Food for though for all the 501(c)3's out there...http://philanthropy.com/free/update/2005/10/2005102401.htm

I read the entire report, and looked at who is actually in charge of the group that did the research, and saw that "Public Agenda" is run by a group of people who are not exactly outsiders, but, rather, are D.C, Beltway insiders. <sigh...>And just exactly *who* did they query when doing this research? <sigh . . .>: only 6 focus groups, composed of people who, in Public Agenda's own words, represent only 40% of the people in this country: who gave more than $300 a year to charity, voted in last election, volunteered at least once last year, adn were a member of a civic organization (PTA, Rotary, etc.) How much time did they spend per focus group? Only 2 hours. They also interviewed - for only 20-30 minutes each! - only 15 leaders of non-profits. <sigh....> Public Agenda admitted in its report:http://www.publicagenda.org/research/pdfs/charitable_impulse.pdfthat polls are a very poor way to learn what people really believe and think, yet they did this expensive research and published this expensive report - only to restate the obvious: donors do not like non-profits to telemarket, use glitzy brochures, or do other things that waste donors' money.Public Agenda admitted (p. 6 of report) that polls are a very poor way to be "teasing out the nuances in human thinking and tapping into the more deeply-held bedrock beliefs that undergird public responses to key institutions.. . . " - yet they apparently believe that holding six 2-hour focus group meetings and 15 20-30 minute interviews will uncover people's deeply-held beliefs . I also wonder exactly what questions were asked, and who was doing the asking. Public Agenda said that their research showed that people donate because they feel passionate about the charity they give to -not exactly new news.When evaluating reports - such as this one - it is essential to look at the biases of the people who actually run the groups who pay for and do the research, and it is also essential to learn exactly how many people were queried and who was interviewed: gender, ethnic group, age, economic status, etc. It is also essential to remember that people will not reveal their innermost selves to strangers - and I am sure that the interviewers were strangers to the people being interviewed.I have concluded that this report is really not worth much. No one should need to waste any time or money proving that people who donate to charities do not like those charities to spend money on overly-expensive brochures, telemarketing, and overly-high salaries for staff.Deeper personal and political realities determine whether or not people are even able to donate any time and/or money to any charity.Margaret (SP fan)

Just a reminder that I would caution against anyone thinking of their Museum as a "charity". Yes, you might be a 501c(3) but that simply makes you a not-for-profit who is exempt from income tax. You are a business first and foremost and treating your operation in any other way will not make for a very bright future. I know that in the corporate board rooms around the country the local railroad museum is thrown into the same pot as the Cancer Society, Humane Society, etc, but that is no reason for your board to be happy with that. Those organizations and many others are fine organizations but thay cannot offer the type of BUSINESS TO BUSINESS partnership that your Museum can offer your local business community.Holding an exemption from income tax does not reliquish you from the responsibility to adhere to sound business practices and please do yourself a favor and remove the word "charity" from your vocabulary when describing what the mission of your Museum is all about. We, in fact, donate to local charities just like the rest of the BUSINESS community here.Thanks