Nonprofit Sponsorship: A Key Ingredient to Your Fundraising Recipe

One of my leisure activities is grilling and smoking. For me, it all starts with the rub — a combination of ingredients I apply to beef, pork, poultry, or fish. Salt and pepper, garlic powder, paprika, brown sugar, and chili powder are all staples in my homemade rubs. I rarely use prepared rubs, as I like to experiment and discover for myself what works.

The same goes for my awareness-building campaigns: a bit of this, a pinch of that, a scoop of something else.

In past years, we used to call this the "media mix." Today, with the emergence (dominance?) of digital media, we've redefined this mix as multi- or cross-channel marketing. But at its core is what I have for many years described as a multi-arrow approach to marketing predicated on the idea that no single arrow hits the target every time. Rather, a mix of media/channels almost always is the right recipe if you hope to raise awareness and, ultimately, funds.

In the space where I spent about twenty years of my career — marketing and public relations for small and mid-size nonprofits — the organizations I typically worked with often had limited resources. So these multi-arrow options frequently were limited. Some options were eliminated early on, while others didn't even make the initial list of options. One such option frequently ignored was sponsorship.

Sponsorship as a Marketing Tool

While social media, advertising, promotions, and the like are on the short list of awareness-building channels, sponsorship usually isn't. This is because nonprofit organizations look at sponsorship almost always as an extension of fundraising: as a means to generate revenue. But there's the other side of sponsorship, the side that can expand an organization's reach to their audiences through:

Isn't Our Research Already Free? Why Open Access Matters for the Social Sector & How You Can Get Involved

Last week individuals and organizations across the globe, including Foundation Center's own open access repository IssueLab, celebrated Open Access Week. This annual event/celebration puts the spotlight on a concept that is of terrific importance to those of us who produce knowledge but also to those of us who rely on it to do our jobs.

According to the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC): " 'Open Access' to information —  the free, immediate, online access to the results of scholarly research, and the right to use and re-use those results as you need  —  has the power to transform the way research and scientific inquiry are conducted. It has direct and widespread implications for academia, medicine, science, industry, and for society as a whole."

Many of us who work in the social sector — who fund, produce, use, share, and safeguard research and knowledge about social issues and social change  —  already know that open access is incredibly important. Why? Because we live that last bit about "direct and widespread implications...for society as a whole." We're the people who grapple with social issues that impact all of us, all over the globe, every day. Through our work we research, implement, and share strategies that attempt to eradicate poverty, eliminate hunger, conquer inequality, abolish injustice, and so much more.

Free and immediate access to information about social change strategies, and unfettered use and reuse of the results of that information, just makes sense. It lines up with why we produce knowledge in the first place: to build awareness about tough social problems and the creative and persistent solutions that are making the world a better place.

In the spirit of both Open Access Week and of the purpose and principles that drive us to produce knowledge in the first place, we invite our social sector colleagues to learn more about what open knowledge sharing means for our sector. To get you started, we'll explore two concepts you can implement today: open licensing and open repositories.

Going Long: Building a Legacy of Family Philanthropy

For a substantial number of wealthy Americans, establishing charitable foundations and family funds has become an attractive and tax-effective way of channeling their philanthropy, and as a result the proliferation of such vehicles has reached unprecedented levels.

In the United States alone, roughly 100,000 private foundations and 250,000 donor-advised funds today hold some $1 trillion in assets. (For perspective, that's more than $2,500 for every man, woman, and child in America.)

The bulk of these assets typically are set aside in long-term portfolios whose income underwrites charitable grants in — their founders hope — perpetuity. Let's call this the going long strategy. Increasingly, however, spending down of charitable assets during one's lifetime — going big — has become an attractive option for growing numbers of philanthropists.

"Like Bill and Melinda Gates, some believe they can make deep investments to address today's biggest problems," says Elliot Berger, managing director at Arabella Advisors in New York City, "and that other donors will emerge in the future to tackle the problems of tomorrow." Or so the argument goes.

Hundreds of Google citations on the subject testify to the increasing frequency with which family and public foundations, large and small, are deciding to "go big" and spend down their charitable assets rather than entrust future generations with the keys to the "philanthropic safe."

