Helen Brown Group

By

Hope and Charity

In the Before Times, we were more at leisure to have philosophical discussions about the nature of philanthropy and income inequality and taxation and due diligence and ethics and the confluence (or colliding impact) of all of those things.

With the daily grinding worry of every sorry aspect of the COVID pandemic starting to recede for many of us (in countries with leisure classes), those discussions have started anew – but with the added grit-filled lens of 20/20 in our hind-sight.

It’s a time of social upheaval we’re living through right now, and maybe we’re lucky to be living through it, because after the awfulness, we can hope that good things will come. World wars, influenza pandemics, suffrage, civil rights, gay rights – you can’t say that those were good times for the people who moved them forward, but they were working with hope for a better future. And better things did happen.

Philanthropy is about nothing if it’s not about hope. I have said that phrase so many times over the years and it has only ever had one meaning to me. But looking at our sector now I see with more clarity that it’s actually about two things.

It’s about when philanthropy is about nothing. And when it’s about nothing but hope.

I have two things that I want to tell you about that led me to that realization, because I was struck by how philanthropy can actually be about nothing.

Earlier this month, the Boston College Law School Forum on Philanthropy and the Public Good released a report called “Impact of the Rise of Commercial Donor-Advised Funds on the Charitable Landscape 1991-2019.” (Honestly, take a look. It’s not a boring report. Ray Madoff and James Andreoni wrote it, and there are awesome visualizations by Helen Flannery).

Here are some meaty takeaways:

  • Since 1981, charitable giving in the United States has stayed steady at about 2 percent of disposable income.
  • Fidelity established the first commercial donor-advised fund (DAF) sponsor, Fidelity Charitable, in 1991. At that time, about 5% of giving went to foundations with the rest – 95% of giving – going directly to charities.
  • By 2019, 13% of all giving went to donor-advised funds and 15% went to foundations, so that means only 72% went directly to nonprofits.
  • Private foundation assets have grown over 500% over the past 30 years, from $165 billion in 1991 to $996 billion in 2019. From 2007-2019, total donor-advised fund assets grew over 300% from $32 billion in 2007 to $142 billion in 2019.
  • Madoff and Andreoni, in collaboration with analytics firm Data Lake LLC, crunched numbers from Giving USA and form 990s to find out what would have gone directly to charities if it wasn’t for DAFs and foundations. Their calculations show that between 2014 and 2018, nonprofits missed out on about $300 billion.

Three. Hundred. Billion. Dollars.

So there’s money moving into “philanthropy” but it’s not going to the nonprofits that do the work. This is when philanthropy is about nothing, and certainly not about hope. This is about amassing assets and control. It’s the business of philanthropy.

A really interesting overview

The second thing I wanted to point you to today is a piece from BBC Radio 4 in the UK called “Tainted Money.” It’s well worth your 27 minutes and 45 seconds.

It’s presented by Dr. David Cannadine, a specialist on the history of business and philanthropy and professor of history at Princeton.

Cannadine distils the concerns and struggles within the charitable sector today – the growing importance of due diligence research, ethics in fundraising, income inequality, and the nature of unequal power in philanthropy.

Along the way he interviews or features audio clips from several people who are well-known within philanthropy circles including Dr. Beth Breeze, Prof. Rob Reich, Anand Giridharadas, and billionaire philanthropist Stephen Schwarzman, among others.

The segment brings up some great questions, including:

  • If we put on our nonprofit’s no-fly list anyone who could possibly be (or have been) tied to some form of tainted business, at what point is there no one left for us to ask?
  • What causes should billionaires (not) be allowed to influence with their largesse? Who decides?
  • Are tax evasion/avoidance, income inequality, and the business of philanthropy inextricably interconnected or are they separate but concurrent problems?

These are fascinating and difficult issues for us to be aware of and we all, from our unique perspectives, have a part to play in figuring out how we move forward, whether that’s in our own department, our own nonprofit, as leaders within our regional and national professional associations, and as caretakers for the future of our sector.

We have to work with hope, and we have to work at it.

By

Is your nonprofit missing out on a huge crypto-tunity?

Want to know who’s cooler at using technology to raise money than your average well-funded university or nonprofit?

Malala, that’s who.

Also, the United Way.

The Count Basie Center for the Arts, Wake Forest University, Cushing Academy, and 200+ other nonprofits that have signed up with The Giving Block to accept cryptocurrencies.

“Oh, cryptocurrency. Pfft!” you might be thinking. “That’s not going to be a thing.”

If you were working in fundraising in the late 1990s, you might remember that the same thing was said about taking donations online. Using credit cards! Over the internet! Like it was space age tech from Mars. Online giving? No way.

Way

Accepting cryptocurrencies is the same thing, and it’s already old news for some (especially considering the length of the news cycles these days).

Back in December 2017 an anonymous philanthropist called “Pine” set up the Pineapple Fund to give away their 5104 bitcoin that had exploded in value to $55 million. Although cryptocurrency donations weren’t unheard of then, Pine’s announcement that nonprofits could apply to be grantees was a turning point moment. Applying for funding from a foundation-y sort of entity was familiar. Some nonprofits started to see the opportunities in being ready to receive cryptocurrencies.

Like UNICEF. Since the UNICEF Crypto Currency Fund was launched in October of 2019 it has received over $5.5 million. That’s during a pandemic yet.

Accepting crypto is an already large and yet still rapidly growing opportunity for nonprofits. According to Alex Wilson, co-founder at The Giving Block,

Cryptocurrency donations really took off in 2017 after bitcoin hit $20,000 for the first time. In 2017, we estimate that over $100M in crypto was donated to the few organizations who were ready to accept bitcoin. Since then, we’ve continued to see cryptocurrency donations increase and estimate that $200M-$300M per year is being donated in crypto. This year is on track to break those records.”

