The Ultimate Guide to Charitable Donations

Ultimate Guide to Charitable Donations Image

You are interested in giving to charity. But you might not know exactly where to start. What are the rules around tax deductions? What organizations are true charities? And how can you be sure your money is being used effectively? This Ultimate Guide to Charitable Donations will walk you through all the ins and outs of charitable giving, specifically from an individual donor perspective. 

What follows is a step-by-step process for making sure your hard-earned money supports the causes and organizations that mean the most to you.

If you don’t have a lot of time, and you’re just looking for how to find out a specific charity is eligible for tax-deductible donations, download a comprehensive list here.

 

Topics covered will include:

1.  Charitable donations market and trends

2.  Tax deductions: rules and watch outs

3.  How to choose a charity

4.  How to tell if a charity is legitimate

5.  How much to give and to which cause

6.  Which platforms to use to make charitable donations

This guide will discuss donations, primarily from a cash perspective. To dive into specifics around donating physical goods, check out this guide by Beverly Bird at the Balance.

For a comprehensive guide on volunteering your time visit this blog post from Zelos, and for a guide on volunteering your time abroad, Kiersten Rich runs an excellent blog called The Blonde Abroad full of details based on her personal experience.

And if you’re a nonprofit leader, you may do better to refer to Spera Connect’s Ultimate Guide to Nonprofit Fundraising.

Hopefully, this guide to charitable donations can serve as a decision guide for your philanthropic efforts. Whether big or small, new or experienced donor, your efforts go a long way toward making our world a better place!

Because nothing remains static, as you’re reading this, if you come up with new ideas or things that should be added to this guide, please contact us to contribute to an update to the article.

1. Charitable Donations Market and Trends

Americans donated almost $450 billion in 2019 to charitable causes, according to the National Philanthropic Trust. To understand the magnitude, the 1.5 million public charities registered with the IRS spend approximately $2 trillion per year – this means almost a quarter of all expenses are enabled by donations.

Of this, approximately 70% of charitable donations came from individuals, while 13% came from corporations and 3% from foundations. High-net-worth individuals average almost $30,000 per year, while general population households give closer to $2,500.

Where do charitable donations go?

 
Giving USA Trends Image
Source: Giving USA

According to Giving USA:

Giving to religion increased 2.3% between 2018 and 2019, with an estimated $128.17 billion in contributions. Adjusted for inflation, giving to religion was essentially flat, increasing 0.5% in 2019.

Giving to education is estimated to have increased 12.1%, to $64.11 billion. Adjusted for inflation, giving to education organizations increased 10.1%.

Giving to human services increased by an estimated 5.0% in 2019, totaling $55.99 billion. Adjusted for inflation, giving to human services organizations increased by 3.1%.

Giving to health organizations is estimated to have increased by 6.8% to $41.46 billion, an increase of 4.9%, adjusted for inflation.

Giving to public-society benefit organizations increased an estimated 13.1%, to $37.16 billion. Adjusted for inflation, giving to public-society benefit organizations grew 11.1%.

Giving to arts, culture, and humanities is estimated to have increased 12.6% to $21.64 billion. Adjusted for inflation, giving to the arts, culture, and humanities subsector increased 10.6%.

Giving to environment and animal organizations is estimated to have increased 11.3%, to $14.16 billion. Adjusted for inflation, giving to the environment/animals subsector increased 9.4% percent. This marks the category’s sixth consecutive year of growth.

A donor profile

The average donor in the United States is 64 years old and makes two charitable gifts a year. Additionally, data by Double the Donation indicate:

–  31% of worldwide donors give to organizations located outside of their country of residence.

–  Female donors are more likely to make a donation because of social media marketing, while male donors are more likely to give because of email messages.

–  Generational differences between donors can have considerable impacts, as well, as evidenced in the findings to the right.

–  67% of worldwide donors also choose to volunteer locally in their communities, and 56% regularly attend fundraising events.

How does giving look by generation?

Millennial Charitable Donations (born 1981-1996)

  • Make up 25.9% of US population
  • 40% are enrolled in a monthly giving program
  • 46% donate to crowdfunding campaigns
  • 16% give through Facebook fundraising tools
  • 55% attend fundraising events
  • 11% of total US giving comes from Millennials
  • 84% of Millennials give to charity, donating an annual average of $481 across 3.3 organizations
  • Millennials are active on their phones and respond best to text message and social media, but rarely check personal email or respond to voice calls
  • Millennials are most likely to contribute to work sponsored initiatives, donate via mobile and watch online videos before making a gift

Gen X Charitable Donations (born 1965-1980)

  • Make up 20.4% of US population
  • 49% are enrolled in a monthly giving program
  • 45% donate to crowdfunding campaigns
  • 19% give through Facebook fundraising tools
  • 56% attend fundraising events
  • Gen Xers are most likely to fundraise on behalf of a cause, make a pledge, and volunteer their time to an organization
  • Gen X prefers text messages or voice calls. These donors regularly check email and stay up to date on social media feeds
  • Email prompted 31% of online donations made by Gen Xers

Baby Boomer Charitable Donations (born 1946-1964)

  • Make up 23.6% of US population
  • 49% of Baby Boomer donors are enrolled in a monthly giving program
  • 35% donate to crowdfunding campaigns
  • 21% give through Facebook fundraising tools
  • 58% attend fundraising events
  • 24% of Boomers say they were promoted to give an online donation because of direct mail they received
  • 72% of Boomers give to charity, donating an annual average of $1,212 across 4.5 organizations
  • Boomers answer voice calls, check email regularly, and also use text messaging and social media; though initially slow to adopt new technology, they take to it quickly once they do
  • Boomers are most likely to make recurring donations on a monthly, quarterly or yearly basis

Greatest Generation Charitable Donations (born before 1946)

  • Make up 11.8% of US population
  • 30% of donors aged 75+ say they have given online in the last 12 months and on average give 25% more frequently than younger generations
  • 88% of the Greatest gen gives to charity, donating an annual average of $1,367 across 6.2 organizations
  • They represent 26% of total US giving
  • Greatest prefer voice calls and direct mail; these donors are late adopters of email and do not typically use text messaging or social media
  • Greatest are most likely to give through direct mail campaigns and donate physical goods
Global trends in giving by generation graphic
Source: 2018 Global Trends in Giving Report, by Nonprofit Tech for Good

2. Charitable Donations and Tax Deductions

As you explore your giving options, pay attention to tax implications. A strong incentive for many, donations are often tax deductible for donors, and as a result, more giving occurs in December than any other month – to prepare for tax season.

What do tax rules mean for you?

Donations to qualified charities are tax-deductible expenses that can reduce your taxable income and lower your tax bill. You must itemize your tax deductions to claim them, however, and this is typically in your best interest only if the total of all your itemized deductions exceeds the amount of the standard deduction you would receive for your filing status.

Note: not ALL organizations are eligible to receive tax exempt charitable donations.

Tax law classifies charities and nonprofits according to their mission and organizational structure. Each group must register with the IRS for the section of the law that applies to it.

Religious and charitable organizations typically fall under section 501(c)(3) and can receive tax-deductible donations.

Not every section allows these deductions. For instance, social welfare and civic organizations registered under section 501(c)(4) don’t qualify.

However, two types of 501(c)(4) organizations—veterans’ organizations with 90% war vet membership and volunteer fire departments—do qualify for charitable deductions.

Because the IRS allows deductible donations to some entities that are not registered as a 501(c)(3), donors can get confused.

For example, taxpayers often have the mistaken belief that civic and employee associations, such as certain retired worker associations and sports groups, qualify as charitable groups.

Asking the organization about their qualification before making a contribution is recommended.

TurboTax provides additional ground rules that are helpful for determining if your gift is tax deductible, and this quick article is worth your time if unsure of your potential gift’s status.

To determine if a specific organization is eligible for tax deductible gifts, consult the Internal Revenue Service database, which is regularly updated with nonprofit statuses. Click on the download for Publication 78 Data.

Charitable Contribution gif
Source: The Balance

How to claim a deduction

William Perez in The Balance offers great insight on how to claim your tax deduction:

You can claim a tax deduction for charitable giving on Schedule A.2 The total of Schedule A then transfers to line 9 of the Form 1040. You’d claim the total of your Schedule A deductions in lieu of claiming the standard deduction. You can’t itemize and claim the standard deduction as well.

The schedule isn’t just for claiming charitable donations. It includes and calculates all itemized deductions you’re eligible for. Other possible itemized deductions include things like medical and dental expenses you paid for yourself or for your dependents over the course of the year, including insurance premiums. They also include state and local taxes you might have paid and home mortgage interest.

Tax deduction brackets

Rules for claiming the charitable tax deduction

The IRS imposes several rules for claiming a deduction for charitable contributions:

You must actually donate cash or property. A pledge or promise to donate is not deductible unless and until you actually pay.

You must contribute to a qualified tax-exempt organization.4 Charities will let you know if they have 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, but some organizations, including churches and other religious organizations, are not required to obtain 501(c)(3) status from the IRS. They count as qualified charities regardless, as do certain trusts and non-profit volunteer fire companies. The IRS provides a search tool so you can check the status of an organization you’re considering donating to, or check with a tax professional.

You must meet several recordkeeping requirements. This includes saving canceled checks, acknowledgment letters from the charity or charities, and sometimes appraisals that confirm the value of donated property.

Keeping records of your charitable donations

Your written records must indicate the name of the charitable organization, the date of your contribution, and the amount that you gave.

Canceled checks work well because the name of the charity, the date, and the amount of the gift all appear there. Bank statements are good, too, when they show a gift paid by debit card, and credit card statements work when they show this same information.

Charitable organizations will often provide donors with written letters of acknowledgment or receipts. The IRS can disallow charitable donations of $250 or more if you don’t have a written acknowledgment from the charity to document your gift, in addition to your other records.

Limits on your charitable contribution deduction

Generally, you can deduct contributions up to 30% or 60% of your adjusted gross income (AGI), depending on the nature and tax-exempt status of the charity to which you’re giving. You can deduct contributions of appreciated capital gains assets up to 20% of your AGI.

The limit for cash donations was 50% of your AGI through tax year 2017. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) increased this threshold to 60% as of 2018 through at least the end of 2025 when the TCJA potentially expires.

You can carry the excess over to subsequent tax years if your gifts exceed these thresholds. Excess contributions can be carried over for a maximum of five years.

It used to be that your deduction could be affected if your AGI was too high, but this rule was repealed by the TCJA.

Other watch outs

It is important to know that some contributions are not tax-deductible, even if by following the above guidelines they may appear to be. These include gifts made to:

–  Political parties, political campaigns or political action committees (PACs)

–  Individual people (as opposed to organizations)

–  Labor unions, chambers of commerce or other business associations

–  For-profit schools or hospitals

–  Foreign governments

For more information on estimating your charitable giving tax savings, check out Fidelity’s free calculator.

Fidelity Deduction Calculator
Source: Fidelity

3. How Much to Give and to Which Cause

For the next step in this Ultimate Guide to Charitable Donations, let us return to our earlier question we asked ourselves: which cause is my money likely to do make the most social impact toward?

This is a dangerous question that risks spiraling a potential giver into indecisiveness and shame, especially if discussing with others about issues important to them. This might sound crazy, but think about how realistically some of these questions could pop up in a conversation about donations:

“Why would you give to an animals organization with so many starving people around the world?”

“How could you ignore the homeless people in our community but support local scholarship funds?”

“Child education isn’t NEARLY as important as getting high schoolers off the streets at night… what are you thinking?”

Not so unrealistic, is it?

If you’re unfortunate enough to be put in this place just remember: your dollars going ANYWHERE is more than not doing anything. There will always be higher ROI type ventures than others, and that is usually highly dependent on people, place and circumstance. But your decision to give should supersede any judgment attached to its motive.

According to Meera Jagannathan:

Most agree on one point: Charitable giving is an incredibly personal choice. “It’s what you feel like you can afford, how much a particular cause or charity means to you, how deeply affected you are by something and how much you want to help, and what you feel your responsibility to a community is,” consumer psychologist and “Decoding the New Consumer Mind” author Kit Yarrow told MarketWatch. “It’s just a very personal equation that everybody works out for themselves.”

Factors that play into that equation, Yarrow added, might include your personal-financial constraints like credit-card debt and loans; how passionate you are about a certain cause, issue or institution; and whether you’ve actually been engaged by an organization or charity’s outreach efforts.

But while “we all have an obligation to contribute to others,” Yarrow said, that contribution doesn’t always have to be monetary. “This is particularly true for those that are struggling with their own debt,” she said, suggesting donating time or energy instead. Palmer noted that some people may choose alternate, more informal ways of giving, like helping family members or a needy person next door — acts, in other words, that “might be just as legitimate a way to help others as writing a check.”

8 Tips for Finding the Right Cause Infographic
Source: Inc.

So, how much to give?

Everybody’s personal budget and circumstances will ultimately determine their specific giving patterns, but here are some general guidelines, according to Kristine Gill:

Just like housing, car insurance, and groceries, charitable donations should be factored into your budget, says Kristine Stevenson Seale, a financial coach in Temple, Texas. “Base the amount you give on your monthly income,” she advises. If you can afford it, make charitable giving about 10 percent of your budget. And get in the habit of donating once a month rather than at the end of the year. To maximize your donation, opt out of the incentive gift, like the tote bag or coffee mug, Buchanan says.

If a cash donation is a stretch one month, ask the organization if you can donate time or skills instead; you might do IT work for the website or organize a food drive. Remember, too, that you can give goods instead of money— bring tools to Habitat for Humanity, say, or personal-care products to a shelter.

Once a gift budget is determined, you will then ask is it better to give less money to more charities, or more money to fewer? Typically, your money goes further with larger donations to fewer organizations. The reason is typically due to the transaction fees, which are often fixed and become more economical the higher the donation.

Jason Franklin, PhD, founder and principal at Ktisis Capital advises giving based on a 50/30/20 rule:

You could dedicate 50 percent to one cause that you care deeply about, 30 percent to ones that you feel connected to but that aren’t top priority, and 20 percent to unplanned donations, like those random requests to sponsor your friend’s trivia team at a fundraiser. 

4. How to Choose a Charity

You may ask yourself, “Which cause is my money likely to do make the most impact toward? And how do I identify charities that would help me make this impact?”

Many of us hold causes deep in our hearts that mean something to us. It is easy for us to identify our desire to help children, or invest in cancer research, or whatever. But it is not always easy to pinpoint an organization that will best use our charitable donations for this purpose.

We have already discussed the IRS master list of eligible organizations. But looking at a crazy-long spreadsheet with just names of organizations is hardly helpful.

If you don’t want to search through the database, fee free to download the complete list immediately here. You can search and filter based on location, category, and size of organization to help you in your search!


Click here for your free CSV file download.

Next up in this Ultimate Guide to Charitable Donations is a list of some of the top resources for researching charities and nonprofits in a more useful manner. While useful for potential donors, these tools also serve nonprofits looking to fundraise. For more information on nonprofit fundraising, check out The Ultimate Guide to Nonprofit Fundraising.

GuideStar

GuideStar (now called Candid) is one of the most popular nonprofit databases. Styling themselves as “the most complete source of information about U.S. charities and other nonprofit organizations there is,” the website allows users to search its database to find a charity to support, benchmark your own nonprofit’s performance, research the sector, and more.

The site aims to connect nonprofits, foundations, and individuals to the resources they need to do good, by leveraging research, collaboration, and training.

Users can set up a free profile, which grants them instant access to basic search functionality. A simple nonprofit search will field a list of organizations, including their locations, gross receipts, total assets, and other organizational information.

Further, users can search for “causes” by geography, organization, or financial characteristics. This is helpful when you don’t quite know who you’re looking for, but you know what.

GuideStar Sample Page Image
Source: GuideStar

For those financial inclined out there, GuideStar offers the most comprehensive repository of tax forms (990) out there. Click on any organization and find instant access to recent years’ 990 forms. This provides users with detailed financial summaries of organizations, outlining specifics related to income, expenses, assets, directors compensation, and more.

Who is this site ideal for? 

Users looking for a comprehensive list of charities (over 1.8 million) in the United States. A special emphasis is placed on financial information, with the site’s repository of 990 tax forms serving as the foundation for much of its information.  While all features described above are free, the site offers a “Pro” version which allows users more pointed search functionality (the ability to mine 990 forms for specific data across the universe of nonprofits, a feature not available with free access).

Charity Navigator

Charity Navigator (https://www.charitynavigator.org/) is a charity assessment organization that evaluates hundreds of thousands of charitable organizations based in the United States. It provides insights into a nonprofit’s financial stability, and adherence to best practices for both accountability and transparency.

Importantly, it is the largest and most-utilized evaluator of charities in the United States. According to the website:

Since 2001, we’ve been empowering millions of donors by providing them with free access to data, tools, and resources to guide philanthropic decision-making. Through our ratings, nonprofits are equipped with the nonprofit sector’s premier trust indicator and a powerful platform to raise awareness and funds.

Accessed more than 11 million times annually, donors can give with confidence knowing the organizations that are highly rated on Charity Navigator efficiently steward donations and are accountable and transparent. While we have a large footprint and an established, trusted brand, our team of approximately 25 considers itself small-but-mighty.

Charity Navigator image

 

Source: Charity Navigator

The site’s organizational pages are among the most detailed in this list, with comprehensive sections on finance/accountability, impact/results, program detail, leadership/adaptability, and culture/community. It uses numerical ratings for each of these categories and is very transparent with the math behind the scores (as can be seen here).

Charity Navigator image

 

Source: Charity Navigator

Who is this site ideal for?

Users who are looking for a focused answer to the question, “where should I start?” Its series of top-ten lists give a great starting point for research, and the credibility backing the reviews and ratings, along with the organization’s reputation as an industry leader allow users to give confidently. Also for users looking for a deep dive into the operations of each organization — this site is as good as it gets.

CharityWatch

CharityWatch is a nonprofit charity watchdog and rating organization that works to uncover and report on wrongdoing in the nonprofit sector by conducting in-depth analyses of the audited financial statements, tax forms, fundraising contracts, and other reporting of nonprofit.

They only review 600 charities out of almost 2 million in the US, with a focus on quality rather than quantity. CharityWatch encourages donors to give to charities that will allocate most of their contributions to program services that benefit the people and causes that donors wish to support. CharityWatch also promotes charity accountability and transparency through its research on the rapidly changing nonprofit field (like others in this list) and through its work with investigative journalists uncovering wrongdoing within the nonprofit sector.

CharityWatch rates nonprofits on an A+ (best) to F (worst) scale and provides data on charity executive salaries, governance, public transparency, donor privacy, asset reserves, and other information uncovered by its analysts during their evaluation. It publishes this information on its website and in its biannual Charity Rating Guide & Watchdog Report. CharityWatch also publishes lists of Top-Rated Charities, charities with high assets, and a report of top compensation packages paid to charity executives.

The site has limited browse criteria, having only an alphabetical list (with category filter) or curated lists of “top charities.”

CharityWatch does boast one of the more robust donor resources sections in this list, providing regulatory and watch out type information for interested donors.

One of the more interesting features on the individual charity pages is the ability to click and view “similar charities” to the one being viewed. This allows users to browse a specific cause and float across different organizations that might best serve their need.

CharityWatch page image

 

Source: CharityWatch

Who is this site ideal for?

Users looking performing due diligence before donating their money. This site takes a purposefully negative approach to charity accountability, styling itself as a “watchdog” in the industry. This should provide donors the peace of mind that their dollars are going to legitimate causes and operations. The one drawback to the site is its limited browse functionality, with the inability to browse by geography. Fortunately, this is something that can be achieved with other sources on this list.

Give.org

“Helping donors give wisely, helping charities build trust,” is Give.org’s mission.

According to Consumer Advocate:

Give.org is the website for the BBB Wise Giving Alliance (WGA), an organization dedicated to evaluating national charities and reporting on their practices. Just as the Better Business Bureau focuses on consumer protection and industry self-regulation, the Wise Giving Alliance performs the same function for charitable organizations. They do the research and compile the data so donors can make informed decisions when selecting a charity to support. And they promote high standards of conduct for charitable organizations. Local Better Business Bureaus similarly report on regional charities.

The BBB Wise Giving Alliance helps donors make informed giving decisions and promotes high standards of conduct among organizations that solicit contributions from the public. It produces reports about national charities, evaluating them against comprehensive Standards for Charity Accountability, and publishes a magazine, the Wise Giving Guide, three times a year.

BBB WGA does not rank charities but rather seeks to assist donors in making informed judgments about those that solicit their support. Evaluations are done without charge to the charity and are posted for free public access on give.org. National charities that are found to meet all BBB Charity Standards have the option of signing a license and paying a fee for the use of a BBB Accredited Charity Seal that can be displayed on their websites and in their fund-raising materials.

BBB WGA reports on nationally soliciting charities that the public has most often asked about as well as charities that request to be evaluated. Give.org reports on about 1,300 nationally soliciting charities. In addition, about half of the 112 Better Business Bureaus in the United States and Canada cumulatively produce reports on over 10,000 locally soliciting charities using the same BBB Charity Standards as BBB WGA.

Users can access evaluation reports that show if a charity meets the BBB Charity Standards, learn about wise giving and issues addressed by BBB Charity Standards and find out how BBB Wise Giving Alliance completes reports on charities.

Give.org image

 

Source: Give.org

If you know what organization you are looking for more information on, the alphabetical list or standard search feature are perfect for you. Search functionality is limited to organization name or stated cause – in other words you cannot narrow in on a specific geography, org size or any other criteria.

The site’s BBB Charity Standards offers descriptions of its rating system for the charities in the database. Using a set of 20 metrics across governance, operational effectiveness, finances, and informational materials, the site rates each of the charities in its database. This gives users insight into a relatively trusted audit of each organization’s ability to meet each of these standards.

Each nonprofit’s page offers a breakdown of BBB’s analysis, as well as a link to the organization’s website, where users can then make donations.

Who is this site ideal for? 

Users looking for a more detailed analysis of specific charities, with a BBB-like stamp of approval to guide their donation-making decisions. The site has a lower population of organizations than others on this list, but the detailed profile pages give donors an in-depth look at what they’re giving money to.

GreatNonprofits

GreatNonprofits.org is a comprehensive search/filter service that allows users to find charities by focused causes and locations. More importantly, it is a developer of tools that allow people to find, review, and share information about great – and perhaps not yet great – nonprofits.

The site has more causes than most other services and will focus your search to nearby municipalities as a default. You can then adjust these filters to find organizations that fit your search criteria. The site contains detailed information about an organization’s causes, mission, target demographics, number of beneficiaries served, geographies served, and even program detail.

Organization pages also promote social sharing and the ability to donate directly to the charity, should the mood strike.

GreatNonprofits Infographic

 

Source: GreatNonprofits

Marketed as the “leading platform for community-sourced stories about nonprofits,” GreatNonprofits benefits from crowdsourcing information about charities in order to give potential donors a real picture of what they’re giving to.

What makes this database unique to others in this list is its ability for users to rate nonprofits on a five-star scale as well as the ability to earn “Top Rated” awards.

The GreatNonprofits Top-Rated Awards is the one and only people’s choice award where volunteers, donors, and people served by nonprofits are asked to share stories of inspiration, express their appreciation, and potentially help nonprofits earn a spot on the prestigious GreatNonprofits Top-Rated Nonprofits List.

These stamps of approval are placed on any nonprofits that can rally 10 positive stories and maintain an average rating of at least 3.5 stars.

With endorsements coming from the likes of Bill Gates, this is a legitimate site with a large following, making the network effects of its reviewer community impactful.

Who is this site ideal for?

Users looking for a more social experience, encountering real-life stories about charities and subjective ratings to help guide donation decisions. The stories component adds a level of personality to the organizations that help resonate with different people attached to specific causes. The detail attached to each charity page really gives users a sense of what they are giving to.

GiveWell

GiveWell is a nonprofit dedicated to finding outstanding giving opportunities and publishing the full details of our analysis to help donors decide where to give.

Unlike charity evaluators that focus solely on financials, assessing administrative or fundraising costs, GiveWell conducts research aiming to determine how much good a given program accomplishes (in terms of lives saved, lives improved, etc.) per dollar spent. Rather than try to rate as many charities as possible, they focus on the few charities that stand out most (by our criteria) in order to find and confidently recommend high-impact giving opportunities (our list of top charities).

This site works best for users looking to maximize their donation dollars. Updated annually, GiveWell’s list of “Top Charities” directs users to “high-impact, cost effective charities.” These short lists are comprised of different causes, generally in global impact areas such as extreme poverty, childhood vaccines, fighting malaria, etc. For those looking for more local causes, you might not get what you’re looking for here.

GiveWell image

 

Example of a high-impact charitable cause (GiveWell)

Users can donate directly to any of the charities on the site or through its Maximum Impact Fund. Using the latter method, GiveWell takes zero fees and will apply its judgment to allocate the Maximum Impact Funds among its recommended charities. They take into account charities’ funding needs and donations they have received from other sources. They then make these grants to the highest-value funding opportunities among the recommended charities.

GiveWell is more focused on channeling donations than providing a repository for nonprofits to research. Users looking to donate can do so through the Maximum Impact Fund which makes use of the site’s program research and evaluation, or can choose among a list of the site’s top ranked charities for a given cause.

Who is this site ideal for?

A great option for knowing what you want to donate to, but not who. The unique aspect of this site is that users can give to a specific cause, whose impact is quantified by GiveWell. This directs dollars to high-impact areas and gives donors the confidence that they are contributing to a solution, without having to research specific charities to do so.

5. How to Tell if a Charity is Legitimate

Using the sites in the previous section is a great start. The first step should always be to identify the organization in IRS’s exempt database. It is not enough that a charity is organized as a 501(c)3 – it must have exempt status per the IRS.

Once a charity is identified and you are reasonably certain of its success as a going concern, there are other tips for donors, as outlined by Mike Montali in the Huffington Post:

“Be careful with giving your credit card number over the phone or to an organization that only wants cash donations. Legitimate organizations typically have options for donating securely.

Understand that charities have administrative costs. If an organization claims that 100 percent of your donation will go straight to victims or resources, you may want to investigate further.

Trust your instinct; you should feel good about making a contribution.

Be careful about donating via text. Make sure you know what organization is receiving your donation follow the instructions.

When in doubt, consider making a non-cash donation such a food, clothing, or other goods.”

Donate Wisely Infographic

 

Source: SeniorNavigator

What about receiving calls for charitable donations?

If someone calls you asking for a donation, the FTC advises you ask the following questions:

  • What is the charity’s exact name, web address, and mailing address? Some dishonest telemarketers use names that sound like large well-known charities to confuse you. You’ll want to confirm this information later.
  • How much of my donation will go directly to the program I want to help? The caller is most likely a paid fundraiser, not the charity itself. So after the fundraiser gives you their answer, call the organization directly and ask them, too. Or see if the information is on the charity’s website. What else does the charity spend money on? Some fundraising can be very expensive, leaving the charity with little money to spend on its programs.
  • Are you raising money for a charity or a Political Action Committee (PAC)? Not every call seeking a donation is from a charity. Some calls might be from a PAC where donations are not deductible and the PAC will use the money in a different manner than a charity would.

