www.JonahHalper.com

In the U.S. it is typically understood that an organization’s board of directors is expected to participate in fundraising efforts and to make leadership gifts of their own. I have heard colleagues of mine call it the 3 G’s of board responsibility – GIVE, GET or GET OFF (the board)! Bottom line, the growth of a charity is rooted with the board of directors, and their obligation to give themselves and open their own rolodexes is a must for healthy growth.

However, there are orgs that have boards that provide great vision and insight but not the sense that they should be part of the development efforts. This is especially prevelant with some start-up orgs that have boards made up of initial relationships of the founder and other individuals who lend professional and academic guidance. These boards need to “graduate” from only helping with the policy making aspects of the organization to fundraising elements as well.

The question is how to take a board that doesn’t “get it” and make them part of the fundraising process?

Today I read a good post on how to educate and train a board of directors in getting over the fundraising hump. Nothing truly innovative, but its nice to see these thoughts in print:

Fundraising by Boards Is Not Universally Accepted
January 27, 2010 by Stephen G. Donshik
Filed under Managing Your Nonprofit

Last week I had the opportunity to meet with a group of colleagues who were involved in fundraising for non-profit organizations in Israel. They represented a cross section of Israeli organizations that provide social, educational, health and welfare services to clients and members across the social and religious spectrum of the country. It was clear to me, and it would be clear to anyone who was sitting in the room that these people are committed to their jobs, as well as the organizations, and they have the highest professional values and great enthusiasm for their work.

The focus of the discussion was on the role of the board of directors in the financial resource development of the organization. Although a number of the people in the room had been with their agencies for years, it was not taken for granted that securing the financial sustainability of a non-profit organization was the responsibility of the members of the board as well as the professional staff. Many of the fundraisers reflected on a commonly held view that the volunteer leadership of the organizations they worked for gave of their time in attending meetings and provided their advice on a variety of issues, however, they did not perceive of themselves as having responsibility for providing for the financial security of the organization.

Although raising funds for non-profits is understood to be a function of the board of directors in the United States, it is not a universally accepted practice in Israel. During the last twenty years organizations in Israel have become more sophisticated and the long held practice of boards meeting once a year to hear “what the executive director accomplished last year and what she wants to do next year” has been questioned. More and more non-profit agencies have regularly scheduled board meetings, every 4 to 8 weeks, and these boards understand they have responsibility for the policies guiding the organization’s functioning.

Included in this acceptance of broader responsibilities is also being accountable for the financial oversight of the agency. Of course it means being aware of and signing off on the receipts and disbursements of the organization. In addition it has also meant taking on of the task of guaranteeing the financial viability of the non-profit agency. This not only means that the fiscal oversight, and insuring the proper financial procedures and controls are in place, but also participating in securing the funds needed for the ongoing provision of services to clients and members.

My colleagues were very interested in knowing how to begin to work with a board so they would be prepared to become involved in raising the funds needed. There are several approaches that can be adopted when working with the volunteer leadership. Each has its advantages and disadvantages and it is really a matter of finding the right fit between the specific way of working and what is both viable and effective given the organization’s culture.

One approach is for the board of directors to review their role and function in the organization and through the use of “retreat” or “planning process” to have the leadership take a good look at their purpose and how they are assisting the agency. One of the issues that is placed on the agenda is financial resource development, and the issue should be dealt with in a way that allows people to learn some new ideas and to express their reticence in fundraising. The process should provide the opportunity for the leadership to think about the implications of the volunteer leadership being involved in fundraising.

This process provides an opportunity for the board to think in new and different ways about their taking on the responsibility as “lay leadership” to raise funds. It has the potential of changing the culture of the organization. Simultaneously, if they are successful it will lead to new expectations for the annual efforts to raise funds. It is quite possible that there will be a real change in the way board members perceive their role and the role of the community’s leadership.

Another approach is to have the board agree to form a Financial Resource Development (FRD) committee that will assume responsibility to begin to raise funds. The committee will develop a strategy to supplement existing sources of income and will plan to approach individuals, foundations, and others. There will be on-going reports to the board of directors so they will develop an understanding of how the committee functions and what it has achieved.

It is important to have a dual focus on both “fundraising” and “friend-raising”, and the results of the initial activities cannot be measured in a specific dollar (or shekel) amount. This initial stage is concerned with developing an organizational presence and increasing the funds available for both the ongoing expenses and special projects. The process also provides the FRD committee with a series of experiences and allows them to develop a repertoire of new practices that can be used in the coming years.

Once the board begins to assume this responsibility, either through a decision of the board to begin fundraising or through an incremental process initiated by one committee, there will be a collective learning experience. The volunteer leadership will learn how they can have a major impact on the organization by assuming some of the responsibility for the financial sustainability by playing an active role in raising funds for the agency.

Stephen G. Donshik, D.S.W., is a lecturer at Hebrew University’s International Leadership and Philanthropy Program and has a consulting firm focused on strengthening non-profit organizations and their leadership for tomorrow. Stephen is a regular contributor to eJewish Philanthropy.

I was very disappointed in Michael Steinhardt’s estimation on the failures of “Jewish Continuity” pinning the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Hebrew School movement, which is the prevalent form of formal Jewish education outside of Orthodox Day Schools.

What bothered me is that he blames the Hebrew schools for not properly engaging the students and turning them into passionate and proud Jews.

Steinhardt expresses his anger with those described as “wonderful educators” in the Reform and Conservative movements for having done “such a poor job under-educating our next generations” by failing to distinguish Jewish values from Christian values. To Steinhardt, it is virtually impossible now to identify a non-Orthodox Jewish student at any secular university from a non-Jewish student.
“I think that many of the trends that we have seen – such as the fact that 55-60% of non-Orthodox Jews are marrying ‘out,’ such as the fact that only 15% of total philanthropy of Jews goes to Jewish causes – are reflective of that fact that non-Orthodox Jewish education in America has been, and continues to be, a shandah – an abysmal failure.”

Michael Steinhardt is supposedly someone who is an innovator of helping young Jews connect with their heritage. Although I haven’t thoroughly read the Birthright report, I am aware that the outcomes of students who went on birthright have not really upped their commitment to Judaism. If Michael Steinhardt wants to understand why his business model is flawed, he should stop, listen and learn instead of his preaching.

Jewish continuity falls squarely on the parents. Parents who make Judaism a central part of their every day lives, will find their children will do the same. It isn’t that Orthodox Day Schools themselves make identifiable Jews, rather it is the parents who view this as a priority and look for ways to infuse Judaism into every day instead of once a week. Anyone who sees their synagogue or Jewish education limited to the milestones of Bar/Bat Mitzvah, Wedding and Funeral will undoubtedly raise children who do not see Judaism’s centrality.

So, if we want to find the anti-Steinhardt…who would it be?

Let me introduce Debra and David Magerman. Their Pennsylvania based, Kohelet Foundation has built a business model that fosters full family growth and commitment to Judaism. Parents who want to receive substantial scholarship for their children to attend Jewish private schools, must participate in a weekly study program. In a partnership with Partners in Torah, participants are paired with someone who is knowledgeable in Jewish study, where they will have their own Jewish education with the hopes of affording their children a quality Jewish education as well.

Allow me to quote the Kohelet Foundation directly:

The mission of the Kohelet Fellowship Program is to dramatically improve the effectiveness, affordability, and enrollment of American Jewish day schools by offering incentive based Jewish learning programs for parents of day school students. We believe that a parent’s participation in this program deepens the value of their children’s educational experience by encouraging and enriching the parent’s own sense of Jewish identity and access to the wisdom of our rich heritage. We also recognize the significant financial commitment a family must assume to place and keep children in day school. To support this dedication on the part of day school families, the Kohelet Fellowship Program provides a stipend for participation in its programs to make the cost of this commitment more affordable.

I think Michael Steinhardt should take a step back and think of a way to infuse adult education – on a regular basis – as a possible prerequisite for birthright participation or other incentive for fostering Jewish continuity among our children.

ALTRUICITY, is a name I came up with about 4 years ago when I first started to toy with the idea of one day opening a marketing firm for the nonprofit world. Well, that has evolved into a fundraising/management consulting firm along with the marketing strategy and design/print.

In an effort to explain what kind of services we provide, I sat down last week and prepared the following list:

ALTRUICITY: CONSULTING
We provide clients with fundraising strategy and implementation, with an emphasis on developing streamlined processes that address the important elements of database/prospecting, outreach/events, and cultivation/solicitations.

• We help you engage your leadership in the fundraising process so that the fundraising model is driven by the organizational leadership.
• We audit your donor and data base as well as existing fundraising efforts to enhance existing operations, and address areas of weakness.
• Review and revise marketing strategy (i.e. The mission statement, case for giving collateral materials).
• Create a clear and realistic fundraising action plan, and provide oversight ensuring that the leadership stays on track.
• Provide organizational benchmarks, reflecting the efforts in organizational structure as well as fundraising successes.

ALTRUICITY: EVENTS
We understand the importance of a quality event in promoting the mission and good work of the organization, as well as bringing in the vital dollars needed to keep the organization alive and well. Whether it is the creation of a new event from scratch, or to take an existing event to the next level, we expertly work with your leadership from beginning until end.

• We help you engage your leadership in the event planning and solicitation process.
• We oversee all aspects of the event coordination.
• We help you promote and ensure great event attendance.
• We help you develop new areas, or strengthen existing opportunities, for charitable giving.
• We guide your leadership to effectively prospect, cultivate and solicit potential donors.

ALTRUICITY: MARKETING
We firmly believe your ability to succeed, relies on properly conveying your organizational mission to your constituencies. Perception is reality, an organization may have a strong case for giving, but without proper marketing, your donors, service recipients, community leaders or political activists, will be unable to distinguish the true value of your institution and respond favorably. We don’t help you break through the clutter – we make sure you stand apart from it so your message is loud and clear to the intended audiences.

• We provide full branding services, from logo and stationary design and print, to developing a strong mission statement and case for giving.
• We ensure your presence on the web is clear, concise and attractive while offering cutting edge e-philanthropy opportunities.
• We ensure all your collateral materials are cohesive, following an informal style-guide approach so that it is clear from every invitation, flyer, advertisement etc. comes from your organization.
• We engage your existing and prospective donors through the utilization of online social networks and media.

This is a work in progress. I am sure I will be tweaking this, but for now I hope to bring on a few clients, demonstrate substantial success with them, and then bring on more clients and hire more consulting and marketing staff.

Up, up and away!

Most things that are worthy, most things that will change the world, are at their inception disliked

Michael Steinhardt, billionaire philanthropists (founding partner of Birthright Israel), blasted Jewish leadership at recent meeting. He stated that all the research studies in the world and conversations, will not bring about change. We need to come up with aggressive ideas that will create real impact. These game changers are almost always resisted as being off base etc. but the truth is that the innovative ideas, tend to against the status quo.

To see the video click here.

Billionaire Aids Charity That Aided Him

Thirty years ago today, Sergey Brin, a 6-year-old Soviet boy facing an uncertain future, arrived in the United States with the help of the society.

Now Mr. Brin, the billionaire co-founder of Google, is giving $1 million to the society, widely known as HIAS, which helped his family escape anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union and establish itself here.

“I would have never had the kinds of opportunities I’ve had here in the Soviet Union, or even in Russia today,” Mr. Brin said in an interview. “I would like to see anyone be able to achieve their dreams, and that’s what this organization does.”

Great story – but the success of HIAS in cultivating this gift is found deep in the article:

The family lived in Paris for several months while waiting for visas and then moved to Maryland, and the relationship with HIAS ended. “Although they gave us tremendous help, we didn’t stay connected with HIAS,” said Eugenia Brin, Mr. Brin’s mother. “Then a few years ago, I guess because of Google, we got a call from HIAS asking if we could help them digitize their archives.”

Eventually, Mrs. Brin joined the HIAS board and started a social networking site, mystory.hias.org, initially to encourage Russian Jewish immigrants to post their stories and eventually to attract the stories of other immigrants.

Yup, engaging Sergey’s mom in HIAS decades after their relationship expired has now turned into $1 Million. Are you engaging the right people?

A Great Article.

Easier Said Than Done : The Magic Words of Fundraising
These two words one good, one bad have the power to boost or destroy your messages.
By Jeff Brooks

The best line in the article:

Donors don’t give because of who you are. They give because of who they are. Effective fundraising works with this fact, not against it.

Playboy Enterprises and the Jewish Federation of North America are more alike than you care to believe…

This morning I read an article on MSN Money making the case for Playboy Enterprises to sell themselves and to put Hugh Hefner out to pasture. What I found intriguing was that analysts covering the company actually price the assets of the company higher than the price point of the stock. Why is this? The Playboy brand.

Playboy represents the unique combination of sex and “class”. No one else has that, and perhaps with new owners and a new face to the company, Playboy can become the industry leader again.

This got me to thinking about some similarities that Playboy shares with Federation. Both institutions have deep roots that go back to when our parents and grandparents were children. In fact, whether you care to admit it or not, some fathers had their personal collection buried in the back of their closets. It was “our fathers’ magazine”. With the easy access to pornography today, with images and video readily accessible, Playboy has had a hard time turning a profit, when everything is available free of charge and on the viewer’s terms.

Federation also has an incredible brand, and is perceived to be the paradigm of Jewish giving to my parent’s and grandparent’s generation. The question begs why I should be involved with a seemingly static institution when I can find philanthropic opportunities that are truly customized to my interests and available resources?

I know that the Federation is the backbone of so many social, educational and humanitarian services in Jewish communities across the U.S. but I hope Silverman, who is rebranding the national entity as the Jewish Federations of North America (formerly United Jewish Communities) is prepared to recommend drastic changes that will change the face of Jewish philanthropy in the United States.

Playboy and Jewish Federations have lost their subscribers. Both have an incredible brand and can make changes that will put them at the forefront of their industries. Should I buy stock in Playboy? Federation?

UJC’s new name: Back to the future

This has been brewing for a while, but the national United Jewish Communities (UJC) is changing its name to The Jewish Federations of North America.

The UJC was formed in 1999 with the merger of United Jewish Appeal (UJA), Council of Jewish Federations, and United Israel Appeal. The intention was to concentrate the various functions of federated giving — the single community campaign that raises money for local Jewish agencies, Israel, and global Jewish casues.

But it’s legacy has been rocky, with various complaints that the UJC didn’t do much for its federation members, lacked a vision, and didn’t act nimbly in the face of various new challenges to American organizational life, especially the overall decline in federation-style giving.

But now the umbrella has a new head, Jerry Silverman, who has a background in marketing and branding. According to a release, the name change is:

part of an ongoing effort to create a stronger continental brand and market positioning for the Federation system…. [T]he new name builds on strength of familiarity of local Jewish Federations, aligns with 90 percent of local Federations’ names, and reflects the best practices of other large federated non-profits.

The name does sort of leave stranded the federations, including United Jewish Communities of MetroWest NJ, who changed their name in the last decade in order to be in synch with the UJC brand. (Its previous name was United Jewish Federation of MetroWest.) Does this mean some of them will begin switching back?

UJC (sorry, JFNA) already seems to be urging federations to adopt their new logo (see above):

The new logo of The Jewish Federations of North America – with a circular design and menorah – is a strong, innovative mark, rooted in Jewish tradition, signaling our centrality and stature, while being inviting and optimistic. Local Jewish Federations have embraced the need for greater consistency and many have volunteered to adopt the visual identity (e.g., logo) locally. The logo will also be customized for use by our 400 Network Communities. Nearly 20 Federations have already expressed their interest, and are looking to adopt the new logo in the coming months.

A big part of this rebranding, obviously, is to reclaim the “federation” name, which both UJC and a lot of local federations ran away from in the past decade — prodded, famously, by a remark by mega-giver Charles Bronfman that most young people associate “federation” with “Star Trek.” (Find a short history of the merger here.)

