In addition to your ongoing fundraising, advocacy and communication activities, there are times throughout the year when you need to lead your members through a series of actions. Whether it’s communication-list building, hitting a fundraising target to support a new program or structure, or gathering support for a community initiative (to name a few possibilities), you’ll get the most bang for your buck by conducting a targeted fundraising campaign. We’ve put together a step by step guide to the outreach,tracking, follow-up and other activities necessary to reach your goals. Download the free guide: Fundraising Campaign in a Box
Today, I’m answering another reader question. Beth asks:Can you provide a basic (simple) framework to create a fundraising plan (or resources to do so) – for a brand new nonprofit and their completely new to fundraising staff? Thanks!Here’s what Network for Good recommends in our Fundraising Campaign in a Box. (You can get the whole free kit here. It has worksheets, templates, etc.)1. Figure out what you’re trying to accomplish.Any campaign worth its salt is about getting results. What results are you and your organization looking to achieve? When you’re planning your outreach, remember these three tips:There is no such thing as “the general public”…Instead, you need to segment your communications to be effective and targeted.Some audiences are more important than others. Think about your goals and who holds the key to your success. Lack of participation from primary groups can cause your campaign to falter or fail.2. Determine how you’re going to accomplish your goals (tell a great story).So – you have groups of people and actions you want them to take. How are you going to tell your story in a compelling manner? What themes, messages and ideas are you going to take from your arsenal of content to encourage action? Need inspiration? Read How to Tap into the Heart and Soul of Your Organization When You Write.3. Determine which communications channels you’ll use.There are a variety of online and offline channels that you can use to send the right message to the right audiences. Examples of online channels include your website, search marketing, email marketing and social networking. Offline channels include things like direct mail, paid advertising and public relations.4. Decide which resources you need to get the job done.Ensure that you have all of your tools and resources in place to make your job-and the jobs of your audience(s)-as easy, effective and cost-effective as possible.Is email an important part of your plan, but you’re still communicating with supporters via Outlook? (eek! Stop what you’re doing and read 5 Steps to Choosing the Ideal Email Service Provider)Is your website well-branded and easy to use, with a clear way to donate?Is your website set up to take safe, secure online donations? (I of course recommend Network for Good!)5. Determine who will execute your campaign steps.Accountability will make or break the success of a campaign. As much fun as it is to pass the buck, now is as good a time as any to decide which members of your organization, board or volunteers are responsible for the different portions of your campaign.6. Lay out how you will measure your success.In the case of holiday fundraising, this could be as simple as a dollar sign with a number after it. But take a moment to consider what other goals you may have. Wow your organization’s Board and leadership with conversation rates, list-building, website traffic and any other number results into which they can sink their teeth.7. Set your timeline and benchmarks.One of the defining features of a campaign is that it has a defined start and end. Now that you have planned out the ‘who, what and why’ questions of your campaigns, it’s time to determine the when. Continue to build your campaign plan by setting ownership and deadlines for the associated activities. Begin with the end in mind – if your campaign will run from 11/1 – 12/31, work backwards to be sure that all activities will happen in a smooth manner. Don’t use magical thinking to set deadlines! Run activities in parallel if you are worried about compression time-wise.Good luck!
