Innovative fundraising perspective from the Lake Lecture

Posted on March 26, 2018 by Abby Rolland

By Mina Margaret Ogbanga, Ford Foundation/ARNOVA Fellow

The last thing you want to do after four days of an 8 a.m. – 6 p.m. series of lectures is to have ANOTHER lecture! So, in no small part, I simply was just ready to get home and have a free evening.

Then came the reminder. The Fellows needed to be at the Lake Lecture. The rest they say is history, as rather than walking home, we simply ran with some speed to ensure we didn’t miss the bus headed to St. Luke’s United Methodist Church, where we were welcomed to a night of reinventing charity.

Mixed thoughts as to what one could learn from this charity: water experience went through our minds. Incidentally, it turned out to be a most exhilarating experience. Scott Harrison, founder and CEO of charity: water, moved you from story to story with effortless energy and unveiled innovative fundraising steps that would help just about any nonprofit towards achieving success with their fundraising.

This blog seeks to do a comparative analysis of the fundraising strategy from the lecture and those practiced in African settings and importantly sieve the lessons for readers to understand the importance, uses, and strategies to deploying best practice and innovative fundraising steps benchmarked against the 13 key steps of the fundraising cycle. Finally, it highlights contrasting views and recommendations.

The experience; the journey to finding the case statement

The presentation started with a story of the personal journey of the Philadelphia-born Harrison. His mission to Liberia aboard the 500-foot medical ship was to document the work done by the medical personnel. They traveled to locations where one doctor had to support 50,000 people. He spoke of the pain of war, the challenge of cleft lips and facial distortions. Documenting these transformations— capturing those moments of medical transformation from being cursed to being beautiful—were strategic stories that set the tone for the entire night. Harrison also discovered through that experience the power of stories. The project opened him up to the realization that over 600 million people have no water from Liberia to Honduras.

Examining the case and the point of self-discovery

Harrison quoted the World Health Organization that 52 percent of diseases are spread through water from ecoli to leeches, some of which stuck to the throat of the citizens. Half of the schools didn’t have water. Social pressure due to this has made many girls leave school.

Harrison has traveled to over 68 countries from Bangladesh to eastern Kenya and has never seen a man fetch water due to the cultural belief that plays out. In some cases, many refuse to fetch from the cleaner water as they were infested with crocodiles and threats of hyenas. Fortunately, he saw the water issues as a solvable problem and commenced the deployment of 11 different technologies to drill water. After spending 10 years in New York as a club promoter, he realized early on that he had betrayed the values and spirituality of his childhood; fast cars and fast living led him to liquidating more than 2000 of his DVDs on eBay and simply moving away from it all.

Analyzing market requirement and preparing needs statement

The captured moment of kids screaming and jumping for water remains memorable for Harrison, cementing his desire to provide water. This was especially true as water turned out to be the most transformative way to move people from poverty, as it not only improved health but gave women in the communities the much needed time back to utilize for other activities. It was strange to discover that women spent over 40 million hours seeking water. The new availability of the water gave them the opportunity to spend time with family, become entrepreneurs, and do other strategic activities.

Defining objectives and breaking away from the status quo

Harrison believes that “everyone can stand for clean water.” It was interesting to hear him state that people not trusting charities was the backdrop for his stance to transform the sector. He mentioned that money given to charities was considered wasted money. So he was spurred to design a functional business model that would overcome inefficiency and ineffectiveness. His strategic model is to dedicate 100 percent of money to water provision. He also ensured donors were clearly updated about their donations. Thus his business model was basically a) 100 percent of the funding dedicated to the project, b) proof of utilization, and c) developing a good brand rather than simply using guilt and shame.

Involving volunteers, innovative steps and validating needs statement

The key focus for Harrison was on ways that didn’t remove the “fun” in fundraising and involving active volunteers.

He expressed the strong need for nonprofits and all service providers to move from lame marketing to marketing with good taste. He encouraged the mainstreaming of local expertise and partners so that the work will be sustainable. He stated that he wasn’t or didn’t want to look like a religious charity and so he encouraged a local team. Working towards ensuring his work on providing clean water and sanitation brought together people of all faiths.

