Will The Sum Be Greater Than the Parts?

May 2, 2011

As trying times continue, an increasing number of nonprofits are exploring alternatives to going it alone, but they’re not closing up shop and discontinuing services either.

One option some are trying is strategically restructuring or merging with another nonprofit to leverage resources, enhance services, become more cost effective, or benefit from the leadership of another organization. As organizations assess this path, what might affect their success?

MAP for Nonprofits joined with Wilder Research to begin a multi-phase study to identify characteristics of successful mergers and factors that influence merger outcomes. In the first phase, these groups recently published “What do we know about nonprofit mergers?”

The report outlines 30 factors thought to affect merger success. The factors – culled from a literature review, key informant interviews and a focus group – are divided into three stages: Pre-merger, the merging process and post-merger.

The report categorizes the factors around financial, external, organizational, capacity, cultural and personnel considerations. For example, organizational structure factors include compatibility between the organizations, including mission, strategy, values and culture. Financial factors include the fiscal stability of each organization and the monetary costs of considering and implementing a merger.

To read a summary of this first-phase report, visit MAP for Nonprofits or Wilder Research.

Next up is a 40-case demonstration study of merged nonprofit human service agencies.

MAP for Nonprofits is a nonprofit ally of the Minnesota Council on Foundations.

Image CC Mountainbread

- Chris Murakami Noonan, MCF communications associate


New Biodiversity Fund Supports Duluth-Superior Region

February 14, 2011

A newly created fund at the Duluth Superior Area Community Foundation provides new grant opportunities for nonprofits focused on the environment. More specifically, the Biodiversity Fund will support efforts to maintain and strengthen biodiversity in the Duluth-Superior region through preservation and restoration of habitat, help for particular species and ecosystems, planning for changing conditions, research, and education.

The purpose is to consider now the value to future generations of the species and ecosystem diversity that will remain when and if human population stabilizes. The grant deadline for this competitive fund is April 1. Grants will range from $1,000 – $10,000.

Fund creator, UMD Physics Professor Tom Jordan, has a long-term vision of ensuring that ecosystem diversity remains for future generations. “Things have changed in my lifetime,” Jordan says. “The world has filled with people.  Human population keeps growing and this is putting pressure and impacts on other species of life.” Jordan goes on to say that by establishing this fund, he hopes to make a difference within the community he loves. “This is what I can do to play a part in ensuring that diversity of life has an opportunity to survive. We can reverse some of the damage that’s done to the environment, but once a species is extinct, we cannot bring it back.”

For complete information regarding selection criteria and application instructions visit dsacommunityfoundation.com.


Legislative Leader Shares Perspectives on Foundations and Nonprofits

February 4, 2011

Our state faces unprecedented challenges – and opportunities – to tackle some extraordinary issues facing our communities. Minnesota grantmakers know they must play a role in the search for solutions. How does the new legislative leadership view philanthropy’s role?

We asked Sen. Amy Koch (R-Buffalo), the new senate majority leader. She authored an article, “Perspectives from the Minnesota Legislature,” for our latest issue of Giving Forum.

She draws parallels between the legislature and philanthropy:

“Foundations are not dissimilar to the legislature; we have responsibilities to constituencies, the fundamental tenets of which have a variety of aspects, not the least of which is fiscal accountability. Foundations and state government must balance the needs of our constituencies with the effective allocation of limited resources – and maximize the impact of each dollar spent.”

To read more of Sen. Koch’s perspectives on creating a leaner government, balancing constituency needs with fiscal accountability, and developing a more efficient tax policy to maximize dollar impact, check out the Winter 2011 issue of Giving Forum, which focuses on how grantmakers are deploying creativity and boldness – in addition to resources – to take on some of the worst disparities and community crises we’ve faced.

- Chris Murakami Noonan, MCF communications associate



Gain Traction for Your Board’s Diversity and Inclusion Efforts: BoardSource Grant Applications Due Nov. 15

November 5, 2010

Don’t miss a terrific opportunity to participate in BoardSource’s pilot “Diversity in Action” program offered exclusively to Twin Cities’ nonprofits and foundations. With resource grants provided by Target Corporation, participating organizations will have the opportunity, at no charge, to assess their board’s diversity and inclusion practices and receive recommendations and resources to help the board affect the desired changes in policies, practices, and board culture and dynamics.

