Who holds donors accountable for their giving?

A fun New York Times piece by Susan Dominus on The Secret Society for Creative Philanthropy raises a killer question that virtually never gets talk about in our line of work, namely:

Who holds donors accountable for their giving?

The article itself makes no pretense toward profundity as it recounts the tale of New York author Courtney Martin, who, finding herself in possession of a six-figure book advance, purposed to give some of it away through nine friends. She gave each one $100 to use in whatever charitable manner each saw fit, with but one fascinating caveat:

In a month she would hold a party at which each individual would be required to share what they did with the money.

And with that, the Secret Society for Creative Philanthropy was born.

The philanthropic impact of the Society may not exceed its novelty–the article to detail how ten of this year’s Society members spent the $100 they each received, and the Gates Foundation this is not–but Susan Dominus’ article exceeds the philanthropic impact of the Society. Ask Dominus:

What if every philanthropist had to get up in front of some party of their peers and riff about how they had spent their money? All kudos to Bill Gates, but how might he surprise the world with an infinitesimal portion of his foundation dollars if he had his monologue at a Secret Society gala in mind?

Or what if every average Joe just made a pact with his five best friends that they would get together once a year and share how they donated their money? To start, they’d surely get around to actually donating that money: and yes, accountability is as much the point for Ms. Martin as celebration.

What if instead of donor appreciation events we held donor accountability events where our donors had to share with the other donors at their table how over the past year they spent their money and their time and their passion on the shared cause that captivates you all, and what they purpose to do in the year to come, and how much more they might be able to do if they worked more closely together and drew others into the circle?

“No one would come to such an event” might be our offhand response. But what does that say about us and our organizations and how we relate to those who share our passion and calling to the cause that captivates us?

And if not in our nonprofits, where are donors held to account for how–and how much–they gave?

For the most part it does not happen in churches, who tend to think about congregational giving as a whole (and its relation to the church’s budget need) rather than by individuals (and the relationship of their giving to any kind of standard other than what is construed as an absolute and inviolable right to privacy).

“But my donors (or congregation members) would kill me if I held them accountable for their giving!” we might protest. “I mean, who am I to hold them accountable?”

Yes–who are we indeed? And as coaches and advocates for crucial causes, do we have a responsibility or an aspiration to be anything more than the world’s most skillful asking and appreciating machines? And if we don’t, does anybody?

So what is the easiest way to begin the accountability process?

Sit with willing donors (or congregation members) at the start of the year and talk about their giving goals. Ask them questions about how they decide how much to give, and to what, and when. Ask them how they would rate the effectiveness of their giving from the previous year and what they would like to see become more effective in their giving for the coming year. Ask them if they feel there are causes that are overrepresented or underrepresented in their giving and how they come to that conclusion. Ask them what one single change they could make in their giving this coming year in order to have the largest possible increase in effectiveness over last year.

And so on.

Most of these questions will initially draw shoulder shrugs and sheepish smiles. They will readily confess that they haven’t thought of these questions–which gives you the ideal opportunity to enter into a mutual accountability relationship where you share your own answers to these questions and help them develop their own.

All of which puts you in a different relationship to your donors/congregation members than unconditional admirer. This then makes it not only possible but necessary for you to hold that donor accountability gathering at the end of the year so that those you have coached can gather together to share their struggles and successes, personal transformations and goals, with each other.

Accountability, they call it. And if it happens with starving artists and struggling writers in New York City, why not with those donors and congregation members within your sphere of influence?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Changing your logo? Spend less time and money to achieve the same level of ambivalence

As regular readers of this blog know, I grieve over the amount of time and money nonprofits spend on (re)creating their brochures and tweaking their logos.

Brochures? Not transformational.

Logos? Not transformational.

Coaching your champions? Priceless.

So in an effort to help us all spend less time and money on the former and more on the latter, I share with you (totally unsolicited–this is not a sponsored post; just a clarion call for cheapness) a logo creation site with a bit of a P/E/O twist:

Logotournament.com.

