Laying a Foundation for Highly-Connected Nonprofit Teams

The post Lay a Foundation for Highly-Connected Teams appeared first on Nonprofit Hub.

Chuck McLean

This is not just happening at the federal level, either.  As states and localities struggle to make ends meet and eye the large health systems and universities that have great wealth but don’t, for example, have to pay property taxes, they are more aggressively challenging the notion of what tax-exempt means.

In Princeton, NJ, a group of residents has brought suit questioning whether Princeton University, which has distributed tens of millions of dollars to faculty from patent income under its profit-sharing plan, deserves to be considered anything other than a business.  In Pittsburgh, the mayor and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (one of the ten largest by revenue in the US) are engaged in increasingly rancorous and even bizarre arguments over UPMC’s tax status.

So why tax exemption in the first place?  Taxes were a very different thing when the first ships landed in Jamestown in 1607.  Personal and business income was not taxed, and the idea of taxing charitable activities simply wouldn’t have occurred to anyone.  It was not until the Tariff Act of 1894 that there is any statutory mention of tax exemption for entities “organized and conducted solely for charitable, religious, or educational purposes, including fraternal beneficiary associations”.  This law also established the principle that in order to qualify, these organizations must be free of private inurement.  The Revenue Act of 1917 established the individual tax deduction for contributions to charitable organizations.

It didn’t take long for the possibility of competition between tax-exempt organizations and for-profit businesses to come to a head.  In 1948, the Mueller Macaroni Company was donated to the NYU Law School.  Because the NYU Law School was tax-exempt, it argued successfully in court that it was not required to pay taxes on the earnings of the company, which miffed Mueller’s largest competitor, Ronzini.  In 1950, Congress passed a law that required tax-exempt organizations to pay taxes on “unrelated business income.”  The law school did hang on to Mueller’s until 1976, but they had to pay taxes on its profits.

Beyond the notion of competition, there is still the question of private inurement, the concept that the excess of earnings by tax-exempt charitable organizations will not benefit in whole or in part private individuals.  In 2011, the President and CEO of UPMC made more than $6 million in total compensation while UPMC took in about half a billion dollars more than it spent.  The question increasingly being asked is not “Is the president of UPMC worth that much?” but rather “Is this what a charitable organization looks like?”

Finally, to further muddy the waters, we have the relatively new benefit corporations (or B corporations), which are required by law to consider stakeholders other than shareholders in their operations.   Specifically, these organizations strive to be publicly transparent and accountable, as well as environmentally sensitive and socially responsible.  That sounds to me like what I would like a charity to be, but in this case, private inurement is allowed.  Recently, the state of Delaware, which is considered the gold standard when it comes to corporation law, passed legislation that will make it possible to incorporate B corporations in under that state’s laws.  Many social entrepreneurs will find this venue more interesting than just passing money on to charities.

It seems hard to believe that either Princeton or UPMC will lose its tax-exempt status, and even then, these would be state actions having no impact on their federal tax-exemption.  Still, it is remarkable that both Princeton and UPMC tried to get their cases dismissed for being without merit, and both were rebuffed.  Between that, the Senate’s activities, and the continued blurring of the boundaries between nonprofit and for-profit organizations, the tax-exempt universe is living in interesting times.

Chuck McLean is GuideStar’s vice president of research. He is responsible for conducting research for GuideStar and customers interested in nonprofit sector data. He also works to identify new data sources and ways to present data effectively to GuideStar users. Chuck produces the annual GuideStar Compensation Report, which analyzes the salary and benefits of thousands of nonprofits throughout the country. He has 15 years of experience as a teacher and researcher in various institutions of higher education. Chuck serves on the advisory committee of the National Center for Charitable Statistics and is a member of the Panel of Nonprofit Sector Representatives for the Commission on Accountability and Policy for Religious Organizations. A graduate of Christopher Newport University, Chuck also received an M.S. degree in mathematics from the College of William and Mary.

Filed under: Charitable Giving, Policy, Trends

The post Tax Exemption at a Crossroads? appeared first on Nonprofit Hub.

Jane D. Callahan

The IRS guidance is good news for charitable organizations that use (or are considering) an SMLLC. A donation to the SMLLC will be treated as a charitable contribution to a branch of the parent charitable organization. The parent will provide the written acknowledgements of the contributions to the SMLLC and any required disclosure, I.R.C. §§ 170(f) and 6115.

