Difference between revisions of "GPCA Budget FY2011-2012 Income Narrative"
Mfeinstein (talk | contribs) m (phrasing in #4) |
|||
| (31 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''0. INTRODUCTION''' | '''0. INTRODUCTION''' | ||
| − | The GPCA's FY2011-2012 Budget occurs amidst during a deep national and international economic crisis that became manifest in October of 2008. That crisis | + | The GPCA's FY2011-2012 Budget occurs amidst during a deep national and international economic crisis that became manifest in October of 2008. That crisis made it challenging for non-profit organizations as well as not-for-profit ones like the GPCA that survive primarily or exclusively on grassroots donations and fundraising. It also came upon the heels of blowback against the Green Party from being blamed for the 2000 Bush presidency. Along with self-inflicted internal wounds over 2004 presidential strategy and other internal divisions, the cumulative effect led to a significant downturn in GPCA fundraising compared to the early 2000s. |
| − | + | By contrast, FY2011-2012 appears as a time of opportunity for the Green Party of California (GPCA). The political climate is favorable on the federal level in light of a disappointing Obama administration and the rise of the far right fringe Tea Party movement. On the state level, the failure of the Democrats and Republicans to address the state's ongoing structural problems and the resulting hardship to working Californians continues to leaves a large political space. At the same time, there has been a growth in new activists becoming involved in the GPCA, along with a return by many long time party members. | |
| − | + | The GPCA FY2011-2012 Budget seeks to take advantage of these opportunities by establishing a modest Tier I baseline of core expenses funded by projected income roughly similar to recent years' minimal fundraising levels, along with some investment in Tier I in growth opportunities to fund more organizing in Tiers II and III. In so doing, the Budget establishes a manner in which increased revenue will be dedicated to additional organizing in a predictable, transparent manner, that will minimize the need for mid-year discretionary choices by the General Assembly or the Coordinating Committee, yet provide enough flexibility to adapt to unpredictable circumstances. | |
| − | On the income side, the FY2011-20122 Budget contains a plan to raise up to $ | + | Many of the proposed growth investments originated in the Green 2012 plan included in the Agenda Packet. That plan was circulated to multiple GPCA statewide working groups and standing committees during this past December, January and February, as well to many county green organizations. Its primary goals are to increase GPCA activity, voter registration and fundraising by improving the quality, frequency and focus of communications with the party's donors, activists and supporters and with a donor prospecting and resolicitation plan that includes online fundraising campaigns, improved merchandising, prospect mailings and telemarketing. |
| + | |||
| + | Some of the projections made are based upon the successful Green 2012-inspired outreach and fundraising conducted by the Campaigns & Candidates Working Group since January of 2011, which led to $7,000 of new income, over 100 new volunteers and an identified list of 400 core potential donors. Not only are the growth investments projected to lead to a balanced budget in FY2011-2012, but they are also expected to lead to additional returns over the long term. As the GPCA conduct itself in a way that enhances donor and some while others will also become volunteers. Some volunteers will become donors. Some will become candidates. And so on. | ||
| + | |||
| + | On the income side, the FY2011-20122 Budget contains a plan to raise up to $153,750 -- with at $55,750 projected between May and September 2011 and $97,000 between October 2011 and April 2012, along with $4,500 generated from General Assembly registration fees, $2,000 generated by clearinghouse sales, $200 from sales of Green Focus and $2,427 expected in repayment from the GPUS for state sharing. The plan would expand the GPCA's fundraising capability by hiring an Executive Director to design and manage a fundraising campaign, along with creating a new GPCA contact relationship management (CRM) database to ensure high quality management functions such as donation tracking, volunteer coordination and GPCA supporter communications. Until an Executive Director is hired, the GPCA would contract with a consultant to continue interim fundraising. Both the Executive Director position and this interim position is described in the Expense Narrative and included in the Budget Approval Resolutions. | ||