Other tips for avoiding charity scams

  • Don’t let anyone rush you into making a donation. Scammers rush you so there’s no time to research their claims or think it through.
  • Don’t trust your caller ID. Technology makes it easy for scammers to fake caller ID information. Calls can look like they come from your local area code, or from a specific organization, even if they don’t. In reality, the caller could be anywhere in the world.
  • If the fundraiser says you already pledged, stop and check. They may lie and say — in a phone call or a mailer — that you already pledged to make the donation, or that you donated to them last year. They think that means you’ll be more willing to donate.
  • Listen carefully to the name of the charity, write it down, and then research it. Some scammers use names that sound a lot like other charities to trick you. Do some research before you give.
  • Watch out for sentimental claims with few details. Be suspicious if you hear a lot of vague sentimental claims, for example, that the charity helps many families that can’t afford cancer treatment and veterans wounded at war who can’t work, but don’t get specifics about how your donation will be used.
  • Don’t donate with a wire transfer or gift card. Anyone asking you to donate this way is a scammer.
  • Sweepstakes winning in exchange for a donation? Nope. If someone guarantees you’ll win a prize or contest if you contribute, that’s a scam. You won’t win anything, and your donation money will go to a scammer.

6. Which Platforms to Use to Make Charitable Donations

After a cause has been identified, and a charity chosen, the next step is to find a channel through which to donate.

The online marketplace

Online giving grew 20.7% in 2020, and 13% percent of all funds raised came from online charitable donations, the largest share as a percentage of total giving in the history of the Charitable Giving Report.

The report also found that nonprofit organizations of all sizes saw positive growth in online giving in 2020, with large organizations (total annual fundraising of more than $10 million) reporting an average increase of 15.0%, midsize nonprofits (annual fundraising between $1 million and $10 million) reporting an average increase of 24.9%, and small nonprofits (annual fundraising of less than $1 million) reporting an average increase of 22.3%.

Average donation amounts also increased, with the average overall donation clocking in at $737 (a $120 year-over-year increase) and the average online donation coming in at $177 (a $29 year-over-year increase).

Online Giving Trends Image

Data, and changing economics due to Covid, suggest that this trend will continue, if not accelerate over the coming years.

Key Metrics:

  • $128 dollars is the average online donation amount.
  • $326 dollars is the average annual donation total for recurring donors.
  • 67% of nonprofits across the globe are set up to accept online donations.

How do I make charitable donations online?

Many online retailers, social media hubs, crowd-funding sites, and other online platforms offer “giving portals” that provide a list of charities people can choose to support directly from the online platform. These giving portals have created new ways for people to donate, allowing donors to support causes they care about and charities to get the financial support they need.

Donors using giving portals may mistakenly believe that their charitable donations are going directly to their designated charities. But they may first go to an organization that accepts the donation and issues the donor’s tax receipt. That intermediary organization might keep a service fee from the original donation before sending the rest to the designated charity.

Online giving portals should give clear information to donors about what happens with the money donated through the platform. This helps donors understand how the process works. It also helps ensure that the giving portal doesn’t violate advertising law principles.

To help users navigate this complicated world, the Federal Trade Commission offers the following guidelines for donating online:

Donating Through Crowdfunding Sites

Crowdfunding is a way to raise funds online, person-to-person. Online platforms like GoFundMe, Kickstarter, and Indiegogo let people create crowdfunding campaigns. They’re easy to set up, and the organizers get the funds quickly. Here are a few things to know:

The campaign organizer sets the goal of the crowdfunding campaign. The organizer can set up the crowdfunding campaign to help specific people, like a family that lost everything in a house fire, or a veteran who needs help paying for medical bills. Or they can set it up to help a larger group or cause, like people who’ve been through a natural disaster in a particular area. Sometimes, crowdfunding campaigns have a business purpose, like raising money for a new invention or business project. The campaign organizers often ask for donations in social media posts or on crowdfunding sites.

There are many crowdfunding platforms, and each has its own set of rules. Platforms have different rules on how to set up the fundraising campaign, how much the platform will keep in fees, and how and when it will disburse the money to the campaign organizer.

The money raised goes to the campaign organizer. In a crowdfunding campaign, the money goes to the campaign organizer, not directly to the people or the cause it’s set up to help. The organizer is expected to tell you the truth about what the money raised is for and how it will be used, but it’s up to them to deliver on that promise. Scammers and dishonest businessperson can set up crowdfunding campaigns to raise money for themselves.

Only donations to a charity are tax deductible. Sometimes charities will set up crowdfunding campaigns. If it’s important to you that the donation is tax deductible, confirm that the organization is registered with the IRS as a charity. Look up the organization in the IRS’s Tax Exempt Organization Search

Avoid donating to a crowdfunding scam 

It’s important to do your own research before you give because later it might be impossible to know whether a crowdfunding cause was real and if the money actually got to the intended recipient. Here are a few tips:

Find out who’s behind the crowdfunding request. If a friend posted, shared, or “liked” the request on social media, contact your friend offline. Ask what they know about the post. Do they know the person or group who’ll get the money? If not, try finding out who the campaign organizer is and look them up online. The crowdfunding platform should tell you who the organizer is. If you can’t find them online, or the details you find don’t match what they’re saying on the campaign page, be suspicious.

Do a reverse image search of the photos used on the crowdfunding campaign page. Search on your web browser how to do a reverse image search and see if the campaign images are associated with other names, or whether the details don’t match what the crowdfunding campaign is saying. Do a reverse image search of the campaign organizer’s social media profile picture, too. Scammers often use stolen photos and copy and paste other people’s stories. If you find anything suspicious, you can always help in a different way.

The safest way to give through a crowdfunding campaign is to donate to campaigns organized by people you actually know.

Crowdfunding campaigns to fund a business project or invention

A businessperson may set up a crowdfunding campaign to fund a project or an invention. They may ask for small contributions — $10, $50, $100 — but these can quickly add up to thousands of dollars in funding. In other cases, the goal is to get individual investors to give large amounts of money, perhaps in exchange for a reward once the project is completed — like getting a prototype of the new gadget or some other incentive.

But a dishonest businessperson might lie about the project or product and its development timeline. And they might lie about the rewards donors will get once the product is finished.

If someone asks you to give money to a crowdfunding campaign to fund a business project or invention:

Do your own vetting. Find out who the campaign organizer is, and look them up online. The crowdfunding platform should tell you who that is. Search for the organizer’s name and the name of the project together with the words “complaint,” “review,” and “scam.” See what you can find out. Ask the campaign organizer lots of questions. Have they launched other products successfully? Have they funded those projects using crowdfunding? Use what you find online to confirm the details.

Find out what happens to your money if the project doesn’t get off the ground. There’s no guarantee that the crowdfunding campaign will be successful and the project completed. Would you get a refund in that case? What risks are involved?

Confirm the production status. Having a 3D photo of the product doesn’t mean that the product is finished. Ask for a production schedule, and be clear on the current stage of development. Some crowdfunding sites don’t let fundraisers show 3D photos of the product on their websites because donors might mistake these for a finished product. Ask the campaign organizer if there is an actual prototype and if you can see it.

Understand the purpose of the campaign. When you give to a business project or invention through a crowdfunding site, you’re not buying the product. You’re simply helping fund its production. Be clear about what the fundraising is for and if you’re getting anything out of it.

Crowdfunding campaigns for medical treatments

If the crowdfunding campaign is for medical treatments, don’t assume those treatments have been tested and are safe. Some medical treatments that are promoted through crowdfunding are unproven and ineffective. Donors to crowdfunding campaigns for the development of medical treatments risk losing the money they donate. Chances are that the medical treatment won’t work. People also can be misinformed about the safety of these unproven treatments and may face serious harm from trying them out.

Donating Through Social Media

If you’re on social media, you’ve probably seen posts from people asking for donations. Pay attention to who’s asking and who’s getting the money. Don’t assume that a request on social media is legitimate, or that hyperlinks are accurate just because a friend posted it.

Check where the donation link goes. Does it go to a crowdfunding campaign? If that’s the case, any money you give will go directly to the crowdfunding organizer. It’s best to confirm with the person who posted the link that they know the person behind the fundraising.

If the link is to a charity’s website, research the charity before you give. Read Before Giving to a Charity to learn more.

Donating Through Other Online Fundraising Platforms

An online fundraising platform, or online giving portal, is a website that lets you donate to one or more charities you select from a list on the site. Companies like eBay, Amazon, Facebook, Lyft, and others have added charitable giving to their services. They’ve done this by creating online fundraising platforms and making them available to their members.

When you donate through an online fundraising platform, your money may not go directly to the charity you chose. Another company — maybe the platform or some other intermediary — may get your money first, take some of it as a fee, and then pass on the rest to the charity. And it may take time for the charity to get the money. That could be an issue if you’re donating to help people with immediate needs, like people affected by a natural disaster.

The best online fundraising platforms will have clear, easy-to-find information on their websites about

Where your money goes. Online fundraising platforms should tell you who gets your donation and how your money gets to the charity or beneficiary you chose. Just remember that even if a charity is listed on an online fundraising platform, you should still do some research on that charity to see how your donation will be used.

Fees. The website should clearly state if the platform or another intermediary will keep part of your donation as a fee before sending the rest to your chosen charity. Consider whether the charity would get more of your donation if you donated directly.

Timing. Online fundraising platforms should say how long it will take for the charity to get your donation.

Follow-through. Just in case your donation can’t be sent to the charity you chose, the website should say what happens to it — and how often that happens.

Your information. Check if you can choose whether or not your information is shared with the charity — or anyone else.

If these details aren’t clear, consider taking your donation money elsewhere. You can always go directly to the website of the charity you want to support.

Finally, what platform should I use?

One of the most convenient tools out there is Charity Navigator’s “Giving Basket.” It is a resource that helps donors manage their giving and includes several attractive features:

  • Donate to multiple charities at once
  • Set up recurring charitable donations
  • Give anonymously
  • Get one tax receipt

The site provides a convenient “how to” video here:

Other popular donation portals include:

America’s Charities

An alliance of more than 120 of America’s best charities. Its high-impact nonprofits are reviewed annually and must meet specific eligibility criteria before they’re approved for membership. This site focuses more on quality than quantity, so if you know what you want to donate to, but not whom, then this is your place. Just be aware of the low overall number of nonprofits in its database. Credit card fee is 3.5% of the transaction.

AmericasCharities Donations Image

 

Source: America’s Charities

Just Giving

A highly effective crowdfunding site, geared toward funding charitable causes. Built on a platform of individual fundraising efforts, it allows users to build a campaign for existing charities, start a completely unique campaign for their own cause, or simply donate to existing charities and campaigns. The site boasts a roster of over 25,000 charities. and the site does not charge a transaction fee (though it encourages top-off donations upon checkout in order to support operations).

Just Giving Donations Page Image

 

Source: Just Giving

BrightFunds

Allows users to search for their favorite nonprofits or browse a list of site-curated funds. On top of that, more ambitious individuals have the ability to start their own fund to raise money for a cause important to them. Given the detailed infrastructure around the curation mechanism and the pooling of donations around causes, the platform charges a 5% transaction fee. 

The site promotes its ability to make you a smarter donor by bringing free donor planning services typically used only by high net worth individuals. Every dollar you commit to a Fund is going to the most effective organizations serving that cause. Each Fund is built to support a holistic solution to big world challenges, rather than taking a fragmented approach. Whereas most platforms require users to select a specific charity, BrightFunds can be thought of as more like a “mutual fund.” Your fund is tailored to your specific “investment objectives,” and each fund is a collection of carefully selected nonprofits.

BrightFunds Donations Image

 

Source: BrightFunds

GoFundMe

One of the first heavily popularized crowdfunding platforms that allow people to raise money for all sorts of events, including charitable causes. The site is also the largest in the world for raising donations, boasting over $9 billion in funding from over 120 million people over the past decade. The site is more flexible than others, in that you can fund things other than nonprofit organizations, including business startups, personal expenses, and just about any other cause a person can think of raising money for. To make sure your donation is tax-deductible, users must ensure they are donating to a charity (something that is pointed out on the page). Transaction fees are 2.9% + $0.30 per donation.

GoFundMe Charitable Donations Image

 

Source: GoFundMe

As you can see there are often transaction fees associated with donations through online platforms. And as Spencer Tierney and Courtney Jespersen point out, processing fees on these types of websites often total 3-5% or more. While they typically offer specific functionality like advanced search and filtering capabilities, detailed profiles of charities or causes, or even just large databases of available options, it is important to make sure you know what you’re paying for and how much of your donation actually passes through to the charity.

A transaction or processing fee may be applied if you use a credit card or a third-party service for nonprofits to make a gift. If you make a $100 donation, the charity may get less than that.

If you want to ensure that as much of your digital donation gets to your charity as possible, here’s what you need to know.

How to deliver 100% of your gift

Some payment companies have programs to pass along an online or mobile donation in full.

Facebook

Facebook covers all processing fees so 100% of a donation will go to the charity you choose, according to Facebook’s charitable giving page.

PayPal Giving Fund

PayPal’s donation platform gives the full amount of a donation to a charity and has no fees or deductions. This is separate from PayPal donate buttons, which have fees mentioned below.

Check

Although it’s less convenient, you can also send money the old-fashioned way by sending a check directly to a charity. Transaction fees won’t kick in, and you have the canceled check as your receipt.

In Conclusion

There you have it. You’re interested in making charitable donations toward a cause important to you. Here are the ins and outs, best platforms, tax watch outs, and hopefully all other high-level details you need to get started.