An SMLLC is a separate entity for state law purposes, providing protection to the parent from liabilities of the SMLLC, but it is a disregarded entity for federal tax purposes. The SMLLC is treated as a division of the parent charitable organization for federal tax purposes and, therefore, it does not file a Form 1023 application for recognition of exemption or a Form 990. An exempt organization may use an SMLLC to house a related activity to protect the parent from potential liabilities from the activity or to establish separate management and record-keeping for the activity. Because no separate exemption determination is required, which can be expensive and time consuming, the SMLLC provides a relatively inexpensive and timely way for a tax-exempt organization to use a separate entity for some of its operations.

An SMLLC is not appropriate for all activities of a charitable organization. An exempt organization should consider the following prior to using an SMLLC:

• Unrelated activities. If the operation of an unrelated business activity is a concern to an exempt organization, placing the activity in an SMLLC will not solve the problem.  Although an unrelated activity may be conducted in an SMLLC (for example, for liability protection purposes), the parent charitable organization will report these activities as its own and the unrelated activity may have an adverse impact on the parent’s tax-exempt status. In such a situation, the organization could consider using a subsidiary for-profit corporation.

• State laws. Consider state law exemptions of the parent charitable organization (e.g., sales tax exemption, ad valorem property tax exemption). If the SMLLC needs the exemptions for its particular activities, consider whether such exemptions will extend to the SMLLC.

• No separate determination letter. In some situations, a funder may require that an organization be a separate corporation and/or have an IRS determination letter in its name.

Charitable organizations should discuss the pros and cons of SMLLCs with their attorney to see if the structure will benefit their organization.

Jane D. Callahan is a shareholder of the Orlando, Fla.-based law firm of Dean, Mead, Egerton, Bloodworth, Capouano & Bozarth, P.A. With more than 25 years of experience as a tax attorney, she represents a wide range of charities and other tax-exempt organizations, from their inception to handling tax and corporate issues. For more information, contact JCallahan@deanmead.com. Callahan regularly contributes to Dean Mead’s Tax Law blog.

Filed under: Nonprofit Programs, Policy, Trends

The post More Charitable Organizations Using Single-Member LLCs appeared first on Nonprofit Hub.

So what makes for a good speech, an effective speech?

First, let me begin by reinforcing that not everyone needs to have the talent of a Martin Luther King or a Ronald Reagan to deliver a powerful address. Most people are not natural-born orators.

Some of my best moments, quite honestly, have been working with executives who were extremely uncomfortable talking to large groups. These individuals were subject-matter experts, many of them brilliant at what they do, but public speaking was not a skill that came naturally.

But following are some steps anyone can take to help ensure their presentation is effective:

1. Deliver three or four main points, then back them up. Studies show people generally cannot remember more than three or four main points. Hone in on what your key messages will be and then back them up with examples that illustrate your point. (See my July 31 post.)
2. Make content relevant to your audience. This sounds intuitive, but many industry executives assume everyone in the room “speaks their language.” Concepts and acronyms should always be well explained.
3. Personalize the speech so it reflects your style. Use words that are part of your everyday vocabulary and incorporate personal stories or examples, when appropriate; don’t try to make the speech sound like someone you are not.
4. Write for the ear, not for the eye. What reads fine on paper may be a mouthful when spoken. The best way to avoid this is to read your speech out loud and pay attention to words or phrases you stumble over.
5. Practice, practice, practice! This is the one area that separates an effective presenter from an ineffective one. Executives who exude an overly confident air frequently fall down here. They expect to saunter onto the stage and deliver a great speech with little to no practice. It’s the ones who rehearse in advance who deliver the most effective speeches. While they may still have butterflies in their stomach, they will exude confidence because they are well prepared and comfortable with their material.

Karen Addis

While we’d all like to deliver the next great speech, the reality is most of us don’t fall into that category. What matters more is that you can deliver a speech that is tailored to your audience and one that will resonate with them.

Karen Addis, APR, is a senior communications executive with more than 25 years of experience providing strategic communications counsel and support to a range of clients, including numerous nonprofit organizations. You can follow her on Twitter at @karenaddis or connect with her on LinkedIn at http://www.linkedin.com/in/karenaddis.

Filed under: Communications

The post How to Deliver an Effective Speech appeared first on Nonprofit Hub.