Here’s the way it works:

  1. You fill out a logo questionnaire.
  2. You set a prize amount of your choosing for the winning design and a time limit for the contest.
  3. Designers submit their logo ideas.
  4. You provide feedback and rank the logos designers are submitting.
  5. Designers incorporate your feedback and send more logos.
  6. You choose the one you want and download the file in a usable format with full ownership of the logo.
  7. Your champions don’t notice the logo change, despite your repeated efforts to try to casually work it into conversations. Then they say, “Huh… What was wrong with the old logo again?”

We’re not looking to replace our present logo at Mission Increase Foundation, but we decided to test the process out of the wellspring of great love we feel for you (which, loosely translated, means, “Please don’t spend $15,000 on a logo that really is no better than the one you have. Instead, spend $250 on a logo that really is no better than the one you have”).

The results we received were about on par with the results we’ve received with $15,000 logo designers (sans that style sheet usage template thingie logo designers like to supply for only a few thousand dollars more). I’m not sure how long the link to our contest will stay active on the site, but you can try clicking here and seeing if you can still get to the page. If not, there are dozens of other logo contests underway on the site that you can see.

The minimum prize amount you can offer is $250, which is returned to you if the contest fails to generates at least 30 entries. We offered a prize of $300 and got 73 entries, only a few of which looked like they were drawn by me.

I truly don’t know these Logo Tournament folks at all, so please don’t consider this an endorsement. What I do know is that anything I can do to tempt you to spend less time and money on your collateral material and more time and money coaching your champions is well worth a post.

Besides, the participatory framework of the site might make it easier for you to solicit your champions’ thoughts during the logo creation process, thoughts like, “Are you sure this is the best way to spend the time and money I would like to invest in the cause through you?”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Good to great…to good again, this time with a capital G

As usual, Sean Stannard-Stockton has a fascinating conversation underway at Tactical Philanthropy–this time on words that describe great philanthropy.

So far, words submitted by contributors include:

  • passion
  • connected
  • juicy
  • impact
  • innovative programs
  • measurement of outcomes
  • performance management
  • accountability and transparency
  • capable leadership
  • theory of change

My own personal preference has yet to make an appearance, namely:

  • good

As in, you know, virtuous. As in, “versus evil”. Light shining in the darkness and the darkness comprehending it not and such.

Just as non-profit nation is marching under the battle cry of good to great (and passionate and juicy and impactful and measurable), for-profit nation has vaulted over us heading in the opposite direction, from great to good.

Morally good, that is.

“Good is better than great,” contends Umair Haque in his Harvard Business Review article, The Great to Good Manifesto . “Many are great. But very, very few are good.”

Indeed.

While the GiveWell blog last week was publishing a great-is-better-than-good post entitled Haiti earthquake relief seems less cost-effective than everyday international aid, Pepsi–through its Refresh initiative–is getting in touch with its Inner Yoda. Writes Haque:

We often equate “doing good” with, a la Google, passively being “not evil.” Yet, they’re not the same. Yoda knew that good is more than just the absence of evil. And he was no mere wise elder — he was also one of the most deadly of the Jedi Masters. So the Yoda Concept says: going from great to good happens when a company goes on the offensive against rivals who are merely great and who are failing to do good. It isn’t enough to simply “do no evil.” Pepsi’s Refresh is interesting in this light because it’s Pepsi going on the offensive against Coke in terms of making each dollar do more good, and less bad.

Still, Haque’s praise for Pepsi’s great to good approach is tempered:

Pepsi’s great failing with Refresh is this: merely investing marketing dollars in worthwhile causes can never make up for something as economically meaningless as merely selling sugar-water. A culture of meaning means that Pepsi needs to refresh the idea of Pepsi — not just how it’s marketed.

The beauty of Sean’s question about words that describe great philanthropy is that it forces us to declare what we view to be the ultimate end of our work–what it looks like, in other words, when we win. For the purveyors of sugar-water, they purport that more is at stake than measurement of outcomes and management of performance. It may all be little more than marketing goofer dust for Pepsi, but it is fascinating to see who is talking the most these days about, as Haque puts us, “making each dollar do more good, and less bad.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment