onPhilanthropy.com

Corduroy Campaigns to Promote Early Education

Ingrid Velmonte — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:37:32 GMT

A five-year-old child from a low-income background has one-fourth the vocabulary of his or her mid-income peers. And half of all first-graders from low-income families are up to two years behind their peers in preschool skills.

In order to draw national attention to the importance of early childhood education, Jumpstart is organizing the world’s largest shared reading experience. The nonprofit, educational organization is aiming for a world record of having the most children reading the same book with an adult on the same day, October 2. The event is part of Jumpstart’s annual Read for the Record Campaign, and its official 2008 campaign book is Corduroy, the endearing story of a teddy bear’s adventures in a department store. A special edition of the book features an introduction and request for support by Matt Lauer and Meredith Viera of NBC's TODAY Show and a foreword by honorary spokesperson LL Cool J.

At the conclusion of this classic children’s book, Corduroy’s owner lovingly sews a new button onto his overalls and tells him, “I like you the way you are, but you’ll be more comfortable with your shoulder strap fastened.” Jumpstart offers the same care and consideration to children. They will be more comfortable and capable in their future academic careers if they are provided with the right opportunities at a young age, including access to age-appropriate literature and time with caring adults.

Jumpstart's program model facilitates year-long, one-on-one relationships between at-risk preschool children and volunteers ages 18-23 who serve 8-10 hours each week at the preschools. It also continues the learning relationship at home by donating books and reaching out to the children’s families to promote active learning. For example, the special Jumpstart edition of Corduroy includes a vocabulary list and activities that connect to the story. Extensive research shows that early intervention promotes crucial brain development, and the program builds the vital literacy, social, and emotional skills that children need to thrive.

The program is results-driven and measures the children's progress. Jumpstart developed an assessment tool that shows progress in both conventional skills (literacy and language acquisition) and intangible ones (self esteem, productive social interaction, and initiative). Allen Grossman of Harvard Business School advocates, "Jumpstart defies the stereotype that nonprofits cannot measure what they do and sets a standard for the nonprofit sector."

The Read for the Record Campaign has its own record of success. Since it began two years ago, 250,000 books have been donated and over $2 million has been raised to support Jumpstart. Each year even more children and adults participate by reading together. The website offers information on participating and supporting the campaign.

The program has grown to serve over 50,000 children nationwide and has been named one of the top charities in the country by Monitor Group and Fast Company's Social Capitalist Awards. During the 2007-2008 program year, Jumpstart is serving 13,000 children across 20 states, in partnership with 300 early learning centers and nearly 70 universities and colleges. Through its partnerships, Jumpstart inspires children to learn, adults to teach, families to get involved and communities to work together. Jumpstart is working toward the day every child in America enters school prepared to succeed.

About the Author

Ingrid Velmonte is an Associate Director at Changing Our World, Inc., a leading philanthropic consulting firm serving nonprofits, corporations, foundations and philanthropists in achieving their goals. She can be contacted at ivelmonte@changingourworld.com.

Hang On for the Ride? Not Enough

Susan Raymond, Ph.D. — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:37:21 GMT

I particularly hate the reality-altering plunge; my stomach belongs in my abdomen, not in my throat. I find no comfort in its end, and no thrill at the next slow crawl upward. I do not want to experience the sensation; I only want to close my eyes and crawl deeply into my own soul until it is over.

I hate roller coasters.

So, this has been a particularly discomfiting several months. The financial sector’s gyrations, the wild swings, the tension of knowing that the only certainty is uncertainty. The plunge and then the slow crawl upwards. The sense of loss of control; of a situation where even leaders seem unable (or unwilling) to focus on bringing the roller coaster home safely. All of this is not my cup of tea.

But, as the lawyers say, the facts are recalcitrant. We are in a period of financial turmoil unlike any in recent times, perhaps unlike any in history. We know that for sure. We do not know the future, even as far as tomorrow’s opening bell. So, what about the nonprofit sector? Shall we close our eyes and burrow into our souls until (if) it is over?