My peers and I are the Tweens of adulthood. We are old enough to remember the milkman delivering to the doorstep, and young enough to appreciate the poetry of rap music—at least some of it. We are the children of the baby boom, and the parents of Millennials.Growing up, we were defined by our neighborhoods. Our parents chose neighborhoods based on what today we call affinity groups: ethnicity, education, class, age of kids. Our social network was the neighborhood. Accomplishments were celebrated with neighbors, and challenges were tackled with neighbors, often accompanied by a casserole. Charity began at home.Networked NeighborhoodsBetween the 70s and today, neighborhoods ceased to be the centrifugal center of social networks. Yet the desire for connection remains. We 40- and 50-somethings watch our kids form “neighborhoods” on their Social Networks. Likes, status updates, and feedback have replaced the celebratory visit, but they reinforce the importance of celebration.And importantly, a neighbor in need can draw support from a city of virtual neighborhoods. In the Dragonfly Effect, Jennifer Aaker and Andy Smith tell an illustrative story: Sameer and Vinay, both afflicted with late-stage leukemia, used their networks to register 24,611 South Asian bone marrow donors in 11 weeks. There was an authentic need, clearly communicated, and “neighbors” around the country responded.Networks will increasingly power nonprofits.I recently re-read the Networked Nonprofit, by Beth Kanter and Allison Fine. It brings the networked nonprofit to life in this reflection.Networked Nonprofits don’t work harder or longer than other organizations, they work differently. They engage in conversations with people beyond their walls — lots of conversations — to build relationships that spread their work through the network. Incorporating relationship building as a core responsibility of all staffers fundamentally changes their to-do lists.”Strong networks also support cultivation of major donors and passionate evangelists who provide the backbone for nonprofits as they grow. And through social networks, charities and community organizations can become ’causes’, moving digital citizens to fuel their missions with energy, engagement and – yes – money.Millennials, in particular, say the charities they support are one way they express themselves, and 87% of Millennials in a 2011 survey said “my priority is to look after my family and community; charity begins at home.” And the home that Millennials are most closely tied to is the one they have chosen, in their networked neighborhood.If causes can become authentic institutions of these networked neighborhoods, they will find a new group of supporters who will celebrate their successes and help them tackle their challenges…without the casseroles.Follow Jamie on LinkedIn to get more insights on giving and mobilizing your community.Photo credit: David K., plasticrevolver on Flickr
ShareEmailPrint To learn more, read: Posted on January 28, 2013March 21, 2017By: Girija Sankar, Director of Haiti Programs, Senior Program Manager, Global Health ActionClick to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)Over 2000 abstracts were submitted to the Global Maternal Health Conference 2013. Eventually, around 800 delegates from all around the world presented papers and posters on maternal health topics under the theme of “Quality of Care”.While all the sessions and plenaries were thought-provoking, some of the sessions that I found especially interesting dealt with home birth attendance and the role of traditional birth attendants (TBAs).Speakers from Nigeria, Pakistan, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia and Uganda all highlighted the role that TBAs continue to play in home deliveries. Just because a country’s Ministry of Health dictates that women should deliver at facilities does not mean that women will indeed deliver at facilities. The reality in many of these countries, quite like Haiti, where I work, is that as long as there are significant barriers to safe, affordable and accessible obstetric care, women will continue to turn to other older women whom they know and trust: traditional birth attendants.Presenters from Bangladesh and Nigeria presented findings from promoting the use of clean delivery kits (CDKs) and the consequent impact on improving safe deliveries. The CDKs were promoted through social marketing to families who would then either take the kit to the facility or give it to the TBA for use in home births.We heard from a practitioner in Ethiopia whose organization works with pastoralists in the remote Afar region to improve health outcomes by training TBAs and encouraging women to visit the maternity waiting rooms built close to the referral centers. The group had identified 6 harmful practices that TBAs practiced, often leading to maternal and neonatal deaths. When trained on safe practices, the TBAs realized that what they had been doing in the past may have led to deaths.In Bangladesh, women, after child birth, are often allowed to bleed for a long time owing to the traditional belief that any blood that leaves the woman’s body after child birth is bad blood. The TBAs have since been trained on why that is dangerous for women.Discussions on task-shifting in HRH must acknowledge the role that TBAs continue to play in communities where women do not seek facility-based care for various reasons. If working with the community and women is important, then so is understanding and respecting decisions that women make in why and how they seek services from traditional birth attendants.Prof. Mahmoud Fathalla perhaps said it best when he said “more women have died from child birth than men have died fighting each other in battles.”Learn more about the conference and access the conference presentations at www.gmhc2013.com. Join the conference conversation on Twitter: #GMHC2013Share this:
I was fortunate to attend the plenary discussion in Arusha. Richard Horton provided a provocative performance as Chair, and the panelists were excellent in their responses.However, little mention was given to WHO’s WHO’s role and responsibilities in health research: Draft WHO strategy on research for health. That document states, “all the goals concern all Member States and all individuals, communities, institutions and organizations involved in the production and/or use of research, including WHO.”Paragraph 25 discusses the issue of standards:No country is self-sufficient in its research capacity, so Member States need to be able to share research outputs. Effective and equitable sharing requires internationally agreed norms and standards for research; with this in mind, the standards goal concerns the promotion of good practice in research by means of work to establish agreements on good practices, scientific benchmarks, ethical guidelines and accountability mechanisms. The achievement of this goal is essential for winning public support and confidence.The principles from Arusha are sound, and the debate will no doubt continue. But live, Q&A sessions in plenary will not always allow for panelists to critically think through the implications of their intuitive responses. Caution is needed, with consideration of the inadvertent effects that may arise.Several examples in relation to the points proposed:A PhD researcher (from the global north), applying for ethics approval at their host University for their independent, original research is immediately in breach of the first point. Is it feasible that Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, the LSE etc., etc. would change their academic standards of research to insist that all research in LMICs is a joint endeavor – unless you happen to be from the global south?The World Bank/IBRD is a funder of research (often at the country’s expense) but would they shift to this principle on all their publications? Including those that inform their financing decisions with a country? They are after all, a Bank.It is not just “medical” journals that need to heed the call. Aspirations for effective coverage and quality of care for all (i.e. Universal Health Coverage) require many types of health workers. Public health, midwifery, nursing, management, pharmacy and other journals should all be included.More reflection is needed, and perhaps the WHO is best placed to steer a future code. In the meantime, we should all continue to encourage “health” journals to ensure that health information is available for all.For more information on Integrare’s presentations on the High Burden Countries Initiative in Arusha please click here.To learn more about the H4+ High Burden Countries Initiative, click here and follow ICS Integrare on Twitter. Share this: ShareEmailPrint To learn more, read: Posted on February 6, 2013March 21, 2017By: Jim Campbell, Director, Instituto de Cooperacion Social Integrare based in Barcelona, SpainClick to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)The Global Maternal Health Conference in Arusha, Tanzania had many highlights, including the closing plenary presentation from Dr. Mahmoud Fathalla ( watch the presentation here and see Karen Beattie’s blog), and the GMHC2013 manifesto proposed by Richard Horton (see Ann Starrs’ blog for more).A recent article in The Lancet also reports on the plenary discussions on a proposed new Code of Conduct for health research in low-income countries. Lancet Editor Richard Horton reports:The meeting in Arusha was opened by Agnes Binagwaho, Rwanda’s Minister of Health. She argued passionately that research and ethics must be more closely bound together. She spoke about the theft of data from Africa and the new enslavement of Africans. She called for a Code of Conduct for research in low-income countries.Here is a draft of a Code – a set of principles – assembled from a debate between Agnes Binagwaho, Wendy Graham, Rafael Lozano, and Marleen Temmerman: No ethics committee, funder of research, or medical journal should approve, support, or publish research about a low-income country without joint authorship from that country.In any research project in a low-income setting, local scientists must be included as co-principal investigators.Before starting research in a low-income country, western authors and institutions must define a clear plan for how they will transfer research skills back to that country. Medical journals and their publishers must ensure that all global health research is free at the point of use in countries.Western journals must facilitate language translation of research, either themselves or by enabling local journals to republish freely.
