Change Agents

A Pay It Forward Blog

By now it is old news that Donald Trump is our next president. Regardless of how you voted, or what your feelings are towards tax reform, you cannot hide from the fact that our tax code will likely be changing under the Trump administration. This creates a window of opportunity for donors during 2017. Here is a look at the proposed changes compared to our current tax code:

For many people, the new tax code will mean that they may find themselves in a lower tax bracket going into into 2018. So what does this mean for donors?

Well, if you fall into a lower tax bracket under the new administration then your donation will have less of a potential tax benefit. If you are in the highest tax bracket then you may be accustom to receiving a tax benefit of 39.6% for each dollar that you donate, this would fall to a 33% donation under the new administration.

At the current tax rate of 39.6% a $10,000 donation could put $3,960 back into your pocket if you claim the full tax deduction. After the new tax rates are in place, the same $10,000 would put $3,300 back into your pocket; a difference of $660.

It is important to keep in mind that once you are paying less taxes under the new structure that the $660 that you would have “lost out on” in our example is actually already in your pocket because you paid less taxes, so from this perspective it is a zero sum comparison. However, there is still an opportunity for donors to take take advantage of the transition from a higher tax bracket to a lower one.

The strategy is commonly referred to as “frontloading” in the planned giving space, and 2017 could be an ideal frontloading year.

By using a tool such as a Donor Advised Fund (DAF), or another charitable giving vehicle, donors can “prepay” their next several years worth of donations today while they are still in a higher tax bracket in an attempt to maximize the tax benefits for future year’s donations. So, rather than receiving a 33% deduction from our example the donor could potentially capture the higher 39.6% deduction by frontloading into a DAF and still not distribute their gift to their favorite charity until later years.

The frontloading strategy does have limitations. Annual charitable deductions are currently limited to a maximum of 50% of your adjusted gross income (AGI) per year in the U.S., so the amount of frontloading that you do will be limited to your AGI. However, this limitation is generally far beyond the average amount Americans give, even over multiple years, so the majority of people will likely not hit this limitation.

Additional strategies, such as donating appreciated stock instead of cash to avoid paying long term capital gains, can be used as a method of funding your frontloading strategy. This article has touched on the idea, but is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to planned giving. If you are considering the frontloading strategy, be sure to talk with your professional advisor. This article is written for informational purposes only and is not intended to be tax advice.

Please send any questions or comments to!

PIF Foundation does not provide tax, legal or accounting advice. This material has been prepared for informational purposes only, and is not intended to provide, and should not be relied on for, tax, legal or accounting advice. You should consult your own tax, legal and accounting advisors before engaging in any transaction.

We asked, you responded! Here are the results from our most recent survey:

Question 1: On average, how much do you think it would cost to save a person's life in the U.S.?
  • 18.4% said less than $500 
  • 30.6% said between $500 and $10,000 
  • 22.4% said between $10,000 and $50,000 
  • 8.2% said between $50,000 and $100,000 
  • 20.4% said more than $100,000
Questions 2: On average, how much do you think it takes to save a person's life outside of the U.S.?
  • 53.1% said less than $500
  • 44.9% said between $500 and $10,000
  • 2% said more than $100,000
Question 3: How much of your own money would you be willing to spend to save the life of a complete stranger from certain death?
  • 24.5% said $0-$100
  • 30.6% said $101-$500
  • 20.4% said $501-$3,000
  • 8.2% said $3,001-$10,000
  • 16.3% said more than $10,000
Question 4: How effective would a charity have to be at saving lives for you to shift your donation from a charity saving U.S. lives to one saving non-U.S. lives?
  • 83.7% said they woudl support the the most effective charity regardless of where they focused on saving lives. 
  • 4.1% said a 1:2 ratio
  • 6.1% said a 1:10 ratio
  • 6.1% said I don't think that I would ever be interested in using a donation to benefit a charity that does not focus on saving American lives. 
Question 5: How long would you be willing to give up cable/satellite TV if it meant you could save a stranger's life?
  • 65.3% said forever
  • 8.2% said 6 months 
  • 12.2 said 1 year 
  • 4.1% said 2 years
  • 4.1% said 5 years
  • 6.1% said I would not be willing to give up cable/satellite to save a stranger. 

Want to know the actual answers to questions 1 and 2? Check out our blog post: EVALUATING THE COST TO SAVE A LIFE: U.S. VS. WORLD

What do you think about how people responded?