Sadly, we can hardly afford such a luxury. The hardest question is not what the financial turbulence means for nonprofits. What it means is very clear; most onPhilanthropy readers have spent a week or more trying to tear their stomachs off their epiglottises. Endowments and funds balances are losing value. Some foundations tied to failed firms are no more. “Major” donors may be not so major anymore. Financial uncertainty is rampant from Wall Street to Main Street. Uncertainty is certain.

There are two important sets of points to be made, however, one about trends and one about strategy.

First, as we have written elsewhere, in forty years of data, there have been only two periods with more than a single sequential year of absolute decline in philanthropy, during the oil embargo of the 1970s and after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The current financial mess (there are more colorful alternative descriptors, but “mess” seems to cover it pretty well) may be of historic proportions and so result in a two-year decline (that is uncertain, of course). But, even so, the first year of increase after those two declines has been at a higher rate than the year previous to the declines. So, when philanthropy begins to grow again, it more than makes up for the decline.

There are 900,000 public charities in America. If all 900,000 decide to react to financial turmoil by turning inward, then every nonprofit is secure. But, if 100,000 do not, if a portion go forward cultivating their supporters while understanding their current difficulties, communicating their heightened needs, reaching out to the public, seeking new sources of funds then those who have spent two years on the sidelines will find themselves relatively disadvantaged in rejoining the resource competition. Their prospects will have been claimed by others, their past supporters will have been solicited by others, their image will be blurred and faded. Therefore, trends say that, even on the roller coaster of financial turmoil, the only gear available is “drive.”

Second, it is important to remember that, as least until now, no one has died from the financial crisis. It is almost certainly true that some fortunes are lost forever, and others will be restored slowly. It is also true that the pain is felt from major to minor donors, and in the asset books of foundations large and small. But no one died. The chess board will be re-drawn and re-structured, but economic leaders will emerge again.

Therefore, the operative need is for strategy, not panic. In times of turmoil, nonprofits need to step back calmly and revisit all assumptions. Communications tools must be reassessed for both messages and markets. Past supporters must be sorted and culled for those who will emerge from the turmoil first and strongest. New audiences must be identified. New non-philanthropic sources of revenue must be considered, and the costs and benefits of their pursuit weighed. Board members must be engaged in the details of strategy, for they will be critical to execution.

This requires not just thinking. It requires facts first. Nonprofit leaders have to do more than read the headlines. They need to immerse themselves in understanding the details of the current financial (and political) crisis. They need to identify Board members or other leaders who can give them a deep tutorial on the crisis and act as their analysts of the winners and losers in real time. Strategy this time cannot be built only on mission and vision. It must be built on technical (often arcane) knowledge, even on more subtle intelligence resulting in clear, concrete and short-term action steps across the organization. Successful nonprofit leaders will engage not in strategic planning, but in battle strategy.

It also requires boldness. That strategy may, in fact, result in precedent-shattering actions. Sustained financial uncertainty may be accompanied, for example, by a move toward nonprofit mergers. This may not be a bad outcome of bad times. The proliferation of nonprofits has left the sector with much duplication. Consolidation may result in a stronger sector, however painful the process. So the battle strategies that nonprofits consider in the face of financial uncertainty should not discredit startling tactics that drive not toward self-preservation but toward social problem solving preservation. Strategy should look honestly at all options.

The worst part of the roller coaster was not being able to do anything until it stopped. Fortunately, that is not the case for nonprofits now, on this roller coaster. There is work that can and must be done. Get busy.

About the Author

Susan Raymond, Ph.D., is an Executive Vice President of Changing Our World, Inc. a leading philanthropic consulting firm, is the co-author of Mapping the New World of American Philanthropy: Causes and Consequences of the Transfer of Wealth, published by Wiley.