"Going Long" or "Going Big"?

As reported by the Bridgespan Group, only about 5 percent of the total assets of America's largest foundations historically has been held by entities in the process of spending themselves out of existence. By 2010, that number had climbed to 24 percent — and, presumably, has grown since.

What are the implications of this shift? What might it mean for the long-term well-being of society if some of the great philanthropic fortunes of our day were to spend themselves out of existence? Is there evidence that accelerated spending today can solve social problems to a degree that will reduce future funding needs?

[Review] Can't Not Do: The Compelling Social Drive That Changes Our World

In Walden, Henry David Thoreau tells readers that "If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them." It is the same kind of hopeful advice that social sector veteran Paul Shoemaker offers to readers in his new book Can't Not Do: The Compelling Social Drive That Changes Our World.

Shoemaker, founding president of venture philanthropy network Social Venture Partners International, argues that the book's intentionally ungrammatical title captures a sentiment that is ubiquitous among people working to create social change. It is not "a self-help book," he writes; "it's a help-the-world book." And whether one has just a few hours a week to devote to change work or is determined to devote a lifetime to it, everyone can do their part.

Can't Not Do opens with a call to action inspired by the loss of a good friend of Shoemaker's who died in a plane accident. "[H]is life, and even the loss of him," he writes, "galvanized my personal mission in a way I never expected." Indeed, the theme of the intensely personal serving as motivation for making the world a better place is carried through many of the stories of change presented here.

Those stories are organized around a handful of big questions: Are you a determined optimist? Who are you at your core? Are you willing to go to hard places? Can you actively listen? Do you believe 1+1 = 3? And: What is your can't not do? Shoemaker devotes a chapter to each question along with an exemplary story or two of how someone has answered that question. My favorite was, Are you ready to be humble and humbled? As Shoemaker notes, we often are humbled by our failures, and this is especially true of social change work, where the complexity of most problems is both frustrating and daunting. This shouldn't drive us to despair, but rather serve to remind us that the work is hard. "When we get humbled, really knocked back on our heels," writes Shoemaker, "it means we've gotten close enough to the real problem to truly learn what matters, to feel the problem enough that it hurts, and to show our authentic commitment to the cause." It's also important to realize the power inherent in humility. Shoemaker explores this seeming paradox by looking at a number of successful businesspeople who have focused on social change — and the power dynamics inherent in philanthropy — arguing that humility expressed as inclusivity, authenticity, and inquisitiveness is key to overcoming the challenges of social change work.

Philanthropic Dollars Also Shape Electoral Outcomes: Here's How…

With another presidential campaign season under way, we're again hearing a lot about the mega donors and Super PACs that fuel modern politics. But this isn't the only stream of money that influences how elections unfold in the U.S.; philanthropic dollars also play a key role, with foundations supporting a range of activities that affect how our democracy functions and what happens at the polls.

Understanding the flow of these grants isn't just helpful for nonprofits hoping to get a piece of the pie. It's also super useful for journalists or others keen to see how foundations — which, by law must be nonpartisan — are deploying funds in ways that can sway electoral outcomes.

Let's take the area of voter education, registration, and turnout as an example. It's no secret that who turns out to vote, and where, can make a big difference in determining which candidates win on Election Day. If more African Americans turn out in swing states like Florida or North Carolina, for instance, that's good news for Democrats. If the electorate tilts toward older and white voters, Republicans stand to gain.

Campaigns and Super PACs spend mightily to shape who votes. But what have foundations been doing? Well, Foundation Center's newly launched Foundation Funding for U.S. Democracy tool offers some answers to that question.

5 Reasons the Public Is Losing Interest in Your Cause

What can you do when interest in your cause begins to wane?

It's a scary question, and one that many fundraisers and nonprofit marketers will face at some point.

Perhaps you're already familiar with this scenario: Your fundraising results are okay, but the number of individual donors making gifts to your organization is beginning to decline. Your biggest donors may be giving a little more, but you're left to wonder why many others are giving less – or aren't giving at all.

This kind of situation is usually the result of bigger, deeper problems. So, before you rush to launch your next big campaign or event, take a step back and think long and hard about whether any of the things below could be causing you to lose traction when it comes to generating awareness for your cause.