Where should you focus your charitable giving, home or away? The PIF Foundation regularly faces this dilemma when deciding how to distribute our charitable support. We certainly have a position, which is evident from our programs, but we also want our supporters to have enough information to draw their own conclusion. All of our programs are backed by in-depth analysis, a proven track record, and clear vision for the future. But how do these programs measure up to resources distributed by programs that do work right here in the U.S.?

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention the leading cause of death in the U.S. was heart disease, accounting for 614,348 deaths in 2014.1 We will use heart disease for the purpose of this comparison for a few reasons:


  • Scale: Because this issue impacts so many people, there are a vast amount of resources being devoted to interventions which should theoretically lead to more cost effectiveness over time.
  • Scope: The scope of the issue in the U.S. is comparable in scope to the worldwide malaria epidemic in terms of numbers of deaths per year.
  • Data: There is data available for comparing the cost effectiveness of heart disease interventions which is not always the case for other diseases.

Malaria, our international focus, killed approximately 438,000 people worldwide in 2015 according to the World Health Organization.2 This number is actually down around 60% globally since 2000 thanks to better access to medicine, heightened awareness, more funding, and increased interventions. Malaria has already been eradicated in some countries, and the prospect of complete eradication is real possibility in our lifetime.

While some might argue that this is not an apples to apples comparison - and we would partially agree - our goal is to have a starting point to compare the cost effectiveness of saving U.S. vs. non-U.S. lives using existing interventions. As better data becomes available we will certainly look draw from more direct comparisons.

Comparing QALYs

The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is a generic measure of disease burden, including both the quality and the quantity of life lived. It is used in economic evaluation to assess the value for money of medical interventions. One QALY equates to one year in perfect health. - Wikipedia

QALYs are often used to measure the cost effectiveness between various health interventions, creating a more level comparison between diseases that can vary widely. We will use QALYs to compare the cost effectiveness between Malaria (worldwide) and Heart Disease (U.S.) because it helps to level the playing field. Below are the QALY comparisons between LLINs as a means to prevent deaths from Malaria, and various U.S. interventions with a track record for preventing death for heart disease.



Cost Per QALY Estimate




Heart Disease

School based initiatives to promote healthy eating


Heart Disease

Pedometer and Walking Programs


Heart Disease

Screening for Diabetes based on Age


Heart Disease

Hypertension medications



Based on our research, as well as what we have seen from Givewell, the estimated cost to statistically save a live from eminent death is $3,461 using LLINs through the Against Malaria Foundation; which equates to adding approximately 50 QALYs for a person. Using the most aggressive estimate from U.S. based interventions to avoid heart disease at $900 per QALY we can easily estimate the statistical cost of saving a life (50 QALYs). A cost of $45,000 per life saved for the most effective program to prevent heart disease tells us that the use of LLINs to save lives is 13x more effective when distributed through the Against Malaria Foundation - which is why AMF is the beneficiary of the PIF Foundation Save A Life program donations.

How does this impact your decision about where you give?

In our experience there are a large percentage of donors that tend to have a preference for helping people that are close to them, all other factors being equal. The problem we see is that all other factors are far from equal when it comes down to efficiency and impact. We encourage donors that are geographically centric to think critically about their “multiple”. In other words, how many extra lives saved would it take for you move your donation from saving local lives, to non-local lives. Would you have to know that you would save 2x as many people, 5x, 10x? Choosing to fight malaria to save the lives means that you might not be saving U.S. lives - but you would be saving 13x as many lives.

What are your thoughts? 


  3. Doing Good Better (page 220)
  4. American Heart Association: Preventing Heart Disease Cost-Effective. Kristinia Fiore, MedPage Today (2011).

Wise giving takes more than applying the concepts of effective altruism. Maximizing your ability to give takes a deep understanding of the tools and strategies of top philanthropist. Let the experts at PIF help guide your year-end giving with a free assessment. 

