Friday, January 14, 2011
Thursday, August 19, 2010
“Without help from corporations, non-profits will surely find themselves increasingly irrelevant to the 21st century.”
Just more than a decade ago Craig Smith put this harsh prediction in his book “Giving by Industry: A Reference Guide to the New Corporate Philanthropy.” Mr. Smith analyzed various industries and examined how charities could match their solicitations with the company’s goals.[i]
It turns out he was right. Christina Gold, CEO of Western Union, says, “Nonprofits would do well to consider the full range of benefits they can offer their corporate sponsors.” A corporation is not just trying to do well; it is creating a positive public image. And, at least in Western Union’s case, this involves working with nonprofits that aligned with their social programming and geographic reach.
Their Our World, Our Family program achieves this by providing financial services expertise to the company’s primary client base. Importantly, the program provides “opportunities for [Western Union] to offer value beyond monetary contributions alone.”[ii]
One example of this type of contribution is the Target Forensics lab. By allowing federal crime investigators to use their labs, as well as fund police forces and create inter-office information sharing technology based on inventory management, Target Corp. increases goodwill while investing in a safer environment. Potential payoffs could include less shoplifting or safer and happier employees.[iii]
Two years ago Target was ranked 11th “Most Admired Company” by Fortune Magazine, in large part because of its policy of giving back to the community.[iv] The company consistently donates about 5% of its pre-tax income and early last year Target leveraged this in a Facebook campaign in which fans could vote for which group they wanted Target to fund.
The two-week long Facebook campaign was intended to spread awareness of Target’s charitable activities. As Chadwick Matlin puts it, corporation philanthropy has two rules. Rule 1: A corporation should do good. Rule 2: It should tell everyone that it’s doing Rule 1.[v]
Now it Target’s case, donating to St. Jude’s Children Hospital may not line up with their public image as a trendy, cheap retailer. But other companies work with nonprofits in corresponding fields. For example, much of the philanthropy of pharmaceutical companies goes to university science programs.
So how can your nonprofit find a corporate partner?
1. Look for a corporation whose vision lines up with yours. If your objectives and those of the company are similar, it’ll be easier to justify why they should give you money.
2. Remember this is a business partnership. As Ms. Gold said, “I appreciate it when potential partners respect our time by coming prepared with ideas that clearly resonate with who we are… Those NGO’s that clearly have done their homework in advance enable us to have a much more productive conversation.”
[i] C. Quinn Hanchette. “Industrious Charities Can Earn Corporate Gifts, Author Says.” Philanthropy.com. Jul 15 1999.<>.
[ii] Caroline Preston. “Rethinking Corporate Giving: Western Union’s CEO Offers Her Philosophy.” Philanthropy.com. Jun 3 2010.<>.
[iii] Sarah Bridges. “Retailer Target Branches Out Into Police Work.” WashingtonPost.com. Jan 29 2006. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/28/AR2006012801268.html.
[v] Chadwick Matlin and Win Rosenfeld. “Target’s Facebook Philanthropy.” May 20 2009. http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/video/2009/05/20/targets-facebook-philanthropy.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
I write to you as a summer intern of the Constaré Group, LLC. Perhaps the junior title alone is enough justification for you to ignore my post but I urge you to keep reading for that very reason.
First, picture your organization’s board. How many of them look like me, that is to say, how many of them are younger than thirty? What about thirty-five? Still coming up short? Should this even matter to the success of your non-profit? Enter: me, the young intern here to argue that my generation can indeed make a positive impact on your board and in your organization.
The discussion of board diversification with respect to age is no novel topic. Non-profit gurus have been debating the pros and cons of young board members for years. The 2007 Nonprofit Governance Index reported a mere 2% of board members under the age of 30. On the other hand, 62% are 50 or over. Accordingly, 36% are between 30 and 50 years old.
Obviously, the soaring representation by the over-50 set is logical. These individuals bring the kind of wisdom and experience that only comes with time. Presumably, they have served on the organization’s front lines. Now they help steer important boardroom decisions based on past successes and failures- experiences the younger age brackets can only dream of having. These young folk probably lack the kind of wisdom, skills and - let’s face it - fiscal resources to be significant contributors to your board. This mindset justifies why aggressive recruitment of Generation Xers and Millennials is slow at best.
What I have a hard time justifying is the glaring disparity in age distribution within the board. Why so heavy for over-50s? Can’t we have a trickle-down effect to better represent all ages?
Why Older Members
Let’s think about this: Generation Xers are roughly between the ages of 30-50, implying a stage in life where family and work take priority over all else, including your organization. This being the case, a leadership role with non-profits probably takes a backseat to family or work commitments. If an evening board meeting means missing your kid’s soccer game or work travel means you don’t have free time, we know where loyalties lie.
Not to suggest they do not care about your organization- no, quite the opposite. It is simply a matter of time, or a lack thereof, which points to two conclusions: (1) you should recruit more board members over this age window and (2) you should look for new members below this window.