During her talk at the MCF 2010 Annual Convening during the plenary “Leveraging Diversity and Inclusion As Assets for Innovation,” Vernetta Walker, director of consulting and senior governance consultant with BoardSource, invited Twin Cities nonprofits and foundations to apply to participate in this pilot.

Find more information and the simple grant application on the MCF website.

Applications are due Nov. 15.

Participants in the pilot will:

  1. Complete a confidential survey, which takes about 15 minutes, to provide individual perspectives about board practices and dynamics that impact diversity and inclusion.
  2. Receive a data report with survey results and an interpretive memo with key findings.
  3. Receive a step-by-step toolkit with templates and exercises focused on policies, practices, board culture and dynamics, to help guide the board in its transformation to becoming more diverse and inclusive.
  4. Best of all, strengthen your leadership and enhance your ability to serve your organization’s mission, promote dynamic decision-making and a culture of inquiry, and thoughtfully craft a board development plan of action for 2011 and beyond.

BoardSource is dedicated to increasing the effectiveness of nonprofits by strengthening their boards of directors and trustees. Its products and services mobilize boards so that organizations fulfill their missions, achieve their goals and increase their impact and external influence. BoardSource is a 501(c)(3) organization.

- Chris Murakami Noonan, MCF communications associate


Why My Daughter Walked Away From Her Pizza Joint Job (What’s Really Important About Diversity and Inclusion)

November 2, 2010

Little did I know that I’d be able to make a connection between a plenary at last week’s Minnesota Council on Foundations 2010 Annual Convening and the turmoil of my teenager walking away from her highly sought-after, much-coveted part-time job.

A couple of months ago, my daughter outlined her expectations for the ideal part-time job, while I thought to myself, “You better take what you can get. You’ll be lucky to find anything in this economy.”

She was looking for: 10 hours a week during school, more during the summer and vacations; within a 20-minute drive from home; shifts that end by 9 p.m. on weeknights; no frying.

The owner of a nearby pizza place asked her to come in for an interview – at 5 p.m. She stood at the edge of the pizza assembly line as the staff scrambled to turn out pizzas to meet the dinner rush. The owner, standing at the front of the line, asked a few questions while overseeing the chaos, including, “Would you be willing to stand out on the street corner in a pizza costume, hold a sign and wave at cars?”

If you knew my daughter, you would know that this was nothing short of a horrific request, but she said she only made a slight grimace and answered, “Sure.”

Her first (and only) two weeks on the job went something like this: Sat in back room to watch training video, but only got through the first 10 minutes, because the store got busy and she never got a chance to finish viewing it; spent breaks sitting in her car, because she didn’t know what else to do, since she doesn’t smoke and that’s what everyone else did; “re-directed” (interpreted as “yelled at”) to use proper technique to spread pepperoni; mastered the pepperoni, but then was “re-directed” to correctly re-stack the boxes (who knew there was protocol for box stacking?); learned to ask questions to make sure proper procedure was followed, which was typically met with sighs; luckily didn’t have to wear the costume; was never conversed with, only spoken to.

When she quit, she didn’t tell the owner why, nor did he ask.

Back to the convening and the plenary, “Leveraging Diversity and Inclusion as Assets for Innovation,” led by Tawanna Black, MCF diversity fellow and president of Innovations By Design, LLC.

Board culture is the most important factor influencing both the positive and negative experiences of nonprofit board members of color, pointed out speaker Vernetta Walker, director of consulting and senior governance consultant with BoardSource. Culture can include factors such as: Board communications geared to the dominant group; board talking about need to be more inclusive but failing to take action; insensitive or offensive comments or jokes from board members; power maintained by a dominant group and not open to everyone.

This was part of Walker’s presentation of preliminary findings from BoardSource’s research report, Vital Voices: Lessons Learned from Board Members of Color.

