personal asks trump technology

INDIANAPOLIS (April 7, 2011) – While the Millennial generation has often been characterized as a self-centered, technologically plugged-in and personally disconnected group, a new survey reveals that people ages 20 to 35 are in fact diverse, human and ready to give.

The second annual Millennial Donors Study conducted by Achieve and Johnson, Grossnickle and Associates (JGA) finds that of the 3,000 people ages 20 to 35 who responded to the survey, 93 percent gave to nonprofit organizations in 2010, with 10 percent giving $1,000 or more.

One of the key factors contributing to that generosity is an organization’s trustworthiness. Nearly 85 percent of respondents said they would be very or somewhat interested in giving to organizations they can fully trust; on the other hand, nine out of 10 donors said they would stop giving to an organization if it somehow lost their trust.

This year’s survey echoed a number of questions from last year’s but also delved into new areas and offered more detail in an effort to provide new insights into the giving habits of Millennials.

To download the complete study, learn more about Millennials and register to participate in a free Webinar on April 21, visit www.MillennialDonors.com.

To further explore the next generation of donors, join us on June 22, as JGA and Achieve partner with the CASE Foundation to present a virtual summit you can attend right from your desk.  MDS11 will feature national speakers challenging the traditional modes of fundraising and engagement. Watch for registration information soon at MillennialDonors.com.

By Meg Gammage-Tucker

I recently had the privilege of being asked to review and update Hank Rosso’s chapter on “The Annual Fund” for Achieving Excellence in Fundraising (published by the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy) and “The Annual Sustainability” course for The Fundraising School at Indiana University.  This process reminded me of the true value of the annual fund as the foundation of quality fundraising programs for all types of nonprofit organizations. 

The Annual Fund is not about the “funds” at all.  It is about the beginning of your relationship with supporters who are the lifeblood of your nonprofit.  And, it is about creating the foundation for your organization’s future—both in terms of financial stability and human capital. 

The benefits and objectives of an annual fund are:

• To inform, involve, and bond constituents to the organization
• To establish habits and patterns of giving through regular and effective cultivation, solicitation, and stewardship
• To provide annual (preferably unrestricted) support for operations and programs
• To expand the donor base by soliciting gifts from new prospects and constituencies
• To build a base of donors that can be cultivated to support all types of fundraising activities (including capital, endowment, and special projects)
• To assist with identification and cultivation of lead and major donors and volunteer leaders
• To offer accountability and transparency through regular communications
• To provide an annual review of organizational priorities, the case for support, and communications
• To assure improvement of cultivation, solicitation, and stewardship practices

A solid annual giving program is essential to health of all nonprofits.  Other fund development programs will not be as successful or effective without the base of the annual fund to build on.

by Dan Schipp

I was seated across the table from the chief executive officer, a highly successful fund raiser.  We were having a conversation about the record-setting, fundraising year his organization had just completed. 

He leaned across the table and said, “But I want more for this institution . . . I want to ensure that the success we are currently having in fundraising continues well beyond the tenure of the present team – CEO, advancement staff, and volunteers . . . I want to “systemize” a high-functioning, productive development program.”  

How do you do that?  How do you provide for continuity and on-going, long-term success in fundraising?  How do you build a culture of effective development?

For answers to those questions, I look to an organization, located in Indiana, that has had a strong, distinctive development culture since the 1960’s. 

How has this organization gone about systemizing its approach to development? I can identify four primary ingredients in its recipe for successfully sustaining a consistent, distinctive effort in fundraising:

