Author: Hank Lewis, MA, CFRM

The Senior Development Person functions in four broad areas:
•  Long- and Short-Term Planning
       Working with Leadership
•  Operational Planning and Analysis
       Working with Leadership, Administration and Staff to identify
       and select the (marketing, public relations and development)
       programs that will best address established goals and
       objectives.
•  Coordinating Development Activities with those of the other depts.
•  Program Supervision
       Working with Staff and/or vendors to plan and oversee Events and Mass Mailings —
       Solicitations and other Communications, and Coordinate the activities of the
       Volunteer Leadership.

The Operational Development Person functions in four specific areas:
•  Long- and Short-Term Planning
       Working with the senior development person
•  Operational Planning and Analysis
       Working with Leadership, Administration and senior development person to identify and
       select the (marketing, public relations and development) programs that will best address
       goals and objectives.
•  Program Planning
       Working with Volunteers and vendors to plan Events and Mass Mailings
•  Program Implementation
       Working with Volunteers and vendors to implement specific relationship-building and
       fundraising activities, and Coordinate the Activities of the Volunteer Leadership

The Development Support Person functions in two general areas:
•  Data Entry
       Information on gifts, donors and prospects
•  Communications
       Contact with donors, prospects, volunteers and vendors to obtain/confirm information,
       and facilitating the communications of the operational development person with donors,
       prospects, volunteers and vendors.

(This piece has been on my hard drive for so long, I don’t remember if I wrote it or if someone else did, but it’s information worth having, and I’ll be happy to give recognition to its author if I’m informed it wasn’t me !!)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program? Contact me at Hank@Major-Capital-Giving.com With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, I’ll be pleased to answer your questions.

The Development Office and its staff functions with-and-through a volunteer cadre, and:

•  Participates in the strategic planning process to address the
    feasibility of attaining specific long-range and short-term
    funding goals.
•  Is responsible for working with Leadership and Administration
    in planning and implementing the activities needed to generate
    the funding required to meet the goal established by the
    strategic planning process.
•  Participates in the process that links the setting of cash flow goals to the fund raising process.
•  Works with Leadership in the creation/adoption of Short- and Long-Term Development Plans
    designed to identify, educate, cultivate and involve major gift prospects in the activities of the
    organization, so that short- and long-term funding goals can be met.
•  Works independently and with Leadership in researching prospective major donors.
•  Coordinates and tracks activities of Leadership in that process, and in the evaluation of
    solicitation of those prospects.
•  Maintains and coordinates the use of the organization’s database.
•  Works independently and with Leadership in designing and implementing broad-based
    marketing, public relations and fund raising programs.
•  Coordinates, via the research process, the identification of which individuals, foundations
    and corporations should be donor prospects for which programs and activities.

(This piece has been on my hard drive for so long, I don’t remember if I wrote it or if someone else did, but it’s information worth having, and I’ll be happy to give recognition to its author if I’m informed it wasn’t me !!)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program? Contact me at Hank@Major-Capital-Giving.com With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, I’ll be pleased to answer your questions.

A reader wrote:
Our non-profit, faith based social service agency is going to split from the identity/brand of the church, but continue under a new name and separate 501(c)(3) to offer the same programs and services. The only difference is that it would no longer be associated with the church or considered part of the church’s social ministry.

The way I see it, there are two major obstacles a development team would face. My questions to you are: (1.) how would you communicate this change to your current constituents? And, (2.) how would you go about revising your approaches to fundraising …?
=========================
For the purpose of responding to your question as completely as I can, I’ll assume that your questions relate to foster care services and that the new 501(c)(3) will comply with State laws regarding non-discrimination of prospective foster parents.

First, who, now, are your constituents/donors?

The people who gave to support the church and its good works, within the church’s beliefs/restrictions, will be unlikely to support a nonprofit that does not apply the same “restrictions.”

People who are interested in supporting foster care services for children, no matter the (prospective/qualified) foster parents, are likely to continue to support you and the children you serve.