She can be reached at sraymond@changingourworld.com.

Raising Awareness of a Subtle but Devastating Disease

Ingrid Velmonte — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:31:59 GMT

Because calendar months and colors have been claimed by one health issue after another, it can be easy to lose track of causes. September is national Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, in recognition of the leading cause of death among gynecologic cancers in the U.S, and a number of groups - from the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund (OCRF) to L’Oreal Paris to various Hearst women’s magazines are making it their business to spread awareness about this deadly disease.

The numbers are dramatic. This year, nearly 22,000 American women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and over 15,000 women will die from it, according to the American Cancer Society. Eighty percent of cases have already spread beyond the ovaries by the time they are diagnosed. As a result, less than half of patients survive longer than five years (by contrast, 89% of women diagnosed with breast cancer survive at least five years).

The largest independent organization involved in combating ovarian cancer is the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. It has awarded over $23 million in grants to more than one hundred men and women investigating the disease. The fund was established in 1994 by Sol Schreiber in memory of his wife, Ann. The Fund’s former president, the late Liz Tilberis, was also the editor-in-chief of Harper’s Bazaar until she succumbed to the disease at age 51. Thankfully, many of her contacts in the fashion, beauty, and entertainment industries took on the cause, giving it some prominence. Their efforts can be seen in many cause-related marketing initiatives taking place this month.

Some of the OCRF’s major corporate partners, including cosmetics giant L’Oreal Paris, appliance brand Electrolux, and Loehmann’s department stores are running special promotions to raise awareness and money for the nonprofit’s research efforts. L’Oreal is selling its annual Color of Hope cosmetics and sterling silver Hope Necklace, and will donate $5 from each product sold to the OCRF. Electrolux, which committed $500,000 over two years to the OCRF, is launching a premium laundry collection. The turquoise washer and dryer are promoted by TV personality Kelly Ripa, who also designed a special edition t-shirt whose proceeds will go to the OCRF. Loehmann’s is holding a benefit shopping event on September 25 in which customers can purchase a $5 shopping coupon to receive discounts in the department store. In turn, the company will donate 5% of purchases made with the coupons to the OCRF.

Beyond selling its makeup and jewelry, L’Oreal has created a website that provides information on ovarian cancer and a link to the OCRF’s website for those who want to learn more or donate directly to the Fund. With a goal of having the website receive 22,000 hits this month, L’Oreal hopes to reach as many people as the estimated number of those who will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer by the end of the year. The company also collaborated with Hearst Magazines; L’Oreal’s celebrity spokesmodels Kerry Washington and Eva Longoria Parker partnered with the editors of Marie Claire, Redbook, Harper’s Bazaar, Town and Country, and Good Housekeeping to create public service awareness messages that empower and give hope through their respective magazines. Eva Longoria Parker explains, “We’re working to prove that knowledge is beautiful.”

While cynics can question the impact of cause marketing and the agenda behind corporate social responsibility efforts, awareness is an effective and proven strategy in the early detection of diseases such as ovarian cancer. And since females make up the majority of consumer decision makers, those companies that cater to women are the best place to start in spreading knowledge of the disease and its symptoms. To learn more, please visit the American Cancer Society’s Detailed Guide on Ovarian Cancer.

About the Author

Fundraising Nightmares-Make Smart Career Moves!

F. Duke Haddad — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:31:43 GMT

One day, the faculty member left for a job at Hilltop State University as professor and Chief Development Officer. When he left, the faculty member asked Jason if he would agree to be his assistant. After considering a career in business, government or non-profit work, he agreed to join him. He immediately had to learn to direct annual gifts, major gifts and planned gifts. He contacted other universities, went on road trips with peers and read a great deal on how to succeed in raising money.

