good/bad on controversial support

[JimF-LowBari]

Not holding my breath but trying to make this generic how corps could be affected… period. Please no examples…

So a corps gets a donation of money, equipment, use of facilities, you name it. The corps (like all corps) could use the support to help their budget. But the person, group, whatever is controversial for what ever reason. Options I see are:

1) turn down the donation and take a budget hit

2) accept the donation and release a statement saying they don’t agree or accept the concept of free speech about the controversial stuff

3) accept the donation, shut up and hope there isn’t a backlash.

Good side: corps gets donation to help the budget

Bad side: possible (no way to tell how big) backlash affects recruiting and donations

Anything missed or anything to add?

Edited January 15, 2023 by JimF-LowBari

[craiga]

If a nationally known company wanted to give my nonprofit organization $50,000 with absolutely no strings attached, I would take that money any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

As long as it is a legal donation, I wouldn't care where it comes from, particularly when these funds have nothing whatsoever to do with the marching members.

Edited January 15, 2023 by craiga
Spelling

[scheherazadesghost]

This is why the precision of an org's mission/vision/value statement is so crucial.

It continuously reaffirms the strict guidelines by which the org's grantwriters apply for awards. This way they weed out funders who have shown to act against their interests in other ways.

And it clearly signals to funders (who give awards without an application process) where the org's values lie.

The best funders are looking for value alignment first. If they miss the mark on values alignment, I tend to question their motive. Some funders will avoid a non profit if they don't like a current funder. Another component is what are those funders expecting in return? Sponsors, donors, and grantmakers all minimally require a single letter in the mail reflecting their donation. But how do you ensure they'll come back next year? That takes time, energy, expertise, collaboration with marketing, meaningful relationship cultivation, etc.

Too generic of a statement and you run the risk of attracting the wrong funders who may act against the org's interest. There is no "too strict" of a statement IMHO. Meeting the mission is only limited by employee buyin and expertise.

All that said, I think grant recipients can prompt values adjustments for a funder that ultimately lead to greater alignment over time. That's what charities should be doing.

This article explains the landscape well imho. Pay specific attention to the section Favoring Philanthropists’ Needs Over Recipients’: https://johnsoncenter.org/blog/types-of-philanthropic-harm-a-working-list/

Edited January 15, 2023 by scheherazadesghost

[drumcorpsfever]

Is a “worldwide” mission too broad of a reach for attracting local dollars and support?

https://www.dci.org/static/about-drum-corps-international

[scheherazadesghost]

I won't comment on specific missions, but this article explains enough for folks to perhaps draw their own conclusions: https://givingcompass.org/article/the-challenges-of-being-a-global-nonprofit

I've entered several non profits and demolished their missions and curricula. It's part of why I haven't been compatible within the industry honestly. Most non profits move like snails... it's how they were designed. Our world requires urgency.

The B Corp model is preferable to me for this reason.

Edited January 15, 2023 by scheherazadesghost

[Boss Anova]

2 hours ago, drumcorpsfever said:

Is a “worldwide” mission too broad of a reach for attracting local dollars and support?

https://www.dci.org/static/about-drum-corps-international

I believe several DCI Corps in the past have been invited to  ,then  participated in , and were paid for such participation  at , in countries that have been known to imprison , torture , and kill members of the LGBT community , Christian Community , etc and other minority groups in their country . We have quite a few instructors in DCI that are paid to work in musical units overseas with deplorable Human Rights Violation Rights in regards to Women and Minorities … where persecution of minorities ( ethnic , religious , gender , sexual , ) is a daily practice there . I don’t recall “ the concern “ here on DCP for such participation of Corps or instructors , nor payments received for such participation . 
  We have Youth organizations in DCI that still will exclude your participation in their Corps by one’s gender alone . , irrespective of one’s talent and most other qualifications being met.  Even in 2023 . We don’t withhold donations nor participation of such a unit in DCI  based upon their long standing  exclusion of women in their ranks , nor demand they return monies received in DCI events due to such exclusion of women . 
   if we are looking for the purity of money donations to Corps, at a time when all corps are seeking to broaden their reach of revenue streams, then we really are looking to put even MORE obstacles in the road for attempts to keep youth engaged in DCI Drum Corps and for this activity to survive and do good things for its youth .

 

[cixelsyd]

4 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Not holding my breath but trying to make this generic how corps could be affected… period. Please no examples…

So a corps gets a donation of money, equipment, use of facilities, you name it. The corps (like all corps) could use the support to help their budget. But the person, group, whatever is controversial for what ever reason. Options I see are:

1) turn down the donation and take a budget hit

2) accept the donation and release a statement saying they don’t agree or accept the concept of free speech about the controversial stuff

3) accept the donation, shut up and hope there isn’t a backlash.

Good side: corps gets donation to help the budget

Bad side: possible (no way to tell how big) backlash affects recruiting and donations

Anything missed or anything to add?

I suppose it is tempting in this day and age to evaluate options in the format presented here.  But I assert that if we accept those premises, the activity is already on the path to extinction.

The essential choice is simpler.  Are there any strings attached to the donation... restrictions on its use that would be controversial or contrary to the mission?  If not, choose option 3.  Anything else requires us to continually monitor donors against some sort of purity standard, and be ready to return donations whenever their donor is judged to fall short of those standards.

And by the way, if we choose to believe that the acceptance of a donation is in itself a "string attached", then the activity will ultimately have to stop accepting charity as more and more donors are considered insufficiently pure.  Many already are.  You asked not to give examples, but it is not hard to imagine entire nationwide/worldwide institutions that used to sponsor corps all over the place, but could now be considered "controversial".  

Edited January 15, 2023 by cixelsyd

[Boss Anova]

 
  If we are looking for only  holier than thou donations , I’m not sure ( for just one  example )that all the gambling Bingo monies being played and won and lost are from totally  “ clean hands “ in this country either while we are at this , and looking for revenues that meet the standards of a couple of posters here on DCP .

Edited January 15, 2023 by Boss Anova

[scheherazadesghost]

NPs are rarely so financially stable to cut off all ties with funders who may act against their best interests. It's not black and white. But funders do donate to unwitting NPs to whitewash their images. It's a risk development/grantwriting officers manage. They also do their best to ensure that the majority of their funders become more aligned with their mission over time. Thus, these professionals act as the diplomat/negotiator/relationship-builder between the NP and their funders. Such relationships take constant care to stabilize and grow funding.

As an extreme example, I worked for an youth dance education NP that had previously accepted donations from a gun shop in town. Opinions aside, they decided the following year to drop that funder because they accepted that their values weren't aligned. There was probably pushback from the board too. This kind of thing happens all the time.

[JimF-LowBari]

22 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

I suppose it is tempting in this day and age to evaluate options in the mindset presented here.  But I assert that if we accept those premises, the activity is already on the path to extinction.

The essential choice is simpler.  Are there any strings attached to the donation... restrictions on its use that would be controversial or contrary to the mission?  If not, choose option 3.  Anything else requires us to continually monitor donors against some sort of purity standard, and be ready to return donations whenever their donor is judged to fall short of those standards.

And by the way, if you believe that the acceptance of a donation is in itself a "string attached", then the activity will ultimately have to stop accepting charity as more and more donors are considered insufficiently pure.  Many already are.  You asked not to give examples, but it is not hard to imagine entire nationwide/worldwide institutions that used to sponsor corps all over the place, but could now be considered "controversial".  

Well you tried reading my mind on the issue and failed miserably. I said nothing about “strings attached”. Only what might be the effects of accepting donation from a group that angers some people