For those folks, and for lots of people who have not yet been donors, a simple explanation that you’ve created the new nonprofit organization to make sure that there is as broad a base of quality/caring prospective foster parents as possible … to be able to provide homes for the greatest number of children.

And, to be sure that your (potential) donors are reassured and fully informed, let them know that the board of the new (c)(3) is a “diverse” group with the needs of the children uppermost in their minds and with the intention of complying with all applicable laws.

I have no doubt that the majority of your current donors (and a great many prospective donors) have read the papers, heard the reports, and are aware of the “controversy” about same-sex foster parents. Don’t beat the “issue” to death, just be open with them.

For your second question, since I’m not familiar with your prior fundraising methodology, my immediate response is to suggest that you stay with what has worked in the past. And, if you don’t already have a major gifts program, now would be a great time to create one.

I would also suggest the necessity of a regional marketing effort to get your new brand/identity known/accepted.

And, as a result of the changes/turmoil, it would also be a good time to ask donors to increase their giving … to account for any drop in income that the program has experienced … and to help you provide foster care services to as many children as possible.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program? Contact me at Hank@Major-Capital-Giving.com With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, I’ll be pleased to answer your questions.

Some time ago, I spoke to a community service club and gave my fifteen-minute “This-Is-What-Fundraising-Is-Really-All-About” speech, and a majority of the subsequent questions revolved around the concept/complaint of having to go to the same people for contributions every time the club wanted/needed to raise money.

The “fear” I most often hear expressed by members of community service clubs is that those “same people” will start to avoid them.

There’s no question that these service club members believe in and feel strongly about the causes for which they raise money. It’s just that, after a while, because they’re doing the same thing — going to the same people to buy the same tickets, it’s hard (for the club members and the prospective ticket buyers) to maintain enthusiasm for the process.

As one of the attendees put it, “There’s lots of burnout out there.” And, what is left unsaid is that many of the club members are burnt out … tired of asking the same people to support another worthy program !!

What was obvious was the need to expand their pool of prospective donors/ticket buyers to avoid having to back to the same people every time. It was also obvious that the people buying the tickets (to the dinner, the golf tournament, the carnival or any other “fundraiser”) were too often doing so to please the club member selling the tickets and/or saw the event as entertainment.

Now, I’m not big on “fundraisers,” to say the least, but most community service clubs are not likely to change their cultures, their methods of fundraising. So, there needs to be a way for these clubs to raise money for all the causes they support, without burning out the members who do the fundraising or the people to whom they sell their tickets.

It crossed my mind that the service clubs could create a separate nonprofit with 501(c)(3) status, and recruit all the folks to whom they sell tickets to be “members” of that organization. That organization, then, instead of having a number of “small” events/fundraisers during the year, could have one major event (at an overall lower cost) to raise more money than the “ticket buyers” would “contribute” during the year.

The event would be a combination of education (about the causes they are supporting), recognition (of the people who are giving their dollars “to make it happen”) and cultivation of prospective donors.

So, before I go banging my head against the wall trying to get these community service clubs to restructure their fundraising … What do you think ??

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program? Contact me at Hank@Major-Capital-Giving.com With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, I’ll be pleased to answer your questions.

A reader wrote: “I know of an organization where the donor gave restricted funds, i.e., funds specified for a certain program, that the nonprofit agreed to.

“The nonprofit has been giving regular reports to the donor, along with achieved outcomes, but the donor suddenly insists that she wants all of her money back.

“I’ve never encountered this before. Have you? Might you venture a suggestion?”
======================================

The first question I’d ask would be about why … why she wants her money back, what happened … what provoked her demand.

Not knowing the answer to those questions, I’d have to respond generically:

A restricted gift must be used (only) for the purpose(s) stated-and-agreed to by the donor and the NPO prior to the gift being made; and, if the money was used for the agreed upon purposes, and the NPO provided regular reports to the donor confirming that the money was so used, I can’t imagine a “legitimate” basis for the donor demanding to have her money back.

