Tough decisions in a time of crisis

I don't know whether to feel good because I've looked around the boat and discovered that there is another person with bucket in hand just like me, or depressed for the same reason. My outfit (www.etc-nepal.org) is in similar straights. Your second post on this in particular resonated for me in many ways. I've a few vague, meandering thoughts to share on that; I really should be writing some letters (and doing the million other things on my list) rather than writing here so this will be a bit of a drive by post.

"Unfortunately, I think we were judging ourselves by the wrong criteria: we thought that the thing that would allow us to bridge the gap was the four years of results that we had built. As it turns out, while results are very important, we should have been asking ourselves whether we had built enough relationships and connections with potential funders."

This is the same error I continually fall into: "but our work is so good!" It's been hard to accept (and I still haven't fully, I worry that if I do I'll just become another salesperson; nothing wrong with that but it's not what got me into this line of work, in fact it was what I was running away from!) It isn't what you do, it's who you "know", and who you know rarely care to hear the details of what you do, they want the elevator speech. So results won't speak for themselves because few will ever listen. So the challenge for us small fry (we're basically same size as you revenue wise) is to professionalize our fundraising, and stop focusing on programs. The big guys just don't have this problem because they can hyper-segment their employees. We who have to do a bit of everything don't have that luxury. Now, the question is a) can you leave the program people on their own?, and b) can your heart withstand the separation? In my own case the answers are a) sort of, maybe, but well, not really and b) no.

"The problem wasn't so much being turned down for grants as it was being able to find grants whose criteria and RFPs we fit. Of course, finding international grants is hard in the first place, but the major roadblock that we ran up against was that FORGE's mission and programming just didn't seem to fit any of the predetermined categories set by grantmakers. "

I think this is due to the same problem highlighted above: results aren't central to how funding is distributed. Well, let me rephrase; positive results, idiosyncratically arrived at, do not push the buttons that make big money salivate cash. And anything that is truly participatory, or that involves a results time frame of longer than 6-12 months, is necessarily idiosyncratic, hence "risky", hence unfundale. Grants are nice because they're big chunks of money, but grantors want narrowly framed input/output focused projects; they don't fund missions, or processes of change that depend on communities building cohesion and coming up with their own solutions. That's all to messy and uncontrolled. Grantors fund organizations that are in command which, well, is anti-participatory.

This is why I have steadily come around to believing that private donations are the best form of income because they are, in effect, mission driven, they're usually unrestricted, they require a minimum of reporting, in short, they're based on trust that you have you're heart in the right place and have a good idea for how to get something positive done. In other words, they are not driven by the marketplace, which, frankly is the world that foundations operate in.

"my hope is that over time the philanthropic community will catch on and funding will move toward a more open model."

Oh, please please don't hold your breath. I'd hate for you to pass out and fall out of the boat. Until people with real experience doing real change are the trustees of the big money and can mandate such a thing, it will not happen. And this isn't likely because those trustees are not coming from our world.

"Building a website, no matter how over-the-top awesome, will not be enough."

Our site is showing a bit of wear, but when I built it I had the same goal: I wanted it to be a place where people could come to learn something, not just about what we do, but to come away thinking more broadly about the whole endeavor of social change. A few people have come away with that sense but for the most part no. I have a bunch of ideas on how to get closer to being such a site, but don't have the time/resources to implement them. The perils of being small once again.

"Ideally, we'd have a few people ready to back us financially should things go really wrong macro-economically. It's too bad that the worst effects of the economic fallout are going to be felt by the people around the world who are the least prepared to deal with it..."

Oh boy, I know how you feel. We have some reserves so can survive a couple more bad years but the real issue is that costs keep going up so even hitting last year's revenue (much less our budgeted targets) isn't enough to avoid cuts, cuts, cuts to those who would most suffer: the people we're trying to help. We're caught in a global market net and it's rule of "growth at all costs" undermine anything that just works. I don't feel like our organization should have to get bigger, but the way funding/expenses work we're forced to make endless growth our primary goal (which gets back to the first point: are we prepared to make sales, not programs, our first priority?)

"If all goes well, these few hard months will give us both the time and the gut-check that we need to come back stronger, savvier, and more hungry for change than ever."

I hope so too.

I feel strange suggesting an idea, as you have much more experience fund-raising than myself, but I can't help trying to help. I'm a college senior and have been working in the nonprofit/social entrepreneurship sector for a few years as a volunteer and an intern. From the (admittedly limited) private donors I've met, I think you stand a good chance of finding an angel investor if you can run across the right person in time.

From your post, private funders are already a good source of funding, so you might consider running an "introductions campaign." I'm sure the donors who turned you down this year or gave a quarter of their usual donations are still sympathetic to your work and they might be willing to give you a few names of people they know that you could contact directly.

It would be very quick and easy for your donors to fill out a form with those names and addresses which your office (or a small, one-time volunteer team) could write letters to, introducing your organization and mentioning a future fund-raising campaign. In your current financial position, I imagine this sounds like taking the long way around, but private funders work much faster than foundations, especially in those instances where their money has an immediate impact. There's a certain appeal to being the helping hand that pulls an organization with a few years of solid results behind them back from the edge of financial ruin. (not to dramatize your worrisome situation, of course).

I'm sure you always ask donors in your campaign letters to spread the news with friends, but in this instance, they must understand how much you need to make new connections and they'd probably be happy to see there is something they can contribute to your organization that isn't measured by the stock market. Also, a little guilt over their reduced donations and the unlikeliness of a quick bounce back in the markets (I'm an economics major and it's going to be a while) might loosen up those address books.

I don't know if this will help you before December, or if you can even spare the funds to run a two-part fund-raising campaign, but it's like I said before. I couldn't help trying to help. and if there's anything I can do from Atlanta, GA, let me know!

Best of Luck, Ember