Effective Altruism helps to answer the "Where?" and "Why?" questions for donors...but it does not address the "How?". Did you know that donating cash or writing a check to charity can be one of the least efficient ways to give? Donors have the ability to structure their giving more wisely to maximize their charitable deductions and further leverage their ability to give simply by being more intentional about how they give:

  • Gifting Appreciated Assets instead of cash allows you to avoid paying capital gains on the asset that you are giving. This strategy can save you 15-20% on the cost of your gift. It can also be a great way to get a step-up in cost basis on an asset - a common practice for donors gifting appreciated stock. 
  • The IRA Charitable Rollover is now a permanent law that allows taxpayers that are over 70 1/2 to transfer up to $100k per year from their IRA accounts directly to charity without having to recognize the distribution as income. Avoiding the income taxes that would otherwise be due as a result of the mandatory distribution from an IRA can create significant tax savings!
  • "Front-Loading" Your Giving can be a great strategy for high-income earners that plan to retire in the next 5-10 years. By uses a tool such as a Donor Advised Fund, donors "front-load" the giving that they plan to do during their retirement years. Doing so allows the donor to take advantage of the charitable deductions during years when taxable income is higher. The donations now in the donor advised fund can be invested so that they have the opportunity to grow over time. 
  • Charitable Bequests give donors a way to continue their impact even after they pass away. Unfortunately many donors simply name a charity in their last will and testament and do not do any additional planning. Strategies such as Pooled Income Funds, Charitable Pooled Trusts, or Donor Advised Funds can be used to plan for end-of-life giving while the donor is still living so that he/she can benefit from the tax deductions that come as a result of his/her generosity. 

These strategies are just the tip of the iceberg for savvy donors. To determine which combination of strategies you can use to increase your impact this year complete our Year-End Giving Assessment survey by clicking the link below. 

Free Year-End Giving Assessment 

Both the CEO and COO from the nationally recognized Wounded Warrior Project have recently been fired after reports by CBS that donations were being used for frivolous spending. Supporters of WWP are understandably upset and are demanding accountability. Here are some comments left from individuals chiming in after hearing the story:

  • This is why I never donate cash, but will offer my skillsets and time to a cause I believe in.
  • I've heard this kind of garbage before regarding a lot of charitable organizations with a big publicity budget.
  • Charities in theory are great organizations....but time after time this is what we see. I guess we should not be surprised these are the same people that are in charge of a lot of the governing organizations. Same old story, greed and selfishness. How very sad when the people that contribute are expecting their dollars to be used wisely.

This is not the first time that a large non-profit has been let down by supporters, and it will not be the last. In fact, some of large charities are wasting donor dollars to grow and will likely continue doing so. The most recent report "Pennies for Charity" from the Attorney General highlights the fundraising activity of for-profit telemarketing companies hired to raise money for their nonprofit clients. The report summarizes 2014 activities and indicates that just 48% of the $302 Million raised in 2014 actually went to the organization that was being solicited to generous donors.

So, what can you do to protect yourself from organizations that choose to use donations foolishly?

First, it is important to note that these situations that make the headlines are not common practice among the nonprofit community. Stories about these bad apples do tend to overshadow all of the good work being done by the overwhelming majority because, to be frank, it is what generates more clicks and equates to more advertising dollars. Unfortunately we live in a world where the majority of the news we consume is driven by negative emotion.

“The most powerful predictor of what spreads online is anger.”

Ryan Holiday, Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator

Fortunately all hope is not lost. There are several fairly simply steps that you can take to make sure that your donation is making its intended impact.

  1. Do your homework (or consult someone that does). Resources such as Charity Navigator and PIF Foundation's Impact Report help you quantify how money is being spent by non-profits, the latter even analyzes the actual impact each dollar makes. Use these resources or do your own research before deciding where to give. Evaluating a charity’s 990 through Guidestar is also a good place to start.
  2. Focus on outcomes, not percentages. This news story and others like it use percentages to enrage donors (Less than 60% of WWP donations go to veterans). However, these percentages tell us nothing about the outcomes of the charity. From our perspective it is just as much a letdown when you have a charity using close to 100% of their annual donations to make an impact but actually yield little to no real results.
  3. Be a proactive donor. The fact that charities must solicit donors to keep programs operating means that donations will continue to be wasted on solicitations rather than a cause. Do your part by being proactive with your donation, do not wait for an invitation to start making a difference. Pure accountability in the nonprofit space will only exist under a system where the nonprofits themselves no longer need to focus on raising their next dollar.

Scams like this will not stop, but do not use this as an excuse to deny worthy charities. Instead, take the steps that we described and be confident in your choice to give because you have done your homework. Choose change, Pay It Forward.