It may not sit right for the NPO to be in this position, but my experience working with nonprofits makes me sensitive to the negative publicity an NPO could engender … that could hurt their future fundraising efforts. So, in response to your request for a suggestion, I offer the following thoughts:

  •  If the donor is a major donor, it raises the question of the potential for future donations –
     but if she’s demanding her money back now, future potential seems unlikely.
  •  If the donor has major influence in the community, it might be best (good will-wise) for the
     NPO to return the donation, if they can !!

Of course, if the above considerations don’t apply, then there’d be little motivation for the nonprofit to even consider returning the contribution.

  •  Giving in to someone who is generally perceived as an “eccentric” might set a bad
     precedent and create the image that the NPO is poorly managed.
  •  If the NPO doesn’t feel that a court case will engender the kind of negative publicity
     that will hurt them, then they should fight the case if the donor takes it to court.

If the question becomes about legal issues — i.e., if the donor wants to sue to get her money back, the court will decide if she has a case … or not.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program? Contact me at Hank@Major-Capital-Giving.com With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, I’ll be pleased to answer your questions.

Hopefully, over the last two weeks, you haven’t been cold calling, cold writing, sending “surprise” invitations or making “cold” visits to people who may or may not have been major gifts prospects. With that in mind, we’ll finish making the distinction between a “large” gift and a “major gift.”

If the person who suggested the “prospect” was close to him/her, just knew him/her in passing, knew him/her as someone who made large gifts to (local/similar) “charities,” or saw his/her name in some organization’s annual report, you must take that into consideration and make judgments as to whether this person is a “real prospect” — or just someone you wish was a prospect, and if it is worth making an investment — using resources that might be used more productively elsewhere.

Look at the time/energy/anticipation that you’ve put into this “drop-everything” effort — the time you took writing, calling, putting together those “nobody-reads-them-anyway” packets of materials, then writing and calling some more. Ask yourself if you could have made better use of your time/effort.

Does all this sounds familiar? Have you found yourself “dropping everything” because someone dropped a name? Have you experienced the frustration of getting “little” or nothing for all the efforts spent on that dropped name?

Would you like to be able to stay focused on “developing” those major gift prospects who give those major gifts?

If so, take some time to review our definitions: “What is a Major Gift,” and “Who Is A Major Gift Prospect.”

Then, next time someone says you have to drop everything to go after some of that “guaranteed” money, ask yourself (and the name-dropper) if that individual meets the criteria, and if s/he then merits a change in your priorities.

A single major gift does not a Major Gifts Program make!! And, you can’t have a “program” if you don’t have a series of activities, a process, that defines the program.

Development is about building/enhancing/maintaining relationships in order to be able to attain fundraising goals. Make the investment in cultivating and involving prospects. Get them to a point where, when you ask for the gift, it won’t be “go away money.”

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program? With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, I’ll be pleased to answer your questions. Contact me at AskHank@Major-Capital-Giving.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen The Fundraising Series of ebooks ??
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting.

Hoping that, between last Tuesday and today, you haven’t used the four illustrations of bad fundraising technique, we continue with the theme/intent of this three-part posting.

Once in a while, the response to the cold Letter, the cold Call, the Invitation (out of the blue) or the Visit (not preceded by the appropriate education and cultivation) might be, “Of course, let me write you a check.”

That check, whether in 4 or 5 figures, is a “gift” that most non-profits would consider “major.” E.D.s and D.O.D.s often look upon a 4-5 figure check as a “gift-from-on-high,” and don’t realize that, as good as it might feel to get that check, they’ve wasted (at least, misused) a lot of time and effort.

If the contact was a suggestion by someone close to Mr./Ms. Gotbucks, the “gift” is likely to be a quid-pro-quo — a dilemma in which many Directors of Development and Executive Directors find themselves. The “prospect” knows that if s/he gives to his/her friend’s pet charity, then the friend will give to his/hers.

That 4-figure-check, by some amazing coincidence, is likely to be for the same amount as the check his friend/partner/acquaintance wrote to the non-profit organization that contacted him/her at Mr./Ms. Gotbucks suggestion.

If his/her name was provided by an acquaintance or was obtained from a “list,” there would be (much) less likelihood that Mr./Ms. Gotbucks will write a check — there would be less motivation, if any, to do so.

Whatever the size of the check you manage to solicit/obtain/wheedle/beg from this “prospect,” it will be for an amount that the “donor” considers a token — doing-what-has-to-be-done-to-keep-the-scales-balanced, or just to get rid of you. It’s “Go Away Money.”

In other words, “Here’s a check. It’s all you’re going to get. Now, Go Away!!” And, from then on, you have a donor who doesn’t return your calls, respond to your mail or show any interest in learning about or becoming involved in what you do.

Now, don’t get me wrong!! I’m not suggesting that you shouldn’t take the check, or even that you shouldn’t make the effort to get it in the first place. The point is, by the above method, you will not realize sufficient/appropriate value for your investment — you (may) end up with a check, but not a constituent.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

This three-part posting concludes next Tuesday … with an emphasis on “real” major gifts fundraising.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program? With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, I’ll be pleased to answer your questions. Contact me at AskHank@Major-Capital-Giving.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen The Fundraising Series of ebooks ??
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting.

In our definition, we suggest that, no matter its size, unless a gift met certain parameters, it wasn’t “major.”

We emphasize the requirement that the process that obtained the gift had to be based on a plan/strategy that included face-to-face cultivation and solicitation components, and that the gift had to significantly help in attaining fundraising goals.

We also provided our definition of major donors, people (for the most part) who feel passionately about wanting to see your mission achieved, and who derive satisfaction from using their wealth to advance that mission. They are people who have a level of involvement with your organization and/or its programs, and they have a need that will be satisfied by making a significant gift in pursuit of your mission.

These definitions exclude all large/significant gifts that don’t meet those parameters.

Why?? For the same reason that “Development” is not a synonym for “fundraising.” “Fundraising” is what happens after sufficient cultivation and involvement — it is the “asking” part of the Development process.

How often has a friend said to you, to your executive director, or to a client, that they know someone who would probably (want to) give your NPO a bucket of money, a real Mr./Ms. Gotbucks that you should contact immediately?

And, how often did it become, “Let’s-drop-everything-and-focus-on-this-prospective-‘major-donor’”? So much time and energy got invested in acquiring this “guaranteed” major gift that other processes/projects/systems were deprived of what was needed to achieve already established goals.

Efforts to acquire this gift usually take one or more of the following forms:

A. The Introductory Letter (with “package”)– “Dear Mr./Ms. Gotbucks. Your friend/business partner/acquaintance/etc. suggested that you’d be interested in learning about all the good things we do. We are enclosing a brief 53 page description of all the wonderful things we do for society. Please use the enclosed return envelope to send your extra-large check to help us continue to do all those good things.”

B. The Introductory Call — “Dear Mr./Ms. Gotbucks. Your friend/business partner/acquaintance/etc. said that we should contact you, and that you’d be interested in learning about who we are. I’d like to stop by and tell you about all the good things we do.”

C. The Invitation to See/Visit (by phone or mail) — “Dear Mr./Ms. Gotbucks. Your friend/partner/acquaintance/etc. said that we should contact you, and invite you to an upcoming meeting/program/event….”

D. The Visit to the Prospect — ….more of the same….

Bottom line, the end result of going into the “drop-everything-else” mode is, most often, a rejection, a delay, or an, “I’ll get back to you.”

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

This posting continues next Tuesday; but, just to be clear, we are not recommending the four “approaches” described above. To the contrary, they are illustrations of how so many NPOs waste their time and resources in misguided, ineffective fundraising efforts.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program? With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, I’ll be pleased to answer your questions. Contact me at AskHank@Major-Capital-Giving.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen The Fundraising Series of ebooks ??
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting.