Wow.

The donor advised funds at Fidelity Charitable is one of the places where all of those bitcoin, bitcoin cash, Ethereum and Litecoins are being warehoused. Paul D’Allesandro, author of The Future of Fundraising: How Philanthropy’s Future is Here with Donors Dictating the Terms, said in a recent podcast with Andrew Olsen that Fidelity’s stack of coins is $100 million tall.

One hundred million is just…a lot.

But it’s not as much as a billion. Which is the amount reported yesterday that Ethereum crypto founder / billionaire / philanthropist Vitalik Buterin donated in one fell swoop in coins to help with Covid relief in India. Depending on if the coin retains its value, of course.

Starting the conversation

If you’re a nonprofit fundraiser, you might be wondering: how do we open up this conversation with donors who have cryptocurrency? (or who we don’t know have crypto?)

In a CASE podcast featuring Jay Goulart, former VP for Institutional Advancement at Gulliver Schools, now founder of the consultancy Big Philanthropy, Goulart describes what happened when his school approached a donor – a commodities trader – who had mentioned owning cryptocurrencies.

 We realized with this guy that we had to speak in terms of coins and not in money. So in other words, he didn’t see things in the same way as, you know, would you do a million, would you do five million, or whatever the number is.

We asked him for what was the equivalent of five million dollars in coins, which was about 500 coins. That’s not what he wanted to end up doing, he did about half of that. But he said I’ll do it over a period of time. Now when we first met him, bitcoin here in the States was just under $10,000 a coin…so…we’re just shy now of what’s left of 8 figures in terms of a gift from this person.

Now, it’s really not the way that most people would venture into this because, you know schools want to liquidate and they don’t want to hold and they don’t want to speculate. [It’s] all very logical and it all makes a ton of practical sense. But sometimes there’s moments when you meet someone and they’ve never really played in our arena, and you’ve got to find a different avenue. And sometimes we have to take a little bit of risk ourselves.”

So part of the answer is being open to trying a new way of receiving donations.

A first step could simply be getting a wallet set up to accept cryptocurrencies and publicizing it on your website’s giving pages so that donors can see that it’s even an option.

Another way is being more purposeful about it.

Marketing your Mission

United Way Vice President of Innovation Edwin Goutier recently published an engaging article on the nonprofit’s blog highlighting how easy it is to donate a variety of cryptocurrencies to the organization. For each currency he directly tied a donation level to its very specific mission impact at United Way. It’s a brilliant, effective piece of marketing.

What does the average cryptocurrency holder look like? Maybe not what you’d think. According to a study by London-based crypto custodian Copper.co, 56 percent of bitcoin holders are investors and 80% of those are long-term holders. So that means, for them, cryptocurrencies aren’t a fluke – they’re a part of their investment portfolio and they take it seriously.

It also means that when a long-term holder divests of some their cryptocurrency, they will likely incur capital gains.

Unless, of course, they donate them.

We know that tax incentives aren’t the main reason why people give to nonprofits, but they’re certainly a consideration. If people donate cryptocurrency under their real names (as opposed to anonymously), they can claim a tax deduction. If they can avoid capital gains tax as well it’s a double win. Being able to help a mission they care about? Win-win-win.

Finding prospects

The question for us in prospect research is, how do we identify cryptocurrency holders? Especially when they go by names like Cryptochristoff, Madgreek, Twobadour, and MetaKovan.

Well, you can start with The Crypto Giving Pledge members – people who have pledged to give 1% of their cryptocurrency annually – and see if you have a match in your database. There aren’t a lot of them yet, but the list is sure to grow.

You can also use a search engine, search in social media, and check out forums to see what you can find. A quick Google search found that MetaKovan is actually Vignesh Sundaresan, CEO of Singapore consulting firm Portkey Technologies. Twobadour is Anand Venkateswaran. On Twitter I found two crypto-enthusiasts who go by the handles Madgreek and Cryptochristoff. Could it be that simple? Maybe.

See if you can match names to social media handles you already have on constituents in your database. And, of course, as you’re researching someone generally it’s a good idea to see if they follow or knowledgeably discuss cryptocurrency on their social channels. This could be a clue that they hold crypto.

Primary source prospect research is key here also. This is a great topic for frontline fundraisers to bring up in face-to-face meetings with donors and board members. “What do you think about our nonprofit accepting cryptocurrencies?” could be a good opener for a discussion.

It’s certainly not a bad thing to ask for advice about. And you know the old fundraising adage about asking for advice, right?

Further resources:

 

By

Musings on the digital economy and what it means for prospect research

Rick SnyderThis week we welcome HBG Senior Researcher Rick Snyder to the blog. I always appreciate Rick’s thought process and insight, and this week he shares what he’s been thinking about – about the economy, people who find themselves newly high-net-worth as a result of their investments in digital currencies, and what’s happening with all that money. ~Helen

In my last blog post I mused about my career in prospect research and the enjoyment I continue to find in learning about a broad variety of topics that shed light on how our prospects earn and spend their money.

A year ago, I was looking at the cost of hiring domestic staff.

Fast forward to today and researching the salary of a nanny seems downright quaint compared to what I’ve been reading lately. I’ve been focusing a lot on the economy and some of the changes we’ve seen over the past year. It seems that the pandemic has not only upended many parts of our personal lives, it’s also scrambled and rearranged how people are spending their money. It’s grabbed my interest and I’m trying to make sense of it all. What I’m offering here isn’t an explanation (I don’t have one), but a few observations and thoughts about what’s going on.

