Helen Brown Group

By

Data Privacy: An Update Since We Last Spoke

By: Jessica Woodbridge, Senior Consultant

Jessica Woodbridge

Jessica Woodbridge

“U.S. must lead on privacy. Businesses need it, Americans want it, AI accelerates harms.”  – U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell, Chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and author of the bipartisan American Privacy Rights Act (September 2024)

It’s been a year since my colleague Michele Borucki and I presented our session “Data Compliance: The Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How” at the 2024 NEDRA conference. It was also this time last year we published Data Privacy: Where We’ve Been and Where We are Going and Data Privacy (Part 2): Practical Tips and Better Practices to the Intelligent Edge. Since then, we’ve seen an uptick in data privacy enforcement as well as a need for more clarity by both organizations and the individuals whose privacy is being protected.

According to the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), 144 countries have enacted national data privacy laws, covering 6.64 billion people or 82% of the world’s population under the protection of some form of national data privacy legislation. Unfortunately, as of 2025 there is still no comprehensive federal data privacy law in the U.S. Rather, we see 20 states (5 more than this time last year) that have signed their own versions into law. The main themes among many of these state laws include individuals as consumers’ rights to their data, policies to opt-in for sensitive data as well as to opt-out of advertising and data sales, global privacy controls (a universal opt-out mechanism), a data protection impact acceptance process, as well as an automated decision-making policy. A growing focus appears to be on sensitive data and how it is processed as well as on data minimization. Maryland’s Online Data Privacy Act, which will go into effect in October 2025, has been noted as one of the strictest privacy laws in the country partly due to it imposing the strictest data minimization obligations and use restrictions.

2024 IAPP State Legislation Tracker

2025 IAPP State Legislation Tracker

It’s important to note that although many of these laws pertain mostly to for-profit entities, states such as Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Oregon do not exempt nonprofits in their privacy laws, and it is likely there will be more to come. Additionally, even if these laws are not applicable, nonprofits should be as diligent as ever in data hygiene and maintenance. Whether it be adding a donor’s email to a CRM system so they can receive the nonprofit’s messaging or sharing their intention of adding a nonprofit in their estate plans, our donors, volunteers, and other key stakeholders trust that we as data controllers will keep their personal data safe. It’s important for you to be aware of your organization’s protocol for who has access to prospect research and to make sure you are practicing data minimization.

While more than 40% of the country falls under these state privacy laws, it can be difficult to maintain compliance given that each state has its own version. In April 2025, the bipartisan “Consortium of Privacy Regulators” was formed between seven attorney generals and the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA). Through collaboration and pooled resources, the consortium’s main goal is to protect consumers’ privacy. Additionally, according to Connecticut Deputy Associate Attorney General Michele Lucan, “there is ‘a benefit’ for companies to deal with a group of regulators versus answering to individual complaints.”

We cannot discuss data compliance and privacy in the nonprofit sector without mentioning Artificial Intelligence (AI). In addition to not having a comprehensive federal data privacy law, no federal law exists currently for AI privacy. There are a few states that have incorporated “automated decision making” regulations into their privacy laws, including Colorado, Utah, and California. According to the New York-based law firm, White & Case LLP, “automated decision making can be understood to mean the use of AI, machine learning systems, and/or algorithms to make decisions with or without minimal human input and control.” Nonprofits may be using AI to increase operational efficiency, such as helping put together messaging for a marketing eblast, finding new donor trends, or assisting with prospect research. With this also comes the need to make sure the use of AI tools is in compliance with any pertinent laws. Some great resources for AI in the nonprofit sector include IAPP’s US State AI Governance Legislation Tracker, The Fundraising.AI collaborative, and APRA’s Ethics in AI for Fundraising Toolkit.

Looking ahead, it will be interesting to follow the “Consortium of Privacy Regulators” as it is just getting started. Also, staying abreast of the different comprehensive data privacy laws will be crucial as there are currently 12 more states with statutes/bills in committee. Data is an essential tool in our toolkit. Let’s continue to be good stewards of data through increasing our knowledge, collaborating with colleagues, and continually fine-tuning policies and procedures.

 

 

 

By

How to Research In A Chaotic World

By: Jayme Klein, Senior Consultant

Jayme Klein

No matter which industry you prospect for, all nonprofits are feeling affected these days. Leadership and fundraising offices at national and international organizations alike are worried, rightly so, and trying to make contingency plans to make sure the important work they are doing continues to be funded to maximize their impact.

What can prospect development do in the face of massive cuts to the nonprofit sector? How can we help our colleagues and communities amidst so much uncertainty? It feels daunting and impossible, but there are steps that we can take in our everyday roles to help sustain the causes that we work for and care about.

Look for the helpers: The National Council of Nonprofits has taken on the herculean task of filing lawsuits against these cuts, advocating for nonprofits, and providing excellent resources on risk assessment, workforce development, budgets, and other issues. Though outside of the prospect development sphere, their work affects all of us who hold nonprofits dear.

The Council on Foundations recently released a public statement fighting back against potential infringements on free speech and cuts to nonprofits. They encouraged all charitable organizations to sign on to the statement, which is searchable. While not all of them are increasing their grant output, they are still allies.

Think creatively: As researchers, we’re all trying to find the donors who will help push our causes forward. When all of us are revisiting our budgets and thinking twice about our spending, how can we identify donors who are able to give right now? Are you struggling to populate your fundraisers’ prospect pools? Keeping your database clean is a good place to start. Are addresses up to date? Can you identify phone and email information? Do you have constituents’ birth date information for planned giving solicitations? This post has a lot of helpful tips for cleaning your database.