Why Try the Younger Set?
Obviously, I am interested in the latter notion. The “under-thirty” crowd would seem to have more free time, without major family commitments. Moreover, this group represents the largest generational demographic since the Baby Boomers. If they (and by “they” I mean “we”) have a high presence in the community, shouldn’t that be reflected in your boardroom?
A lot of the opposition I have read regarding young board members is that their pockets simply do not run deep enough. While it is certainly true that one of the main functions of the board is raising money, we at Constaré preach to the three T’s: Time, Talent, and Treasure.
What we lack in Treasure, we can make up for in Time and Talent. We are the people who will step up with enthusiasm saying, “I can do that” or “I’ll spend time with those who are being served” whereas the board veterans are your key players for picking up the tab from time to time or for understanding their duty to give money on an annual basis. Both parties are giving back to the board and the organization, are they not? In every sense of the word, it is the “giving back” culture of a board that enables a nonprofit to do great things.
You’re going to want some fresh meat, right out of college or further studies. The business majors, like me, have fresh ideas and a keen understanding of modern business practices to kick your organization into high-performing gear and get it up-to-date with modern times, best practices, sustainable measures, savvy technology, accountability and other current buzz words in the business world. The potential board members from other educational focuses bring very similar knowledge, not to mention a level of technological savvy unique to my generation. Regardless of where we focused our studies, having a younger, results-oriented board member will also open your organization to a new network of volunteers and tribe members.
Still skeptical? Perhaps you can try a similar alternative such as a young friend group or allow us to be on a special advisory board or some sort of nonvoting body; just be sure that whatever you choose to do you make the expectations and commitments.
Sure, we will soon hit that phase in life where family and work take the reins but you might as well get all the energy, ideas and smarts out of us before that time his. The clock is ticking. Shake off the “like me” bias that too often narrows the scope of the applicant pool. Why aren’t you recruiting yet?
Friday, July 30, 2010
Constaré’s mission in the non-profit world is to get such organizations to act and think more like for profit businesses, with the ultimate goal of becoming sustainable. While this may seem like common sense, non-profits are notorious for operating inefficiently without sustainable strategies in mind. Although many non-profits are successful, there are weaknesses in how many smaller (and larger) not for profits are managed. One of the main weaknesses of non-profits seems to be the length of time it takes to get things done; many non-profits are plagued with slow paced work and outcomes. This slow pace could mean any of the following things—slowness of grant writing, slowness in launching marketing campaigns, updating website, filing tax returns, etc. This weakness is not to downplay the passion or time that many board members and volunteers put into managing nonprofits. However, passion for helping the needy (or any another noble cause) cannot alone make an organization successful. There are reasons that non-profits operate at a slow pace but if they want to be more successful in fulfilling their missions they must change how they are organized and run.
Non-profits may operate slowly and inefficiently for a variety of reasons. Volunteers and people who have full time jobs often staff non-profits and this has an effect on what people can do/have time for. While a person may be committed and passionate about the organization’s cause, they may have prior engagements that lead to slower turn around time in non-profits. Other issues with time may be related to technology. Oftentimes, communication between board members is not organized and information sharing is less than adequate. Without proper communication, carrying out simple activities becomes slower and the productivity of the non-profit could decrease. Instituting something such as Google Apps, which would create a unified email and file sharing between board members, would ensure that everyone has access to the same documents at the same time. However, non-profits are often slow to change techniques and update technology. Some may still be relying solely on U.S. Mail for newsletters and donations while others have moved to the Internet. While monthly or yearly mailings are still a good idea, a nonprofit cannot be successful without having a presence on the Internet. Every minute longer it takes to get something done or adapt to new trends, means fewer services provided to those in need and potentially less money donated to the cause.
In today’s society, there are more non-profits than ever. Many of these organizations are providing competing services. Making sure that your non-profit operates at a fast and efficient pace is, therefore, of the utmost importance.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
 “Baptist Hospital, Nashville’s largest nonprofit hospital, built a $15 million office and training complex to rent to the Tennessee Titans professional football team, partly for the revenue, but also for the marketing opportunities”
 John D. Colombo, Commercial Activity and Charitable Tax Exemptions, 44 Wm. & MARY L. REV. 487, 489 (2002).
 Gail A. Lasprogata, Marya N. Cotten, Contemplating “Enterprise”: The Business and Legal Challenges of Social Entrepreneurship, 41 Am. Bus. L.J. 67, 68 (Fall 2003).
 Id. at 68-69.
 Id. at 70.
 Id. at 69.
 Heather Gottry, Profit or Perish: Non-Profit Social Service Organizations & Social Entrepreneurship, 6 Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol'y 249, 258 (Summer 1999).
 Id. at 258-259.
 Janet E. Ker, Sustainability meets Profitability: The Convenient truth of how the business judgment rule protects a board’s decision to engage in social entrepreneurship, 29 Cardozo L. Rev. 623, 629-630 (November 2007).