I spent yesterday at the Givewell Nonprofit Finance Forum, the topic dubbed ‘best practice financial management for nonprofits’ with a hundred other groups all wanting the answer to the same question; how do we fundraise when people are watching their life savings vanish in front of their eyes?


The news is grim, with the speakers from several funds managers predicting a continued depression and an increasing need for our services as people struggle to make ends meet – and fail. Large companies are pulling their grants programs, leaving less options for funding and those who have secured funding, are under increasing pressure to perform. ‘Once a year’ fundraising events are struggling to find sponsors, supporters and attendees. And for those groups with existing investments, their capacity shrinks as the economy slows.

So was there any good news?

When your public is under financial stress, having a fan club becomes vital. A one-way relationship just isn’t going to cut it, when there are other leaner, hungrier groups competing for your supporters.


Groups may need to consolidate to eliminate the duplication of services and reduce overheads. And more than ever groups will need to market themselves, tell their stories and not be afraid to ask for support.


Simply, the present financial market is an opportunity for groups who have a drive to do things better to shine. Those who think they can underperform, underdeliver and neglect their supporters and still get by, are in for tough times.


My next few blogs will be about the inspirational ideas from the day;


Should groups consolidate?
Using social networking to reach your members
Are we a business?


And I highly recommend getting to a Givewell seminar if you can.

Sasha Dichter’s inspirational piece In Defense of Raising Money: a Manifesto for NonProfit CEOs says we should stop apologising for raising money to continue our work;

Convincing the most powerful, resource‐rich people you know that allocating some of their capital to the issues you’re addressing matters.

You’re devoting your life, your spirit, your energy, your faith into making the vision you have of a better future into a reality.

So why are you so scared to ask people for money? Why do you feel afraid to say: “This problem is so important and so urgent that it is worth your time and your money to fix it. I’m devoting my whole life to fixing this problem. I’m asking you to devote some of your resources to my life’s work too.”

And goes onto describe the abnormal relationship people have with money and how it drives their fear to ask for it; (People think that asking for money is all about asking for money. People think that storytelling is a gift, not a skill. Money = Power. They are afraid they will be told ‘no’).


Sasha instead argues that fundraising is really generating capacity for us to enact change and that we should be pleased to be talking to powerful, influencial people about the difference we hope to make in the world.


If you’ve ever been too scared to ask for money, or felt in someway that asking for money ‘pollutes’ the authenticity of your cause, then you must read this.

Sometimes something is said so simply and so brilliantly, that you wonder why no one has said it before;

So is the case with the post from Christie Keith at Pet Connection Blog today;

Don’t surrender the power of ‘no-kill’

That power is exactly why no-kill opponents are doing their level best to destroy the no-kill brand. They know it is probably the most positively-associated of all phrases for the general animal-loving public. Surrendering it would a huge mistake, and it would be to grant a victory to the enemies of no-kill that they have not honestly won.

Groups have always used ’slogans’ to represent what they do, and no one ever attacks them for their ‘literal worth’.


Take the ‘Make a Wish’ foundation, who does amazing work helping sick kids have nice experiences, but whom I doubt is staffed by fairies. The ‘Keep Australia Beautiful’ group is about collecting rubbish – not the elimination of ugly people.


So it’s simply ridiculous to spend hours debating whether we can use the words ‘No Kill’ to describe groups who kill untreatable and unrehomable pets – of course we can. But more importantly, that’s not the point!


And this bickering becomes really malevolent when being used to avoid examination of the life saving ideas behind No Kill, or is an effort to actively prevent other people from finding innovative new ways to save the lives of pets.

Long live No Kill!

When I blogged about the new Beverly Hills Chihuahua movie, rescue groups both here and abroad had just started to agitate about the influx of chi’s they were expecting to flood their shelters from a ‘irresponsible public’ after the release of the movie.


Nathan Winograd reported on my post saying:

After posting my concerns about the position of PETA and some shelters regarding Disney’s new movie Beverly Hills Chihuahua, I came across Shel’s review of September, before the movie was released. Had I read it before I had done mine, I would have cited it. It is a thoughtful analysis and I am grateful for the voice of sanity and reason which sees golden opportunities for lifesaving in popular culture’s reflection of our love of dogs.

And also criticised shelters for missing the potential of the film;

Instead of the fear mongering based on draconian stereotypes, platitudes, and mistruths, how about a campaign to appeal to what is best in the dog loving American public? How about picking up where Disney left off with their lifetime responsibility and adoption disclaimers, and putting in place a comprehensive pro-active and positive message that says to people:

CHIHUAHUAS ARE GREAT. ADOPTING ONE IS EVEN GREATER.

But while groups lament the film and trot out untrue clichés of ‘101 Dalmations Syndrome’ instead of taking advantage of the moment to educate and inspire people to adopt, the No Kill Nation blog today reports;

The naysayers missed an even greater PR opportunity than Winograd imagined for them: People reports that the film’s canine star was rescued from a California shelter.

Trainer Mike Alexander told People that after searching for weeks with breeders and pet stores, he saw “a photo of a big-eared Chihuahua mix named Rusco on a rescue Web site.” When Hollywood called, the shelter’s response, according to Alexander, was to tell him to “hurry.” The dog, a stray, had been at the Moreno Valley shelter for two weeks and “could be put down any day.”

Fortunately, Alexander “raced 120 miles” to see the dog and adopted him “without hesitation.”

In this instance, the shelters might step back from their rhetoric and take a page from Hollywood’s book to trumpet an inspiring success story and get out the right messages about the great dogs that end up in their care.

Amen.

I think as agents of change, we’ve all felt like this little fishy at some point…

News from the Australian Institute of Animal Management conference in Darwin, that hot on Tasmania’s heels, South Australia is also reviewing their companion animal legislation with view to strengthening their laws.


SA’s preferences presently look like this:

microchipping of all dogs and cats by a specified date
or
microchipping of dogs and cats at first registration
and/or
microchipping of seized cats at owner’s expense

Also including

Seizure of cats wandering at large,
plus
annual registration of new cats or annual registration of all cats,
and
the appointment of cat management officers.

Once again, rather than look to new life saving initiatives having success overseas, these states have followed those in the east down the path of trap, seize and kill. Despite there being no evidence of it reducing pound kill rates or cat populations one fluffy tabby.

Lets examine

NSW implemented their compulsory microchipping policy on the first of July 1999, after identifying it as the key to saving the lives of pound pets.

While a certain amount of opposition continues some seven years after compulsory microchipping was introduced, microchipping has dramatically improved the chances of a lost pet being reunited with it’s owner. And it’s instigators have hailed it a success…

Microchipping has decreased the euthanasia rate and increased opportunities for councils and breed and animal rescue organisations to work together to rehome unclaimed dogs and cats.

Compulsory Microchipping in NSW – Maree Garrett, Department of Local Government, NSW

However, compulsory microchipping has nothing to do with rehoming unclaimed pets – it’s about reuniting owned pets with their families. So whether you have compulsory microchipping or not, you can and should have good rehoming programs for unclaimed dogs and cats. And while it would be great if compulsory microchipping did reduce the euthanasia rate, unfortunately the pound stats tell a different story.


This year, the first-ever compulsory pound survey revealed that of the 49,916 dogs and cats that went into NSW council pounds in the 2006-07 year 48% of the animals (24,003) were killed.


9 years on, almost 1 in 2 pets received die in shelters, microchip law or no microchip law.

And they call this a success?

Meanwhile, the Victorian Government (who already had compulsory registration, and limits on the numbers of pets people could own) legislated in 2007 on the advice of animal welfare groups, that all newly registered cats and dogs should be microchipped, with the RSPCA citing;

Compulsory microchipping will mean that if a pet becomes separated from its owner and lands in a pound or shelter, its owner can be quickly contacted. This will reduce the number of animals that end up in shelters and in turn reduce the euthanasia rate for animals that are unable to find a new home.

Which would be great if that were true. But a little over a year on, having been granted their wish for compulsory microchipping, the RSPCA as part of the Cat Crisis Coalition have moved on to compulsory desexing. While freely admitting their last two ‘big ideas’ compulsory registration and microchipping haven’t actually changed anything.


From the CCC website FAQ on ‘why we need compulsory desexing’….

In 1996 the Domestic Animals Act (DAA) introduced compulsory cat registration as a means to reduce the numbers of unwanted cats. However, after eight years of implementation, it is evident that registration (by itself) has done little to reduce the numbers of unwanted cats. In fact, the numbers entering shelters has risen slightly from 45,000 in 1990 to 48,000 in 2004. As this is a problem of cat overpopulation, desexing is the answer.

Seriously! Why are we looking to give these groups more power when they haven’t yet proven their last TWO ideas were sound?

What’s next?

So along with Tasmania and South Australia, Queensland is also forging ahead with this still unproven, and quite likely completely unsuccessful, pet management model:

In an effort to reduce the number of cats and dogs being put down every year, Premier Anna Bligh today revealed a voluntary two-year local government trial and plans to make registration and microchipping of dogs and cats mandatory.

Ms Bligh said there were thousands of unwanted cats and dogs without homes that had to be put down every year. “As a dog lover, it is very sad to hear of the senseless killing of thousands of healthy cats and dogs every year because there are no homes for them.

Again – compulsory microchipping has nothing to do with creating homes for homeless pets and everything to do with only getting ones WITH homes, back to their owners, which when you’re talking about the overwhelming majority of impounded cats never having had owners, makes no difference at all.


This compulsory microchipping trial, although a feel-good to animal welfare groups and a way for the council to look like it’s taking some action, will have no effect in reducing pound kill rates. People who purport ‘compulsory microchipping saves lives’ are simply repeating a common furphy and what’s worse, kill rates will actually rise as semi-owned and feral cats are seized for being the unfortunate situation of not having a ‘traditional’ owner.


Now you might think with all this, I’m anti-microchipping. I’m not. No one is debating that microchipping helps reunite pets with owners or whether every responsible owner should microchip their pets – that’s a no-brainer. I’m simply against legislation that doesn’t work, will never work and has enormous potential to hinder our ability to implement new ideas and lifesaving TNR programs in the future.


But don’t take my word for it; watch the video.

Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) is a strategy for improving the lives of feral cats and reducing their numbers.

This is great! Check out the way this RSPCA is working in conjunction with a primary school to care for orphaned puppies…

watch?v=QB8trkyKxfA

Rescue groups often seem to have one plan and one plan only for the way an advertising campaign might help them reach pet owners; that a ’shock’ based campaign will suddenly have everybody acting ‘responsibly’ and the carnage will stop.

To date a total lack of any television campaigns and media attention of this shocking annual killing of our companion animals could mean the public is still unaware, as it is inconceivable to imagine that as a society we would knowingly accept this shameful situation without an outcry from the caring public.

XXX is committed to stopping the killing and thinks it’s time to tell the public the truth about the fate of unwanted but healthy animals taken to local shelters and pounds by their owners. Up to 96% of unwanted but healthy cats and kittens and up to 80% of unwanted but healthy dogs and puppies are killed in some shelters with a lower kill rate recorded in other shelters and pounds because homes cannot be found for them. But overall the resulting kill figure is a National disgrace.

Media release – Aussie shelter

When I was consulting with a group of cat rescuers about potential advertising opportunities they joyfully told me that they already had a TVC made up ready to broadcast. The central theme? A shopping trolley full of dead cats to ’shock’ the evil pet owners into desexing.


But lets examine for a moment the motivations of a consumer, something marketers can spend years studying, but always comes back to one simple premise…

Feel good – engage.
Feel bad – disengage.

Who are you trying to reach with your message? Not the responsible pet owner because he already has his pets desexed and takes care of them just fine. No, you want to affect the bogan breeder the uneducated, repeat offender that belligerent defends his right to breed, or simply doesn’t care and drops you off a litter each year.


So how do you plan to change him? Do you genuinely think he’s going to stick around while you tell him how wrong his behaviour is? Do you think that this punishment-centric, shock campaign is going to have him seeing the error of his ways and keep him from breeding his pets?


Hardly. He’ll just think you’re a know-all. Because when you try and make someone feel bad, they aren’t charmed, they’re not attracted to your point of view and they’re definitely not affected in the way you hope they will be – they simply get defensive and tune you out.

But here’s the real problem

Remember our ‘responsible’ owner, the one who we have no beef with? He sees this campaign and absolutely is shocked. Shocked and upset that this is taking place in his community. But because you’re trying to punish the bogan breeder, there’s no good news in your message. So our responsible owner tunes you out too. Because you make him feel bad.


The next time you run the ad he doesn’t watch. When you ask for money, he don’t want to hear your message because it’s too sad. You’ll wonder why people are unsubscribing to your mailing list… and why no one seems to care.


The cost of disengaging and repulsing our responsible owners, in an effort to reach the Bogan breeders, is much, much too high. Especially when the campaign is doomed to fail to effect anyone in any real way, anyway…


Instead, we should put every single ounce of our energies into improving our standing in the community and engaging responsible owners who can help us kill less, by adopting our pets and donating to our cause.


Simply, the only way to start truly reducing the effect of the bogan breeder is by strengthening the rescue industry to the point, where we both take away his market share and have plenty of resources to deal with his bad decisions.

Last week I wrote about the dangers of bad news and why you should avoid the media when their sole aim is to expose sad, sick or abused rescue pet stories.


Today, in an amazing stroke of blog imitating life, I received this email;

Dear Sir/Madam,
Am a journalist and dog lover with the <major victorian newspaper>. Could you contact me directly re: doing a story this week on “special needs dogs” wanting to be adopted. I found two afghans that needed a home, plus an old fellow Chad with a heart murmur, and am sure you have other animals that need publicity to get re-homed.

I rang this journo and explained that while I appreciated her intention was to help out rescue, that we tended to shy away from stories that may re-enforce the perception in the community that all rescue pets are ‘faulty’.


She responded with an unreasonably venomous tirade “well clearly you don’t have any idea about what’s required to get a story in the media – I don’t have to bust my hump trying to help you – do you want the exposure or not?


Okay, sorry no.


I’ll just go to the Lost Dogs Home then” and she hung up!


While it might seem like any media is good media, it’s simply not the case. There are good quality stories and bad quality stories. There are bad reporters like this one and fantastic ones like the ones I’ve spent the last week and a half with.


The media is a tool to use to benefit you and your group. You don’t ever have to be part of a story that you don’t feel reflects what you are about. Take the time to think about what stories you will do and those you won’t do and most of all don’t be afraid to say no if it’s not the right fit.


And when they ask you the question; tell me about some of your most abused or sad pets – just smile and say “our pets are fantastic!”

I adopted a gorgeous labrador cross to a family two months ago only to receive a phone call today from the local pound informing us that the new owners had surrendered her.

The family presented themselves as nice professional people. They already had a dog who got along with this new girl and all in all it seemed like the perfect adoption.

Our adoption contract states that if there is any problems, they were to return the dog to us. But these lowlife creeps never phoned us and had to drive not only past us, but three quarters of an hour to take the dog to the pound. When they surrendered, they said that this dog barked constantly although it had never been a problem before and hasn’t been one since.

Could you please create a blacklist of unsuitable adopters so that creeps like this will never be able to get a pet from a rescue again?

Adoption blacklists certainly exist in certain rescue circles and other industries have used them to screen out potentially unsuitable people – rental accommodation being one that has come under scrutiny recently;

Although no agents will say it openly, hundreds of thousands of Australians have been dumped on computer blacklists which are used by landlords and agents. People with physical disabilities often end up on the databases. So do women and teenagers escaping domestic violence. Community workers and social service groups report it is also common for people to be black listed because of their ethnic origin.

Being named on a tenancy database is a serious matter. It makes it impossible for families and individuals to find rental accommodation.

How does this happen? It’s simple – there are virtually no restrictions on the compilation of these databases. Run by private companies, they operate without specific laws governing their conduct.

So therein lies the problem; how does anyone actually become judge-judicator-and essentially executioner of such a list?


Well essentially, they don’t. Given the nature of a ‘black ban’ list no one can put their name and credibility behind them without then spending the rest of their lives at the small claims court. So these lists form and develop in secret and become a hub for prejudice and misunderstanding.


Yucky. No thanks.

So what can we do?

Rather than try and get a list of people to blackball, is it possible to examine why these people felt they couldn’t come back to rescue with their problems?


Sure, they could be ‘creeps’. There will always be jerks in the world, that’s a given. But they’re not majority of people and if they are in fact jerks, they’ll not be pinned down by a ‘headhunting’ style list. They’ll simply apply in another name or lie. Call it the ‘because they’re jerks rule’.


But wouldn’t that level of jerkiness also lend itself to ridding oneself of the pet in the easiest fashion? Opening the front door and letting it loose comes to mind. Or tying it to your door knob. Surely handing the pet over to you would have been easier than driving 45mins out of their way?


Nope, there’s something bigger at play here…

They’re avoiding you.

Why do these people not feel like they could come forward with their problems?


Think about it – these adopters show up and look fine. You run your internal ‘d*ckhead’ radar over them – still fine? You do some background checks – still fine. You homecheck – still fine. You speak to them a few times organising the adoption – still fine. But two months later – not fine?


But worse – not fine and not happy to come back and tell you they’re not fine!

Do you do everything in your power to promote returns?

But! I can hear you thinking; why on earth would we promote returns?


For the same reason we make it easy for people to surrender; because it’s part of what we offer. And the alternative is often much, much worse for the pet.


Did we follow up often enough to check the pet was settling in? Were there questions that could have been asked that would have revealed that the pet/owner bond wasn’t developing? Was there anything extra in the way of services these new owners could have been directed to, to help the bond form? (training etc?). And was there at least a couple of different (easy) ways for people to reach us should they need to?


In short, did we show these people how much we’d love them to return their pet?

Do you really, really, truly love returns?

Do you truly embrace returns or do you snipe under your breath when these ‘irresponsible’ and ‘irrational’ owners show up trying to give you a pet back?


Often we don’t see the value in returns. But we should be saying; PLEASE RETURN if this pet isn’t working out. We would LOVE you to come back if you’re not happy. Please consider us a RESOURCE should you be having any problems at all. And please come back ANYTIME in the future of this pets’ life – even if it’s just to surrender – and we’ll be GLAD to see you.


Returns are an opportunity. They’re a chance for us to seriously examine why this pet didn’t stick and whether there is another pet that would suit these people better – after all, these pet owners now know exactly what they don’t want – and for people who up until quite recently had no idea, that’s very valuable information indeed.

Returns support good people who’ve made an error of judgment.

Lists of unsuitable people? That’s just wasting energy trying to punish jerks.