On the other hand, are you overwhelmed by the sheer number of donors in your database? One of my clients here at HBG runs a regular report of anyone who donates above a certain threshold. This automatically populated prospect list makes it easy for me to assign a preliminary rating and bring them to fundraisers’ attention. Another useful tool through their CRM is assigning constituents to “campaigns,” which groups them easily for reporting. If I’ve found a donor is a high rated prospect, they get added to that campaign, which creates a great prospecting/research list.

How is your employment data? Are any of your donors employed by (or a retiree of) major corporations? Are they taking advantage of a gift match? This search tool is an amazing resource to cross-check your database against. Most donors don’t know that their employers match their gifts, which leaves money sitting on the table. Prospecting off of matching gift-eligible prospects could be a boon for fundraisers. Another resource is Double the Donation. Although they offer paid services, their resources page offers a helpful list of top matching gift companies if you need a quick guide.

The same goes for donor advised funds. In a recent Freewill webinar, co-chief executive officer Patrick Schmitt made an excellent point about identifying DAF holders in your database. Whatever these donors have invested in their funds is already allocated towards charitable giving and cannot be used for any other purpose. Have you identified those donors in your database? Here at the Helen Brown Group, we’ve spent the past few years populating DAFinitive® for this very purpose.

Gather your resources: Professional development and extra resources might be hard to come by right now. A great way to stretch that budget is to look for free offerings in the nonprofit sector right now. Lots of generous companies and people are providing networking opportunities, resources, workshops and webinars that could spark the next good idea. If your organization uses Kindsight, they have a new training video hub on a number of topics, including prospecting, modeling and other ways that you can use their product. If you’re a Blackbaud user, some of the trainings are available at no additional cost.

Take a breath: These are unprecedented times for our field, and for the world at large. Remember that what you do matters, and that the smallest actions in your research can yield large results! All of us are working to protect the causes that we care about right now in any way that we know how. As Helen said for Research Pride/Prospect Development Month, “We make a significant impact on a nonprofit’s fiscal success by keeping the focus on the best potential sources of funding. That description “best” may change from moment to moment, and it’s our job to figure out (or participate in the process of knowing) what “best” means at any time.”

By

Of Fires, Philanthropy…and Flashlights

By: Mandi Matz, Senior Consultant

Mandi Matz

Mandi Matz

Like many people, I usually approach a new year with cautious optimism.  It’s a clean slate. A blank page in the calendar.  Nothing but possibility.  So, I felt pretty good during the first few days of 2025. Then Los Angeles caught on fire…and, like so many people, I watched in utter disbelief as parts of my adopted hometown of nearly 20 years burned and smoldered into rubble.  By the time January ended, its 31 days felt like 15 years.

I’m lucky. Although I live near one of the big fires, I didn’t have to evacuate.  There were a few scary days, with a lot of smoke and ash in my area, but compared to so many people, it was nothing.  Nevertheless, I’m grateful to all of my friends, family, coworkers and colleagues near and far who checked on me.  I’m thankful for my mom. I don’t have kids, but I’m now a firm believer in mother’s intuition. My mom gave me a flashlight for Christmas and insisted that I put batteries in it and test it before I left. A week later, that little flashlight turned out to be the best thing I owned when I was without power for a few days.

Since I was in an area that was safe and only minorly affected, I watched what happened next as both an insider and as somewhat of an outsider. For the first few weeks, with fires still burning, the news was 24/7 and the pictures were awful.  What I saw looked more like a war zone then what used to be neighborhoods in the second largest metro area in the United States. World Central Kitchen, an organization whose work I admire and that I associate with conflict-ridden and far-off places, set up operation a stone’s throw from where I live.  As the days went on, I learned of more and more people I knew personally, or through friends or coworkers, who had lost their homes.  And all of this was happening where I live.

But I noticed that in addition to all the stories of destruction and devastation, there were more and more stories of people helping and giving.  Makeshift donation drives sprung up all around LA, almost anywhere there was a large parking lot. Stores reported they were out of pantry staples, toiletries and basic clothing and bedding as people bought it, wanting to help those who were displaced or evacuated.  Local businesses, colleges and universities and hospitals, including some where I used to work, established funds to help their employees, students, staff and customers who had been affected by the fires.

Like everyone else, I wanted to help.  Doing something certainly felt better than watching the news and doing nothing during those first fiery days of the year.  When my local YMCA asked for basic supplies, I dropped off a few bags of groceries and noticed the donations were spilling out the door, clearly overwhelming the young volunteers who were trying to organize them as quickly as they were coming in.  I rounded up my purchases at the grocery store, the gas station and restaurants for fire relief. My local indie bookstore had food and book drives, so I happily cleaned out my kitchen cupboards and bedroom bookshelf. My favorite retro movie theater had free programming for kids and families, especially those who had lost everything, to give people a break from the bad news and sadness for a few hours. When they were collecting cozy pajamas and stuffed animals for their youngest moviegoers, I enthusiastically pitched in.  Eventually, when organizations pleaded that while they appreciated all the donations, the best way to help was to give money, I did that too.

It seemed like everyone was doing something – big and small – for fire victims, firefighters, displaced animals.  It was a wonderful, if sometimes overwhelming and fatiguing, show of support. But it was also a nice reminder that, at least in my mind, people are basically good.

But there is always the reality that time, life and social media move on. The news eventually went from destruction to recovery and rebuilding.  Then, other natural disasters happened.  When floods ravaged Kentucky in mid-February, I remember hearing the governor on NPR talking about how much help the state would need, and for a long time.  I thought: “Six weeks ago, that was us here in LA.”   And then, I started thinking some more.