As you continue to search through your options, keep this guide handy to help you navigate the ever expanding world of charitable organizations and websites tailored to meet their needs. Not every website is the same, both in quality and in legitimacy, so be especially diligent with your research in order to make sure you are protected and that your money makes the best possible impact toward whatever it is you want to support.

Hope this Ultimate Guide to Charitable Donations helps you in your journey, and if you have any suggestions for edits to this article, please don’t hesitate to reach out.

Happy giving!

New Government Profile Pages

Viewing Public Data

I hate the way U.S. Census data presents itself. You can find almost anything you want related to state or city data, but there are dozens (or hundreds?) of tables to search and filter through. You just need to know how to get there.

Don’t get me wrong. When it comes to looking up available data, the website is fantastic. Demographics, education, economy, even government financials. It’s all there. It just takes a while to find it. 

The same can be said for a number of other data repository websites. Plenty of data exists.  But there isn’t an equal amount of useful information.

Wouldn’t it be nice to get a nice, concise view for any given municipality across the country? A place where you can easily search and digest that community’s information? And wouldn’t it be even nicer to compare those numbers against peers within the state and outside?

Well now you can! 

Introducing Spera Connect Municipal Profiles

Spera Connect brings together the various actors in society and develops good ideas around building social impact. Spera’s new Government Data section builds on this theme by housing individual municipal profiles, each outlining the key demographic, economic and other critical performance metrics.

It includes data from more than 22,000 incorporated municipalities across the United States. 

Tables include information on demographics, labor market, education, housing, transportation, social services, industry and, where available, government financials.

There is even a section that relates each municipality’s Human Energy score with its peers. This 3-part equation relates all of a municipal system’s activities to the quality of life for everyone inside it. See the related post here that discusses this concept in more detail.

I hope these kinds of reports can be more easily digested and used in discussions around social policy and investment decisions in your area. Use the local and nationwide comparisons as starting points. Then try to find areas that you can most easily see needing improvement in the near future.

Human Energy System

Nikola Tesla once said the ultimate goal of science should be to solve the problem of “increasing human energy.” 

Cities, likewise, could be measured according to their human energy scores. Spera Connect calculates this for you based on the available data. Things like economy, education, and other positive traits serve to accelerate the mass forward. Crime, delinquency, illness, etc. have the opposite impact. The mass (or population) of any municipality is thus moving forward according to these forces.

Investment Calculator

Human energy, however, is a largely wasted idea if not practically applied.

The bottom of each Municipal Profile contains an investment calculator. It helps determine where dollars could most effectively be used to increase your city’s “human energy.”

Use the slider to select from a range of dollar values and the drop-down to select from among a group of investment areas.

See the projected impact on your city, which comes in two forms:

  1.  Reduced social spend
  2.  Increased property tax income

(Note: This feature is limited to Arts, Education, Employment, Environment, Housing and Youth Development, in its initial launch. But this list will grow as more data is compiled in Spera’s Human Energy database.)

Human Energy Investment Calculator

Do you need help attracting funding for your nonprofit or social service program?

 

Use this Excel financial model to select from a list of social impact areas and model out investments in your city. Select from the universe of American municipalities, with official social, financial, and economic data from 2017 Census.

 

Choose an investment amount and time horizon and see how your program benefits the city in terms of:

 

1.   Social service spending reductions

2.   Property tax income increases

 

Nothing in this file is locked. Please use it at your convenience and modify, update, change as necessary. I hope this helps you fund ideas, attract investment and improve your community!

 

$7.00
$0.44 (tax)
Total: $7.44

Live Updates

You can play around with a number of different scenarios, as the calculator updates live. Hard and fast financial projections are difficult to come by because impact is largely based on statistical probability models. But this calculator provides a starting point for identifying areas that a city should focus its social service investment on.

You’ll find that some areas have diminishing returns on investment. You won’t get the same 10% annual ROI at $1 million as you will at $25 million. This just means that the underlying data model for a given investment area typically doesn’t represent a straight line. This creates situations of diminishing returns.

It makes sense when you think about it. An investment in jobs training makes a lot more sense for a high-unemployment area than a city with 100% employment.

Analysis becomes all the more important, to help identify where money should be spent to make the biggest impact in a community. Don’t adhere to a standard “same return for same dollar spent” regardless of where you are. Understand where the dollars make the most sense.

You might also have areas where certain investments will return nothing. That isn’t to say they’re necessarily bad things to spend on. It’s just that given Spera’s financial projection engine, there is a low likelihood of financial return given the variables in the system. Again,  use this as a starting point – not a formal proposal.

Invest in Cities and Towns

I hope you use this information productively. It will be updated continuously, with the latest available data. And it will continue to be refined as more public and proprietary data feed its engine.

Use these data pages and calculations to come up with ideas for social impact investment in your area. Given more consistent data and proof that positive financial returns can result from these investments, they should help you form the basis for funding more programs and deals.

So what are you waiting for? Get started and dive into the possibilities today!

Using Mastery and Apprenticeship to Tackle the Skills Gap

Pixabay jobs image

Introduction

Mastery is comprehensive skill or knowledge in a given subject or field. It is something we all aspire to in our respective fields and hobbies. It’s what qualifies us for the best work, and its journey makes life satisfying.

There is a growing skills gap in America. A growing percentage of people are either overskilled and underemployed, or underskilled and can’t find desirable work.

This is mainly due to society’s poor valuing of mastery. If governments, businesses and schools were more incentivized to understand and leverage this concept, our jobs and the people working them might be much more aligned.

This article seeks to examine this problem, provide an example for working through it, and offer ideas for solving it.


Mastery and the 10,000 hour rule

Success isn’t created overnight. And mastery of any craft certainly isn’t a product of raw talent.

Anyone who has read Outliers: The Story of Success by Malcolm Gladwell can cite the 10,000 hour rule for achieving greatness in any field. The main idea is that 10,000 hours of deliberate practice of a craft will make you an expert.

In study after study, of composers, basketball players, fiction writers, ice-skaters, concert pianists, chess players, master criminals,” writes the neurologist Daniel Levitin, “this number comes up again and again. Ten thousand hours is equivalent to roughly three hours a day, or 20 hours a week, of practice over 10 years… No one has yet found a case in which true world-class expertise was accomplished in less time. It seems that it takes the brain this long to assimilate all that it needs to know to achieve true mastery.

Whether or not you believe in this exact number of hours achieve master status, the simplicity of its message is clear: the harder you work at something, the better you will get. As André Bouquet notes:

Extraordinary success depends on talent, hard work, and being in the right place at the right time, among other things. In Outliers, Gladwell contends that, to truly master any skill, leaning on various pieces of research, requires about 10,000 concentrated hours. If you can get those hours in early, and be in a position to exploit them, then you are an outlier.

Robert Greene dives deeper into this concept in his book Mastery.

We enter a new field with excitement, but also fear about how much there is to learn ahead of us. The greatest danger here is boredom, impatience, fear, and confusion. Once we stop observing and learning, the process towards mastery comes to a halt.

But if we manage these emotions and keep pushing forward, we start to gain fluency, and we master the basic skills allowing us to take on bigger and better challenges.

Eventually, we move from student to practitioner. We use our own ideas and experiments, getting feedback in the process. We start to use our own style.

Then as we continue for years we make the leap to mastery. We develop an intuitive sense of the skill and have mastered it to the point of being able to innovate and break the rules.

How well do schools prepare us for the real world?

If mastery, or any level of skill, is achieved by racking up deliberate practice, then what role do schools play in getting kids started down this path?

It takes 13 years to go from kindergarten to high school graduation. Taking an average of 180 days a year at 7 hours a day yields us over 16,000 hours. And this doesn’t count homework and other extracurricular activities that go into the education experience.

So, are all high school graduates masters? Of course not. The school system is designed for breadth, not depth. A little exposure to a wide range of important subjects teaches kids how to learn and gives them a basic understanding of the critical fields of study in life.

And because the 10,000 hour rule demands deliberate, focused practice in an area, the 16,000 hours compiled during the first 18 years in life do little to earn someone mastery in a particular field.

But we’d all agree that these years of schooling aren’t a waste of time. They certainly prepare children with foundations for learning, an overview of a wide range of subjects, and some basic life skills to help them function in the real world. These are the kinds of skills required no matter what field you pursue.

“There are many different points of view on this topic,” says Jonathan Cohen, cofounder and president of the National School Climate Center. “I think that my view, and most people’s view, is that the purpose of education is to support children in developing the skills, the knowledge, and the dispositions that will allow them to be responsible, contributing members of their community—their democratically-informed community. Meaning, to be a good friend, to be a good mate, to be able to work, and to contribute to the well-being of the community.”

Not only should children learn civic knowledge—how the electoral college works, the history of political parties, and so on—but they also need to master civic skills, which include respecting others, working collaboratively, acting in a way that is fair and just, and being an active participant in the life of the community, Cohen says.

Taking a generalized approach here, we can assume that a person, by the time they reach 18, has achieved roughly 0% potential mastery of any craft. (This obviously excludes persistent practice or training in a specific area, that many children take on, but for illustrative purposes we’re examining the role of a standard curriculum without extracurriculars).

If we all graduate high school with no progression toward mastery in a vocation, then certainly higher education institutions get us there, right?

College’s role in mastery

A typical four-year college degree is 1,800 hours. And a degree has a specific subject matter and career path attached to it.

That is 15 credit hours a week, times 15 weeks, times 2 semesters a year, times 4 years.

15 x 15 x 2 x 4 = 1,800

18% of the way toward mastery! Not so fast…

Subtract 2 years of general education courses and electives. A business major doesn’t really attribute her geology or biology classes toward mastery of a business craft. But marketing and accounting classes certainly help make up part of this focused learning.

Also subtract any peripheral business classes. An accounting student, after all, probably won’t need multiple marketing and management courses to become a master accountant. They certainly add to the overall business skill of the individual, but it’s not focused practice toward a craft—in this case, accounting.

Now, some majors probably contribute more than average toward mastering a skill, but we can generalize and assume that less than half a student’s study hours while attending a 4-year university count toward this number. Let’s call it 900. That’s now less than 10%.

A graduate, at 22 years of age, now has almost 10% mastery toward his profession. No wonder it’s so hard to find a job out of college. If I’m choosing between a college graduate with 10% mastery and someone who’s graduated college and worked for two years afterward (10% plus 4,000 working hours, equaling 50%), at similar costs, I’m choosing the second person.

Now compare a college graduate who pursues a profession completely unrelated from his major. Let’s take an English major, now getting a job as a salesman.

The four years of college add up to effectively 0% mastery of sales. Meanwhile, a high-school graduate who starts selling vacuums door to door right out of school, has now racked up 8,000 working hours over this same time-frame, and is 80% toward mastering sales.

And most of this 80% is in the form of soft skills and other intangibles you can’t really get from studying text books and taking classes.

Two people who end up doing the same job now have completely different circumstances. College graduate has 0% skills (unless they did really well selling candy for baseball fundraisers growing up), average student loan debt over $30,000, and no savings from having worked.

High school graduate now has 80% mastery of door-to-door sales, no student debt, and savings and potentially other assets as a result of working these four years.

The current workforce environment

Fifty-three percent of all jobs are middle skill, requiring some education between high school diploma and a four-year degree, according to the National Skills Coalition. However, only 43% of all workers are trained at this level.

Additionally, 30-50% of college graduates at least begin post-collegiate careers in positions categorized as underemployed for them.


Source: Forbes

Avoiding the underemployment trap is easier for some students than others. Over half (54%) of psychology majors have a first job that does not require a college degree, and over two-thirds of those remain underemployed after five years. First-job underemployment rates are similarly high for biology and biomedicine majors (51%) and education majors (50%).

Even highly-regarded STEM majors are not immune to underemployment. Three in ten engineering majors have a first job that does not require a college degree. Eighteen percent are underemployed both in their first jobs and in the jobs they have five years after leaving school.

The persistence of underemployment throughout a graduate’s career is unsurprising. Jobs that require college-level skills help graduates develop and expand those skills, leading to even better jobs later on. However, graduates who don’t apply the skills they learned in college may see those skills atrophy, making it even harder to land a college-appropriate job further down the road.

Underemployment is distinct from the related phenomenon of degree inflation. Degree inflation occurs when employers demand college degrees for jobs that don’t require college-level skills. According to a Harvard Business School report issued last year, more than six million jobs are at risk of degree inflation, and the phenomenon has only accelerated since the Great Recession.

It is difficult to determine precisely whether a particular job “requires” a college degree, and consequently measuring underemployment is a thorny process. The Burning Glass report considers a college graduate to be appropriately employed if a majority of job postings for her occupation requested a college degree, and underemployed if that is not the case.

But degree inflation means some graduates do not put their college degrees to work on the job, even if employers request such credentials in job postings. Due to degree inflation, some jobs classified as college-level might not in fact require college-level skills. Therefore, true underemployment rates could be even higher than those estimated by Burning Glass.

Here we see an interesting paradox… we motivate and even seem to incentivize people to go to college, at all costs, because it’s the best thing for their careers. However, after graduation, almost half work significant periods in jobs they are now overqualified for. At the same time, about half the total jobs that are classified as middle-skill now don’t have enough qualified (as opposed to over-qualified) candidates.

What was the point of this additional learning? Especially if it contributed very little to that person’s mastery in a field…

Source: 4Tests Blog

It seems the proper level of education for this middle range of jobs is somewhere between high school and college education… that informal set of learning that is hardest to structure on a broad level.

This assumption is evident in a report by Select International that highlights a skills gap emerging in the American workplace.

Headaches from vacant positions. Training and development challenges. Increased turnover. The skills gap refers to the gap between the actual knowledge, skills, and abilities of candidates or employees, and the knowledge, skills, and abilities that employers want or need their employees to have. The gap is growing. Though there are over seven million people unemployed in the US, they may not possess the right KSAs to obtain these open jobs or to perform at a sufficient level.