Raechel Haller

Branding is not just great images or a stunning logo. Great design without a great story is a pricey meal with no flavor.

Nice deign definitely helps catch people’s eye, but to capture their heart, mind, and donation dollars, your organization also need engaging words, a story. Nonprofit branding needs both elements working together.

An image by itself can capture the essence or heart of your work, but to convince someone to volunteer, donate, or contribute to your work, they’ll need a bit more. Lead with an image, but always include a call to action like “click here to learn more.” Then provide people a chance to dig deeper: statistics, stories, testimonies, etc.

Think of your visual components and narratives as two sides of the same coin.

#2 A One-Time Shot

Branding isn’t set-it-and-forget-it. Organizations change when they add or modify their programs, initiatives, or staff. The same should be true for its branding.

Strategic planning can drive what your organization does. Branding can drive how you get other people on your bus.

Build periodic evaluation and revision into your branding strategy. The images and words you choose to communicate your work should reflect where you are and where you’re going. If the changes, don’t get to tell the rest of us about it.

#3 Only For Big Budgets

Branding isn’t just for those who can afford a private marketing agency. In fact, even if you can afford those guys, don’t bring them in right away.

Don’t do design first. Do the legwork of identifying your voice and audience. The time your organization invests in truly understanding who you are and what you do is priceless. Know what you want your brand to communicate, to who, and what you need it to do for your mission.

Once you have that understanding, then bring in the creative. If you can afford an agency, do so. If not, comb through your networks for individuals with creative vision. Or hold a contest. Either way, once you’ve done the identity development legwork, the design process is so much more effective and efficient.

The proceeding is a guest post by Raechel Haller of Good Helpings, a blog that provides tips and tricks to help organizations advance their good work. She calls herself a systems and strategic thinker, who also likes to make things look pretty. Her background, passion, and interests are within the nonprofit sector: where a job is more than just a job.

Filed under: Communications

The post 3 Things Nonprofit Branding is NOT appeared first on Nonprofit Hub.

Karen Perry-Weinstat

We live in an era of communication.  It bombards us.  Look around on the street or in a restaurant.  Nearly everyone is at one point looking at a smartphone to text, email, web browse or use apps. To cut through the clutter, fundraisers need to play the game to grab potential event participants’ attention.

Following these five tips will help you to market events and raise money in any economic climate:

1. Use today’s media

Paper invitations are still necessary for most traditional events, but supplement and reinforce with digital media.  Event websites and online registration are necessities.  Online ad journals and digital slide presentations present opportunities to offer more.  SMS/texting has grown in popularity.  Email marketing and social media campaigns continue the messaging and build excitement for the event.  Integrate digital media with traditional materials like save-the-date postcards, event brochures and program books for better donor engagement.

 2. Build your lists

Many nonprofits consider their databases insufficient to support marketing via email or texts.  Well, there’s no time like the present to build these lists.  Make email addresses and cell phone numbers mandatory fields on web-based forms.  Be sure your website includes a field where viewers can “subscribe” to your email list.  Have volunteers or interns call supporters to ask for emails.  Give a door prize at the event only to those who provide their information.  Capture data from all online donations.

3. Plan and execute a timeline

Make a list of all the media types you plan to use:  letters, emails, website, invitation, etc.  Schedule each on a calendar so your target audience receives a steady stream of communications throughout the event cycle.  Toggle back and forth between printed and electronic media.  Increase the urgency of the message as the event date approaches.  When you plan a steady, multi-media, multi-message campaign for your event, donors will respond to what appeals to them most.

4. Ask for more

Some organizations do and others don’t.  Many event attendees are invited guests or represent their company and haven’t made donations of their own. If your story moves them, they may gladly give more or give for the first time.   Table “asks” can be done with a simple envelope.  They can be even more effective with a live text-to-pledge appeal from the podium.  Post event emails can also direct participants to donate online.  If you don’t ask, you don’t get!

5. Follow up!

Often a missing step.  Send notice that photos/videos are posted online.  Report on the results of event. Thank participants beyond a simple letter sent for tax purposes.  Provide additional stories of how the funds will be used.  All electronic communications should have embedded links to give more.  Post-event follow ups keep event guests engaged and move stewardship efforts from a one-time-only model to developing donors into part of the organization’s “family.”

