Mount Pleasant Land Conservatory

Our Common Ground
Mount Pleasant Land Conservancy, Inc.
Strategic Market Research Presentation
November 28, 2012

II. The Outline – 1 Hour
I. Introduction (1 minutes)
II. Review Outline (2 minutes)
III. The Purpose (1 minute)
IV. The Process (1 minute)
V. Inspiring Trends (4 minutes)
VI. Fundraising Best Practices (6 minutes)
VII. Quantitative Analysis (8 minutes)
1. Sampling Methods & Composition
2. Revenue Breakdown & Comparison
3. Revenue Comparison Observations
(c) 2012 Rainmaker Solutions Ltd. Co.

II. The Outline – 1 Hour
VIII. Qualitative Analysis (8 Minutes)
1. Strengths
2. Weaknesses
3. Opportunities
4. Threats
IX. Members & Friends Survey Results (4 minutes)
X. Consensus & Compromise (2 minutes)
XI. Critical Next Steps (2 minutes)
XII. Competitive Landscape (1 minute)
XIII. Question & Answer (5 minutes)
XIV. Reception (15 Minutes)

III. The Purpose
The purpose of this presentation is to furnish
the Mount Pleasant Land Conservancy with the
competitive context, market research and
financial analysis needed to sharpen its
mission focus and rejuvenate its fundraising
efforts.

IV. The Process
▪ More than 20 interviews with major stakeholders: Executive Director, Board Members,
general membership, significant donors, elected and appointed officials, other nonprofit
executives and fundraising consultants, community and business leaders.
▪ Media and academic research into its specific mission niche (IRS NTEE C34
Organizations) regarding current trends, best practices, and innovations, influencing
the competitive landscape and inspiring new ideas.
▪ Comparative fundraising, net revenue and financial ratio analysis to assess
performance against a statistically relevant sample of peer nonprofits, operating in the
Southeast, with an emphasis on the Charleston-North Charleston area.
▪ Critical next steps and fundraising planning.

V. Inspiring Trends
1. Creating Community Cohesion 1
Perhaps the most popular trend in land conservation is using public green spaces to create
connections between otherwise isolated communities in an increasingly disconnected,
urbanized world, promoting community cohesion.
2. Constructing Eco-Districts (“Green Neighborhoods”) 2
Eco-Districts are integrating green buildings and smart infrastructure(energy, water, waste,
recycling, transportation, etc…) with land preservation. 2
3. Protecting Urban Water Supplies 3
Conservation easements and land trusts now used to protect urban water supplies in heavily
populated areas, residing under properties owned by private interests, and usually include
public access and other public benefits.3
4. Saving the American Farmers 4
The farmland is purchased by the trust and leased back to the farmers, saving them
$30,000 in mortgage payments each year. The trust then uses the rent money to pay
property taxes. 4

V. Inspiring Trends
5. Emerging Buyer’s Market for Land Trusts 5
In the western United States, the recession has presented land trusts and easements with
great opportunities, as development has stalled, prompting a “fire sale” on vast tracts of land.
6. Inspiring Smart Growth Projects & Laws 6
The booming and creative use of land trusts has forced conservationists and governments to
compromise and collaborate on “smart growth” projects, laws and regulations.
7. Developing Priorities of Environmental Planning 7
The future of land conservation and environmental planning requires that leaders, activists
and community preservation groups focus on these strategies:
 Minimize sprawling development and redevelop low-density sprawl in urban areas.
▪ Implement regulations/incentives to encourage eco-minded businesses and consumer lifestyles,
▪ Promote the message that global environmental planning is critical to global survival.
▪ Encourage both political parties embrace environmental planning and sustainability.

VI. Fundraising Best Practices
10. Nonprofits that calculate and communicate their economic value can leverage
success into better fundraising, performance funding and corporate partnerships.9
11. Direct marketing is dead. Nonprofits must turn to social media to prospect and build
communities through two-way communications, transforming “friends” into donors.10
12. Environmental causes must develop cost-effective relationships with corporations,
without becoming hostages to profit motives and other agendas.(e.g. Earth Day) 11
13. To succeed in fundraising, conservation groups must 1) regard people as
stakeholders not audiences, 2) practice engagement over awareness 3) align with
local values and 4) leverage people’s natural, emotional connection to nature. 12
14. Raising social capital and impact investing are becoming more common among large
charities.. For example, Habitat for Humanity has issued a CD that provides a
modest return to the investor and capital for the nonprofit.

VI. Fundraising Best Practices
15. In an article that explores ten fundraising models, most nonprofits in the environment
protection arena were classified as “Market Makers’” – organizations that generate
revenues by charging fees for activities and services. 13
16. Know your donor! Fundraising research (donor prospecting, screening and analytics)
are the backbone of a successful grants, major-gift and annual fund campaigns. 14
17. Special events can be profitable and inspirational for prospects; but they most often
encumber huge indirect costs, and require a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. 15
18. Nonprofit turnaround strategies include a) strategic planning b) staff and volunteer
incentives c) exercising healthy boundaries around programs, clients and funding
opportunities, and d) employing best practices, with measurable outcomes. 16

VII. Statistical Sample
Composition*
▪ There are 73 C34 (land conservation organizations) in the Southeast, raising $8.24
million each year. However, only 17 of these organizations filed complete 2010-2011
IRS Forms 990s and thus qualified for inclusion in the sample.
▪ In South Carolina, there are 14 environmental organizations with sufficient, current
financial data to incorporate into a viable sample, placing a broader, stronger emphasis
on public charities in the Charleston-North Charleston area,
▪ The local organizations - the major competitors for local support – raise $5.28 million in
total net revenues. For this reason, they received greater weight in this sample than
organizations in other regions..
▪ There are 31 organizations in the sample, with average revenues of $1.38 million, total
revenues of $43 million, and budgets ranging from $49,445 to $7,157,780,

VII. Revenue Breakdown &
Comparison
22%
40%
0%
0%
24%
13%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Mount Pleasant
Land Conservancy
Memberships
Special Events
(Net)
Related Orgs.
Government
Grants
Other Grants &
Cash Gifts
Program Services
Interest &
Royalties
Rental Income
Sales (Goods)
6%
1%
0%
12%
71%
7%
2%
0%
0%
0%
1%
Regional Sample
Averages
Memberships
Special Events
(Net)
Related Orgs.
Government
Grants
Other Grants &
Cash Gifts
Program Services
Interest &
Royalties
Rental Income
Sales (Goods)
Sales (Securities)
Misc.

VII. Revenue Comparison Results
▪ The MPLC relies on memberships more than other organizations, but its peers raise a higher
average amount in memberships ($10,797 versus $77,913). This irony belies the need for
stronger membership drives and renewal campaigns.
▪ The MPLC invests the majority of its efforts in special events (40%) and raises twice in net
special event revenues than its peers $20,000 versus $10,155).
▪ However, special events are probably NOT the best strategy for several reasons:
▪ In the regional sample, there is a .high, positive correlation (.91) between nonprofits with the
highest total net revenues and success with private grants and individual gifts, with zero
correlation between special events and total net revenues..
▪ To reinforce this correlation, in the Charleston-North Charleston area, there is a positive .98
(almost perfect) for the same correlation and a slight inverse correlation (.3) between special
events and total revenues.
▪ In conclusion, organizations in the sample that focused on grants, major gifts and annual
fund donations always outperform those that invest their energies in special events.

VII. Revenue Comparison Results
▪ There is a significant difference between the average amount of investment income generated
by the average organization in this sample ($28.344) and the client ($441), belying a strong
need for financial planning, reserves and investment policies.
▪ One-third of the sample organizations receive government grants. The average amount
($109,000) indicates that most grants probably come from local or state sources. However, a
few C34 organizations also appear to receive federal grants. MPLC is not prepared to secure
large, federal grants – but should develop the relationships and infrastructure to qualify.
▪ The average organization in the sample raises approximately $50,000 in revenues (e.g.
program admissions, t-shirt sales, space rentals, and contractual services like herd
management, etc…), while the client reports zero income from peripheral sources.
▪ Two organizations in the regional sample receive substantial funding from federated
campaigns. Is this a potential source of overlooked funding for the client?