Money and donations had been pouring in, some on a huge scale.  The Fire Aid concert at the end of January reportedly raised $100 million.  Many celebrities, including former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, pledged millions to fire-related organizations. Initially, LA’s 12 professional sports teams pledged a combined $8 million, with the promise of more to come. But given who the givers were, that didn’t seem like a lot to me. Then I began to question my own giving. Was I giving enough?  I gave $100 here, $150 there.  Nice contributions to be sure, but honestly, I could have stretched a bit.  Other questions arose for me: Where was it all going? Was it all really helping?  Could these organizations handle all this generosity?  And when so many people would need help for months – and even years – what did it mean down the road?

I had interesting discussions with friends – some of whom work in philanthropy and some of whom don’t – about where, why and how much they were giving and which organizations they trusted. A former coworker/friend and I had a long talk about why we were so willing to give to people who had recently lost their homes in the fires, yet we didn’t feel quite the same compassion for the thousands of chronically homeless people in LA County, many of whom I encounter everyday.

Then there were the questions about the countless GoFundMe campaigns that resulted from the fires.  I gave to two of them – for former coworkers and the cousin of a close friend who lost their homes. But I asked myself: Why did I give to some campaigns and not others, including one for a former boss? Like most of us, I looked at what others gave to gauge my own giving.  I realize that’s part of the point of crowdfunding, but I also could’ve chosen to give anonymously.  I suppose part of the reason I didn’t was because I wanted it to be known to others that I was a good person who was giving, and part of me wanted the recipients to know that I was helping them. But really, if I were a purely altruistic person, wouldn’t I be giving because it’s the right thing to do and because I’m fortunate enough to be able to, and not because I wanted some kind of credit, acknowledged or otherwise?

Almost three months after the fires began, I don’t have the answer to any of these questions. I didn’t then, and I certainly don’t now.  But I’m glad I’ve been thinking about them – and likely will continue to do so – especially given my chosen profession. Still, there are a few things I’ve taken away from the experience.

Giving is a personal decision – when, why, to whom and how much can only be answered by the giver, and I would never want to squelch or negate anyone’s impulse or desire to give. Further, the fact that people give, regardless of their motivation, has helped build so many of the institutions that I’ve benefited from and enjoyed throughout my life, not to mention led me to a long and mostly happy career.

Many years ago, I had a passing conversation with someone who said something that I’ve never forgotten: “No one can help everyone, but everyone can help someone.”  I suppose that in the end, that’s what it comes down to for me. I think everyone should give as much as they can as often as they can…including me.

One last takeaway? I’m definitely keeping my flashlight handy.

By

Looking Back with Pride, Moving Forward with Purpose

By: Rick Snyder, Senior Consultant

Rick Snyder

Rick Snyder

In my last post, I wrote about how I landed in research, why I stuck around, and the pride and fulfillment I’ve felt in my career. Now, two years later, I’m back to say that nothing has changed. I still think I have one of the coolest jobs in the world and I continue to get satisfaction from helping some wonderful organizations do great work. I still enjoy it and (usually) don’t mind going to work each day.

When I wrote that love letter to research, I was feeling particularly introspective and nostalgic about my career. I’ve continued to jot down my thoughts and reminiscences since then, knowing that I’d be back here again someday. These musings about my experience as a researcher all have contributed in some way to my overall feeling of job satisfaction and pride in my work.

Long, long ago…

When I fell into this job 30 years ago prospect research was still a rather new profession, having started maybe a decade earlier. It was a very different job then in a number of ways, particularly in terms of the resources we have. We take for granted the ease with which we can do our jobs today. The tools we accept as the norm now didn’t exist and were hardly imaginable. When I started in research, Google had yet to be founded. Take a moment and think about how you would do your job without something as basic as a search engine. Today’s indispensable resources and websites will eventually be quaint artifacts and tomorrow’s haven’t even been thought of yet.

Most of the research we did early on came from print media. If we didn’t have it on the office shelf we went to the library. We relied on sources like the Directory of Corporate Affiliations, Who’s Who, The Blue Book, and The Social Register. The biggest horror, at least for an introvert like me, was having to call assessors’ offices to get property values. They weren’t available online yet and there wasn’t even a hint of something like Zillow. Even though property information is supposed to be public, imagine calling an office in a small, rural town where everyone knows everyone else and having the clerk get testy and grill you on why you’re asking.

Ask any of us old-timers about using a service called DIALOG and watch us grimace. It was one of the earliest online databases of news and reference resources, available primarily in academic libraries. It was clunky to navigate and had an arcane structure. Each resource had a different cost to access, and it wasn’t always clear what that cost was. It was not at all unusual to poke around trying to find something, often coming up empty-handed, then discovering that your five-minute search literally cost hundreds of dollars. It still makes me shudder.

A week or so ago I saw an article that made me stop and think – a list of the wealthiest zip codes in the U.S. Rather unremarkable, right? What gave me pause wasn’t the content, but recalling how much excitement a list like this generated back when I started out. It was one of the key tools we used in prospecting. I can probably still name the top 20 towns off the top of my head. It may still have some utility, but we have better, more powerful tools at our disposal now. A vivid reminder was provided recently when a vendor did a product demo for us and with a few mouse clicks was able to deliver information that would take hours to do manually. Imagine you’ve been building a house using a handsaw and you’re suddenly given a power saw to use. The end result would be the same with either tool, but one helps you get there a heck of a lot easier.

While online resources and services have made our work far easier, we’ve also been fretting for just as long about them making our jobs irrelevant. The reason it hasn’t happened yet is that human input and intervention still add value to what we do. Even though database screening and data analysis have evolved and improved dramatically over the years, it still requires our skill to work with the results. Imagine handing over raw screening results to your frontline staff. Hilarity will ensue. What about AI? How will that impact our work? Is it going to be another resource in our toolbox or is it going to make our jobs redundant? Are we fighting a losing battle against the machines? I want to believe not. My hope is that no matter how good it gets, we are still going to be indispensable. It’s incumbent on us to prove that we are. A vital part of our job is providing context and analysis. Keep that front and center.

