Category: fundraising

fundraising, logic model, messaging, strategy

Are you including funds for M&E?

With limited time and resources, nonprofit organizations are often forced to make tough decisions. Given the importance of the work they do – to those who do the work, to the constituents they serve, and to their donors and funders – it takes priority over everything else.

In fact, nonprofits are so busy trying to get the work done that when it comes to monitoring and evaluation (M&E), they often choose to do the work rather than stop to reflect and measure their impact. The result is a focus on outputs (the products or services provided, e.g. number of trees planted) rather than outcomes (a change in the way people or the system behave, e.g. reduced rates of deforestation). After all, it’s easier to measure what the organization has done in terms of activities than what it has achieved in terms of impact.

The problem is that M&E is an essential part of doing the work well. At the most fundamental level, measuring the work helps an organization to learn and improve the work it does, so it can do it both more efficiently and more effectively. It also helps an organization make the case that it does in fact make a difference in the world – that its work is actually solving a problem and it isn’t just spinning its wheels with no lasting effect. Organizations who take the time to monitor and evaluate their work also demonstrate a sophistication in their management and approach that helps them to rise above organizations who don’t prioritize learning and growth. And all of this strengthens an organization’s case for support, which in turn helps it attract more funding for its work.

Of course, even if an organization wants to monitor and evaluate its work, it doesn’t always have the resources to invest in it. Donors provide funds to get the work done but not to do the M&E required to improve it. While an organization can do some basic M&E on a tight budget, it certainly helps to have some financial support – as well as the encouragement from donors.

And donors should be investing in an organization’s M&E. If nothing else, monitoring and evaluating the work helps donors to see and understand the result of their investment. For foundations who have broader strategies to solve a problem, it can help them to measure their progress towards achieving their own goals in the field, as well as better understand what’s happening in the field in ways that could inform their own strategies. And instead of running their own evaluations, foundations should have the grantees do the M&E, for two reasons: (1) because they’re out in the field and closer to the work, grantees can provide more accurate information; and (2) it builds grantees’ own capacity to do M&E and to continuously learn and improve their work.

Since M&E is so valuable to both organizations and their funders, it should be a part of project budgets. M&E can be a line item for a dedicated staff member, or a consultant to help design a system the organization itself can run, or even just a percentage of the grant. Organizations should be asking for M&E funds, and funders should encourage their grantees to include M&E in their project budgets.

The best part about building M&E into the project budget is that it sets expectations that M&E is a part of doing the work – not something apart from it. Because it is part of the work: learning and evaluation is an important feedback loop that keeps the work on track, focused, and ultimately effective.

There shouldn’t be a choice between doing the work or measuring it. They should be one and the same.

case for support, communications, fundraising, messaging

What not to do in a fundraising appeal

So just today I got an email from an organization that I admire very much. They do great work supporting a cause I care a lot about and they are a lynchpin of their community. Their email was a request for funding, a relatively small but not insignificant amount of money, and a fairly deadline for reaching their fundraising goal. I thought about giving a few dollars to help them out, but first I asked a few questions.

The first question I wanted to know was, “Well, why do you need the money?” They state up front that they are facing an operating deficit. Okay, that makes sense, but why? Was it a failure to raise funds? Did one of your major donors not give this year? Is membership down? Or was it poor budgeting and financial management on your end? What happened that you have this shortfall? Because your answer may influence my willingness to give, particularly if it pertains to questions about how you manage the organization.

Secondly, what’s the urgency? Why now? And then I saw a qualifier I hope I never see in any other fundraising appeal: “nothing life-threatening.” Now, this is 100% true: this is an arts organization and no one will die if they drop a few programs or services. But still, why are you downplaying the importance and urgency of this appeal? Granted, hyping up the urgency isn’t going to help either, but why are you reminding your potential donors that they don’t really have to give? They even state that the shortfall is only 3% of their budget. Stop downplaying your need!

To their credit, they do point out that they will have to cut programs and services if they do not meet their gap. Okay, so now I’m concerned again. What programs and services? How will I be affected? How will other constituents be affected? Unfortunately, they list out the major services they provide as a reminder of the things they do, but it’s not clear that they will cut these programs (the foundations of their organization) or what if any changes they will make to them. What are the consequences of not giving? Again, why is this important and why is it urgent?

Finally, what are the benefits of giving? They point out that if we help them meet their goal then they will start the next fiscal year on sound footing. Okay… But what’s in it for me? I know it sounds selfish, but compelling fundraising appeals frame things from the perspective of the recipient, not the sender. Because this organization wasn’t clear about how any cuts will affect me, I also don’t know how meeting this small, non-life-threatening gap is going to benefit me or make any difference for the things I care about.

So, let’s recap a few important lessons to learn from this appeal:

  1. Always state the need up front.
  2. Make it clear why this need is important and urgent.
  3. Don’t downplay the important and urgency of your appeal.
  4. Be specific and concrete when talking about the need and the consequences.
  5. State the benefits (or costs) to the donor as it relates to what they care about.

How do you write fundraising appeals? What are some best practices you’ve encountered? What are some things to avoid doing when writing an appeal?

fundraising, management, planning

How to set your priorities straight

In the nonprofit world, there is always plenty to do – more than we can actually accomplish at any one time. And sometimes we have a whole list of things that seem both important and urgent.

In his book, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, author Stephen R. Covey uses a method for setting personal priorities, noting that we often focus on the immediate and unimportant (e.g. email) at the expense of longer-term and more important goals.

In working at and with different nonprofit organizations and foundations, I’ve learned a useful framework to help set a program or organization’s priorities. I call it the Lift-Reward-Risk Method.

Whether you’re making choices about strategic investments, evaluating potential program partners, or assessing a list of potential donors or funders, the Lift-Reward-Risk Method can help you examine where to invest your time, effort, and resources.

Here’s how it works. For each item on your list, evaluate the following:

  • Lift. How much effort will it take to do? (Heavy, Medium, Light)
  • Reward. What’s the potential gain if you succeed? (High, Medium, Low)
  • Risk. What is the probability of failure (or, inversely, success)? (High, Medium, Low)

So let’s say you have a list of potential funders and you need to prioritize so you can focus your efforts on writing grant proposals. If there’s a funder that is a heavy lift, a low reward, and a high risk, then knock it down on your list – it’s probably not worth the effort. However, If a funder is a heavy lift and high risk but a high reward, it might be worth prioritizing. If you have a bunch of light funders with low rewards and low risks, it might be worth it to invest time in some and then invest the rest of your time in that other big whale of a funder. Either way, at least you can have a clear decision-making process for setting priorities. This is useful for your own work but just as important, if not more important, when working with a team. It helps to make sure everyone is on the same page about the work and where the team should focus its energy.

And remember: lowering the priority of something doesn’t mean not doing it – it just means not doing it now or not investing as much time and effort into it now. Because we all have limited time and resources and we should be using them in the most efficient and effective way possible.

So consider the lift, reward, and risk of your options. It will make it easier to move forward with confidence.

Is your team or organization clear about priorities? Is there a clear process for making decisions about priorities, and how to handle unexpected opportunities? What methods do you use to set priorities for yourself, your team, and your organization?