Comments on: Survival Of The Fittest? http://www.theagitator.net/dont-miss-these-posts/survival-of-the-fittest/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=survival-of-the-fittest Fundraising and advocacy strategies. Trends, tips ... with an edge Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:21:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Heather Rayment http://www.theagitator.net/dont-miss-these-posts/survival-of-the-fittest/comment-page-1/#comment-7068 Heather Rayment Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:25:30 +0000 http://www.theagitator.net/?p=1191#comment-7068 What Scott has achieved is incredible no matter how you look at it. I work for a charity based in the UK and every year volunteer’s work in rural Kenya building sand dams. What strikes me most is that if you give people the resources they need to improve their lives they will do it. This summer’s group started on Monday in Munathi, they had over 50 local volunteers working with them on Monday and on Tuesday they were joined by another 70 volunteers from a community 10km away. The dam was finished by Wednesday - an incredible achievement that will bring clean water to 100's of people. These volunteers raise funds to buy the supplies used to build the dams, 100% of this goes to the projects - they see not only the results of their hard work, but also of the money they raised. What Scott has achieved is incredible no matter how you look at it. I work for a charity based in the UK and every year volunteer’s work in rural Kenya building sand dams. What strikes me most is that if you give people the resources they need to improve their lives they will do it. This summer’s group started on Monday in Munathi, they had over 50 local volunteers working with them on Monday and on Tuesday they were joined by another 70 volunteers from a community 10km away. The dam was finished by Wednesday – an incredible achievement that will bring clean water to 100′s of people. These volunteers raise funds to buy the supplies used to build the dams, 100% of this goes to the projects – they see not only the results of their hard work, but also of the money they raised.

]]> By: Bob Bland http://www.theagitator.net/dont-miss-these-posts/survival-of-the-fittest/comment-page-1/#comment-6950 Bob Bland Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:06:47 +0000 http://www.theagitator.net/?p=1191#comment-6950 On question one, my pro-bono client, the Boys & Girls Club of Bisbee, received a $3 million grant from an individual to allow its creation and to cover all admin costs in perpetuity. So we tell people that every dollar goes entirely for program and it is true. Without that grant, the Club could not exist in what is the smallest community served by a B&GC. Student Conservation Assn could make that claim since the fee-for-service partnerships do cover most admin costs. There are some bureaucratic reasons that we do not make the claim. The old system was that the National Park Service provided 75% of the total program costs and SCA was obligated to raise the rest. Back in 1997, I repackaged that as a 3:1 Challenge. Every time the leadership changed, we had to explain our re-interpretation of the arrangement. As of today, the NPS flipped the arrangement and it is now a true Challenge grant arrangement. By the way, in searching for charity:water ratings, I ran across this take on a similar claim by Smile Train: http://www.charitywatch.org/articles/smiletrain.html On question one, my pro-bono client, the Boys & Girls Club of Bisbee, received a $3 million grant from an individual to allow its creation and to cover all admin costs in perpetuity. So we tell people that every dollar goes entirely for program and it is true. Without that grant, the Club could not exist in what is the smallest community served by a B&GC.

Student Conservation Assn could make that claim since the fee-for-service partnerships do cover most admin costs. There are some bureaucratic reasons that we do not make the claim. The old system was that the National Park Service provided 75% of the total program costs and SCA was obligated to raise the rest. Back in 1997, I repackaged that as a 3:1 Challenge. Every time the leadership changed, we had to explain our re-interpretation of the arrangement. As of today, the NPS flipped the arrangement and it is now a true Challenge grant arrangement.

By the way, in searching for charity:water ratings, I ran across this take on a similar claim by Smile Train: http://www.charitywatch.org/articles/smiletrain.html

]]> By: Jonathan Eyler-Werve http://www.theagitator.net/dont-miss-these-posts/survival-of-the-fittest/comment-page-1/#comment-6943 Jonathan Eyler-Werve Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:08:36 +0000 http://www.theagitator.net/?p=1191#comment-6943 Two thoughts: 1) Charity:water, as the excellent name suggests is a pure charity. It's taking money from people and turning into clean water. This is different from big swaths of the social sector in that they do no advocacy or attempt to change the things that are making people unable to provide water for themselves. Nothing wrong with that, but it's a bit awkward for organizations like mine (Global Integrity) when people ask "how much of my money goes to programs?" We're incredibly lean, but the question makes little sense in an advocacy organization: you're not buying a product, you're supporting a movement with non-linear progress and non-obvious strategies. I can't give a GPS location of a slightly better freedom of information bill. 2) It's hard to argue that charity:water using Twitter to fundraise is cannibalizing existing revenue streams, as Twitter didn't exist a few years back. More importantly, the donor profile is different: I don't think any UNICEF (or whatever) donors got on Twitter and suddenly quit giving to UNICEF. More likely, a new generation of donors, with new expectations and preferences, is growing up and starting to give. Two thoughts:

1) Charity:water, as the excellent name suggests is a pure charity. It’s taking money from people and turning into clean water.

This is different from big swaths of the social sector in that they do no advocacy or attempt to change the things that are making people unable to provide water for themselves. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s a bit awkward for organizations like mine (Global Integrity) when people ask “how much of my money goes to programs?” We’re incredibly lean, but the question makes little sense in an advocacy organization: you’re not buying a product, you’re supporting a movement with non-linear progress and non-obvious strategies. I can’t give a GPS location of a slightly better freedom of information bill.

2) It’s hard to argue that charity:water using Twitter to fundraise is cannibalizing existing revenue streams, as Twitter didn’t exist a few years back. More importantly, the donor profile is different: I don’t think any UNICEF (or whatever) donors got on Twitter and suddenly quit giving to UNICEF. More likely, a new generation of donors, with new expectations and preferences, is growing up and starting to give.

]]> By: Curt Lauber http://www.theagitator.net/dont-miss-these-posts/survival-of-the-fittest/comment-page-1/#comment-6940 Curt Lauber Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:30:56 +0000 http://www.theagitator.net/?p=1191#comment-6940 While I admire everything about Scott Harrison and charity:water, I would point out two "but's." First, the whole notion of selected donors paying for administrative costs is pure sleight-of-hand. Those donors would certainly have made the same gifts to "operations," so the percentage of total gift revenue committed to water and wells remains the same. I cannot find a way to admire this sleight-of-hand. 2nd, charity:water has the advantage of potential donors knowing immediately that human lives will be saved with their gifts. Most charities need to make the case for the rightful place of their charity in the world's pecking order of needs. Scott is such a creative and capable guy, I suspect he could manage this challenge quite well. While I admire everything about Scott Harrison and charity:water, I would point out two “but’s.” First, the whole notion of selected donors paying for administrative costs is pure sleight-of-hand. Those donors would certainly have made the same gifts to “operations,” so the percentage of total gift revenue committed to water and wells remains the same. I cannot find a way to admire this sleight-of-hand.

2nd, charity:water has the advantage of potential donors knowing immediately that human lives will be saved with their gifts. Most charities need to make the case for the rightful place of their charity in the world’s pecking order of needs. Scott is such a creative and capable guy, I suspect he could manage this challenge quite well.

]]> By: Katrina VanHuss http://www.theagitator.net/dont-miss-these-posts/survival-of-the-fittest/comment-page-1/#comment-6938 Katrina VanHuss Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:27:31 +0000 http://www.theagitator.net/?p=1191#comment-6938 I serve national non-profits with logo-imprinted products to enhance fundraising. I find that the inertia in these organizations is immense. The pressure on staff to conform and the politicized infrastructures make nurturing a new idea virtually impossible. If not death by committee for a new idea, then death by lawyers. Great staff people often don't survive. This guy didn't just see through the clutter, or think outside the box. He doesn't even know there is a box. He simply addressed the problem, and the major concern of donors. His story puts air back in the room. God bless him! Katrina CEO, Turnkey Promotions I serve national non-profits with logo-imprinted products to enhance fundraising. I find that the inertia in these organizations is immense. The pressure on staff to conform and the politicized infrastructures make nurturing a new idea virtually impossible. If not death by committee for a new idea, then death by lawyers. Great staff people often don’t survive.

This guy didn’t just see through the clutter, or think outside the box. He doesn’t even know there is a box. He simply addressed the problem, and the major concern of donors. His story puts air back in the room. God bless him!
Katrina
CEO, Turnkey Promotions

]]>