A recent cover of New York Magazine captured the spirit of our current times with the title “Can I SPAC My Stonks With NFTs?” The article inside, “There’s Nothing to Do Except Gamble”, referred to the “new money weirdness” and I can’t think of a better way to describe our current economy and our increasingly strange relationship to money. I believe that we are living through a transformation of our economy that is both exciting and a little bit scary, at least to me.

The SPACs and NFTs mentioned in the magazine were covered well by Helen in these pages already, so I won’t travel that road again. Not only did she explain them better than I can, but I have to admit that, try as I might, I still can’t wrap my head around NFTs well enough to offer a cogent explanation of them. I’m also not going to dive into the world of Reddit-driven “stonks,” though that’s also intriguing and entertaining. These are relatively new phenomena and indicative of how fast our economic world (and the language used to describe it) is changing.

My personal and professional interest in today’s economy is two-fold: First, I want to understand how we’ve reached the point where a person can spend $69 million for a piece of digital art (the buyer, a cryptocurrency billionaire who goes by the name MetaKovan, said he was prepared to pay even more and thinks it was a steal since it should be worth $1 billion).

Second, I can’t help but think the indicators are flashing red that we are somewhere near the peak of a bubble economy and wonder when that bubble is going to burst.

The first interest is almost voyeuristic – I can’t tell if we’re watching the prelude to a car crash or a butterfly emerging from its chrysalis – but the second is more serious and existential.

There are scores of brilliant people who understand the economy far better than I ever will and they don’t all agree on what we’re seeing. Some are warning that we’re cruising for a bruising and others are claiming there’s little to be concerned about.

The traditional indicators – things like the U.S. Treasury bond curve or the P/E ratio of stocks – either don’t apply any longer or aren’t as reliable as they once were. Unemployment is decreasing and GDP is rising, but there are still millions of people struggling with the economic effects of the pandemic. And in the midst of all of the good news/bad news, we’re seeing the creation of new ways for people to spend astronomical amounts on things that barely existed just a year or two ago.

The easiest explanation is that the economy is awash in money and it all has to go somewhere. Billions of dollars have been injected into the system over the past year. We are still living under varying forms of COVID restrictions, but that isn’t stopping us from spending what we’ve got.

The New York Times reported that Deutsche Bank analysts have estimated as much as $170 billion from the most recent round of federal stimulus will go into the stock market. Mortgage rates are at historic lows and house prices are rising. Redfin reports that 42% of homes have been selling for more than their list price – 16% higher than the same period last year – while at the same time Google reported that the search “When is the housing market going to crash?” had spiked 2,450% in the past month.

Bitcoin was trading at $6,853 a year ago. As of writing, it is at $53,545 and by the time this posts it could be thousands of dollars higher or lower. I assume that a good bit of what is driving the NFT market is that people are sitting on mounds of crypto that has appreciated wildly since they bought in. As a personal example, a few months ago I realized that I’d forgotten about a crypto wallet I’d left a small amount of money in a number of years ago. When I looked at it, I literally laughed out loud at the value. It wasn’t enough to be life changing, but for people who invested earlier than I did and paid just a few bucks for some Bitcoin, I can easily imagine why they’d have no problem spending some highly appreciated digital currency on a piece of digital art.

I also discovered that people are breeding and selling digital horses on the NFT market – one sold for $125,000 – and they’re participating in digital races. I had to check the date on the article to make sure it wasn’t an April Fools’ joke. If this isn’t a sign that people have more money than they know what to do with, I don’t know what is.

Along with the sea of money sloshing around in the system, we’ve seen over the past year that life is short and it should come as no surprise that people are willing to make riskier financial bets than before. Might as well YOLO your stimmies into some stonk while you can.

What does any of this have to do with our work? I can think of at least several ways.

First, the top tier of earners has done extraordinarily well over this past year, so we need to keep tabs on what they’re doing – that’s what we do every day, so there’s no change there.

Second, the flow of money into SPACs, NFTs, and retail stocks shows that there are a number of new players who are spending freely. How are we finding, researching, and qualifying them? Are you developing new ways of looking at people with names like MetaKovan and Roaring Kitty? We know they have millions to spend, so how can we add them to our prospect pools?

Third – and this is what I was thinking the most about when I began writing – if we are indeed in a bubble economy, that bubble will burst at some time and quite possibly in a very dramatic fashion.  Though we can’t really predict when the economy will take a downturn, it most certainly will.

When it does, it will affect charitable giving* and that affects each of us in our jobs as researchers. When development budgets shrink, prospect researchers may seem to some as an extravagant expense to some managers. It behooves us all to be proactive in researching or at least giving some thought to those in our donor pools who work in sectors that fare better than others in a down economy. Helen wrote about this in blog posts in April and December of last year, as well as in a white paper. They merit re-reading as you ponder economic trends.

* The Lilly School of Philanthropy and Vanguard Charitable wrote a 2019 report, “Changes to the Giving Landscape” [PDF], that shows a decline in charitable giving that began in 2000, but the drop accelerated at the time of the 2008-2009 recession. From 2000 to 2008, roughly 65% of households reported giving to charity. Total giving dropped by 7.2% in 2008, then by another 8% in 2009.

 

By

Don’t miss these 3 things – International Research, Justice, and Seismic Fundraising Shifts

Hi there! Thanks for coming by the blog today. There are three really interesting and important things that I’d like to amplify this week because I really didn’t want you to miss them.

New newsletter!

The first is a brand-new newsletter by a prospect development colleague I recently met, Nan Nielsen Zhang. Nan is a due diligence / prospect research expert building a relatively new consulting business called Astra Due Diligence focusing on Asian individuals, companies, trusts, and foundations. Nan speaks Chinese (Mandarin and Wu dialect), Japanese, and Korean, (as well as English, Russian, and Spanish) and has built a thriving business because of her talent and unique access to due diligence/research resources in those languages. You can sign up for her free bi-weekly newsletter, China Philanthropy News, at the bottom of her company’s web page.