Posted on April 26, 2013March 13, 2017By: Sarah Blake, MHTF consultantClick to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)The latest in the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Knowledge Summary series highlights the potential for integration of immunization services with other reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health. This summary, “Integrating Immunizations and Other Services for Women and Children,” was prepared by IDEAS. As with the series as a whole, it synthesizes scientific evidence into a brief, user-friendly format so that key findings can inform policy and practice.From the introduction to the “Integrating Immunizations” knowledge summary:The Expanded Program on Immunizations (EPI) has dramatically decreased childhood morbidity and mortality since its introduction in 1974, and now reaches over 85% of the world’s children. Some countries and regions are still working to achieve high coverage, however, and many non-vaccine programs have not gained the same traction needed for maximum impact. Integrating service delivery, for example, health service providers could use the opportunity of immunizing a child to provide nutrition and family planning services for the parents, can provide a program foundation through which broad services can be equitably provided as well as give a beneficial boost to EPI coverage. While integration requires thoughtful and measured planning, the potential impact for families and communities is great.For the full series, including summaries on child marriage, the economic benefits of investments in maternal and child health and midwifery, visit PMNCH’s RMNCH knowledge portal.Share this: ShareEmailPrint To learn more, read:
ShareEmailPrint To learn more, read: Posted on January 23, 2014August 10, 2016Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)The MHTF is pleased to announce the launch of our latest topic page: “Post-2014: What’s next for maternal health?” Along with our ongoing guest blog series on the proposed maternal health goal for the post-2015 development agenda, the topics page will compile key findings and debates on the position of maternal health in ongoing global and national discussions of health and development goals and challenges. The page includes resources on progress and lessons learned under the MDG framework, as well as on the position of maternal health in the ongoing process for developing the next global development framework. As with all of our topics pages, the post-2015 topics page will serve as a hub, featuring the latest in research, news and debates. To recommend a resource, please contact us. If you would like to submit a blog post for our ongoing guest blog series on proposed maternal health targets, please email Andrea Goetschius: email@example.comShare this:
Pictured Here: Central Alabama Community Foundation – what they’re doing is working.It’s understandable. Programs, not payroll nor paperclips, create excitement and enthusiasm among your board, grant committee, and community when it comes to awarding grants. However, if you are in the philanthropy business, you are in the capacity-building business. We can’t create the type of long-term, lasting change we seek without strong organizations. As grantmakers, we’re dependent on nonprofit leaders that can sustain and scale their impact without applying for more grant dollars.To borrow an example from our for-profit friends, have you ever seen the show “Shark Tank” on ABC?If so, you know that the first questions asked after the entrepreneur’s pitch will be, “What are your sales for the last year?” and “How much do you plan to sell this year?”The sharks dig into the company’s ability to effectively market, sell and scale their product, before digging into its competitive advantages or how it’s manufactured.The sharks know that investing in sales and marketing isn’t a separate strategy. It’s an integral part of their investment strategy. More precisely, it’s the path to their return.I have never met an investor that restricts their funds from sales and marketing. That would be foolish. Investors (funders) depend on a company’s revenue growth, increased profits and sales multipliers to create a return on their investment (impact).In the same way, nonprofit capacity and sustainability are not separate or standalone strategies. They are critical components of all grants and to ensuring our philanthropy creates long-term, lasting impact.Yet, we reverse this order all the time. We ask the nonprofit about its programs, outcomes, and impact, and then maybe (not always) we’ll dive into a sustainability plan.Now, you may be thinking, why don’t we just fund sustainable nonprofits and stop this article here? We can just reject nonprofits that need to build their capacity, right?Well, we wouldn’t have many eligible applicants. According to Network for Good’s 2017 research across 10,000 nonprofits, the overwhelming majority heavily relied on single‐source funding.A startling 78 percent of nonprofits applying for grants have no written or specific fundraising plan to sustain their program, after the grant period (on the other hand, 85 percent view their funders as credible, go-to sources for technical fundraising assistance). Further, according to a new report released by GuideStar, approximately 50 percent of U.S. nonprofits are operating with less than one month’s cash reserves.Therefore, if we want to create long-term change and lasting good, we must stop referring to the capacity building as a standalone strategy. We must view it as part of a comprehensive, holistic strategy – as being implemented by the Central Alabama Community Foundation.