Underestimating the critical role of culture may be the reason there has been little change in the number of board members of color in the past 15 years, despite all the talk in our sector about the need to diversify, the focus on recruiting board members of color, and organizational strategies developed to highlight diversity and inclusiveness. According to BoardSource’s Governance Index, in 1993, nonprofit boards were 86 percent Caucasian and 9 percent African American. In 2010, those numbers were 84 percent and 8 percent, respectively.

I implored my daughter to “just be glad you have a job, because not too many people are going to hire someone with no prior work experience,” but that wasn’t enough to get her to stick with it. In the end, even though the job met all her original criteria, she just didn’t like being there, felt alone, and didn’t feel valued. In her words, “I don’t think they care if I quit.”

In the same way, it’s not enough to just invite people of color, offer a seat at the board table, say “We tried” when it doesn’t work out, and move on to the next recruit. The best strategies and intentions can either be undermined – or advanced – by board culture, so we can’t overlook it.

The pizza joint probably doesn’t realize it lost an honest, hard-working, conscientious, personable, smart teenager who would have been a great asset to the business, if only that business had a culture where a complete newcomer felt more like a needed team member and less like a distraction.  

If, in our nonprofits, we create a culture that doesn’t value diversity and inclusion, we all lose too - especially when that culture exists at the leadership level.  

The statistics didn’t budget from 1993 to 2010. What will they look like in 2027?

- Chris Murakami Noonan, MCF communications associate

Note: The PowerPoint presentation, group discussion questions and resources cited during this plenary can be found on the MCF Convening website.


What’s Different and What’s the Same in How and Where We’re Asked to Give

September 29, 2010

It seems that one of the prevalent topics in philanthropy and nonprofit fundraising is the impact of generational differences (or similarities). How will the values and characteristics of the next generation affect who they give to and how much they give? How will those values and characteristics affect how nonprofits interact with this younger generation?

The report The Next Generation of American Giving discusses not just the next generation, but four generations and their charitable giving - what makes each a target worthy of donation solicitations, how do they prefer to be asked to give, and how do they prefer to give and engage with nonprofits?

Released in March 2010, the report was commissioned by Convio, a provider of constituent engagement solutions for nonprofit organizations, and conducted by market research firm Edge Research, with technical support provided by Sea Change Strategies.

The report sought to answer what every nonprofit wants to know: How do we attract the next generations of donors without compromising current revenue from mature donors?

The short answer: The best fundraising is profoundly multi-channel. Seek ways to integrate those channels for stronger results.

The long answer is, of course, much more complicated.  In  Convio’s March/April 2010 online newsletter, in an article titled “Next Generation of American Donors: Changing the Art and Science of Fundraising?” by Tad Druart, Convio’s director of marketing and communications, the company’s Chief Strategy Officer Vinay Bhagat says:

This research and the decline in donor acquisition rates indicate that the marketing model needs to shift to attract the next generation of donors while supporting continued direct mail success. Charities need to move away from a solely direct response focus to a multi-channel approach with a heavier emphasis on online marketing, emerging channels such as mobile and social media, and empowering supporters to market and fundraise with and for the organization. Online marketing programs that have mostly operated as a silo must be integrated with traditional campaigns.

Here are some of the of the report’s findings.

Overview of the Generations

Mature Generation

  • Born before 1945.
  • U.S. population: 39 million
  • 79% gave to a charitable organization (other than school or place of worship) in the last 12 months.
  • Annual average total giving: $1066
  • Number of charities given to: 6.3

Boomers

  • Born 1946-1964.
  • U.S. population: 78 million
  • 67% gave to a charitable organization (other than school or place of worship) in the last 12 months.
  • Annual average total giving: $901
  • Number of charities given to: 5.2

Gen X

  • Born 1965-1980.
  • U.S. population: 62 million
  • 58% gave to a charitable organization (other than school or place of worship) in the last 12 months.
  • Annual average total giving: $796
  • Number of charities given to: 4.2

Gen Y

  • Born 1981-1991.
  • U.S. population: 51 million
  • 56% gave to a charitable organization (other than school or place of worship) in the last 12 months.
  • Annual average total giving: $341
  • Number of charities given to: 3.6

How Do the Generations Like to Give Money and Get Information?