Bold article

Veteran fundraiser Armando Zumaya has written an important op-ed that was published in the Chronicle of Philanthropy last month. The article, To Achieve Racial Justice in Philanthropy, We Must Invest in Fundraising and Make It Inclusive, provides a roadmap with 5 key on-ramps of action, including making a long-term and deep investment in fundraising, and working to build diversity in the whole nonprofit ecosystem: staff, board, and donor base. In the article, Zumayo boldly and publicly poses a question that many in our sector have been reluctant to ask because of the power differential between donors and recipients: Why don’t foundations make grants that support a nonprofit’s infrastructure – including fundraising?

Seismic shifts

It’s a question that’s critical to the long-term… well, not even growth, but viability of our sector, and that Ford Foundation head Darren Walker is actually doing something about. In this 60 Minutes interview with Lesley Stahl, Walker makes a statement that probably wouldn’t have been uttered 5 or 10 years ago, and even now has not bubbled up into the consciousness of many foundations:

“It is both arrogant and ignorant to believe that you can give money to an organization for your project, and not be concerned about the infrastructure that makes your project possible.”

As a self-described capitalist and former bond trader, Walker views philanthropy from a business perspective, but he is also philosophical about philanthropy’s role in inequity, politics, and ultimately in the future of our country. But it’s not all talk – the Ford Foundation has made bold, extraordinary changes in the past few years to try and change that power differential between the foundation and the nonprofits it supports. Don’t miss the interview – it’s worth your time.

Thanks for letting me share those important and helpful voices with you today – please do check them out. Have a great rest-of-the-week!

By

What the heck are NFTs (and why should you care)?

Reflections. Photo by Julie Kahn (c) 2021

Research Pride is a celebration of all aspects of our wonderful profession, and the thing I probably love most about prospect research is that we’re constantly learning. Lots of times it’s about odd things that you never knew existed but discover quickly that they are an up-and-coming thing. Take for example today’s topic, NFTs – non-fungible tokens.

I started seeing the acronym NFT flying through my social media feeds about a month ago. The articles were relating to wealth and art, and just like with SPACs a few months ago, when I start seeing a mystery acronym that pertains to wealth, naturally I have to know more.

What I found was that there is an increasing amount of digital artwork being traded via blockchain for astonishingly high amounts of money.

Okay, let me back up and start at the beginning.

I first saw the term “non-fungible token” or NFT in relation to an auction that Christie’s is doing of a work of digital art, The First 5000 Days, by Mike Winkelmann, an artist who goes by the name Beeple. Christie’s website touts that it is the first time they are offering at auction a piece of digital artwork, and it’s also the first time they’ll be accepting cryptocurrency – Ethereum, specifically – as well as more standard forms of currency from the eventual buyer.

Now, you might be thinking, “Wait. If it’s a piece of digital artwork, what’s to prevent it from being copied a billion times or displayed on the internet for free?” and in fact that’s a very good question because The First 5000 Days currently is being displayed on the internet and you can go see it for free. Go ahead and check it out. I’ll wait here ‘til you get back.

Here’s how it works: this specific piece of digital artwork is being sold as a token, a small piece of digital real estate on a blockchain, which forever authenticates it as being a unique thing, an intangible, tangible thing, in the same way that Bitcoins (and Ethereum, and Dogecoin, and all cryptocurrency) are also things – tokens on a blockchain with a value that’s determined by the market.

Because they’re tracked on a blockchain, these specific things can’t be forged or hacked. But while there are more than 18 million interchangeable (aka “fungible”) Bitcoins, there is only one original of any single piece of artwork, which is why they’re non-fungible: one piece of artwork can’t replace another one on a 1-to-1 basis. It’s apples to oranges – they’re both fruit/both art – but not the same thing.

So why do we care about NFTs?

Well, for one thing, within one hour of going up for auction on the Christie’s website, bidding on The First 5000 Days went from $100 to $1 million. As of March 5th bidding was up to $3.5 million but the auction closes today, March 11, so we’ll know the final price as soon as Christie’s publishes it.

UPDATE: It sold today for $69 million. SIXTY. NINE. MILLION. DOLLARS.

It’s clearly a hot new market for art lovers who are also tech savvy, like Elon Musk of SpaceX and Tesla, and Chamath Palihapitiya, the chief executive of the technology holding company Social Capital and former Facebook executive. Both are NFT collectors, and it’s clearly a fast-growing market, too.

In fact, the market for NFT art was $342 million. Last. Month. That’s more than all of the NFT sales in 2020 combined and up from $12 million just in December. NFT art sales are hot and moving like a high-speed train on a 700 mile-long prairie. People are even burning extant art to make NFT art!

But back on the ground, and perhaps more importantly for our purposes: nonprofits are benefiting. A Banksy-style artist (is it actually Banksy? He says not but the works are verrrrrry Banksy-like) created NFTs that recently sold for $900,000 and a portion of the proceeds went to Save the Children.

Also, part of the sale of a lightly-animated Wonder Woman NFT created by veteran comic book artist José Delbo recently sold at auction and netted a $23,196 donation to the nonprofit Girls Who Code. So philanthropic tech art-philes are finding creative ways to fund their favorite charities!

So check out NFTs and do some mining to discover if you have any prospects that love them. This might be a good time for your nonprofit to look into accepting cryptocurrency, too, if you haven’t already.

