Give a Little

Bill Clinton on Giving

Well, he created the foundation, and now he's written the book.  On Giving.  And the 'he' is Bill Clinton, the former president, the author, the philanthropist, and perhaps the next First Gentleman of the United States.

When Clinton published "Giving: How Each of Us Can Change the World", I was afraid that I would have to read the book.  And read it I did, fearfully.  Why fearfully?  Well, I was afraid I'd be reading a book that was sensationalist, and I was afraid that Clinton would gloss over the difficulties that smart philanthropists are facing in donating today.  I was afraid it would be a simple milk and honey presidential tome, a slightly more sophisticated version of the Chicken Soup for the Soul series.  Essentially, I thought that, with Clinton's authorship, it would become very popular, yet would minimize the difficult issues that are facing charities and donors today, thus spreading a simplistic gospel that would be hard to break through.

Was I right to be afraid?  Partially.  But I actually think Clinton has done a fairly good job at both keeping the message simple, yet exploring the complexity of philanthropy in a reasonably responsible manner.

The book is written in Clinton's folksy style - there's a lot of leading questions that set you up for his always easy solutions and answers.  It's a fast read as a result, nothing difficult to digest - you're not going to be overwhelmed by a discussion of the economics of international aid.  But on the flip side, it is actually quite comprehensive: Clinton doesn't just stick to giving money or time, he discusses public service, governments' role in aid, and social entrepreneurship (individuals that start new and interesting charities, for example).  In fact, it's so comprehensive as to be overwhelming at times.  While the take-away message is that even the smallest contribution makes a difference, the continual barrage of stories about people who've committed everything they have - whether that be of time or money - to a cause or to a personal mission makes your own contribution of any size seem meagre in comparison.

But Clinton, in his charismatic, down-home approach, is able to reel you back in, reminding you of all of the ways you can help too.  The message is inspirational, and does give you back hope that problems can be solved, that charity is worthwhile.  The plethora of organizations he mentions or promotes is incredible - the research that was done was extensive - but this approach of providing practical places to put your philanthropic investment also means there are plenty of other good organizations who won't get profile.  And while Clinton mentions many organizations - many of them new and innovative - he doesn't delve into the issue of the proliferation of charities today.  Are all these new organizations good?  Clinton actually encourages citizens to go start their own charities to support whatever they feel is important.  There is a bigger debate to be had here: if everyone starts their own charity or foundation, how do all these organizations get funded, and how many are truly effective?  But, without new organizations, how do we inspire greater innovation in the charitable sector?  Clinton's advice is open-ended, and it doesn't consider any of these difficult issues.

The book is uplifting, and I even admit that there are some very touching moments within its covers.  A few questions remain, however.  First, who is reading this book?  Will it inspire someone who isn't already giving to give?  I doubt it - investing the money in buying the book, and then dedicating the time to read it is probably a more momentous decision than deciding to start turning over a few dollars to a local charity.  It speaks more to those who are already giving, and are looking for reinforcement that what they are doing can achieve results. 

I actually believe that if Clinton really wanted to inspire more people to give, he'd make the book freely available through his foundation, perhaps as a dowloadable PDF.  Then, it would be a useful tool - promoted by charities and foundations as a free resource to those who need encouragement to give.  Instead, the book is available for sale through your local bookstore or online, and the Clinton Foundation site mentions that a "portion of the proceeds" are dedicated to selected charities and nonprofits.  That seems like legalese for 'not all the proceeds', and the selected charities and nonprofits aren't mentioned.  Petty critique, perhaps, but the message does seem to be slightly insincere.

The examples Clinton uses are also time-specific – this book won’t have staying power on the bookstore shelves.  And it’s very US-based, with only a few examples outside the American borders.  This isn’t all that shocking to readers who are used to a US centric point of view, but it does mean there are some limitations to how Clinton’s practical advice applies to those of us living elsewhere.

So should you read it?  If you’re looking for something uplifting, something to make you feel that there are good uses for your charitable dollars, go ahead.  It’s not an academic treatise on philanthropy, which is a welcome break from some of the publications on this topic.  And it’s not overly simplistic either, not a Chicken Soup for the Donor’s Soul.  But read it soon, because as I said earlier, the examples are related to today.  And read it without expectation of deep insights or analysis.  Instead, read it as a good starter guide on the path of interesting and innovative giving – I just don’t recommend that it be your only guide on this path of discovery.

Stop Going to the Gym, Start Giving to Charity

Okay, so sometimes I'll indulge myself in some more inane items, such as this interesting piece of research.  This came courtesy of Men's Health magazine: according to a study from Newcastle University in England, men who give to charity are more attractive to women than those that don't. 

I couldn't find a copy of the study itself or any other published results, but, no matter.  Guys, this is great news!  All that money you're spending on a gym membership - stop!  It's not worth the sweat and pain (and that's only if you're actually using your gym membership).  Instead, start giving it to worthy charities on CanadaHelps, and your attractiveness will get a boost.

Of course, this raised the question in our office: are men who work at charities also more attractive to women?  We've got at least one staffer on our team who's going to test this theory out at the local pub. 

Now that's some serious research.

