Defend the Underdogs of Public Media

Jim and I and our friends at WSSB in Orangeburg, SC

Since the November 2016 election, people in public and community media have been speculating about the future of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). This agency provides funding for public and community stations throughout the country through its Community Service Grant program and other special funding initiatives for infrastructure and collaborative projects.

Now, the Trump administration has announced its first pass budget that, to little surprise, zeroes out funding for the CPB, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

I could go on about the politics of the elimination of funding. But not now. What I want to address is the very real impact of this potential loss on small, rural and minority stations.

First, an apology to my larger market station colleagues. I respect you and what you are doing to provide educational service to your communities. You invest local resources in Ready to Learn programs. You have some of the largest, and most under-resourced, teams of journalists in the country. You engage community leaders in civil discussion about local issues as wide ranging as racial profiling and restaurant reviews.

You will be fine.

CPB funding, for many large or medium size market stations, has become an increasingly small portion of their budgets. These stations may have survived elimination of other funding sources, such as state funding. Some have even explored what it might mean to withdraw from the Community Service Grant program. And I can confidently say that larger market stations have rallied their audiences to provide higher levels of voluntary support.

Some of my colleagues who have worked with only major market stations agree that eliminating funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a bad idea, but they are being practical. We can consolidate. We can raise the difference.

That's why I'm not really worried about you. I'm worried about the stations who can't do that.

The small but mighty KAWC team, 2016
(Steven Hennig is missing because he was taking the picture)

We work and have worked with small, rural and minority stations. We work with KAWC Colorado River Public Media, based in Yuma, Arizona, which provides two noncommercial programming streams to rural Arizona, including local coverage of real life on the border from a four person news team, and the only news service to some areas where cell phones still don't work.

We work with KGHR Navajo Public Radio, based at Greyhills Academy High School in Tuba City, Arizona, on the Navajo Nation, which serves as a community information board, sharing news about health fairs, home maintenance, public safety and other basic services that might otherwise go unnoticed.

We have worked in the past with KUYI Hopi Radio, licensed to The Hopi Foundation, one of the pioneers in Native American public media, which provides programming in the Hopi language and contributes to the protection and growth of the Hopi culture.

For all three of these stations, their CPB grant is a significant portion of their budget. It pays for programming that connects these remote communities to the rest of the world. It helps cover staff that keep the station running and provide a local voice. These stations are running with the bare minimum of staff to keep them going; the grant does not cover “fluff.”

In addition, these stations are not in communities with high resources. The idea of having the local audience bear the full cost is not realistic for these smaller stations. For instance, in a project funded by the CPB through Greater Public, we worked with four African-American licensed stations to try to build their local capacity for fundraising. Could we give these stations the tools to raise more money?

The answer, as you might expect, was “yes and no.” The stations did, to varying degrees, increase the amount of money raised, but not to the level of doubling or tripling their revenue. The communities that they served simply did not have the financial capacity to increase their giving dramatically. If faced with the loss of their CPB grant, they might be able to cut some expenses and generate a little more revenue, but not enough to continue.

So that begs the question...why do we need these small stations anyway? Wouldn't it be more efficient to just merge them into another larger station? Doesn't the internet provide the services these stations do? Couldn't we just have a national feed of NPR and PBS and call it done?

What would we lose if these small, rural and minority stations went away?

We lose the voices of these communities in national discussion. It doesn't work to ask people from these communities to go someplace else to share their opinions: that automatically makes them an outsider and immediately changes the nature of the conversation. We need to speak with people where they live to get their real perspectives.

We lose the connection within rural and small communities. Stations help residents in their communities stay connected. Particularly in radio, the station is often the only way to communicate with the whole community, not just about local events, but also about emergency situations. And the suggestion that everyone can get what they need through the internet? Well, internet access is not as universal as many in larger communities think, and what happens during a crisis when local internet might be down? In recent floods and hurricanes in the southeast, often the public radio or television station was the only source for updates.

We lose sight of issues that face people who live outside of metro areas. Let's face it: problems are different in major cities than they are in small towns and rural areas. For example, we are still dealing with getting cell phone service to some of these communities, when people in big cities complain about not having free WiFi. Stations have the ability to have issues moved to a larger stage that are simply foreign to metro audiences.

We lose the stories and rich histories of diverse cultures. You can't simply send a correspondent into a community for a day or two and expect them to understand the culture and way of life. There are so many stories that can only be crafted over time, and by someone who is a part of life there.

And we begin to ignore small, rural and minority communities and the issues that are important to them. By saying, “really, only large markets can have this service,” you tell people that they are not worth having a voice.

