We have found, reviewing thousands of applicants over 11 years, that to “excel”—to “stand out” from the rest—is clear but not reducible to a list of attributes mechanically applied, as on a check-list. They include cost-effectiveness; outstanding idea or approach to a problem; success and accomplishments; and recognition by others, e.g., awards and influence. Urgency of need helps but is not necessary. Reviewers report that identifying excellence is not difficult—the best ones “shine.” Thus “incandescence” is an important criterion. We select a team of reviewers (this year 25) from diverse constituencies of philanthropy, known to be knowledgeable, experienced, and sound in judgement, and we trust them to recognize excellence when they see it.

No, because the Catalogue is a multiplier—it attracts far more money for the poor (and everyone else) than it costs. We originally designed it as a “high-end” publication because everyone we interviewed in focus groups said their first response to receiving it would be to wonder if it was “legitimate.” Distrust and disrespect for philanthropy inhibits charitable giving, so we made the Catalogue so elegant, welldesigned, high-minded, well-written, packed with useful information, and showcasing such excellent organizations, that legitimacy would be obvious. Also, we wanted it to be so beautiful, interesting, and of enduring value, that readers would not easily throw it away. Our goals are: first, to attract people to open it, then to scan through it, then to save it for later, then to review it deliberately, with interest in images, then text, then to use it in charitable giving, and finally to save it for future reference, display on a coffee table, or as a conversation piece. This has succeeded; charities want to be in it, donors and foundations keep it and use it.

The most cost-effective way to distribute this many Catalogues is to buy a list each year from a respected list-house, of people with estimated incomes above $200,000, and/or net worth above $10 million. The IRS says there are 121,000 Massachusetts taxpayers at that level; our list-house estimates there are 120,000 such—close enough. Marketing research firms and list houses compile and distribute such data, continually refined; our list is said to be 94% accurate—tops in the industry. However all lists are imperfect, and we regret all errors in ours, as unavoidable.

Our main purpose has been “donor education, to increase and improve charitable giving.” Secondary purposes are to attract new donors with major-gift potential to our listed charities, whom we train to help those donors learn more about philanthropy— this is a collaborative donor-education program. Success in education is not easily measured, though one indication of our effectiveness is the respect accorded the Catalogue by donors, charities, and foundations. Another is that the Catalogue has brought excellent people to our excellent charities, resulting in great stories of empowerment and benefits for everyone. When excellent charities are presented in an excellent way to excellent people, there will be excellent results.

The most common result, reported by almost every charity, is that being listed in the Catalogue improved their overall fundraising effectiveness, by increasing their respectability with donors and grantmakers—but this, too, is difficult to measure as traceable to the Catalogue. First-year results are important, but often donors begin a new relationship with a charity with a relatively small gift, to test the waters; if they are well treated, and encouraged to become more interested and involved, their gifts increase quite substantially (because these donors have major gift potential)—which is difficult for small charities to track and report over a period of years.

Dollars are evidence of successful donor-education communications, but tracking the totals of donors and dollars has been challenging and we don’t have exact numbers. Since year two (1998), we have encouraged donors to deal directly with the charities, because they prefer to do that, but this forfeits our control of the data. We ask the charities to report to us all Catalogue-generated donations, but adequacy of reporting varies widely—these are small charities, relying on volunteers at crucial points, and data collection and reporting are not their highest priorities.

Here’s what we do know: Our largest single gift is a $10 million pledge to a capital campaign. Another charity received over $1 million from a single donor, over several years. Two family foundations took an interest in one Catalogue charity and between them donated $340,000. One charity received a grant of $100,000 from a new family foundation; another gained 50 new donors and $19,000 from their first listing; another received $8,000 from Catalogue readers, which was one-third of their total personal donations that year. We have many anecdotes from charities reporting four- and five-figure donations, and thousands more of lesser amounts.

For donors who feel more comfortable working through us, we provide a Giving Form in the Catalogue, which we can track. Donors select specific charities, or donate to a field of philanthropy, and 100% of their gift goes to the charities. Since 1998, charities have received 4,142 of these donations for a total of $1,847,719. Recently, donors have also been able to give on our website via Network for Good; since 2003, 720 of these have totalled $139,710.

The data we would most like to have, which we have tried hard and creatively to get, is that of donors giving directly to charities over a period of years. Computerization and the Internet are steadily improving our ability to get and manage this data, so at least the outlook is bright.

What we do know is that, by their own testimony, the Catalogue has strengthened the fundraising of almost all our listed charities—though we have no way of quantifying that result; we have directly raised for them, at no cost to them, at least $15 million, and this is 4-5 times our costs, which we have separately raised, over and above what we have raised for them.

The print Catalogue has always been part of a system of mutually-reinforcing parts. Our website (www.cfp-ma.org) is a cumulative, universally accessible, Catalogue, which we are dramatically enhancing this year with the addition of an Atlas of Philanthropy in Massachusetts (see above, p.6 ). Our annual publication, in various forms, of IRS data on income and charitable giving has become the nation’s leading stimulus for media discussions of giving in relation to income; this year’ version is the Opportunity Index (pp. 68, above). We promote governor-declared State Giving Days (see back cover) nationwide (11 in 2006) to reinforce charities’ annual appeals. In all the above we have worked to develop a clearer, more positive and useful vocabulary, conceptualization, and rhetoric for philanthropy, which is summarized in a short book, Philanthropy Reconsidered (available through our website).

These are all tools that can be used for philanthropy anywhere—Massachusetts is our R&D laboratory, as it were. We make them available to other markets and institutions either free of charge, or by licensing. Surrounding these efforts have been various informal activities: helping other Catalogues and similar projects to get started nationwide—currently there are two in the works, in Montana and southern California; advising Massachusetts charities pro bono on all kinds of questions they bring to us; and providing philanthropic advisory services to individuals, families and foundations, on the basis of our research and unequalled data on Massachusetts charities.

Private grants and donations from institutions and individuals who believe philanthropy should be promoted. We hope you will join us.