Grant-funded agencies? Get ready for rough waters!

The latest from Financial Advisor:

Foundations To Cut Grants in ‘09

Market losses last year have prompted U.S. foundations to cut back on their planned donations in 2009, according to a new survey.

Of the 350 foundations surveyed, about half suffered portfolio losses of 20% or more in 2008 and 30% endured losses of between 10% and 20%. Just 12% of the foundations broke even or achieved gains in their portfolios.

The joint survey by Citi Institutional Consulting and the Association of Small Foundations (ASF) also found that more than 60% of the foundations plan to reduce their grant budgets by between 10% and 50%. Some foundations said they will no longer accept new grant applications or designate new grantees, and will avoid multi-year commitments.

Most foundations said they foresaw few changes in their asset allocations and would continue with their long-term investing strategies, according to the survey.

“In the face of very challenging circumstances, our members are trying to minimize the damage to their foundations and maximize the ability to fulfill their missions," said Tim Walter, CEO of ASF. "What this tells us is that small foundations are doing their utmost to balance responsiveness and prudence."

Good Capital / Social Capital Index

The latest eNewsletter from Good Capital reports:

Two months ago the Good Capitalist released the first edition of the Social Capital Index, a timely tracking of investments in the social capital market. Through the DealSpace feature, the Index tracks capital movements in social enterprise (health, education, and workforce development), fair trade, digital inclusion, and some clean tech and microfinance investments. This month the SoCap Index returns with a new feature: Deals in Play.

The DealSpace section of the Index lists investments already made, while Deals in Play presents investments waiting to happen. The companies and funds listed in Deals in Play are actively seeking capital to either get their enterprise off the ground or expand an already proven business model. Through an initial screen, Good Capital has identified these companies as promising social enterprises. Good Capital has not conducted due diligence on the entities listed and makes no claims about their viability, but it presents them here in an effort to make it easier for worthy enterprises and investors to find each other. As with the rest of the Social Capital Index that tracks funds and companies that have received money, Deals in Play will eventually be incorporated into a searchable online database.

Learn more here:
http://www.xigi.net/

or

http://www.goodcap.net/

----------------------------------
What do you think? Please click the COMMENTS button below.

Achieving Impact and Sustainability through Market Based Approaches

I received this important notice from Community Wealth Ventures, and wanted to share:

Achieving Impact and Sustainability through Market Based Approaches

Discussion Highlights

On October 27, 2007 Community Wealth Ventures gathered together 40 philanthropic leaders for a day-long summit in Washington, D.C. with the goal of exploring how to make use of market strategies to fulfill the missions of nonprofit organizations. Our intent was to provide a forum for discussion and sharing about the successes, challenges, and lessons learned by nonprofits and grantmakers that have pioneered market-based approaches to social change.

This report is a summary adaptation of the presentations and discussions of the day.

Click here to download read the report (PDF).


----------------------------------
What do you think? Please click the COMMENTS button below.

The Sins of Philanthrocapitalism?

Thanks to Sean Stannard-Stockton for continuing the conversation with me over at Tactical Philanthropy. His latest article, George Overholser Responds: Sustainable Nonprofits, includes an interesting discussion of the role of earned vs. non-earned income.

I would encourage you to get involved in the conversation, particularly at the point where it drops off... (Builders vs. Buyers).

----------------------------------
What do you think? Please click the COMMENTS button below.

Finance and Commerce

Kendall Anderson of Finance and Commerce writes an insightful article entitled, "Nonprofits aim to stay afloat in tough economy."

So, what will keep Twin Cities’ nonprofits afloat and effective in today’s choppy economic times?

Innovation, strategic partnership and “out of the box thinking,” said Kate Wolford, president of the McKnight Foundation, the state’s largest private foundation.

She and other leaders in the local nonprofit sector spoke this week about the tough economy and its impact on nonprofits at an event hosted by the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.

The nonprofit sector, which represents a greater percentage of Minnesota’s economy than the sector does nationally – 10 percent here vs. 8 percent in the U.S. – typically feels the bulk of the impact of a recession a year after it hits.

When a tough economy results in lower investment returns for foundations, a corollary is often that the people and entities that normally give money to nonprofits to do the bread-and-butter work of alleviating poverty and improving an area’s quality of life have less to give.

Read the full article here.

----------------------------------
What do you think? Please click the COMMENTS button below.