After settling into the job and developing excellent relationships with staff, Jason’s boss and “friend” told him that he was applying for an open vice presidency at Hilltop State University. His friend did not receive the position and left the state for another position with faculty and development responsibilities. He asked Jason to join him. He wanted to go but had to resign first. He sent a resignation letter to the “new” vice president and his personal assistant read the letter and did not tell her boss. She decided to give Jason the letter to hand carry into the meeting with the “new” vice president. The meeting was brutal because the new vice president felt betrayed. In some ways Jason was caught in the middle of a personal conflict.

Jason left his job and went to Southern university 1,000 miles away. The only person he knew in that state was his boss and “friend”. He was excited to go to a new place, work with his boss again and develop a new fund raising program. He wasn’t there two months when his boss decided to stay as a faculty member, but leave his role as head of development. With Jason’s boss’ departure, he lost a mentor and leader. He was then forced to report to an individual with no fund raising experience, a micro-manager and mean spirited individual. After struggling to work within a new system of leadership, he left this large public institution for a small private institution, which proved to be another poor choice.

The vice president who hired Jason as his director of alumni, parents and development at Smalltown University was on his way out. He left one month after Jason arrived. The president decided not to hire a new vice president, but act as the chief fund raising development officer. He moved the fund raising staff from a beautiful facility to a chapel located next to his office so he could oversee the staff. The experience was depressing for Jason as he was also dealing with family issues. One day, the president, without notice, called Jason into his office and in front of a witness, told him that he was no longer needed. This was one month after Smalltown University received a CASE improvement award. Jason was totally floored and wondered if fund raising was a good career choice for him. After much soul searching, Jason once again packed his bags and moved away to another university, Pleasantville University, once again leaving his family behind in another state.

When Jason’s house finally sold in Smalltown after one year, his family joined him at Pleasantville University. He was finally happy as he worked, for a while, for an excellent vice president. Amazingly, one weekend the VP of development who’d hired him left without notice and overnight a consultant became Jason’s new boss as vice president for university relations, without a formal job search. While the transition wasn’t completely smooth, the need for Jason to stay “put” because of family stability was a factor in remaining in Pleasantville for several years. Eventually the university changed presidents and Jason decided to explore a new possibility.

Jason decided to leave the state for a position at Caring Hospital where he could perfect his generalist skills in annual gifts, major gifts and planned gifts. For a number of years, Jason worked as a productive number two in the office. He had opportunities to leave but decided to stay as he might be considered for his boss’ job as he was planning to retire. Fortunately, after an eight-month search by a national search firm, Jason was hired as VP of Development and executive director of the Caring Hospital Foundation. One thing the president at Caring did not tell Jason was the fact that he was planning to leave his post after a few months. Poor Jason had to work with a variety of presidents over the next several years. He joined a leadership team as the newest person. Over time, he was the last one left of several “old” presidents. Then, one day, Jason received a phone call from a donor who asked why he was still employed there. A week later, the latest president told Jason he was no longer needed. Despite excellent written performance reviews and with no warning, Jason was escorted by security to the door because one Caring Hospital individual decided it was time for a change. It was later known that the Foundation Board Chair knew that Jason was “gone” a week before the ax fell but decided not to tell him. The hospital had a history of similar actions. They didn’t care.

What can we learn from Jason’s career choices? Was he a victim of bad decisions, poor choices or a victim of a career that does not value employee performance or loyalty? Does performance, capability, dedication, relationship building and institutional focus mean anything? Do institutions give “lip service” to promoting philanthropy? Can presidents with CFO mentalities work with CDO’s? How do you view Jason’s career moves? How can non-profits improve recruitment, retention, encouragement and long-term security of development professionals? Would you tell Jason to continue a career path in development or go back to government or business? Is the culture and landscape of philanthropy changing? How can male and female executives work more effectively together? Do non-profit leaders truly care about promoting philanthropy and truly support their direct reports? Is your job and career in non-profit management stable? If not, what can we do to change the paradigm?