1. You've become too focused on internal stakeholders. I've run into several nonprofit organizations that had cultivated a highly professional mentality over the years, causing leadership to take a blinkered approach to their organization's relationship with its stakeholders. Often their strategy involves putting highly experienced staff to work on problems with little input from the community. Unfortunately, an all-too-common outcome of this approach is the loss of external engagement, which is critical to your long-term sustainability.

If the number of closed-door meetings at your shop is going up while public engagement in your services is declining, it may be because you and your colleagues are shutting out the community you're supposed to be supporting. The solution: Always make sure your staff is looking beyond the walls of the organization and involving your constituents and outside stakeholders in its work. The more voices you allow to be heard around the table, the stronger your organization will be.

Weekend Link Roundup (October 24-25, 2015)

Our weekly round up of noteworthy items from and about the social sector. For more links to great content, follow us on Twitter at @pndblog.

Data

Is there such a thing as too much data? Indeed, there is. The Center for Effective Philanthropy's Kevin Bolduc explains.

Education 

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, have announced that they plan to open a private comprehensive preschool and K-8 school linked to health services for children and families in East Palo Alto, the San Jose Mercury News reports. "Set to open in August," Sharon Noguchi writes, "the project stems from Chan's passion to alleviate the effects of poverty on children — something she's witnessed while tutoring  inner-city Boston and now working as a pediatrician at San Francisco General Hospital...."

And on the Aspen Idea blog, Rachel Landis details the lessons learned, as recounted by Washington Post reporter Dale Russakoff in her book The Prize: Who's in Charge of America's Schools?, from Zuckerberg's failed $200 million effort to transform the public school system in Newark, New Jersey.

Higher Education

If current trends persist, California will fall about 1.1 million college graduates short of economic demand by 2030. Here's what the Golden State should do to address the situation.

Inequality

"[E]ven in times of low economic inequality only a few people have had abundant money. And a bag of that money in an empty room is nothing but paper," write Janet Topolsky, executive director of the Aspen Institute Community Strategies Group, and Deborah Markley, co-founder and managing director of the Center for Rural Entrepreneurship, in the Huffington Post. "[And what] turns that money into real value is what truly constitutes wealth: skills, creativity, health, experience, agglomerations of knowledge, natural resources, infrastructure, political savvy, relationship networks, and cultural ways of making and doing...."

Innovation

Americans for the Arts' Stacy Lasner reports on the growing number of organizations that are embracing the arts as a way to foster a culture of innovation.

Interview Strategies for Hiring Managers

Not all interviews are equal. There are great interviews and great interviewers, and then there are not-so-great interviews and interviewers. The tips below will ensure that you are in the great camp.

1. Make time to prepare. Don't go into an interview without a plan of action. This includes taking the time to review the resume of the candidate carefully and preparing a list of thoughtful questions in advance. Going into an interview with a comprehensive list of questions will ensure that you don't forget to ask anything and that the interview will move along smoothly. Make sure, too, that you have some generic questions, as well as questions tailored to the open job position itself.

2. Include other colleagues in the process as appropriate. It's always a great idea to bring other colleagues into the interview process. For starters, they can be an invaluable source of feedback as you evaluate candidates, and they also can provide candidates with a more nuanced and layered understanding of the organization. Take the time to prep your colleagues and make sure they have all the relevant materials (including the job description!) and a clear idea about what you'd like them to ask. Don't feel as if you have to include a large number of people, as that can be overwhelming for a candidate and make it more difficult for you to absorb and assess feedback. But do aim for a cross-section of people likely to interact with a new hire on a regular basis.

3. Use the opportunity to shed light on your organization’s culture. If the candidate doesn't ask, be sure to share aspects of your organization's culture so that both of you are able to evaluate whether he or she is a good "fit." You can talk about values, how people communicate with each other, whether or not attendance at a retreat is part of the job (and what the retreats are like), how big decisions get made, what people do for fun — anything that will provide a sense of the overall culture at your organization.