The report goes on to state 80% of Americans believe there is currently a skills gap, with 35% feeling personally affected by it. And this costs upwards of $160 billion a year, according to the Center for Economic Research.

What are the skills that employers most commonly cite as lacking among prospective new hires? Critical thinking and analytical reasoning, skills best developed on the job or in some other formal work setting…not from a textbook.

This disconnect helps create an environment where over 42% of recent college graduates are currently underemployed. The skills people are chasing (e.g., college degrees in various, yet unprofitable fields) are clearly not in sync with available jobs and profitable career paths.

Sixty percent of U.S. employers have job openings that stay vacant for 12 weeks or longer. This came from a survey in 2017 by CareerBuilder. In the survey, HR managers say that the average cost from having extended job vacancies is $800,000 or more annually.

Cost of hiring and turnover

Given the major cost of hiring skilled workers and the even higher cost of rapid turnover, it makes sense to hire the person with the most experience and best skillset required by the job. But if the current system is failing us so badly, then what is the best way to sync up people’s skills with relevant jobs?

For people starting at 0, the best way might involve pre-apprenticeship programs.

From the National Skills Coalition:

Underrepresented workers without adequate industry experience often need pre-employment or pre-apprenticeship training before they reach the skill level necessary to enter work-based learning programs. But, training alone may not be sufficient to ensure success.

Pre-apprenticeship programs that provide both training and access to child care can offer an important on-ramp to an apprenticeship pathway for a broad range of workers. Once in an apprenticeship, child care continues to be an important support for ensuring participant success since starting wages are lower than those apprentices can expect to make once they’ve completed their program.

Apprenticeship and work-based learning can help address this disconnect, enabling workers to earn wages while learning new skills. For companies in desperate need of new workers, these programs immediately place workers on site. Businesses can align training with the skills they need at any moment and adjust training quickly as their workforce needs change. The approach has been shown to reinforce employee engagement, leading to better morale, higher retention, and lower turnover.

For low-wage workers or those not attached to the workforce, work-based learning offers an on-ramp to a career that includes a paying job from the start, and often leads to a recognized credential. Access to work-based learning opportunities in high-wage industries like construction, manufacturing, transportation, or health care leads to long term positive employment outcomes for people with barriers to employment.

And job training programs that include an on-the-job training component and credential attainment have been successful at improving wages and retention outcomes for people with low incomes and low skills.

Despite these benefits, the U.S. falls far behind other competitor nations in using work-based learning to train workers for in-demand, middle skill jobs. To address this underutilization and expand the pipeline of workers with access to workbased learning, U.S. policy should better support access to pre-apprenticeship programs and affordable child care that help women, parents, and underrepresented populations succeed.

Here are some best practices that make up successful pre-employment programs, according to the National Skills Coalition:


The case for these types of programs

It isn’t hard to see the pass-through of high-tuition costs onto employers. Four-year degrees earn young workers (sometimes) arbitrarily higher salaries than would-be hires straight out of high school. They have, after all, completed accredited programs demonstrating competence in a field.

But what is the premium paid for such competence especially knowing most job-training can only be learned on the job?

Take fictional student John Jones. He’s pursuing a college degree in computer programming. To pay for his $100k tuition, he takes out a student loan for all of it.

Using our generalization above, after four years of college he’s racked up a potential 900 hours toward his mastery of computer programming. He enters the workforce in a relatively attractive position for employers, having completed an accredited degree in the field they’re looking to hire for. But to attract graduates in this field, employers must pay a salary premium to bring them on board.

Compare this to Tim Smith, who graduated high school and worked various low-level computer programming jobs over the next four years, building up focused levels of mastery. Counting even 50% of his hours worked over this time, he has accumulated 4,000 hours of focused skills – bringing him to 40% mastery of this skill—relatively more attractive than John Jones.

A potential employer might look at both candidates (if objective comparable information is available) like this:

  John Jones Tim Smith
Required salary $75,000 $65,000
Mastery 9% 40%
Cost per skill* $8,333 $1,625


The employer could look at both candidates in terms of cost per skill (a theoretical cost for each percentage unit of mastery). On this basis, Tim Smith looks like a bargain. And the $65k it would take to attract him would do the job, having earned lower salaries in his previous entry-type jobs.

Furthermore, it appears the premium paid for a college graduate in this field equals $10,000 ($75-$65k). But if you think about it, with relative experience considered, the premium is really $268,320…

This is all theoretical math, of course, but if you take the $8,333 cost per unit of mastery for the graduate, and multiply it by 40%, the level of mastery gained by the non-graduate, you get a total theoretical salary of over $333k!

Companies may start to decide that this premium isn’t worth it, or at the very least, lower it to a more reasonable variance from a non-graduate. There needs to be a way to more adequately match salaries with skill sets. This solves not only work-related problems, but discrimination-related problems as well (a topic for another day).

What can companies do to level the playing field?

Once companies start realizing they don’t need to overpay for workers, they can instead create apprenticeship or other pre-work programs to train pipelines of workers for their entire industry.

Maybe instead of having computer programming as a major across all universities, Google, Apple, and Facebook can create a consortium of pre-work training programs designed to earn valid credentials in the popular field, at a fraction of the cost of going to a four-year school.

Companies could tailor these programs to more adequately focus on the mastery side of the education experience, in lieu of the peripheral stuff. Cut out general education requirements. Cut out extracurricular bonuses. Focus on the skills that a person needs to work a job. Eliminate the premium.

Invest in people early on, eliminate unnecessary bloat in the education cost structure, and streamline the process from training to job. It’s systemic in nature but should be easy enough to see the positive potential of such an idea.

Hidden Value, Surplus Capacity

Revisiting the concept of non-college graduates working to build up skills, we can examine a case where excess capacity may exist in the form of hidden value.

Consider the high school graduate working an entry-level job at a local restaurant. This could involve waiting tables, working the kitchen, bussing tables, etc. Over the next few years the person may aspire to something higher but wonder how such a career shift could be possible, without going to college.

Without even realizing, this person may have built up a concentrated amount of people skills, which can be parlayed into sales, human resources, and a number of other potential fields. Two years of waiting tables may be worth the same amount as half a college degree or more in the relevant skills related to human resources.

Let’s call this 5% of mastery. Not a lot but certainly more than zero.

Now we’ve already estimated a college graduate typically has around 9% mastery. So there’s really now only a gap of 4% that needs to be made up to make this person qualified for entry-level HR jobs.

Converting this to hours, an apprenticeship program lasting at least 400 hours should do the trick. Make it a whole year and the candidate is more than qualified to do the type of work typically awarded to college graduates.

This kind of idea makes you wonder how much excess capacity, in terms of job skills, are sitting out there untapped because people don’t have the resources to level up.

A theoretical talent surplus does exist. It’s just a matter of converting this into qualified talent to fill vacant jobs.

Conclusion

A comprehensive understanding of mastery helps match people with jobs. Education should not be as boxed off as it is. And people should have shorter routes toward viable careers.

Their accumulated skills, no matter how they get them, can and should be deployed in further development. All experience is valuable, and as soon as we can quantify and understand skills, as opposed to credentials, we’ll have an easier time hiring, training and developing workers.

This is a huge problem. And it won’t be fixed overnight. But with rising school costs, and changing workforce dynamics, the time for change is now.

Everyone should be on some sort of apprenticeship track. No matter what field. Some fields do it better than others—e.g., carpenters, electricians, doctors. The rest need to catch up.

Cut out the waste. Leverage people’s skills. And create a much more efficient and valuable economy.

Progress in Pay-for-Success

Pay for success image

The world is getting closer to a more sustainable model for pay-for-success arrangements. Reinvestment Fund, out of Philadelphia, announced a $10 million fund last year to support pay-for-success projects in a portfolio approach that would diversify investors from the risk of any single project.

Not sure what “pay for success” is? Check out this quick primer on social impact bonds, one common example of this practice.

Background

So far, this industry has seen a slow, but steady increase in the number of projects undertaken that will pay investors based on the success or failure of the program. The problem is that the expected results of any given program can never totally be known, so the risk of failure would wipe out the entire investment and discourage future investors from engaging in similar activities.

This makes the results of each individual project so critical toward advancing the industry.

SIB infographic image

Source: Goldman Sachs

Reinvestment Fund’s approach

Reinvestment Fund is an organization that has already taken part in two pay-for-success projects in Cleveland and Silicon Valley. They’re now taking the first step toward mitigating this “single project” risk by announcing a new fund for a portfolio of investments.

This approach is unique, because instead of selecting a single outcome to address, the organization may choose to invest across a wide array of social outcomes (e.g., housing, food, education, health). This combination of different investments may be more resistant to wider macro-economic exposures that can take down any given initiative.

Think about a social impact bond investing in some affordable housing initiative. If a sudden bubble happens over the next few years in real estate prices, it could dramatically impact the profitability, and success, of the bond.

But imagine, instead, of combining that affordable housing investment with others addressing different social outcomes. A second investment might address pre-k education, another prison recidivism, another healthy food, and so on

By combining these different outcome goals, despite the individual risk of each program, the overall investment’s risk is reduced due to different economic factors impacting each one. Sure, many social outcomes may be interwoven with similar macro-economic trends, but the risk is at worst the same, and at best highly mitigated.

Diversification Image

Source: Seeking Alpha 

Take Scenario A, which is a single investment into a program with a 50% failure rate, and compare it to Scenario B, which is investment in ten different programs, each with a 50% failure rate. Total loss in Scenario A is no better than a coin flip. Total loss in Scenario B is 0.1%.

Potential headwinds

Before creating this pay-for-success portfolio, Reinvestment Fund has operated both traditional pay-for-success arrangements (or social impact bonds) and traditional bond arrangements. The Fund’s AA S&P bond rating (which is higher than nine states) helps attract private dollars for more of these traditional bond setups — e.g., the $50 million bond issue earlier this year.

This high rating coupled with its status as a Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI) and the consequential funding it receives from the Federal government has the organization in position to reach a lot of programs and a lot of outcomes.

Pay-for-success funding has a built-in mechanism to pay back its investors—through the programs being invested in. However, the Fund’s standard bond issues (yielding around 3-3.5%) are theoretically paid back to investors from program revenues, outside sources, or any other resources at the organization’s disposal.

If CDFI funding from the Feds makes up any substantial portion of the payback to investors on these standard Reinvestment Fund bonds, and the Trump administration follows through in eliminating all CDFI funding from the Federal government, then many of the current deals could fail and the organization could be at risk of bankruptcy if it cannot meet its obligations.

Of course, without knowing how most of Reinvestment Fund’s bonds are structured to pay out, it is not appropriate to say this will happen if Federal funding disappears, but it certainly is reasonable to assume.

Optimistic Future

Regardless of what happens with its outstanding bonds, the fund has positioned itself as an early mover into an excellent idea of diversifying pay-for-success projects into a more viable option for profit-driven investors.

If any of the programs succeed, the whole fund will be able to pay at least something back, as opposed to a single investment failing and blowing up the whole investment.

It is a good idea that should be watched closely and improved upon to a point where the industry can build a more sustainable stream of capital into programs that help society.

Links and more info

Check out Reinvestment Fund and all its great work here.

Social Impact Programs Work…But Their Bonds Don’t

Social Programs Work Better than Bonds

Private investment in public service is a largely untapped profit channel that is just starting to be explored. Many attempts, often called “pay-for success” or “social impact bonds,” are designed to attract private dollars to meet public ends.

The concept is fascinating in that it could potentially solve a lot of social problems and provide return on investment to willing funders. However, many of the deals currently lack real quantitative outcomes—something that could stunt this industry’s growth for years to come.

A brief case study

The United Way of Salt Lake and its partners including StriveTogether are doing good work funding early childhood education through a pay-for-success program. They have reasonable numbers to suggest significant cost savings to the State of Utah while demonstrating a strong business case to scale the program further.

Of the 110 students attending this pre-school program who were “likely to need special education later on,” only one ended up requiring it in kindergarten. This translated into a cost savings of $2,607 per child—the marginal cost of providing special education in Utah.

These results suggest immediate outcomes of $281,550 in total savings that very next year. Because of the way the deal was structured, investors were to receive 95% of these savings after the one year, amounting to $267,473, leaving the state with a presumable profit of $14,077. Not bad for an immediate return.

However, after taking a quick look into Utah state budget documents, the actual results are quite different:

    • Increased total expenditure from $22,432,300 in 2013 to $24,376,400 in 2015. This equals a compounded annual growth rate of 4.2%, which is higher than the total student enrollment growth rate of 2.4%.
    • Increased per-unit expenditure from $2,607 per student in 2013 to $2,837 (compounded annual growth rate of 4.3%).

There are possibly very valid reasons for these increases. First, the need for special education could be growing generally and this trend could have at least been slowed by this program, thus making it a success in real terms. Also, the cost of providing this service could be going up generally, another trend that might have been slowed by the program – again, making it a success.

By these accounts, this program really is doing great. And that’s the point. The United Way has put together a legitimate program to help improve outcomes for early-age students. Almost every single program student in danger of needing special education ended up not needing it by kindergarten. That is a success.

Note: For simplicity in this analysis, we are avoiding things like selection bias and other aspects that might skew a program toward success to the detriment of potentially more needy program recipients.

However, because of this success, the State of Utah paid $267 thousand to investors after one year, despite seeing zero actual nominal savings on special education over that same period.

How does that inspire future governments to make these types of deals? How is this anything other than a public service, funded like everything else—with budgeted tax dollars?