Now they’ve come full circle, reclaiming a name most of their constituents were never really able to part with.

(I think the new logo echoes the United Way’s famous logo with its rainbow motif. UnitedWayLogoThat would make some sense, since federations engage in “United Way” style giving — a consolidated community campaign for a variety of causes.)

[JustASC is written by Andrew Silow-Carroll, Editor-in-Chief of the New Jersey Jewish News.]

Anyone who knows me well in a professional setting will know that my idol is the bald-headed, Seth Godin who is an author and lecturer on permission marketing.

Today he wrote the following on his blog and it is spot on as usual:

The problem with non

Non as in non-profit.

The first issue is the way you describe yourself. I know what you’re not but what are you?

Did you start or join this non-profit because of the non part? I doubt it. It’s because you want to make change. The way the world is just isn’t right or good enough for you… there’s an emergency or an injustice or an opportunity and you want to make change.

These organizations exist solely to make change. That’s why you joined, isn’t it?

The problem facing your group, ironically, is the resistance to the very thing you are setting out to do. Non-profits, in my experience, abhor change.

Take a look at the top 100 twitter users in terms of followers. Remember, this is a free tool, one that people use to focus attention and galvanize action. What? None of them are non-profits. Not one as far as I can tell. Is the work you’re doing not important enough to follow, or is it (and I’m betting it is) paralysis in decision making in the face of change? Is there too much bureaucracy or too much fear to tell a compelling story in a transparent way?

Beth has a great post about the feeling of vertigo that non-profits get when they move from the firm ground of the tried and true to the anti-gravity that comes from leaping into change.

Where are the big charities, the urgent charities, the famous charities that face such timely needs and are in a hurry to make change? Very few of them have bothered to show up in a big way. The problem is same as the twitter resistance: The internet represents a change. It’s easy to buy more stamps and do more direct mail, scary to use a new technique.

Of course, some folks, like charity: Water are stepping into the void and raising millions of dollars as a result. They’re not necessarily a better cause, they’re just more passionate about making change.

A few years ago I met with two (very famous) non-profits to discuss permission marketing and online fundraising and how they might have an impact. Each time, the president of the group was in the room. After about forty five minutes, the meetings devolved into endless lists of why any change at all in the way things were was absolutely impossible. Everyone looked to the president of the group for leadership, and when he didn’t say anything, they dissembled, stalled and evaded. Every barrier was insurmountable, every element of the status quo was cast in stone. The president of the group was (he thought) helpless.

When was the last time you had an interaction with a non-profit (there’s that word again) that blew you away?

Please don’t tell me it’s about a lack of resources. The opportunities online are basically free, and if you don’t have a ton of volunteers happy to help you, then you’re not working on something important enough. The only reason not to turn this over to hordes of crowds eager to help you is that it means giving up total control and bureaucracy. Which is scary because it leads to change.

If you spend any time reading marketing blogs, you’ll find thousands of case studies of small (and large) innovative businesses that are shaking things up and making things happen. And not enough of these stories are about non-profits. If your non-profit isn’t acting with as much energy and guts as it takes to get funded in Silicon Valley or featured on Digg, then you’re failing in your duty to make change.

The marketing world has changed completely. So has the environment for philanthropic giving. So have the attitudes of a new generation of philanthropists. But if you look at the biggest charities in the country, you couldn’t tell. Because they’re ‘non’ first, change second.

Sorry if I sound upset, but I am. The work these groups do is too important (and the people who work for them are too talented) to waste this opportunity because you are paralyzed in fear.

I have only one caveat. It isn’t really fair to say that not having twitter is equated with not getting with the times on effectively conveying your message. Many organizations are short staffed and I would like to believe that the focus in these places is on developing relationships with their donors and not having time to man twitter, blogs etc.

IF however there is time for direct mail and other forms of mass communication, then there is no excuse on not joining the 21st century…stop wasting your money on postage stamps and be willing to effect change.

(Nice find, CJ!)