NAI Blog

I once heard a motivational speaker point out that the most innovative thing an older organization can do is to QUIT doing the WRONG things. That made great sense to me. Innovating with new initiatives may be fun and a future step for innovation. Stopping current waste requires no new great ideas. We just need a way to evaluate our existing activities.

Interpretive organizations have varied profit centers or programmatic activities. We may not think of them as business units, but they function that way. You can plot them on a mission-money matrix as an analytical process. If profit is the top of the vertical axis and loss at the bottom, then a positive mission orientation is on the right of a horizontal axis. The left end of the horizontal axis is unrelated to the mission of the organization.

You can write the name of your business or program activities on individual post-it notes and place them on the matrix to see visually how your overall business looks. This can be done with your staff or management team and you can discuss each item to determine if it indeed makes a profit or not. Volunteer hours are valued by the U.S. government at about $20 per hour and it’s good to use that value when assessing programs that rely on volunteer effort.

Sector I is where we place activities that make a profit and clearly are related to our mission. Those are keepers and they are somewhat hard to find. Nonprofits and governmental agencies often do mission-related activities that lose money. The profit-making sector would be doing the activity if it was easy to make a profit at it.

I used to manage a nature center that had 10,000 to 17,000 grade school children visiting each year and paying $3.50 per child for the 3 hour program. Our costs were about $30,000 a year to make $40,000 a year in fees. Interns were the field teachers and they received only free housing and a food stipend. The program made money and was mission-centric so we kept that.

Sector II is where you place activities that lose money but really support your mission. That’s why government or nonprofits exist. We take on community or public service roles that require donations or tax subsidies. These are usually keepers but you can have too many of them. Something must offset the losses such as donations, grants, government money, etc. If all of your post-its end up in Sector 2, your organization may not be sustainable. You lose a little each year and your organization is on a downward slide toward insolvency.

We held an annual Clean up the Rivers Day at the nature center and that cost us staff time, fuel for vehicles and food for volunteers. We did have some co-sponsorships from businesses but the event lost money. It was very mission-oriented, but not easy to turn into a profitable activity. However, it cleaned up the river corridors we used for programs, demonstrated to the community our commitment to resource conservation and made the river corridors more safe for all users. It was a keeper also.

Sector III is where you place activities or programs that make a profit but do not advance your mission. These can be anything from a car wash to an annual auction or gambling event. If they are profitable, we may need to keep doing them. These Sector III activities often can be pushed into Sector I by making them more mission related.

At the nature center we had a golf tournament sponsored by a radio station and local market that donated about $15,000 annually from the tournament. I had to play golf, which was not my hobby but certainly not an unpleasant day. I enjoyed it. We knew that the golfers were food and beverage vendor representatives. We discussed how to make the event more useful to the nature center. We started taking birds from our raptor center to the golf tournament finish line tent to share their stories with the golfers. This was a chance to increase event co-sponsorships and get donors or partners for other programs. An auction or a sales area that also makes money for you can be mission-related if you make the items sold match your mission and member interests.

Sector IV is where you place the activities that lose money and do not advance your mission. These wear out your volunteers and sponsors doing something that does not help your organization. A car wash, a bake sale, a candy sale and varied other activities might seem to make money at first look. After you deduct the volunteer time at $20 an hour, the event is often a loser. Quit doing it

At the nature center we had a rummage sale that involved hundreds of volunteer hours to make hundreds of dollars. It was clearly not advancing our cause and it wore out volunteers sorting old clothes and toasters. We gave it up.

It is not always easy to quit doing the wrong things. Sometimes you have a boss, board member, or influential volunteer who wants to stay in the WRONG business. You can document the costs behind doing something that does not advance your mission and present that information to that person or a decision maker who works with the budget. If they are reasonable, they will see that it is better to quit the activity than continuing to lose funds at it.

If your agency or organization does not sell things or handle money, you can plot attendance or staff time or some other key parameter on the vertical axis and compare your programs using this kind of matrix. It is just a management tool that helps you have meaningful discussions with staff and governance groups. It is really innovative to quit doing the WRONG stuff.

