We can’t help but talk about our excitement for ETOlution 2008! We’re looking forward to thoughtful discussions, hearing from nonprofits and other organizations who have made the commitment to incorporate measurement and accountability into daily activity, and learning from insightful industry insiders such as Mark Friedman, Marty Miles, David Hunter, and our own Steve Butz.  

We also hear there will be an appearance by Dave Butz himself, so be sure to check out his Fan Club and leave a comment or question for Dave. And if you are one of the millions on Facebook these days, be sure to friend Dave and join his Facebook group.  He promises to friend you back.  Not a Facebook member? Sign up here.  

With just under a month until the main event, we’ve started the countdown.  Check out this video from last year’s conference where Steve, Adrian and David Hunter talk about the conference and the importance of measuring results.  You’ll also hear from Catholic Family Services and Roca who talk about the advocacy work Social Solutions offers and how using ETO Software has helped their organization.  

Now do you see why we are excited?

It brings a whole other level to the question, “What is it like working here?”  We were struck by a recent article in the Wall Street Journal discussing the trend of companies offering volunteer activities for employees—and by volunteer, they mean more than cleaning up a park or creating a team for an upcoming walk.  The WSJ points out that some companies are now lending out skilled employees to nonprofits around the world to provide professional services that these groups are often in desperate need of.  Accounting firm Ernst & Young offers an overseas volunteer initiative that gives employees the option of doing volunteer work for weeks or even months at at time overseas, all while on the company’s dime and with the promise of coming back to their job.  Pfizer runs a similar program where the company has sent over 150 employees from 22 countries to 31 other countries.  PNC Financial Services, Target, and UPS offer similar programs as well. 

As an estimated 40% of major companies support employee volunteering were encouraged to see a handful of companies, if not more, realize that the true impact they can make is more than sending a check along to an organization.  By investing the time and employees, both the company and organization benefit.  Even more so, were encouraged to hear that people seeking jobs take a company’s community and philanthropy into account when chooseing between employers. Sounds like a win-win situation to us.  By investing the time and employees, the company, its employees and the organization they are helping benefit.  We call that a win-win. 

It’s not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  Sure, try telling that to a Boston Red Sox fan who just lost to the Yankees.

In baseball, there is a reason why a coach benches a star player when the team, who has clinched a play-off spot, is down and the post-season is just a few weeks off.  A win tonight doesn’t make a difference—its the success of the team down the road.  

So, what does this mean for nonprofits?  Like baseball, sometimes the best results for nonprofits aren’t necessarily immediate.  We tend to think of success in terms of a win or loss, and either way, we want it now.  Rarely is a situation that simplistic or our demands met. 

In nonprofits, many factors can determine an organization's success.  Is an after-school program considered a success because every seat in the room is full?  Or is it a success because the kids who are in great need of being off the streets are attending?

It’s the struggle in making that determination where measurement plays a significant role.  Measurement is more than knowing what works and what doesn’t.  It’s taking that knowledge and applying it to programs, to events, to fundraising, to whatever your challenge is, and making it work--without the fear of admiting a setback or failure.

For nonprofits that need to meet the demands of boards, funders, donors and those who they are serving, applying measurement can be a tiresome task and getting over the fear is a challenge.  Yet, it's this change in thinking that can unlock an organization's success.

Interesting concept.  Focus on the "getting there" than just the there.  It's not usually how one thinks of success.  But as many of us know well, success is rarely achieved without experiencing the long-haul.  Maybe that’s why there are 162 games in the baseball season.  

We’re hearing a lot of buzz over the term competitive compassion. Unofficially defined, competitive compassion is contributing to a charity or cause in a greater amount than others or for recognition.  The term was often used following the 2004 tsunami in South Asia, when governments were practically stumbling over each other to out-donate each other with relief support.  Lately, we’ve seen it used in describing what one reporter describes as the “look-at-me” approach to philanthropy.

Maybe it’s because of Oprah’s latest endeavor, “The Big Give,” that we talked about last week.  Or the Donald’s “The Celebrity Apprentice,” where giving is a competition ... among celebrities.  Or recent praise for actress Drew Barrymore’s  donation of a $1 million to the UN's World Food Programme, followed by criticism of her very public announcement of it.  After all, celebrities are often criticized to have fallen victim to such display of competitiveness.  It seems like everywhere you look a celebrity is coming out for a cause, donating just a little more money than their co-star.  

Oprah’s latest endeavor and Trump’s spin-off have both received criticism from the insiders of the nonprofit world as well as the media itself.  One would be hard-pressed to not face competition in the corporate world, but when it comes to philanthropy, it seems to be a bit out of character.

What do you think?  Is competitive compassion turning philanthropy into an exercise of self-congratulation?  Or is any awareness, competitive or not, good for the industry? 