---- | ---- | ||
| + | '''1. CLEARINGHOUSE COMMITTEE (Tier 1 - $1000, Tier I1 - $2,000)''' | ||
| − | + | '''1-1 Merchandise (Tier 1 - $1000, Tier I1 - $2,000)''' | |
| − | |||
| − | '''1-1 Merchandise ( | ||
| − | Merchandise sales via the GPCA's virtual office in Sacramento have been minimal in recent years. Tier I | + | Merchandise sales via the GPCA's virtual office in Sacramento have been minimal in recent years. In FY2011-2012 the budget project income and expenditures of $1000 in Tier I and $2,000 in Tier II. This reflects increased efforts to design and sell GPCA buttons, stickers and t-shirts. Currently the Clearinghouse Committee has no active members (http://www.cagreens.org/clearinghouse/committee.shtml). With more involvement, exploration into bi-lingual materials, shopping bags and other party-related paraphernalia could occur. |
---- | ---- | ||
| + | '''2. FINANCE COMMITTEE (Tier I - 54,570, Tier II - 133,750, Tier III - 151,750)''' | ||
| − | + | '''2-1 Direct mail: Prospect Letters (Tier I - 15,000, Tier II - 33,000)''' | |
| − | |||
| − | '''2-1 Direct mail: Prospect Letters ( | ||
| − | The plan is to write and send timely, persuasive prospect letters every eight weeks as long as the prospecting remains break even or profitable, with a goal of acquiring 1,100 new donors in FY2011-2012 | + | The plan is to write and send timely, persuasive prospect letters every eight weeks as long as the prospecting remains break even or profitable, with a goal of acquiring 1,100 new donors in FY2011-2012. If prospecting breaks even or better, then funds invested in Tier I are simply reinvested to fund Tier 2 without any additional funding required. The timeline and projections for these prospect mailings are as follows. Note that the associated expenses will be reflected in the FY2011-2012 Expense Narrative |
'''2-1.1 June-2011 Prospect (Tier I)''' | '''2-1.1 June-2011 Prospect (Tier I)''' | ||
| Line 51: | Line 53: | ||
Number of prospect pieces: 10,000; List: GPCA registered voters.; Avg. response rate: 2%; Avg. gift: $30; Avg. printing and postage cost per letter: $0.60; Total cost: $6,000; Total income: $6,000; Number new donors acquired:2 00 | Number of prospect pieces: 10,000; List: GPCA registered voters.; Avg. response rate: 2%; Avg. gift: $30; Avg. printing and postage cost per letter: $0.60; Total cost: $6,000; Total income: $6,000; Number new donors acquired:2 00 | ||
| − | '''2-2 Direct mail: Resolicitation Letters (Tier I | + | '''2-2 Direct mail: Resolicitation Letters (Tier I - 11,250, Tier II - 27,750) ''' |
The plan is to write and send timely, persuasive prospect resolicitation letters every eight weeks, targetting amounts based on prior giving history using a new CRM (contact relationship management) database, the funds for which are included in Tier 1 expenses in the Expense Narrative. | The plan is to write and send timely, persuasive prospect resolicitation letters every eight weeks, targetting amounts based on prior giving history using a new CRM (contact relationship management) database, the funds for which are included in Tier 1 expenses in the Expense Narrative. | ||
| Line 79: | Line 81: | ||
Number of prospect pieces: 2,400; Avg. response rate: 5%; Avg. gift: $50; Avg. printing and postage cost per letter: $0.60; Net income: $4,560 | Number of prospect pieces: 2,400; Avg. response rate: 5%; Avg. gift: $50; Avg. printing and postage cost per letter: $0.60; Net income: $4,560 | ||
| − | '''2-3 Personal solicitations (Tier I - $20,000, Tier II $50,000) ''' | + | '''2-3 Personal solicitations (Tier I - $20,000, Tier II - $50,000) ''' |
An executive director will conduct phone and in-person meetings with all major donors and re-solicit all major donors by phone or in-person. Major donors will be asked identify new major donor prospects. “Why donate?” materials will be developed for major donors. Phone and in-person meetings will be conducted with GPCA Greens who can help identify new major donor prospects. | An executive director will conduct phone and in-person meetings with all major donors and re-solicit all major donors by phone or in-person. Major donors will be asked identify new major donor prospects. “Why donate?” materials will be developed for major donors. Phone and in-person meetings will be conducted with GPCA Greens who can help identify new major donor prospects. | ||
| − | '''2-4 Online fundraising campaigns (Tier I - | + | '''2-4 Online fundraising campaigns (Tier I - 1,500, Tier II - $3,000, Tier III - $5,000) ''' |