Millionaires' Mission

I was in the United Kingdom recently, and while I usually rave about the BBC newscasts, but generally laugh at the rest of British public TV broadcasting, I found a new reality TV show that opened my eyes in disbelief, called Millionaires' Mission.  Before I go too far here, I should point out that I haven't been able to actually watch the show yet.  A colleague watched it, and gave me the run down.  The next day, I read a review in The Guardian.  There is also quite a bit of information on the BBC's website, including an episode guide.  Thus, what I'm about to say is really about the concept, moreso than the execution of the show.

The premise is simple: take eight millionaires to a farming village in Uganda, and see if their capitalist entrepreneurial drive can help the village find ways of building its economy and alleviate poverty.  Give them a short deadline (3 weeks), and 120,000 pounds (just under $250,000 CDN).  What happens?

Well, it's an interesting story.  My initial reaction is that this is a dangerous experiment: the last thing any developing nation needs is some free-spirited and independent wealthy individuals arriving, attempting to solve deeply-rooted problems with fast band-aid solutions, and then leaving again.  In fact, the solution the millionaires hit on (warning, plot spoiler coming if you ever intend to watch) is to build a hotel/school.  The concept is to capitalize on the natural beauty of the land and encourage tourism, thus bringing more income to the village over time.

Apparently, this seems to work.  The BBC is reporting that a few other villages are now joining this niche tourist industry.  I have my doubts that these are viable for many other villages, and I think the novelty of this form of tourism for a select few travellers is perhaps what drives the current short-term success. 

What I really find interesting, however, is the reaction of the millionaires themselves.  They discover that there is no quick or easy solution, and that the people they meet in Uganda are just as enterprising as themselves.  In fact, what they really underline is a newfound respect for the charities that are working in developing countries.

Most importantly, they have to recognize that being good in one arena doesn't make you good in another.  An entrepreneur in Britain isn't necessarily a good economist or charity manager - the enterprise needed to build a successful business in a well-off land doesn't provide them with the skills to assist an agrarian society eking out an existence in Africa.  I've always liked the wisdom of Warren Buffet - his philosophy has always been to find others who are good at what they do, and invest in them.  In the case of his philanthropy, he looked at the financial and human assets of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, decided he didn't need to create another foundation nor get his hands dirty in the business of charitable giving, and committed his wealth to his friends' Foundation.

It's fun to watch some millionaires taken out of their element and struggle with the scope of problems in a new country, but ultimately, I believe in systemic changes that will raise a larger number of people to a new level of income and quality of life, as opposed to select, small interventions.  It's not that I'm against the small interventions - they often provide more instant satisfaction for both benefactor and recipient - but if we hope to build stronger societies, and create resilient communities, we also need to invest in longer-term strategies and solutions.

The Sharing Place

Being a portal for online donations, CanadaHelps isn't like other foundations - we don't usually go and see the charities where the funds go.  Besides, for us, it isn't our money, it's the donors.  With over 6000 charities that are actively using CanadaHelps as their online giving partner, we'd also have to constantly be on the road if we wanted to visit them all.

However, this summer, we took the opportunity to go and see one charity in action, a foodbank in Orillia, Ontario, since we were in that neighbourhood on other business.  Ren, our Systems Architect, and I went to see The Sharing Place, after coming across a news item about the food bank from a Google News Alert. The Sharing Place recently signed up with CanadaHelps, and the news article was promoting the new online giving functionality for their latest campaign.

Gladys, Greg, and Don welcomed us warmly when we arrived, and we had a tour of the facility.  They are currently looking for a new facility, but I was amazed by how they use their current space.  They don't have a lot of room, but they still manage to have a receiving area, preparation room (pictured above), storage rooms, freezers and fridges to hold the donated and purchased food items.  At the time we arrived, stocks were starting to get low, and they were revving up for their next food drive.

Despite it being a weekday afternoon, there was still a constant stream of people who were picking up food from The Sharing Place.  Gladys and Don explained that there was always a clientele of people from around the area.  They attract some rural clients as well, who are often struggling with the economic challenges of agriculture.  We met one fellow who was just 'passing through', and was using the front steps of The Sharing Place as a convenient spot to repair his backpack, before he continued on with his journey.  He left with some staple items from the volunteers and staff at the food bank for his trip.

Ren and I came away with the impression that keeping hungry mouths fed is not an easy job, and despite the seemingly simple mission of food banks in general, there is always a struggle to find resources and food for the populations they serve.  We wish Don, Gladys, and Greg, and all the volunteers at Orillia's The Sharing Place the best of luck and successful fundraising.

That Incessant Ringing has Got to Stop

It's time we weighed in on the debate about telemarketing.  If you give to charity, or if you're a charity manager, you've got some opinions on telemarketing.  I myself have been both a receiver of charitable telemarketing calls, as well as a charity manager overseeing telemarketing programs.

So, what's new?  The Canada Radio-television & Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) issued a decision  in July that exempts charities from a national Do Not Call list, but enforces several other restrictions for charities.  The Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP), to which I belong, lobbied to have those restrictions removed for charities, but was unsuccessful.