1. A vision or philosophy of development.  Early on the architect of the organization’s program articulated his vision for development, captured it in writing, and passed this “philosophy” on to those who succeeded him.  For nearly 50 years, this philosophy with its foundation stones of planning, communicating values, and inviting support has guided the  program. 
2. Orientation, on-boarding and mentoring of new staff.  Efforts are made early on to familiarize new administrative and advancement staff with the organization’s tradition of development.  Through written materials and frequent oral reminders about the program’s basics, new staff members are instructed in the organization’s approach to fundraising.  The orientation often includes extended conversations or mentoring relationships with those who have previously worked in the development office. Lastly, a common frame of reference for staff is established by having the executive leadership and all development officers attend The Fund Raising School’s “Principles and Techniques of Fund Raising” course.
3. Emphasis on building relationships.  From the outset, the organization’s  development program has focused on building mutually rewarding relationships with benefactors.  The emphasis has been on long-term returns rather than immediate results.  Thus, cultivating and nourishing relationships with benefactors through frequent contact with institutional leadership and advancement staff is a hallmark of the program.
4. Longevity of staff.  For an organization to develop a culture of effective fund raising based on building relationships, it cannot have a constant turnover in executive leadership or advancement staff.  Over the past 50 years, this organization has had six presidents and four chief advancement officers.  Such stability in leadership comes about when the leadership is motivated by the mission and values of the organization and the organization offers a rewarding work experience and competitive compensation to the leadership.

Those are one organization’s key ingredients for systemizing a highly effective development program.  What other ingredients would you add to the formula?

By Dan Schipp

The other day someone reminded me of the “Rule of Three.”  The rule states that if you want someone to remember something, break it down into three key points. 

Since  lately I’ve led several development staff training sessions on gift solicitation, I thought I would write about the three most important things to keep in mind when soliciting a gift for your nonprofit organization.

The three keys are:  plan, engage, ask.

Before even picking up the phone to call for an appointment, make sure you have a plan for the meeting and have taken the time to determine the desired outcome. 

• What do you want to accomplish? 
• What are the primary messages you want to convey? 
• Who, if anyone, should accompany you in the call? 
• What questions and objections might you encounter and how will you respond to them? 
• What will be the amount of “the ask”? 

Don’t go into a meeting with a prospective donor without having a strategy for the conversation.

Engage the prospect.  Avoid letting the conversation become a monologue.  As you make the points for investment in your organization, seek feedback from the prospect.  Ask for their views on the points you are making.  Listen and respond to their interests and concerns.  The more you can get them actively involved in talking about your organization and its plans for the future, the better your chances of having a successful outcome to the conversation.

Finally, provided you have not heard anything in the meeting to cause you to think this is not the right time to move forward with a request for support, make the ask clearly and confidently.  Lead into the ask by asking permission of the donor to solicit a gift:  “In light of the discussion we have just had about the impact that XYZ organization is having on health care in our community, may I now speak with you about a gift to support XYZ’s work?”  Then ask for a specific gift and having done so . . . stop . . . be quiet . . . let the prospective donor be the next one to speak.

That’s how I would apply the “rule of three” to philanthropic gift solicitation – plan, engage, ask. 

What do you see as the keys to successfully soliciting financial support?

by Meg Gammage – Tucker

Managing to Repay Debt with Capital Funds

“How can we move ahead and buy or build something and then have our clients repay the debt?”  We have historically, and still regularly do, advise strongly against this strategy. 

We have advised against this strategy for two very important reasons—

1.)     Donors often do not want to fund something that has already been built thus reducing both their financial and personal influence over its development.  This is also why we test the “preliminary” case for support.  And,

2.)    Given the recent recession and its fallout, funding activities through debt is considered by some to be a precarious strategy, at best.

Today, however, it is a reality and one that more and more clients are asking us to address.  It may not be the best way to do our work, but it is a reality with which we must deal and strategies must be devised.

Debt repayment through philanthropy is not easy, and it requires organizations to be extra thoughtful and strategic to make it possible.  It requires the following:

Mission and Program Impact

How has this investment made the world a better place? 

How has it helped achieve our mission? 

What programs have we developed or improved? 

Financial Justification

Clear and sound reasoning as to why the investment was necessary.

Why did you invest first and ask later?  Or, in other words, what did you save and how did the organization benefit financially by buying or building before the dollars were available?

Potential Donors

Knowledgeable and entrepreneurial donors –who are both already committed to your cause and who appreciate and understand that your organization can be entrepreneurial as well.

It is not an easy path—nor one we readily recommend.  But it is one that is part of our philanthropic world and one which requires both thoughtful consideration and action.

“Let Meg know how helpful  Managing to Repay Debt with Capital Funds is for your organization and share your results by posting in the JGA comments section below.