VII. Simple Financial Ratio Comparison
FR Ratio FR ROI Debt Ratio
MPLC 4% 4% 1%
Regional Sample 10% 6% 8%
• The Fundraising Ratio measures the ratio of Fundraising Expenses to Total Expenses.
• The Fundraising Return on Investment (ROI) is a much better measure of an organization’s fundraising
success, revealing the “bang for the buck” - revealing the return on money invested in fundraising.
• The Debt Ratio is a snapshot of the organization’s reliance on debt. The client operates with negligible
debt, though it has relied heavily on reserves for the past two years..
• In conclusion, it appears that MPLC could invest a prudent, but greater percentage of its overall budget
into cost-effective fundraising strategies to increase yield and rebuild its reserves.

VIII. Strengths – Internal (Most
Control)
▪ Stakeholders expressed great appreciation for a dedicated, energetic and knowledgeable
staff with four years of experience as Executive Director.
▪ The community embraces MPLC’s events and programs, attracting thousands of
potential members, prospects and volunteers.
▪ Strong mix of new, passionate Board members, committed to rejuvenating the mission,
and seasoned members, with decades of expertise – should become a great strength.
▪ Organization has resilient nature - survived transition to independent nonprofit, and the
inevitable confusion that followed, despite a severe economic recession.
▪ Mission is rooted in strong local need – to balance development and preservation.
▪ Improvements in media and communications (e.g. web site ) - good use of social media
reduces expenses, and appears to mobilize support for special events.
▪ Your neighbors embrace this cause! Popular support is on your side.

VIII. Weaknesses – Internal (Some
Control)
▪ Financial distress and tepid emphasis on fundraising has damaged prospects to sustain
mission and acquire major donors, diluting the client’s reserves for two years.
▪ Skewed strategic & geographic focus - and no compelling focal point – has caused Board
attrition, lost funding opportunities, and blurred the mission.
▪ Incongruent branding (e.g. name vs. mission) confuses prospects, media and general public.
▪ In general, event and program guests do not convert into members and donors. .
▪ Board roles and goals are vague and Board policies not enforced.
▪ The organization has no history of fundraising, because of its origins. It does have the
expertise to implement and evaluate a comprehensive development system.
▪ The organization maintains financial records, but lacks resources to produce audited financial
statements, limiting its opportunities to secure major grants.
▪ MPLC diminished contingency funds to sustain operations through economic crisis instead of
focusing on resource development. This indicates a tendency to avoid fundraising when it most
needs to become the focal point of the organization’s initiatives.
▪ Nomination process needs strengthening and consistent implementation..

VIII. Opportunities – External (Some
Control)
▪ Streamline and leverage special events into member and donor recruitment strategies.
▪ Focus on projects serving low-income, African American populations, with deep cultural and
historical roots in the area, residing in four, six, ten-mile and Snowden areas.
▪ Local voice needed for land preservation in East Cooper – also for rural projects in Awendaw
and McClellanville, retaining focus on East Cooper area.
▪ Provide community education so residents can police developers, reporting broken regulations
in large enough numbers to influence political change.
▪ Build natural connections that enhance community cohesion, improving quality of life and
property values, partnering with cities, real-estate agencies and developers.
▪ This community is populated by affluent residents that want to balance development
and preservation. You are the only organization with the capacity to address this need.
▪ Membership is rich in untapped resources. Need to analyze and leverage its existing
relationships into new resources and relationships – “there is plenty of low-hanging fruit.”
▪ Merge with larger organization, while retaining its mission.

VIII. Threats – External (Little
Control)
▪ Environmental and related organizations raise $18.9 million each year in the
Charleston-North Charleston metropolitan area – competition for
philanthropic dollars is intense, compounded by chronic recession.
▪ The client is “dwarfed” by larger, more influential organizations, with similar
missions, greater resources, and more influence with funders.
▪ Economic growth remains a double-edge sword. 17 In 2010, the Town of Mount
Pleasant alone witnessed a 179% increase in new construction - $145 million in
private development, excluding public infrastructure projects.
▪ Need to avoid risk of adversarial relationships with political and corporate forces.
▪ Greenbelt funding is almost gone and non-renewable.