And now…

What do these reflections on the good old days have to do with Research Pride, you ask? Each of these things has added to my collective, accumulated experience. Whenever I look back at it, I’m reminded how much I’ve always loved what I do. If I’d spent 30 years in a static environment, I doubt I’d be writing this now. But this profession has evolved repeatedly over the years, keeping it fresh and interesting. Helen wrote in a recent post that the work we do is an integral part of a solid development operation and we should take pride in our contributions to that. The methods we use have changed, but what we provide – actionable intelligence – has remained as essential as ever. I’m proud of the skill set I’ve developed and that I’ve been able to use it to help numerous organizations do great work. I’ve been learning constantly from the first day until now. As a curious person, there’s great satisfaction found in coming across new things. This job delivers that nearly every day.

And finally, two years ago I wrote that I’d been feeling introspective due to seeing my retirement coming in the not-too-distant future. Well, that future has crept even closer. Lord willin’ and the creek don’t rise, I will be taking some form of retirement – partial, full or something else – this fall. I’ll mark my 20th anniversary with the Helen Brown Group in October and it seems like a fitting time for me to transition into something different. I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about my career – where I am and how I got here – and I can gladly say that I’ve enjoyed and have been proud of the journey. I hope that all of you are able to find similar satisfaction in your careers.

By

Adapting to the Times: Creative Avenues to Identify New Donors

By: Josh Ostroski, Senior Consultant

Josh Ostroski

Josh Ostroski

I have recently had the opportunity to get to know the leadership of a few small nonprofit organizations in my local community.  I have had engaging conversations with them about fundraising on both a 30,000-foot and a more granular view based on the organization’s structure and needs. Something that has stood out to me is that they all view fundraising in unique ways.

A discouraging observation that I’ve made is that the leaders at some of these smaller organizations either don’t fully understand what we do as prospect development professionals, or they may feel that it isn’t a fit for their organization.

For some of these organizations, and others similar nonprofits throughout the country, the idea of fundraising may be centered on obtaining foundation grants or corporate sponsorships. I’ve found myself in productive conversations with organization leaders to help them realize that there are creative ways to bring in revenue so they aren’t spending all of their valuable time and resources on an increasingly shrinking pool of donors.

The recent news about the potential pause on federal grant funding for some of these nonprofit organizations is of course yet another big challenge. Here at HBG we have begun to have discussions of what some of the ramifications could be for the nonprofit sector and for our beloved clients; in the end it may depend on the organization and where they get most of their funding.

With challenges like these, I think prospect research has the potential to be more impactful to a broader set of organizations than it has in the past. Something I have concluded is that it will be important for nonprofit organizations to consider how to diversify their fundraising channels and communicate transparently about their needs to their constituents. If a nonprofit can show their community how much funding could potentially be lost, there is the possibility of an entirely new enthusiastic prospect base for many organizations.

The best way for prospect research to play a role may be to help look for potential donors for an organization that they perhaps wouldn’t have had a connection to or thought to reach out to in the past.  Here are four ideas to help get you started:

Past Donor Pool

A possible starting point could be to start looking at past donors, no matter the size of the gift, and try to reach out to them with a thoughtful and honest message. Not only does this add potential past donors to your pool, but it could also be a way to engage with new prospects via their connections. My colleague Jen Turner recently wrote a great blog about prospecting within your database.

Impact Investing

Another possible angle to take is thinking of non-traditional funding opportunities, like social impact investments or social entrepreneurs. Impact investing refers to investments made with the intention to generate positive and measurable social and environmental impact alongside a financial return.

Unlike traditional philanthropy, which focuses purely on charitable giving, impact investing bridges the gap between traditional investing and nonprofit efforts. It allows investors (individuals, organizations, or funds) to support social causes while expecting some level of financial return. Here is a list of impact investing firms that could be a fit for your organization or a cause that is important to you or someone you know.

Crowdfunding

Crowdfunding could also be a successful strategy for certain organizations, particularly by rallying around a specific cause, and especially if it’s relevant to current events. There is power in rallying people around a movement to make an immediate impact. For example, catastrophic weather events such as the recent the Los Angles fires or flooding in Asheville, NC, are examples of areas that have seen crowdfunding being used to make significant financial impact. Prospect Researchers can monitor crowdfunding platforms to find individuals who support causes like yours. You can then research them further to identify their level of giving and if they could be potential donors for your organization.

An important aspect of crowdfunding is partnering with an organization’s marketing team to create a clear and specific message. Nonprofits have a better chance of capturing donors if they can articulate goals while crafting a meaningful story. To get the word out encourage staff, board members, volunteers, and supporters to share the campaign with their personal networks. Word-of-mouth and social media are powerful tools for reaching a wider audience.

Community Foundations

Working within the local community can also yield good results and can potentially open up a new prospect pool. Community foundations play a key role in nonprofit fundraising and philanthropy by serving as grant-making organizations that support local causes and initiatives. They typically pool donations through donor advised funds from individuals, families, and businesses and distribute them to organizations and projects within a specific geographic region. Community foundations have deep ties to their local areas and focus on creating long-term impact by fostering a culture of giving and supporting projects that address local challenges.

You can prospect for potential donors by looking at annual reports of a community foundation or by utilizing a resource like DAFinitive® to see who is supporting the foundation through their DAF, and then determining if the fund could be a fit for your organization based on the donor/advisor’s interest areas.

As prospect researchers, we are creative and inquisitive by nature. I encourage all of us to challenge ourselves and our organizations to rethink what we know and how we do things to come up with new ways to help nonprofits succeed in these uncertain times.