The preceding is a guest post by Karen Perry-Weinstat, founder of Event Journal, Inc., a full-service marketing company for nonprofit fundraising events founded in 2002. She developed the first digital e-journal system that has replaced most dated paper journals and program books. Event Journal offers nonprofits a combination of its unique digital e-journal, event websites, coordinating marketing materials and full-service support and delivery for fundraising events including dinner galas, golf outings, benefits and more.

Filed under: Communications

The post Fundraising Events in the New “Normal” Economy: Communication is King appeared first on Nonprofit Hub.

Nancy Schwartz

Those campaigns (and I hope yours aren’t among them) make it so hard for folks to support the cause or organization, when that’s the very last thing you want to do.

In fact, our call to action is what connects your supporters with your org. The clearer and more doable the call to action, the greater the level of engagement. Today I’ll help you get there.

Let me start with sharing some definitions of what comes first:

• Organizational goals (a max of three at a time) are the steps to take over the next year that will take your organization closer to achieving its mission.
• Marketing and fundraising goals are the best ways you can put market and fundraising to work to help achieve those organization goals.
• Calls to action come into play only after you have your goals in place and have identified your target audiences—the three or fewer groups who can do the most to help you reach those goals, and/or who are most likely to do so.

Learn what’s likely to be acted on, before you ask – 
Once you hone in on your target audiences, your next step is to get to know them via conversations, surveys, how they interact with your emails, websites and social media channels and more.

These are your calls to action – 
Only then can you outline the specific actions you want them to take. Define a series of incremental, doable actions you’ll ask them to take. Make sure that each is linked clearly and strongly with your organization’s goals.

Ask in the right way, at the right time, in the right place
 – Ask your audiences—early, clearly and repeatedly—to act…to register online, participate in a program, give or share their stories.

Highlight what’s in it for them, and address any obstacles likely to be in the way of their actions. And finally—be as specific as possible so it’s easy to act with the least effort possible.

Follow these guidelines and I promise you, you’ll see results!

More guidance on setting useful goals:

• Nonprofit Marketing vs. Organizational Goals—A Critical Distinction

• Are Your Marketing Goals Easy to Reach or a Stretch?

The preceding is a guest post by Nancy Schwartz, Speaker-Author-Strategist, GettingAttention.org. Nancy helps nonprofits like yours succeed through effective marketing. For more nonprofit marketing guidance like this, subscribe to her e-update at http://gettingattention.org/nonprofit-marketing/subscribe-enewsletter.html.

Filed under: Communications

The post Craft Calls to Action That Get You to Goal appeared first on Nonprofit Hub.

How can funders and investors break into this potentially risky social issue area with confidence that dollars directed toward nonprofits will have lasting social impact on the veteran population? Our experience working with the Highland Street Foundation, an active partner since 2007, provides an interesting example of how a foundation can come to understand and address the veterans crisis in a meaningful and creative way.

This year, the Highland Street Foundation will sponsor a social issue track called “Expanding Opportunities and Improving Services for Veterans in Massachusetts.” Through this track sponsorship, the Highland Street Foundation will:

• Connect with leading nonprofits in the Greater Boston area working with the veteran population
• Participate in a rigorous vetting and selection process to choose the Social Innovator they wish to invest in
• Network with more than 1,500 philanthropists, foundation staff, business people and government officials interested in supporting innovative approaches
• Collaborate with experts on best practices and innovative solutions to social issues
• Position themselves as a leader in this social issue area
• Leverage their dollars to have a bigger impact; every $1 invested through the Social Innovation Forum results in a $3 budget increase for our Social Innovators (within 24 months)

Blake Jordan, executive director of the Highland Street Foundation, described the experience: “Over the past few years, our partnership with the Social Innovation Forum has allowed us to support some of the most effective nonprofits. Our sponsorship of the veterans track is representative of our deep commitment to address the most important social issues of our time.”

Both the Social Innovation Forum and the Highland Street Foundation view the “Expanding Opportunities and Improving Services for Veterans in Massachusetts” track as an opportunity to bring extensive support to nonprofits with the most innovative approaches for tackling the issue. The Highland Street Foundation expects to direct $50,000 in support to an innovative nonprofit organization working to address this emerging issue. These resources have helped Social Innovators to grow their organizations at an average annual rate of over 20 percent while Massachusetts and US nonprofit average growth has been declining.