-Tim Merriman

Humans are like packrats or bower birds in some ways. We like stuff. We collect things. We look for memorabilia as we travel and have new experiences. I have every surface of my office that is not my working desk covered with small items that speak to me. Most of them recall a special experience or a special place or a friend. Almost all are inexpensive.

The raw tagua nut reminds me of Rick Morales, a friend and interpretive trainer in Panama, who took us around Panama, sharing his passion for his country, the people, the wildlife and the stories. Tagua is called vegetable ivory and it is carved into varied animals and items that are sold as memorabilia in Panama. It was interesting to see an actual tree and the raw nuts. I have a tagua nut from Panama carved into a boa constrictor, swallowing a frog.

Some souvenirs have no particular value except as Memory Keepers. I have the entry ticket to Kunio Kobayashi’s Bonsai Museum in Tokyo. It’s a piece of paper, net value to others would be nothing. I attempt to raise bonsai trees at home and the visit to the museum was special and the ticket reminds me. The long-term value may be very little for I rarely keep track of paper items well. Small curios have a longer life with me as memorabilia.

I bring this up because interpretive experiences should also offer memorabilia to people. Some interpreters consider this commercial kind of activity to be contrary to our purpose in connecting people to natural and cultural resources.  Think about what happens if we have no memorabilia. People want something to recall the experience so they take the resource. Our fossil parks are most endangered by this behavior but it happens everywhere. We are far ahead to sell appropriate memorabilia that have some real value beyond the life of the experiences they represent.

Great items have some real value in extending, expanding or recalling the experience. I think of them in different ways based on how they work.

Extenders – Books, web pages and videos actually grow  beyond the experiences. If I read further about the work of Bonsai Master Kunio-san, I learn more about bonsai and I add to the experience I had in Japan.

Icons – Photos, t-shirts, handmade items, replicas of artifacts and other items typical to the experience may not be educational, but they easily recall the memory for people. They are post-experience icons. Some are enduring and some wear out. The best ones last a very long time and make us smile when we see them. They take us back to where we found or bought them. Some are art objects tied to the cultures or places we visit. The best ones appreciate in monetary value over the years.

Polar Bears – I know this does not make sense without the story. Lisa Brochu tells the story in our interpretive planning courses of working with a nature center in Texas that had a stuffed polar bear on display. It had been donated of course. It just did not add much to a Texas nature experience. We refer to things that are out of place as POLAR BEARS. Please do not sell or give polar bears as memorabilia. They detract from the experience. Some gift store managers at natural or cultural sites will argue for keeping an item because IT SELLS. If that is our only criteria for selling things, we lose the opportunity to strengthen our identity and our theme. You might have plush toy polar bears for sale if you are in Churchill, Manitoba, Canada, interpreting the bears. They  could also be appropriate at an international zoo that displays polar bears.

Junk – Some items are simply junk,  that is easy to sell. Shot glasses, spoons, toys and diverse other items are sold at many sites and some people do collect them. But they don’t recall the experience in most cases except for the name of the place. T-shirts are sometimes in this category, just having the name of the place, and yet sometimes they are wonderful memorabilia because they display an image or message that is powerful in recalling the theme and identity of the site. They also serve as walking advertisements for organizations and experiences, inviting others to ask where we got the shirt.

I remember visiting New York City’s Chinatown when I was 14 years old. I bought an item in a Chinatown store that seemed typical to me. When I got it home, I noticed “made in Japan” on the underside, a common situation in the early 1960s. I threw the souvenir away. It didn’t work any longer for me to help remember my visit to Chinatown.

We just attended our international conference in Australia with 145 interpretive professionals. With five hours to wait in Sydney for the next plane we perused the AUSTRALIA SOUVENIR shops. Most of the items were MADE IN AUSTRALIA and marked as such. Some had MADE IN CHINA stamped on the bottom, not a souvenir of Australia if you think about it.

The very best memorabilia or souvenirs actually say something about our values at an interpretive site as well as our identity and theme. Authentic, replica of an artifact, locally crafted, organic, and fair trade are a few of many terms that tell people we care about what we share with others. When the item also matches the experience very well it is a plus. Selecting the right memorabilia to sell is part of a thoughtful interpretive planning process.

Appropriate memorabilia can also make a profit for interpretive sites and support staff and facilities. The selling of the right things can be a positive extension of the interpretive experience. “Profits from this store help conserve our native plants and animals” or “profits benefit local indigenous communities” are messages that make many travelers more willing to purchase.