IX. Member Survey Results
1. What led you to become a member?
▪ 88.2% - concerned about growth, preserving more green space
▪ 35.3% - MPLC has preserved natural spaces that matter to me
▪ 29.4% - like to support local environmental groups
▪ 23.5% - friends with a MPLC member/volunteer/staff
2. What is our most important role?
▪ 46.7% - community education re: land preservation/natural conservation
▪ 26.7 – preserving small, undeveloped urban parcels
▪ 20% - preserving large, rural parcels of land
▪ 6.7% - ensure public access to preserved areas
3. How did you first hear about MPLC?
▪ 58.1% - From a friend or colleague
▪ 42.9% - at an MPLC-related event

IX. Member Survey Results
4. What grade would you give our progress to date?
▪ 48.8% gave us an A for Excellent
▪ 23.5% gave us a B for Good
▪ 17.5% gave us a C for Acceptable
5. What is your opinion of our new website?
▪ 41.7% love it!
▪ 41.7% like it.
▪ %5.9 responded “it was OK.”
6. What is your favorite association or connection to MPLC?
▪ See Notes Section below for responses.
7. Would you like to become more involved?
▪ 72.7% answered No.
▪ 27.3% responded Yes – how best to follow through?

IX. Non-Member Survey Results
1. What is our most important role?
▪ 37% - preserving small, undeveloped urban parcels
▪ 26.1% - education the public about land conservation
▪ 23.9% – preserving large, undeveloped rural parcels
▪ 13% - ensuring public access to preserved
2. How did you first hear about us?
▪ 50% -from a MPLC event
▪ 39.1 % - from friend or colleague
▪ 6.5% - via social media (Face Book, Twitter, etc…).
▪ 4.3% through website/search engine
3. How would you rate our performance to date?
▪ 48.6% gave us an A for Excellent
▪ 48.9% gave us a B for Good
▪ 4.3% gave us a C for Fair

IX. Non-Member Survey Results
4. What is your favorite connection to us?
4. See notes Section below for responses.
5. What do you think of our new website?
4. 34% liked it.
5. 31.9 loved it!
6. 27.7% said never been to it,
7. 6.4% said it was OK
6. Would you like to become more involved?
4. 57.5% said no thanks
5. 52.5% said yes! – how best to follow through?

X. Common Ground
▪ The section explores universal values and perspectives shared by the stakeholders
involved in this study. These mutual goals can facilitate greater communication and
consensus and strengthen the Board, as it renews its strategic focus.
▪ Constituents agreed that MPLC fills a vital need, but its mission and Board need a sharper,
strategic focus, propelled by enthusiastic leadership. to keep constituents active and engaged.
▪ The most active stakeholders revealed a common passion for the mission and great potential
to retain the community’s natural resources, before it’s too late: This most common response
was, “I grew up in a rural environment and I want to preserve these memories.”
▪ Stakeholders expressed a priority commitment for the preservation of local, remaining pockets
of small urban forests and estuaries. This priority was echoed, without prompting by the three
major donors interviewed for this report.
▪ The majority of stakeholders expressed a need a connect with nature. Constituents share a
special attachment to the local environment’s ancient, indigenous trees. This need is universal
and a powerful motivation for prospective donors.

X. Compromise Required
▪ This section explores possible “stumbling blocks” – areas of dissent, conflict or tension that could
become serious impediments to mission renewal, unless the Board is willing to compromise and
draft policies to ensure adherence to this compromise.
▪ Disconnect over the role of staff versus the role of Board members in fundraising and nomination
process. There is some unresolved debate about “who takes the lead in driving these key
functions - board or staff? Who drives this fundraising process?”
▪ Some stakeholders want more collaborative relationships with government units. Others believe
that such relationships would dilute mission and program autonomy.
▪ Some constituents believe a wider geographic scope would position MPLC for greater impact and
funding opportunities. In unison, major donors dissented, preferring that the client focus on
overlooked, natural resources East Cooper.
▪ Some constituents see conservation easements as an expedient means to fulfill the
organization’s mission. Others believe that easements serve private landowners, without enough
public benefit.

XI. Critical Next Steps
1. Develop single-page Board Vision Statement with five, measurable success benchmarks
2. Construct strategic, integrated fundraising & communications plan, with clear job descriptions for
staff and Board/Committee leaders and volunteers, corresponding to the master plan.
3. Implement strategic/fundraising plan, evaluate its progress and adjust strategies at monthly Board
meetings – measure revenue and action steps against established timeline.
4. Incorporate fundraising and prospecting opportunities into all public activities.
5. Report on success to donors & prospects – Thank them for their personal involvement and
contributions to a successful strategic plan!
6. Celebrate & Reward Donors at Free Donor/Volunteer Appreciation Luncheon. It is the client’s best
opportunity to prospect for new, major donors
7. Reboot strategic/fundraising planning process by involving, expanding circle of major donors,
prospects and other Influential; stakeholders, Incorporating their guidance into the next plan.
8. Lather…rinse…repeat.

XII. The Competitive Landscape
Mt. Pleasant Land Conservancy ($78,000)
SC Aquarium ($1,603,138)
SE Wildlife Exhibition ($1,221,793)
SC Coastal Conservation League ($2,647,293)
Avian Conservation Society ($406,005)
Charleston Parks Conservancy ($440,053)
John Ancrum SPCA ($2,762,717)
Humane Net, Inc.
($2,439,243)
Charleston Horticultural Society ($336,334)
Pet Helpers, Inc. ($1,290.728)
Dewees Island Conservancy ($115,201)
Kiawah Island Natural Habitat
($583,217)
SPCA - Dorchester
($482,078)
International Primate Protection League
($1,379,267)
Lowcountry Animal Rescue ($108,538)
Edisto Island Open Land Trust ($302,918)
Pee Dee Land Trust ($473,236)
Identified, Currently Active Environment-Related Public Charities
Charleston-North Charleston Metropolitan Statistical Area
Total Funds Raised Each Year: $17,951,117

XIV. Bibliography & Resources
1. Stanford Social Innovations Review. January 2012. Friedenwald, Eric. “Space: The Social Change Frontier”
2. Stanford Social Innovations Review. June, 2012. Bennett, Robert. “Urban Development: Ten Cities, Ten Projects”
3. The Journal of Climate: “The 1960s Drought and the Subsequent Shift to a Wetter Climate in the Catskill
Mountains Region of the New York City Watershed. “ BYLINE: Pederson, Neil; Kushnir, Yochanan; Nakamura,
Jennifer; Jurburg, Stephanie; Seager, Richard
4. The Recorder (Greenfield, Massachusetts). May 12, 2012. “Red Fire Farm to become the focus of an innovative
preservation program that will turn a local land trust into the farm's landlord.” Davis, Ritchie.
5. Portland Press Herald (Maine). January 11, 2009 Sunday: Final Edition. “Buyer's market may help land trusts…”
Richardson, John.
6. Law and Contemporary Problems. September 22, 2011. “Zoning for conservation easements; Conservation
Easements: New Perspectives in an Evolving World.” BYLINE: Richardson, Jesse J., Jr.; Bernard, Amanda C.
7. The Journal of the American Planning Association. Spring, 2009. “A Trail Across Time: American Environmental
Planning From City Beautiful to Sustainability.” Daniels, Thomas.
8. Ibid

XIV. Bibliography & Resources
9. Stanford Social Innovations Review. “How Nonprofit Economic Value Creates New Capital Sources”
(Excerpt from the Book The Non Nonprofit: For-Profit Thinking for Nonprofit Success by Steven
Rothschild). Published by Jossey-Bass, Inc. 2012
10. Stanford Social Innovations Review. “Pyrrhic Fundraising: Nonprofits Pay Dearly for Their Donations.”
Summer 2007. Juan, Rosaline.
11. Stanford Social Innovations Review. “Environment: Shades of Green.” Spring, 2009. Hoffman, Andrew.
12. Stanford Social Innovations Review. January 2012. Friedenwald, Eric. “Space: The Social Change
Frontier”
13. Stanford Social Innovations Review. Spring 2009. “Top Ten Funding Models” Foster, William; Kim, Peter;
Christiansen. Barbara
14. Prospect Research: How to Grow a Nonprofit. 2011. Hogan, Cecelia. University of Puget Sound.
15. Financial Planning for Nonprofits – Made Easy! 2008. Blaczk, Judy. Wiley Educational Series.
16. Nonprofit Turnaround: A Guide for Nonprofit Leaders, Consultants & Funders: 100 Case Histories. 2010. Glick,
Jan. Jan Glick & Associates.
17. Town of Mount Pleasant Website: Businesses. http://www.tompsc.com/index.aspx?NID=504

Thanks Ya’ll !
Any Questions?

Mount Pleasant Land Conservatory

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to Mount Pleasant Land Conservatory

Similar to Mount Pleasant Land Conservatory (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Mount Pleasant Land Conservatory