Susan Musinsky

Ultimately, the public sector will need to develop a sense of urgency to serve our veterans in a comprehensive and timely manner. Private donors like Highland can show the way, bringing innovative solutions to life for those who have sacrificed so much to keep us safe. Root Cause is proud to have the opportunity to be a part of this critical effort.

The preceding is a cross-post by Susan Musinsky, Director of Social Innovation Forum, Root Cause. You can read the original post here. Susan joined Root Cause in 2005 as the director of the Social Innovation Forum (SIF). In this role, she works with investors (individuals and foundations) and Social Innovators to help effectively implement the future of strategic philanthropy in Greater Boston and beyond. Currently, she is working on leads to replicate the SIF model in other parts of the country. Contact Susan today at socialinnovationforum@rootcause.org or 617.649.1518.

Filed under: Nonprofit Programs

The post Root Cause and the Highland Street Foundation Invest in Massachusetts appeared first on Nonprofit Hub.

Victoria Vrana

The Basic Registry of Identified Global Entities (BRIDGE) is a new collaborative project that aims to revolutionize information sharing, in order to better understand the flows of philanthropic dollars and enhance transparency and effectiveness in the global social sector. Recently, Victoria Vrana, senior program officer at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, sat down with members from the four organizations embarking on this ambitious effort. Read on to learn more about the project. This is a cross-post of an article originally published on the Markets for Good Blog.

—————————-

Victoria Vrana, Senior Program Officer, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (VV): What is the BRIDGE project?

Jeff Falkenstein, Vice President for Data Architecture, the Foundation Center (JF): BRIDGE is an acronym for Basic Registry of Identified Global Entities. It is a numbering system we’re developing to uniquely identify philanthropic entities across the globe.

Jeff Falkenstein

“Unique identifiers” will allow us to synchronize the data of millions of NGOs to produce a clearer and more holistic picture of what’s happening in the international development arena. They will also give the partner organizations the ability to create complementary services, products, and APIs for the benefit of the entire sector.

This system will initially be seeded by the organizations already registered in the databases of the Foundation Center, Global Giving, GuideStar, and TechSoup Global – four organizations that hold data for a combined total of approximately 3 million NGOs, by the way, making it immediately possible to easily and accurately share and compare the data in our databases and do that on a meaningful scale.

Far more than a numbering system that will be applied to just these four partners, however, BRIDGE will also exist as a registry, or database, where nonprofits will be able to apply to get their own unique IDs and other organizations can obtain the information from the registry in bulk for their own databases.

In short, we’re creating a dynamic network of philanthropic data with limitless applications.

…

VV: Why do we need a new numbering system?

JF: The field of international development and global aid is an extremely complex ecosystem with many, many committed players in philanthropy. But despite the incredible amount of passion, innovative thinking, and resources going into this ecosystem, it’s lacking critical infrastructure to connect all this action and information. To date, there is no standard for sharing information about global philanthropic entities — which means this ecosystem is not only complex, it’s messy.

Employer Identification Numbers (EINs) are flawed, re-purposed after organizations close, and don’t hold up outside the U.S.

With EINs, it’s also impossible to capture hierarchical relationships between organizations and they can’t be used to identify specific programs or projects of nonprofit institutions. The BRIDGE system, on the other hand, can be applied beyond NGOs and makes it possible to identify all kinds of organizations – including schools, churches, and even programs or projects.

There are also challenges internationally: some countries use the same numbering systems, have multiple registries for nonprofits, or don’t have an ID system at all.

Sheila Warren, Senior Director of Strategic Alliances and General Counsel, TechSoup Global (SW): So you can see where the “bridge” comes in. We’re building a consistent and global way to link everything together.

Sheila Warren

We need this level of clarity as well as the holistic view that is made possible by unique identifiers. This dramatically increased capacity to provide insight into organizational data across various systems is ultimately going to help us understand what’s really going on in the sector, from highly specialized interactions to 10,000-foot views into specific geographies or social issues.

…

VV: Based on that context, the need for it, tell us more about how a unique identifier could work in practice. What’s possible?

John Hecklinger, Chief Program Officer, GlobalGiving (JH): A unique identifier clears a major and persistent hurdle by connecting information with a person, organization, or object. Take a look at the role unique identifiers play in other industries.

