Friends,
Just yesterday a discussion ensued on a public radio listserv about whether or not stations should require employees to contribute to the organization. Overwhelmingly the response was negative, though I noticed that many of the people posting said that their station encouraged employee contributions and even provided for payroll deduction.
I agree that employee giving is a good thing, but I'm a bit unsettled by the notion of making it compulsory or coercive. I have seen a lot of push back from employees of nonprofits, many of whom feel that the lower salaries they generally earn constitute some form of "involuntary" philanthropy. While I think that's a fallacious argument--after all, no one is forcing them to work there for less money--I also disagree with the classic nonprofit mindset that says "if we can demonstrate 100% employee contributions, it will speak volumes to our prospective major donors." I have never had a donor conversation where one of the key talking points was that every employee was a contributor. I don't think donors really care about this or that it's an especially compelling point to make. Sure, it's nice, but what major donors and foundations want to see is how generously the board supports the organization.
Sadly, in public broadcasting many boards evolved where the ethos of giving was never enculturated. We should be striving for full board giving first. If you have ever applied for a Kresge grant, you'll remember that they place primary emphasis on your board and want documentation showing that each member has stepped forward.
Talk to you soon!
Bob
Friday, November 16, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Bob - I agree about board support. It was the hardest nut to crack for the American Association of Museums and many smaller museums. After 24 years in small history museums from Conencticut to Colorado and Kentucky to Minnesota, I can attest to how hard that is accomplish with small organizations (at least prior to 1999 when I moved into the salary and benefit heaven of University licensed public radio).
As to non-profit employee monetary contributions: most of my life has been work in non-profits and I grew up in an Episcopal Rectory. Vestries and boards (particularly for small staffed institutions) pay below par, often have excessive time expectations, often treat housing and personal vehicles as extensions of the institutions (not to mention treating spouses and children as unpaid employees) (the Episcopal Church is getting much better about this)(University licensed stations usually have better salary scales not to mention great benefits). In such cases a modest and reasonable contribution ($5 a month for instance)would seem ok, but don't ask for "major donor" levels.
Think about the poorly paid rural pastor who is also asked to tithe.
What is reasonable?
I have had that same experience -- boards most of whom were not donors -- while in public broadcasting. It's really encouraging, now that I'm with a stand-alone national nonprofit, that our board members here are all major donors, as well as being our most enthusiastic promoters.
I concur about Board giving and completely agree that employee giving should always be removed from any pressure or stigma.
That being said, when there's a special opportunity to help--like with a capital campaign for new facilities or equipment--staff are often very excited about its value--to the organization and to making their own jobs easier.
Offering staff the chance to contribute even just a little bit under these circumstances can actually be a morale-inproving, team-building activity.
I agree that other funders rarely concern themselves with this, but I believe that Boards do take notice of the pride an organization's staff takes in their work when informed of their contributions.
That alone won't motivate Board members to give generously, but can contribute to their "big picture" understanding of the organization they serve that may indirectly affect their giving in a positive way.
Post a Comment