Harrison’s model in Bobi, Uganda, where people were invited to attend a party and donate an entry fee of $20, received a strong mention as an innovative fundraising drive. People came, ate as much as they wished, and afterward all 700 of the participants received feedback on the support that their donations provided. The water story changed and the media buzz helped strongly to propel the cause.

Evaluating the gift market and selecting a fundraising vehicle

The surprise of the evening was the fact that Harrison said he had NEVER sent a direct mail but rather committed to utilizing the internet maximally. All the projects were about people; both online and off-line! He celebrated people and communities who were part of the project. He deployed strategic media branding like showcasing dirty water in a feeding bottle, which went viral as a PR stunt for water support. He didn’t at any time undermine the power of videos (more storytelling) through Instagram and innovations, specifically donating on days like Valentine’s Day.

Identifying potential giving sources and designing a unique fundraising plan

Harrison put a cost to every support. For example, he knew he could get a team to drill water for a community for $5,000. He set out from designer shops to retail cans and raised $700,000. He commenced a world tour and was able to raise $605,000. The use of calendars, posters and related IEC materials were used as part of the information materials.

The uniqueness of birthdays was highlighted in getting people to “donate” their birthdays for a particular year as a giving moment in support of water. Crosscutting fundraising figures were raised from $23,000 to $30,000. Jack Dorsey and Angela Ahrends both donated $100,000. Other celebrities like Will Smith and Jada Pickett Smith donated $200,000 and even had a chance to visit the project. Uniquely, Nora Wein donated her 89th birthday and was determined to make water possible for others through helping them access clean water.

Preparing a communications plan

As the organization grew, Harrison deployed other models like utilizing groups such as Netflix, Spotify, etc., to reach even wider audiences, and reminding us that we “do not need to be afraid of work that has no end.” He showed great skills in the use of charts, tables, etc. The use of stories, photos, and videos all jointly used as tools raised $200 million.

Sustainability was at the heart of his initiative, “going beyond the now.” The strategic use of history, feedback, and sharing plans for next steps gave hope to many who felt more comfortable to donate even more.

Soliciting the gift

One innovation led to another, an example being “the well,” which set off a growth of support for wells and was a strategic ASK. There were numerous clear giving levels from the tiniest of opportunities to capital giving, which were all well planned out. At the heart of all Harrison’s programs was a desire to end the numerous sufferings of the masses, giving him the strength to connect with all sorts of donors, especially the millennials. Then, he shared stories of everyday people doing extraordinary things. But the stories weren’t all of joy; the pain of his mother, the loss of one of his youngest donors, and the unreached and vulnerable all formed part of what shaped various aspects of Harrison’s initiatives and strengthened them even more. His cost analysis was on point. His scientific view of handwashing as a tool to addressing clean water matters helped.

Demonstrating stewardship and renewing the gift

These steps set the tone for Harrison’s huge success in the field of philanthropy. At the question and answer session, he mentioned his low capacity to work across the developed world, stating clearly that he had no expertise in navigating political waters but preferred his work in rural communities.

Harrison stated that he received funds from a cross section of donors, even atheists. His vision of turning time to wealth matched with a great and informative website and commitment to quality delivery, worked well.

His passion for transparency and accountability is second to none, and specifically the use of KPMG as his auditors showed a deliberateness at getting it right with finances. Getting continued high ratings has proven how seriously Harrison takes stewardship. He acknowledged the power of storytelling and capturing strategic moments.

On the 100 percent model, many refer to Harrison’s business model as an unfair advantage. Running on zero balance as a pre-start for 11 years is to many a huge commitment. To succeed through the tough phases, you must be willing to work in the service of others and be willing to make key sacrifices.

Harrison’s overriding vision is simply to reinvent charity and his mission is water. He often talked entrepreneurs into the 100 percent model, stating that the ability for people to know where their money went meant a lot to many.

His passion also extends to generational inspiration where he loves speaking in schools. Transparency is charity: water’s culture. Utilizing podcasts is a key strength he brings and it has yielded a high measurable success rate.

Another twist to his response was the possible use of Block chain, including Bitcoin, to enhance transparency. Harrison is inspired by continued originality, inspiration, and imagination, and he encourages partnerships with creative talents from the social entrepreneurs eco space.