 

By

What scares me in fundraising and prospect research

So it’s Halloween! What would today be without a blog post that somehow appropriates a spooky theme!? If you came here hoping for cute and fluffy, here you go, but after this cutie I’m getting serious.

That said, there’s enough going on in the world right now that truly is scary, so don’t expect to run away gasping from this article. The scary stuff I’m going to talk about is all fixable.

Donor Attrition

The last two years have been really tough on our sector as we watch the numbers falling in terms of individual donors supporting nonprofits. According to data from the AFP-led Fundraising Effectiveness Project, donor retention hovers around 40%,  which sounds kind of okay until you realize that means that donor attrition is around 60%. Yikes.

That said, giving continues to increase (see Giving USA). Not as much as inflation, unfortunately, but $557.16 billion is still record giving.

What we see going up is donations to donor advised funds. Yes, we talk about DAFs a lot around here, but that’s because they’re just super important for everyone in nonprofits to understand and just a huge source of funding that is going overlooked.

Okay, so how do we deal with the attrition/retention problem?

First, if there’s a donor you want to keep, find out why they love your organization. Research them, survey them, talk to them. Then do something creative with that information that helps retain them.

Second, if you want to retain mid-level regular donors, consider this: 10% of all giving right now is going into donor advised funds, and that’s a figure that’s growing yearly by leaps and bounds.

Also, and maybe more importantly: The 2024 DAF Research Collaborative National Study on Donor Advised Funds reported that “DAFs are a mid-range philanthropic vehicle, accommodating contributions larger than typical household donations yet smaller than those establishing private foundations.

  • 38% of contributions fell within the $10,000 to $49,999 range.
  • 15% of contributions were in the $50,000 to $99,999 range.
  • 19% of contributions were within the $100,000 to $499,999 range.”

That’s nothing to sneeze at. And as we’re looking to retain and upgrade mid-level donors, that group is worth paying special attention to. But more than that:

DAFs are created specifically to give away money to nonprofits. Don’t make it hard for people to give to your nonprofit with their DAF! There are low-cost apps and widgets you can add to your website and fundraising emails that not only make it easy for donors to give but also provide you with all-important specific donor data so you can personally thank and research them.

Ignoring ASK ME signals from donors

When was the last time you checked donation acceleration?

What does that mean? For example, let’s say someone gives $25 in year one, $50 in year two, $75 in year three, etc. Maybe they’re increasing their giving because you asked them to, or maybe they’re just doing it on their own. Either way, these people are jumping up and down telling you they love your mission and want to support it. A simple data science project can help identify these awesome prospects for volunteer opportunities or increased giving.

And how about volunteers? Are you also asking them to give? There’s an organization that I love and volunteer for that Will. Not. Ask. Me. for a donation. I have no idea why (and I do give even though they don’t ask) but organizations should seriously ask people who love them for financial support in addition to sweat equity. You might get an upgrade…

Under supporting/under-utilizing prospect development

Over the years I’ve had the pleasure of talking with hundreds of fundraising managers who are concerned that their prospect development team is under-performing. One of the things that scares me is when I hear, “Our research department doesn’t give us what we need.” “They’re not proactive.” “It takes forever to get anything back from Research,” or – scariest of all – “the information I get isn’t relevant/helpful.”

Yikes.

When I hear that, I like to dig down a little more.

Tell me, what’s the frontline fundraiser to research staff ratio?

What are the expectations (and budget) for continuing professional education?

What’s the budget for fee-based research and training on using the resources?

How often does Research attend development/major gifts planning/strategy meetings?

How often do you update research report templates?

How often do the researchers hear about the results of their work?

If I learn that there’s one researcher for every three fundraisers, an expectation that the researcher(s) will attend a professional conference at least every other year, and a research budget that includes a variety of fee-based resources, and/or a general disinterest from Research in strategic planning, then we start talking about remedial actions for the research team.

But (and let’s hope that I’m exaggerating here), if we’re talking about one researcher trying to meet the information needs of 7 fundraisers, 2 board volunteers, and the executive director with access only to free webinars and Google as their primary resource, then it’s time for The Talk with that fundraising manager.

Maybe this sounds like your nonprofit (or maybe just parts of it do). If you’re a fundraising leader, don’t be afraid to dig down a little further to find out if under-resourcing your prospect development team is hampering your ability to get the best information possible. Maybe it’s the people, or the systems in place, or the resourcing that needs to be fixed. Don’t be afraid to look into the issues when problems arise so they don’t get harder to deal with.

Fundraising intelligence is a critical system, like your database, your relationships with donors, and the services you provide to end users. If it’s running well, it’s going to be a whirlwind for you to keep up with, and I mean that in a good way.

AI

Okay, I saved the scariest for last. Artificial Intelligence.

I get scared when I read about reference librarians wasting hours trying to locate articles and books for patrons, or (worse?) journal articles for medical students, only to discover from the requestor that they got the recommendation from ChatGPT for a source that doesn’t exist.

Recently on a subreddit for librarians, two contributors had this to say:

We just had a student bring an entire list of books and articles that her professor recommended for her research, and not a single title on the list exists. We reached out to the professor and yep. She got the list from ChatGPT.”

I’m an academic librarian at a medical school and I get sent a fake article to find like once a week. It’s terrible. It’s not just the students either, I also cover the residents at the local hospital since the hospital got rid of their medical library and they are even worse about it.”

(yikes, if that’s not something that scares you, I don’t know what will)

Duke University librarians Hannah Rozear and Sarah Park had something to say about ChatGPT in their excellent article ChatGPT and Fake Citations, including: “Be wary of asking ChatGPT to summarize a particular source…” That’s important advice because summarizing is a big thing we’ve been encouraged to use these tools for.