FURTHER READING

Post-sale explainer from The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/12/nft-beeple-christies-blockchain/

By

Celebrating Research Pride Month: Elevating Prospect Development & Celebrating Community

Happy International Prospect Research Pride Month! This week to officially kick off Pride month I am beyond delighted to invite my friends and colleagues, Misa Lobato and Melissa Bank Stepno to cut the virtual ribbon and to share what Research Pride means to them and to our professional association, Apra. Welcome and thank you, Misa and Melissa. ~Helen

March 2021.  Some might be marking this month as the one-year anniversary of when COVID rocked our world and began to turn 2020 into one of the most tumultuous years in modern history.  Rather than focusing on the profound misfortunes that challenged us over the last year, as the current President and President-Elect of Apra, and Trustees of the Apra Foundation, we would rather focus on the 7th anniversary of Research Pride month.

To celebrate, we could not find a more appropriate place to do so than on the blog that birthed International Research Pride.  On March 6th, 2014, Helen proclaimed: “I officially declare that from now on, March is International Research Pride month.”

We are Apra

For readers who are unfamiliar with Apra, Apra is the association for all professionals who strategically harness information and data to drive fundraising for philanthropic institutions. This, of course, includes Prospect Researchers but also people who work in data science and data management, relationship management, annual giving, advancement services, consulting, campaigns, and many, many others who serve data intelligence functions within fundraising and philanthropy.

Comprised of more than 1,800 members across the globe, Apra is committed to serving, representing and advancing both the professionals and the practices that enable the philanthropic success of institutions that rely on fundraising for achieving their missions. Apra fosters a collaborative environment for sharing and discussion, while leading the development, dissemination and advancement of best practices, resources, thinking and trends.

Why is Research Pride so important to us?

In an age where so many in society move around from job to job without finding a meaningful career, how many could say that they find their chosen path invigorating, energizing and stimulating? We would venture a guess that a higher percentage of Apra members would choose these words than in many other professions. We are mission-driven professionals who show up with passion, intelligence and focus in our interactions with each other and to our work in the fundraising industry.

As a community, we are advocates for the vital role of data in informing the future of philanthropy, and we continually evolve and learn to meet changing demands and technology.  As a community, we have supported each other through comradery, mentorship and training. We have both learned, and continue to learn, so much from Apra leaders, volunteers and mentors.  Even when we chose to follow a less-than-traditional career path, Apra still continued with us on our journey. We find fulfillment in giving back to the community that supported our professional growth.

Apra is a uniquely collaborative community of lifelong learners, where members are always willing to share best practices and help one another problem solve. This community orientation was on full display over the past year, when Apra members immediately stepped up to help one another navigate personal and professional hardships, connect and build networks, and master new skills. Apra members have shown up for one another in ways that are both inspiring and inspired.

These are the reasons we choose to serve on the Apra Board, these are the reasons we celebrate Research Pride month, and these are the reasons that we choose to give back financially to support our fellow Apra members.

Giving Back

Earlier this year, the Apra Foundation launched the Apra Foundation Professional Development Assistance Fund, initially established from the sales of our digital cookbook, Data Driven Deliciousness: The Apra Cookbook. The fund has a singular goal: to support prospect development professionals who have experienced financial hardship due to COVID-19 or other factors.  The fund will provide grants of $200 for Apra members to use toward any Apra-hosted educational event or Apra University content. The Foundation Board is currently reviewing the first round of applicants and will be providing the first awards this month. We plan to award another round of awards later this year.

We want to support as many Apra members as possible through this fund, so the Apra Foundation has set a fundraising goal of $2,000 for Research Pride Month. This will fund 10 Professional Development Assistance awards!

And now the appeal (since we are fundraisers, after all!): We know that many of you have experienced the learning and community benefits of Apra. Would you show your Research Pride by donating what you can to help support your fellow Apra members?

100% of Apra Foundation Trustees have pledged commitments. Join us in providing professional development opportunities for Apra Members and DONATE NOW! Thank you!

Misa Lobato

President, Apra

Director, Prospect Management & Analysis, Rhode Island School of Design

 

Melissa Bank Stepno

President-Elect, Apra

Director, Analytics & Business Consulting Services, Blackbaud

By

Identity and Blackness in Prospect Development

This week we are pleased to welcome a guest author on The Intelligent Edge to share her (and others’) perspectives on identity and Blackness in our profession. You may know Joan Ogwumike as the author for the past four years of the blog, A Researcher’s Diary, but she is also the writer of the Apra-Illinois blog as well as Prospect Research Associate at the Obama Foundation. I’m  delighted and thankful that Joan said yes to carving out time to share these perspectives and advice with us. ~Helen

Joan Ogwumike

Although small in number, Black prospect development professionals deserve an opportunity to share experiences and knowledge pertaining to diversity, inclusion and equity, wealth analysis, and ways this industry could grow.

I interviewed three Black prospect development professionals on their views and experience in our industry. The views they shared are not representative of every Black person’s experience or understanding of this industry, but they are valid and relatable to many. Due to the candidness, vulnerability and bravery to educate us, as readers and learners, those who have shared their reflections and experiences here have chosen to stay fairly anonymous.

It is important to recognize the voices of Black colleagues who have experienced stifling, bias, and distrust of their expertise and voice, just as it is important to recognize the voices of Black colleagues who have been welcomed and respected within their prospect development teams. This platform acknowledges both experiences and their validity.

To uncover the presence of identity and Blackness in Prospect Development, you must begin at the concept of presence. After a conversation with a Black colleague in the field, I was able to learn that there has been growth – over time, people of color were seeing this industry as a career option, and after decades you could spot 2 or 3 in a session at a conference. Is this exponential growth? Is this an ideal answer to presence? I think it’s a start, but it’s time for us to consider presence in our research and prospect pools.

Many prospect development professionals stepped up in 2020 to be better allies, more intentional, and started reading all the books and watching a lot of movies. My question to them is: will there be longevity in these efforts? In the year 2030 will there be a presence of equity and representation on your donor walls and annual reports?