Philanthropy University? It Really May Be the Next Big Thing…

Especially here in Silicon Valley, there are many who believe technology is a silver bullet for social problems large and small. In the Valley, technology is looked to as THE source of innovation and the key to making solutions better, faster, cheaper. Sometimes that is in fact the case; most of the time it is not.

Take the example of PlayPumps, a technology that was designed with children in mind and was supposed to make pumping water in remote villages in the developing world easy and fun. Instead, today, in many villages, the pumps sit broken and idle. Or the soccer ball that was supposed to generate energy when kicked, serving double duty as a toy and a lamp for households without electricity. The balls, praised as ingenious when they first appeared, soon proved to be a bust. And the list goes on.

Sometimes, however, technology can provide exactly the right tool for the job. Philanthropy University would seem to be such a case. In partnership with the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley, Philanthropy University offers free online courses taught by top instructors. In the process, it greatly expands access to the knowledge, wisdom, and best practices social sector leaders need in order to improve human and social service delivery around the globe. (Full disclosure, I serve on Phil U’s curriculum advisory committee.)

To Solve the Succession Crisis, Invest in Homegrown Leaders

The social sector faces a crisis in succession planning. In a 2015 survey of 438 nonprofit C-suite executives, we found that top talent is leaving at an alarming rate. Over the past two years, one in four C-suite leaders departed, and nearly as many told us they were planning to do so in the next two years. If this continues, the equivalent of every C-suite position in the social sector would need to be replaced in the next eight years. No wonder succession planning has been the number one concern of boards and CEOs for more than a decade.

If you are a funder invested in helping an organization achieve impact, this treadmill of turnover should be a cause for concern. Beyond the significant costs and loss of productivity of departures, when leaders go, they also take expertise and stakeholder relationships with them. This directly undermines the ability of organizations to achieve their mission goals.

Just as troubling, when a leader leaves, management teams and boards typically look outside the organization for a replacement. A C-suite officer in a volunteer service organization explained that nonprofits "often start with the assumption that the perfect person is outside their organization." For funders, this should also raise alarm bells. For-profit research indicates that external hires typically take twice as long to become productive as people who have been internally promoted, and as many as 40 percent of externally hired executives fail in the first eighteen months. In the words of the same C-suite officer, hiring externally "often leads to challenges around cultural fit and loss of institutional knowledge."

Fortunately for America's nonprofits, the answer to this succession crisis is right under their noses: invest in the development of homegrown leaders.

In our study, while compensation was important in leadership departures, half of all survey respondents also cited a lack of career development investment as forcing them to leave. For funders, this means that investments in capacity-building activities that can support internal leadership development is key. With an approach that's grounded in academic and corporate research into adult learning, leadership development can be built with time and dedication, rather than expensive trainings or programs.

Building a Strong Money-in-Politics Reform Movement

Democracy requires constant vigilance. Too often, however, our liberty is taken for granted. Unless we vehemently protect it, democracy will perish.

Teddy Roosevelt recognized this better than most. He was, of course, a complicated leader with a mixed legacy, but in his time he saw clearly what you and I see clearly today: that the ability of our elected officials to govern effectively is compromised by a rigged system, and that it is our responsibility to fix it when necessary.

Although the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United has further compromised the system, it is inaccurate to blame the status quo exclusively on the court's ruling. The massive, sprawling system of political money and influence-peddling that increasingly paralyzes Washington and state capitals has been mushrooming out of control for forty years.

The result is quietly but profoundly devastating. On the spectrum that exists between democracy and oligarchy, where would you place America? My friend Mark McKinnon, who many know as George W. Bush's former communications director, recently commented: "Our system is an oligarchy." And poll after poll show that Americans agree.

[Review] 'Systems Thinking for Social Change: A Practical Guide to Solving Complex Problems, Avoiding Unintended Consequences, and Achieving Lasting Results'

What makes a good old-fashioned mystery so much fun? In part, the enjoyment lies in the opportunity to gather clues along the way and figure out who committed the crime and why. In his book Systems Thinking for Social Change: A Practical Guide to Solving Complex Problems, Avoiding Unintended Consequences, and Achieving Lasting Results, systems thinking pioneer David Peter Stroh, a founding partner of Bridgeway Partners and director of www.appliedsystemsthinking.com, draws a parallel between efforts to solve seemingly intractable social problems and the mystery stories many of us love. Instead of asking "Who done it?" however, Stroh suggests that those working to bring about social change should ask, "Why have we not been able to solve the complex social problems that plague us in spite of our best intentions and efforts?"