About the Author

F. Duke Haddad, Ed.D., CFRE, is the Vice President for Development/CDO at The Children’s Medical Center of Dayton, in Dayton, Ohio. He can be contacted at haddadd@childrensdayton.org

Personal Giving by Nonprofit Board Members: Why 100% Matters

Michele Minter — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:53:22 GMT

One of the most basic measures of organizational health is the commitment of every board member to contribute within his or her means. If board members don’t provide regular support, it suggests that they do not understand what it means to lead on the organization’s behalf. It could also suggest that they don’t understand why the organization needs financial support. Nonprofit staff members and board chairs have an obligation to make sure that the reverse is true. A high functioning board should strive for a personal 100% participation rate.

Among the governance responsibilities of boards is to guarantee that the organization is on sound financial footing. When board members contribute, they demonstrate their understanding that raising funds is essential to the financial stability of the organization. The Princeton Area Community Foundation is one of an increasing number of foundations that ask grant applicants to provide statistics about board giving. In the words of its president, Nancy Kieling, “If the people closest to an organization don’t support it, why should anyone else?”

There are three major reasons why board members fail to give. First, a board member may not understand why the organization needs support. This is a serious concern: if someone who regularly commits time and believes in the mission doesn’t perceive financial need, who will? Board members must understand how the organization’s mission and aspirations depend on contributions. It is the job of staff members to articulate the organization’s needs in compelling ways and to explain their nonprofit’s financial challenges and opportunities clearly.

A second reason that board members may not contribute is that they view their commitment of time as a substitute for financial support. Volunteer time is critical to any organization, and in many cases it may be the most important form of support that an individual board member provides. Dollars and service are not interchangeable, however; there are certain things for which nonprofits need money. Every board member should make at least a symbolic contribution to show their commitment to the financial well being of the cause.

Unfortunately, all too often board members don’t give because they have not been asked. When board members are recruited, there should be a candid conversation about expectations. The board leadership must set a good example by giving first; they should also serve as solicitors to encourage their peers to participate as well. Should a board require contributions from its members? According to BoardSource, 55% of nonprofit organizations do require annual contributions as a matter of policy. Whether a policy on personal giving is desirable will depend on the organizational culture. If a policy is established, it will be most effective when it results from a thoughtful conversation between the board chair and each board member about an appropriate gift, rather than from a mandated gift level. The philanthropic capacity of board members may vary widely, and the desired outcome is for every board member to feel engaged and proud of his/her commitment. A policy on board giving is particularly worthwhile if it helps the organization to introduce clear expectations and elicit feedback. The same results can be accomplished through a less formal process if the board chair and staff leaders are willing to speak openly about the benefits of 100% participation. Although The Princeton Area Community Foundation does not use board support as a criterion for grant-making, it does require participation statistics as part of the application process. Nancy Kieling reports that grantees welcome the inquiry. “By asking about personal giving by board members, we give the leadership of nonprofits a way to fortify the discussion within their own organization. When we raise the question, staff members can be more public in raising the question internally.”

There are some nonprofit boards that include government appointees or representatives assigned by major corporate donors. Nonprofits may also choose to recruit members from the population whom they serve. These board members correctly understand their primary role as providing insight and experience rather than funds. Organizations should not shy away from having thoughtful conversations with all board members, however. Within their means, everyone can play a part, and everyone leads more effectively when they can speak with confidence about their personal investment. The board as a whole is empowered when it takes symbolic ownership of the organization’s financial future, and it should celebrate 100% participation proudly.

Many nonprofits, particularly those that raise money through special events, use a “give or get” philosophy, by which board members are expected to give at a certain level or bring other donors to the table sometimes literally by selling benefit tickets. Again, this kind of service is very helpful, but it isn’t a full substitute for personal support. Any board member who is asking others to give will be more effective if he or she is able to talk about his or her own commitment.

For nonprofits that do not have an established history of personal giving by board members, there are several steps that should be taken. A clear commitment of the board leaders to serve as role models and solicitors is essential. Candid conversation should take place about expectations at the time that new board members are recruited. Whether through a formal policy or not, board members should be engaged in an ongoing discussion about the financial needs of the organization and their responsibility to lead by example. Ultimately, a willingness to ask board members for support is the first step toward asking the broader donor community for support. One hundred percent board participation sets a standard that any potential donor will respect.

About the Author

Michele Minter is Vice President for Development at the College Board, where she oversees fundraising related to public education and educational advocacy. Previously, she served as Director of Development at Princeton University, where she managed the University’s fundraising offices and capital campaign. She is a graduate of Yale University and the City University of New York.

She can be reached at mminter@collegeboard.org.

McCain - Obama Forum Kicks Off ServiceNation Summit

Susan Carey Dempsey — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:35:17 GMT

Earlier in the day, Senators McCain and Obama had appeared together at ceremonies at the World Trade Center marking the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks, honoring those lost in New York as well as at the Pentagon and in the crash of Flight 93 in Shanksville, PA.

ServiceNation is a campaign calling upon more Americans to volunteer as individuals, and to work as a group to encourage the President and Congress to “enact a new era of voluntary service and civic engagement in America.” In their responses to the interviews last night, both Obama and McCain expressed strong support for the concept of service, evincing subtle differences in their approaches.

John McCain, for example, centered the focus of volunteer service at the national level, echoing John F. Kennedy’s call to Americans to serve their country, while Sen. Obama spoke to the value of working at the community level. He referred to his own experience as a community organizer in Chicago after law school “no disrespect to the president of this fine institution” [Columbia, which he attended] as “the best education I had.”

Judy Woodruff, in questioning John McCain earlier, had asked if he had indicated to his own campaign that derisive comments about the work of a community organizer at the Republican convention were not the type of language he’d like to hear in a campaign discussion. McCain responded by pointing out that he’d called upon Obama to meet him in a series of town hall debates, and if Obama had accepted his challenge “the tone of this campaign would be better.”

Asked if he would sign legislation introduced by Sens. Edward Kennedy and Orrin Hatch to triple the size of Americorps and the Peace Corps, McCain said he would.

One area where Obama focused his call to action at the national level, unlike McCain, was in saying that he would have urged Americans to reduce their dependence on foreign oil in the weeks following the September 11 attacks, rather than “tell Americans to go shopping,” a criticism often voiced about President Bush.

Overall, however, one of the main differences in Obama and McCain’s approach to volunteer service is in the level of federal government involvement. McCain stated his reluctance to have the government take on roles that voluntary, faith-based organizations, or the private sector, could do better. “I don’t think if FedEx and Target were in charge,” referring to FEMA’s response to Hurricane Katrina, “we’d had had ice trucks wind up in Maine.”

Obama outlined a different relationship between the government and voluntary sector,
saying that the federal government should encourage greater opportunities to serve. In addition to programs like Americorps and the Peace Corps, where he also supports expansion, he’d create an Energy Corps to increase our energy efficiency and mobilize seniors - a resource McCain had also called “underutilized. “The government can provide avenues,” Obama said, also voicing support for college tuition assistance to incentivize volunteers. “ The president can inspire people to get outside themselves and get involved, something I think I can do as president,” Obama added, citing his election campaign as evidence that large numbers of Americans were willing and eager to give their time.

To get a real sense of what the atmosphere was like at last night’s forum, and follow today’s conference on ServiceNation, we invite you to read the blog posts from onPhilanthropy’s Future Leaders in Philanthropy (FLiP) corps of bloggers: http://flip.onphilanthropy.com/

About the Author

Susan Carey Dempsey, Editor-in-Chief of onPhilanthropy, is an Executive Vice President of Changing Our World, Inc., a leading philanthropic consulting firm counseling nonprofits on successful fundraising strategies. She can be reached at sdempsey@changingourworld.com.