John Hecklinger

IP addresses make it possible for computers to identify each other and to exchange information. International Standard Book Numbers (ISBNs) make it easy to find the best price of a book and to read reviews. Fingerprints make it possible to detect (or rule out) criminal suspects, or to breeze through customs using Global Entry. Vehicle Identification Numbers make it possible to know what happened to a car before you buy it.

These are now everyday transactions you and I are familiar with that have all been made easier (and some, made possible), with numbering systems.

In the social sector, we don’t have this basic building block of the information ecosystem. Before we can easily share social impact, financial performance, or eligibility information about organizations, we have to firmly be able to tell one organization from another.

Perhaps most critically, a unique identifier system makes it possible for unanticipated tools and services to emerge. Again, we can turn to other industries to see these kinds of benefits… When the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration defined the vehicle identification standard, it did not envision that a company like CARFAX Vehicle History Reports would emerge. I worked at CARFAX early in my career, and I saw firsthand how a unique identifier helped fix the original “market for lemons.”

…

VV: How does the BRIDGE project strike a balance between privacy and transparency?

Braz Brandt, Senior Director of Technology Strategy, GuideStar (BB): From the beginning of the project, we have all been concerned about the privacy of the data we’re using to build the BRIDGE system. As we discuss the long-term goals, we understand that data can be both a tool for interoperability in the sector and, in some cases, a tool for repression and retribution.

Braz Brandt

At GuideStar, we’ve been critically aware of these issues for many years. Let’s take a shelter for battered women as an example: While there is a desperate need for help from funders and the public when it comes to financial support and volunteering opportunities, the shelter must also protect the privacy and safety of the women who depend on that service. GuideStar enables those types of organizations to make some of their key data private for this very reason, and we recognize that the need for privacy grows significantly when the actors looking to access and use this data change, from abusive partners to repressive regimes and governments.

As we work on the BRIDGE project, each of the four partners is critically aware of the role that data can play in either enabling a more efficient social market or suppressing transformative work in the world. Our collective experience and lessons learned serving the sector provides us with the expertise to build privacy into every part of the program.

The BRIDGE system attempts to solve the interoperability problem in the sector while still providing individual organizations control over their data through their existing relationships with the BRIDGE partners.

But to only focus on the protection of privacy would be to lose sight of the incredibly powerful – and positive – effects that one can expect from greater transparency in philanthropy.

JF: That’s right — beyond interoperability, the BRIDGE project and the transparency it affords bring a broad range of benefits to the sector. Identifying opportunities for collaboration, reducing duplication of effort, building trust with the public and one’s constituents, making visible the work taking place around the world, more strategic decision making, and cultivating a community of shared learning and best practices are just a handful of the benefits that flow from greater transparency. In short, transparency is a catalyst for increasing knowledge and strengthening the impact funders want to see on the issues they care about deeply.

…

VV: How did BRIDGE come about?

JH: The idea for BRIDGE emerged out of a series of collaborative brainstorms, originally launched by the Omidyar Network, which were then taken up by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and LiquidNet in conversations hosted by GlobalGiving. Key stakeholders in these conversations, including social sector financial platforms and information providers, all felt that a unique identifier for social sector organizations was a prerequisite for greater collaboration and information sharing in the sector.

TechSoup Global, GuideStar, Foundation Center, and GlobalGiving emerged as having an acute need for such a system, the operational capacity to think it through a challenge of this scope, and substantial data to contribute in order to ensure the effort had a sizable impact. As a result, our four organizations agreed to participate in a one-year scoping process that resulted in a realistic build plan and a decision to apply for funding. Now, with the support of the Hewlett Foundation, as well as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, we are working together to make this vision a reality.

…

VV: Why work as a collaborative?

SW: All four of our organizations came into this project with an institutional orientation towards collaboration and a deep understanding of the importance that a project like this has to the entire global civil society sector. It was also immediately obvious to each of us how having a unique ID would make it much easier for us to work together.

We each already have IDs that we use internally to identify organizations across our own programs: the question was whether or not we could create a simple, yet elegant ID scheme that would enable us to expand this identification beyond our own institutional borders.

All four of us are already leaders in the issues of transparency or capacity building — as opposed to cause-oriented organizations — and this universally inclusive approach was considered important for both compatibility and credibility purposes. And finally, our approaches to data were similar enough — in terms of restrictions on data usage, community considerations, and other relevant axes — to make this project seem achievable.

In terms of complementarity, each of our organizations brings skills and resources to the table, both in terms of personnel, expertise, and — of course — data that have already been invaluable to the effort. Whether it be the credibility we have with the civil society sector, our extensive networks, our experience working with various players in the sector, our tech savvy, or our legal expertise — each organization has unique experiences and relationships that we are leveraging to make this project a success. And, of course, we all really like each other and have a great time working together, which shouldn’t be underestimated!

…

VV: How could the BRIDGE project ultimately impact the work of individual program officers, donors, and nonprofit leaders?

BB: One of the problems faced by nonprofit leaders – from individual donors to institutional philanthropists – is understanding the universe of organizations in the sector, and the overlap and connections of their work to other key players.

Today, these leaders must do their investigative work to understand both the sector and their organization’s place in it largely on their own: searching resources provided by GuideStar and the Foundation Center for information domestically, comparing that to the data they can find on GlobalGiving or through TechSoup, and hoping that their understanding of the sector and the actors in it is sufficient.

Foundations and professional grantmakers in the sector have the resources to do some of this work, but as we learned in the Money for Good II research, individual donors frequently do not and, when presented with these various reports of nonprofit sector data, do not understand and do not make full use of the data available in those reports for more strategic decision making.

SW: The BRIDGE system will be a significant step toward connecting those disparate sources of data and providing a richer access to this data to nonprofit leaders to help them learn about social change at scale, as well as helping donors understand the sector and the organizations working for change. As those silos become more interconnected, foundations and professional grantmakers also benefit as they connect their sources of information to make better giving decisions through data.

The hope is that, as the BRIDGE project grows, the focus on actors in the sector will expand from just organizations to uniquely identifying programs, projects, and the people working in the sector, and that this interconnected network of nonprofit data will continue to reduce barriers, promote transparency, and encourage more effective philanthropy through data.

…

Individuals interested in learning more and organizations that would like to become involved in BRIDGE can contact Chad McEvoy, BRIDGE project manager, at cmcevoy@globalgiving.org.

Filed under: Markets for Good

The post BRIDGE to Somewhere: A Conversation with GlobalGiving, GuideStar, the Foundation Center, and TechSoup Global appeared first on Nonprofit Hub.

1. New! Charting Impact is now part of the GuideStar Exchange. There has been a clamor for nonprofit performance information for some time – and the issue recently came to a head when we launched a campaign to debunk the Overhead Myth alongside BBB Wise Giving Alliance and Charity Navigator. You can start thinking through your nonprofit’s impact information today by completing a Charting Impact report, which is really the first and only program that provides a standardized report for collecting self-reported nonprofit impact information.  For more details, check out our press release here.

2. The GuideStar Exchange gives you a chance to give us the information funders want, for free.  Based on the findings of the Money for Good II research, we overhauled the GuideStar Exchange this summer to align with the information individual donors, institutional funders, and financial advisors were most interested in: basic information, financial information, and impact or effectiveness information. More here.3. You get rewarded for participating. In addition to increased exposure to donors, funders, and GuideStar’s vast online audience, benefits of becoming a GuideStar Exchange participant include the ability to share the gold, silver, or bronze level logo with supporters. Depending on the level of participation, nonprofits also have access to a variety of discounts on fundraising support, exclusive access to free technology tools and webinars, and, for those reaching the highest gold level, one free annual subscription to GuideStar Premium, GuideStar’s flagship nonprofit research and analysis tool. More here.

4. It’s easier than ever to participate. The improved GuideStar Exchange program is more fluid and less time-consuming to update. The information-collection process is now streamlined into 8 key areas, down from 18, reflecting the information most important to donors and funders. The new, easy-to-navigate interface includes clear explanations of what information is required and what is optional, and gives nonprofits the ability to skip between sections easily, save progress, and update later. More here.

5. Input your information once and get in front of millions. At the end of the day, you can go to one website, www.guidestar.org, to get your nonprofit’s story in front of GuideStar’s anticipated 15 million annual website visitors this year, not to mention the additional 10 million people who visit our client and partner platforms. More here.

What are you waiting for? Get started today: http://www.guidestar.org/rxg/update-nonprofit-report/how-to-update-your-nonprofit-report.aspx. For those of you who are already participants, I’d love to hear how the program has helped you. Please leave a comment below.

Filed under: Nonprofit Programs

The post 5 reasons you should be a GuideStar Exchange participant appeared first on Nonprofit Hub.