Capstone Project

Running Head: CAPSTONE PROJECT 1
Capstone Project
The Nonprofit Leaders Role in the Culture of Philanthropy:
When the Trend Doesn’t Match the Need
Nicole Goff
LEAD 6800
Northwood University
October 12, 2015

The Nonprofit Leaders Role in the Culture of Philanthropy 2
Abstract
One of the most significant barriers affecting my organization is an inconsistency between the
programs that donors wish to fund, and the most basic of both organizational operating needs and
the physical needs of the community we are serving. There has been a significant shift in the
trends of philanthropy which have resulted in donors allocating donations to support specific
programs or initiatives that are “trendy” within the suburban culture at the time. Through PEST
and SWOT analyses, and survey interviews with donors and nonprofit executives I have
examined current trends in philanthropy impacting programs and general operations. After
identifying a few core significant variables consistent within the population of philanthropic
influence, I turned the research inward to identify which factors are present and functional parts
of our current operations in respect to philanthropy and where seem to be the greatest areas of
growth. Ultimately, identifying a strategic action plan to move towards a more sustainable,
intentional and influential approach to the local culture of philanthropy; rather than a victim of it.

The Nonprofit Leaders Role in the Culture of Philanthropy:
When the Trend Doesn’t Match the Need
Throughout the past several years, there has been a steady decline in our community in
funding for general youth centered programs from local foundations and grantors. As the largest
single site youth serving agency in Genesee County, the Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Flint
(BGCGF) are very dependent on this funding. As economic decline began to cause a
trickledown effect into our state and federal funding streams, trending social issues changed—
therefor redirecting funding from independent and foundation donors alike. New service
agencies appeared in the county and we began to experience a significant decrease in income.
With trends and issues such as human trafficking, low literacy rates in adults, unemployment,
violence and homelessness taking center stage, many local donors have transitioned their
targeted program funding to agencies who directly address these issues. Over the past few years,
I witnessed our organization being “outfocused” by other local entities serving more narrow
needs. Changes are happening and how organizations respond can play a significant role in their
continued success and levels of influence over the local culture of philanthropy.
The Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Flint
In 2011, BGCGF was operating at the peak of its existence. The Club opened in 2005 in a
partially condemned building purchased from the city for $1.00. By 2007, the entire building
had been remodeled to accommodate ten safe and effective program areas to serve up to 300
youth per day. Charging only $10 per year for membership made it the most affordable youth
program for families in the county, but also prevented any revenue to be made from membership.
During its conception, many prominent local foundations, grantors and donors offered significant
monetary support to our programs development as the agency was addressing issues such as
blight—by remodeling and maintaining a previously abandoned building, as well as offering

significant youth and family services in a city with desperate need. Having a sufficient stream of
monetary backing, the focus was on increasing membership and recruiting youth. Strongly
utilizing strategic alliances to increase attendance numbers was the revolving center of our
strategic plan. For many years the program experienced very consistent growth and quickly
became the largest single site youth serving organization in Genesee County. Over time though,
we began to notice financial decline as those key donors developed an expectation that their
contributions would, at some point, turn into a more self-sustaining unit; or at least share some of
the responsibility with more donors/foundations. BGCGF experienced a 23% drop in
unrestricted funding between the years of 2012-2014.
In 2012, when the founding CEO left the organization for another opportunity, many of
our large donors went with him. However, the appointment of the next CEO provided a more
strategic leader; practicing leadership and continuous self-development as described in
Leadership Self-Development as Organizational Strategy (Johnson & Reichard, 2010) by self-
developing and supporting the growth of other team leaders. It became abundantly clear with his
efforts to obtain funding and to spread knowledge about our programs that our organization was
officially “Flints best kept secret”. Because we are located in a highly populated area of the city
with several schools, meeting our attendance goals has never been an issue, so we did little
soliciting for members. And because we had, at the time, a sustainable financial situation we did
little soliciting for funds. What we found was that we were serving almost 300 youth per day in
the city for a minimum of five hours, five days per week, and few people outside of that knew
who we were, or what we actually did. In response we expanded our development department
and updated our technology resources. We shifted our focus to marketing and updating our

antiquated communication systems, policies and approaches by hiring a consultant team and
constructing a new, development focused strategic plan.
These changes have yielded an approximate 19% increase to date in our overall donor
database. However, the donations that we are receiving are becoming more and more restricted.
With new donors reached through our new marketing campaigns, we have been able to
implement four new, core, significant, specialty arts and sports programs which have yielded
very successful results. However, the existing core programs administrative and operating needs
are suffering considerably. We have an overabundant funding stream to support ballet and a
steel drum band, both wonderful programs, but no budget for our homework help program, no
staff for the computer lab, limited supplies for our meal programs, not enough funding to
continue to support the expanded development team, and utilities have to come out of the small
couple of general operating grants we do have. These continual barriers have created the
necessity to penetrate the local culture of philanthropy, identify influencing factors, educate
donors, and increase the streams of unrestricted funding.
Barrier Analysis
Competitive advantage for funding is paramount to our organizations ability to continue
to operate and serve all of the clients enrolled in our programs. Constant local competition
fighting for the same monies to fund their service programs has forced our organization to
reevaluate our operations and approaches to stewardship, major giving and general annual fund
collection. As donors interests and investments change, community needs shift, and trends in
philanthropy change, so do our programs. However, if we are not being proactive enough and
observing these changes in the environment before they come into play, we run serious risk of
losing more funds. Over the past two years I have witnessed our organization becoming