V3 Campaign: Important Campaign for the Sector

Did you know...

• Over $260 billion is donated to non-profits each year?
  
• As such, non-profits represent 7% of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP)?
  
• Over 80 million people volunteer for a non-profit each year?
  
• Over 7% of all Americans -- 14 million people -- work for a non-profit organization?
  
• Non-profits hold over $3 trillion in assets (which, if combined, would make the sector one of the top 10 economies in the planet)?

Thanks to Robert Egger and the V3 Campaign for reminding candidates for higher office—from small town mayoral contenders to presidential nominees—to of the importance of the non-profit sector.

Learn more about Robert's plans here:
http://www.v3campaign.org/

----------------------------------
What do you think? Please click the COMMENTS button below.

If you had Google's ear.... would you whisper or scream?

Over at Tactical Philanthropy, Sean Stannard-Stockton has taken a very difficult task onto his shoulders by asking the question:

What to Measure and Why in Philanthropy?

(Continued thanks to Phil Cubeta for pointing us to interesting things like this... does the man ever blink, let alone sleep?)

Sean's question comes as he works to prepare for a "meeting with someone from Google.org next week to talk about what kind of information I think they should make available about nonprofits in Google Finance and other ways that Google.com’s mission statement to “organizing the world’s information” can be directed at the Third Sector."

Here are my thoughts...

As we approach the elections, I am reminded of a similar question: What makes a good country?

Is it simply GDP growth? % of electorate who participate in elections? Average income? Average lifespan?

I think it can be very difficult to gauge a good non-profit organization. In fact, I think that we have a problem with the way that we gauge all organizations.

The over-reliance on financial measures for evaluating a for-profit company is a problem, as well. I am in the minority with this idea, but I do not believe that the purpose of a company is to make money. I believe that it is to provide a needed service or product to the community.

This is the case for non-profit and for-profit companies. Their distinction should be limited to tax designation.

Is it a profitable company a good company if it causes social ills? Is a company that provides social benefits a bad company if it operates at a deficit?

These are the larger questions that we must ask ourselves.

----------------------------------
What do you think? Please click the COMMENTS button below.

UT Southwestern: A Case Study in the Core Problem with Major Gift Fundraising

The Dallas Morning News recently ran a series of articles about how "UT Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas keeps a detailed list of wealthy, high-profile and influential people and their family members to ensure that they get favored treatment if they become patients."

This 'favored treatment' is getting the University into some very hot water, particularly with implications that people on the "A-List" are getting better medical care than people off the list (which the Medical Center denies here).

Read the latest story here.

The DMN's James Ragland wrote an interesting follow-on piece for this article entitled, "Hospital can offer extra courtesy, not better care." In the piece, Mr. Ragland states that, "UT Southwestern's operating budget in 2005-06... was $1.27 billion, of which 11 percent came from the state and another 16 percent came from federal grants and contracts. (Grants, gifts and other income account for 31%). That's why UT Southwestern is busy courting potential donors and why its Special Assistance Office is shamelessly using its growing list to make sure no one with special needs leaves disappointed."

Several observations about all this mess:

• Every non-profit treats their donor differently than non-donors. Highlighting top prospects for "star treatment" is considered a best practice among fundraisers. Since the majority of donations are provided by a minority of an organization's donors, that minority gets disproportionately better treatment per capita. This is simply good fundraising.
  
• Such a practice is considered "good business" in other fields. For-profit corporations roll out the red carpet for their shareholders. When I was a waiter at a restaurant, we were always put "on alert" when the owner came in for a meal. Companies like Neiman-Marcus have excelled by knowing when one of their elite customers is in the store and having their staff treat them appropriately. UT Southwestern is simply cultivating stronger relationships among its top donors; the problem, which I describe below this list, is that this practice makes the rest of us feel less valuable once we are aware of it.
  
• The fact that this list was "secret" should be no surprise. As much as they might enjoy the star treatment, wealthy donors do not like to think that they have a target on their back. The perception that you are being "watched" makes most people uncomfortable, even if its for the purpose of treating you well. More on this below, as well.
  
• Similarly, think of the common Internet practice of tracking a Web site visitor's reading habits so that the most relevant content can be put on the screen. When I go to Amazon, the Web site puts content in front of me that I am interested in. Do I like being tracked? Of course not. Do I enjoy the experience more because Amazon shows me what I like rather than showing me the same thing it shows everyone? Of course I do. UT Southwestern is simply tracking its donors the way that effective sales programs track their customers.
  
• UT Southwestern's core mission happens to be providing a service that its top donors can utilize (healthcare services). By contrast, look at my organization (Central Dallas Ministries). Our mission is about providing services to the poor -- food pantries, health clinics, housing programs, etc. By virtue of their wealth, our top donors will never utilize our services. For me to criticize UT Southwestern by saying I would never implement their practice of giving preferred service to donors is ludicrous. The fact is, UT Southwestern should be praised by its peers for its advanced donor stewardship practices. They realize that their donors are not bank accounts: they are people.
  
• By comparison, think about how universities and schools give preference to the children of alumni and donors in the admissions process. This is no revelation, and yet there are no "expose" articles in The Dallas Morning News about such practices. Again, it is simply considered good business practice for the universities.
  
• Perhaps the reason for this backlash is that, whereas education has historically been more accessible only to the wealthy, access to healthcare is seen as a much more universal right. The idea that the wealthy would receive better treatment within the context of a healthcare system is therefore much less acceptable to us than in the educational environment. This is exacerbated by the fact that, in healthcare, lives are on the line.

Last night, I watched Michael Moore's film "SiCKO." Although I greatly enjoyed the film, and agree that we need universal health care, I am sure that Mr. Moore would have differing opinions on this issue than I do. I am sure that he would see this as another example of the rich beating down the poor.

And perhaps he would be right.

But the problem is not UT Southwestern. It is the American healthcare system's finance model.

UT Southwestern should not be blamed for acknowledging that their resource engine is driven by charitable contributions, and then implementing a system that would strengthen this engine. They should not become a scapegoat for the fact that, in America, poor people do not have access to quality healthcare.

The reality is that UT Southwestern needs donations to do its work, and those donations primarily come from wealthy people or through the influence of powerful people like politicians. Since these people utilize UT Southwestern's healthcare sevices, the organization has made the good business decision to pay special attention to the services delivered to those people.

Delivering inferior service to anyone would be a bad thing. But delivering bad service to someone on UT Southwestern's "A-List" would have the double impact of both hurting that individual as well as their potential to help UT Southwestern serve others.

That being said, the aforementioned articles all contain quotes from UT Southwestern's staff about how these "A List" donors are not receiving disproportionately better medical care, and they also contain some quotes from the donors themselves to back this up.

Of course, this is the problem with Major Gift fundraising:
you can't talk about it.
Imagine if your "non-major" donors were told that they were second tier in terms of your concern about them or their relationship to your organization. Some could be greatly hurt -- particularly those who consider your organization to be one of their "major charities."

If a middle- or low-income donor is stretching to make a three- or four-figure gift to you, but you only consider donors who annually give $10,000 or more to be major donors, you could irreversibly hurt your relationship with those "minor donors" if you somehow make them aware of the fact that they are not on your "A-List."

We all want to be special. Particuarly as donors, we want to feel that we are important. We intuitively know that we are not all equally important, but we don't like to acknowledge that fact.

This is why I have never understood the use of titles such as "Major Gifts Officer." It acknowledges a tiering system that cannot help but make major donors feel like they are seen as nothing more than a bank account. And what about minor donors?

"Oh, hello there Mr. Ben E. Factor. What's that? You're here to see our Major Gift Officer? I am sorry. According to your gift record, you're only in the portfolio of our Annual Fund Director. Let me give them a ring and see if they can squeeze you in. Did you bring your credit card today?"

I realize that a title such as "Relationship Manager" or "Friendship Builder" would likely raise too many questioning eyebrows, but I think that fundraisers need to consider themselves to be much more in the business of building sustainable relationships with donors than simply in the business of securing gifts.

I applaud UT Southwestern for developing and implementing this advanced system of donor cultivation. I can guarantee you that the majority of the staff interviewed from UT Southwestern's peer organizations are going to consider implementing such a practice soon, even though they expressed such outrage at the idea.

I regret that this series of articles has forced UT Southwestern to take the blame for what is in reality the nature of their business.

But more importantly, I regret that we have all created a system in which these kinds of practices are necessary for a healthcare institution to do its basic work of healing the sick.

A few things to consider before leaving Corporate America to change the world...

In an interview with The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Laura Gassner Otting, a recruiter for nonprofit organizations and author of Change Your Career: Transitioning to the Nonprofit Sector, talked about the differences between the business and nonprofit worlds — and what type of candidate is most likely to succeed at a charity.

A Recruiter Gives Guidance to Those Seeking Switch to a Nonprofit Career - Philanthropy.com

This remark struck me:

What types of people are most likely to succeed in making the transition from for-profit to nonprofit work?

"Those who are generally most successful at making the transition are those who recognize the distinct differences between the sectors and do not bemoan the nonprofit sector's inability to work more like the corporate world. They delegate with kindness and empathy while demanding accountability. They revel in the diversity of the sector and are adaptable, flexible, and open in their management and communications styles. They are multi-taskers and are able to manage broad portfolios of responsibility. They can deliver impressive results with limited resources. Finally, and equally as important, they have a distinct passion for the work of the nonprofit."

I agree with all of this, though I do not think that much of it is that unique to the non-profit sector. I think it just makes good business sense.

Here are some additional characteristics that I think are important which are, in fact, specific to non-profit management vs. leading a for-profit corporation:

• They need to understand the unique financing structure of non-profit organizations; the barriers to securing debt and inability to provide equity to shareholders is a major barrier in non-profit financing.
  
• They need to appreciate the variety of types of board leadership that is found in the non-profit sector, the various roles that boards fill in leading the organization and how it is different than for-profit corporation's boards;
  
• They need to be able to adjust their expectations for allowable staff expenses; I have found that this is a surprisingly difficult issue. People in corporate environments are used to getting reimbursed for many of their expenses -- this is often not the case in non-profits, which face a great deal of scrutiny on such expenses.
  
• On a related note, they need to understand the unique pressures placed on non-profits regarding stewardship of resources and expenses. It is very difficult for people who are used to investing significant percentages of sales in advertising/promotions to transition to the "blood from a turnip" mentality of non-profit sales/fundraising.
  
• They need to not only be inspiring leaders (which all organizations need), but they need to understand the need to use legislative leadership rather than executive power. Jim Collins talks about this very eloquently in his powerful mongraph, "Good to Great and the Social Sectors." When your employees are underpaid and overworked -- and especially when you are working with volunteers -- you cannot drive performance with a whip. Collins' discussion of executive vs. legislative leadership is a critical distinction that people who transition to the non-profit world must grasp.

DISCUSSION: What are the additional characteristics that you think make a great non-profit executive?

Essential Collaboration: Fund Development & Finance

My friend Sharon Bailey, Director of Education for the Center for Nonprofit Management, has invited me to facilitate a panel discussion on August 15, 2007 from 1:00 - 4:00 p.m. The session is entitled "Essential Collaboration: Fund Development & Finance." See below for details -- I encourage you to join us!


The event will feature the following panelists:

• Michelle Monse, President and CEO of the Carl B. and Florence E. King Foundation
  
• Tessie Holloway, President and CEO of the Lupus Foundation of North Texas
  
• Elaine L. Sommerville, CPA
  
• Sheila Marlow, CFRE, Senior Development Officer for TWU (Texas Woman’s University) and past chair of the D/FW Philanthropy Conference

There also may be another surprise guest, as we are awaiting confirmation from one more person.

I encourage you to attend this event, which will discuss the importance of accountability, stewardship and effective financial management within both the development and finance department of a non-profit organization. You can learn more here:

e-Events : Event Details and Registration

Here is the event description:

Enhancing how the finance and development departments work together can benefit the entire organization, freeing time and energy to focus on achieving the agency's mission. Accountability and transparency are no longer idealistic concepts, but rather requirements for nonprofits to continue to attract resources and demonstrate effectiveness. This session provides participants with effective tools and practices that these two critical departments can use to support working together effectively and efficiently. Content includes an overview of the different objectives of the fund development and finance departments; identification of the most common obstacles to interdepartmental coordination and cooperation; best practices to work through roadblocks; structures and routines that smooth the way to a strong collaborative working relationship; and other tips that help ensure consistency of information and the highest possible level of accountability.

Please help me to spread the word about this event. We'd like to have a large group to hear from these guests, and to facilitate a good conversation.

The Changing Philanthropy Scene

I recently discovered the "Inside Philanthropy" blog of the Philanthropy Journal. They seem to have some interesting articles that are not the typical "look at how great it is to be in philanthropy!" articles of other blogs. This one really grabbed me:

Inside Philanthropy: Nonprofits need investment capital

I was also impressed by their blog "Foundations need to get real." Hopefully, they will continue to challenge our sector to think about its funding models and business pracatices.

A similar discussion is going on at the Foundation Center's "Philanthropy News Daily." Here is a recent articke that they wrote about SeaChange Capital Partners, "an organization founded by two former Goldman Sachs partners, is applying Wall Street methods to help charities build their capacity, the New York Times reports." Here is the article:

PND - News - SeaChange Capital Partners Employ Wall Street Methods to Assist Charities


The article includes an interesting presentation on how College Summit and Teach for America both used these tactics to raise significant "growth funds." I wrote about this some last week in a blog, Raising Venture Capital for Philanthropy, about how some NPOs are using IPO-type strategies to raise funds.

One thing is certain: this is a very interesting time to be a fundraiser. Indeed, one of the core aspects of our basic reporting functions is under review:

Proposed Changes to the Form 990

In addition, there are many ongoing discussions about how we hold ourselves accountable to a high level of transparency and stewardship. Check out this blog:

NONPROFIT EYE: DON'T TELL THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

In fact, some people are talking about changing the name of the non-profit sector:

Philanthropy.com: What's in a Name?

What else is in the future for non-profits/social enterprises/community-owned organizations/charities/___(insert your favorite alternative here)___?

Raising Venture Capital for Philanthropy

I previously wrote about Homeward Bound's IPO -- not an Initial Public Offering, as it is known in the corporate world, but an "Immediate Public Opportunity ... to end homelessness." Up to 200,000 "fundraising shares" have been made available at $32 each.

The first share was famously purchased by Warren Buffet.

They are calling this the "first-ever charity IPO" . . . but this actually builds on efforts previously launched at other organizations, such as College Summit. For example, see this April 2006 story in Fast Company about a "private placement" that raised $15 million from 10 investors to support the organization's growth:

Next: A Nonprofit IPO?

Locally, you can read about the efforts of George Ellis in a recent Philanthropy World Magazine. Ellis helped "introduce venture philanthropy to Dallas." He has been critical in the growth and expansion of the Entrepreneurs Foundation of North Texas, led by one of the strongest Executive Directors in our community (Pam Gerber). Ellis and Gerber are working to help companies "do well by doing good," and their perspective on philanthropy builds directly on the work of the venure capital markets.

In fact, you can hear an interview with Pam Gerber here:

Philanthropy World on MN1 [feeds.mn1.com]

At CDM, we've been discussing how to apply these principles to our work. We've made a great deal of progress over the past year, thanks in great part to the work of Karen Waller, Teresa Hiser and our friends at the Dini Partners (who have been advising us on the development of our ongoing capital campaign).

These concepts are not new for such campaigns. However, we are now thinking beyond the simple construction of the building, and to the significantly expanded operations that we will inherit once the buildings are complete. We find ourselves asking:

• How can we possibly ramp up our revenues by 50% over the coming years simply to handle these expansions? (not including the other organic growth that will occur in our other programs)
  
• We do not currently have an endowment -- is there a role for such a funding vehicle within our organization? How could we build it, while the demand for funds is so tight and the organization continues to grow at 25%+ per year?
  
• Instead of an endowment, is there a way to amass a large amount of "working capital" that we can use to fund our existing operations while refocusing our fundraising energies on the capital campaign?
  
• How much will our social enterprise program be able to contribute through its resale operations and car auction program? Will these efforts even be generating a positive cash flow by the time these expansions arrive?
  
• What do our donors -- particularly donors to our capital campaign -- expect of us in terms of expanding our annual fundraising? Are their own commitments going to grow along with their expectations, or are they simply wanting us to find new sources of support?
  
• How can we move beyond the day-to-day, keep-the-lights-on mentality towards a longer-term, strategic perspective on fundraising?
  
• What would a donor need in order to consider a sacrificial, major gift to be used in an unrestricted way to expand our work?
  
• Is there a way to build a case for significant, multi-year commitments from donors?

We are not sure if this is venture philanthropy or simply effective fundraising. Whatever we call it, we understand that our current practices must change and we must adapt to the changing needs of our high-impact investors.

On the matter of charitable business....

In response to several blogs out there on the topic of whether non-profits should act more like for-profit businesses, I wrote the following on Phil Cubeta's blog (which points to two blogs that are among the latest to enter this discussion):

Gift Hub: Something Here Certainly Does Suck:

All things are business, regardless of their individual profit-and-loss statements. What is of chief concern is genuine contribution, which cannot be evaluated purely on an economic basis.

