Maybe. I’ve been working on my taxes this week, and was noticing, as I scanned the list of donors, that each name elicited a different emotional reaction. They ran the gamut, such as:

• “Has it really been that long since I gave them anything?”
• “Grr, I think they used up my whole contribution sending me multi-page, glossy follow-up appeals.”
• “Why didn’t they list my donation amount in their thank-you letter?”
• “Who on earth are they?”
• “Aww, what a nice group.”

Most of those are not reactions you’d want people to have to your group. Rather than me trying to describe what’s behind my various reactions, I encourage you to try the same game as you do your taxes. (Alright, so you’re not such as a latenik as I — as you review your completed return, then.)

Think about what the various groups that you have given to did right — and wrong — and how your own nonprofit can mimic or depart from their model.

Sometimes all it takes is a little twist on an old fundraising theme to capture people’s attention. With its “Shortest Triathlon Ever,” the Bay Area Orthopaedic Sports and Spine Foundation has done just that, in a benefit for the Emery Unified School District’s Health & Wellness Initiative.

I noticed the event because it’s garnering local press coverage, such as in the March edition of the East Bay Monthly.

“[S]o short, anyone can do it!” is the foundation’s catch phrase for this event. It combines a 10o-yard swim, 2.5 mile bike race (on flat ground), and a 2.1 mile run — on a window-shopping course that includes a mall, no less. Kids and people of varying fitness levels are encouraged. (Hey, I think I could even do it!)

By having a shorter race, they no doubt cut down on the hours which they must ask of volunteers, or for which they must get permits or rent facilities. Of course, this doesn’t mean plenty of planning won’t still be required. For in-depth guidance on what’s required to plan this type of fundraising event, see The Volunteers’ Guide to Fundraising.

Last year, donor Bill Knight paid $12,000 at a charity event for a guitar autographed by Gene Simmons of Kiss — and later donated it to another charity for auction. This year, he paid $20,000 for another Gene Simmons-autographed guitar. He plans to give this one away to charity, too. (See “Kids With Cancer Society sets $300,000 fundraising record.)

What a great tradition! It makes you wonder you many memorabilia items are sitting in donor’s houses that they’ve enjoyed for a while — and are maybe ready to pass that ownership thrill onto someone else. (It also makes you wonder how many more Gene Simmons guitars Bill Knight will buy. Stay tuned for next year’s auction . . . .)

No need to wonder, however, whether this picture shows a Gene Simmons guitar. It doesn’t.

Three cheers for Paul Shoemaker, executive director of Social Venture Partners Seattle, for so eloquently describing what is askew with much of the criticism of Invisible Children, the nonprofit behind the Kony 2012 video. The group has been getting flak for its “failure” to meet idealized ratios of spending on administrative versus other costs.

I have no independent knowledge of this group’s worthiness, but Shoemaker’s article, “Kony 2012: The Great Product Debate,” reminds us that faulting a group based solely on ratios can be a bit hasty. In this case, the criticism is for spending a “low” amount on direct aid — which, as Shoemaker points out, is nonsensical when the group doesn’t actually provide direct aid (or, for that matter, any other programs or services). Shoemaker says, “Invisible Children is an advocacy organization; that’s what they do. They spend money on media (i.e., “non-direct aid”) because that’s their strategy.”

I wish I’d been as lucid in discussing the issue with friends the other day at lunch. His point is so clear it sounds almost obvious — and yet it’s been largely overlooked.

But his larger point can be applied to any type of organization, even those serving clients, providing programmatic and other aid, and otherwise taking direct action on an issue: He says, “too many of us treat all nonprofits as if they operate in the same product category and use a one-size-fits-all set of metrics to measure their effectiveness – including often-misleading metrics like percentage of spending on program vs. overhead.”

I couldn’t  agree more. I’ve had other lunchtime discussions with friends about their suspicions regarding nonprofits whose work they appreciated in every other way, and would like to support — but they wondered if they were being “had,” because the group’s spending ratios didn’t fit the norm. Anyone who has ever created a budget (even a household one) should know that different types of service provisions have different costs. Meanwhile, paying staff salaries is nearly always expensive, and a big part of the “overhead,” whether you’re running a business or a nonprofit. (And that’s true even given that most nonprofits don’t pay too well.)

Let’s say, for example, that we’re talking about a trail maintenance group. The group monitors trail conditions and coordinates volunteers for cleanup activities. But its largest expenditures are for paying the executive director as well as a contract accountant and a part-time fundraiser. If trails are being maintained that wouldn’t have been otherwise, which is a result that people are willing to support; and  if no evidence has emerged that anyone is being overpaid or putting in less time than they’re paid for, what’s the problem?

Designing these metrics was a noble goal. But getting too attached to them just adds one more burden to that of the many nonprofits that are asked to be “efficient” using fewer resources than are realistically adequate for survival.

Nonprofit fundraising scams are always in the news, but I feel like there’s been an uptick in the last couple of months — the church in Oakland that makes its students spend evenings in local BART (subway) stations soliciting donations for questionable purposes; the woman in Canandaigua, New York who was charged with raising money on the false pretense of having cancer; and ABC reports about fraudulent charities trying to make money off recent tornado disasters.

It’s enough to scare off any donor.

Which raises the question, what is your nonprofit doing to make sure that any and all of its fundraisers and other representatives can prove that they’re legit? Here are some ideas:

• Be very clear about your group’s identity. Display its name and logo on your website, brochures, and any solicitation sheets that you might, for example, send out with people soliciting donations on the street or of friends. If you are the local chapter of a national group, say so, and indicate where they can find your group online or in the real world.
• Be transparent about your group’s use of money. Your website, for example, should contain clear explanations of where and how funds will be spent. Also include a link to your group’s IRS Form 990.
• Give official materials to staff or volunteers who will be doing public solicitations. The more they carry in the way of pamphlets, log0-bearing paraphernalia, and so on, the more convincing they’ll be. Of course, these can be faked; but at least you won’t have to compete with the low-quality fakes.
• Be aware of local scammers. It’s not uncommon for scam charities to use names that sound generic, or very close to the name of a real group. Watch the news and neighborhood events for such fake groups, and be ready to assure people that they aren’t you.
• Advise solicitors to welcome questions. Having a stranger question whether you’re a fraud can be unsettling. But your fundraising team should be trained for this, and be happy at the opportunity to distinguish your group from the scammers.
• Don’t incentivize immediate donations. Some groups reportedly pay their street solicitors based on a percentage of contributions brought in. Unfortunately, that means that potential donors are discouraged from double-checking on the group and deciding later whether to make a donation. This arrangement leads to uncomfortable donors who may just say “no” if pulling out their credit card on the spot and handing it to a stranger seems too risky.

This problem may have been worsened with the down economy, but it’s never going to go away. The best you can do, in the words of yet another nonprofit, is to “Be prepared.”

According to projections by Atlas of Giving, April of 2012 will be the weakest fundraising month for all types of charities except those working on arts and environmental issues. (See their 2011 U.S. Report.)

Why? The report authors don’t say, but I’d bet my tax deductions it has something to do with April 15th. People’s attention will be elsewhere, and many will be bemoaning having to write a certain large check.

The group’s advice is to reschedule your solicitations and events to March. Which, uh, starts tomorrow. Killing yourself to hurry up your solicitations and events probably isn’t such a good idea. For one thing, (as I discussed in The Volunteers’ Guide to Fundraising‘), planning for an event of any significance should start months in advance.

So, maybe you should just kick back, and push your major plans to September . . . which, according to Atlas of Giving, is supposed to be a banner month for U.S. fundraising.

Despite the girl selling cakes on the cover, readers of my book The Volunteer’s Guide to Fundraising know that I think the time has come to cut the sugar and other junk that so many nonprofits have come to rely on in selling goods for cash. The mixed message — we’re trying to help society, but we’re going to close our eyes to the health implications of what we’re purveying — is just too strong.

It’s not that I’m anti-treat. (Ask anyone who knows me!) But rarity is part of what makes something a treat, and sweets and other junk food are anything but rare in people’s lives these days, including those of children. That message rang out loud and clear with the publication of a study finding that, despite years of outcry and supposed efforts to curb the problem, junk food remains ubiquitous at the nation’s elementary schools. (See “Junk Foods Widely Available At Elementary Schools, Study Shows,” by Lindsay Tanner.) School lunches are nothing to brag about nutritionally, and then the kids can head straight to the vending machines for sugary, fatty, or salty chips, cookies, and so on.

Any fundraiser considering selling cookies at school, or even asking kids to sell them on behalf of a group, should consider that context. Fortunately, healthier alternatives are available, such as granola, low-salt pretzels, or home-baked items using whole grains and recipes adapted to reduce the common baddies. (In fact, now that I look again, the girl on my book cover is selling un-frosted cakes. Good job, cover girl!)

For a foundation that seemed to have so much marketing savvy, the Susan B. Komen foundation can be awfully tone deaf — and send a message that it’s more interested in raising cash than in spending it charitably.

Their current colossal oops, having stopped funding Planned Parenthood despite that agency’s importance in providing mammograms to low-income women, is only the latest example. As I described in January of last year, the Komen Foundation alienated plenty of nonprofit watchers with its hypervigilant efforts to protect its brand: See “Fundraising Oops: The Susan B. Komen Foundation Uses Donor Dollars to Sue Smaller Groups.” (I was going to illustrate this post with something pink, but decided not to take the risk. Did I say “pink?” I meant “that color that is a mix of red and white.”)

And then there was the foundation’s odd choice in 2010 to put its branding on buckets of Kentucky Fried Chicken. Given that junk food and grilled food have been linked to cancer, this inspired plenty of commentary, and one “What the Cluck?” headline by the group Think Before You Pink (“a project of Breast Cancer Action, launched in 2002 in response to the growing concern about the number of pink ribbon products on the market.”)

Clearly there are people who were already shying away from pink products, not to mention supporting anything else but the Komen foundation, before the latest misstep. But at this point — based on all the media attention, not to mention the fact that my Facebook friends seem to be talking of nothing else — I’d say we may start seeing some pink products on the remainder tables. And an increase in donations to Planned Parenthood.

For an excellent summary of the current pink meltdown, analyzed in terms of nonprofit marketing best practices, see Kivi Leroux Miller’s “The Accidental Rebranding of Komen for the Cure.”

Here’s some inspiring help from Laura Quinn of Idealware, guest blogging for Nancy Schwartz  (on Getting Attention). Quinn’s article, “Strengthen Your Nonprofit Social Media Impact,” breaks down the planning process into bite-sized pieces, and helps you figure out how to get into a habit of continuous communication without getting overwhelmed.

The only thing I’d add to the list is to start following the social media pages of other nonprofits you respect. Tasks that Quinn recommends, such as defining your organization’s voice and providing interesting content even when you’re not in the middle of a particular campaign, will be easier to do if you can model your organization, or distinguish it from, others that you’re observing.

And for more on when and whether this social media presence might lead to donations, see Nolo’s article, “Social Networks as Fundraisers (or Friendraisers) for Your Nonprofit.”

You know how I’m always on the lookout for ways a nonprofit can boost the positive side of its balance sheet by turning existing assets into cash?

That’s why I was intrigued to read this article by well-known real estate writer Broderick Perkins, describing how the website ParkatMyHouse.com — already well-established in England — is coming to America.

The tag line on the website’s home page pretty much says it all:  “Have an empty spot in your driveway? You could be making money by renting it out.”

Perkins further explains that founder Anthony Eskinazi,  inspired by his own difficulty finding (or affording) a parking space when he visited AT&T Park in San Francisco to see a Giants game, went back to England and set up what the website calls a “match-making service for property owners and drivers.” The site continues to manage the relationship, having already helped over 40,000 property owners in England gain extra income from renting their unused parking space by the day, hour, or month.

The church I mentioned in the title is near the busy Kings Cross Station in London and has, according to Perkins’ article, earned some $180,000 from the website in the last three years, comprising more than half its annual income. (These are tough times for tithing.)

Of course, not every nonprofit owns its own property, or has space to let.  (And if you rent, or are part of a homeowners’ association, better check with them before you sign up.)  But hey, pass the word on to your most-likely-underpaid staffers. Maybe their driveway could put a few extra dollars into their pockets while they’re spending long hours at work!