When delving into identity, there is just so far to go. Identity is a multi-faceted and murky concept that is personal, central to lived-experiences, and complex. As prospect development professionals, to then analyze wealth and be the optimal fundraising professional, your identity can either be central to decision-making because you speak from a place of having a healthy relationship with money, or it can be compartmentalized to take the form of what you have learned from others’ experiences with money.

Blackness is a word loaded with more meaning than can ever be expressed in one article – differing in meaning for each Black person with a few commonalities and a particular thread called perseverance. The reality of Blackness is the double-edged sword it’s crafted from – a history and present-day saga full of bias, violence, pain, and discrimination; but with renewing hope, celebrating, redefining odds, attaining wealth and prescribing to freedom. Both extremes of this reality cut deeply into how society works, how we fundraise, and the ways in which we see each other.

The unique glimpses of race and identity within prospect development colleagues requires the experiences and statements below (and I would like to acknowledge the many others whose experience differs from those below that also require your attention). Therefore, as readers and learners, I urge you to please be attentive as you read what your colleagues have shared. And, be patient with yourself as you internalize the purpose, their message, and your understanding of words.

Viewing wealth beyond the historical limits and colorblind perspective.

In my youth, I didn’t think much about race, so my identity as I saw it, was simply tied to my own “nerdy” pursuits. As I matured, I began to understand that race is not biological and that race and identity cannot be separated. Identity is not only how we see ourselves but also how others see us, so the perception of race is pertinent. This was always true whether I understood it or not. Looking back on my early life has been both challenging and illuminating, but it has helped me share experiences that hopefully inform others on how race shapes identity.

My understanding of prospect development has always been shaped by two attributes: wealth (who has it and how much) and affinity (will they donate to our organization). Race seemed less important through that lens, so that was reflected in my work. Now, it’s clear that the old approach and the infrastructure built from a colorblind perspective will only surface the same narrow pools of people. The challenge for us is attempting to view wealth beyond the historical limits we’ve created and to build on the knowledge of those who have provided ongoing scholarship on the subject of race and wealth.

Advice: I understand that, as researchers, we’re always looking to find answers quickly, but in this case, patience and perseverance are required. We simply have to make time for change in our work and in our lives.

-K., Senior Research Associate

The presence of being the “only,” and advocating for “many.”

From undergraduate studies, to graduate school, to joining the workforce – I’ve always been the only. The only Black girl in the class or on the Development team or Board member. At a point I realized and owned my only-ness, as sad as the truth is. But I realized being the only mattered when a Black woman approached me in Los Angeles, several years ago, and told me that the fact that I was teaching the importance of prospect research, as a Black researcher, meant a lot to her. Seeing me, meant a lot to her because there wasn’t a lot of us.

To be honest, I was taken aback by this because I was just doing my job and passion, and obviously compartmentalizing the most crucial layer of my being. Who knew seeing me would mean something? So, I am eternally grateful to her for the reminder and for giving me the pivotal message (and gift) that what I represent matters. My presence in the field not only matters physically but also adds to how I generate prospects who I unequivocally know have potential and capacity beyond their race and external biases. I analyze wealth knowing that it can and is attained by people who look like me, however, we need to strive to do the work and include them. Instead of holding on to Oprah, Michael Jordan, Robert Smith – the only names we seem to know.

We need to create a crowd.

Prospecting Advice: Set a date, set a time, block out a chunk of time in your calendar – whatever you need to do, and prospect based on publicly available lists. This is intentional work.

-J., Prospect Research Associate

Your perceptions on identity and race can come with consequences.

Identity is who I am, which has been shaped by my experiences over time, but is independent of how people perceive me. And I am many things, but my identification as a Black woman – specifically – is more a political affirmation than racial identity. I think identity plays a role in every person’s work, no matter how they identify. Personally, it plays a bigger role when employed at predominantly white institutions (PWIs) and fluctuates according the cultural competency of my colleagues.

I still use the word race a lot because of convention, but I prefer “racial designation” or “racecraft.” The distinction is important because it reminds us that race is an ideology that people subject others to; race can’t cause or explain anything. Practices, policies and laws informed by racial ideology cause and explain conditions and outcomes. In other words, nothing can happen to me because I am Black. But many things can happen to me because people categorize me as Black, and their perceptions of Blackness come with consequences they may or may not be aware of.

Every organization and institution engaged in fundraising is materially influenced by racial ideology in some way. As I spend more of my professional time and energy on diversity, equity, and inclusion work, I have more occasion to give voice to my thoughts and put them into action. Bridging the gaps between prospect research, prospect development, and prospect engagement is of particular interest because fundraising success relies on proficiency in all three.

Encouragement: Everybody should consider race and identity in their daily work, not just when it’s on the agenda for a staff retreat or HR training.

-R., Director of Prospect Research

 

 

By

Giving Priorities for America’s Top Philanthropists in 2020

This isn’t a super long post this week, but I did some figuring and chart-making on something that piqued my interest that I wanted to share with you.

Last week Forbes magazine published a list of the top 25 donors of 2020. In past years the list has been longer – it’s normally 50 – and I’m left wondering why, in such a year of incredible generosity as 2020 was, that it was a shortened list.

Still, it’s good to see the venerable publication celebrating how much billionaires have given away versus simply glorifying how much they’ve amassed. I hope that behavior modeling spurs other billionaires to give competitively, if pure philanthropic motivation isn’t enough.

None of the names will surprise you if you’ve been paying attention to mega philanthropy over the years: the usual Buffett, Gates, Soros, Bloomberg, Broad and Moore crowd, with the fantastic new addition of Scott – MacKenzie Scott – to the list.