We've all heard the phrase "It takes a village to raise a child."  An ongoing study from the Chapin Hall Center for Children made the village case for foundations.  Researchers studied the link between longevitity of funders and the success of the community to which is receiving their contributions.  The researchers call it embedded philanthropy.  A unique concept, embedded philanthropy involves foundations who hold an unusually intimate and enduring engagement with the communities in which they live and work.  The researchers identified four items of criteria to be considered embedded philanthropy.  The first is that the concept requires a long-term commitment in a specicied location.  The second is that a direct and ongoing relationship with the community exists.  Third, the funders believe such relationships come first in terms of strategy.  And finally, monetary grants are a part of the funders’ appraoch.

The study found that a number of foundations who held deep roots in their community were able to contribute to successful and effective changes in the area.  Whereas large, national foundations tend to come in, write a check, and then leave, embedded foundations stay in it for the long-haul.  

We’re reminded of a quote by American writer and management consultant  Peter F. Drucker, who said, “Unless commitment is made, there are only promises and hopes; but no plans.”  The idea of embedded philanthropy could path the way for smaller organizations to make an influential impact.  Embedded giving became a buzzword in 2007.  Is embedded philanthropy the next big thing for 2008?

Fighting perception can be an uphill battle.  When it comes to American’s perceptions of how nonprofits spend donations, the nonprofit world has a lot to make up for.  A recent study by Ellison Research found that Americans believe that too much of their donated dollar is going to cover operational expenses.  Nearly 62% of Americans think that too much money is spent on costs associated with fundraising and administration.  According to the study, the average amount Americans feel nonprofits should spend is 22.4 cents on the dollar, but in reality, Americans believe that groups are actually spending 36 cents.

What organizations should be most concerned with is that the study found that 22% of Americans have a highly negative view of charities’ financial efficiency.  Twenty two percent.  One fifth of Americans.  Doesn’t sound like a lot, but when you think in terms of donations, having to fight this perception or belief is yet another challenge when it comes to fundraising and meeting goals.   

We all know overhead and operational expenses exist.  Any organization or business needs them to function. But as Ellison president Ron Sellers points out, whether the belief Americans feel is accurate or not, their perceptions very well may influence their giving decisions. Like many issues, Americans tend to categorize charities ias one in the same.  Which is why many worry about the fall-out of recent scandals with the Red Cross and others and the affect of public scrutiny on legit and accountable organizations.  Fighting perception is an uphill battle, but one that can’t afford not to be fought. We can’t say it enough.  Accountability, accountability, accountability.  Say it.  Do it.  Show it.  And prove those perceptions wrong.  

CBS’ 60 Minutes had a piece on the battle over pennies that got us thinking about the value of money (check it out here). The arguments over pennies ar">e not about who has them and who doesn’t, but about whether they should exist at all.  Why the talk about getting rid of the penny?  For starters, because of the inflating prices of copper and zinc, the two metals that make up the penny, a penny is now valued at 1.67 cents, more than its 1 cent determined worth.  Or what about the idea that 1 cent can't buy, well, anything these days?  Another argument is that transactions at the register involving the penny take more time.  And in today’s word, it would be hard to argue that more time is less valuable than a single penny.  On the other hand, groups like Americans for Common Cents argue that the penny is worth its weight as a monetary unit and a piece of Americana (nostalgia and culture).

But how does one determine the real value on a penny?  Or a dollar for that matter.  For nonprofits, putting a value on dollars is critical to their existence.  And were not talking about simplistic claims from those infomercials that $2 a day will save a child.  But nonprofits can put a value on volunteers, on donations, and on their programming.  Volunteers are a large part of many functioning organizations. According to The Independent Sector, the dollar value of a volunteer in 2006 was $18.77, over three times the federal minimum wage in the same year.  DonorPowerBlog discusses net present value or NPV calculation for nonprofits, which helps nonprofits in determining smart donor reactivation programs that will be worth both the time and money involved.  Smart fundraising is an added value to any organization. 

So, how can nonprofits put a value on money when it comes to their programming? Try being effective.  Creating and implementing programs that work.  Programs that make your $18 an hour volunteers want to be a part of your organizations and goals and come back.  And, we have to say it, be sure to measure your programs to ensure that their value, unlike the current state of the dollar, never dips.   

The value of money, beyond the simple economics of it, has been up for debate for years.  No doubt, the argument over the penny and all its worth (or non-worth for that matter) is likely to continue.  When it comes to nonprofits, the value of money is more than what stands behind it. Its what lies in front of it. 

Tags: Nonprofits, USPS, Christian Science Monitor, Charities

Tags: Nonprofit, Nonprofit Organizations, Employment, Johns Hopkins University