A colleague suggested that threats to federal support to public broadcasting might be a good thing for us. Like with the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Planned Parenthood, and others, perhaps this is an opportunity for the public to rally and provide unprecedented levels of support. I worry that stations that really need the funding will not have the ability to access it.

Annie Lin (my mom), Mr. Rogers and me, circa 1971.
 I've been a public media supporter for a long time.

There will be much more discussion about this issue in the coming days, and, like in previous battles, I expect that many people will voice their support for public media. If you would like to do so, please visit Protect My Public Media to add your story. Also, contact your Representative and Senators regarding your position.

And find your local station and support them. They need all the help they can get.

---

We have worked with so many stations that deserve your support, but a special shout out to KAWC Colorado River Public Media, KGHR Navajo Public Radio, KUYI Hopi Radio, KXCI Tucson, Arizona Public Media, Arizona PBS, WSSB Orangeburg, WSNC Winston-Salem, WUVS Muskegon, KBBG Waterloo, Mountain Lake PBS, WGVU Grand Rapids, KCOS El Paso, Houston Public Media, KPFA Berkeley, WBAI New York, KNPB Reno, KUAC Fairbanks, and Wisconsin Public Television.

Fundraising Through a Different Lens: Thoughts to Guide Philanthropy in Diverse Communities

Many well intentioned fundraisers have made a cultural misstep: you schedule a major event on a religious holiday, pick a menu that features food that is culturally taboo, or you make an assumption about someone's beliefs only to find out the hard way that you are very, very wrong. So how can you navigate cultural traditions, norms and unwritten rules when you are not a member of a certain group, yet you need to work with the group for fundraising?

1. Think about things you have in common with individuals within the community.
When we meet someone new, if you're good at getting to know people, you immediately start to try to find things that you have in common. But isn't it interesting, that when you consider groups of people, suddenly it becomes easier to find things you don't share? Instead of thinking about a particular culture as a group: Native American, African American, Chinese American, Jewish, Muslim, or others, begin with a single individual. Try to find common values and interests with that one person. Not only will this help with building respect for a potential donor's values, but also works to develop relationships that are critical to the fundraising process.

2. Find a "coach," advisor or trusted ally to help you within the community.
There are many factors that contribute to the definition of a culture, including but not limited to religious beliefs, traditions, geographic location, economic class, language, food, and much more. It can be very difficult to understand the layers of culture if you are an "outsider"--a transplant or an occasional visitor. Your advisor should be someone that you have gotten to know well enough that you can ask them the "stupid questions" without completely offending them. They should also be someone who believes in and trusts you enough to steer you away from the pitfalls and potholes! One of our trusted advisors is always good to point out without judgement when we've made a mistake. They also explain where we went awry. We value these learning opportunities and generally don't make the same mistake twice!

3. Take time to understand the "philanthropic currency" of the community.
While fundraisers are typically dealing with cash or cash based assets, we need to be aware that many diverse communities do not have a history of cash based philanthropy. In each group's culture of philanthropy, there may be traditions of helping extended family by providing a place to stay, or bringing food to a person who is sick, or coming with your horse to help with farming. In general, there is some tradition of helping others in every culture we have encountered, but in most, it is very direct and hands on. This is not to say that cash contributions don't happen in diverse communities--in fact, "minority" groups will become a majority proportion of philanthropic givers in the future as the makeup of our population changes. What you need to do, with the help of your advisor or coach, is understand what the culture's philanthropic currency is traditionally, and how you can translate those concepts to cash giving.

For example, in early Chinese American philanthropy, support was provided through "name houses," where any new immigrant with a particular family name could get help with housing, employment, communication, and more. So I could have gone to the Lin house to get help if I were just landing in the United States. Benefactors to these name houses were generally immigrants who had already established themselves. Points that you might glean from this tradition are that honoring the family name and making sure that the next generation is better off than the last are highly valued by this group.

4. Challenge your assumptions not only about other cultures but about yourself.
What misconceptions might other cultures have about you? Being aware of what assumptions others might be bringing to the conversation will also help with your relationship development. In my past, I've had people assume that I know how to speak Chinese, can beat up someone with karate, will generally be quiet and demure, will giggle with my hand over my mouth, and that I was not born in the United States--all of which are incorrect. (I've also had people assume that I was a good student, that I'm good at math, and that I can whip up a mean Chinese dinner, but those are true.) For Jim, working with Native American communities, others bring many assumptions about what the "pahana" (white man) will do. Assessing what misconceptions you may have to disprove will also help you navigate the culture.

