Nonprofit AF

10 predictable responses from white dudes when people criticize inequitable systems

Posted on October 10, 2021October 11, 2021 by Vu

[Image description: Three white eggs, each painted with a different facial expression, in a holder, suspended over some bright orange surface. The egg on the left has its mouth open, as if screaming. The one in the middle looks sick and is drawn with a thermometer in its mouth; the egg on the right just looks surprised. Image by Karan Mandre on Unsplash]

Hi everyone, in observance of Indigenous Peoples’ Day, let’s remember that less than half a percent of total foundation grant dollars go to Native organizations and communities (and I doubt individual donations or government sources are much higher). Foundations reading this, back up your statements of solidary by analyzing how much you are investing in Indigenous-led-and-serving organizations, and increasing the amount. Non-Native orgs, now’s a good time to think of how you can tangibly lift up Native orgs; make introductions to your existing donors and funders, for example. The rest of us, let’s buy from Native businesses, donate to Native-led orgs, subscribe to Native media, and financially support Native individuals. Let’s do all this year-round, not just this week.

***

This post may ruffle some of you, especially if you’re a fragile white dude, so before I begin, I want to let you know that some of my best friends are white dudes. (Ben, Chris, Kevin, I miss you all; let’s find a time to hang out; I’ll download some Creedence Clearwater Revival and Johnny Cash we can listen to.) I say that as a joke, but it’s also true. There are amazing white dudes in our sector and in society doing critical work making the world better. Still, we need to have a talk.

Why pitch-based funding competitions are harmful and we need to stop having them

Posted on October 3, 2021October 4, 2021 by Vu

[Image description: A dog and a pony facing each other yet looking downward sadly. They appear to be outside on a mountain, with a pine forest in the background. What are they contemplating? Who knows. Image by Maninderjeet Singh Sidhu on Unsplash].

Last week, I was on Clubhouse in a conversation called “If Nonprofits Were Brutally Honest with Funders” (with colleagues Dr. Rahsaan Harris, Kris Putnam-Walkerly, and Julie Morris). After my remarks about power dynamics, the injustices upon which much of philanthropy is based, and how so little funding goes to organizations led by marginalized communities, listeners were invited to join in. The first person said something about how people of color should learn to “pitch” better so that funders and donors could understand their ideas. (Another person said being nice and getting people to empathize and bringing them ice cream to eat and puppies to snuggle with would work better in soliciting funding than my “angry complaints,” but that’s for another post).

The idea of “pitching” is not new. We have been trained to do “elevator pitches” that are supposed to be pithy yet moving, sincere yet polished, inspiring yet grounded, all in 20 seconds. We pitch to donors, funders, politicians, partner orgs, volunteers. Grants, meanwhile, are basically just long pitches. We do a lot of pitching.

The most extreme manifestation of this idea of “pitching” are the “Shark Tank”-style funding opportunities where leaders go on stage to give short presentations about their organizations’ work to a live audience, after which, depending on how they do and how the “judges” and people watching their presentations react, they could walk away with one of several small grant prizes.

Stop saying that 80% of nonprofit funding comes from individual donors. It’s misleading.

Posted on September 26, 2021September 27, 2021 by Vu

[Image description: A grey striped cap, lying on red velvet, wearing a tiny red and golden crown, covered in Canadian dollar bills of different denominations. They are wearing a necklace with a gold dollar sign pendant. They are looking to the left, surrounded by an aural of feline regality. Image by Allange on Pixabay]

Hi everyone. Quick reminder: Please get flu shots for you and your family, if you are able to. Hospitals and healthcare workers are overwhelmed by COVID, so in addition to getting your COVID shots, get your flu shot. And then buy yourself a new house plant or some chocolate as a reward.

Every time I criticize foundations, someone steps in with “well, 80% of philanthropic dollars come from individual donors.” Usually it is a well-meaning statement, designed to give hope to those of us who are frustrated with foundations and their various archaic and ridiculous practices. And taken as a whole, it may be true. This report, for example, shows that in 2019, 69% of giving comes from individuals, 10% from bequests, 17% from foundations, and 5% from corporations.

If 17% of our revenues come from foundations and 5% from corporations, why should we spend so much time and energy bashing our heads against the walls, screaming in anguish at the foundations and corporations that require quarterly reports, make us use their own budget templates, or, worst of all, force us to remove Oxford Commas to stay within character limits? If they account for only a fraction of total philanthropic dollars, maybe we’re wasting time trying to get foundations and corporations to change and should focus more time rallying individual donors?

DAFs: What They Are, Which Misguided Orgs Oppose Mild Legislations on Them, and Why You Should Care

Posted on September 19, 2021September 20, 2021 by Vu

[Image description: An adorable black-footed ferret, standing upright in the snow, looking at the camera. They have a cream-colored coat, brown legs with black feet, small round ears, and dark, liquid eyes that steal your heart. No, this ferret has nothing to do with DAFs. Image by Rohan Chang on Unsplash.]

Hi everyone. Donor-Advised Funds (DAFs) is not the most riveting of topics, I will admit. Sometimes, when I have insomnia, I read about DAFs, and that usually does the trick, especially when combined with some melatonin. However, they are rapidly growing as a vehicle for charitable giving, have almost no regulations whatsoever, and are rife with inequity. So we all need to care about them.

It seems though that some colleagues are still confused by DAFs and what the problem is and so don’t want to tune in to this conversation. I’m going to explain it simply for those not familiar, so that you don’t fall asleep; apologies to colleagues who are more knowledgeable in this area than I am.

Imagine that you made millions of dollars selling naturally fermented pickle products. After buying yourself a yacht, you think “Huh, I should probably donate some money to charity. That will help people and also prevent me from paying so much in taxes, win-win.”

We need to rethink the concept of “mission creep”

Posted on August 22, 2021August 23, 2021 by Vu

[Image description: A blue-ringed octopus floating around. They are bright orange with bright blue rings all over. This octopus’s adorableness hides the fact that this species is among the most venomous and deadly of all creatures, containing venom a thousand times more powerful than cyanide, enough for each octopus to kill 26 people within minutes. Not sure how that is relevant to this blog post, but it’s still interesting. Image by pen_ash on Pixabay.]

Hi everyone. Quick reminder before we get started. This Wednesday, August 25^th, 11am PT, Community-Centric Fundraising is having a one-year celebration/reflection. I hope to see you there. Meanwhile, if you’ve benefited from the CCF movement or your org has made changes because of it, please share.

There are only a few things we all agree on in this work. One of those things is that mission creep is no good, very bad. Mission creep is like mixing trash and recycling together. It’s like not tipping a hairstylist or restaurant server. It’s like soaking a cast-iron pan in water overnight. It’s bad.

The term originated in 1993 and concerned the United Nations’s peacekeeping efforts during the Somali Civil War, and now it’s used a lot in our sector to talk about when organizations start doing things outside their stated mission, which causes organizations to waste resources on stuff they’re not good at, or that another org is already doing more effectively. When orgs don’t stick to their missions, it often leads to confused constituents, annoyed partner orgs, irritated funders, and a less effective field.