posted on: Friday, February 19, 2010

Editor's note: This posting has been revised to correct an incorrect link, noted below.

By Yna C. Moore

A couple of weeks ago, I developed a poll to find out what kind of annual reports from nonprofits are preferred by foundations’ staff. A heartfelt thanks to all who helped spread the word, those who provided their feedback via Twitter or in comments, and to those who responded to the poll – much appreciated!

So far, here are the preliminary results:

• Multi-media (video or audio accessed via a website or a CD/DVD) = 3 votes
• PDF only = 2 votes
• PDF + hard copy = 2 votes
• PDF + multi-media = 2 votes
• Hard copy + multi-media = 2 votes
• Hard copy only = 1
• I do not read annual reports = 1
• Other = 1
• TOTAL respondents = 14

I also received a couple of insightful comments on our blog and via Twitter:

“I think it's helpful when all the information is
available online in an accessible format, whether it's PDF or something else. I
think foundations should publish annual reports as well online!”

- By Elizabeth

“A PDF available on the organization's web site is easily
accessible and can easily be printed out if hard copy is wanted. Multimedia
takes too much time -- I have a stack of DVDs from grantees and would-be
grantees waiting to be viewed -- most never will be.”
- By Benjamin

“PDF + actual data in Xcel db .csv format @NCRP
Foundations! Which types of grantee reports would you likely read?”
- By @tomkaecf via Twitter

This isn’t a scientific poll by any means, and fourteen respondents isn’t a large enough sample to come up with anything definitive. But the question of what gets read and what doesn’t affects tens of thousands of nonprofits all over the country. Now more than ever, nonprofits must be smart about how they spend their very limited time, human resources and funds. This includes determining the most effective and cost-efficient way to get their annual reports to the hands to their current or prospective funders. And there’s no way for them to find out what’s effective and what’s not if funders don’t tell them!

So I’ll keep monitoring this poll until I reach a subjectively determined goal of 100 respondents. According to the Urban Institute’s National Center for Charitable Statistics, there were more than 115,000 private foundations in the country in 2009. So 100 respondents is not even a drop in the bucket! But it’s a start, and I hope it will yield some useful information for nonprofits as they continue to weather the storm of the current crisis.

Please help me reach my goal! Here are some easy and quick ways:

• Tweet it! (updated link)
• Share with your friends on Facebook
• Click on the “Share this” link at the bottom of the poll or this blog post for a bunch of other ways to help spread the word.

I’ll keep you up-to-date with our progress and interim poll results. Thank you!

Yna C. Moore is the communications director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Follow her on Twitter.

posted on: Friday, February 05, 2010

By Yna C. Moore

Once upon a time, putting together annual reports was pretty straightforward: write about accomplishments and major developments from the past year, print and send them out to a mailing list and hope they get read.

But with the proliferation of new digital media and the rising cost of producing and mailing hard copies, the process isn’t quite as ”simple” anymore. Now, it also involves wrestling with the question: What format should we use?

For most organizations, annual reports serve multiple purposes and have helped with transparency in the charitable sector. But like any other “product,” they’re only as good as their reach and consumption by their intended audiences.

For nonprofits, institutional grantmakers are among the primary target audiences of annual reports, which take considerable time and resources to produce. So the question is – Which format would most likely get read or viewed by foundation staff?

I posed this very question in comments on the Communications Network blog. Blog moderator and head of the network Bruce Trachtenberg’s answer was, we don’t know.

So here’s my (unscientific) attempt at finding out. Why? Many nonprofits are run by overworked staffers wearing multiple hats trying to get as much done with as little budget as possible. Giving these groups a better sense of trends and preferences will help them decide on the most efficient, effective and cost-conscious way to communicate with one of their most important audiences – their funding partners in the civic sector.

I hope that someone or some organization will take on a larger, more “scientific” attempt at gathering, analyzing and sharing the data. It could spell the difference between an annual report that is read or tossed to the bin and never seen.

For now, I invite foundation staffers who read this post to take the poll, or share your thoughts in comments. Thank you!

Yna C. Moore is communications director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).