As one would expect, giving a check by mail is the run-away most common giving method for Matures. While giving by mail is still prevalent for Boomers and Gen X, it is significantly less so than Matures. The likelihood of giving via a website increases with younger generations; for Gen X, giving via the web only slightly trails mail, but for Gen Y, the web slightly surpasses mail.

An intriguing note: All generations give at similarly high rates through donations at the check-out registers of retail stores.

Similarly, the predominant charity information channel for Matures is mail. For younger generations, the channels are more varied, encompassing a combination of e-mail, websites and social media.

One of the most interesting findings in the report notes that when looking at how charities solicit donations from those with whom they have pre-existing relationships, donors said the most appropriate form of solicitation was indirectly via a friend who asked for a donation. This finding that  indirect messaging is impactful could have great implications for all those strategies that involve communication “hits” directly between the nonprofit and the donor.

Again, for communication between donors and familiar nonprofits, mail was considered acceptable by more Matures. Mail did, however, score well with younger generations as well, but it is balanced with e-mail, “indicating the importance of multi-channel appeal strategies,” the report writes.

What Triggers Giving?

According to the report authors:

Younger donors are more likely to support a charity when friends/family ask versus the charity asking them. They consider much of their giving relatively random based upon their emotional reaction to something in the media, or based upon who asks. Older donors have a well established commitment to their primary charities. They have a budget set aside for charitable giving, and know the organizations they plan to give to. This suggests that it is harder for a new charity to break in with older donors, but once you secure them, they are quite committed. Younger donors represent relatively open targets. The best way to reach them is either through inspirational stories in the media or better still,via their friends. Given that a vast majority of charitable marketing efforts today are directed towards direct donor engagement and solicitation versus stimulating peer-to-peer engagement and general media exposure, it would suggest that those marketing efforts are poorly aligned with what younger donors say motivates them to give.

To read the full report, including recommendations for “Actions You Can Take Tomorrow,” visit the Convio website.

Learn More at the MCF 2010 Annual Convening

This report and other insightful research and tools will be part of an Idea Session, “Unleashing Our Human Assets: A Fishbowl Conversation on Engaging All Generations for Change,” at the 2010 MCF Annual Convening. Titled “Innovative Strategies for the Future: Realizing Our Full Potential,” the convening for Minnesota grantmakers will be held Oct. 28 and29. For more info, visit MCFconvening.org.

- Chris Murakami Noonan, MCF communications associate


Small Foundations Pay Out Big, Study Finds

July 6, 2010

As Foundation Source processed grants last year and analyzed data collected from Form 990PF filings of nearly 500 of its small and mid-size private foundation clients, it tracked the pay outs and compiled what it found. Its just-released study concludes that, in 2009, 83 percent of these small to mid-sized foundations paid out more than they were required to by the IRS. (The IRS requires that private foundations distribute at least 5 percent of average investment assets annually for charitable purposes.)

In fact, the study says that 58 percent exceeded the minimum distribution requirement by at least 5 percent of their average investment assets.

The larger payouts are continuing into 2010, the Foundation Source also notes, reporting in May that it was seeing a 15 percent increase in grantmaking among its clients.

“Ninety-nine percent of all family foundations are under $100 million,” says Foundation Source President Andrew Bangser. “These generous foundations represent more than half of all foundation giving in the US, nearly $16 billion in 2007. … The data shows that most family foundations have not limited their giving to the minimum amount required by the IRS. And small and midsize family foundations stepped up dramatically in this tough economy to assist a wide variety of people, organizations and causes.”

Foundation Source provides support services for more than 900 private foundations across the U.S. representing $4 billion in foundation assets.

To learn more about the study, view it online on the Foundation Source’s website, or read about it in the Chronicle of Philanthropy.

-Chris Murakami Noonan, MCF communications associate


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,454 other followers