I was interested to see what this group of 25’s priorities were in 2020, so I created a chart that I thought you might like to see, too. For comparison’s sake, I tried to go back and look at Forbes‘ 2019 numbers to see how they compare by priority, but the Forbes Givers list published in 2019 looked at 2018 numbers. Pffft. So we’ll have to wait to compare these priorities with the Giving USA report for 2020 across-the-board giving when it comes out in the summer.

Education was the number one priority, but as you might expect, COVID-19 relief and related human service needs were big priorities. Here is the breakdown of giving priorities for this group for 2020:

Please be aware that some of this “education” giving included COVID-19 relief such as related assistance to students and university-based virus/vaccine research, so it’s not a pure education category.

My guess is that the environment, poverty, food insecurity, and criminal justice numbers are way up as a percentage of top donors’ giving, but it’s just my sense of how things went last year.

I’d love to hear any thoughts you might have on these priorities or other numbers you’ve seen.

By

Philanthropy is a broken puzzle. And we have to fix it.

It’s a useful exercise to think about our society as a puzzle where governments, and government-run operations, and businesses, and civic life, and religious organizations, and educational institutions and hospitals and charities and NGOs each, interdependently, make the picture of society whole.

We’re so busy trundling through each of our own parts, though, that we take the others…well, maybe not entirely for granted, but as if they’re permanent fixtures. I know that I’ve always assumed that things like restaurants and cute little shops and, you know, the post office would just always be there.

Now that COVID-19 has darkened our lives in uniquely individual ways like the fires have turned West Coast sunshine to midday night, it becomes harder for us to see each of those puzzle pieces that are farther afield. All of the everything going on in our own world obscures the picture on the box that reminds us what the integrity of the whole looks like.

We’re cut off, and it’s making us focus on our own piece and less on the whole.

As a fundraising intelligence professional, my work-life has been focused on identifying and bringing to life current and potential donors in a way that faithfully and ethically tells their story and motivates a fundraiser to begin (or continue) a relationship with that donor.

I’ve always deeply believed in the power of philanthropy and the good it does on both ends – making the world a better place and giving donors the opportunity to feel how amazing it is to do that.

And I still believe that, but if you read my article from a few weeks ago, you’ll remember that lately I’ve been concerned that prospect development has had a role to play in missing out on the next generation of donors. Not entirely, of course, and I know that our profession (and our company) is doing our part to help organizations find mid-level and future major donors quietly putting up their hands.

But still. I’m working harder than usual lately on trying to see beyond my piece.

And now that I’ve pulled the focus out a bit, I realize that there’s an even bigger picture which I’ve struggled against for over a year and tried to ignore because it’s too difficult to think about.

I know the nonprofit sector is by no means perfect. It’s hard to attract the level of talent and experience for jobs that for-profits can because nonprofit salaries are lower. Small nonprofits don’t have the bandwidth to compete with larger ones for much-needed funding. Large nonprofits are bureaucratic behemoths that have lost the ability to be nimble.

But large or small, every single nonprofit has to sing and dance for their supper. Every. single. day.

Every single day nonprofits are called on to Show Their Impact.

Be Donor-Centered.

Meet State Laws. Federal Laws. International Laws.

Every day they have to jump through ridiculous hoops to gain institutional funding that, in the end, may not even cover the cost of gaining, tracking and reporting the donation.

As a sector, we’re working really hard – really hard – with fewer people because of furloughing and permanent separations, to secure the next gift just to survive right now. And there’s just so much wealth out there.

It’s exhausting. It’s not just. And it’s not tenable.

In our time of greatest need, Chuck Collins, director of the Program on Inequality at the Institute for Policy Studies asks in his opinion piece for The Guardian, “Why aren’t the rich giving more?” Many of the philanthropists that fund nonprofits are richer than ever before – some are richer because of the pandemic. He reminds us that the wealth of members of The Giving Pledge has nearly doubled since February.

Collins writes:

 Many have stepped up to give during the pandemic. But their giving is not keeping pace with their exploding wealth.

This leads to the second problem: in all likelihood, most of what they give away won’t go to on-the-ground charities, but to private family foundations often controlled by wealthy heirs and their advisers. Instead of supporting charities on the frontlines of problem solving, these billions end up sitting in tax-advantaged intermediaries.”

The Chronicle of Philanthropy has just started a 5-part series specifically to discuss what’s next for the philanthropy sector, and I highly recommend it. I’ve long admired the work of Lucy Bernholz, director of the Digital Civil Society Lab at Stanford University’s Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society, and her article (part 3 of the series) is a barn-burner. In “Let’s Dismantle Toxic Tax Policies That Feed Big Philanthropy” Bernholz writes:

 In the United States today, a toxic tax code permeates our soil and prevents us from growing into a more equitable society. Our current tax laws starve our schools, hospitals, transit, and elder-care systems. They allow individuals to become trillionaires and corporations to pay nothing. They enable the amassing of philanthropic fortunes so large that people turn to them when government efforts fail.

For decades, these policies have concentrated financial benefits on the white ruling class while extracting wealth from low-income Black and brown people. The pandemic is the “big reveal” of the truly shared nature of these systemic inequities.”

As someone who deeply cares about our sector and who is steeped every day in understanding wealth, it’s been increasingly difficult for me during these past 6 months not to get angry and frustrated while learning about any non- (or weakly-)philanthropic individual’s increasing billions – knowing that it would require almost no sacrifice for them to significantly create lasting change for the world. Or even one piece of it. Especially when so many others are doing so much.

Nonprofits shouldn’t have to sing for their suppers. They should be funded to fill the gaps in society, and there should be fewer gaps to fill every year as we work toward a healthy republic, not more and more.