5. Take time to build trust.
As much as I would like to say that there is a magic formula, there isn't. This won't happen overnight. Like other sustainable philanthropic endeavors, this will be an investment in a relationship that will evolve into support for your cause. It's not about changing what you wear, or translating your materials into another language--it's about understanding what a community values, finding advocates for your cause within the community, and building connections based on honesty and mutual respect.

Other resources about diversity in fundraising
This blog is an extension of my original essay written for the Association of Fundraising Professionals Kaleidoscope e-newsletter. Read the essay here.

Jay Frost writes a great blog, Frost on Fundraising. Here's his article on The Business Case for Diversity.

This blog was based on a session presented to the Association of Fundraising Professionals Southern Arizona Chapter in June 2010. One exercise was "Circles of my Multi-Cultural Self," which is available at Critical Multicultural Pavilion.

If you are interested in having this session presented to your nonprofit organization or association, please contact us at info@goalbusters.net or use the Contact Us link.

Rural Fundraising and Respect of Place

We've been working with a long time friend and colleague on a project to build a new clinic in Sanders, Arizona, a remote community near the eastern border of Arizona. If you're driving at speeds like most trucks on the Interstate, you won't even notice Sanders, but there is a growing community of Navajo and others in this rural place.

As we've spent more time in Sanders and in the Navajo Nation, we've been reflecting on how to communicate the stories and needs of this unique place. While there are volumes of stories to tell, it boils down to this:

1. Cover basic needs first. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs has been around for a while because it makes sense. In a rural community, very often people are trying to meet basic needs, like food, shelter and clothing. It becomes totally irrelevant to the community if you're trying to pursue lofty ideals if you don't have the fundamentals covered.

2. It takes time to build trust and respect. Rural communities can be a bit of a paradox, in that they are very hospitable, yet it can take a long time for you to be considered a trusted part of the community. They will show you around, but not let you in until they think you're serious about sticking around. When we were conducting our initial interviews of the board and other community members, they were polite. Now, after several visits, they're starting to reveal the real stories.

3. Best practice doesn't always apply. The challenge with "best practice" is that it has very often been vetted by organizations in metropolitan areas. True best practices, in many respects, are the simplest strategies that will work regardless of community size. Just because a strategy worked in a similar size organization doesn't mean it will work in a rural area.

4. Take time to learn how you "fit in." This doesn't mean abandoning your personality, changing your style, or trying to be someone you're not. This means observing community interactions first hand and finding the good in what you see before you immediately suggest change. Think about it--how would you like it if a complete stranger walked up to you on the street and told you everything that they thought was wrong with you?

5. You learn the most over food. This one can be true about a lot of communities, not just rural ones, but is accentuated in small towns. Most of the time, there's one, maybe two places where people hang out. For Sanders, people go to the Apple Dumplin in Chambers, about 5 miles away on the frontage road. In St. Michaels, everyone congregates at the Denny's (which is probably the best run Denny's we've ever experienced)! We've learned much more about a community by eating its food, talking to restaurant staff, and watching the locals than by formal meetings in offices.

With all these points in mind, we look forward to more opportunities to get to know these communities and hopefully bring new resources to improve their way of life. And we hope we'll best communicate not only the people's needs, but their sense of pride and respect for the place they call home.

This entry is a preview of a book in process co-authored by Alice Ferris, MBA, CFRE, ACFRE and James Anderson. Originally posted January 2009.

Connect with GoalBusters: LinkedIn - Alice Ferris / LinkedIn - Jim Anderson / Facebook / Twitter / YouTube / Myspace

Fundraising Tips: A Snapshot of Rural Donors - Press - AFP

From the Association of Fundraising Professionals

Fundraising Tips: A Snapshot of Rural Donors - Press - AFP

(April 6, 2010) Although people from rural communities are less likely to donate to charity, those that do give donate a higher percentage of their income than urban donors, according to a recent study by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

The research, funded by a grant from AFP, found that all else held constant, rural respondents were almost 5.2 percentage points less likely to be a charitable donor, and donated less, on average, than urban donors, after controlling for human and social capital variables, such as education level, income level, health status, religious affiliation, family composition, and others.

Rural respondents were significantly less likely to be donors to secular charities, and gave less on average to secular causes overall.

However, rural donors donated a statistically significantly higher percentage of their income to charity than did urban donors. Also, rural donors are more likely to donate to religious causes than secular causes. Frequent religious attendance is associated with a higher probability of giving for rural residents, as is itemization of deductions on income tax returns.

Researchers found that rural donors give $122 less, on average, after controls. However, for both urban and rural residents, the amount contributed is closely related to some of the same factors that are associated with the probability of giving: being a college graduate, being married, frequency of religious attendance, level of wealth, level of income and itemizing charitable deductions.

Note: The researchers defined "rural" as those living in small towns with a population of less than 20,000. In this study, approximately 18 percent to 21 percent of respondents lived in rural areas.

College Educated Give More

The researchers offered several suggestions for fundraising in rural areas. Because college education is a factor associated with giving, engage college educated people in your work, researchers recommend. Rural residents who have gone to college give more than those who had not had that opportunity, even after taking income differences into account. Especially for secular causes, it is important to cultivate the interest of people with a college education, and people likely to be itemizing deductions (people who have recently purchased a home, for example).

Segment potential donors by income in order to structure appeal amounts matched to different areas. Values expressed most frequently by rural donors include:

• Those with more should help those with less (equity of responsibility);
• Giving is a form of reciprocity for benefits received;
• Giving is a way to express religious beliefs; and
• Nonprofit organizations are perceived to be more effective in delivering services than government agencies.

Even with attention to fundraising in rural areas, the total amount of charitable giving from rural areas will naturally be smaller than the total gifts from urban areas, because fewer people live in rural areas.

Urban Communities

Urban residents donate almost 85.4 percent of total charitable giving, according to the study. Average and median giving amounts, whether for overall giving, religious or secular causes, from urban donors were always higher than the averages from rural donors.

Suggestions for fundraising in urban communities based on the findings of this study include:

• Ask couples to give to charity, not simply the men in the household. Men report lower giving and lower probability of giving to secular causes, compared with women. Married people report giving more than unmarried people of either gender.

• Segment on income but expect lower rates of return in lower income areas. Structure appeal amounts matched to different income levels. Income is associated with the probability of giving (higher income means higher probability of making a charitable gift) and with higher gift amounts.

• Structure requests to highlight connections to the prospective donor's friends and family, in addition to the appealing to broader concerns for equity and reciprocity. Urban donors were more likely than rural donors to say they gave to support the efforts of their friends and family.

To visit the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University's website, go to www.philanthropy.iupui.edu.

#####

Connect with GoalBusters: LinkedIn - Alice Ferris / LinkedIn - Jim Anderson / Facebook / Twitter / YouTube / Myspace

Building the House of Philanthropy

Traditional philanthropic models spend a lot of time focusing on the donor pyramid. While this model is a fundamental illustration of how donors deepen their relationships with nonprofit organizations, the pyramid doesn't fully illustrate how philanthropy progresses in rural communities. As we have worked with a variety of Native American and rural organizations, we have added to the donor pyramid, creating "The House of Philanthropy."

At the foundation of the house is a culture of philanthropy, a tradition of giving that exists in every culture. In the Hopi culture, these concepts are articulated as "sumi'nangwa" and "nami'nangwa" which have been explained to us as the concepts of working together for the common good, and the helping each other without being asked. In every community, you can identify this fundamental need to help one another!


Building on that foundation are three pillars of non-cash support: donations of time (volunteerism), donations of services, and donations of goods. You will often see this demonstrated with community members helping out where needed, even without a formal "ask." Not only will people show up to work, but they will also donate tamales for a sale, soaps and shampoos to a shelter, items for a rummage sale, or clothing to a thrift store! There are so many ways for people to support organizations and causes without cash contributions, and these are often the "entry points" for philanthropy. In addition, charities as they are created frequently start with these types of donations before any cash is received.


After there is an established need and some degree of stability in an organization, cash contributions may start coming in as donors reach a point where they realize that they can't help with their skills or items, but they can provide financial support. A good example of this is a cooperative preschool that I volunteer for--parents are supposed to put in "helper hours" every month, but some parents choose to pay a little bit more for their childcare since they don't have the time available during the day. These gifts will likely start off small, but gradually progress through the traditional donor pyramid, potentially to the level of intergenerational giving, where the donor helps ensure services to the next generation!


The House of Philanthropy demonstrates that the donor pyramid is only as stable as its foundation and supporting pillars. If there are challenges with moving your donors through the pyramid, check that your foundation is secure.


Additional information on this topic was presented as part of The Hopi Foundation's nonprofit capacity building training, funded by the The Rockefeller Philanthropic Advisors Cultures of Giving Fund. Expanded information will be presented at the Association of Fundraising Professionals International Conference on Fundraising in April 2010 in Baltimore, Maryland.

Connect with GoalBusters: LinkedIn - Alice Ferris / LinkedIn - Jim Anderson / Facebook / Twitter / YouTube / Myspace