“outfocused” by other local entities serving more narrow needs—and that appeals to donors. I
have also seen how some of the needs in the local community for our youth have become less
unique, and have a need to be addressed in other communities as well. This has caused some
local donors to fund projects of a similar nature in programs outside of our city.
Of the three prominent competitive risks, my organization has been most strongly
impacted by being “outfocused” by other groups in the community. Over the past two years we
have witnessed a trend in local foundations shifting away from funding broad or generalized
youth programs and wanting to fund more focused and narrow programs within the community
that are more directly addressing some key trending social issues. We did not respond
appropriately to these changes in the past which resulted in some of our funding being streamed
over to some of these smaller organizations with a more focused mission. Operating under a cost
leadership strategy, as defined by Hoskisson, Hitt & Ireland (2013), our focus was on providing
and promoting the value that we had worked so hard to create--such a minimal membership cost,
and the vast array of opportunities that can offer you. But donors wanted to know that their
funds were going into something deep and impactful. Grant proposals consisted of what we saw
to be the more-impressive big picture of our program rather than highlighting a specific
initiative. We were using a “wide” approach, rather than the “deep” approach we have opted to
shift towards most recently. We have since switched the ways in which we apply for and solicit
funding, concentrating on providing data for specific programs and highlighting their impact and
depth. These observations have also allowed us to shift from a “late mover” pattern to the more
incentivized “first mover” as described by Hoskisson, Hitt & Ireland (2013), when it comes to
grants and foundations.

Due to our dedication and need to partner with other local agencies in order to ensure that
we are providing that goal value of vast opportunities for one low price, there are many local
agencies who are privy to information on some of our most sensitive funding. This has resulted
occasionally, in these partners coming in, and over time, leveraging some of that funding away
from its filter through us to direct disbursement to their agency. Thus eliminating the need for
them to operate at our facility, reducing our programs offered and overall annual revenue. This
was so easily accomplished due to the high level of resource similarity between us and our
partners. We have struggled with ways to prevent this from happening, but have taken to
developing our core competencies to include processes that help us keep our information more
strictly guarded.
“Effectively managing core competencies requires careful analysis of the firms’ resources and
capabilities” (Hoskisson, Hitt & Ireland, 2013).
We transitioned from external bookkeeping to internal. This helps ensure that no one has access
to sensitive financial information who is not a direct Club employee. Outsourcing, in this
circumstance, was unsuccessful as a value for my organization. By analyzing what internal
resources we had, it became evident that we had everything and everyone we needed to make
this transition successful. We made bookkeeping a piece of our core competencies via finance
support functions--ensuring that we keep pertinent information classified.
In addition, the internet and social media have greatly influenced both donor and member
expectations when it comes to information sharing and communications. In an effort to
accommodate the social norms of tech correspondence and influence we have implemented an
active facebook and twitter page, created a monthly e-newsletter and we are currently
restructuring our website which will soon allow parents to sign their kids up online, as well as

allow donors to register for events and make donations more easily. This will reduce our costs in
printing and postage, as well as making contributing more user friendly—optimizing our
linkages to the outside.
The final risk we have experienced is local vendors taking their money outside the
community. In such a violent and despaired city, some have decided that it is no longer worth
their investment. They have opted to invest their charitable giving elsewhere; in communities
where they feel it will have a bigger impact. We have begun training and engaging in more local
stewardship, educating local donors on how they are our shareholders (via the new language we
have adopted), and rather than a financial return, they experience a humanistic return with better
educated youth, less criminal activity, and potentially in the long run, less violent crime and
more community support for their business. We have taken time to speak with local business
owners to find out what our stakeholders objectives are; whether that’s advertising and PR for
their donations, to make an impact on the local community, to engage customers, fulfill social
responsibility etc. Local businesses in the direct vicinity of the Club have experienced less
vandalization since the program started there ten years ago, according to conversations with local
business owner/operators. By educating and engaging local businesses back into the local
community, as well as educating ourselves on their wants and needs, we have been able to re-
secure funds that previously were being invested in out of town programs. Our stakeholders
have a lot of political power, they are often our advocates to other streams of funding. They must
have the confidence, tools and desires to engage their political power.
Overall, the idea of competitiveness within our market demographic was not really an
issue until recently. As we change our mindsets, shift our culture and create new norms, we are
constantly analyzing the newfound aggressive “competition” for funding. This has encouraged

and allowed us to be more proactive rather than reactive, more intentional rather than
opportunistic, and more strategic and “deep” rather than “wide”. However, there are still
significant opportunities to be involved in and influence the culture of philanthropy which we
have not yet identified. By conducting research on both the external and internal environments
we can identify opportunities and weaknesses, and capitalize on our influence over the current
culture of philanthropy.
PEST Analysis
I conducted a PEST analysis of the external environment in regards to the culture of
philanthropy. The three primary functions of a PEST analysis are to spot opportunities,
implement appropriate practices and help break free of old assumptions about how managers run
organizations, (Kryscynski, 2014). As this project aimed to identify an innovative approach to
the nonprofit leaders influence over the culture of philanthropy, it seemed an appropriate tool.
This PEST analysis of the macro environment showed in summary that donors are generally
physically removed from the demographics they strive to support, the culture is strongly
influenced by and exposed to a wide array of sociocultural and economic barriers plaguing the
city, and that we are not meeting the average expectation for technology adoption into our
development practices and have opportunities and tools we should be utilizing. See the full
PEST analysis in Table 1 of the appendix.
S.W.O.T
Innovative change affects internal employees and their day to day work, as well as the
public and what is made available in the market. Dan Heath stated that, “The focus on the
positive, rather than the negative, is a large contributing factor to the successful implementation
of change, and the successful repetition of the process in the future”. He suggests focusing our

