Encouraging Generosity:The practice & organisation of fundraising across nations

This presentation outlines the results from over twenty countries to describe and analyse for the first time in some depth the many different fundraising environments around the world that are shaped by different historical, cultural, social, religious, political and economic conditions. The data is organized into a new typology of fundraising regimes, which we argue strengthens understanding of the connection between asking and giving. In the light of the giving-centric nature of much research, we suggest our focus on ‘askers’ is a useful counterbalance, as giving and asking are so intimately related.

Encouraging Generosity: The practice & organisation of fundraising across nations

This paper is drawn from data provided by colleagues around the world who have written chapters for a book entitled ‘Palgrave Research Companion to Global Philanthropy’ (eds. P. Wiepking and F. Handy, forthcoming 2014). Whilst the focus of the book is a c omparative global study of charitable giving, it also contains information on the activity involved in prompting charitable gifts in each country or region. This paper synthesizes, analyses and discusses this data in relation to factors such as: how fundra ising is organized in different geographical domains; the most common methods of fundraising found in different countries; and the extent to which the fundraising industry is professionalized around the world. The paper begins by noting the lack of resear ch on fundraisers and fundraising in contrast to the extensive studies undertaken of donors. It argues that the demand - side of charitable transactions is worthy of greater attention, because giving and asking are two sides of the same coin. This paper seek s to help rectify the situation by drawing out issues related to the practice and organization of fundraising across the world and linking it to the patterns of charitable giving that are described in the book.

Encouraging Generosity: The Practice and organization of Fundraising Across Nations

The international collaboration in this book creates a unique opportunity to establish, discuss and draw conclusions about fundraising across nations. Based on the 26-country dataset provided by the authors in this volume, this chapter describes and analyzes for the first time the diverse fundraising environments around the world that are shaped by different historical, cultural, social, religious, political and economic conditions. It begins by noting the lack of research on fundraisers and fundraising in contrast to the extensive studies undertaken of donors, and argues that the demand side of charitable transactions is worthy of greater attention if a complete and dynamic understanding of giving is to be achieved. It then presents and discusses key themes related to fundraising in the countries represented in this book. A typology is suggested to impose order on the huge variety of fundraising approaches and stages of development in the organization of this activity around the world; this typology also strengthens understanding of the connection between asking and giving. After offering suggestions for future research in this area of study, the chapter ends by noting that despite global differences in the evolution of fundraising as a profession and the diversity of current contexts, fundraisers in every country face shared challenges that would benefit from greater exchange of knowledge and best practices.

Fundraising and boards: be a leader and a meddler!

The old board maxim says, ‘Be a leader not a meddler’! However, in the case of board members and fundraising, meddling is wise. Why? Because the board has a responsibility and a unique opportunity to guide and support its organisation’s fundraising. Indeed, in successful nonprofit organisations (NPOs) fundraising is an attitude, not a department.

Nonprofit Boards in Australia: A Distinctive Governance Appoach

This article reports the findings into patterns of governance on nonprofit boards in Australia. The research surveys 118 boards, upon which serve a total of 1405 directors. The findings indicate that nonprofit boards can mimic some aspects of a shareholder approach to governance. But nonprofit boards, in the main, indicate priorities and activities of a stakeholder approach to governance. The features of `isomorphism' that arise largely stem from legislative requirements in corporate governance. Generally, nonprofit directors are influenced by agenda and motivations that can be differentiated from the influences upon director activity in the corporate sector. The study indicates that nonprofit boards prize knowledge and loyalty to the sector when considering board composition. The survey suggests nonprofits ``compensate'' for the demands placed upon them about fiduciary duty and due diligence responsibilities with the diverse intellectual expertise of non-executive directors. Nonprofit boards possess greater diversity than boards in the corporate sector; they include more women as directors than corporate boards and they include a greater proportion of directors from minority groups. While strategic issues feature significantly as a task of the nonprofit board, they distinguish themselves from their corporate counterparts by engaging in operational management. The findings indicate that, in the main, directors on nonprofit boards deliberate and operate in ways distinctive from their corporate counterparts. Such findings offer a contribution to the reform of Corporations Law in other countries and the likely consequence on boards outside the corporate sector.

An exploration of knowledge management and intellectual capital in a nonprofit organisation context

In recent years, practitioners and researchers alike have turned their attention to knowledge management (KM) in order to increase organisational performance (OP). As a result, many different approaches and strategies have been investigated and suggested for how knowledge should be managed to make organisations more effective and efficient. However, most research has been undertaken in the for-profit sector, with only a few studies focusing on the benefits nonprofit organisations might gain by managing knowledge. This study broadly investigates the impact of knowledge management on the organisational performance of nonprofit organisations. Organisational performance can be evaluated through either financial or non-financial measurements. In order to evaluate knowledge management and organisational performance, non-financial measurements are argued to be more suitable given that knowledge is an intangible asset which often cannot be expressed through financial indicators. Non-financial measurement concepts of performance such as the balanced scorecard or the concept of Intellectual Capital (IC) are well accepted and used within the for-profit and nonprofit sectors to evaluate organisational performance. This study utilised the concept of IC as the method to evaluate KM and OP in the context of nonprofit organisations due to the close link between KM and IC: Indeed, KM is concerned with managing the KM processes of creating, storing, sharing and applying knowledge and the organisational KM infrastructure such as organisational culture or organisational structure to support these processes. On the other hand, IC measures the knowledge stocks in different ontological levels: at the individual level (human capital), at the group level (relational capital) and at the organisational level (structural capital). In other words, IC measures the value of the knowledge which has been managed through KM. As KM encompasses the different KM processes and the KM infrastructure facilitating these processes, previous research has investigated the relationship between KM infrastructure and KM processes. Organisational culture, organisational structure and the level of IT support have been identified as the main factors of the KM infrastructure influencing the KM processes of creating, storing, sharing and applying knowledge. Other research has focused on the link between KM and OP or organisational effectiveness. Based on existing literature, a theoretical model was developed to enable the investigation of the relation between KM (encompassing KM infrastructure and KM processes) and IC. The model assumes an association between KM infrastructure and KM processes, as well as an association between KM processes and the various levels of IC (human capital, structural capital and relational capital). As a result, five research questions (RQ) with respect to the various factors of the KM infrastructure as well as with respect to the relationship between KM infrastructure and IC were raised and included into the research model: RQ 1 Do nonprofit organisations which have a Hierarchy culture have a stronger IT support than nonprofit organisations which have an Adhocracy culture? RQ 2 Do nonprofit organisations which have a centralised organisational structure have a stronger IT support than nonprofit organisations which have decentralised organisational structure? RQ 3 Do nonprofit organisations which have a stronger IT support have a higher value of Human Capital than nonprofit organisations which have a less strong IT support? RQ 4 Do nonprofit organisations which have a stronger IT support have a higher value of Structural Capital than nonprofit organisations which have a less strong IT support? RQ 5 Do nonprofit organisations which have a stronger IT support have a higher value of Relational Capital than nonprofit organisations which have a less strong IT support? In order to investigate the research questions, measurements for IC were developed which were linked to the main KM processes. The final KM/IC model contained four items for evaluating human capital, five items for evaluating structural capital and four items for evaluating relational capital. The research questions were investigated through empirical research using a case study approach with the focus on two nonprofit organisations providing trade promotions services through local offices worldwide. Data for the investigation of the assumptions were collected via qualitative as well as quantitative research methods. The qualitative study included interviews with representatives of the two participating organisations as well as in-depth document research. The purpose of the qualitative study was to investigate the factors of the KM infrastructure (organisational culture, organisational structure, IT support) of the organisations and how these factors were related to each other. On the other hand, the quantitative study was carried out through an online-survey amongst staff of the various local offices. The purpose of the quantitative study was to investigate which impact the level of IT support, as the main instrument of the KM infrastructure, had on IC. Overall several key themes were found as a result of the study: • Knowledge Management and Intellectual Capital were complementary with each other, which should be expressed through measurements of IC based on KM processes. • The various factors of the KM infrastructure (organisational culture, organisational structure and level of IT support) are interdependent. • IT was a primary instrument through which the different KM processes (creating, storing, sharing and applying knowledge) were performed. • A high level of IT support was evident when participants reported higher level of IC (human capital, structural capital and relational capital). The study supported previous research in the field of KM and replicated the findings from other case studies in this area. The study also contributed to theory by placing the KM research within the nonprofit context and analysing the linkage between KM and IC. From the managerial perspective, the findings gave clear indications that would allow interested parties, such as nonprofit managers or consultants to understand more about the implications of KM on OP and to use this knowledge for implementing efficient and effective KM strategies within their organisations.

The Australian nonprofit sector legal almanac 2009, ACPNS Working Paper 49

There are a number of publications in Australian which summarises annual developments n the law for business or various industries, but little is available in accessible form for nonprofit staff, boards or volunteers. This publication seeks to fill that gap by bringing together in one place case reports and significant legislative initiatives.