The secret to a successful corporate/social sector partnership is for each partner to be simultaneously self-centered and other-focused. In this video post, Diane Knoepke talks about the three ways we are failing to live up to what we know about what makes these partnerships work.
By Amy Hines, Senior Vice President, The Alford Group
With the start of an unprecedented intergenerational wealth transfer, not-for-profits have a lot to gain by avoiding any inadvertent pitfalls that deter potential donors from contributing to their efforts. With access to the internet, donors do not have to rely on government scrutiny to avoid unscrupulous charities (Besides, government entities have limited authority as watchdogs). Donors can look for evidence themselves, vetting charities with a tap or a click.
Maintaining integrity is key—but ensuring that an organization’s optics convey that integrity is also essential.
A potential donor’s due diligence before opening her wallet, is likely to take place by heeding to the credo–“follow the money.” While that may in fact be just a line in a movie, it resonates in the philanthropic ether as a sound way to approach investigating an organization’s worthiness.
How do potential donors assess the money trail? There are several logical ways:
- Look at the organization’s website to see if financial information is being reported in a transparent way.
- Go online to GuideStar, the primary resource for accessing an organization’s IRS 990 and comparing similar organizations.
- Go online to Charity Navigator to see how the organization is rated.
- Go online to BBB Wise Giving, to check out whether they have been accredited as a trustworthy national organization.
It’s important for not-for-profits to manage the optics of their organizations in these four locations. Here’s how. Continue reading “Optics Matter: Avoiding Red Flags that Undermine Your Fundraising Efforts”
Every day the news carries another story about the work in Washington, DC to negotiate a deal on the debt limit and serious debt reduction activities. The issues are familiar – potential spending reductions and potential tax increases. One side will not budge from its position of no new taxes – and the other will not budge on its position of achieving results with new taxes and limited spending reductions. We know they need to collaborate to solve this – yet they are providing a good example of what collaboration is not. Over the next few weeks we will discover if they do learn the meaning of the word.
In the meantime, in our own communities, we have the ability to collaborate every day – and yet in the not-for-profit world I tend to see more competition than collaboration. How can we set an example to work with other not-for-profit organizations that have similar missions, values, and services? Is there a chance to provide improved services to the community utilizing fewer resources and thus improving efficiencies? Do organizations ever attempt to discover the answer to these questions?