Hi --

New here, going to dive in as this is a topic I just can't not comment on.

Personally, I've done both -- focused my donations, and "scattered" it. Why? Depended on my personal finances at the time, my inclination, and how comfortable I felt that who I was funding was getting monies from lots of other people. Nowadays, I fund mostly with my time, due to my background. And in this venture of starting this new group, I am coming face-to-face with having to prioritize my efforts. And some things I've been participating in, I may not be able to do anymore so that I can focus on the bigger picture.

YIKES -- that scares me a bit as I start to worry that I am going to quickly become just like the "big" groups who I believe have become too narrow in what they do.

But when I can "hear" reality -- what I will be doing with this new group will have a much greater impact over the long-term that keeping my efforts individualized. By creating a system that will allow LOTS of small groups to find information means more people and more animals will be helped.

So, I'm beginning to see that the best choice to achieve my goal is to stay more focused for now.

ON A BIGGER SCALE . . . This is an awesome query as it raises a number of related issues that may be used to help us all determine funding strategies: 1 ) are we really "charities"; 2 ) might the answer to this change our funding profiles; 3 ) can we use to our collective advantage the info of how do people like to donate; and 4 ) besides just plain old money, are there other reasons we care about how people donate?

I'm not long, or directly so, to the "non-profit" world although I have 25+ years of indirect relationships to non-profits. Either helping out as a teenager or donating when starting out in the corporate world.

And I'm going to throw a twist in here, perhaps. For me, I don't think of it as "charitable" giving. I LOATHE the term "charity" and avoid it at all costs.

Think of the perception it triggers. Begging, hands out, one-sided relationships. And mostly I have visions of everyone operating within the constraints of "this is what you're allowed to do with a charity group". Many things seem to occur and unfold in a linear fashion. And obviously some things need to be linear, such as corporate/legal structure, etc.

But beyond that -- if we're not charities, does the world's perception of their participation possibly change? And does the way they participate change? Example was last year and Katrina. Grassroots and individuals were sending out emotion-laden communications about how the animals need to be rescued. Well those weren't that compelling. What was compelling -- the FACT that people wouldn't leave without their animals. So if you wanted to save human lives or limit injuries to humans, plans must include animals. AHHH -- so this topic is no longer about charity. Does that make some groups or organizations more likely to help fund? You bet.

I think some non-profits have boxed themselves into the way things are done. Period. In fact, this is one thing that I bring to this new venture -- I am respectful of how things have been done but don't feel constrained to follow the same path. I believe that there are untapped funding sources if animal groups would stop trying to get money based on, "it's the right thing to do". While that may be true, it's not the reason why some corporations will participate.

Thomas' query is comparable to something that corporations struggle with in terms of sweepstakes -- is it better to have one large prize or lots of small prizes. And more often than not, the answer is "all of the above".

I appreciate Darlene's comment about the small monies adding up. That's a thought I've had for some time and will be the basis of funding for the new group I'm starting. It's fascinating that some groups go after the big monies and fail to realize how lots of small monies can be so much bigger. My local Chamber of Commerce found this out when they figured out that small businesses actually accounted for more jobs and more economic impact than the big groups they were focusing their efforts on. Oops.

And the comment about how someone receiving a small amount of money was exactly what they needed to get motivated again. So that money was so much more valuable than just the dollars.

Depending on the size of the organization's goals, is having lots of participants, even with smaller numbers from each, more of a draw to others? Does it lend credibility to the group that lots of people are donating? Do I want to donate to a group that gets mostly big numbers from a select few? What happens if they pull their funding? How important is general, broad-scale awareness of my group? If it's important, targeting even small numbers from lots of people will help you achieve other goals.

Here's an example. A domestic violence group has now added the ability to be able to take in, and foster or adopt the animals of a domestic violence victim. If you don't have broad-scale awareness builders, how will people know this is available? Many people won't leave these types of situations due to their animals. But if you only tell people when they call up the local group, some people may never call as they don't know they don't have to leave their animals behind. If you have broad-scale fundraising and awareness-building, then the word will get out sooner. Now, can you have broad-scale awareness-building without having fundraising attached? Of course, but why do so -- it's a wasted opportunity otherwise.

I hope I haven't digressed too far but I think Thomas' original query provides some good fodder for personal discussion but on a bigger scale, has interesting implications for fund-raising principles.

And I'll end with a personal choice. How am I currently making my "donations" -- still scattered but less so. Starting with, I have no interest in working with groups who aren't trying to collaborate or aren't willing to try. Collaboration is where the strength, or at least is, for animal groups. So, my scattered time/donation will at minimum, be more impactful because if I can empower a group or individual to collaborate, then I get a great ROI, however intangible.

Such as www.myelinrepair.org is achieving.

So now that I've burped everything I think on this topic -- for all of you who have been in the non-profit world so much longer than I, am I completely crazy?

Best regards, Laurel Ley