For CanadaHelps, here's the basic premise we believe: donors give when they want to give, and how they want to give.  A charity is responsible for getting their message out, but ultimately, the donor retains the control over how, when, and where they give, as well as (of course) how much.  No one can argue that fundraising is about building relationships - a strong relationship between a donor and a charity is a lucrative one for both. 

The recent CRTC decision is about putting some control into the hands of the donor.  If a donor wishes not to be contacted by phone, persistence isn't going to make it worth while.  A gift given begrudgingly as a way to get the telemarketer off the line isn't going to be a good experience for the donor, or likely a repeat gift for the charity, and therefore isn't the premise for a long-term, lucrative relationship.  The rules are restrictive, absolutely, and this may cut down on charitable revenue in some cases.  However, donors have been requesting some civility in the telemarketing industry for a long time, and they want some control back in their hands. 

A recent blog post entitled "If we don't give donors the power, they will take it" at the Stanford Social Innovation Review suggests that more and more donors are choosing to give anonymously through online giving sites as a way to avoid the hassles of relationships with charities.  At CanadaHelps, we're observing the same phenomenon: an incredible 43.6% of donors using CanadaHelps in 2006 opted to remain anonymous to the recipient charity (by either concealing all identifying information, or only allowing their name but no contact information to be passed on to the charity).  Several donors have written to us to thank us, noting that since they started giving via CanadaHelps, they've stopped receiving "annoying" telemarketing calls and direct mail.

The purpose of CanadaHelps wasn't to interrupt the relationship between donors and charities - in fact, we're here to strengthen it.  Good charities will always seek to strengthen the relationship with donors.  Good telemarketing agencies also recognize this, and adapt accordingly to better serve the donor.  But we still have a ways to go until the industry as a whole adopts better donor relationship practises.  Until then, we welcome any donors who choose to use CanadaHelps as a way to control the relationship they have with the causes they are passionate about.

And please, as a donor, remember your rights.  The person on the other end of the phone doesn't need to be abused.  You have the right to be asked to be put on that organization's do not call list.  Ask for confirmation that this has indeed happened as you requested. 

Overall, donors will choose, and they will choose those organizations that care about them in return.  There are many options in today's charitable marketplace - donors can and will leave those organizations that don't respect their communication preferences, and will choose agencies that are more aligned with their relationship desires.

Get a Free Website

Often, staff at CanadaHelps get asked by charities for free or cheap resources for building a web site.  Building a first site, or redeveloping a web site can be a daunting challenge.  Recently, however, I met a fellow at MESH who is part of an effort called Code for Good.  The simple concept here is that two resources will come together - web developers and charities - to build a web site.  This is a competition, where the charity gets a site for free, and the developers get the satisfaction of beating others to create a functional, well-designed site. 

The cost to the charity appears to be simply keeping the developers nourished and fed during the 24-hour event. 

While I can't guarantee the quality of any outcome, and I wouldn't place all your eggs in one web development basket (who knows what kind of a mash-up of a site will be the result of 24 chaotic, sleep-deprived hours of work), what I do find interesting is that this shines a spotlight on one of the key difficulties that charities are facing.  Good technology support, and good web design are elusive for most charities.  Usually, web sites are built on a wing and a prayer - online fundraising strategies are a poor cousin to  the efforts to get an online presence. 

With some shameless self-promotion, I believe that CanadaHelps provides the essential tools to raise funds online.  We make that part easy, at least.  You just have to build the site first.  If you are a developer who wants to help out, or you are a charity that wants a web site, check out Code for Good.  The deadline to apply to participate is June 30th.

Giving It All Away

Lately, charities are getting a bad rap.  Not all charities, but a few bad apples are spoiling the bunch.  Several articles in The Toronto Star have come out with scathing reviews of some exceptionally bad fundraising practises, or even fraudulent activities.  How's a donor to know if they're doing good by giving? 

It's tough if you're a typical donor.  If you're giving away big bucks, you get royal treatment, an insider view of the operations, and perhaps one-on-one meetings with board members to get the real scoop.  But if you're giving $100 to charity, chances are it's pretty hard to get much accountability for how your money is spent.

There's only so much information available as well, as most of what charities disclose is at their own discretion.  They do have to file a publicly-disclosed tax return with the Canada Revenue Agency each year, but attempting to compare the tax return of one charity to that of the next is like comparing the proverbial apples and oranges.

I have recently been part of discussions about encouraging more disclosure from charities, but I am concerned that the onus is on the donor to investigate and understand the financial numbers and operations of each organization.  Understanding your personal investments can be a challenge, from reading the prospectus, to crunching price-to-earning ratios: I can only imagine how difficult it would be to start teaching everyone how to understand the financials of charities.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a quick or easy answer at hand.  CanadaHelps continues to be interested in figuring out how donors can better understand the charities they give to, but we haven't yet hit on an easy solution.  In the meantime, I believe it is safe to say that there are only a few rotten apples in the bunch - the vast majority of charities are run by well-meaning volunteers and staff, who are trying to make the world a better place as best as they know how. 

Ultimately, donors shouldn't need to (and really, they don't need to) hold their nose as they click on "Donate Now".  Giving to charity is still good to do, and charities are still doing good.