This campaign is based upon quarterly email solicitations and visually enticing, persuasive online fundraising web pages, which is premised upon on a redesign of the GPCA website and migration to a content management system with team publishing. | This campaign is based upon quarterly email solicitations and visually enticing, persuasive online fundraising web pages, which is premised upon on a redesign of the GPCA website and migration to a content management system with team publishing. | ||
| − | '''2-5 Telemarketing (Tier I - | + | '''2-5 Telemarketing (Tier I - 5,000, Tier II - $15,000, Tier III - $$31,000) ''' |
This would involve researching, interviewing, hiring, training and managing a telemarketing firm that uses predictive dialing and agrees to a no money-down no-loss contract, and would call GPCA registered members. | This would involve researching, interviewing, hiring, training and managing a telemarketing firm that uses predictive dialing and agrees to a no money-down no-loss contract, and would call GPCA registered members. | ||
| Line 97: | Line 99: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
| − | '''3. COORDINATING COMMITTEE''' | + | '''3. COORDINATING COMMITTEE (Tier I - $4,500)''' |
| − | '''3-1 Income from General Assemblies (Tier I - $ | + | '''3-1 Income from General Assemblies (Tier I - $4,500)''' |
Income received from General Assemblies is primarily in the form of registration fees, which are set with the goal of balancing expected expenses. As a result, the income and expense totals associated with General Assemblies are budgeted to balance each other | Income received from General Assemblies is primarily in the form of registration fees, which are set with the goal of balancing expected expenses. As a result, the income and expense totals associated with General Assemblies are budgeted to balance each other | ||
| Line 105: | Line 107: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
| − | '''4. GRASSROOTS ORGANIZING WORKING GROUP''' | + | '''4. GRASSROOTS ORGANIZING WORKING GROUP ($200)''' |
| + | |||
| + | '''4-1 Green Focus sales (Tier I - $200)''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | If and what to charge for Green Focus is a topic that the Budget Committee believes merits further review by the GPCA, possibly leading to a mid-year income budget amendment based upon that review. | ||
| − | ' | + | The GPCA's practice in recent years has been to charge for bundles of Green Focus, either via shipping or at General Assemblies for people to take home with them. But the practice at General Assemblies has not necessarily even been to collect the money there. Instead pledges are made and then not always collected later, leading to an unpredictable income stream. For that reason at present only $200 has been projected for the one issue of Green Focus budgeted for in Tier I. |
| − | + | Looking forward, should the GPCA charge for Green Focus? One approach is to charge a for bundles of Green Focus to cover part or all of the production and shipping costs. Another perspective is that Green Focus is a GPCA outreach tool and that the party should treat it as a straight expense like other forms of advertising and promotion, and that charging locals slows the overall process of getting copies of into peoples' hands. | |
| − | The | + | The attached Budget Approval Resolutions contain a resolution that the General Assembly direct the Coordinating Committee to seek input from GROW, the Finance Committee and the Media Committee about if and what to charge for Green Focus and how that fits into GPCA outreach, organizing, promotion and finances, and return to the Fall General Assembly with options. |
---- | ---- | ||
| − | '''5. GPUS DELEGATION''' | + | '''5. GPUS DELEGATION (Tier III - $2,427)''' |
'''5-1 GPUS Revenue Sharing, past funds owed (Tier III - $2,427)''' | '''5-1 GPUS Revenue Sharing, past funds owed (Tier III - $2,427)''' | ||
Latest revision as of 14:52, 22 April 2011
0. INTRODUCTION
The GPCA's FY2011-2012 Budget occurs amidst during a deep national and international economic crisis that became manifest in October of 2008. That crisis made it challenging for non-profit organizations as well as not-for-profit ones like the GPCA that survive primarily or exclusively on grassroots donations and fundraising. It also came upon the heels of blowback against the Green Party from being blamed for the 2000 Bush presidency. Along with self-inflicted internal wounds over 2004 presidential strategy and other internal divisions, the cumulative effect led to a significant downturn in GPCA fundraising compared to the early 2000s.
By contrast, FY2011-2012 appears as a time of opportunity for the Green Party of California (GPCA). The political climate is favorable on the federal level in light of a disappointing Obama administration and the rise of the far right fringe Tea Party movement. On the state level, the failure of the Democrats and Republicans to address the state's ongoing structural problems and the resulting hardship to working Californians continues to leaves a large political space. At the same time, there has been a growth in new activists becoming involved in the GPCA, along with a return by many long time party members.
The GPCA FY2011-2012 Budget seeks to take advantage of these opportunities by establishing a modest Tier I baseline of core expenses funded by projected income roughly similar to recent years' minimal fundraising levels, along with some investment in Tier I in growth opportunities to fund more organizing in Tiers II and III. In so doing, the Budget establishes a manner in which increased revenue will be dedicated to additional organizing in a predictable, transparent manner, that will minimize the need for mid-year discretionary choices by the General Assembly or the Coordinating Committee, yet provide enough flexibility to adapt to unpredictable circumstances.
Many of the proposed growth investments originated in the Green 2012 plan included in the Agenda Packet. That plan was circulated to multiple GPCA statewide working groups and standing committees during this past December, January and February, as well to many county green organizations. Its primary goals are to increase GPCA activity, voter registration and fundraising by improving the quality, frequency and focus of communications with the party's donors, activists and supporters and with a donor prospecting and resolicitation plan that includes online fundraising campaigns, improved merchandising, prospect mailings and telemarketing.
Some of the projections made are based upon the successful Green 2012-inspired outreach and fundraising conducted by the Campaigns & Candidates Working Group since January of 2011, which led to $7,000 of new income, over 100 new volunteers and an identified list of 400 core potential donors. Not only are the growth investments projected to lead to a balanced budget in FY2011-2012, but they are also expected to lead to additional returns over the long term. As the GPCA conduct itself in a way that enhances donor and some while others will also become volunteers. Some volunteers will become donors. Some will become candidates. And so on.
On the income side, the FY2011-20122 Budget contains a plan to raise up to $153,750 -- with at $55,750 projected between May and September 2011 and $97,000 between October 2011 and April 2012, along with $4,500 generated from General Assembly registration fees, $2,000 generated by clearinghouse sales, $200 from sales of Green Focus and $2,427 expected in repayment from the GPUS for state sharing. The plan would expand the GPCA's fundraising capability by hiring an Executive Director to design and manage a fundraising campaign, along with creating a new GPCA contact relationship management (CRM) database to ensure high quality management functions such as donation tracking, volunteer coordination and GPCA supporter communications. Until an Executive Director is hired, the GPCA would contract with a consultant to continue interim fundraising. Both the Executive Director position and this interim position is described in the Expense Narrative and included in the Budget Approval Resolutions.
1. CLEARINGHOUSE COMMITTEE (Tier 1 - $1000, Tier I1 - $2,000)
1-1 Merchandise (Tier 1 - $1000, Tier I1 - $2,000)
Merchandise sales via the GPCA's virtual office in Sacramento have been minimal in recent years. In FY2011-2012 the budget project income and expenditures of $1000 in Tier I and $2,000 in Tier II. This reflects increased efforts to design and sell GPCA buttons, stickers and t-shirts. Currently the Clearinghouse Committee has no active members (http://www.cagreens.org/clearinghouse/committee.shtml). With more involvement, exploration into bi-lingual materials, shopping bags and other party-related paraphernalia could occur.
2. FINANCE COMMITTEE (Tier I - 54,570, Tier II - 133,750, Tier III - 151,750)
2-1 Direct mail: Prospect Letters (Tier I - 15,000, Tier II - 33,000)
The plan is to write and send timely, persuasive prospect letters every eight weeks as long as the prospecting remains break even or profitable, with a goal of acquiring 1,100 new donors in FY2011-2012. If prospecting breaks even or better, then funds invested in Tier I are simply reinvested to fund Tier 2 without any additional funding required. The timeline and projections for these prospect mailings are as follows. Note that the associated expenses will be reflected in the FY2011-2012 Expense Narrative
2-1.1 June-2011 Prospect (Tier I)
Number of prospect pieces: 5,000; List: CA donors to GPUS; Avg. response rate: 2%; Avg. gift: $30; Avg. printing and postage cost per letter: $0.60; Total cost: $3,000; Total income: $3,000; Number new donors acquired: 100
2-1.2 July-2011 Prospect (Tier I)
Number of prospect pieces: 10,000; List: GPCA registered voters; Avg. response rate: 2%; Avg. gift: $30; Avg. printing and postage cost per letter: $0.60; Total cost: $6,000; Total income: $6,000; Number new donors acquired: 200
2-1.3 Sep-2011 Prospect (Tier I)
Number of prospect pieces: 10,000; List: GPCA registered voters.; Avg. response rate: 2%; Avg. gift: $30; Avg. printing and postage cost per letter: $0.60; Total cost: $6,000; Total income: $6,000; Number new donors acquired: 200
2-1.4 Nov-2011 Prospect (Tier II)
Number of prospect pieces: 10,000; List: GPCA registered voters.; Avg. response rate: 2%; Avg. gift: $30; Avg. printing and postage cost per letter: $0.60; Total cost: $6,000; Total income: $6,000; Number new donors acquired: 200
2-1.5 January-2012 Prospect (Tier II)
Number of prospect pieces: 10,000; List: GPCA registered voters.; Avg. response rate: 2%; Avg. gift: $30; Avg. printing and postage cost per letter: $0.60; Total cost: $6,000; Total income: $6,000; Number new donors acquired:200
2-1.6 March-2012 Prospect (Tier II)
Number of prospect pieces: 10,000; List: GPCA registered voters.; Avg. response rate: 2%; Avg. gift: $30; Avg. printing and postage cost per letter: $0.60; Total cost: $6,000; Total income: $6,000; Number new donors acquired:2 00
2-2 Direct mail: Resolicitation Letters (Tier I - 11,250, Tier II - 27,750)
The plan is to write and send timely, persuasive prospect resolicitation letters every eight weeks, targetting amounts based on prior giving history using a new CRM (contact relationship management) database, the funds for which are included in Tier 1 expenses in the Expense Narrative.
2-2.1 May-2011 Resolicitation (Tier I)
Number of prospect pieces: 1,200; Avg. response rate: 5%; Avg. gift: $50; Avg. printing and postage cost per letter: $0.60; Net income: $2,280
2-2.2 July-2011 Resolicitation (Tier I)
Number of prospect pieces: 1,500; Avg. response rate: 5%; Avg. gift: $50; Avg. printing and postage cost per letter: $0.60; Net income: $2,850
2-2.3 September-2011 Resolicitation (Tier I)
Number of prospect pieces: 1,800; Avg. response rate: 5%; Avg. gift: $50; Avg. printing and postage cost per letter: $0.60; Net income: $3,420
2-2.4 November-2011 Resolicitation (Tier I)
Number of prospect pieces: 2,000; Avg. response rate: 5%; Avg. gift: $50; Avg. printing and postage cost per letter: $0.60; Net income: $3,800
2-2.5 January-2012 Resolicitation
Number of prospect pieces: 2,200; Avg. response rate: 5%; Avg. gift: $50; Avg. printing and postage cost per letter: $0.60; Net income: $4,180
2-2.6 March-2012 Resolicitation
Number of prospect pieces: 2,400; Avg. response rate: 5%; Avg. gift: $50; Avg. printing and postage cost per letter: $0.60; Net income: $4,560
2-3 Personal solicitations (Tier I - $20,000, Tier II - $50,000)
An executive director will conduct phone and in-person meetings with all major donors and re-solicit all major donors by phone or in-person. Major donors will be asked identify new major donor prospects. “Why donate?” materials will be developed for major donors. Phone and in-person meetings will be conducted with GPCA Greens who can help identify new major donor prospects.
2-4 Online fundraising campaigns (Tier I - 1,500, Tier II - $3,000, Tier III - $5,000)
This campaign is based upon quarterly email solicitations and visually enticing, persuasive online fundraising web pages, which is premised upon on a redesign of the GPCA website and migration to a content management system with team publishing.
2-5 Telemarketing (Tier I - 5,000, Tier II - $15,000, Tier III - $$31,000)
This would involve researching, interviewing, hiring, training and managing a telemarketing firm that uses predictive dialing and agrees to a no money-down no-loss contract, and would call GPCA registered members.
2-6 Events (Tier I - $2,500, Tier II - $5,000)
Tactics - Create annual Bay Area and Los Angeles fundraising event, create annual events program for county councils, develop event invitation template.
3. COORDINATING COMMITTEE (Tier I - $4,500)
3-1 Income from General Assemblies (Tier I - $4,500)
Income received from General Assemblies is primarily in the form of registration fees, which are set with the goal of balancing expected expenses. As a result, the income and expense totals associated with General Assemblies are budgeted to balance each other
4. GRASSROOTS ORGANIZING WORKING GROUP ($200)
4-1 Green Focus sales (Tier I - $200)
If and what to charge for Green Focus is a topic that the Budget Committee believes merits further review by the GPCA, possibly leading to a mid-year income budget amendment based upon that review.
The GPCA's practice in recent years has been to charge for bundles of Green Focus, either via shipping or at General Assemblies for people to take home with them. But the practice at General Assemblies has not necessarily even been to collect the money there. Instead pledges are made and then not always collected later, leading to an unpredictable income stream. For that reason at present only $200 has been projected for the one issue of Green Focus budgeted for in Tier I.
Looking forward, should the GPCA charge for Green Focus? One approach is to charge a for bundles of Green Focus to cover part or all of the production and shipping costs. Another perspective is that Green Focus is a GPCA outreach tool and that the party should treat it as a straight expense like other forms of advertising and promotion, and that charging locals slows the overall process of getting copies of into peoples' hands.
The attached Budget Approval Resolutions contain a resolution that the General Assembly direct the Coordinating Committee to seek input from GROW, the Finance Committee and the Media Committee about if and what to charge for Green Focus and how that fits into GPCA outreach, organizing, promotion and finances, and return to the Fall General Assembly with options.
5. GPUS DELEGATION (Tier III - $2,427)
5-1 GPUS Revenue Sharing, past funds owed (Tier III - $2,427)
The GPUS recently received a large donation from which it is possible, but not certain that the amount owed to the GPCA from 2008 will be paid within the GPCA's FY2011-2012. For this reason it is placed within Tier III.
5-2 GPUS Revenue Sharing, 2011-2012
If and until the GPCA receives projections to the contrary from the GPUS Finance Committee, no GPUS revenue sharing for FY2011-2012 will be projected.