Some companies have great economic performance but create an overall negative contribution to the world: is this success?

Similarly, many companies make significant and positive contributions to the world, but run in deficits: is this failure?

'Non-profit' is a tax status, not a style of business.

The fact that some strong charitable institutions have a difficult time securing funding for their operations is not a commentary on their capacity for excellence, per se, as much as it is a commentary on the flaws within our economic system.

For yet more of my ramblings in response to the greatness that is GiftHub, you should visit:

Gift Hub: The Logic Model: MBOR for Philanthropy

More on logic models in future posts. In the meanwhile, please share your thoughts on any of this.

What is the appropriate balance between "mission" and "margin"?

Part 3: The Revolution Will Not be Funded (Diversified Funding vs. Focused Funding)

As somewhat of a tangent from previous posts about the idea that "The revolution will not be funded," I offer this exploration on the nature of funding in non-profit organizations.

This article on the "third sector" blog, White Courtesy Telephone , cites a very interesting study that will likely cause more than a few ripples in board rooms and fundraising offices throughout the sector:

Fundraising 2.0: How to Get Really Big

The key finding is this:

Bridgespan obtained solid financial data for 110 of the 144 high-growth nonprofits we identified. Of the 110, roughly 90 percent had a single dominant source of funding — such as government, individual donations, or corporate gifts. And on average, that dominant funding source accounted for just over 90 percent of the organization’s total funding.

For years, I have believed that diversity of funding was a great asset for our organization, but that this diversity must focus on providing a sustainable flow of reliable, preferably unrestricted funding. Like many social service organizations, our revenues currently include:

• Individual Giving
  
• Church Giving
  
• Corporate Giving
  
• United Way
  
• Foundations
  
• Public Funds (i.e. federal dollars)
  
• Fees for Service
  
• Sales (i.e. other earned income)
  
• Interest (although we lack an endowment)
  
• Special Events

There are a variety of campaigns within each of these, so our funding strategy is very diverse (which therefore requires quite a bit of administrative support to manage).

We have previously considered this a strength -- in fact, we have been encouraged to develop "multiple funding sources" by the United Way (which provides less than 10% of our overall revenue and yet exerts an incredible influence over how we structure our overall organization, particularly our financing structure). However, in light of the aforementioned findings, I wonder if we are truly pursuing the best strategy for our organization... which is growing by over 20% per year, while also preparing to launch a $20 million capital campaign (an amount that is about 3 times the size of our annual budget).

While pondering this, I came across Jon Pratt's insightful study of non-profit financing models... which evaluates revenues based on the reliability vs. autonomy matrix:

NPQ - Back Issues - Contents by Issue - Fall 2002 V9i3: Counting Our Blessings - npq_v9i3_fundingautonomy-reliablity_pratt

The article posits that there are three levels of reliability:

• High reliability: United Way support, rental income, advertising, small-medium sized individual contributions, endowments, memberships.
  
• Medium reliability: Ongoing government contracts, third-party reimbursements, major individual contributions, fees for services, corporate charitable contributions.
  
• Low reliability: Government project grants, foundation grants, corporate sponsorships.

Similarly, the article puts forth three levels of autonomy within these funding streams with the caveat that "If you take the King’s shilling, you do the King’s bidding":

• High autonomy: small-medium sized individual contributions, endowment, memberships, fees for services, foundation operating grants.
  
• Medium autonomy: major individual contributions, corporate charitable contributions,
  
• Low autonomy: Third party reimbursements, government project grants, ongoing government contracts, foundation project grants, United Way support.

This article also includes a Reliability–Autonomy Worksheet that you can use to calculate your organization's "score." This is also available in a great Excel spreadsheet format here:
http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/files/298-32.xls

Reading these two articles should help non-profit managers and fundraisers to better understand the barriers that they face, as well as their opportunities for future growth. From my perspective, there are three primary sources of funding that all non-profits should emphasize as the base for their funding strategy:

• small-medium sized individual contributions,
• endowment,
• memberships

Additionally, I believe that earned income (rental income, advertising, fees for service) is a fairly reliable source of unrestricted income.

What are your thoughts? I would be very interested to hear how your organization's financing is structured, as well as the strengths and weaknesses within your current model.