He concluded by saying he has turned down several jobs due to his passion. He encouraged everyone to always remember that you are responsible for the design of the impact you make or want to make, and ensure the institutional memory is sustained by telling children about this legacy. Who knows … they could turn out to do it better!

Conclusion

In my view, Harrison has come a long way with tested tools that have worked. This is followed by a consistency that simply helps in dotting all I’s and crossing T’s. His firm belief in the ability to provide solutions gives him tireless energy. Many may see his actions as messianic, a semblance to being the deliverer from the West and to be worshipped and honored. Others may not have come to terms with the 100 percent model as workable, but I recall he started off by saying he had TWO accounts; one for projects and one for overheads, both supported primarily by the intrinsic interest of the donor.

A colleague is of the view that Harrison’s approach needs to be more integrated, incorporating other core parts of water and sanitation and stakeholders for an even stronger sense of sustainability, while another attendee at the talk called it a very “colorful” presentation.

Whatever the views, one takeaway is that whatever the heart desires it can actually achieve following strategic and consistent steps and if one can reach the other, the cascading effect of impact will surely change the world and make it an even better place to live.

So was I inspired to give to a WELL? I guess so.

Mina Margaret Ogbanga is an experienced community development specialist who is the founder and CEO of the Center for Development Support Initiatives (CEDSI Nigeria), an institution that promotes good governance and sustainable development in rural communities. She is one of 10 senior NGO leaders from Southern and West Africa spending the spring 2018 semester in Indianapolis engaging with faculty in philanthropic studies and nonprofit management as well as civically engaged Hoosiers.

Passing on more than genes: Economist Mark Wilhelm discusses Women Give 2018

Posted on March 22, 2018 by Abby Rolland

By Kylie Kaspar

Most people are able to identify which traits they get from their parents—I know that’s certainly true in my case. But economist Mark O. Wilhelm wanted to explore whether values like generosity might also be passed down from parent to child.

Wilhelm, professor of economics at IUPUI and founding director of the Philanthropy Panel Study, has spent nearly two decades exploring prosocial behavior in the family through an economic lens. His background made him the perfect fit to work with the Women’s Philanthropy Institute on its latest report, Women Give 2018: Transmitting Generosity to Daughters and Sons.

Wilhelm found philanthropy in his search to find a way to incorporate his math and technical skills with social justice. He explains that his journey to an academic study of philanthropy began with his curiosity about the forces of social inequality, which led him to look more closely at the role inheritance plays in altruistic and prosocial behavior within the family.

“My first thinking about altruism was in the context of the family,” he said. “Altruism within the family became (an) interest in helping behavior at large, larger than just inside the family, and that’s what ended up connecting me to questions that are about giving and volunteering, (which are issues) that are of interest to people in philanthropy.”

In reflecting upon his childhood, Wilhelm notes that his parents’ approach to philanthropy, whether formal or informal, has had a lasting impact on his charitable behavior. Rather than focusing on the amount donated, Wilhelm emphasizes that his parents relayed a charitable spirit. Their involvement with and donations to charitable organizations taught Wilhelm “the idea that you don’t have to spend on yourself everything you earn or get. It’s OK not to do that. Although that sounds like a simple thing, that’s a hard thing to learn.”

Wilhelm hopes that people who are concerned about instilling philanthropic values in their children will benefit from the latest Women Give report and explicitly model habitual behaviors of giving, something that he has altered in how he displays his own philanthropic interests to his family.

“It helped me realize, ‘well, we have to be sure they know this is important,’ ” he mused. “Money is a part of it. You’ve got to get used to the idea that you can set aside something and it’s really OK, but the second thing is the time. It takes time, and time is what’s really, really scarce.”

Time is key in transmitting values from parent to child, regardless of gender. Parents must be intentional about investing time in talking about or displaying philanthropic behavior to both sons and daughters. Wilhelm says Women Give 2018 indicates that “it looks like there are different socialization mechanisms that are working for daughters and sons.”

Whether through role modeling or discussion, parents will inherently always have an influence on their children’s behavior, but researchers have only just begun to investigate how values, motives, and attitudes are passed down.

“That would be a fantastic thing to learn about. We are really at the early stages of understanding how motives connect to charitable giving,” Wilhelm noted.

