The Catalogue for Philanthropy is once again calling on local nonprofit organizations to apply for inclusion on the publication’s coveted annual list of worthy small-budget nonprofits in Greater Washington. The catalogue is designed to feature and highlight the region’s neediest do-gooders to the more than 25,000 local donors who make up the publication’s readership, and the organization claims it has helped steer more than $24 million in outside donations to accepted applicants since publishing its first issue in 2003.

“We know that money is the oxygen that powers the system,” says Barbara Harman, president and editor for the Catalogue for Philanthropy. “[Charities] find that well beyond the actual dollars we raise for them, there’s an added credibility factor that influences existing donors.”

According to Jennifer Hatch, who coordinates and manages the catalogue’s nonprofit network and application process, the value that local charities place on making the list is apparent in two ways. “We’re at the point where groups are applying to be in their third catalogue,” says Hatch. Those that don't reapply have perhaps gotten too big: the catalogue limits applicants to operating budgets of $3 million or below, and a dozen or so previously featured charities have since blown past that limit.

“We’re not trying to take credit for their growth, but we have seen them grow with us,” says Hatch.

Up to 100 outside reviewers help evaluate the nonprofits and charities that apply. Charities will be evaluated for the programs they offer, their impact on the community and smart financial planning. The process is exhausting and year round, and Harman compares it to the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, because as soon as they finish publishing and promoting the previous year’s catalogue, work begins on the next edition.

This will be the 13^th version of the annual catalogue. For Harman, watching the process evolve from an idea to an institution that local charities rely on has been a revelation. Success was not a guarantee, and after the catalogue’s first year donation totals came in, she feared the enterprise was destined to be a flop. Only half a dozen donors had sent the catalogue a check to disperse to the dozens of charities they had featured.

“I had dreams about opening up [donation forms] and having pennies fall out,” says Harman.

After following up with featured charities to ask if they had received any significant donations that they couldn’t explain, it turned out many had received atypically large sums of money from donors they had never met or who specifically cited the catalogue. Harman discovered that their first-year efforts had helped funnel more than half a million dollars to their featured charities. The publication now credits approximately $3 million a year in new donations annually to their efforts.

So what makes for a successful application? Not modesty. “Organizations that don’t have a really rich description of the problems they are facing on the front lines every day are really missing out, because the reviewers start there and everything flows from there,” says Hatch. “I think some are a little modest, or they think people have a better understanding of what the impact is, and they miss an opportunity of really describing the real outcomes they are making.”

Over the last decade the catalogue has witnessed the rise of other organizations such as Charity Navigator and Guidestar, which offer similar vetting services for charities and nonprofits. Harman and Hatch both say that those organizations focus on larger, national charities, while the Catalogue is “for people who want to give where they live,” says Harman.

“We focus on the small and mighty. [Our charities] are not going to solve the poverty problems in the U.S., they’re not going to cure cancer or solve malaria. But they are making an impact in the greater Washington area,” says Harman.

Because of this difference, there is rarely any overlap between the charities featured by GuideStar and Charity Navigator and those featured in the Catalogue. In addition, Harman stresses that the catalogue’s review process vets selected charities from multiple angles (program evaluation, impact, financial stability and sustainability) that aren’t available at other websites.

“There are absolutely people who would not be interested in working with us. As my daughter says, we won’t be their jam,” says Harman. “But we’ve identified a lot of local donors for whom this is their jam.”