Questioning the unhelpful modes of thinking that perpetuate chronic social problems is at the heart of Stroh's book — none more so than "linear" thinking, which involves breaking problems into their individual components "under the assumption that we can best address the whole by focusing on and optimizing the parts." For Stroh, this is the opposite of systems thinking. Not only is it myopic, but its failure to recognize and account for the many forces that feed into a problem often leads to unintended consequences. This kind of "conventional" thinking also fails to account for "time delay" — the time required for a series of actions to work themselves out, or, alternatively, for unintended consequences to unfold. As Stroh says, "today's problems were most likely yesterday's solutions."

A prime example of linear thinking is the idea that providing temporary shelter for the chronically homeless will end homelessness. But while shelters would seem to be the most humane and timely response to homelessness, writes Stroh, they're actually an ineffectual "quick fix" that divert time, effort, and resources away from a more lasting, systemic solution such as providing permanent housing. A more systemic solution to homelessness also would improve relationships among all stakeholders, including the people who provide support services to the homeless as well as homeless people themselves. As Stroh notes, the people who are supposed to benefit from social change are "too often excluded" from the actual planning process intended to drive that change. Thinking systemically, he adds, forces changemakers to focus on the people who have the most at stake.

Another example of conventional linear thinking cited by Stroh is America's reliance on mandatory "get-tough" prison sentences. As a growing number of studies have shown, the policy often backfires, in that it distracts the justice system, policy makers, and other stakeholders from addressing the root causes of many crimes while doing nothing to prevent a large percentage of ex-offenders from ending up back in prison. As Stroh writes, "[P]olicy makers who want to protect society from addicts (homeless people suffering from substance abuse or drug addicts who commit crimes) can ironically become addicted to solutions that exacerbate these social problems in the long run."

Weekend Link Roundup (October 17-18, 2015)

Our weekly round up of noteworthy items from and about the social sector. For more links to great content, follow us on Twitter at @pndblog.

Climate Change

Does Bill Gates understand that divestment movements do not need to financially impact their targets to be successful? Not really, argues Katie Herzog in Grist.

And look who just came out in support of the UN climate goals. 

International Affairs/Development

It has been a deadly year for aid workers in the field. Iain Overton reports for the Guardian.

Education

Can separate be equal in education? In Boston, many black families have decided that diversity in the classroom is a luxury, not a necessity. Farah Stockman explains.

On Medium, Jeff Raikes, former CEO of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, has some thoughts on how philanthropy can promote innovation in Education.

Grantmaking

On the Barr Foundation website, Senior Program Officer E. San San Wong discusses three trends the Boston-based foundation's arts team is exploring in the context of a strategic planning process.

Higher Education

Looking for innovation in higher education? Washington Monthly's Matt Connolly highlights ten leaders who are delivering it.

Loose Ties + Strong Trust = Innovation in Los Angeles

In 2008, Lisa Watson was the executive director of the Downtown Women's Center (DWC), an organization dedicated to meeting the needs of women on Los Angeles' Skid Row hoping to overcome poverty and homelessness. That year, Lisa received a Stanton Fellowship to investigate the viability of a co-located social enterprise retail store that would offer workforce training to homeless women and generate revenues for the center. Revenues would be used to subsidize housing and supportive services in the pricey Los Angeles real estate market.

For the past ten years the Durfee Foundation has awarded a select number of Stanton Fellowships to social change leaders in Los Angeles with the aim of fostering innovative solutions to some of the city's most intractable problems. Lisa's project became a reality in 2011 with the opening of MADE by DWC, a gift boutique and café that offers organic coffee and food along with one-of-a-kind vintage and contemporary women's clothing, accessories, household accents, and their signature handMADE product line. One hundred percent of the proceeds support the residents of the Downtown Women's Center, providing the kind of earned revenue that is a vital component of long-term sustainability for most nonprofits.