As we concluded our interview, I asked Dr. Wilhelm if he had any final thoughts. “Not really. I had a joke lined up, but…” he trailed off.

I offered to set him up for the joke, if he wanted to hint at how I might do that, though he refused. “Nah, it’s a bad joke. But that’s also a part of being a parent—making bad jokes.”

“That’s true,” I agreed. “My dad definitely passed that on to me. I’m really good at the bad jokes. And I think I’m hilarious, but I got that from my mom,” I said.

“There you go!” laughed Wilhelm. “That’s a good way to end.”

Read the full Women Give 2018 report View the infographic

Kylie Kaspar is a student in our master of arts in philanthropic studies program and a graduate assistant for the Women’s Philanthropy Institute.

Shaping the study of philanthropic studies one book at a time

Posted on March 20, 2018 by Abby Rolland

Joseph and Matthew Payton Philanthropic Studies Library

Dr. Fran Huehls has been a longtime employee and faculty member of the then-Center on Philanthropy, the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, and the Joseph and Matthew Payton Philanthropic Studies Library. After 30 years working with the school and library, Dr. Huehls retired last December. Learn more about her experiences and how she’ll continue to stay busy.

Background: “I worked in nonprofit accounting, but when I moved to Indiana in the 1980s, I realized I wanted to earn a master’s degree in library science. While I was working on that degree, they were looking for people to work on a new publication called the Philanthropic Studies Index through the new Center on Philanthropy. I started working on it through the Center, and never left!”

After completing her master’s in library science, Dr. Huehls continued on to earn her master’s in philanthropic studies and doctorate in higher education.

Different experiences with the Center, school, library: “I continued with the library until 2000 and then became the full-time librarian. I also worked for two years as a research associate for the Center on Philanthropy.”

Dr. Huehls has worked in teaching, research, writing, editing, advising, and other tasks associated with the library.

Job responsibilities: “I selected materials for the Payton Library and evaluated gift donations. This program has a lot of in-class instruction on library skills, so I worked with students individually on assignments. I attended conferences and wrote and edited articles and books, including co-authoring a book called Fundraising and Institutional Advancement: Theory, Practice, and New Paradigms. I taught a research methods course for five years and worked on the master’s advising committee. I also acted as head of the Ruth Lilly Special Collections & Archives.”

Favorite part of the job: “I really liked working with students and helping them figure out what it is they need to know. I also enjoyed working in administration and problem solving.”

How things have changed: “The Internet has really changed everything. Back in the early ‘90s, we were producing this index and it took us months to accumulate enough information for it. Now, with the advantage of the Internet, the amount of information that you can discover has continuously increased. Now, it probably wouldn’t take us more than a week to gather the information for the index. The Internet has changed the whole nonprofit sector.”

How the school has stood out: “It has a unique approach to the field. In terms of academia, we’re the only school of philanthropy in the world. The education here gives you a broad, humanist perspective and the ability to understand the nature of giving and receiving. I think it’s important in the field of philanthropy and nonprofits to be able to mentally step into someone else’s shoes.

“In addition, the students are phenomenal. They’re all standouts. The enthusiasm for the work has always been there. It’s also been remarkable to see this community of people who have really tried to create something different.”

Students who have stood out: “There are many. (Dr.) Sarah Nathan gives me credit for bringing her here. They used to send potential master’s students to speak with me. When she came, it was a beautiful day outside and I asked if she wanted to go for a walk. We walked over to White River State Park and she decided at the moment that Indianapolis was a place she could live and so she decided to come here. But there are so many other students who I’m still in touch with as well.”

Transformation from a Center to a school: “We all imagined right from the beginning that it would become a school. All of us wanted it to keep going and reach that goal.”

What she’s proud of: “I’m proud of the collections we have here, which includes about 25,000 books on philanthropy and the Robert Payton personal collection, which is another 15,000 books. We’ve been able to help define the field in terms of philanthropic literature. I’m also proud that from the beginning, we were able to integrate library experiences directly into the curriculum. We have a robust program in terms of library exposure for students in all programs. They’re exposed to primary sources and archival collections from day one. They work with records and learn about nonprofit organizations from that angle, which is unique and special.”

Looking forward to in retirement: “I’m really interested in improving cities for walkers and bikers. I’m also interested in the relationship between cities and green spaces. For example, we have White River State Park next to the city of Indianapolis. That’s really special, and I’d like to get more involved with urban planning and city design.”

What she’ll miss the most: “Being around people in the library.”

What is a memory you have of working with Dr. Huehls? Share in the comments below.

Learn more about the Joseph and Matthew Payton Philanthropic Studies Library and the Ruth Lilly Special Collections and Archives

Making a mark with a master’s degree

Posted on March 16, 2018 by Abby Rolland

After earning her bachelor’s degree in her home county of China, Le (Elle) Yang knew she wanted to continue her studies in a master’s degree program. When circumstances drove her to begin looking at schools in the United States, she found, applied, and was accepted to the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.

“I’m interested in helping people, and that passion drove me to study and pursue a career path in this direction,” Yang said.

She soon learned a great deal about philanthropy and fundraising in the United States. One of the classes that taught her the most was Principles and Practices of Fundraising with Dr. Tim Seiler.

“I didn’t know anything about fundraising before I enrolled in that class,” she said. “During it, I learned all of these concepts and case studies and what good fundraising is. In addition, Dr. Seiler is a fundraiser himself and is a perfect example of what a good fundraiser is.”

Yang identified other individuals at the school who made a strong impact on her, including philanthropic studies professor and founding dean emeritus Gene Tempel, who helped narrow Yang’s passion to a specific area of interest and suggested that she go into applied research. She also praised Pamela Clark, director of student services and admissions, for her impact: “Pamela always asked how I was doing. She helped me balance being an international student with my life and work.”

Andy Baker, associate director of annual giving and alumni relations and Yang’s graduate assistant supervisor for a semester, introduced her to many experiences and people.

“He constantly took me into meetings where he talked about fundraising ideas and plans and how we could help the school achieve its goals,” Yang said.

Yang also mentioned Dr. Xiaonan Kou, associate director of research: “I worked with her when I served as a research associate for the school. She’s very thoughtful and detailed-oriented and always had me look at a problem in different ways before finding a solution.”

Yang’s graduate assistantships with Baker in development and Kou in research gave her practical experience in fundraising and research. With Baker, Yang worked in prospect research and identified prospective donors who could become connected to the school.

“We were interested in alumni and individuals from other countries and what their philanthropic and social investment goals are. I provided concrete strategies for donor qualification and helped create major donor profiles,” Yang said.

In the research department, Yang learned about the practical applications research has to the field of philanthropy. She researched, coded lists, and reviewed literature for projects such as the Million Dollar List and Giving in Chicago.

These experiences helped launch Yang into her first job post graduation as a research assistant at United Way, where she worked in prospect research and data analytics. She realized that she wanted to go back to school though and is now enrolled in the graduate program at the IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA). She also works part-time at the Public Policy Institute and focuses on data analytics, statistical analysis, and graph creation.

For Yang, the combination of fundraising and research has shown her the path she wants to continue on.

“Nonprofits need to utilize scientific models to figure out markets and increase capacity development. Statistical analysis will help illustrate trends for the entire industry, while also helping specific nonprofits frame their unique styles of fundraising,” she said. “I’m very interested in using those forms of analysis and combining them with prospect research to enhance the field.”

In the future, Yang would like to become a leader for a prospect research or resource development team for a renowned nonprofit organization in the U.S.

For now though, Yang is continuing school and working while also volunteering as the fundraising chair for the China United Education Assistance Foundation (CUEAF), a local nonprofit that is helping rural children in China achieve higher levels of education, while also fostering educational and cultural exchanges between the U.S. and China.

“The organization is completely run by volunteers and they put 100 percent of the donations to the programming work,” she said. “These resources are transforming the lives of children and teachers in rural China. To see the impact of philanthropy in this different context is very interesting and empowering.”

She is grateful for her time at the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, saying the school is “the first and best school of philanthropy in the world. It has the most advanced theory and research.

“The resources the school has brought to me and can bring to other students are limitless. The relationships I developed there will continue to be a positive influence on my life and career.”

Her advice for current students?