Peter Singer, in his work The Life You Can Save argues for near-compulsory donation:

"If major corporations, universities, and other employers were to deduct 1 percent of each employees salary and donate the money to organizations fighting global poverty, unless the employee opted out of the scheme, that would nudge employees to be more generous and would yield billions more for combating poverty." (73)

This is in direct contradiction with Singer's other arguments. During an interview with the Giving What We Can organization at Cambridge University, Singer testified: 

"I don't favor a law that says everyone must give x percent of their income to charity. I think that if a government wants to do something like this, it can increase the money given to foreign aid. The government can also educate people and make it easier for them to give, as can corporations. I don't want to make it compulsory." (June 18th 2013)

I think where Singer comes into direct conflict with himself is where the evidence lies. Singer looks at organ donations in both Germany and Austria. In Germany, where people must opt-in to organ donation, only a mere 12% of the population is registered to donate organs. In contrast, in Austria the role is reversed--people must opt-out of organ donation. The amount of organ donors in Austria is 99.98%. 

The issue that arises in discussing an opt-out system of charity would lie in the fact that people will be less likely to privately donate, feeling their civic duty and moral obligation to help those less fortunate has been filled by this mere 1%--or less as Singer will move on to argue--thus causing most people to donate significantly less than the 5% goal advocated by most philanthropists. So this begs the question: Is 1% of all income worth more than 5%--or potentially more in cases like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates--of voluntary donors? 

This question--while likely calculable--really does not address the heart of the matter. Is it ethical and moral to implement an opt-out system? Is this a viable, acceptable, and ethical choice the world should make in order to combat global poverty? 

Singer does argue in his text, that the worlds superpowers have a moral obligation to combat the effects of global poverty and care for the underdeveloped nations, because they are a direct cause.

"If we accept that those who harm others must compensate them, we cannot deny that the industrialized nations owe compensation to many of the world's poorest people." (33)

In stating that, why not guarantee reparations to these countries with some form of an opt-out system. After all, would we not then effectively say to people: "You need to live morally, or make the conscious choice to live immorally" -- and who would make the conscious choice to live an immoral life? When something so simple is put in front of you, such as 1% of your income will go to this cause, it is similar to putting a drowning child in front of you. In order to opt-out, you are essentially making a choice to let the child die, to live immoral.  Do the drawbacks of an opt-out system--the potential lack for further donations above 1%--outweigh the vast amount of income 1% would bring to the cause of fighting global poverty?

Passion is a powerful thing. Leaders of both for-profit and non-profit organizations strive to find passionate individuals to associate with in order to fulfill their mission. For non-profits, this may be diehard volunteers willing to give a lion’s share of their free time to a cause. For-profit organizations may have passionate customers who eagerly act as an unpaid sales force as they enthusiastically share their excitement about a product or service with their peers. Regardless of the how your organization is structured, passionate supporters can result in more sustainable revenues, higher profit margins, and faster growth.

Non-profit development staff often rely on passion as a primary driver when soliciting gifts and recruiting volunteers. I have personally experienced how difficult it can be to try to create passion in others both from a traditional sales sense, as well as acting as an advocate from several non-profits. I once found myself in a position (unsuccessfully) trying to convince my peers that they should spend some of their free time mentoring at-risk teens in Northwest Ohio for an organization that I had grown to love.

In summer of 2011 the fulfillment from my new found passion of mentoring at-risk teens was quickly diluted by the harsh reality that the vast majority of people that I spoke with simply were not interested in getting involved. The individuals that I was talking to were good people, people that I looked up to; people that inspired me, and people that I know wanted to make a difference for their community. Why was it so difficult to get them to take action for something that would have such a positive on their community; and for them personally? Several fundraisers, many conversations, and equally as many failed attempts to recruit new volunteers left me feeling disappointed and defeated. Honestly, there was a point that I was even angry with the folks I had unsuccessfully tried to recruit.

After a bit of self-reflection I decided that it was not fair for me to be angry with the individuals that I spoke with. I was attempting to “sell” them on something that they simply were not passionate about, and there is nothing wrong with that. After all, I am certainly not passionate about every single cause the gets promoted to me, why should they be? I found that the disappointment and defeat I was feeling was actually a great opportunity to become a student of what it takes to motivate people for positive change.

“Whether you think you can, or you can’t – you’re right.” – Henry Ford

I began spending time talking to individuals about what motivated them, as well as what caused them to want to take action (donate, volunteer, change a habit, etc.) These lessons ultimately lead me to the conclusion that I was taking the wrong approach all along. The strategy should not be “I am passionate about this, and these are the reasons that you should be too.”, but more along the lines of, “What are you passionate about and how can I help you experience more of that?”

Even though this alternative approach was proving to be much more effective for people that already had an existing passion, it did not address the folks that did not have a clear conviction for what they are passionate about. In those cases it made sense for us to try to spark a passion flame within someone to get them start on a path what I call Intentional Philanthropy. Knowing that simply introducing a person to a cause or organization was not enough, I began to wonder what elements go into creating passion within a person. The following is a result of an afternoon brainstorming session on the topic….

Elements for Creating Passion

(Figure 1)

  • Clear Need/Demand – There must be a need in order for passion to exist. The need should not only be identified, but also quantified. The better we are at communicating the need, the more effective we will be at creating passion within an individual.
  • Sustainable Interest – An individual must have a sustainable interest in what we represent in order to create true passion. Interests that have no deep connection will be like a fad diet. It may have the potential to be very positive, yield great results, but does not hold an interest long term which leads to great short term results that eventually get lost in the shadow of a reversion to normalcy. We look at what elements create sustainable interest for an individual later in Figure 3.
  • Clear Plan to Implement Positive Change – It always easier to get people to do something if you first give them a plan to do it. The best plans are those that are both simple to execute and result in high impact/results. Plans that are highly impactful but not very simple may still prove to be useful and necessary; however plans that are very simple and not very impactful should be avoided.

Elements of an Ideal Strategy to Implement Positive Change

Elements that Create Sustainable Interest

(Figure 3)

  • Outside Influence – This is the category that I would place in the previously mentioned “These are the reasons you should be passionate about this cause” technique. While it can occasionally yield results, outside influence on its own is not enough to create a sustainable interest in a person, however it is almost always a necessary element for sustaining interests.
  • Personal Experiences – This is what I would consider the most powerful individual element for creating a sustainable interest. Personal experiences can mold a person’s belief system in a way that has a dramatic impact on their actions.
  • Personal Expertise – Developing an interest in something that we are already good at means that we will be able to contribute at a much higher level, and that getting involved will be much more natural for us than when experiencing something completely new.

Elements for Creating Passion

(Figure 4)

  • Communicate Vision – Some of the most effective leaders credit their success largely an ability to get “buy in” from those contributing to the organization’s success (employees, volunteers, etc.) The vision for any organization should articulate the why of what we are collectively working to achieve. An organization’s ability to cultivate passion will be determined by its capacity to find people that agree with, and are willing to align to, the organization’s vision.
  • Give Autonomy and Ownership – An individual’s maximum contribution to any organization will be limited to the opportunity that he/she has to succeed. Too often contributors (employees, volunteers, board members, etc.) limit their output to the process delegated by organizational leaders. Leaders that want to effectively cultivate passion need to be willing to be flexible (within reason) with their instructions on how their subordinates will use their role to contribute to the organizations vision. Freedom to explore new techniques, make mistakes, and think outside of existing policy and procedures are all good ingredients for innovation.
  • Show Progress – Individuals will only be a part of a losing team for so long. It is important that you communicate the individual and collective progress of organizational efforts. The progress that is being reported should align with the organizations vision and can be broken down to individual roles within an organization. The objective is that each contributor knows exactly how his/her role impacts the rest of team and contributes to the success of the organization.
Once passion is created within an individual it is important to understand the elements that keep the “passion flame” burning. Think about a relationship; what keeps passion sustainable over long periods may not be what started the flame in the first place. It is important to be mindful of the elements that are necessary for cultivating passion once it exists, Figure 4 considers those elements.

An Outcome Plan is an invaluable tool for any organization looking to successfully achieve a desired end result. For non-profits in particular, it can provide clarity for both individuals directly involved in the success of the organization and donors that are considering supporting the organization. It also helpful compared to other plans in that it keeps the focus on the future, rather than only evaluating what has already passed. Later in this article we will also look specifically at how an Outcome Plan can be used to leverage efficiency (and even innovation) within an organization and how it can be used by development staff to more effectively communicate with donors. First, consider the different factors that make up an Outcome Plan.

Before we can begin to develop our Outcome Plan it is important to understand and differentiate the components that lead to a successful outcome:

We must start by looking at Inputs, which represent the resources that are used to support program efforts. Inputs can come in many forms but are often represented by staff, time, financial resources, etc. Next are Programs, which represent what an organization does in order to influence a desired end result. An example of a program may be an after-school training class designed to help at-risk teens prepare for job interviews. The class itself represents the Program, whereas the Teens that complete the class are examples of Outputs. Outputs represent what the program produces – in this case our program is producing teens that are prepared for a potential job interview. It is important to note that an output may or may not lead to an Outcome. Outcomes are the intended end result of an organization’s efforts. In our after-school training example, an outcome would be the percentage of teens that actually get a job after completing our program.

Impact should also be evaluated to the extent that we have the ability and resources to do so. Measuring impact can be particularly difficult because the factors that make up Impact measurements may not be able to be credited directly to our outcomes. However, our outcomes should have a direct correlation to the Impact in a supportive manner. In our example, we may not be able to prove that our program is solely responsible for a lower crime rate among at-risk teens in the area we serve, but we should be able to show a correlation between crime among at-risk teens that go through our program vs. those who do not. Perhaps another example would be the overall crime rate in the area we serve before starting the program vs. after the program has been implemented for a period of time.

Keeping a constant pulse on the overall process is very important if we want to be able to communicate that our efforts are actually making a difference, among other very important factors such as eliminating or changing outdated or wasteful programs.

Expert Tip: When creating your Outcome Plan, start with the Impact and move left on the figure above to determine what is required to be successful at each step. Once complete, you will be able to communicate the process from beginning (Inputs) to end (Impact).

Using an Outcome Plan to Leverage Efficiency and Evoke Innovation

Efficiency is paramount for non-profits. With limited resources and pressure from donors to reduce wasteful spending, non-profits can find themselves in an environment that seems to shy away from innovation. Innovation plays an important role to the success of many businesses, for profit and non-profit alike. Because a properly designed Outcome Plan begins with the “end in mind” it can help create an environment where those who traditionally opt against innovation begin to welcome it; or are at least more open to the idea of taking calculated risks to fuel progress.

In order to leverage efficiency for an organization, an Outcome Plan should be shared with all individuals working within the organization. The complete plan should be a hierarchy of the organization’s overall target outcomes, followed by outcomes for each program, completed with outcomes for each individual responsible for working within each program.

Efficiencies are created through autonomy and unity. By having clear communication on what everyone in the organization is working towards, we decrease the confusion around what each individual is working on. An Outcome Plan allows each team member, as well as executive staff and board members, to more easily discern who is responsible for contributing all of the factors that lead to successfully fulfilling organizational outcomes.

Invoking innovation happens when autonomy is embraced, which is often the case for organizations that believe in their outcome plan. Google is often credited with the “20% Time” concept, which gave employees the opportunity to dedicate 20% of their workweek towards innovating projects that did not fall within their regular job responsibilities. The idea is that as long as what is expected of you (outcomes) are being produced, then you have the freedom to work freely on projects that you think can take your organizational efforts to the next level. Freedom invokes innovation; an Outcomes Plan can create an environment of freedom within an organization. It has been rumored that Google has put the kibosh on its “20% time” however the policy has been copied into the cultures of mega firms such as Apple, Microsoft and LinkedIn. Google’s 20% is gets credit for about 25% of the company’s revenues thanks to projects such as Gmail, Google Transit and, Google News, all of which were born out of “20% time”.

Donors Love Outcome Plans

Outcomes Plans are transparent and comprehensive. When used properly as a part of the developmental efforts an outcome plan can be used to align donor passion with the practical necessities of any non-profit. Outcome Plans start with the desired end result and work backwards to determine what is needed to achieve success. In other words, Outcome Plans begin with donor desires and communicate what is necessary to fulfill those desires. I generally recommend keeping the Outcome Plan “open-sourced” to encourage contributions from both internal and external influences. Regularly updating the plan (one or twice per year) will welcome feedback rather than scrutiny, and create a sense of ownership for contributors. By using an outcome plan as a part of the “ask” we invite any unease the donor feels about an organizations strategy to fulfill outcomes and will create an opportunity for suggestions on how to improve or further explain existing strategies.

Resources: The best, most comprehensive resource that I have found in developing your own Outcome Plan is The Nonprofit Outcome Toolbox written by Robert Penna, PhD.

About the author: Matthew Moses is a Chartered Advisor in Philanthropy (CAP®) and Advisor Consultant for Independent Financial Advisors. He regularly works to bring the non-profit community together with financial professionals in an effort to create additional giving capacity for donors by using advanced charitable and investment planning techniques.

Join the Pay It Forward movement. Subscribe to our newsletter.

* indicates required
/ ( mm / dd )