If a tool you use to help you save time adds in fake information, well, that’s not adding value. It detracts from prospect research’s perceived value, which we as a profession have spent decades trying to build up.

Issues like this, at least at this point, certainly makes me and the HBG team think twice about the reliability of the resources we use, and the trust that frontline fundraisers put in the information that we provide.

Increasingly search engines are providing short-cut information that has been generated, inferred, interpreted, or just plain imagined by large learning models (LLMs). In some cases, we’re being fed data that has less reliability than a chocolate teapot, and it’s harder to spot what’s real and what’s not. I hope that the reliability will be increased, but right now that’s just not the case.

Last November Melissa Bank Stepno wrote a thought-providing article on alternative interpretations of AI in prospect research. As you consider the reliability of your sources and how to navigate using AI in your work, take a look at her advice again as an informed guide.

So those are the things that are scaring me right now in fundraising and prospect research. All fixable, with opportunities for positive change.

By

NEDRA 2024: Top Themes & Take-Aways

by: Melissa Bank Stepno, VP of Data Insight

A couple of weeks ago, the entire HBG team attended the NEDRA conference.  Part annual team retreat, part professional development, we immersed ourselves in 3 days of learning, team building and networking.

It was so great to see everyone in person!  Especially in our post-COVID world, with many more of us working remotely, I can’t understate the power of “togetherness.”

Now that the dust has settled and I’m back in my remote world, and in true HBG fashion, I wanted to pay it forward for those who were not at the conference.

So, here are three of the top themes and takeaways from our time together (at least in my perspective!):

 

1. Family Offices – one of the most interesting sessions was a plenary session on family offices, given by Josh Roach, who manages one such office.  For those less familiar with the concept of a family office, these are typically small private business entities* that are owned by an uber-wealth family with the specific function of working on behalf of the family.

*Note that some large financial firms operate “family offices” that serve multiple families at the same time, however the information that Josh shared relates to single family offices that are fully dedicated to one family.

While Josh was clear that there is no typical or average, he did share that frequently, an office will serve multiple generations and broadly be responsible for supporting the family vision, assisting with transition of family leadership and assuring the family legacy is maintained.  Specific responsibilities typically include wealth and asset management but can also include a wide array of other concierge-style services such as travel planning, property management, general accounting, arranging social calendars, and, you guessed it, providing advice on philanthropy.

These offices are incredibly discrete and private – by design – since part of their role is to protect the privacy of the family that they are serving.  As such, sometimes one family office might not even know of the existence of another family office!

Families with family offices usually have net worth of at least $750 million – $1 billion and you rarely see one for families with net worth under $250 million.  Why?  They are expensive!  The average family office runs an operating budget of $6 million and employees 6-8 full-time employees.

If you want to learn more about Family Offices, check out this benchmarking study conducted by The Wharton School at University of Pennsylvania or the Family Office Association.

 ***

2. Data Compliance is an ever changing, complicated quagmire.

In addition to the ever-present General Data and Protection Legislation, or GDPR for short, which covers all of Europe, in the past few years the United States has seen a significant uptick in legislation covering data privacy.  In fact, there are currently 15 states with privacy laws in effect and 18 additional states with pending legislation.  The IAPP manages a fantastic website that tracks both pending legislation and existing laws – without it, I’m not sure how we would keep up!

Just last month, a bill was introduced in Congress called the American Privacy Rights Act, or APRA for short (anyone else notice the irony that the acronym is APRA?).

The good news is that a national law would supersede the variations in all the state laws.  The million-dollar questions are: what would be included in the final bill, when would it go into effect, and how would it impact our industry?

Heard at the end of the session: “I did not expect this to be a wild ride.”  When was the last time you heard a comment like that at a Prospect Development conference!?

For more reading on this topic, check out my two colleagues’ recent Intelligent Edge Blog posts: Data Privacy: Where We’ve Been and Where We are Going by Michele Borucki and Data Privacy (Part 2): Practical Tips and Better Practices by Jessica Woodbridge.

***

3. Due Diligence – the conference included not one, but three sessions on due diligence.  It truly is a statement as to how much more important this topic is becoming for our industry.  Five years ago, there wouldn’t have been any sessions on this topic.

Essentially, due diligence is the subset of prospect research that focuses on the assessing the legal, reputational, and financial risk for our organizations when considering whether or not to develop a deeper relationship with, and/or accept a gift from, a donor.

At this point, it seems as though many organizations have a process in place for due diligence but the level of formality and how/when specific due diligence research is conducted varies from shop to shop.

It must be noted that what passes a due diligence “test” for one organization may not pass the test for another.  Due diligence is, and always will be, highly contextual and nuanced.  For more on my thoughts on the matter, check out my blog post Philanthropy’s Shades of Gray.  Also, look forward to a joint report on due diligence by Xapien and BWF that will be published later this year.

***

Of course, there are a lot of other important topics in our industry right now.  These just happened to be the three that piqued my attention the most during this particular conference.

If you missed the NEDRA conference, perhaps I’ll see you in Seattle in August at the Apra Professional Development conference?  You can learn more about it and register here.

By

The New Way to “Give It All Away”

         Christine Bariahtaris

One of the things that’s great about prospect research is that we’re students of emerging trends. Every day is a new adventure into some aspect of finance, or business, or cleverly-created endeavor that’s new and potentially sector-changing. That’s the way it was with venture philanthropy, and philanthropic ventures. This week, HBG Consultant Christine Bariahtaris walks us through what these are, and how to find more information about them. ~Helen

If I had to name my 2023, I’d say it was my Year of the Philanthropic Venture.

Remember in 2016 when Mark Zuckerburg and Priscilla Chan launched the Chan-Zuckerburg Initiative (CZI) as an LLC and caused a ruckus? Almost eight years later, I think it’s safe to say they started a trend. I spent many research hours getting to know different philanthropic ventures this year, and always had the same questions – how do these work, why are so many popping up, and is that a good thing?

Don’t You Mean “Venture Philanthropy”?

Yes and no. “Venture philanthropy” (the use of venture capital investment models in nonprofit fundraising strategies) is well-established in our industry – John D. Rockefeller III coined the term all the way back in 1969 – and has been the standard operating model for many donors since the 1990s. The venture model shifted major philanthropy away from single-year gifts to multi-year grantmaking and additional support practices that most of us are familiar with today. It’s an operating model that doesn’t demand any fundamental changes to how 501(c)3 organizations are usually structured.

Philanthropic ventures use venture philanthropy’s model, but decided they could also create a better giving vehicle. 501(c)3s are out, and LLCs are in. In addition to CZI, other big-name philanthropic ventures include Laurene Powell Jobs’ Emerson Collective, Bill Gates’ Breakthrough Energy, and Eric Schmidt’s Schmidt Futures.

How Do They Work?

One of the big reasons why describing philanthropic ventures is difficult is that there is no standard model. If we really want to know, we have to investigate the structure of each LLC individually. And since they’re LLCs, we’re only going to know as much as they want to tell us.

Some ventures are complicated, but they’re transparent about it. Both CZI and Breakthrough Energy are umbrella LLCs that encompass both traditional 501(c)3 entities and for-profit venture capital funds that work in tandem towards common goals. They disclose the names and nature of these sub-organizations on their websites (in fine print at CZI and a whole page at Breakthough). It’s a tangle of legal relationships, but it’s there for all to see.

Others are LLC subsidiaries of existing nonprofit organizations, such as the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation’s T1D Fund and the National Bleeding Disorders Foundation’s Pathway to Cures (P2C). In practice, they operate as typical, for-profit venture capital funds governed by independent advisory boards but use their parent organizations’ subject expertise to inform their investment strategies. Donors to these funds, however, really are still donors (including the tax break) – instead of redistributing profits to investors, these funds reinvest the capital into new ventures and support their parent organizations’ goals.

And then there are the ones that embrace the LLC of it all and keep the details under wraps, like Emerson Collective and Schmidt Futures.

The Upsides

The biggest benefits of philanthropic ventures for donors are privacy and control. LLCs do not have disclosure requirements like 501(c)3s, and they can directly fund restricted activities like political lobbying. Additionally, a donor can retain voting rights and disposition control over stocks transferred to an LLC, which they would have forfeited in a donation to a private foundation. CZI is a good example of how this works: Mark Zuckerberg transfers Meta shares to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative LLC, which he owns, and therefore retains control of the stock. The LLC then donates those shares to CZI’s affiliated private foundation, donor-advised fund, and 501(c)4 group, while also making private investments that align with its mission. Even though Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan are directing these activities, they are not legally the donors, and so can sidestep the usual IRS giving rules (including that pesky 5% annual distribution requirement), as well as never directly lose control of the funds. It’s giving without giving away.

The most noteworthy benefit of philanthropic ventures to nonprofits, in my opinion, is that they are comfortable with risk. There is a reason most of the examples in this post are associated with the science and technology sectors – progress in these industries requires massive financial investment that would make most traditional philanthropists sweat, given there is no guarantee early-stage science will pan out. To make things worse, the state of public funding for science and health research is fraught. Nonprofits in these areas should jump at the chance to engage with funders who want to go big. A visit to their websites will show that all ventures listed here want to solve everything from eradicating diseases to solving systemic inequality – we should take the helping hand.

The Downsides

It can’t all be roses. There is a very good reason to be wary of a rise in philanthropic ventures.

501(c)3 foundations all must play by the same rules. They must distribute a portion (not enough!) of their funds annually, they must disclose how their money is moving, and most importantly, they all follow the same definition of what is and isn’t considered philanthropy.

LLCs don’t have to agree on any of these topics. Ultimately, they make their own rules about who and when and how much they fund, which means they get to decide what is philanthropic. And in a Giving Pledge world, that should give us pause – are we just supposed to take their word that what they’ve chosen to privately invest in is philanthropic? Are we cool with not knowing if they’re counting money they’ve given to relatives, or loans they’re recouping? What if they’re funding programs that they personally support but many would find unethical?

If you want to see how dark this could go, play Mass Effect and get acquainted with the Illusive Man. He’s a shadowy mogul who pursues his own agenda for the good of humanity through Cerberus, a totally opaque private company. The results are messy, to say the least (but seriously, Martin Sheen voices him and it’s incredible).

We’re not at doom and gloom just yet, though. For now, let’s see what philanthropic ventures can help us do. But let’s make sure we pull back the curtain to understand the machinery as much as we can, and not mistake them for wizards.

By

Tis The Season for Giving!

Whether you are celebrating the 8 nights of Hanukkah, looking forward to the 12 days of Christmas, planning for the 7 days of Kwanza, or waiting for the New Year’s ball to drop, this time of year is typically a time for giving – and for countdowns.

Here at The Intelligent Edge, we thought we would join in the year-end holiday spirit by using this last post of 2023 to re-gift our most popular posts from the past year.

So, with no further preamble, here are the Top 5 Intelligent Edge posts* of 2023:

  1. In Factoring in Compensation, Tara McMullen-King shares her favorite resources for researching compensation and expert advice on how to interpret what you find.
  2. Any life-long learners out there? Kenny Tavares shares his tips and tricks for organizing your efforts in Lessons in Self-Learning.
  3. For Wearing Many Hats Including Research: Strategies for Success, Maura Baron shares her journey from having multiple responsibilities as a part-time research in small shops to becoming a full time prospect research consultant.
  4. Karla Davis’s thoughts on how to stay motivated when asked to research This Guy Again? seems to be resonating loudly and clearly with prospect researchers
  5. And, rounding out our Top 5, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Comprehensive Due Diligence Research focuses on Heather Willis’s vast experience with increasingly important topic of due diligence research.