“Narrow down your interests to two or three specific ideas and go with those. Keep your eyes open but be realistic about working in the nonprofit sector. You’re not going to solve an entire issue like poverty, but you are going to be able to say that you made a difference.”

Abby Rolland is the blog content coordinator for the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.

The data behind Women Give 2018

Posted on March 14, 2018 by Abby Rolland

By Jon Bergdoll

Jon Bergdoll is the applied statistician in the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy’s research team. He directs and conducts analyses for many of the school’s research projects, including Women Give 2018 and other studies conducted in partnership with the Women’s Philanthropy Institute. In this post, he answers questions about the data behind Women Give 2018: the Philanthropy Panel Study.

What is the Philanthropy Panel Study? How long has it been around, and what does it tell us?

The Philanthropy Panel Study (PPS), is part of a larger survey, the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). The PSID tracks the same families over time and surveys them every two years, and around 9,000 households now complete the survey. The PPS questions about charitable giving were first introduced in 2000, but the PSID itself has been around for 50 years, since 1968. The PSID was designed as a long-term project to track American families across generations. The larger survey has a special focus on economic and poverty-related questions, since it was originally funded as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. The PPS portion allows us to see how Americans of all sorts give to charity, and how that giving changes over time.

The Philanthropy Panel Study is often referred to as the “gold standard” for datasets, particularly about charitable giving. Why is the data from the PPS of such high quality? What do you like best about working with the PPS?

There are a few reasons why the PPS data is considered to be excellent quality:

First, the larger PSID is designed and surveyed by experts, and the underlying sample is reliable and accurately represents the American population. PPS data stands above other high-quality data on charitable giving in this way, because much of the other data is constrained to looking at around the top third of American households by income.
Second, the PSID is panel data, which means the same households are surveyed over time, answering the same questions every two years. This means we not only can track any changes households make in their charitable giving, but we also know if their income changed, if they got married, if they had a child, or any of the many life events that can influence charitable giving. This is invaluable because it allows us to not just see how charitable giving is changing, but why it might be changing.
Finally, questions in the PPS were written by experts in the field, meaning they are precisely worded based on years of research into the best way to ask about giving. In this way, we get the most thorough and accurate responses from these thousands of households.

I personally enjoy working with the PPS because it’s incredibly rich and does a better job than anything else in capturing how Americans give, and to what causes. Because it is representative of the U.S. population, it helps to highlight the middle ground of giving; gifts that aren’t multi-million-dollar, headline-making gifts, but are cumulatively more important.

How did you use the Philanthropy Panel Study data in Women Give 2018? What challenges did you encounter using this data in the study?

Well, the full report has a lot more information about our statistical methods, but essentially, we matched up individuals in the data with their parents who were also in the data. This allowed us to look at how a persons’ parents gave, and compare it to how they themselves gave. Along with the rich set of demographic characteristics the PPS gives us access to, we used this data to look at the connection between a parent’s giving and their children’s giving (now a grown adult in their own household); and then we compared those effects between sons and daughters. I’ve enjoyed working on the question of intergenerational influences on giving, and it’s been fascinating and challenging at the same time.

In terms of challenges, we always have to carefully think through what we are doing, and how we define certain terms and address certain situations. The households in the PPS are real households that go through life changes many of us have experienced—divorce, remarriage, gaining or losing wealth, having children, and so on—and we have to think through various potential issues for each project. Little details like how to measure parental giving, or whether family stability might affect the results, must be carefully considered to get accurate results.

How does the Philanthropy Panel Study advance our understanding about gender and philanthropy?

After about a decade of dedicated research on gender and philanthropy, we at the Women’s Philanthropy Institute are just now starting to fully grasp all of the potential questions the PPS allows us to answer. We’ve used the PPS to examine so many topics already, in particular through the Women Give series; from gender and generational differences in giving, to how giving influences life satisfaction by gender, to the intersection of religiosity, gender, and age. And so much more really cool research is in the works that we are excited to release to the public over the next year or so!

Women Give 2018 was completed with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The findings and conclusions in the research, and the views expressed in this blog post, are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions or policies of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Learn more about WPI’s research

Follow the Women’s Philanthropy Institute on Twitter and Facebook.