Our professional association boards and leading practitioners should take seriously what the philanthropy scholars, experts, and writers are saying now; consider the many solutions they’re offering; and join with members of congress who care about fixing this broken system. This sector is vital to making our society one that makes sure everyone – not just the wealthy – thrive. We’ve got to make it work.

By

Questioning philanthropy

With so many nonprofit organizations needing funding fairly desperately right now, this might not seem like a particularly great time to critique philanthropy and philanthropists. That hasn’t stopped people like Anand Giridharadas, David Callahan, Rob Reich, Ben Soskis, Alan Cantor, the folks at Mother Jones, an anonymous op-ed writer in The American Conservative, and many, many others.

And the critics have a long list of grievance: Foundations have too much power. Foundations don’t give away enough. Billionaires are stingy. Billionaires are stepping up, but not enough. Wealth inequality is distorting philanthropy. It’s imperiling democracy. DAFs are the best thing since sliced bread. DAFs are evil.

It feels like there’s a crescendo of criticism lately. And they’ve got a point – there is so much more need, the inequity gap is an increasingly yawning crevasse, and trillions are locked away in philanthropic vaults, ticking up interest and income for investment offices and institutional sponsors. And there are billionaires who could change the course of poverty/hunger/you-name-it with one check (and some, like MacKenzie Scott, who seem to be actually trying).

As they have for over a generation, medium and large nonprofits are focused laser-like on that top tier of prospects and those prospects’ assets are growing by the second, even during this pandemic. Some because of the pandemic. Sometimes I think that small triangle at the top of the pyramid is going to separate and blast off like the SpaceX Dragon.

A small voice in me wonders if prospect development has played some role in this problem of declining donor numbers. Because of our part in the fixation on that nose-cone.

And, to be fair, it has made practical sense, right? When bank robber Willy Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he said “because that’s where the money is.” Well, yeah.

Have we been myopic?

So yes, we’ve focused on the richest of the rich because they’re the ones with the most money to give away. But is that one (of the potentially many) reasons why our nonprofits have shrinking donor pools? Because we haven’t spent the time to identify and involve the next generation of donors because the low-hanging fruit was just so much easier?

What about the next tier who may not be able to make 7-figure gifts now (or ever), but could make multiple 5 or 6 figure gifts over a lifetime? Have we in PD not done our duty to insist to leadership that those prospects are worth the work so we can ensure that fundraisers working at our organization in 10 years’ time have great portfolios to work with?

Is the scarcity mindset that deeply entrenched in our sector’s collective psyche that nonprofit leadership doesn’t feel it can take the long view to ensure that their nonprofit will be here in 50 or 100 years and needs to go for the quick wins now?

Or, to play devil’s advocate, in this increasingly unequal world is it more expedient (and ethical) for us to have stayed focused on the top of the pyramid to the…maybe not exclusion, exactly, but certainly decreased emphasis on that important second tier? I wish I was sure. That small voice gets louder these days telling me “no”.

Fortunately it’s not an either/or choice. Those critics are airing out the Third Sector’s dirty laundry and it doesn’t smell too rosy. So what we have here is an opportunity for all of us, particularly in prospect development.

So what can we in prospect development do?

We have to start involving people below the Forbes 400 level – now – for all kinds of reasons.

First of all, although their bank accounts are growing at astonishing levels and their numbers are creeping up slowly, ultra-high net worth individuals (UHNWI) are still a tiny subset of the general population. Also they tend to give their support exclusively to large, well-established institutions (the equivalent of the Forbes 400 of the nonprofit world).

Second, I don’t know of too many nonprofits whose constituencies are exclusively over 60, male, and white. All-white boards may have worked in the 1970s, but we all know that style of board should have died out long ago. The fact that the status quo has lasted this long is frankly lazy and embarrassing. Female and BIPOC representation amongst trustees, volunteers, donors, and fundraisers, has to increase and fast in order for nonprofits to stay relevant (and afloat).

And third, donors have an increasing number of giving choices that completely bypass nonprofits and go straight to the recipient. Let me repeat that – donors are bypassing nonprofits entirely (read the embedded-linked article in that last line). Or they give money to nonprofits through vehicles like Facebook, which cuts out the nonprofit/donor relationship. Right now, when people can’t get out to volunteer or to attend events, these options are a way for mid-level donors to make a direct impact. This makes prospect identification, philanthropic-interest research, and engagement all the more difficult for an increasingly important demographic.

And although they may not be 100% correct, the critics care enough about the success of our sector to venture an opinion and point out where we need to fix things.

As a prospect development professional, I can’t fix DAFs, or foundation payouts, or wealth inequality, or the tax code. But there are many things we definitely can do to make our sector – and our own nonprofits – better. And that starts with making the pie bigger.

Elbow-grease prospecting and segmentation are even more critical right now. There are opportunities in every single fundraising database to be found through analytics and wealth screening, peer networks and philanthropy. There are common-sense ways to find new or previously overlooked donors in the communities where we operate and that we serve.

As an industry, we need to figure out how to present newly-identified prospects in such a way that fundraisers will rush to set up a Zoom call. And managers need to find new ways to motivate fundraisers to do that. Great prospects sitting in a portfolio growing cold are the very worst kind of waste. Internally we need to discover ways to communicate excitement and opportunity.

Something that’s been exciting for me is a project we’re working on right now within our Data Insight team: identifying the ways that the research tools we use don’t identify (or appropriately weight) female and BIPOC prospects and building up our own custom appends and methods to counter those deficiencies for our clients.

I’d love to hear your thoughts about any or all of this.

 

ABOUT HBG

The Helen Brown Group was formed in 2002 with a goal to be different.

Allow me to explain my personal philosophy to you.

Latest Intelligent Edge Articles

Privacy Quick Links