With that, we wish you a festive season.  We’ll be back with fresh new content in early 2024!

*at least according to LinkedIn Analytics!

 

By

The people vote and everybody wins

We say that we’re always looking for innovation in fundraising … but that it has to happen carefully because there’s not a lot of wiggle room at most nonprofits for a whole lot of risk-taking.

We lament our increasing dependence on a smaller number of larger gifts from major donors… and yet we have to strive for increasing the number of major donors because  that’s where the money is. It’s just more efficient, and we have to be careful with time and resources.

We’re experiencing a sharp drop in the number of smaller, sustaining donations as an industry…nonprofits struggle to engage with and retain foundational supporters.

All of these things hit me today as I was reading about a type of support called Quadratic Funding. Now, you need to understand that one of my most-beloved, rattiest t-shirts (that I will never send to Goodwill) says this:

 

In my job I have to math, but I don’t love it.

Still, this Quadratic Funding business makes a lot of sense to me because it takes the very limitations that we’re experiencing in fundraising right now and turns them into positive attributes.

Have you ever been in a store where, when you check out they give you a token? You’re supposed to take the token and drop it in one of a few labled containers, and whichever container has the most tokens by x date is the nonprofit that the store will fund at the end of the year. You vote with your token and one nonprofit “wins.”

Well, this is sort of like that, except every nonprofit or project wins.

Here’s how it works within one nonprofit

Let’s say your nonprofit has four projects that need funding. Nothing too risk-take-y like a building or critical-care unit. But projects that need to get done and that you can write or tell an engaging story or create a video about.

You start with a large donation that serves as the matching fund. (So, you’re still working with major donations, yes, but from perhaps a different type of major donor. It could be an individual donor or perhaps a collection of DAF donors interested in social impact funding.)

You tell the stories and build enthusiasm for the four projects. You invite gifts at all levels. People get behind their favorite project, and hopefully inspire others to get behind it, too.

The more gifts each project gets, the larger proportion of the matching gift fund it gets.

Wait, what?

So for example, let’s say the matching gift fund is $1,000 and we’ve got 4 projects to raise money for. Look at this table of gifts:

You can see that Projects 2 and 4 got the same total amount of support: $75.

Project 2 only got one gift of $75, so its match was $18.14.

Project 4 got five gifts for a total of $75, so its match was $78.78. It had more crowd support, so it got a much larger match amount.

Every project still wins, but the ones that have more interest and more enthusiasm for them win …bigger.

The mathy part

This concept of quadratic voting has been around for awhile, mostly in economics circles but also for political voting as well. (More here in Wikipedia for background).

But where it’s gained traction in philanthropy is from the support it’s gotten from Vitalik Buterin (the Ethereum cryptocurrency co-founder) in collaboration with Zoë Hitzig (Junior Fellow, Harvard Society of Fellows) and E. Glen Weyl (economist, Microsoft Research New England) who proposed the use of quadratic funding using crypto in their article “A Flexible Design for Funding Public Goods”.

(In fact, quadratic funding has been used in the Gitcoin Grants Initiative to distribute more than $60,000,000 to over 3,000 open-source software development projects in the past few years. Which is not nothing.)

How is the sausage made?

Apparently quadratic funding is calculated like this: you take the square root of the amount of each gift by each donor to a particular project. The sum of these square roots is then squared to obtain the voting power for that project.

Back to the real world

Recently, the online community foundation Endaoment started an initiative in collaboration with Gitcoin that uses quadratic funding and, while the actual methodology may be somewhat ponderous, what they’re doing is suuuper interesting.

For example, you can go to its funding page and watch distributions from peoples’ crypto wallets, credit cards, DAFs and more happen in real time. Those gifts get matched from Endaoment’s Universal Impact Pool on a timed payout, which you can see as a countdown clock.

When I checked on Monday, the top nonprofits being supported were:

The amounts will change on a regular basis as more people donate and until the final distribution is made. As you can see, current events are elevating causes and nonprofits that are in the news, and as you look back on past funding cycles, the nonprofits that received funding were likewise in the spotlight.

What does this mean for your nonprofit?

A nonprofit doesn’t have to be on the front lines of current events to take advantage of quadratic funding. Even a small nonprofit can create a buzz from 1) an impact fund, 2) a few much-needed projects, and 3) great stories that inspire a new kind of giving.

And quadratic funding may reduce those things that we worry about:

  • It’s innovative but without a lot of unnecessary risk;
  • it involves major donor giving, but also involves crowd-funding and smaller donation-givers in a meaningful way;
  • and it creates an opportunity for buzz and excitement that may create new communities for our nonprofits.

I’d just get someone else to do the math.

Further reading

Great explanation here of quadratic funding and the new Endaoment Universal Fund for charitable giving: Crypto Altruism, “Crypto Philanthropy meets Quadratic Funding in new Endaoment-Gitcoin Partnership” https://www.cryptoaltruism.org/blog/crypto-philanthropy-meets-quadratic-funding-in-new-endaoment-gitcoin-partnership

The nuts and bolts: How QF works: https://www.wtfisqf.com/

Quadratic funding: The future of crowdfunding, explained, by Jagjit Singh. May 6, 2023. https://cointelegraph.com/explained/quadratic-funding-the-future-of-crowdfunding-explained

Follow Us: Linkedin
617-393-1983
info@helenbrowngroup.com
Helen Brown Group