An email indicated that “Our capital campaign has concluded. We’ve reached our goal, but we still have some prospects that have not been met/solicited and we have identified additional capital needs. We’re also looking at creation of a major gifts program.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
If you’ve just declared success/completion of the campaign, I assume that:

• Your major donors have gotten good visibility;
• All donors have been thanked/treated well;
• You have engendered lots of good feeling among staff and volunteers; and,
• The success of the campaign and the resulting benefit to your organization
   and its constituents has gotten some good press.

If my assumptions are correct, this would be a good time to institute a series of small (non-announced/non-public) mini-capital campaigns.

Target a small number of prospects for each capital need. Use a small number of volunteers — hopefully those who have achieved some success working for the just concluded campaign — or some of those who were major donors to that campaign. And, define a limited timeframe for each mini-campaign.

Give the appropriate publicity/thanks/stewardship to the leaders of and donors to each of those mini-efforts, at the completion of each.

Immediate prospects would be the folks who were identified as likely major donors to the capital campaign but who either couldn’t commit at the time or were not solicited for the campaign.

Since the people who were major donors to the campaign will likely be paying off their campaign commitment over a number of years, that will get many of them in the habit of giving more, on a regular basis, than they did before the campaign.

Then, once they’ve completed their pledge payments, and they’ve gotten comfortable with the concept of making major gifts, there’s a good chance they can be “encouraged” to continue giving at the “campaign” level.

Another part of the preparation for a capital campaign is the design/creation of a program for the recognition of the leaders of and donors to the campaign. A similar effort must precede a major gifts program.

A major gifts program is based upon some considerations/factors that are different from those of a capital campaign. And, the transition from a capital campaign to a major gifts program is not as smooth as it might appear on the surface.

Another part of the preparation for a capital campaign is the design/creation of a program for the recognition of the leaders of and donors to the campaign. A similar effort must precede a major gifts program.

(See: Fundraising For Nonprofits: Major Gifts)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program? With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, I’ll be pleased to answer your questions. Contact me at AskHank@Major-Capital-Giving.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen The Fundraising Series of ebooks ??
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting.

When I began my career in development, over 30 years ago, the certificate program that provided my initial training emphasized that Board Members of NPOs are Trustees, not Directors.

The rationale was that, unlike a for-profit corporation where Directors could be compensated and often were involved with directing aspects of corporate operation, Board Members of NPOs represented the community, held the NPO (as a community asset) in trust for the community, were not supposed to be compensated, and (with the exceptions of very new and/or very small NPOs) were not supposed to be involved in the day to day operation of the corporation.

In my experience, the vast majority of EDs who complain about Board micromanagement have Boards of Directors, not Boards of Trustees. In that context, if you can get Board Members to understand their roles, they’re more likely to function as Trustees, not Directors.

I have also found that when I meet a Board of Trustees for the first time, they are more likely to understand their roles, responsibilities, liabilities and limitations than have been the NPO Boards of Directors I’ve met for the first time.

And, in relation to the question of Board “Giving-And-Getting,” my experience has been that Trustees are much more likely to understand and participate in the process than would be Directors.

I expect that there might be a bit of “halo effect” impacting my perceptions, but I believe I’m objective enough to notice a difference that’s really there.

In addition to the difference between the duties and responsibilities of directors and trustees as perceived by experienced development professionals, there are also legal definitions of the terms.

So, I’m looking for a word, without legal entanglements, that we can adopt/use to refer to the “ideal” non-profit board member.

I like “trustee” because of the relationship to an NPO being a public trust and, of course, because it’s a thirty+ year habit. But, because of the legal definitions in a number of States, I’d be willing to go with another term if we (the professionals in the sector) can agree, adopt a word/term, and agree to spread the word.

I submit this question to you, and hope that this posting will engender a substantive discussion. Look forward to your comments.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program? Contact me at Hank@Major-Capital-Giving.com With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, I’ll be pleased to answer your questions.