The right souvenirs can also discourage damage to the resource from people finding their own souvenirs.  We simply have to think about how it supports the total interpretive experience before adding it to our store or sales area. Help your guests take home a memory, not an actual piece of the resources you protect.

- Tim Merriman

Diantha Martin presenting at Region 4 workshop.

National Association for Interpretation (NAI) has been around 56 years now, if we look back at the parent organizations, the Association of Interpretive Naturalists (AIN) and Western Interpreters Association (WIA). Their merger in 1988 brought to growing group together to create NAI. The interesting change during the merger meetings was the new name with “for interpretation,” not “for interpreters.” The previous groups were identified with the job descriptions, not the profession. The new mission in 1988 also focused on the profession in stating our desire “to inspire leadership and excellence to advance heritage interpretation as a profession.” The focus on professionalism was intentional. We knew many of managers and colleagues viewed an interpreter or guide as someone being paid to play in the forest, zoo, nature center, park or museum by talking to people and having fun. To be valued we have to be professionals doing a job valued and desired by management, not just applauded by our guests as entertainment.

Many members focus on the financial cost in thinking about membership. It’s $60 for a professional membership in NAI today and that supplies a magazine, member discounts and a variety of other services you can select, if you want them. (Download a complete list of benefits here.) In 1980 the dues for AIN came to $35 and WIA charged $25. In inflation-adjusted dollars the cost of membership in AIN in 1980 was  $90 and $65 for a membership in WIA., so the price has come down a bit. Some compare our prices to other organizations and find that most professional organizations charge about the same amount for comparable products and services or just a little more. As professionals we should be shopping for professional development to help us be more successful and price differences should not be the deciding factor. This is our profession, not a box of cornflakes.

It costs NAI about $152 per individual membership to provide member services for which we charge $60. The subsidy of each membership comes from other profit centers. We publish and sell books, provide training and certification and conduct national and international workshops that make a surplus in some years. Commercial and institutional memberships pay more than $152 and help subsidize every other individual membership. Still, it is not so important what it costs to support a membership as what is provided in benefits.

Benefits have increased substantially through the years and they have become less tangible. Members a decade ago received a print magazine, journal, national newsletter, member director and regional or section newsletters. Now all of these are electronic services except for Legacy magazine. It may seem that the electronic services should be cheaper because no paper or mail delivery is involved but the technology and skill to manage them actually cost more. We consume less in physical resources and that is good, but the commitment of time and expertise has gone up. Database management, online banking, 800 number conference calling, blogging and social networking are easier these days in some ways and more complex in other ways.

At some point we should all look at professional membership and its value in more intrinsic ways. What does it mean to us as individual professionals. I can think of times when I have found jobs, solved problems, learned vital new skills and grew personally because of the interpersonal relationships encouraged by NAI. Social networking by electronic means is bringing us all closer together digitally but face to face relationships have a value that endure. I have no close relationships from twenty-five years of digital networking, but friends from actual meetings have lasted a lifetime.

In the past decade NAI has certified more than 8,000 professionals in six categories and the endorsement of our network has helped many of them get jobs or promotions Through their good work and skilled performance they build credibility for NAI.

The greatest value of a professional network may not be what you get – the benefits. It should be what you give back and what you share with others. We grow the most when we train others, share our ideas at meetings and financially help someone who lacks the resources get training when she or he cannot afford it. Professionalism is not about getting so much as giving and growing. Finding value in a professional membership can be a financial exercise or spiritual growth in a community of like-minded people. We hope you will stay involved in this professional family of NAI and find the spiritual and professional support you need. And we hope you will get involved and give back to others.

- Tim Merriman

It’s an old saying. It’s a reminder that the choir may not need the sermon as much as others. Interpreters can easily end up being the friendly entertainment for the “choir.” They are the easy audience to attract.

In 1980 I moved to Pueblo, Colorado, to run a one-year old nature center. It had been started by the local Audubon chapter. We lived initially on federal revenue sharing grants. President Reagan took office two months after I arrived and he and the Congress quickly eliminated the federal revenue sharing program. I learned that I had three months to find funding to support our staff of two or watch the center die.

I had been a state park interpreter before this job as a nonprofit director. Preaching to the choir was common in state parks. I started by doing just that at the nature center. It was easy to do. I would advertise a 6 AM bird hike on Saturday and three Audubon members would show up. They didn’t need me to take them birdwatching but we all enjoyed these social outings. I finished each one with some concern that no revenue resulted and it was the same three or four people each week. This was a free program. We needed money, more members and to have some impact on those not already very interested in nature.

We discussed our options and decided we needed a fee-based program that introduced new people to birding. We came up with “Breakfast with the Birds.” We asked local markets for donated bakery goods and juices. We started the program at 8 AM, not 6 AM. Those new to birding would not want to get up at the crack of dawn. We charged $5 for this introduction to birding, continental breakfast and fun in the outdoors with new folks, not the “choir.”

We would have thirty to fifty show up and would make a good profit for this struggling but growing nature center. Some would also join us as members. We taught participants about birding and birdfeeding at home. We sold birdfeeders and bird seed mixtures at our gift shop. These were our first customers for those products. We met people who would not have considered a 6 AM birdwalk, but were interested in birds. Our choir didn’t show up. They were out birding long before these events began.

When I think of the challenge of building a membership at a nature center, I know there will be a natural audience who is already interested – our “choir.” It’s great to do some programming for them but not be totally focused there. Building constituents often means thinking about “potential markets.” Who might join us and be interested if we design for them? Tens of millions of people feed birds at home so they are a potential audience for any new nature program.

Cultural programs are similar. You can plan programming for the history buff and they are out there. Most organizations need a broader audience to support their efforts. If you plan for the potential audiences at a historic house, they might be those interested in geneaology or antiques.

We still need the “choir,” those already interested in our natural and cultural history programs and sites. They make great volunteers, serve on the Board, and will bring their friends. But we build stronger constituencies by thinking about who is not coming, but has some interest in our mission. They will respond to a softer approach and may one day be part of the choir.

-Tim Merriman

I never make New Year’s resolutions for myself. I don’t want to disappoint me. I do better if I sneak up on self-improvement. The year I turned 30 I read something about how the human body deteriorates after you are 25 years old or so. I looked in the mirror and decided to work at slowing down entropy. I started running and 34 years later, I’m still out there every morning, pounding the pavement or playing hamster on a treadmill. I like running in the outdoors better. If I had started running as a New Year’s resolution, it would have never happened. I sneaked up on the idea and now I cannot live without it.

Professionally I do make resolutions. A new year offers an opportunity to start over at work. We keep score one year at a time due to the motivation provided by the Internal Revenue Service and annual audits. This year has been financially tough all over the U.S. with the recession and economic decline. The stock market plunge in 2008 left lots of organizations reeling from the decline in their invested funds. We feel it as a professional association. Our modest portfolio lost about 45%. This year it has built back about 25%, thank goodness.

Many NAI members are hurting as jobs are lost. State parks and historic sites are often the hardest hit by the decline in tax funds. Local government programs shrink also. I have heard in the past week of layoffs in Idaho State Parks and potential layoffs in several other states. California was one of the first to report that they would close parks and layoff personnel. Nonprofits suffer terribly when donors see their invested funds shrink. The overall economy slows and most folks give less to their favorite charities.

An amazing thing happened in 2009 and that suggests my New Year’s Resolution. We participated in the No Child Left Inside (NCLI) campaign. We added our organizational name to the growing list of people asking Congress to put environmental education into the reissue of No Child Left Behind legislation. We supported higher education bills, wetlands education and many other strategies to improve funding for education in formal and nonformal settings. It is paying off. Some bills have already passed increasing funding for wetlands education. The NCLI legislation is making progress and needs more of us to comment on the legislation through the Secretary of Education right now. This coalition now numbers more than 1,500 organizations representing more than 50 million constituents. This is all due to the good work of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and other good people in environmental organizations working as a coalition. Our voice with Congress has grown through cooperation.

We are not lobbyists. We are not in Washington, D.C., where learning about legislation may be easier. But the Internet has brought us all closer together. My resolution is fairly simple. I will look for every opportunity to write a letter to support a program. Let us know if you need that kind of support. We will keep you informed through this blog and NAINOW of what we learn about pending legislation. We will try to faithfully keep our members and readers in the loop. We hope you will lend your voice and name to these efforts.

A New Year begins right now. It is 2010. We can all look for every opportunity to be an advocate for better support of natural and cultural heritage interpretation and protection. It just will not happen unless there is continued broad collaboration. Thanks for your support of the interpretive profession as members and partners. Let’s all be resolved to do even more in 2010.

Make it a a VERY PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR.

-Tim Merriman

Harold Johnson, an old friend and former NAI Board member passed away on August 17. Theresa, his wife, called to share that sad news with us. Harold was only 62 and had recently retired after a long career with BLM. Our posting on the main website tells more about his life and family.

I mentioned to Theresa that I’ve not seen Harold at national events in many years. She explained that she also has health challenges and he has stayed home to be with her, but generously helped his staff members get to NAI events. She affirmed that his interest and belief in NAI as an important professional family never waned. She had called to let us know that his will left a bequest to NAI and we had paperwork to file to apply for it. We don’t know the amount of the gift but that’s really not so important. It was very kind of him to think of NAI as a beneficiary of his life insurance. We will recognize the gift when it arrives and in perpetuity but I also wanted to mention the sentiment he expressed. He told me of this bequest more than a decade ago. Theresa assured me that she supported it and they had discussed how strongly he felt about the value of NAI for interpretive professionals. He chose this way to recognize it. Those of us who knew Harold, will remember well his skill and professionalism in helping Region 8 grow and improve. Theresa was kind in letting me share this information  about the bequest publicly. She said, “Harold would want his gift to be an example for others.”

It reminds me of a conversation I had with Dr. Bill Randall about 13 years ago. He told me he was buying an insurance policy in his name with NAI as the beneficiary. He was outspoken among members about the need to invest in NAI and the profession.

Bill had served as Vice-president of the Association of Interpretive Naturalists (AIN) parent organization of NAI, and  taught interpretation at University of Massachusetts for may years before retirement. He and I often talked about financial stability for NAI and the profession. Economic recessions, politics and underperforming events sometimes result in very challenging times for NAI and the many organizations and individuals who belong as members. AIN took a very large loss on a national workshop one year and the Board had to decide whether to declare bankruptcy or spend years working our way back to solvency. We chose to survive, I’m happy to say, but Bill and I participated in that uncomfortable discussion as Board officers. Thankfully, we took an optimistic approach and paid off the debt in a few years. Bill passed away in 1999, leaving a substantial gift of $100,000 to NAI. We also have the gift of great memories of his generous spirit and great attitude about life and our shared profession.

NAI’s in memoriam page on this Interpnet website has become a good place to remember individuals we knew in the profession.  I hope you will take time to share your thoughts if you knew Harold or Bill or many of the others on that web page. It’s a simple gift to share with others.

Most of you have probably heard about California’s budget crisis by now.  Seems like this is almost a perpetual story in recent years, made particularly acute by the sagging state economy and serious decline in revenues to government at all levels in the state.  In an effort to make up a shortfall in excess of $23 billion, the governor has proposed some draconian cuts, including closing 220 of the 279 state park units in California.

Now you may be thinking There but for the grace of God go I.  I sincerely hope that the agency or organization that supports your position and programs is in good financial shape and that you’re not in immediate fear of losing a job or a program.  Whether your programs are secure or shaky, you may want to pay some attention to what’s happening in California.

California State Parks has a very active support group, the California State Parks Foundation, and many of the individual park units have auxiliary or friends groups that help raise funds and awareness for the parks.  These support groups have ramped up an extensive public awareness and advocacy campaign to fight the closure of state park units.  Similar efforts are underway for various local and county park systems around the state.

Park advocates point out that the cost of operating parks is but a fraction of one percent of the overall state budget, and that many parks bring in significant revenue, earning back a large part of their operating cost.  In an economy where many families are relying on state and local parks to provide camping opportunities, summer day camps and other inexpensive family recreation, closing parks and programs may have huge social costs as well.In another wrinkle on this complex story, the National Park Service has informed the state the federal government may take over six state parks that were created on former federal lands.  In transferring the land to California State Parks, there is a requirement that public access to the sites be maintained.  Some feel that closing these state parks would violate that agreement and the land should revert back to federal management (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/01/ap/national/main5127931.shtml).

The drive to rescue 220 state parks from the budget crisis is a good case study in justifying your existence in the political and socioeconomic arena.  The campaign has some well-developed and effective strategy—and a lot of supporters that are gathering momentum.  You never know when your staff and programs may be put in a similar position, and we might do well to watch the California campaign to gather successful ideas and strategy if we ever need them.

Here are a few web sites where you can learn more:

California State Parks Foundation: http://ga3.org/campaign/budget_may09

Save Our State Parks Campaign: http://www.savestateparks.org/

I must admit that some movies make me think about our profession more than the movie itself. Yes, I’m talking about movies again, this time one that’s been out a long time. When the movie Groundhog Day came out in 1993, I thought it was cute but it really took me to another place. Interpretive programs remind me of Bill Murray’s problem in the movie. He was stuck in the same day until he got things right. We experience a similar phenomenon over a period of years. Interpretive programs crash in hard times and make a comeback in better times only to crash again in the next recession or reduction in force (RIF).

I remember the RIF in 1972 that ended my faculty environmental educator employment at Southern Illinois University. Everyone without a Ph.D. must go, about 130 of us. I naively took a spreadsheet to the dean to prove that the program I managed made a profit. He explained, “It’s a matter of priorities, not profit.” Bye. It was my first lesson about making my argument on terms that matter to my employer, not to myself.

Then I became a park interpreter with Illinois State Parks. About three years into that another recession landed and the Illinois legislature handed all departments a 10% budget cut. Interpretation was roughly 10% of the budget, so they cut all but four of us (18 full-time and 55 seasonals gone – sorry). Another RIF. So it goes. I survived and had some survivor guilt. I asked an administrator why they wiped out most of interpretation. He said, “We could hand every park a 10% cut and all feel the pain or just eliminate most of interpretation, which accounted for roughly 10% of the overall budget.” Then he made a comment followed by a tough question. “It’s been a year since the RIF. Not one superintendent has asked for their interpreter to be reinstated and no one has complained among the public. What were those interpreters doing that resulted in no one missing them?” Ouch. They were entertaining most likely, but that was not enough.

Someone has to value the work of interpreters or our programs aren’t sustainable. It’s not enough for us to like what we do and say, “the public loves my programs.” If we are simply interpretainment in the park, we’re gone with every budget cut. It’s like the movie, Groundhog Day, our programs and jobs disappear only to come back again in better times. It will go on until we get it right in the eyes and the values of management.

I also asked why my program survived along with three others. He admitted, “We were afraid to cut four of the programs. They have a large local and regional following who would have been upset.” It’s good to be valued and get some protection from that.

When I worked for Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) as Research and Innovations Manager at Land Between the Lakes in Kentucky, the Operations Manager pointed out to the management team that $2 million dollars annually was being spent on the emergency budget – fighting fires, looking for lost persons and dragging the lakes for people who drowned. He pointed out that the money could have been going into environmental education and interpretation, but those programs would have to help solve the management problems that led to emergencies. And, by the way, a year later TVA RIFed (the verb) over 200 of us. Budget cuts are a fact of life.

The interpretive version of Groundhog Day is more like Groundhog Year or Decade. The cuts come with major economic downturns. How do we not become the cut, the RIF, downsized and unemployed? Here are a few thoughts.

• Justify our importance to the organization with facts, not feelings, that matter to management. (i.e. Drownings at the lake have declined by three per year since our programming on safe boating began, we’ve had five fewer lost person searches since our orienteering and GPS programs began, etc.) Look back at my blog, On the Road to Kentucky, and read about Michael Kirschman’s work to establish the economic value of open space in his county.

• Employ thoughtful interpretive planning to develop output, outcome and impact objectives ( a logic model – great PDF file on this available from the Kellogg Foundation at http://www.wkkf.org/Pubs/Tools/Evaluation/Pub3669.pdf) that align with management goals. I’ll write about logic models in my next blog in a week or so.

• Ask to be involved in management meetings and work to become a valued member of the management team in addressing management goals and issues. If not invited to management meetings – buy donuts and show up. Listen and get involved.

There are no silver bullets in downsizing, RIFs and reengineering moves at organizations, but we can do our best to be of value if we remember that interpretation is management.

Imagine this movie trailer about your place of work and your life. The boss comes in to a meeting to announce budget cuts. He relates with regret what must go, but your program never comes up. Later he confides, “You guys make a real difference here and we can’t get along without you.” I love a movie with a happy ending.

- Tim Merriman

This is going to sound a little strange, but I LOVE TAX TIME! Now don’t get me wrong, I do not look forward to sorting through all of last year’s receipts and financial records, and I certainly don’t relish filling out all the tax forms, schedules and other documents. But I’m always motivated to go through all that effort just to find out if I’m getting a refund and how much it will be.

Once I know how much I have coming back in a tax refund, I have the dilemma of deciding what to do with that windfall. My first inclination is to pay off some bills that have been lingering longer than I like, and that’s usually where a good chunk of it goes. However, I also realize that much of that refund I received is a result of deductions I made throughout the year, including charitable donations. So if I want to look forward to a refund next year, I should probably invest some of this year’s refund in charitable donations.

So I can take some of the money the IRS refunded to me, use it to support something I really believe in (for example, NAI’s Enos Mills Fund), and that will provide a deduction that will save me some tax $ again next year. It’s like I get to help NAI, help myself, and reduce my tax burden at the same time! That’s a pretty good win-win in my book.

Interpreters work hard for our wages. However, I’m not sure we’re all good about making our wages work hard for us. In the current economy I’m not as confident about many kinds of investments. But investing in NAI is always a solid investment that pays off in many ways. And it’s a way to shelter some of your tax dollars as well.

If you’d like more information on the Enos Mills Fund, more details and on-line donation forms are available by clicking here.

Wishing you a prompt and plentiful refund!

-Jim Covel

This is installment two of fundraising information from the recent Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) meeting in New Orleans. I was especially intrigued by the data several researchers presented regarding bequests or planned gifts as they are called. Indiana University’s Center for Philanthropy was one of the main sources, but several different researchers presented data from different studies. 

A bequest is defined by www.dictionary.com as: a disposition in a will or a legacy. 

Some interesting information gleaned from these AFP talks were: 

1. There are $306 billion in charitable gifts annually, of which 75% are from individuals.

2. About 80% of charitable gifts are through bequests at the death of the donors. 

3. Only 8% of Americans have a charitable donation to a non-profit in their wills, but 40% say they are willing to do that. (you have to ask people to give)

4. About 50% of people with no children or grandchildren leave bequests.

5. Having new grandchildren is the most common reason for people removing a bequest from their will. Change in health is also a common reason for dropping a bequest.

6. One-third of charitable gifts are to religious groups.

7. Those most likely to give are: women, married, never married, conservative, religious, advance degree holders, over fifty. 

The last item identifies those more likely to give. All people of all political persuasions, genders, ages and backgrounds do leave money in their wills. 

One of the more interesting sets of statistics indicated that: 

• People who have no will have an average age of death of 69.

• People with a will have an average age of death of 79.

• People with a legacy gift in her/his will have an average age of death of 82. 

Does that mean we can all put a non-profit organization in our will and we’ll live longer? I don’t think so, but it is interesting information. 

Dr. Bill Randall, a retired University of Massachusetts professor of interpretation, and NAI leader left $100,000 in life insurance to NAI at his passing a decade ago. In 2007 Dick Taylor’s bequest of $25,000 as a charitable gift annuity became part of our long-term scholarship funds at the time of his passing. Bob Jennings, a long time leader in NAI,  left a collection of musical instruments that we sold at his request and it serves as a scholarship fund for Interpretive Naturalist Section members in his memory. 

If you have an interest in placing NAI in your will as a bequest and want more information about the process, feel free to call me at 888-900-8283 or contact your attorney to assist you with your will. 

Bequests have great  impact on non-profit organizations because they insure greater funding stability, endow new programs, and make a contribution that lasts forever as endowment gifts. 

If you manage a non-profit organization and want to know more, I encourage you to attend a meeting of the Association of Fundraising Professionals. It’s a great place to learn about current trends and stimulate your ideas for building a more solid future for your organization. 

- Tim Merriman

NAI Executive Director