If you look closely the list you’ll see that The Philanthropy 400 is made up of a diverse group of organizations, although most are older and more established nonprofits.  Those on the list this year include a number of colleges and universities, health charities, hospitals, foundations, youth organizations, media, religious groups, wildlife and environmental groups to name a few.  Some on the list had significant increases in giving last year, others had significant decreases.  I expected that the diversity of the groups within the listing would create for some variances, but I was curious to know if any one category saw larger than average increases or decreases.

The report does not provide an analysis by category, so I added a “category type” to each organization on the list and performed some analysis of my own using data I pulled November 30, 2010[1].

Breaking the organizations into the categories below, here’s what I found using the data to compare the change in private giving in 2009 over 2008:

The greatest overall giving gains were in the Education, Health/Medical (Research/Other), Foundations/Trusts and Children, Youth & Family categories.  The greatest overall declines in giving were in the Health/Medical (Hospital), Outdoor and Environment, and Humanitarian (non food).

Within each of the categories there could also be significant variances. For example, within the Military category support for veterans organizations (DAV and PVA) showed decline, while support for active troops (USO) showed improvement. This made sense to me in the case of the Military category given our current military actions, but variations in other categories it made less sense.

I would agree that this data suggests directional trends in some categories of nonprofits, specific causes, and perhaps for some individual organizations, although I’m not convinced that giving overall giving is down as reported by The Chronicle of Philanthropy.

The data provided in this report is merely a snapshot.  Many on the list have different fiscal years and the data is updated on www.philanthropy.com as new data is provided.  In fact, my review of the November 30, 2010 data for example, suggested that overall giving was up 5% over the previous year, while the October written report from The Chronicle of Philanthropyy indicated an 11% decline as mentioned earlier. In addition, no consideration seems to have been given to specific events within the life of an individual organization that might have triggered larger than usual donations within the year, such as a milestone anniversary.

As with all research, we could manipulate the data to support whatever giving position we chose to take on the nonprofit sector as a whole.  The reality is there’s a deeper problem that’s not yet being fully addressed by our Nation’s largest nonprofit organizations: Our culture and our demographics are rapidly evolving and most of these organizations are not keeping pace with the evolution.

In fact, most have spent years cultivating the Greatest Generation and the Baby Boomers, but haven’t put much effort into reaching Generation X or Generation Y.  Of those that have put forth an effort to reach the younger generations, the majority have used the same approaches that have proven successful for the older audiences.  Unfortunately, just because it has worked, does not mean it will continue to work. These cultural and demographic changes have created a whole new set of needs, values and expectation of younger donors that are not aligned with those needs, values and expectations of the older donors.  Moreover, the speed of change is too great.

Speed and change are the two things most nonprofit organizations fail to do well.

The misalignment of these needs, values and expectations means that the message and the mission of many organizations is no longer connecting in a meaningful way with new generations of prospective donors. Without the connection, there’s no love for the organization or for its mission.

This lack of a mission connection is the underlying reason, not the economy, for the decline in giving to majority of The Philanthropy 400, and for a good number of nonprofits and educational institutions that didn’t make the list.

The question now is this: If you think your organization has a mission connection problem, what are you going to do about it?

[1] The Chronicle of Philanthropy updates their online data regularly.

Photo Credit:Connection by craig.letourneau.photography

Nonprofits have a mission connection problem | Dave Harkins

The Fourth Turning is a Crisis, a decisive era of secular upheaval, when the values of regime propel the replacement of the old civic order with a new one.

Strauss and Howe go on to say that each Turning has its own mood. During the Fourth Turning, they suggest that we will see families being strengthened, gender roles widening, ideals championed, and new institutions founded. We will become practical as a culture, our social priority will be building our community, and our greatest sense of need will be to fix the world beyond ourselves.

It sounds like the world we are living in now, doesn’t it?

If you are familiar with Strauss and Howe’s previous book, Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584 to 2069, you know that the last Hero (or civic-focused) generation is known to most as the Greatest Generation, while the current Hero generation are the Millennial’s. The current Hero Generation has brought us Facebook, Twitter, and other online social networks. This generation is pushing to fix the problems of America and regularly puts their words into action at the voting booth. This generation strives to make a difference in the world and consistently delivers on their promises.

As the Millennials move into adulthood, they are merging their needs, values, and expectations into every detail of their lives. They need to feel that they are making a difference. They value consensus, relationships, and family. They hold the government, institutions, corporations, their peers, society, and themselves to higher standards than any other generation. Along the way, their idealism is resetting the expectations not just for their own generation, but also for all.

Organizations and corporations must take note of these changes because it is redefining the way success will be measured as it relates to the customer, member, or donor. Consider these points critical for the future survival of nearly every business and organization:

1.  Be trustworthy in all your encounters. You have to earn the business.
2.  Be transparent in all your actions. You must walk the talk.
3.  Stand for something bigger than profits. Greed is no longer acceptable.
4.  Make a difference in the world around you. You must care and show it.
5.  Build meaningful relationships with your customers. People like to do business with those they like.
6.  Ask for input from constituents and use what you are given. Collaboration and consensus means everything.

While these points could essentially be summed up into the Golden Rule, they are often lost in the business world. The Millennials are reminding us all that there is something larger than ourselves that needs tending. This is the attitude that must prevail in our businesses, our colleges, our communities, and our government.

If Millenials are successful in driving change in this Fourth Turning, our world will undoubtedly change for the better. And, they will have earned the label of Hero.

The rise of a new “Hero” | Dave Harkins

Growing up, I learned quickly how to determine when my dad wanted my attention. He could add a certain tonal quality, let’s say, to the delivery of a sentence that let me know I needed to focus on what he was saying. He never raised his voice, but I often heard him “yelling” when he used “the tone.” On the other hand, my mom’s voice often had a constant level of exasperation that allowed me to lose every word she shared to the white noise that surrounded us.

I thought about “the tone” as I watched President-elect Barack Obama’s acceptance speech last evening. His entire campaign was delivered with a different tone. It was a tone crafted for and deftly delivered to a generation–the Millennial Generation. CNN’s exit polls last evening noted that 68% of voters 18-24 and 69% of those 25-29 voted for Mr. Obama–a solid victory for the Millennial Generation. Conversely, the same exit polls placed the majority of McCain’s supporters over age 45 and a great number over the age of 65.

If you have been unable to see these change markers in your every-day life and work, it should be clear from this election that the Millennial Generation, more than other generations, responds as much to the tone of your voice, as they do to your message. This realization presents an interesting dilemma for marketers, I think. Most of us understand “the tone” concept in our gut, but do not put it into practice in our marketing or advertising campaigns. A good many of us are using a tone in our voice that is heard well by Baby Boomers, but is generating white noise to pretty much everyone else.

The November 4, 2008 election should be a wake-up call for marketers. It is time to adjust the tone of our voice if we hope to be heard by a new generation.

It’s all in the tone of your voice | Dave Harkins

Please note that this presentation is Dave Harkins’ work created in other partnerships or organizations and the design templates have not been changed. Additionally, this content may now be dated but can still be used as an idea starter for your specific needs.

Delivered July 23, 2002, National Center for Database Marketing
Presented with Melissa Rehfus, Vice President, Marketing, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida

(Click the link below to access the PDF file)

Piloting a CRM Initiative

PRESENTATION: Piloting a CRM Initiative | Dave Harkins