[CLICK TO WATCH VIDEO]Nonprofits Must Respond to Emerging Needs, Not Live by ContractsDo you believe the environmental challenges we face today are the same as 50 years ago? Do you believe child development and education is unaffected by the growth in social media?As our communities’ complex challenges evolve, we must ensure that the nonprofits we fund have the resources they need to stay nimble and responsive.Nonprofit leaders operating with razor-thin margins, no process to measure success or retain talent will be caught flat-footed during times of emerging needs or a shifting landscape.So, practically speaking, what can you do?As part of The Walton Family Foundation’s Environment Grant reports, nonprofits are asked, “What notable obstacles did you face during this grant period?” as well as, “What changes to the project were made?”The program staff is interested in knowing how work plans, staffing, and timelines may shift throughout the grant period. This enables them to coach the grantee on navigating unforeseen challenges, re-allocating funds from the original proposal or calling in additional support, instead of using the report to rigidly enforce grant contracts.What would happen if you asked your grantees these questions in your reports?Short-Term Strategies Don’t Fix Long-Term ChallengesDo you believe that racism has been wholly eradicated? Do you feel all Americans have affordable health care? No, of course not. These issues are multifaceted and will, undoubtedly, continue to evolve in the foreseeable future.If we wish to confront longstanding issues plaguing our communities, grant strategies must be designed with the long-term in mind. However, grant funding is inherently short-term in nature (do you know any funders that make 10-year commitments through an annual grant cycle?).Yet, how often do we measure outcomes created 10 years after the grant period ends? Do we know if those dollars are creating the same impact today? Has the program declined?Hopefully not.Shifting to multi-year commitments is not sufficient. We must ensure with greater certainty that our grantees have the capacity to self-fund their programs, long after the grant period.So, practically speaking, what can you do?The YouthBridge Community Foundation is an emergent, three-staff member foundation in St. Louis, Mo. The foundation’s CEO, Michael Howard, regularly educates YouthBridge donors and donor-advised fundholders on how to make gift decisions with the long-term in mind.“You’ve proven your commitment to lasting good and meaningful change,” was the headline phrase from a recent newsletter, educating stakeholders on why the foundation is building the capacity of local nonprofits. This education is enabling YouthBridge to increase their investment in the fundraising capacity of nonprofits serving children and youth in the St. Louis area.Do your board members and donors understand the importance of nonprofit sustainability? How might you educate them in your next communication?Community Needs Outweigh Grantmaking BudgetsWill you be able to fund 100 percent of the letters of inquiry or grant applications you receive this year?Most likely not.This is where we derive the phrase, “competitive grantmaking.” Grantmaking is competitive because needs (generally) always outweigh grant dollars available.Because grantmaking is a zero-sum game (a dollar here can’t be invested there) we need to measure the “impact-per-dollar” of each grant. We must ask ourselves, “Will we create more outcomes if we invest a dollar into this program or that one?”To expand this metric with confidence, grantmakers should pair grant dollars with an investment in an organization’s fundraising capacity. Network for Good has found that, on average, every $1 invested into a nonprofit’s fundraising capacity produces $10 in the program or general operating funding. These are dollars that can be used to amplify and expand the nonprofit’s impact—without tying up additional grant dollars from the funder.So, practically speaking, what can you do?The Tahoe Truckee Community Foundation recently revamped its annual grants process to provide community impact staff with greater depth and insight into the applicant’s strengths and weaknesses.During this process, nonprofits are asked to express any concerns about their ability to financially sustain their programs, and some even take a comprehensive assessment. For a group that identifies fundraising as a core challenge, a micro-grant for fundraising services is bundled into their award, ensuring that the organization not only diversifies revenue but also increases the impact of each grant dollar over time.Have you considered bundling a micro-grant for fundraising capacity alongside a restricted or program grant? Could you pilot this concept with a handful of your grantees?Please comment. We would like to hear from you.
Looking for a new way to show your donors some love this Valentine’s Day? Look no further! Let our Donor Love infographic show you the way. We’re here to help you with all your nonprofit fundraising and marketing needs, including:Campaigns & AppealsThank YousResults & ReportsDonor RelationsCommunicationsCheck out our donor love infographic today. Plus, hover over each image for a special surprise!Donor Love InfographicRead more on The Nonprofit Blog
Photo: “Fenchuganj Upazila, Sylhet, Bangladesh” © 2011 Shafiqul Alam Kiron/Save the Children, used under a Creative Commons Attribution license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/Share this: Posted on January 26, 2016August 4, 2016Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)The MHTF is proud to bring you a new repository of information on family planning. Our newest topic page, “Integrating Family Planning into Maternal Health,” features an in-depth look at the relationship between family planning and maternal mortality:From 1990 to 2015, the global maternal mortality ratio (MMR) decreased by 44 percent. A drop in the total fertility rate worldwide, due primarily to an increase in contraceptive use, resulted in 1.2 million fewer maternal deaths from 1990 to 2005. However, to reach the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) target of reducing the global MMR to less than 70 per 100,000 live births by 2030, major challenges remain.Use the topic page to learn more about this relationship and to also access the most up-to-date reports, publications, news, and highlights of our work in family planning. ShareEmailPrint To learn more, read: