How Do You Engage Your Stakeholders?

Two national nonprofits with strong brands and large bases of support learned much about the interconnections of their supporters recently as a robust public dialogue surrounded Susan G. Komen for the Cure and Planned Parenthood.

The controversy kicked up this month between Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood has spurred much discussion of how a nonprofit should handle a communications crisis. Commentators debate whether Komen should have engineered their policy change with more thought to potential negative feedback, and whether their responses to the backlash should have been handled differently. But as the dust settles on this war of words between those who stuck by Komen and those who stuck by Planned Parenthood, a more intriguing long-term question arises: What does this episode suggest about the relationship between donors and volunteers and the nonprofits they support?

At one level, this question seems like a simple one: donors who disagreed with Komen’s original decision to discontinue funding to Planned Parenthood were outraged, unleashing a rapid social media campaign urging people to discontinue their donations to Komen, and concurrently spurring a $3 million boost in donations to Planned Parenthood. They were exercising their right to move their philanthropic dollars from one nonprofit to another. So why should there be any debate about their roles as donors?

Two concerns arise: First, this was not a simple matter of philanthropists shifting their contribution strategy. This issue ensnared Komen in a political arena, creating a divide among Komen supporters between those who are pro-life and those who are pro-choice. This may have been the first time the general public was aware that the effort to find a cure for breast cancer had any connection to the ongoing political turmoil surrounding abortion.

Is this a possible trend for nonprofits? Is it possible that other nonprofits will have their issues politicized because they are working with or funding other nonprofits which have some stake in a controversial issue in the public arena? And does this threaten to undermine the essential mission of organizations, like Komen, which are not involved in an advocacy campaign opposed to abortion but an advocacy and service campaign to eliminate breast cancer?

Whichever side you may be taking in this debate among Komen donors, do you believe that your past commitment (via your donation or your service as a volunteer) to battle breast cancer will be served by canceling your support? Won’t the mission you supported suffer as a result?

The second dimension of this donor/nonprofit relationship question pertains to the essential nature of being a donor or volunteer. Some people who posted messages through social media or called into radio and TV programs as the controversy swirled suggested that, as individuals who had participated in a Komen Race for the Cure and raised funds, they had a “right” to tell Komen what it could or could not do with its funds. Therefore, they were outraged that Komen would take this action without consulting them. Some of these comments almost seemed to suggest that individuals saw their role akin to that of a voter in relation to government.

But, in fact, donors and volunteers are not “nonprofit voters.” Nonprofits are not public institutions; they are private organizations. Their own bylaws define the relationship between the organization and the stakeholders of the organization – board, staff, members (if they have them), volunteers, clients, community, etc.

Now, nobody doubts that donors and volunteers should be considered pretty important people to any nonprofit, especially in an organization like Komen, which creates a very high level of engagement for thousands of its supporters. But if the organization’s bylaws do not give those stakeholders a role in governance, then these individuals have no “rights” to direct Komen’s funding strategy.

Therefore, those volunteers and donors entrust Komen with decision making about the best way to serve its mission. And if Komen, which grants tens of millions of dollars each year to other nonprofits nationwide, decides that the $700,000 to Planned Parenthood could be better spent with other nonprofits, why should donors question that decision? If that decision is made with the same commitment to addressing the ravages of breast cancer, do the donors and volunteers know better?

These are not easy questions. Any nonprofit, which provides a benefit to the community, and involves that community significantly through contributions, service and other forms of engagement, cannot be cavalier about the trust they hold with that community. How far does this relationship go in suggesting that donors and volunteers should be more thoroughly consulted when making decisions like Komen did this month?

Our work in the nonprofit community is largely built upon trust: it begins when the IRS entrusts us with a charitable mission by granting 501(c)3 status, and continues when we promise to fulfill our mission, putting that mission above all other considerations. Those who support us and whom we serve deserve to know that we handle that trust with care. Even when political issues seep into our arena, we must maintain the same commitment to public trust. Whether or not Komen mishandled that trust is the real issue we should be debating as we reflect upon this episode in our community.