The program works, but the deal doesn’t

A good program is one that generates positive outcomes—like the Utah program. A good deal, however, is one that generates positive financial rewards as well—something that is lacking so far.

The major problem with the way the Utah deal works is that it assumes the social outcomes are tied to lower spending on special education. The theory makes some sense, but practically speaking, this “outcome” could be achieved by slashing special education budgets, reducing amount of enrollees, or any number of additional manipulative tactics. And it is easy to see that these are not the same as actually improving the lives of those needing special education.

So how could we improve on a deal like this?

1. Identify the real outcome

Reduction in special education spending is not a social outcome, but reduction in special education need is. But how do we quantify this?

For one, it is probably safe to say that the more advanced our children are, the more ready for the world they become and the more successful they become as participants in the economy (getting good jobs, paying taxes, buying things, etc.).

If this is truly the sought-after outcome—creating productive citizens—then we have a much longer time horizon to wait than one year (more like 15-30 years). Instead of chasing incremental drops in special education spending, the state should focus on creating the best possible version of each student beyond just that first year after pre-school.

Who’s to say that the same reasons causing kids to “likely need” special education in the first place don’t resurface once they leave this rehabilitating pre-school program?

2. Determine the value

A Utah student in 2013 needing special education had a marginal additional cost of about $2,600, according to the Utah State Board of Education. However, these cost reductions were not achieved. There are probably legitimate reasons for this, including a proportion of fixed costs that we cannot immediately slash after one year (e.g., reducing the amount of students by 10% does not allow us to lay off 10% of a teacher).

If we take a step back and look at the real long-term outcome of such programs, we can identify educational attainment and career earnings as more valuable metrics. It is fair to say that educational attainment level contributes heavily to an individual’s earning power.

In 2014 for example, those with a high school diploma earned a median weekly income of $668 and unemployment rate of 6.0%. Those with a bachelor’s degree earned $1,101 with an unemployment rate of 3.5% (according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics).

Assuming all residents stay within the same community, the cost of unemployment insurance can be calculated (identifying cost savings) and the incremental gains in total tax dollars can be calculated (identifying increased revenues).

These are two major benefits and exclude any other secondary benefits such as increased buying power in the local economy, likelihood to raise children of higher caliber, and improved property values due to more desirable school districts (all of which can contribute greatly to social impact).

3. Match payments to benefits

Utah paid investors 95% of the “cost savings” after one year. These cost savings were not actual dollars, but underwritten savings at the time of the deal being signed.

Instead of doing this, Utah should have tracked special education need to things like graduation rates and educational attainment. From there, baseline costs of special-needs children into adulthood can be approximated.

If these children were subsequently tracked all the way through school and beyond, real costs and benefits can be tracked on a unit level and the benefits can be repaid based on when they are achieved.

For example, a child we will call “Timmy” has been identified as likely to need special education sometime during his school years so he participates in the pre-school program. The program works to significantly reduce the likelihood of him needing special education, so he progresses through school at a faster pace than previously expected.

He graduates high school and attends some college but leaves to work a full-time job earning $741 a week. This is compared to a special-needs baseline of someone not obtaining a high-school diploma and earning $488 a week. Assume both incomes fall in a state income tax bracket of 5%. This generates an additional $13 in tax income per week, or $658 per year. Plus, Timmy is 33% less likely to become unemployed and drain tax resources from that program.

Multiply the $658 over 10 years of working and the state earns an additional $6,578 in revenue on top of any cost savings from reduced need for special education. But because residents’ salaries are not budgeted the same way program funds are appropriated, it is easier to track expense progression and transfer some of these earnings back to the investors as they come in.

Here is a table outlining the net cash flows for the program investment ($ in thousands):

A couple disclaimers on these charts:

First – Let’s assume the program runs for the first five years, with equal $1m installments each year. Let’s also assume the $72k tax income increase starts when a class of students turns 18. So for a 4-year old in a pre-k program, this implies by year 14, he will be 18 and starting to earn more money than he would expect without the additional education.

Second – Inflation of 2% is assumed for the cost of program. The $1m invested right away would now cost $1.08m by the fifth year. Wage growth of 4.5% is assumed for earnings and tax increase, implying a jump from $72k to $133k by year 14 (when the first class turns 18).

As you can see, the major benefits of this program are not likely to be achieved until many years after the program is initiated, making immediate return to investors a very difficult challenge to achieve.

In fact, using these assumptions and only considering increased tax revenue, the program doesn’t break even until the 26th year. When factoring in ONLY the impact of increase tax receipts from higher earnings, the five-year program earns 2.6% annual ROI over a 50-year period.

To get a full picture of the program’s social impact, other outcomes should be quantified in this manner and payouts tied to specific years they are expected to take place. Without doing so, the program loses its pay-for-success nature.

Conclusion

To successfully construct a pay-for-success program, multiple projects should be pooled. Their results, on a combined basis, have the power to offer payback to investors at various times during the contract.

As illustrated above, a program like pre-school obviously wouldn’t warrant payment until closer to the end of such a contract. However, a program like prisoner reintegration might be more able to pay back investors on the front end of the deal.

The key is to diversify the types of programs and outcomes being achieved to stagger payback in a more realistic and reasonable manner to investors. Because after all, it’s their appetite for risk and reward that has the potential to drive capital toward the growing sector.

How Business Structures Worsen Inequality

Income and wealth inequality continue to increase around the world. And though our economies continue to generate enormous wealth, it is increasingly channeled to the richest 1 percent.

A quote from Social Enterprise UK:

Since the turn of the century, the poorest half of the world’s population has received just 1 percent of the total increase in global wealth. Meanwhile, half the new wealth has gone to the richest 1 percent. As a result, the richest 8 people now own as much wealth as the poorest half of the world. Something is not quite right in how we have structured our economies.

This has not only meant entrenching global poverty (according to World Bank projections) but also rising political and economic instability. Inequality creates conditions in which crime and corruption thrive. In more unequal societies, rich and poor alike have shorter lives, and live with a greater threat of violence and insecurity. Rising inequality is a problem for us all.

Business structure as a cause of inequality

There are many drivers of income and wealth inequality, but among the most underrated might be business structure.

The business world is diverse, but in most countries it is dominated by businesses that exist primarily to grow the capital of their investors. This is especially the case for larger companies. Profit [maximization] does have incidental positive impacts: it drives investment and leads to innovation.

But it also means that business is geared to extract as much value as possible, and distribute this value proportionately to people based on the capital they have to invest. In a world where unequal distribution of capital is the key driver of inequality (according to the World Inequality Report), this essentially supercharges business to drive up inequality. While anyone can be a shareholder (through a pension fund for instance), if economic spoils are shared according to the size of capital people had to begin with, we give a growing share of the pie to the people who have the most to invest.

Laws, financial markets and industry policies have made this the dominant model in many countries. But it contains a fatal design flaw if we don’t want to see spiraling inequality.

Inequality ImageImage source: Oxfam GB

It is true that on a simplified basis, each person’s share in a company grows at the same rate. So a person owning 10% of a firm vs. a person owning 90% of the same firm can expect their rates of return to be the same. At the end of any period of time, each person will still own his same percentage.

But the nominal difference in each person’s value is what changes dramatically. Assuming this same scenario and a 5% annual growth rate in a company starting with a value of $1,000,000, the first person will grow his share from $100,000 to $162,889 over 10 years. The second person grows his $900,000 to $1,466,005 over the same period.

The split by year 10 is still 10%/90% for the two investors. But the second person can now buy 3 times more goods he was able to in year 1, compared to the first person who can now buy 0.34 times more goods (assuming 2% inflation).

Spera Connect Inequality Example

It is clear when you look at the numbers that everyone can own shares in public enterprise. But the nominal growth owed to differences in ownership percentages creates a massive equality gap in terms of real dollars.

So why is this bad for the economy?

In the example above, the presumably affluent executive owning 90% of the entity clearly takes a strong majority of the gains from that company’s productivity.

A person who views this as unfair might be less motivated to work, decreasing productivity. As Wallace Hopp says in The Conversation:

The demotivating impact of income inequality occurs when workers see the gains of productivity going almost entirely to executives.

Since 1973, productivity has increased by over 73 percent, while (inflation-adjusted) hourly worker pay has risen by only about 11 percent and CEO compensation has soared by 1,000 percent.

Who can blame people for being reluctant to work harder when they know the proceeds will go to someone else? Extensive behavioral research has shown that people will forego personal gain to prevent outcomes they perceive as unfair. In work settings, this leads to demotivated workers working below their potential, even when it leads to smaller raises or bonuses. The result is reduced productivity, lower quality and less creativity, all of which undermine corporate profit and economic growth.

Any gains in productivity are distributed disproportionately to owners. And as a result, these gains (which are converted to cash) are spent much less quickly than had they been distributed to the workers and lower-percent owners.

Another way inequality affects the economy is by reducing the velocity of money by shifting cash to people who spend it more slowly. Working-class people who are stretching to make ends meet spend their income quickly – usually pretty much all of it – while wealthy people whose resources exceed their immediate needs tend to save substantial portions of their income.

Consequently, whenever a company takes a dollar out of the hands of a worker and puts it into the hands of an executive or investor, the number of times that dollar will be spent in the economy is reduced. The result is less business for capitalists and less employment for workers.

How can we tackle economic inequality?

Society cannot simply redistribute ownership in all enterprises to the masses to solve this problem. Ownership represents the risk of capital, that someone takes on, to potentially earn a higher return than could be had by keeping his cash in the bank.

Dissolving ownership and spreading it evenly across all workers would provide no incentive for anyone to accumulate wealth and invest in new businesses, ideas, or programs. Innovation would stall and productivity would decline.

There needs to be some sort of balance between distribution of upside in economic scenarios (addressing the bottom of business structure) with incentivizing good ideas and innovative collaboration (addressing the top).

If we look at the top of the business structure to fix inequality

One option is to implement more progressive tax systems. Because top marginal tax rates have a very strong impact on pre- and post-tax income inequality, this is one obvious step that can be taken.

Progressive Tax Infographic

Source: AccurateTax.com

Progressive tax rates contribute to the reduction of post-tax income inequality at the top of the distribution via their highest marginal tax rates. Indeed, if an individual earns $2 million and if the top marginal tax rate is 50% above one million dollars, this individual will net out only $500,000 on the second million. If the top marginal tax rate is 80% above one million dollars, then the earner will net out only $200,000 on the second million. The reduction of inequality can be further enhanced if the public spending funded by this tax revenue is aimed at fostering economic growth.

One often-neglected role of top marginal tax rates is their ability to reduce pre-tax income inequality. This can occur via two channels. The most obvious one is that when top marginal income tax rates are high, top earners have less money to save and accumulate wealth, and therefore potentially less income from capital next year.

Another way to understand the impact on top income tax rates on income inequality is to focus on rich individuals’ bargaining incentives. When top marginal tax rates are low, top earners have high incentives to bargain for compensation increases – for instance, by putting a lot of energy into nominating the right people to the compensation committees who decide on pay packages. Alternatively, high top marginal tax rates tend to discourage such bargaining efforts. Reductions in top tax rates can thus drive upwards not only post-tax income inequality but pre-tax inequality, as well.

Top tax rates in the U.S. and U.K. reached 90% in the era between 1940 and 1970. And this did not appear to harm growth in these countries. Interestingly, all rich countries have grown at roughly the same pace over the past 50 years, despite vastly different approaches to income taxation.

Relationship between effective marginal tax rate on capital income and economic growth, 1954-2006

Tax Rate vs Growth

Source: EPI

Furthermore, changes in top marginal tax rates and top income shares in rich countries since the 1970s suggest the following:

–  That top tax rates play a key role in moderating pre-tax top incomes

–  That there was no significant impact on growth

The simplified answer would seem to say there is opportunity to employ a more progressive tax system to address income inequality due to business structure.

If we look at the bottom of the business structure to fix inequality

Another way would be finding a way to provide more equal access to education and good-paying jobs.

The United States has mobility levels lower than other countries. Fewer than eight Americans born in the 20% poorest families will eventually rise to the top 20% of earners as adults. This compares to 12 in Denmark and 13 in Canada. Similarly, only 30% of children born in the bottom 10% income bracket will go to college. This compares to 90% of those born in the top 10% income bracket.

Educational Mobility Levels

Source: Statista

In the case of the United States, strong geographic inequalities also interact with educational inequalities. In geographical areas with the highest mobility, a child born in a family from the bottom 20% of the income distribution has a 10% to 12% chance of reaching the top 20% as an adult (that is about as much as in the highly mobile countries of Canada or Denmark).

Examples of highly mobile places include the San Francisco Bay and Salt Lake City in Utah. In areas with low intergenerational mobility, a child born in a family from the bottom 20% of the income distribution has only a 4% to 5% chance of reaching the top 20% as an adult. No advanced economy for which we have data has such low rates of intergenerational mobility. Cities in the US south (such as Atlanta) or the US rust belt (such as Indianapolis and Cincinnati) typically have such low mobility rates.

Income inequality at the local level, school quality, social capital, and family structure are also important factors. Higher income inequality among the poorest 99% of individuals is associated with lower mobility. Meanwhile, a larger middle class stimulates upwards mobility. Higher public school expenditures per student along with lower class sizes significantly increase social mobility. Higher social capital also favors mobility (for example, areas with high involvement in community organizations).

Finally, family structure is also a key determinant; upward mobility is substantially lower in areas where the fraction of children living in single-parent households, or the share of divorced parents, or the share of non-married adults is higher.

If social and geographical reasons explain the disproportion of children attending college, then the solution would involve making higher education more accessible to those currently missing out. Channeling more funds into primary education systems would strengthen a child’s chances of going to college. Establishing accredited online or local universities that are subsidized by similar funds would help attract those who don’t think college is an option thanks to their social upbringing.