powers of analyses away from what isn’t working, focus on what is, and work on understanding
and cloning it (FastCompany, How to Find Bright Spots, 2010). By identifying the strongest
parts of your project/organization, you are able to study and replicate the effects into other
departments/levels. Conducting a SWOT analysis helped to identify any external and internal
determining factors in our path to engaging in the local culture of philanthropy. In summary, the
SWOT analysis showed that; Strength-nonprofit leader has direct lines of communication with
donors, Weakness-lack resources and slow to adapt to change, Opportunity-utilize networks and
innovate giving, Threats-social influences and competing agencies. See the full SWOT analysis
in Table 2 of the appendix.
Survey Process
See full surveys Appendix B
Following the Rule of Five, (Hubbard, 2014) I chose five major donors from the Boys &
Girls Clubs database who I knew were also very active in philanthropy outside of our
organization. As well as five CEO’s who operate local nonprofits which offer a variety of
services such as Big Brothers Big Sisters, United Way, Salvation Army, and Boys & Girls Clubs.
Each individual was e-mailed a link to their respective ten question multiple choice and open
ended surveys, along with a disclosure form which allowed them to specify anonymity if desired.
The majority of respondents wished to remain anonymous with no ties to their individual
answers. For this result, I chose to exercise complete discretion keeping only consistent the
individual responses to each question with a designated identifying number. Because all of the
donors are BGCGF donors, it could be argued that data is skewed in relevance to other
organizations. Conscious effort was made to avoid loaded terms which may influence responses
in any way. Multiple choice questions were fitted with answers that I had a 90% confidence

interval were part of the top responses in their categories, or established appropriate high and low
bounds. As this survey was conducted by me, outside of work time, the cost of the information
gathering was nothing, creating a high level of value versus cost, and virtually no risk to conduct.
It was proposed that this population sampling would reduce the risk of pursuing philanthropic
influence at no effect.
Survey Results
As you can see in Table 3 of the appendix, surveys showed that the majority of the
donors surveyed do restrict a portion of their donations made to nonprofits. You can also see
that there was a great variance in responses to a majority of the questions. This can be
interpreted as the reality of the vast variety of preferences and practices which are present in the
culture of philanthropy and the donor community. This simply lends to the importance of
organizations being tuned into their local or target culture in order to best analyze, and have a
structure to address, the variety of needs and expectations put upon them by their donor base. I
do believe that there was some inadvertent presence of loaded terms or responses that could be
interpreted negatively in the questions regarding influential factors in their charitable giving.
This may have resulted in slightly skewed responses in this category.
Executive responses showed in summary that all surveyed organizations have restricted
donations, all surveyed executives felt they had some influence over the local culture of
philanthropy, all surveyed executives thought donors were influenced by ethnic, social and
media culture—but mostly social culture and all surveyed executives considered their role in the
culture of philanthropy to be predominantly an educator to their donors and all wished that they
could better communicate how impactful their donors contributions are. The full set of executive
responses can be found in Table 4 of the appendix.

Strategic Plan
Strategic Plan
2016 through 2017
Create Menu of Giving
Goal: Create a “menu” of giving opportunities which allows donors to select a particular
program or initiative which interests them; representing the actual cost of operations for the
entire program for one calendar year including staff, space, materials, utilities used during the
duration of the program, etc.
 Action Steps
o Director staff identify a diverse list of programs to be included in the
menu
o Identify the operating costs for each program for one calendar year
o Designate sponsorship levels and establish their respective
“rewards”/acknowledgements
o Create a clean, easy to read and appealing document to present to donors
o Monitor/analyze reactions to this new option of giving
Create Collaborative Opportunities for Donors via Committee
Goal: Create a committee to establish a framework for donors to have a collaborative part in
designating their donations.
 Action Steps
o CEO and Board establish donor engagement committee
o Donor engagement committee establishes best practices for donor-
executive collaboration
o CEO implements best practices
o Committee monitors activity
Create a Culture of Philanthropic Interest at all Levels of the Organization
Goal: Create an internal culture of investment in the philanthropic community. Encourage,
expect and support all employees in their participation in the local culture of philanthropy to
create more insider knowledge and influence.
 Action Steps
o CEO analyze current internal investment in the culture of philanthropy
o Research best practices for implementing buy-in to the culture of
philanthropy

o CEO, with Board and Director staff, establish independent strategic plan
for internal culture changes
o Continued effort in cultivating the culture and monitoring its sustainability
Optimize Digital Communication Opportunities
Goal: Create an independent strategic plan to digital marketing and communication.
Capitalizing on opportunities to share thought provoking and emotional stories and educating
information to influence the culture of philanthropy.
 Action Steps
o Identify digital marketing committee
o Identify information to be shared
o Create digital marketing schedule
o Identify more innovative ways to share information to donors
o Update and release as timely as possible
As we have seen evidenced in our assessment of the current culture of philanthropy,
donors desire to support something targeted--something they feel connected to. Creating a menu
of giving can allow donors to choose a program that they feel passionate about and choose a
sponsorship level. In that sponsorship level can be included a percentage of all costs of
operating that program; including staff time, utilities used, supplies, etc. This has been discussed
previously, but never carried forward. I believe that the completion of this program could yield
high value in respect to redirecting funding. This would allow for more flexibility without
compromising the donors desire to restrict their donations. In addition, it allows our organization
to tailor a consistent donor recognition and reward program for sponsorship levels. Recognitions
can include advertising on our website, personalized cards from Club members or a personal
note from the CEO; all very cost effective but personal incentives.

By expanding our opportunities for donors to collaborate with executives on how their
contributions will be used we can increase our opportunities to educate our donors as well as
influence their restricted donations. By creating a small team of members of the staff, board and
community, we can conduct small surveys and interviews with our contributors and increase our
overall lines of communication. This process will also help fulfill the requests of some donors
who wish to receive more, and more frequent, communications about statistics, developments
and the impact of their contributions. Creating a culture where it becomes natural for the
executive to meet with a donor and discuss the complete breakdown of a program, its costs,
impact and trajectory would set our organization apart in the community. It would create a level
of engagement and increase the level of influence that donors have over their investment, while
ensuring that the agency is able to fully communicate all of its needs.
Create Culture of Philanthropic Interest at all Levels of the Organization
“People are the heart of the innovation process. It is people who have insights, ideas and
inspirations…to create knowledge, to learn, and to apply that knowledge individually and
collectively, those are the capabilities upon which all innovation depends” (Morris, 2011, pg.
200).
This statement realizes the completely necessary human component that is innovation.
Just as we must perform maintenance and repair work on our other machines, which are
responsible for carrying out our daily activities, like cars and homes, we must too perform these
same caretaking actions and maintenance steps to ensure the longevity and health of our core
innovation machines—people. As Dan Heath stated in Want Change? Put Feelings First,
“Change comes from feeling…What can you get people to feel in order to initiate change?”

(2010). UPS exercises this support mechanism to change by hanging banners in their medical
supply shipping department which read, “They are not packages, they’re patients”
(BCCBusinessClips, 2012). The culture of an organization can affect its people’s willingness
and ability to even be open to innovation, let alone the ease of its adoption. Through various
practices, a group can nurture a culture which promotes ideation and context-specific
innovativeness; in this case specific to philanthropy. At organizations like IDEO, they use a
technique of hiring several individuals from various backgrounds and professions to create an
eclectic group of individuals, in order to promote a diverse and innovative culture. On a more
micro level, the personalities that make up a company’s culture can greatly affect the companies,
and individual’s, innovativeness, therefor affecting the levels of innovation adoption within the
organization. Though there are many, many factors which affect an organizations culture, there
are control mechanisms which can be put into place (as exemplified by the aforementioned
organizations), in order to help foster and nurture the culture of innovativeness and success
desired by, and necessary for, a company/group/organization.
BGCGF currently begins to promote an internal culture of philanthropy by striving to
maintain 100% employee giving to our local United Way. Employees are all encouraged to
contribute, even if only a small amount, in order to promote that culture of philanthropy and
giving internally that we expect so much of from our donors. Ones participation in current
innovations; cosmopoliteness, mass media exposure, and use of new technologies, makes them
more likely to participate in new innovations personally and professionally, as hypothesized by
Rogers (Vishwanath, 2005). Though some employees are members of local service, Rotary and
Optimist Clubs, they bring little of that back to the office with them. By filling our environment
with a level of philanthropic expectation in all of our employees, we can create a resource web of

individuals who are personally and professionally connected to the local culture of philanthropy
with a personal investment in it themselves--increasing insight and influence.
“In the face of rapidly changing technologies, the capability of an enterprise to keep ahead of
new technologies, monitor technological development and acquire and apply the most
appropriate technologies is critical to competing successfully” (Chang, Chang & Kuei-Kuei,
2008).
One of the most significant changes my organization has already made is in our
marketing and social media practices, addressing the technology segment of the general
environment. Because we had determined that our biggest barrier is that people simply don’t
know we exist, or if they do, have no idea what we actually do, we wanted to make sure the
community knew who we were and what we were doing. We have hired a part time social media
and marketing individual in charge of regularly updating our Facebook, Twitter and website to
make them more appealing to our donors and members and their families—as well as making
them more interactive. We are transitioning from antiquated technology, to more modern and
user friendly applications. We have established a budget for advertising in local papers,
restaurant placemats, billboards, and commercials. Establishing partnership with local news
organizations has helped gain us segments and coverage of some of our activities.
These new practices have had a profound effect on our information sharing techniques
and abilities. But due to inadequacies in our website, electronic communication habits and
digital contact information collection practices, we are still missing out on quick, affordable and
easy solutions to sharing our story and reaching donors. If we are able to maximize on these cost
effective communications that go right to the donors digital inboxes, social media pages and in a

consistent and timely manner, we could expect to begin to influence the culture of philanthropy.
Some donors surveyed reported that they would like to receive more information, statistics and
reports from the organizations that they support. This would help ensure that they had access to
those reports in a consistent way.
Implementation & Timeline
By partnering with a local capacity building organization we have hired two consultants.
In partnership over the past year we have developed a working strategic plan, and put into action
several components for the revamp of our marketing campaigns, youth programs and
reengagement of our Board of Directors in fundraising efforts. In an effort to maintain
consistency with my organizations current development and board development strategic plans,
the model for this plan was created using templates from The Leadership Group, LLC. (Lynda
Ronnie, 2015), who created the current strategic plans being used by BGCGF. In all cases in this
strategic plan, the term(s), “measure”/”measurement” should be approached according to
Hubbard’s definition of measurement as, “a quantitatively expressed reduction of uncertainty
based on one or more observations” (Hubbard, 2014, page 31).
See appendix C for strategic plan action plan breakdown and timelines.
The action plan found in appendix C represents a timeline for each goal listed, as well as those
responsible for each action item. This action plan serves as an outline for the proposed strategic
plan as well as a checks and balance upon adoption of the plan.

Change Management
Innovative change is an important concept within the innovation growth process. Along
with the excitement and potential success that comes along with ideating, new ventures and
almost any kind of innovation, is the inevitable presence of change—and the roadblocks,
discomforts and uncertainty that come along with it. Organizational managers are faced with the
balance between change management and change leadership, and establishing a place in your
culture for both is integral in the successful adoption of change. Facing “wicked problems”
(Morris, 2011) and the natural urge, as discussed by Dan Heath (2010), to focus on what isn’t
working, rather than nurturing and replicating what is, and maintaining an ability to make your
employees and team members “feel” the reasons why they should be dedicating their time and
energy to the company, are factors which have the potential to affect the ability to adopt a new
innovation successfully and smoothly. These effects can be present in not only the internal
organization but externally as well. Changes are brought not only to an organization, but to the
market when a breakthrough innovation is launched. The ability to make not only your team
members comfortable, but donors comfortable with the change that your innovations are
introducing into their environment takes precedence in the acceptance and buy-in of your idea.
“Manage change and share your ‘blanket’ with others…”-Howard Schultz (UCLA, 2008)
When a company is not making an effort to make its people “feel” the purpose of their
actions, change can be significantly inhibited. Employees can experience burn-out, impairing
their physical and mental abilities, and making it more and more difficult to complete their daily
tasks; let alone be ideating and innovating. Dan Heath said, “What looks like lazy, is often
actually exhaustion…change wears people out” (FastCompany, Why Change is so Hard, 2010).
It is because of this, that I proposed to our Board of Directors that we try and identify only one or

two of these action items at this time to pursue. Rosabeth Kanter spoke of six keys to leading
positive change. One of those keys was to “never give up” (TEDxTalks, 2013). Never giving up
can be an awfully daunting task when faced with something uncomfortable, different, unknown
and all of the other things that change is. If you don’t have an inner connectedness, a feeling-
driven motivation to persevere, your capacity, ability and desire to struggle through the process,
and not regress to the ‘easier’ and more familiar “known” becomes compromised. I believe that
it will be integral to incorporate this buy-in before trying to implement too much change in our
organization. Considering the heavy workloads that many employees are often experiencing, it
is important that they know why they will need to incorporate something additional. As well as
the long term benefits and task reduction.
The change curve seen in Figure 1 below, is something to consider when investigating
the path of change. Though the presented emotions may not directly reflect all of those
experienced in professional based changes, a degree of them are and will continue to be present
when faced with organizational change. We can consider these stages as we are evaluating the
adoption and any chosen plan resulting from this project in hopes to better understand where
both our employees and our donors are throughout the process.
Figure 1: The Change Curve (The Change Curve, 2015)

“Learn to love change…manage [it] in a positive way.” – Ursula Burns (MITVideo,
2008).
We have seen examples of companies who take promoting a culture of innovation to a
new level (Zappos, Google, IDEO). These companies utilize open communication, little
hierarchal structure, unconventional physical settings and diverse hiring structures in order to
maintain alignment with the necessity for their companies to be extremely innovative to survive.
Models such as IDEOs “idea thinking” which incorporates outside-in and knowledge channel
innovations, exercises innovative methodology as stated by Morris (2011, p.85) to, “Make their
own luck…increase their influence over the market”--staying one step ahead of the game by
being fully informed. Positive and negative change is something that can come on as the result
of many different variables: wicked problems, innovations, economic shifts, turn-over…the list
is virtually endless. In the case of this project, they are mostly due to innovations and economic
shifts. As victims to change brought on by whatever means, our options are to accept that
change is inevitable, or to deny the effects and necessity of change, struggle to remain stagnant
and fail to breed a culture of innovative change with growth opportunities. By modeling these
successful cultures, and accepting, preparing for and initiating change, we can take back the
power and lead what changes we are affected by.

Conclusion
John Kotter discussed the difference between change management and change leadership.
Change leaders can create a positive sense of urgency and empowerment. By initiating change,
they can take back the control. With a change leader, the didactic relationship between
management and team members can be open and flowing; inviting a culture and environment
which contributes to strong ideating. Like John Kotter said, “…[you want] a highly skilled
driver and one heck of a car…” in order to decrease your risks and increase your ‘engine’, or
desire and ability to initiate change (Dr. John Kotter, 2012). Being able to not only initiate and
nurture the change, but also being able to control (and lose control where necessary) and
maintain a directive and sense of security to support the change process are all ingredients to
sustaining a changing environment. By implementing and intentional strategic approach and
taking control of our influence over the local culture of philanthropy, we can directly influence
our active change leadership, and hope to increase our overall return as a result.
In the video, “You Need Strategy for Your Organization”, Professor Michael Porter
stated that we should not base our success on the failures of other similar organizations in our
area (Baniasad, 2012). This is especially true in the human service field. We wish to have the
most resources available to those who need them as possible, whether that’s from us or
somewhere else. Instead of focusing on the failures of others, or even the successes of others, we
have chosen just to focus on ourselves. Educating people on who we are and what we do. This
strategic plan strived to maintain that ideology, with no concentration on the influence, failure or
manipulation of other community organizations or competing agencies. An industry environment
analyses shows us that we are already excelling at what we do in the community comparatively
to the capacity of others within the industry—people just have to see it. To date, 79% of our

scheduled tours have resulted in a monetary donation of over $10,000 on the spot. We have
identified our strengths as our programs and members. Strategically placing community
members in front of the activities that we are doing has helped to influence support both
monetarily and in kind, and strives to be the future of our stewardship.
We can consider the United States as a group which accepts the adoption of new
innovations. We as individuals are always looking to stay one step ahead of the next
technological discovery; buying new phones, computers and into new ideas of simplifying our
lives and adopting convenience (and being mostly unaware of the paradox of progress we are
creating). In the U.S. the basis of the culture represents individuals who are looking to save
time, do things quickly, conveniently and easily; making more time to do more things (paradox
of progress). In business however, we seem to be more resistant to adopt some of those things
we are so ready to accept in our personal lives. We fail to consider our expectations as a
consumer, and project those onto our contributors. By bridging the gap between the donor and
the nonprofit leader, we can attempt to see our cultures as one—understand better the others
wants and needs. This strategic plan was presented as several optional approaches to combat this
one overarching issue of disconnectedness. By identifying which approach would be most
successful for us, and implementing it, we can hope to address our current limited philanthropic
influence. It was my ultimate recommendation that one to two of these action items be identified
as having the highest success rate of return for our organization and to pursue those.

Executive Summary
One of the most significant barriers affecting my organization is an inconsistency
between the programs that donors wish to fund, and the most basic of both organizational
operating needs and the physical needs of the community we are serving. There has been a
significant shift in the trends of philanthropy which have resulted in donors allocating donations
to support specific programs or initiatives that are “trendy” within the suburban culture at the
time. Through PEST and SWOT analyses, and survey interviews with donors and nonprofit
executives I have examined current trends in philanthropy impacting programs and general
operations. After identifying a few core significant variables consistent within the population of
philanthropic influence, I attempted to identify which factors are present and functional parts of
our current operations in respect to philanthropy and where seem to be the greatest areas of
growth. Ultimately, identifying a strategic action plan to move towards a more sustainable,
intentional and influential approach to the local culture of philanthropy; rather than a victim of it.
Following the Rule of Five, (Hubbard, 2014) I chose five major donors from the Boys &
Girls Clubs database who I knew were also very active in philanthropy outside of our
organization. As well as five CEO’s who operate local nonprofits which offer a variety of
services such as Big Brothers Big Sisters, United Way, Salvation Army, and Boys & Girls Clubs.
Each individual was e-mailed a link to their respective ten question multiple choice and open
ended surveys, along with a disclosure form which allowed them to specify anonymity if desired.
The majority of respondents wished to remain anonymous with no ties to their individual
answers. For this result, I chose to exercise complete discretion keeping only consistent the
individual responses to each question with a designated identifying number. Conscious effort
was made to avoid loaded terms which may influence responses in any way. Multiple choice
questions were fitted with answers that I had a 90% confidence interval were part of the top

responses in their categories, or established appropriate high and low bounds. It was proposed
that this population sampling would reduce the risk of pursuing philanthropic influence at no
effect.
Donor surveys showed that the majority of the donors surveyed do restrict a portion of
their donations made to nonprofits. There was a great variance in responses to a majority of the
questions. This can be interpreted as the reality of the vast variety of preferences and practices
which are present in the culture of philanthropy and the donor community. This simply lends to
the importance of organizations being tuned into their local or target culture in order to best
analyze, and have a structure to address, the variety of needs and expectations put upon them by
their donor base. Executive responses showed in summary that all surveyed organizations have
restricted donations, all surveyed executives felt they had some influence over the local culture
of philanthropy, all surveyed executives thought donors were influenced by ethnic, social and
media culture—but mostly social culture, all surveyed executives considered their role in the
culture of philanthropy to be predominantly an educator to their donors and all wished that they
could better communicate how impactful their donors contributions are.
After analyzing these responses and conducting both a SWOT and PEST analysis, I
created a strategic plan with four action items. For each item I included an action plan and
timeline. The four action goals were to create a menu of giving, create collaborative
opportunities between the donor and nonprofit leader, create an internal culture of philanthropy
amongst staff and optimize digital communication opportunities. This strategic plan was
presented to members of the staff and board of directors with the intention of encouraging that
one to two of these suggestions be considered further for implementation.

APPENDEXIS
Table 1: PEST Analysis of Genesee County as it pertains to the culture of philanthropy
POLITICAL ECONOMICAL SOCIOCULTURAL TECHNOLOGY
Tax deduction
opportunities
support
philanthropic appeal
Donor
needs/wants/preferences
vary greatly
Low community
access to affordable
literacy support with
33,000-53,000 adults
in the county lacking
basic literacy skills
(National Center for
Education Statistics)
Donors at a high rate
have wide and ready
access to technology
based
communications
Political figures
(and their affiliates)
philanthropic
patterns shift in
accordance with
current “hot issues”
Donors live in a
different demographic
than the people we
serve. Rendering them
disconnected from their
needs leaving the media
and social circles to
influence
Genesee County
closed 24 schools in
the past 10 years
Club e-news system
receives an average
of 30% open rate. A
high statistic which
represents we should
be using this system
more
There are
significant political
(social and
economic) barriers
to certain streams of
funding
Donors want to support
specific initiatives with
tangible outcomes
A stronger national
brand often leaves us
confused with Big
Brothers Big Sisters
in our community
Donors have poor
access to our website
due to antiquated
software on our end.
This is currently
being addressed.
2016 is an election
year
Donors have
misconceptions about
support received from
organizations national
brands
Current trending
issues with literacy
and human
trafficking in the city
are taking precedent
for donors
Donors have no
access to making
digital donations to
our organization.

Table 2. SWOT Analysis of the nonprofit leaders role in the culture of philanthropy
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
Stewardship
techniques already
established
Lack funding to
employ the ideal
manpower needed for
community outreach
positions
Partner with other
local agencies in
programs and analyze
best practices
Mismanaged
nonprofits jade the
perception of the
efficacy of charitable
giving
Board of Directors Lack resources to
complete formal
research on aspects of
the local culture of
philanthropy
Resources gathered
and offered free with
membership by
agencies like
Michigan Nonprofit
Association
Economic decline
Nonprofit leader
personally
invested/informed in
the local culture of
philanthropy
Nonprofit leaders are
often in a different
social/income
demographic than
most major donors
Special events can
influence, inspire and
inform donors about
giving
Social media/social
trends influencing the
culture of
philanthropy
Agency mission can
evoke emotional
responses from
donors
Afraid/hesitant of
change—often get
stuck in habits
Create a network of
communication using
internal and external
boundary spanning
positions
Needs/wants differ
between each
individual donor
Nonprofit leaders are
at the forefront of
donor
communication--
maximize on this
Slow pace of plan
implementation due
to approval processes
and unclear chains of
command
Establish menu of
giving and
incentive/recognition
programs for donors
Other local agencies
competing for the
same limited funds;
over exhausting
donors with “asks”

Table 3: Donor survey response table
Donor 1 Donor 2 Donor 3 Donor 4 Donor 5
Range of annual
giving
$5,001-$25,000 $50,001-
$100,000
$5,001-$25,000 $25,001-$50,000 Morethan
$100,000
Percent of your
donations that are
restricted
0% 25% 25% 0% 25%
What most
influences your
desire to donate
to a nonprofit?
Demographic
served
Agency mission Personal history
with the agency
Agency mission Personal history
with the agency
What are you
most likely to
donate for?
Annual Fund
Campaign
Annual Fund
Campaign
Special event
sponsorship
Annual Fund
Campaign
Funds to support a
specific initiative
How strong is
your ethnic
cultures influence
on your charitable
giving?
Not at all Not at all Slightly Not at all Slightly
How strong is
your social
cultures influence
on your charitable
giving?
Not at all Slightly Slightly Not at all Slightly
How strong is the
media or current
hot issues
influence on your
charitable giving?
Slightly Not at all Slightly Slightly Slightly
Do you feel it is
more appropriate
for the nonprofit
for the donor to
decide how a
donation is used?
Collaboration
between the two
Nonprofit Donor Collaboration
between the two
Collaboration
between the two
What is one thing
you wish
agencies would
do more for their
donors?
Post specific
results and
progress
Nothing Publicize the
donation
Many agencies
wastemoney on
plaques. The
money should go
more towards
programs
…Agencies need
to understand
when a donor is
willing to give of
their money only
and are not
available for big
time commitments
Please provide
any additional
information you
would like to
share
… … … I believe that
personal giving is
directly tied to an
individual’s values
…

Table 4: Executive survey response table
Executive 1 Executive 2 Executive 3 Executive 4 Executive 5
Percentage of
annual donations
that are
unrestricted
51%-75% 51%-75% Less than 25% More than 75% 51%-75%
Do you feel you
have access to
necessary
information to
educate yourself
on the current
culture of
philanthropy?
Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Do you feel you
have the power
to influence the
local culture of
philanthropy?
A little A little A little A little Strong influence
Does your
organization
currently have a
strategic
approach to
obtaining
individual
donations?
No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Does your
organization
currently have a
strategic
approach to
influencing
cultural trends in
philanthropy?
No Currently
working on one
Currently
working on one
Yes Yes
How greatly do
you feel ethnic
culture
influences
donors?
Slightly Very Slightly Very Slightly
How greatly do
you feel social
culture
influences donor
activity?
Very Very Very Very Slightly
How greatly do
you feel media or
current, “hot
issues” influence
donoractivity?
Very Slightly Very Very Slightly
What do you feel
your role is in the
culture of
philanthropy?
Educate
people on
where their
money goes
and outcomes
…I am a “broker
of social
investment”.
Taking the
financial
Use mailings,
newsletters and
visits to update
donors on what
we believe the
I feel I have a
very large role in
the culture of
philanthropy.
Dialogue with
Small funds and
donations are
very
strategically
invested to have

investments of
people in the
community and
transforming
them into social
investments. My
job is to help
people view
philanthropy in
this way
community
really needs,
seek funding
and explain our
impact on those
that we serve
funders, civic
leaders and
media are hugely
important.
Ensuring their
investment is
paying,
“dividends” is
my primary role
the largest
impact. The
[agency] uses a
teaspoon
approach.
Thousands of
teaspoons
togetherhave an
impact on scale.
What is the most
important piece
of information
you wish you
could better
communicate to
donors regarding
their donations to
nonprofits?
How the
donations help
fulfill the
agency
mission
I wish we could
showdonors
more of all the
wonderful things
we do and how
much we value
their
contributions.
Many of our
donors believe
that because we
have a national
brand, that their
contribution may
not be as
valuable as it
truly is.
Our primary
message to
donors is that
we would like
them to provide
a legacy gift
(will) that
provides for
both our
operating and
capital needs
[I wish] we
could get more
of our donors
critical feedback
on our programs
and their
perception of our
service delivery
All donations
stay in the local
community

Appendix A: Project Plan Flowchart

Appendix B: Original Survey Questions
L1: Donor Survey- https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Q6QY2QD
L2: Executive Survey- https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Q6K3VC2

Appendix C: Strategic Plan Action Plan STRATEGIC PLANNING – Action Plan Form
Goal # 1: Create a “menu” of giving opportunities which allows donors to select a particular program or initiative which interests them;
representing the actualcost of operations for the entire program for one calendar year including staff, space,materials, utilities used during the
duration of the program, etc.
Goal team members: TauzzariRobinson (CEO), Amber Miller (Director of Operations), Connie Peters (Development Director), Nicole Goff
(Finance Director), Marcia Heller (Marketing Coordinator), Emily Leonard (Averill Unit Director), Sam McGaughy (Haskell Unit Director)
Action Steps Dates
Start End
Responsible Resources* Status
1 Director staff identify a diverse list of programs to
be included in the menu
Oct. ‘15 Oct. ‘15 Director of
Operations, Unit
Directors
Calendar of
events and
programs
2 Identify the operating costs for each program for
one calendar year
Nov. ‘15 Nov. ‘15 Finance
Director, CEO
Quickbooks
3 Designate sponsorship levels and establish their
respective “rewards”/acknowledgements
Nov. ‘15 Nov. ‘15 Development
Director,
Director of
Operations,
CEO
Donors,
community
partners, BGCA
4 Create a clean, easy to read and appealing
document to present to donors with annual appeal
Dec. ‘15 Dec. ‘15 Marketing
Coordinator
BGCA
5 Monitor/analyze reactions to this new option of
giving
Fe. ‘16 Ongoing Development
Director, CEO
Annual appeal
results, donors
©The Leadership Group LLC

