Sheridan Wood, of the Kansas City Free Health Clinic, said she has formed some interesting and creative collaborations, none more so than the one with No More Homeless Pets. Together the two groups launched an online fund-raising effort called Fuzzy Photos that has raised more than $80,000 per year.
Having now reached the pet-owning crowd, Wood’s organization went after the youth market by partnering with the AIDS Service Foundation on a highly successful beer fest. “They are our future donors,” said Wood.
“The younger group is much more demanding,” attested Jan Leonard, “much more activist.”
Brett Gordon of McCownGordon was also keen on reaching the next generation. “I look around the table. We are all getting a little older,” he said, “but it’s that next generation we need to touch that is going to have the in-come to put back in the community.”
Return on Investment
Pat McCown noted that in business a good deal of attention is understandably focused on performance. He questioned whether donors were demanding a return on their investment as well.
“My tolerance to do outcomes reporting,” said Mark Litzler wryly, “is much greater if there is a $100,000 check than when there is a $7,500 one.” Litzler shared his frustrations about having to document in detail just how a $7,500 grant was spent.
“One of the things that really grinds me,” said Litzler, “is when we’re not held to the same kind of professional standards that you would a mid-manager or a manager at a blue-chip, Fortune 500 company.” Although the skill-sets of the respective managers may be the same, Litzler continued, “We’re held to the kind of accountability standards that you would a teenager with his allowance.”
“There is no consistency across the board,” said Michael Halterman in regard to donor requests for information. “I would agree with Mark. We spent more time answering those type of questions than sometimes is worth the money.”
Yvonne Miller, executive director of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation in Kansas City, offered something of a cautionary note: “I don’t know how well of a job we are doing in communicating with our donors what we are doing with the monies that we have raised.” She was not convinced that grant recipients were presenting donors with the kind of usable information that would help their decision making.
Jud Alford, with the National Kidney Foundation of Kansas and Western Missouri, noted that given all the good causes asking for money, it was imperative to establish with donors the following; “Why is ours different?
Why are we unique? Why is this a good place for you to invest your money?”
Peter Yelorda, executive vice president of Blue Cross and Blue Shield, shared the frustrations of those on the donor end. As he related, his board went through months of discussion on how to measure ROI before finally acknowledging, “You can’t really measure a lot of this stuff the way you would measure an investment in your financial portfolio.”
Alice Ellison, the VP of community relations for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City, agreed. She cited one example after another in which it is very nearly impossible to measure any meaningful ROI. “If we help just one child,” she said of a company gift to the Children’s Center, “I think that’s successful. How can you qualify that or quantify that?”
“It’s one thing to talk about outcomes,” observed Tracy McFerrin Foster with Hall Family Foundation. “It is another thing to talk about social impact. It’s very hard and expensive to measure social impact.”
As Foster noted, there is no real standardization of reporting, nor can there be. In her Foundation’s efforts to be user-friendly, they ask that the recipients evaluate results based on their own particular criteria.
In the company’s role as donor, McCownGordon “does not drill down very often” on the question of ROI. “But does it cross our mind?” asked Pat McCown. “Absolutely it crosses our mind.” He added, “We have a stewardship responsibility just like you guys do with our dollars.”
“I think it is important to have some outcomes measurement,” offered Susan Stanton. “And when you’re funding a change initiative, I think it is essential, because there is so much learning that can occur.”
In funding basic services, however, Stanton argued that measurement demands should be minimal. United Way, for instance, puts its recipient agencies through a certification process only once every three years.
Dave Renz, whose organization re-searched non-profit effectiveness and performance, believes the notion of
a singular, objective reality of effectiveness or success is an “illusion.”
As Renz noted, the differences in missions and expectations across the not-for-profit sector are huge. “How can you possibly judge the Nelson-Atkins and Wayside Waifs by any kind of standard criteria, except those that are frankly pretty minimal,” he asked.
Renz added that Donor Edge had headed down the path to standardization for a while before accepting a more subjective assessment by the donor.
As Janice Benjamin observed, the real challenge for fundraisers is with the individual sector. In dealing with foundations, government, and corporations, they expect certain standards of evidence-based outcomes.
“But when you deal with an individual who has made a transformational gift or made a $7,000 gift, you’re dealing with quirks,” she added. “You’re dealing with people who give money for different reasons.”
(...continued)