To enable these outcomes, you first need to ensure more people can get into college—the problem of improving primary and secondary education. You then need to ensure students climb to higher income brackets as a result—the problem of improving higher education efficiency.

If funding can be obtained to make all educational institutions as efficient as the highest 10% in terms of social mobility, then mobility in the United States would be perfect. Children’s outcomes would be completely independent and unrelated to their parents.

Conclusion

The business environment is inherently biased toward accumulating wealth among the few and increasing inequality among the haves and have nots.

As a result, workers (rather than owners) become less motivated to work. This leads to lower productivity, quality and creativity, all of which undermine corporate profit and economic growth.

Additionally, as gains are distributed disproportionately to owners, these gains when converted to cash, are spent much less quickly than had they been distributed to the workers and lower-percent owners.

This is a problem that can be tackled several different ways, two of which approach it from opposite ends of the spectrum:

From the top – via progressive tax reform and more equal distribution of income.

From the bottom – via greater access to education and career opportunities.

By progressively taxing economic gains, income is effectively more evenly distributed between owners and workers, creating more opportunity for innovation and investment into new ideas that would spur growth.

By providing greater access to education and career opportunities, you channel the largest resource in a country – its labor pool – into areas that are growing and profitable and away from areas that are depressed and low paying. Similarly, this solution would ensure more economic gains are put in the pockets of lower class workers which leads to investment, innovation and so on.

IMF Infographic

Source: International Monetary Fund

Whatever we do, it is likely we can’t overhaul the entire business environment. But we can address some of the context within which it operates. Our economy is one that incentivizes wealth creation and innovation, and to remove this incentive would have dramatic impacts on productivity and growth. If we can instead improve the foundation on which this is all nurtured, we have a better chance of continuing to improve economic conditions while shrinking the gap between the rich and the poor.

Note: The quotes for both solutions presented above are from the World Inequality Lab’s World Inequality Report 2018.

The Snowball Effect of Data and Nonprofit Fundraising

Snowball effect image Shutterstock

Is your nonprofit’s technology stuck in the 20th century?

Does this hamstring you in executing your ambitious, yet difficult, fundraising strategy?

Data collection and use is a massively growing field with increasingly more technologies and companies dedicated to it. As a nonprofit, you’re often at the mercy of funding constraints that limit you from going out and buying the flashy new system or paying a data engineer to help make sense of all the information available to you.

Big Data

Source: Datameer

But that shouldn’t stop you from trying. There are cultural factors that enable successful data usage, and once employed, can help skyrocket your ability to attract sustainable funding. The following ideas are proposed by Scot Chisholm, CEO of StayClassy.

1. Make data a priority at the top

A shift towards a more data-based operation requires total buy-in from the board all the way down to field-level staffers. By conveying a strong support for making your nonprofit more “data-driven” and “scientific,” all employees need to see the excitement and determination start with you.

Next, data needs to be transparent and accessible for everyone.

The only way (and I mean THE ONLY WAY ) to empower your team to become more data-driven is to let them see, and take ownership of, your company’s data– that means the good, the bad and the ugly.

Once you’ve gotten the hang of the transparency thing, you need to focus on making the right data accessible to each person in your organization (this is the really hard part). To start with, you need make sure that you put the right tools in the hands of the right people. For example, the person in charge of your online fundraising might use a fundraising platform, like StayClassy, to access the campaign data he or she needs to analyze past performance. Or, a Development Director might use a Constituent Relationship Management (CRM) system like Salesforce.com, to analyze and improve the way your organization interacts with donors.

2. Use relevant and actionable metrics

It is critical to not become overwhelmed with the tons of data available to us. Focus on what’s most important to your mission and the clients you serve. Create metrics that align the mission with activities that your team performs. And try to make sure they allow for performance management and improvement.

Every single person in your organization should be responsible for 1-3 actionable metrics that they are focused on monitoring and improving over time (strive to have only one key metric per person, and set a goal around it with the person). Each person’s actionable metric(s) should feed into the organization’s main set of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and thus, drive the organization’s progress against its short and long-term goals. When each person takes ownership of their own actionable metrics and understands how they fit in to the larger goals, it becomes much easier for the entire organization to move in the same direction toward a common mission.

Use a combination of inputs, outputs, and outcomes to help align people with mission. For example, it may be easy to track the amount of times an employee engages with a client. That might be one metric to gauge performance.

But do client engagements directly correlate with the outcomes you’re trying to achieve in your mission? Add a second metric related to client outcomes to round out this employee’s performance and impact on the organization.

While outcomes are usually the most impactful type of information we can have, they are also the most difficult to secure with data collection. As a result, continue to develop inputs and outputs as key metrics, but also mix in outcomes to round out the performance management process.

Outcomes Chain Acumen Fund

Source: Acumen Fund

3. Hire experts

This can be tricky, especially when funds are limited. But focus on people with proven experience mining data and translating information into actionable results.

How do you do that?

Not everyone has had the analytical training of an engineer; but that certainly doesn’t mean that they lack the capacity to appreciate and utilize data in their own role. In fact, I’ve found that some of the most “data-driven” people I’ve encountered had “non-technical” roles. The right type of person, regardless of function, will find an appreciation for the role that data should play in any successful organization. A few traits you might look for in a person are:

– Their inquisitiveness (they question everything);

– Their detective skills (once they recognize a trend, they won’t stop until they find a root cause);

– And finally, their decisiveness (their ability to draw a conclusion and a course of action from a set of data, i.e. sales numbers, marketing analytics, etc.)

Now that you’re set up

Once a nonprofit has invested the time and resources into data management, there is a snowball effect of performance and funding improvements.

Dashboards Example Nonprofit Quarterly

You might have dashboards that look like this

Whether a donor writes a check once a month or once a decade, most large gifts are generated because of strong relationship building. A development office that takes time to know each donor and understand each individual’s goals for distributing their hard-earned money will go a long way in helping attract and maintain those gifts.

Donors want to know their funds are being put to good use, and this is where data and metrics become the game changer.

This concept is described beautifully by Jenny Dinnen at MacKenzie Corporation.

Consider two hypothetical charities, both focused on providing fresh water to poverty stricken villages around the world:

Charity-1 works tirelessly to grow their global impact and evenly distributes funding to its different project sites. They send a “thank you” letter after donations are made which includes on-site project pictures and generally states how each donation helps provide water for those in need.

Charity-2 also works tirelessly to grow their global impact, however they employ a detailed data analytics platform tracking metrics such as weekly donation amounts, fresh water distribution distance in miles and total gallons pumped at each location. Not only does this help more accurately distribute funding on a need-by-need basis, they share with donors the statistical support illustrating the impact of their contributions. For example, “Thanks to your generosity, last month’s donation count increased by 15% and as a result over 1,000 additional gallons of water were pumped on top of the area’s average. In fact, the increase in funding equipped one project site with a truck now capable of delivering fresh water to villages up to 10 miles away from the source.”

Both of these hypothetical charities are working toward the same goal; providing fresh water for everyone everywhere. The difference is Charity-2 takes a focused, strategic approach to managing their in-going and outgoing activity. By tracking valuable data metrics, the resulting analytics can be applied to resource allocation, individual project valuation, and fundraising or donor loyalty strategies; thus improving the overall organization’s efficiency and productivity.

Loyalty is built through maintaining the relationship and demonstrating results. When you can accomplish a donor’s wishes, it goes a long way with keeping their checkbook open.

Donor Cycle

Source: North American YMCA Development Organization

The same thing applies to grants. The best grantor/grantee relationships develop on the foundation of strong, impactful data.

This report by Principal Investigators Association on How to Compose a Perfect Data Management Plan for winning Federal grants provides useful information for grants and donations alike. The premise remains the same across all kinds of funding: find out what the funder is trying to accomplish, and demonstrate your ability to achieve it.

How the snowball effect works

You start your data management culture change and collection processes. At the same time your strengthening your donor network by maintaining relationships and demonstrating increasing value.

The actual value doesn’t necessarily have to increase…merely the demonstration of value. That’s where the data comes into play.

As you develop closer relationships with donors, and data continues to reinforce your mission and proof that your donors’ wishes will be satisfied, they will gradually trust you more.

As this trust builds, you will climb the list until you’re eventually top of mind when the donor thinks about next year’s gift. Whatever social cause he wants to support, you will have demonstrated in the past your excellence in that area, and your strong relationship will make it even harder for him to think of someone else to give the funds to.

What once started as a collection of donors with little to no proof of success is now a strong network of reliable gifts reinforced by continued program success. Everyone wins!

Already mastering data management?

Check out these top 11 customer relationship management systems that strengthen donor relations.

Apply to hundreds of open Federal grant opportunities here or read this article to see other top grants databases.

Arts for Learning Connecticut

AFLCT logo

Arts for Learning Connecticut (AFLCT) is a nonprofit organization out of Hamden, CT focused on creative learning through art.

 

Mission

Through its diverse roster of artists, the organization’s mission is to engage participants of all ages and abilities in learning creatively through the arts.

 

Vision

AFLCT envisions people of all ages and abilities in Connecticut actively participating in the arts. The organization serves as an essential resource for arts engagement in the state. This engagement flows from a roster of professional teaching and performing artists who spread their artistic expertise and inquiry into multiple disciplines to stimulate life-long learning and creativity.

 

AFLCT image

 

 

AFLCT’s work transforms the public’s understanding of the value of the arts as an active and natural part of everyone’s life.

 

How they achieve their mission

AFLCT works tirelessly to match quality artists across every discipline with school, community, and corporate events across Connecticut. For schools this may mean providing arts programming that connects directly with curriculum. For communities, it may mean providing creative arts learning programs for various boys and girls clubs and community centers. For corporations, they create unforgettable art events and conferences.

 

AFLCT image

 

 

The organization has enjoyed over 30 years of community engagement providing families and seniors with arts, as well as teacher professional development programs that further connect the arts to classroom learning.

 

In the news

AFLCT recently hosted its “Spring into the Arts” auction. Tom Lee, Storyteller, received the 2018 Artist of the Year Award and Surcari received the 2018 Performing Artist Award. Additionally, David Maloney, Connecticut Association of Schools, was recognized as the 2018 Arts in Education Advocate.

 

Featuring numerous silent auction items, the event is the organization’s largest annual fundraising event. It raises funds for its education programming to underserved students in economically disadvantaged cities and towns around Connecticut.

 

Spring into the Arts

 

 

Performances by AFLCT artists are typically offered throughout the evening as guests are expected to engage and contribute to a cause that means so much to them.

 

Donate

AFLCT welcomes donations in all sizes from anyone interested in promoting arts education in Connecticut. You can donate on their website here.

 

Even donations as little as $50-$100 provide materials for visual art workshops or educational program guides to teachers.

Strategy or Tactics…What’s the Difference and Why Does it Matter?

Pexels Strategy image

Strategy and tactics are often confused with one another. They are used interchangeably by executives trying to sound smart. And while many leaders believe a new strategy is what they need, it isn’t always the case. Fortunately enough has been written about this “strategy or tactics” debate to inform you organizational leaders effectively.

The point of this guide is to help you determine when your organization needs tactical improvements or a strategic overhaul.

Don’t have time to read the whole thing? Sign up for our mailing list and download the free guide to identifying your competitive advantage!

It is important to note that this article does not address the concept of vision statements and goals. It will be assumed that any strategy will be crafted in order to accomplish an organization’s goals and achieve its vision.

Dilbert Strategy

From a military perspective (because business people like to equate their engagements with war any chance possible), strategy is a term that comes from the Greek “strategia,” meaning “generalship.” It refers to maneuvering troops into position before the enemy is engaged.

Tactics, on the other hand, are what happen once the enemy has been engaged.

So how does this relate to business?

Like an army, your business or nonprofit organization has competitors, marketplaces, partners, and other agents that impact the transactions you execute and the results you achieve.

Coming up with a strategy involves two major components:

1.  Selecting your area to operate; or choosing a market to enter

2.  Anticipating actions of outside agents and forming plans to deal with them accordingly

Tactics are the tools, techniques, and processes used to execute on this strategy. They may be internal operations, valuable personnel, or proprietary technologies. But these, in and of themselves, can never be the same thing as strategy. A competitor can hire your best people away. Your technology’s patent will eventually end. Processes can and will be replicated.

Tactics drive efficiency within your organization, which often help to financially achieve the stated strategy.

Examples of strategy and tactics

Catherine Yochum of ClearPoint Strategy outlines the following examples to help differentiate between strategy and tactics.

Strategy is more concrete and long-term—but your tactics can change based on how successful your strategy is. If your marketing strategy is to improve your influence and performance in social media, then you tactics might be to determine what channel is best for your business and what messages work best for your audiences.

Marketing and Branding Strategy or Tactics

Source: Marketing and Branding

Strategy and tactics work together as means to an end. If your strategy is to climb a mountain, one key component of your strategy might be to decide which side of the mountain you should climb. Your tactics would be the gear you’d buy, who you’d bring with you, your complete trip plan, how long it would take to get there, what season you’d go in, and so on.

Strategy and tactics always have to be in-line with one another. You might be really enamored with a particular project (i.e. a tactic), but it’s only worth pursuing if it aligns with your long-term strategy. Thus, your strategy should inform which tactics your organization will execute or fund.

What’s your problem: strategy or tactics?

How do you know whether it’s strategy or tactics that need to be fixed? While the shortcomings of a bad strategy are usually painfully obvious (at least in retrospect), poor performance on a good strategy is a lot harder to spot.

The first question you should ask yourself is: Do you have a competitive advantage in the market you operate in or is your strategy aimed at creating one?

