Funders | Creating the Future!

Archive for the 'Funders' Category Page 3 of 5

Debunking “Accountability to Donors” Part 3

Published

on May 12, 2008

in Donor Rights, Funders, Fundraising and Stop Signs on the Road to Changing the World

. 0 Comments

The notion that organizations are primarily accountable to their donors is a dangerous one indeed - dangerous because it misdirects organizational focus, thereby preventing organizations from creating an amazing future for their communities.

It is also a notion fraught with logic-leaps.

And so, here is Post #3, as I continue to debunk the illogical constructs at the heart of the Donor Accountability movement.

(If you have not read the posts leading up to this one, you can start at the beginning here.)

Donating What?
If an organization is first and foremost accountable to those who provide the resources to make their programs possible, are those organizations only accountable to donors who give them cash?

What about the donor who provides $100,000 in free rent every year? What about a volunteer who works 40 hours a week, every week, for free?

If we are primarily accountable to our donors, are we accountable to our volunteers and our in-kind donors to the same extent we would be accountable to our cash donors? And if not, why not?

These are not just glib arguments. Because we do indeed accomplish what we hold ourselves accountable for, the issues in this thread are at the heart of what organizations can and will accomplish for the communities we all love.

If we hold ourselves accountable for creating an amazing future for our communities, our donors will be happy, because our communities will be healthy, vibrant, resilient, humane places to live.

Yes, one of the many contributing factors towards those lofty ends is the extent to which organizations are fiscally prudent and responsive to donors. However, ultimate accountability for a Community Benefit organization means more than a focus on the dollars.

Accountability asks and answers the question, “Whose expectations matter?”

And unless the primary answer to that question is, “The Community,” we will continue to see fiscally prudent organizations creating little impact in their communities.

Click here to go to the next post in this series.

Debunking “Accountability to Donors” Part 2

Published

Hildy

on May 9, 2008

in Donor Rights, Funders, Fundraising and Stop Signs on the Road to Changing the World

. 0 Comments

In my first post on Donor Rights / Donor Accountability, here is what I said:

The notion that organizations are primarily accountable to their donors is a dangerous sidetrack from where organizations must aim their primary accountability if we are to create an amazing future for our communities.

And so here is Post #2, as I continue to debunk the illogical constructs at the heart of the Donor Accountability movement.

Bill Gates vs. My Grandmother
If the Donor Rights advocates are correct, an organization owes its primary accountability to its donors, because their dollars make everything possible.

Does that mean the organization is more accountable to the person who writes a $1 million check than to the person who gives $10? Are we then really talking about a sliding scale of accountability, where the organization is accountable to each and every donor, in direct proportion to the level of his/her gift?

And how does that work out in practice? What exactly do those “donor rights” buy in terms of levels of accountability based on gift size?

Taking that logic one step further, does the same “accountability” apply if the $1 million check came from Bill Gates, representing a fraction of his total wealth, while the $10 came from my grandmother, living on a fixed income, to whom that $10 meant giving up something else she would have purchased that week? What rights would each of them deserve as donors to whom the organization might hold itself accountable?

Which raises the next question - if two donors are making 180 degree opposite requests / demands on an organization, and they both gave the same amount, to whom is the organization accountable? Which one of those donors’ best interests should be the primary concern of the organization?

The questions “To whom are we accountable? And for what?” are about more than just dollars and donors. These questions are at the heart of everything community organizations are able to accomplish. And the reason for that is simple: We accomplish what we hold ourselves accountable for.

If we hold ourselves accountable for creating an amazing future for our communities, our donors will be happy, because our communities will be healthy, vibrant, resilient, humane places to live. And we will provide those results by being fiscally prudent and gracious to our donors, simply because it is impossible to produce incredible results if we do our work in any other way.

Click here to go to the next post in this series.

Debunking “Accountability to Donors”

Published

Hildy

on May 4, 2008

in Donor Rights, Funders, Fundraising and Stop Signs on the Road to Changing the World

. 4 Comments

Nothing gets my teeth gnashing like the discussion of Donor Rights and Donor Accountability. It is such a dangerous sidetrack from where organizations must aim their primary accountability if we are to create an amazing future for our communities. And yet, the notion that organizations are primarily accountable to their donors prevails, and it is growing daily.

The essence of Donor Rights / Accountability is that organizations are primarily accountable to their donors, as the donors (according to this theory) are the organization’s investors - the ones that make everything possible. Therefore, organizations owe their primary accountability to those donors, for spending the donors’ money wisely.

It sounds good at face value, but it is a logic that goes beyond being just seriously flawed (which it is). It is a concept that is hazardous to the ability of community organizations to create visionary improvement to the quality of life in our communities.

(To get a glimpse of where accountability must focus if we are to create an extraordinary future for our communities, this post is a start. And this article goes deeper.)

And so, over the next few weeks, I will be debunking, one by one, the illogical constructs that lie at the heart of the Donor Accountability movement.

To open the discussion, let’s start with an easy one.

Consider that rare animal - the fully funded, fully endowed organization.

If organizations are primarily accountable to their donors and funders, and an organization has no donors to be accountable to, to whom is the organization accountable?

And if the logic works for that organization, why is the logic different if someone has given a donation?

Does accountability really relate to the level of organizational financial security? If an organization starts out with many donors, and over the years grows an endowment to the point where it needs to do virtually no fundraising resulting in very few, if any donors - to whom is the organization accountable?

And does true accountability really change over time if an organization’s purpose does not change over that time?

Head to the next post in this series.