STRATEGIC PLANNING – Action Plan Form
Goal # 2: Create a committee to establish a framework for donors to have a collaborative part in designating their donations.
Goal team members: TauzzariRobinson (CEO), Board of Directors, Donor Engagement Committee
Action Steps Dates
Start End
1 CEO and Board establish donor engagement
committee
Dec. ‘15 Feb. ‘16 CEO, Board of
Directors
2 Donor engagement committee establishes best
practices for donor-executive collaboration
Mar. ‘16 Jun. ‘16 Donor
Engagement
Committee
Donors,
Michigan
Nonprofit
Association,
Wealth Engine
3 CEO implements best practices Jul. ‘16 Ongoing CEO Donor
Engagement
Committee,
Donors
4 Committee monitors activity Ongoing Ongoing Donor
Engagement
Committee
CEO, Donors,
Director Staff

Create a Culture of Philanthropic Interest at all Levels of the Organization
Goal # 3: Create an internal culture of investment in the philanthropic community. Encourage, expect and support all employees in their
participation in the local culture of philanthropy to create more insider knowledge and influence.
Goal team members: TauzzariRobinson (CEO), Amber Miller (Director of Operations), Board of Directors
Action Steps Dates
Start End
1 CEO analyze current internal investment in the
culture of philanthropy
Oct. ‘15 Jan. ‘16 CEO, Director
of Operations
Interviews,
SWOT,
observations
2 Research best practices for implementing buy-in to
the culture of philanthropy
Jan. ‘16 Aug. ‘16 CEO, Director
of Operations,
Board of
Directors
Michigan
Nonprofit
Association,
BEST Project
3 CEO, with Board and Director staff, establish
independent strategic plan for internal culture
changes
Sept. ‘16 Dec. ‘16 CEO, Board of
Directors
VISTAs &
School
employees
4 Continued effort in cultivating the culture and
monitoring its sustainability
Ongoing Ongoing All staff and
Board of
Directors
Strategic plan

Goal # 4: Create an independent strategic plan to digital marketing and communication. Capitalizing on opportunities to share
thought provoking and emotional stories and educating information to influence the culture of philanthropy
Goal team members: TauzzariRobinson (CEO), Connie Peters (Development Director), Marcia Heller (Marketing Coordinator), Digital
Marketing Committee
Action Steps Dates
Start End
1 Identify digital marketing committee Oct. ‘15 Nov. ‘15 Development
Director, CEO,
Marketing
Coordinator
2 Identify information to be shared Nov. ‘15 Dec. ‘15 Digital Marketing
Committee
Other organizations, insider
knowledge
3 Create digital marketing schedule Oct. ‘14 Dec. ‘15 Digital Marketing
Committee
Other organizations, internet,
community partners,BGCA
4 Identify more innovative ways to share information
to donors
Jan. ‘16 Jan. ‘16 Digital Marketing
Committee
Other organizations, internet,
community partners,BGCA
5 Update and release as timely as possible Development
Director, Marketing
Coordinator, CEO

References
Baniasad, R. (2012, July 22). You Need Strategy for Your Organization. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DViVtgD0xwE
BCCBusinessClips. (2012, Jan. 26). Fedex and UPS Documentary. Retrieved on June 23, 2014
from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZu_gxi3sbs
Chang, S., Chang, S. & Kuei-Kuei, L. (2008). Exploring Technology Diffusion and
Classification of Business Methods: Using the Patent Citation Network. Technology
Forecasting & Social Change.
Dr. John Kotter. (2012, Feb. 6). Change Management vs. Change Leadership—What’s the
Difference? Retrieved on June 30, 2014 from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ssUnbrhf_U
FastCompany. (2010, Sept. 15). Dan Heath: How to Find Bright Spots. Retrieved on June 30,
2010 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbLNOS7MxFc
FastCompany. (2010, Sept. 16). Dan Heath: Want Your Organization to Change? Put Feelings
First. Retrieved on June 30, 2014 from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhBzxy7CneM
FastCompany. (2010, Sept. 16). Why Change is so Hard. Retrieved on June 30, 2014 from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpiDWeRN4UA
Hoskisson, R., Hitt, M., Ireland, R., & Harrison, J. (2013). Competing for Advantage (3rd ed.).
Mason, OH: South-Western.
Hubbard, D. (2014). How to Measure Anything. Finding the Value of ”Intangibles in
Business” (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Johnson, S. & Reichard, R. (2010). Leader Self-Development as Organizational Strategy. The

Leadership Quarterly. Elsevier Inc.
Kryscynski, D. (2014). PEST Analysis. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7pUv_ZWnyM
Lynda Ronnie. The Leadership Group, LLC., (2015)
MITVideo. (2008, March 3). A Conversation on Leadership. Retrieved on June 17, 2014, from
http://video.mit.edu/watch/a-conversation-on-leadership-9657/
Morris, L. (2011). Permanent Innovat!on. Innovation Academy. Walnut Creek, CA.
National Center for Education Statistics. Flint Public Library. Retrieved on September 29, 2015
from http://www.fpl.info/fpl/literacy/index.html
TEDx Talks. (2013, Jan. 7). Six Keys to Leading Positive Change: Rosabeth Moss Kanter at
TEDxBeacon Street. Retrieved on June 30, 2014, from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owU5aTNPJbs
The Change Curve. Retrieved on October 1, 2015 from
https://www.exeter.ac.uk/media/universityofexeter/humanresources/documents/learningd
evelopment/the_change_curve.pdf
UCLA. (2008, Sept. 26). How Starbucks Built a Global Brand [Video file]. Retrieved June 17,
2014, from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kAiEO6jP48&feature=share&list=PLF3BED8A407
F44FEE&index=46
Vishwanath, A. (2005). Impact of Personality on Technology Adoption: An Empirical Model.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology.

Capstone Project

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Capstone Project

Capstone Project