Breaking: Planned Parenthood President Out

Leana Wen, M.D, president of Planned Parenthood for less than a year, is out. The board appointed Alexis McGill Johnson as acting president. Johnson is co-founder of the Perception Institute. She’ll serve as leader of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the 501(c)(3) tax-exempt entity, and its political action nonprofit, Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF), a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization.

Wen Tweeted that she learned she was surprised that she had been terminated and that there had been “good faith negotiations” regarding her leaving the job. Wen was announced as the new chief executive in September and started on the job Nov. 12, succeeding Cecile Richards, who stepped down in May 2018 after 12 years on the job.

Shortly after that, Wen issued a statement via Twitter, in which she cited “philosophical differences” with the organization’s new board chair, Aimee Cunningham “over the direction and future” of Planned Parenthood:

In another Tweet, Wen issued a lengthier statement, framed as a “Dear Colleagues” letter, in which she shared a detail from the search process and her selection last fall after more than three years as commissioner of the Baltimore City Health Department:

Wen said she posed the question to the board: “Did they see Planned Parenthood as an advocacy organization first, with medical services that are necessary to strengthen its impact, or did they see Planned Parenthood as a health organization first, with advocacy as a necessary vehicle to protect rights and access?”

A search for a new president and CEO will start early next year, with a goal of having a new president in place by the end of the year, according to the organization.

A spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood confirmed that the board’s executive committee met yesterday to decide on Wen’s future as president but declined further comment citing personnel issues. A spokesman for Wen said it’s not likely she would be making any additional comment beyond her statements.

The organization made a statement thanking Wen and wishing her well. “Today, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF) boards of directors announced that Dr. Leana Wen is departing her role as President and CEO of PPFA and President of PPAF, and that Alexis McGill Johnson has been named Acting President and CEO of PPFA and Acting President of PPAF, effective immediately. Johnson is a former member of the board of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, as well as a former chair and member of the board of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.”

Cunningham and PPAF Board Chair Jennie Rosenthal said via the statement: “We thank Dr. Leana Wen for her service to Planned Parenthood in such a pivotal time and extend our best wishes for her continued success. We are pleased to announce that Alexis McGill Johnson has been named Acting President, effective immediately. Alexis is a renowned social justice leader, lifelong political organizer, and a tireless advocate for reproductive rights and access to quality, affordable health care. She has served as a Planned Parenthood board member for nearly a decade and acted as Planned Parenthood’s Board Chair from 2013 to 2015, where she expanded the organization’s philanthropic reach and helped develop a strategic plan to increase access to Planned Parenthood’s health centers and identify new technologies to meet the needs of Planned Parenthood’s patients.”

Check back for updates on this developing story.

ONE HUNDRED: New Study Launched (Sponsored)

ONE HUNDRED’s Influencers in Philanthropy Report 2019 features interviews
with leaders from across the philanthropic landscape and examines the key trends,
disruptions, challenges, and opportunities in the sector.
In the first report, released in 2017, ONE HUNDRED identified key themes in the
philanthropic field and how they generate results for innovation, impact and
resource generation. In the second report, they follow up with some of the same
leaders but also check in with new names. These leaders are the heads of the
largest nonprofits, leaders among the top private foundations, mega
philanthropists, and corporate executives with exceptional CSR initiatives.

ONE HUNDRED’s new report provides extraordinary insight into the
philanthropic landscape we face currently, and it provides a window into what
leaders see ahead in the near and distant future. The findings reveal four critical
themes the philanthropic sector must prioritize in an ever-expanding and crowded
market. Here’s some of what we’ve found in this year’s report:
● Collaboration: Necessary for greater impact. Engaging in large- and small-scale
partnerships and fostering a spirit of collaboration internally was cited as largely a
no-brainer for the Influencers we spoke with, both in terms of collaborative
funding models and sharing best practices.
● Technology: Technology has fueled a highly informed audience of donors and
potential givers. There was a widespread sense that advanced technology is vastly
underutilized in many philanthropic organizations. Several respondents spoke of
the relentless need to keep up, or ideally stay ahead, of evolving trends, especially
on the technology front.
● Next Generation Donors: With a lot of focus on next generation donors, many
Influencers shared that Millennials and Gen Zers actually share many of the typical
donor hallmarks of other generations from the recent past such as demanding
greater transparency but with one important distinction: the shrinking of the
middle-class donor base. This distinction means that an organization’s successful
engagement with this next generation is more important than ever.
● The Effectiveness of Philanthropy in an ever-changing world: The leaders we
spoke with were clear that philanthropy cannot address the world’s needs on its
own and that the yardstick by which we measure philanthropy’s effectiveness
should not solely be the absence of social problems.
Download the full report at

Board Members Are Below Average Fundraisers

Nonprofit board members get their highest grades when it comes to understanding mission and financial oversight. They become under-performing students when it comes to community building and outreach, monitoring legislation and regulatory issues, increasing board diversity and fundraising.

In fact, most board members are rated “C” students if you ask organizational executives and only slightly better when the board chair is asked to give the board a grade.

That’s part of what Anne Wallestad, president and CEO of BoardSource in Washington, D.C., told those gathered for a session titled “Leveraging the Fundraising Partnership Between Boards, CEOs, and Development Staff.”

The board’s role in fundraising has three dimensions, according to Wallestad, ethics and accountability, planning and strategy, and making it happen. Ethics and accountability involves oversight and policy by the full board. Planning and strategy involves strategic partnership with the board committee. Making it happen is board members working in partnership with staff.

It’s all about a three-way partnership between the chief executive, fundraising staff and board members, she said. What makes a difference is knowledge of programs and clarity of expectations during board recruitment.

Wallestad said that board members must embrace the importance of investing in fundraising, which requires a high-level understanding of fundraising tactics and strategy. The strategic questions board members should be tackling include:

  • Do we have enough support to fund our mission?
  • Are our sources of funding stable?
  • Are we investing enough in growth?

The problem is that the question that gets most of the attention is: Are we spending too much money on fundraising Wallestad said that a new definition of fundraising effectiveness is enough money to fund programs plus a responsible balance of risk and reward equaling a healthy fundraising program. The low cost of fundraising just might come at a high cost.

For more on the topic, go to

Using Neuro-Fundraising To Understand Donors

This simple quiz will help you discover the power your primal or fast brain plays in your daily life, and why neuro-fundraising is so important for a nonprofit. If a piece of candy and cookie cost $1.10, how much is the candy if the cookie costs $1 more?

If you haven’t taken this quiz before and you’re like most people, you probably said, “10 cents” and unfortunately, like most people, you’d be wrong. Your primal brain tricked you into the simple, yet wrong answer.

Renowned neuroscientist António R. Damásio informs that, “We are not thinking machines that feel, but rather feeling machines that think,” and at this year’s Bridge to Integrated Marketing and Fundraising Conference, speakers Geoff Peters, chairman of the Moore DM Group and Tracy Trost, president of TCM Creative, shared the reality of this statement in their Neuro-Fundraising Masterclass – How to Make Game-Changing Improvements to Your Creative Offers.

“For decades, top corporations have been implementing learnings from neuroscience and neuromarketing into their advertising campaigns,” said Peters. “The playing field is being leveled as nonprofits are entering the space.”

Neuro-fundraising is the use of biometric sensors to discover what potential donors truly feel, think, and associate with fundraising content. Attendees learned about numerous studies that have been highlighting ways in which nonprofits could begin implementing neuro-fundraising into their own fundraising campaigns. Key neuro concepts covered in the class included:

  • Anchoring: The process of using a large number or concept to “anchor” potential donors’ minds to a higher amount. (See more below.)
  • Reciprocity: We have been conditioned to return a favor done for us or a gift given us. While some nonprofits have this influence factor baked into their core message (think VSOs), some will have to get more creative.
  • Mirroring: People will copy or follow the actions of those similar to them. When we see someone smile, we smile; when someone is hurt, we can feel their pain. What images are you using to capitalize on this influential reality to set your audiences’ emotional state?
  • Priming: The concept of using an image, word, number, or idea to prepare your audience for something you want them to be receptive to later on. In films, it’s called foreshadowing, when filmmakers give us a hint or peek into what is coming the story. When your audience is primed for what is to come, they will be more receptive to it.

An example of anchoring comes from a study where respondents were asked to provide the last two numbers of their Social Security numbers. After supplying this information, they were then asked to guess the value of a keyboard they were shown. Those respondents who had Social Security numbers with higher digits, and were thereby anchored to this higher number, guessed a higher value on the keyboard than those who had lower digits.

And about that piece of candy, it costs just a nickel. Here’s how it works and most brains react. So the cookie and the candy cost $1.10 but the cookie costs $1 more than the candy. Your primal brain (or “Fast System 1 Thinking,” according to Daniel Kahneman) thinks that the candy must be 10 cents.

If it was 10 cents then: $0.10 Candy, $1.10 Cookie ($1 more than the candy) equals $1.20 total. But it needs to total $1.10 so $0.05 Candy, $1.05 Cookie, $1.10 total.

For more in neuro-fundraising, go to

National Data: NPO Digital Is A Small Share of Media Spending

Overall media spending by larger nonprofits increased by just 3 percent year-over-year with the digital media spend increasing by 120 percent, representing 7.4 percent of all media spending. For smaller organizations, overall media spending increased by nearly 20 percent during the same period with digital media spending increasing by 60 percent, representing 30 percent of all media spending.

Paid online search was the number one digital marketing spend followed by social media, email, online display or programmatic network buys and the all-encompassing “other” coming in last.

Of organizations with more than $2 million in total revenue, digital represents just 7 percent of all media spending.

These are among the results of a study of digital media use by nonprofits conducted during June 2019 by Campbell Rinker on behalf of data-driven provider Wiland in cooperation with The NonProfit Times. Two, separate groups of 5,000 surveys were sent to readers of The NonProfit Times known to work at a nonprofit. They were selected at random and invited to participate online via email invitations.

The results were presented during a session titled “A Field of Dreams? Digital Media Spending in the Nonprofit Sector Results of a Landmark Study” at the Bridge To Integrated Marketing Conference in National Harbor, Md. this week. The panelists were Roger Hiyama, senior vice president, client services, at Wiland, Jessica Kirsche Morrow, digital marketing manager at The Nature Conservancy and Paul Clolery, vice president and editorial director of The NonProfit Times.

About half of the nonprofits answering this study earned less than $2 million in total revenue annually. About one in three earned from $2 million to $10 million and approximately one-quarter earned more than $10 million in total revenue.

When it comes to digital, throwing money at it isn’t going to work. “A large number of organizations mentioned that they don’t know where to start or don’t have the staff experience to do more online – 34 percent of smaller organizations and surprisingly 19 percent of larger organizations,” said Hiyama.

Responsibility for digital marketing is most likely to rest with the marketing communications department. The second most likely place it would fall is development, fundraising, advancement or membership. Roughly one-third of organizations split digital marketing responsibility across multiple groups.

Respondents rarely pursue a single objective with their digital media spending, with an average of 2.3 goals. The most common goals were fundraising and branding/education (72 percent overall for each). Larger organizations tend to focus first on branding/education before fundraising, while smaller organizations are more apt to pursue fundraising first. Advocacy was cited as a third-level goal.

Approximately 45 percent of respondents said “Growing digital fundraising is a key initiative of our organization” was either somewhat or completely accurate. However, only 20 percent anticipated increasing their digital media spend by more than 10 percent during 2020.

For organizations with more than $2 million in total revenue, the largest share of online display advertising goes to pure acquisition. Larger organizations put more into remarketing display ads to website visitors, while smaller nonprofits put more into co-targeting. While both large and small organizations tend to pursue very different sourcing methods for pure acquisition, the larger groups seem to do their own work while the smaller nonprofits seem to rely more on support from their ad platform.

When asked which method of attribution is used to attribute donors and revenue to a source channel, 79 percent of smaller organizations and 60 percent of larger organizations reported that they don’t use any attribution method. Among larger nonprofits, 21 percent said they used an attribution window.

“I was surprised that digital media spending jumped from 2018 to 2019 by so much but it’s clearly still lagging behind where it would drive more website traffic and overall digital revenues,” said Hiyama. “Surprisingly, however, with over 60 percent of larger organizations and 79 percent of smaller organizations not using any method of revenue attribution, it may be difficult to justify significant spending shifts from traditional media to digital media.”

To receive a complete set of slides with the data, please go to

Giving Drops Despite Advisors Pitching It More

Almost every metric monitored by the Fundraising Effectiveness Project (FEP) decreased during the first quarter of 2019, leading to concerns about the growth of charitable giving for the rest of the year. It mirrors reports from the first quarter of 2018.

Meanwhile, a study by Fidelity Charitable shows that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) signed in December 2017 overhauled the American tax code and altered how advisors are thinking of charitable giving and bringing philanthropy into conversations with clients.

The FEP’s 2019 “First Quarter Report,” which reviews giving data from January through March 2019 and compares it to the same time period in 2018, found that across the board almost every key metric declined — with the exception of revenue produced by donors giving $250 or less.

“We’re seeing the exact same situation that we experienced in the first quarter of 2018, right down to the only metric that increased,” said Mike Geiger, MBA, CPA, president and CEO of the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP). “What’s so significant about these numbers? By the end of the year in 2018, our quarterly reports showed that the growth in annual charitable giving dropped tremendously, from roughly 8 percent in 2017 to just 1.6 percent in 2018.”

Geiger said it is difficult to forecast at this point for the rest of the year, but if the same scenario happens again, growth in giving could continue to drop in 2019, perhaps to the point where overall annual giving actually decreases.

Data in the 2019 first quarter report shows the total number of donors decreased by 5.7 percent during the first quarter of 2019 compared to the first quarter of 2018, while overall revenue dropped 2.2 percent. The overall retention rate, a critical metric for charities as it measures the number of donors who continue to give to the same organization from one year to the next, also decreased by 0.9 percent.

Perhaps the most troubling figure is the number of new donors, which plummeted by 10.5 percent for the quarter, according to Geiger. The lack of new donors exacerbates another problem for the charitable sector: relying on fewer donors overall for more money. With the number of donors decreasing by 5.7 percent, but giving revenue dropping by 2.2 percent, the charitable sector continues to see fewer, typically wealthier, donors accounting for more and more of giving, according to the report’s authors.

“Charities are neither attracting new donors effectively, nor are they keeping them effectively, judging by the continued drop in retention rates shown in our quarterly reports,” said Elizabeth Boris, chair of the Growth in Giving Initiative. “All the signs point to charities focusing more and more on larger donors — but there are only so many donors of wealth who can continue to support so many charities and causes. This situation isn’t tenable in the long-term for a healthy and vibrant charitable sector that can adequately address the issues that our country is facing,” she said.

Data in the report is based on 90.8 million gift transactions from 4,456 organizations from 21.2 million individuals. Organizations included in the report have raised $5,000 or more from 25 or more donors in each of the last six years. Revenue figures have been adjusted for inflation.

“One of the more interesting findings is that donations from donors giving less than $250 is the only metric to increase in the first quarter for the second year in a row,” said Geiger. “While we don’t have any hard data to suggest why this continues to occur, one possibility is that donors who give smaller amounts are less influenced by tax concerns at the end of the year. Many may wait to see what their financial situation is after the holidays and then decide to make ‘year-end’ gifts in January and February.”

The figures show that almost 30 percent of all donor transactions occurred in the first quarter of the year during 2018, although the revenue from those gifts only accounted for 20 percent of the annual giving total, said Boris. “So, while the amount of money raised may not be as much compared to the fourth quarter, the number of donors giving in the first quarter is significant. How charities interact with and treat donors in the first quarter may help influence those donors to give again later in the fourth quarter or early in the following year,” said Boris.

On the other end of the giving spectrum, according to Fidelity Charitable, advisors are increasingly embracing and promoting charitable strategies to their clients. Nearly half of advisors report that following more than 10 years of a bull market and a major overhaul of the tax system, many or most of their clients adjusted their charitable giving strategy in response to tax reform. Specifically:

  • 47 percent of advisors say that many or most clients increased giving overall due to the loss of other deductions;
  • 46 percent say they established a donor-advised fund (DAF);
  • 46 percent say they donated appreciated securities to maximize deductions; and,
  • 44 percent say they employed a bunching strategy to maximize charitable deductions.

“Giving to charity is a decision that clients make from the heart, but most would be delighted to be able to give more if they had guidance on how to give more strategically. Tax reform raised awareness on the part of advisors of the need to help clients be more thoughtful about the timing, assets and methods used for giving as a part of a holistic financial plan,” said Karla Valas, senior vice president, fundraising and distribution at Fidelity Charitable.

In the wake of tax reform, advisors have adapted their recommendations and increased their conversations with clients about charitable planning. More than one-third of advisors recommended that the majority of their clients adjust their charitable giving strategy post-tax reform. Additionally, advisors seem to have recognized that charitable giving has become a more prominent part of providing holistic financial and wealth management services and are having more philanthropic conversations with their clients. Since 2015, the number of clients with whom advisors discuss giving has risen from 46 percent to 58 percent.

To download the FEP 2019 First Quarter Report and other quarterly reports since 2017, and to learn about other tools to help measure fundraising effectiveness, visit

Senior Management Shake-up At Nature Conservancy

An interim chief executive has been appointed at The Nature Conservancy after accusations that senior management mishandled complaints of sexual harassment and multiple forms of bullying.

Former U.S. Secretary of the Interior and current Nature Conservancy director Sally Jewell was appointed interim CEO. Until Jewell assumes the role full time on Sept. 3, she will serve on a board subcommittee, along with Board Chair Thomas Tierney and director Frances Ulmer. That committee will oversee management of the Arlington, Va.-headquartered organization.

Former CEO Mark Tercek, who stepped down on Friday after more than a decade in the position, will serve as an advisor to the subcommittee, as needed. The board also announced that Ulmer was chosen as the next chair of the board, effective Nov. 1, 2019, following the expiration of Tierney’s term. A six-person CEO Search Committee has been established to find a permanent replacement for Tercek. A search firm will also be retained, according to the organization’s announcement.

“These are all important appointments that will ensure our entire organization has the support it needs while we conduct a CEO search, continue our work to create a more open and equitable culture, and advance our mission,” said Tierney, who is also chairman and co-founder of Bridgespan Group in Boston.

Jewell said via a statement, “Since its inception 68 years ago, TNC has been a leading organization centered around its mission of conserving the lands and waters on which all life depends. I am humbled and pleased to step forward to support this important organization through its transition, following 11 years of dedicated leadership by Mark Tercek as CEO.”

News website POLITICO reported that the executive director of The Nature Conservancy’s Florida-based Caribbean chapter, Luis Solórzano, is leaving after complaints of a toxic workplace culture. According to POLITICO, it was announced internally on Monday that he was leaving after the news site “submitted detailed questions to both him and the organization about allegations from current and former employees, including racial and homophobic slurs, sexism and whistleblower retaliation.”

The news site reported it had spoken to 13 people who work or once worked for The Nature Conservancy, and who objected to the way the group’s leaders had allowed Solórzano to remain despite complaints. According to POLITICO, Nature Conservancy President Brian McPeek resigned from the organization May 31, two days after POLITICO reported on a sexual harassment and misconduct investigation that led to the departures of two other senior officials from the group. Tercek’s announced departure came one week later on Friday.

An internal investigation is being handled by McDermott Will & Emery, which has a dozen offices in North America, including Washington, D.C.

Breaking: $21.5 Million Returned to Donor

The largest donor to the University of Alabama is getting his $21.5 million back. The school’s Board of Trustees today voted to return the cash from Hugh Culverhouse, Jr., after he suggested businesses and students should avoid the state and its institutions due to its new abortion law.

Culverhouse’s name was pried off the university law school sign. He had pledged $26.5 million to the school to be paid over four years. He also will receive interest accrued on then $21.5 million, the school announced.

“As part of an ongoing dispute, last week Hugh Culverhouse, Jr. asked for the return of $10 million, repeating numerous demands about the operations of the University of Alabama School of Law,” according to a statement from the UA System as reported in the university’s newspaper The Crimson White.

Culverhouse has told the news website “I cannot stand by silently and allow my name to be associated with a state educational system that teaches students law that clearly conflicts with the United States Constitution and Federal law, and which promotes blatant discrimination.”

“The action taken by the Board today was a direct result of Mr. Culverhouse’s ongoing attempts to interfere in the operations of the Law School,” said Vice Chancellor for Communication, Kellee Reinhart. “That was the only reason the Board voted to remove his name and return his money.”

According to the publication Florida Politics, Culverhouse’s father an officer of Planned Parenthood in Jacksonville, Fla., during the 1950s.

The $26.5 million pledge was the largest in the university’s history. There was still $5 million of the gift pending.

The university acknowledged a dispute with the donor but claimed the decision about his donation is related only to concerns about matters at the school, not at the statehouse.

Business Owners’ Ages Impact Philanthropic Intentions

Millennial entrepreneurs show higher levels of charitable giving and volunteerism than entrepreneurs of earlier generations. That’s one of the data points in a Fidelity Charitable® survey focusing on three generations of business owners. The data shows that younger entrepreneurs have different approaches to business and to philanthropy than those who came before them.

Millennial entrepreneurs are the most highly engaged and committed to philanthropy compared with Boomers and Gen X. More than 80 percent of Millennial business owners responded that giving is a very important activity in their lives versus 57 percent of Gen X and 48 percent of Boomers. Nearly half responded that charitable giving is a critical piece of who they are as individuals.

    Other data points include:

  • The median annual donation of Millennial business owners was $13,654 in 2017, more than twice the median donation of Gen X and Baby Boomer entrepreneurs at $6,200 and $6,192, respectively.
  • Millennial entrepreneurs are generous with both their money and time, with 93 percent reporting that they spent time volunteering in 2017, compared to 74 percent of Boomers.
  • Millennial business owners are already planning their charitable legacies. Nearly two-thirds plan to leave money to charity after they’re gone, versus 46 percent of Boomers.
  • Millennials are also more likely to be serial entrepreneurs, with 61 percent having founded more than one business. Almost two-thirds of Baby Boomer entrepreneurs have founded one business.

“The philanthropic landscape is changing, and our research shows that Millennial entrepreneurs are shaping a new way for charitable giving. Millennials want to feel a connection to causes they care about. While these characteristics are not limited just to the entrepreneurs of the Millennial generation, their practical impacts on philanthropy become more pronounced through the lens of entrepreneurship,” said Pamela Norley, president of Fidelity Charitable via a statement.

A closer look at the generations shows a clear divide — traditional and intentional Boomers, optimistic and active Millennials and Gen Xers who bridge the gap, sharing qualities with the generations on either side.

    The responses showed:

  • Gen X entrepreneurs are focused on their local communities, with 90 percent valuing charities that benefit the area where they live, compared to 79 percent of Boomers.
  • Similar to Boomers, Gen X entrepreneurs tend to focus their giving on a narrow set of causes and prefer to support traditional, well-established nonprofits. However, more closely aligned with Millennials, Gen X likes to be hands-on, with 61 percent preferring to be personally involved with the charities they support.
  • Millennial entrepreneurs want to be involved, with 90 percent valuing charities that offer meaningful volunteer opportunities. More than half responded that volunteering is a chance to learn new skills, compared to one-third of Gen X and only 20 percent of
  • Younger entrepreneurs see charitable giving as a way to build their reputation, with 84 percent saying they value giving as an opportunity to demonstrate leadership in the community. Some 74 percent value having their contributions recognized publicly, compared to only 19 percent of Boomers. <.ul>

For the complete report and additional insights, visit: Entrepreneurs as Philanthropists Generational Insights

One Departure, One Arrival At United Ways

As one of the nation’s largest United Way affiliates welcomed a new president and CEO, another announced the retirement of its chief executive.

United Way of Greater Houston announced on Thursday that Anna Babin will step down when her successor is hired, no later than the end of the fiscal year, March 31. She has led Greater Houston for the past 14 years, seeing it through the Hurricane Harvey and its aftermath construction of a 2-1-1 facility, and a merger with Montgomery County United Way.

Meanwhile, earlier last week, John Wilgers began his tenure as president and CEO of Greater Twin Cities United Way in Minneapolis, Minn., succeeding Sara Caruso, who announced a year ago that she would retire last summer as president and CEO after leading the affiliate for almost a decade.

The two affiliates have historically been among the largest in the nation when it comes to fundraising and support. Greater Houston reported total support of $122 million in the most recent campaign (2016-17), which included response to Hurricane Harvey, while Twin Cities ranked fourth, also behind Greater St. Louis and Greater Atlanta, reporting almost $74 million. In 2017, a spike in donor-restricted contributions for specific organizations created a $6-million shortfall in funding that led to about 5 percent cut in the 177 employees at Greater Twin Cities.

The moves continued a recent spate of CEO turnover and retirements at local United Way affiliates. The NonProfit Times in April estimated that as many as 120 local affiliate CEO posts have turned over since the start of 2018. About a third of those were the results of retirements.

Reporting to the Board of Directors of United Way, Wilgers will focus on advancing the organization’s mission to build pathways toward prosperity and equity for all by increasing access for all to stable housing, healthy food, a strong education, jobs and an opportunity to build prosperity and wealth. In his new role, Wilgers will oversee strategic innovation, community impact strategy, direct-service offerings, cross-sector partnerships, revenue diversification and fundraising initiatives.

Wilgers joins United Way after 35 years at Ernst & Young where he most recently held the position of managing partner of the Minneapolis. He has served in several United Way roles including board chair, member of the executive committee of the board, volunteer, fundraiser and donor.