Cross-Disciplinary Connections

Prior to the fellowship, Lisa had met a handful of other Stanton alumni, all in the housing/homelessness space. Over the course of her fellowship, however, she expanded her connections to include Stanton fellows with expertise in urban planning, health, education, the environment, and economic development, as well as contacts in the L.A. Mayor's Office. The interactions with other fellows significantly affected her project's design as well as its resulting success. "By bringing together smart people from various disciplines in Los Angeles," she notes, "problems can be viewed through various prisms rather than through a telescope. Solutions and strategies are developed by looking more richly at the problem from various perspectives and disciplines."

The Stanton Fellowship provides funds over two years for each fellow to think deeply about a specific challenge related to their work and to tease out solutions that will improve life in Los Angeles. The Durfee Foundation deliberately encourages connecting and knowledge sharing among fellows as a way to foster the cross-fertilization of ideas that might lead to new approaches. Stanton Fellows are intentionally selected to represent a wide-ranging spectrum of issues and sectors, with fellows coming from government and social enterprise as well as nonprofits. Key elements of the program include opening and concluding fellowship retreats that overlap with the next/prior cohort of fellows; quarterly get-togethers hosted by a fellow who provides a tour of the issue they are tackling and includes time for fellows to update the group on their projects; and foundation staff matching fellows with program alumni mentors. In addition, every other year the foundation hosts a retreat to which all alumni of the program as well as current fellows are invited.

Enhanced Peripheral Vision

In order to better understand the network dimension of the program, the Durfee Foundation asked Network Impact to assess the role that ties among Stanton Fellows play in contributing to the program's goals. To that end, in the fall of 2014 we surveyed current fellows and alumni, and supplemented that work with focus-group interviews and Social Network analysis (SNA) to assess the nature of the connections among fellows over time. What we found has implications for funders who are supporting innovation in the social sector, particularly investors in fellowship or leadership development programs who are curious about the wider impact of these initiatives.

Harnessing the Power of Philanthropy to Build Just, Equitable, and Resilient American Cities — Starting With the 'Big Easy'

Nearly two months ago, all eyes were on New Orleans as it marked the tenth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. News crews, policy makers, and organizations from across the social change sector paused to reflect on the progress made over the past ten years — and the work that remains to be done. As funders seeking to make lasting change in the world, we know that true change demands persistent effort over the long term. Many of us have been working in New Orleans since Hurricane Katrina, and a decade later we are coming together to reaffirm our support for the region and re-dedicate ourselves not just to short-term rebuilding but to enhancing the region's long-term resilience. We know that philanthropic investment is as vital to the region today as it was a decade ago, and we challenge our foundation colleagues to join us in making an enduring commitment to building a just and resilient New Orleans.

The challenges New Orleans faced in 2005, and still faces today — sea level rise, climate change, economic inequality, a dysfunctional criminal justice system, educational achievement gaps — are challenges that many American cities will need to address over the coming decades. Our investment in New Orleans is about more than this one remarkable city: it is an opportunity to identify solutions to twenty-first-century problems that are effective and can be implemented across the United States.

Perhaps no American city exemplifies resilience like New Orleans. Ten years ago, Katrina devastated the city, killing over a thousand people, displacing a million more, and causing $150 billion in damage in the surrounding region. Since then, the city has been battered by other hurricanes as well as a devastating oil spill that wreaked environmental havoc on the wetlands which act as the city's first line of defense against storms. Those events amplified some of the most deeply entrenched social, environmental, and economic challenges facing the city.

As the problems grew and New Orleans' role as a bellwether city became clear, some of the nation's biggest foundations — including the Ford, Kellogg, Kresge, Surdna, and Walton Family foundations, in partnership with local funders — turned their attention to the region. What they saw was not only the many challenges confronting the city but the ethos of resilience that unites New Orleans and New Orleanians. Our philanthropic investments in initiatives ranging from affordable housing and efforts to close the opportunity gap to coastal restoration and prison reform have been magnified by the unflagging spirit of the people who live and work in New Orleans, as well as by the generous commitments of local funders.

While each institution has a unique focus, years of working across issues and sectors in this unique city have brought us to three important conclusions: