Month: February 2016

(This is a follow up piece to the posting What Do You Call The Staff Person In Charge of Raising Charitable Contributions?)

The title question is often asked by new/fairly young nonprofit organizations; and, depending on the age/size/mission/location/etc. of the organization, there can be many different answers.

As noted previously, the simple answer to the question is that “the staff person must have a title that is comfortable for (prospective) donors, unpretentious, (moderately) descriptive, appropriate for the organization’s age/size/etc, and satisfying to the Staff Person.”

So, where do you start ??

The first distinction that should be made is whether the staff person (1) is responsible for raising the needed funds or (2) is responsible for seeing that the money is raised !!

(1) Sadly, too many nonprofits are going the route of having staff members being the fundraisers. It’s sad for a number of reasons (see my discussion/posting next week), but people with that role aren’t directing or managing fundraising, they’re doing it.

They may be Donor Relations Officers, Major Gift Officers, or Constituent Relations Officers. The first two options suggest that “I’m/we’re only dealing with you to get your money,” the latter suggests that “I/we care about you and want to develop a real relationship.”

I would suggest that “Major Gifts Officer” would not be appropriate for a new/young organization … for the most part because those nonprofits don’t understand what a major gift is, and what is entailed in the process. (See: What is A Major Gift?)

(2) Staff members who manage and work with volunteers (including board members), where it is the volunteers who are actually doing the fundraising, have titles that could include “Manager” or “Director.”

These people should be planning the various aspects of the development program, overseeing and tweaking its implementation, and evaluating the previous years’ performance.

Their title should be specific, based on their areas of focus/expertise.

A Director of Special Events should have the experience/expertise to be able to work with volunteers to make an event special/successful.

Other titles, assuming the appropriate experience/expertise could be: Director of Foundation Relations, Director of Government Relations, Director of Corporate Relations; and, the person with the broad experience/expertise to supervise/coordinate all aspects of the development program – the Director of Development.

A development officer, who is the only person in the development office, who just works with fundraising events and/or writes foundation proposals cannot be a Director of Development !!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you heard about
The Fundraising Series of ebooks?
They’re easy to read, to the point, and inexpensive ($1.99-$4.99)
This posting is a sample of what’s addressed in the series

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating
or expanding your fundraising program?
AskHank
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Many of these postings are based on questions/comments
from readers. Look forward to hearing from YOU.
Comments & Questions
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

If you’re reading this on-line, and would like to comment/expand on the above piece, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply.” If you’re reading this as an email, and you want to comment on the above piece, email Comments to offer your thoughts. Your comments, with appropriate attribution, could be the basis of a new posting.

I got a note, recently, from a retired friend/colleague, as follows:

Our Retirement Community’s leadership has put out several RFPs to local consultants for a planned Capital Campaign Feasibility Study. The “cattle call” will be one day in March when the consultants will make pitches to several Community officials, none having much knowledge of capital campaigns, much less for feasibility studies.

So, yours truly has been asked to be part of the group to review and recommend.

Why should he have committed big, when there was no case for support as yet, no leadership, and no known other givers – no campaign?

My friend then asked for my thoughts/reaction. So, in my opinion, there are three red flags that must be addressed.

There are problems inherent in the Request-For-Proposal process. Since most organizations that are hoping do to a capital campaign haven’t got the first clue as to what a capital campaign really entails, how can they create an RFP that addresses all their needs? Asking for proposals would put them at the mercy of whatever the “proposers” wanted to tell/sell them.

Better if they ask other “local” organizations that have successfully completed such major fundraising efforts what person or firm they used to help them succeed. That way, they don’t have to rely on their lack of knowledge and they don’t have to have the “cattle call” … with every one who responds to the RFP. In the long run they would probably do better just meeting with capital campaign counsel who comes recommended by people whose opinions they trust.

The misuse of the Gift Table is not unusual. As my friend noted, above, it would be counterproductive to ask someone at what level on the “pyramid” they envision their likely gift, when all that’s being done at the time is a study to determine if a goal is even attainable.

My friend also noted that you should never ask a prospect where they would peg themselves. You should ask interviewees to suggest the names of other people who would likely be able to give at the various levels … if they were motivated to do so.

He also noted that goal setting is based on the information obtained during the Study … so you can’t go to people with a pie-in-the-sky, unsupported goal figure, and a gift table based on that.

Then, there is my emphatic objection to any use of Feasibility Studies.

As noted in my posting of January 27 — A Planning Study over a Feasibility Study Every Time — I strongly suggest that Feasibility Studies are not only obsolete,they’re counter-productive/harmful. Let’s do Planning Studies or Research Projects, but no more “Feasibility Studies.”

See also my posting Another Reason Why I Object To Feasibility Studies.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you heard about
The Fundraising Series of ebooks?
They’re easy to read, to the point, and inexpensive ($1.99-$4.99)
This posting is a sample of what you can find the series

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating
or expanding your fundraising program?
AskHank
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
We’ve been posting these pieces for the last five years,
and we’re now at a point where, to keep this resource alive,
we need your questions/problems to engender further discussion.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Comments & Questions
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

If you’re reading this on-line, and would like to comment/expand on the above piece, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply.” If you’re reading this as an email, and you want to comment on the above piece, email Comments to offer your thoughts. Your comments, with appropriate attribution, could be the basis of a new posting.

The five basic elements in Major Gift Fundraising are Leadership, a Prospect Base, Involvement by Prospective Donors in various aspects of organizational life, a Donor Recognition Program, and someone to Guide the process.

1. Leadership includes the organization’s CEO, Trustees and (often) key volunteers. It’s their role to define the funding need, take their case to the public, and identify, cultivate and evaluate those most likely to make a major gift. It is, of course, also the job of the leadership to set the example and ask others to follow that example.

2. The most likely Major Gift Prospects are those individuals with the means to make a gift of the appropriate size, who know your organization, believe in its mission and that it is being run effectively, are accessible to your leadership, and have been substantively involved with your organization.

An effective major gifts program requires the active participation of your leadership in getting your prospects actively involved in the life of your organization. Please note, active involvement of prospects does not necessarily equate to attendance at special events.

In the identification and initial evaluation process, involvement by leadership is absolutely essential. It is they who must have access to the wealthy, before the wealthy can be considered prospects. Your leaders must know your prospects and their interests well enough to identify the best means for involving them with your organization.

3. Involvement is an ongoing process that ranges from asking the prospect for advice – in one-or-more areas, to having that person serve on a committee – for an event, to help identify/evaluate prospects, to add expertise on a project, etc.

Involvement can also mean working with you to help provide the service that is the mission of your organization. It can also be speaking for you – to community groups, corporations, the press, even one-on-one with other prospective donors.

There is no time limit for involvement, it depends on the prospect. By definition, you ask for the major gift at the point where the prospect is likely to respond, “Of course. What took you so long to ask?” That’s why, since it’s not always easy to identify that point, the people doing the cultivating/involving must know the prospect well enough to make that determination.

4. In a major gifts program, Donor Recognition is not about names on a list or how a donor fits a category, it is about what will satisfy each donor’s needs. Their needs can be satisfied by a range of activities … from a handshake with the right person, to a publicity piece in the newspaper, to a name on a building or program.
Recognition in a major gifts program must focus on the individual; and, you won’t be able to determine what the appropriate recognition will be for each donor until you’ve established a solid relationship with them, and get to know their needs.

5. The fifth element is the person who will hold the process together, and be sure that all concerned do what’s needed, when needed. That’s your Director of Development – a person with the experience and expertise who can direct your development program.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you heard about
The Fundraising Series of ebooks?
They’re easy to read, to the point, and inexpensive ($1.99-$4.99)
This posting is a sample of what’s in book three of the series – Major Gifts

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating
or expanding your fundraising program?
AskHank
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
We’ve been posting these pieces for the last five years,
and we’re now at a point where, to keep this resource alive,
we need your questions/problems to engender further discussion.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Comments & Questions
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

If you’re reading this on-line, and would like to comment/expand on the above piece, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply.” If you’re reading this as an email, and you want to comment on the above piece, email Comments to offer your thoughts. Your comments, with appropriate attribution, could be the basis of a new posting.