If the answer is no, the answer almost always is to change your strategy. No competitive advantage means commodity-like competition and the need to execute efficiently to produce viable alternative products to the competition.

But if the answer is yes, you can comfortably assume you might have a workable strategy.

Competitive Advantage PM&J

Source: PM&J

Competitive advantage is the lifeblood of a good strategy. A business needs some sort of edge to ensure returns on capital above the cost of replacement in any industry. And since strategy concerns itself with how your business interacts with all other players in the marketplace, this edge comes from two main areas:

1.    Supply – typically deals with production capabilities; the ability to produce at lower costs due to supplier relationships, proprietary technology or any other factors creates competitive advantage for a company

2.   Demand – typically deals with customer captivity; the natural or strategic ability to keep customers buying your products; this can be due to high switching costs, high costs to learn or adapt to the product, or any other factor that might prohibit customers from buying an alternative product

How to tell if you have a competitive advantage

Bruce Johnson compiled a list of 5 tests that determine whether or not you have a competitive advantage. If you can’t answer all these questions positively, then you probably need to adjust your company’s strategy.

Does This Clearly Position Us As Different From Our Competitors?
If everyone is saying the same thing (“We have great customer service”), that “competitive advantage” can’t be an advantage. Nor can being a little bit better. No customer or prospect can tell the difference between a business/product/service that’s 5% or 10% better. Who cares?
Is This Something Our Prospects Actually Value?
In other words, it’s not unusual to find a business that’s in love with their own ideas. “What do we think our customers would like?” seems like an innocent question. However, it’s usually interpreted as, “What would I like?”As the creator of something, we usually fall in love with the thing we’ve created. Widget X can do 734 different things. It has the latest whiz-bang technology.
It “slices, dices and makes thousands of Julienne fries.” but rarely are those the things that prospects value.In general, prospects value the results or benefits far more than the features. They don’t value complexity, they value simplicity. They just want something that works and solves their problem as painlessly as possible.
Is This Specific/Can it Be Quantified?
If you were listening to a pitch and someone said, “We can save you money?” and another person said, “We can save you 22.4% a year on your office supplies,” which one is more powerful? Obviously, the one that’s more specific. So, if you want to create competitive advantages that will move your prospects to take action, make sure they’re specific and quantifiable (if possible).

Is This a Deal Closer?

This is one of the best decision criteria for a competitive advantage. If you suggest that something is a competitive advantage and it doesn’t close the deal, then it’s not a real competitive advantage. On the other hand, when Zyrtec started using the ad campaign that Zyrtec works two hours faster than Claritin, it was a deal closer.

First, because it caused prospects to doubt Claritin’s efficacy and secondly, because it promised to solve an allergy sufferers most pressing problem faster (by two hours over the market leader). If you’ve ever suffered from an allergy attack you know that two hours matters!

That’s when you know you have a great competitive advantage—when it moves someone to choose you and your products and/or services over others in your market space.

So, when you look at your current list of competitive advantages, does each one move prospects to say, “I choose you!” If not, go back and rework each one so that each advantage you list actually moves your prospects to take action.

Is this Difficult for Our Competitors to Duplicate?
One of the great cries of the competitive advantage movement is, “Is this sustainable?” meaning, is this a competitive advantage that will last for some time vs. something that will be easy for others to replicate. For example, the TD Bank competitive advantage is difficult to replicate. Not because it’s hard to expand hours, but because few banks are willing to spend the money to pay for extended hours and hire additional staff.

The cost related to those extra hours is a strategic choice very few are willing to make—which is why few have even tried to replicate it since TD Banks started doing it years ago.

Competitive Advantage the Mod Media

Source: The Mod Media

To ensure your business is delivering on its competitive advantage it is important to:

–  Develop functional strategies that deliver on this advantage.

–   Maintain cross-functional alignment and communication around the differentiator.

–   Align with the marketplace and constantly validate the strategy.

“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” – Sun Tzu

Right strategy, wrong tactics

If you’ve gone through the previous section and believe you have a competitive advantage (or are building toward one), then there should be certain indicators available. There should be favorable operating margin comparisons against competitors, favorable market share, or favorable growth characteristics in a specific market.

If these data seem to support your strategy, but you find them slipping year-over-year, you probably have an execution problem…you need to adjust your tactics.

Tactics Image UNMCOC

Source: UNMCOC

Take an example of a hypothetical company selling a software program. After a large up-front R&D investment it is able to scale its sales due to low marginal variable costs and spread its unit costs over greater and greater sales. This fixed-cost model creates economies of scale while the nature of the software program creates customer captivity due to high learning and switching costs.

Now assume that customer service is a key function performed by the company. Because the learning curve for the software is so high, service reps are invaluable to keeping customers satisfied and buying more.

While the strategy might be solid (participating in a profitable market with substantial competitive advantage with no immediate threats to profitability), profit margins may be sliding due to loosening hold over customers. A thorough analysis of the company’s operations might show customer service levels slipping.

By neglecting to excel in this particular operation, part of the company’s competitive advantage may begin to fade, opening the door for potential competitors who may have the resources to produce its own products, educate the public, and create economies of scale of its own. This would be a tactical adjustment that the company needs to make to improve its customer service operations.

Erica Olsen elaborates on strategy implementation and outlines some of the major pitfalls most companies face who fail to prioritize execution.

The strategic plan addresses the what and why of activities, but implementation addresses the who, where, when, and how. The fact is that both pieces are critical to success. In fact, companies can gain competitive advantage through implementation if done effectively. In the following sections, you’ll discover how to get support for your complete implementation plan and how to avoid some common mistakes.

Because you want your plan to succeed, heed the advice here and stay away from the pitfalls of implementing your strategic plan.

Lean Methods Strategy Model

Source: Lean Methods Group

Here are the most common reasons strategic plans fail:

Lack of ownership: The most common reason a plan fails is lack of ownership. If people don’t have a stake and responsibility in the plan, it’ll be business as usual for all but a frustrated few.

Lack of communication: The plan doesn’t get communicated to employees, and they don’t understand how they contribute.

Getting mired in the day-to-day: Owners and managers, consumed by daily operating problems, lose sight of long-term goals.

Out of the ordinary: The plan is treated as something separate and removed from the management process.

An overwhelming plan: The goals and actions generated in the strategic planning session are too numerous because the team failed to make tough choices to eliminate non-critical actions. Employees don’t know where to begin.

A meaningless plan: The vision, mission, and value statements are viewed as fluff and not supported by actions or don’t have employee buy-in.

Annual strategy: Strategy is only discussed at yearly weekend retreats.

Not considering implementation: Implementation isn’t discussed in the strategic planning process. The planning document is seen as an end in itself.

No progress report: There’s no method to track progress, and the plan only measures what’s easy, not what’s important. No one feels any forward momentum.

No accountability: Accountability and high visibility help drive change. This means that each measure, objective, data source, and initiative must have an owner.

Lack of empowerment: Although accountability may provide strong motivation for improving performance, employees must also have the authority, responsibility, and tools necessary to impact relevant measures. Otherwise, they may resist involvement and ownership.

It’s easier to avoid pitfalls when they’re clearly identified. Now that you know what they are, you’re more likely to jump right over them!

Right tactics, wrong strategy

Now maybe there are instances where your company is executing flawlessly but it is struggling to maintain competitive margins. You are likely not operating with a competitive advantage, so your priority should be refocusing on your strengths and opportunities and recrafting your strategy.

Determine your company’s strengths and opportunities. Enough has been written and said about SWOT analyses. By understanding these big-picture characteristics of your business you have the information you need to make key business decisions now and in the future.

The importance of strengths and opportunities is obvious. Maybe over time, what you thought were your company’s strong traits, have actually slipped over time, creating a competitive environment that doesn’t favor your business. This could be resulting in poor financial performance and lack of competitive advantage.

Or maybe what once was an opportunity—let’s say for example, selling products online—has now become the standard across all industries.

A reassessment of where you company stands today is the first step in adjusting your strategy. Lisa Furgison outlines a series of questions you should ask yourself to find your company’s strengths:

Starter questions:
–  What do you do well?
–  What do you do that your competition can’t?
–  Why do customers come to you?
Financial:
–  What kind of financial resources do you have?
–  Is your revenue diversified?
–  What kind investments do you have for the future?
Physical:
–  What kind of assets do you have?
–  What are the benefits of your company’s space and building?
–  What kind of equipment do you own?
Intellectual:
–  What kind of intellectual property do you have in your business? List trademarks, patents, etc.
Human resources:
–  What kind of human resources do you have?
–  Are there vital players in your company’s hierarchy?
–  What kind of programs do you have that improve your business and employees?
Company workflow:
–  What kind of processes do you have in place that makes your company efficient?
Company culture:
–  What kind of working culture has your company created in the workplace?
Thrive Global Company Culture
Company reputation:
–  How does your clientele or community view your company?
–  How did you achieve your reputation?
Market position:
–  Does your company have an edge in the marketplace that your competitor doesn’t?
–  What plans do you have in place to improve your market position?
Growth potential:
–  What plans do you have for growth?
–  Do you have potential to grow in certain sectors where your competitors don’t?
–  What’s the main reason you’re able to grow?

Understanding your strengths is a good place to start when evaluating where to move next as a business. The main point of a strategy is to understand where you want to operate and how you plan on dealing with external parties.

The first part, knowing where to operate, is partly based on your strengths—obviously it makes more sense to operate in the transportation industry if you have a fleet of trucks than if you don’t.

It’s also based on opportunities. It may not make sense to enter the transportation business if there are already two dominant competitors who have a stranglehold on the market.

Business Opportunities image

Source: Brand Pro Blog

Here are some questions to ask yourself to help find your company’s opportunities:

Economic trends:
–  Is the economy in your area looking up?
–  Will the economy enable your audience to make more purchases?
–  Are economic shifts happening that impact your target audience?
Market trends:
–  How is your market changing?
–  What new trends could your company take advantage of?
–  What kind of timeframe surrounds these new trends? Could it be a long-term opportunity?
Funding changes:
–  Do you expect an increase in grant funding or donations this year?
–  How will funding changes help your business?
Political support:
–  Do you anticipate a shift in political support this year?
–  What opportunities could be created with new political partnerships?
Government regulations:
–  Are any regulations shifting that could lead to a positive change?
Changing relationships:
–  Are there positive changes happening within any of your outside business relationships?
–  Are vendors changing or expanding?
–  Has your partner decided to move on, creating an opportunity to work with someone new?
Target audience shift:
–  How is your demographic shifting?
–  What opportunities can you think of that can move with these changing demographics?
–  Is your audience expanding? If so, how can you capitalize on this increase?

A full SWOT analysis would give you even more insight into decisions your business should make, but this is a good start.

Focus on your company’s strengths and any current opportunities to decide where you want to operate. From there it is critical to have plans in place to deal with potential competitors, market to customers, manage relationships with suppliers, and manage changing environmental and governmental factors.

When you’ve considered all these things, you can come up with a reasonable plan that creates a competitive advantage for your business. Remember, the main ways to capture competitive advantage are through customer captivity (the demand side) and production prowess (the supply side). If your strategy leads you down one of these paths, it’s a great start.

Conclusion

The great military theorist Carl von Clausewitz said: “Tactics is the art of using troops in battle; strategy is the art of using battles to win the war.”

Hopefully this article provided some insight into solving your company’s strategic or tactical problems. By properly understanding which ones to focus on, you either pinpoint improvement areas or completely pivot your strategy altogether.

Never assume your company’s problems are strategic in nature. Follow the advice here and you potentially save yourself from scrapping a completely workable strategy.

Amber Grant Foundation

Amber Grant Foundation

The Amber Grant Foundation began in 1998, launched in conjunction with the entrepreneurial community for women. The foundation was set up with one goal in mind: to honor the memory of a very special young woman who died at just 19 years old.

 

Amber Grants make it possible for other women to achieve the dreams that Amber never had a chance to pursue.

 

Starting with a modest, but significant, sum of money, women are able to start new businesses or help existing ones grow. As entrepreneurs know, every dollar is welcomed at the early stage of a business, and the Amber Foundation makes no requirement or expectation of repayment of funds. This leaves women complete opportunity to use the dollars to maximize growth.

 

Who is the Amber Grant Foundation?

The advisory board for the organization consists of three women.

 

Christina Lambert has been instrumental in several booming start-ups and continues to advocate for women-owned businesses. Serving on the board since 2008, she is a natural networker for entrepreneurs, volunteering her time to help women business owners connect. Christina believes in “customer service marketing” saying,

 

“Give your customers personable one-on-one service, and you’ll develop a loyalty that will have them spending more money with you – and telling all their friends about you.”

 

Marcia Layton Turner is a bestselling author and freelance writer. She founded the Association of Ghostwriters and her work has appeared in Businessweek, Entrepreneur, Women’s Day, and Black Enterprise.

 

Kelsey Ptucha is an online marketing professional who’s focused on consistently growing her marketing and entrepreneurial skills and interests. Her passion makes her the perfect candidate to help women’s business dreams become realities.

 

Other resources

In addition to grant funding, the Amber Foundation website features tips and advice on how to find funding in general.

 

Amber Grant Foundation

 

A series of other links and networking opportunities make the site a good place for women entrepreneurs to find the help they need.

 

Amber Grant Foundation

 

How to get an Amber Grant

Each month they award a Qualifying Grant of $1,000 as selected by WomensNet judges.

 

One of 12 monthly qualification winners will be awarded the $10,000 Amber Grant at the end of 2018.

 

The April Qualification Grant will be for $1,000.00.

 

Amber Foundation urges you to tell your story and be considered for the Amber Grant!

 

Amber Grant Foundation

 

More information

To see more information on all the great work the Amber Grant Foundation is doing, check out their website here.