Author: Hank Lewis, MA, CFRM

Considering the two major objectives in conducting the interviews, determination how/if a program/project/activity should be implemented and beginning the cultivation of those folks who could help make it happen, it is essential, as with all serious development activities, that those interviews be face-to-face.

You can’t be taken very seriously and you can’t read body language over the phone; and, a mailed “survey” doesn’t give the option to ask follow-up questions nor allow the interviewer to digress and/or “pick the subject’s brain.”

Being face-to-face highlights the importance of the process and, thereby, suggests that the interviewee’s thoughts/comments/reactions are very important to that process.

To prepare for the interviews, each potential interviewee is sent a brief personal note to prepare them for the phone call arranging an interview appointment.

At the risk of sounding biased or self-serving, and with having been doing this for over thirty years, I suggest that the best structure for a “Planning Study” is to have an outsider (an experienced study consultant) work with the NPO to design and plan the study and to conduct the interviews.

An outsider is perceived as being objective. S/he is seen (by the interviewees) as not having an “agenda” … not focused on a specific outcome. The objective outsider is “merely” gathering data that will help the NPO “plan for the future.”

After each interview, the interviewer should generate a report summarizing the respondent’s thoughts/attitudes, and suggesting what the next step(s) might be to further cultivate that person and get him/her to the point where s/he will want to be part of the NPO’s projects, programs and/or activities.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Have a question about starting or expanding your fundraising program? Email me at AskHank@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, we’ll do our best to answer your question.

The first step in the planning study process is determining what it is that you want the study to accomplish.

Second is the creation of a list of those folks you’d like to interview – a list that can be as long as you’d like … as long as you’re realistic. No one goes on that list unless you have or can get access to that person.

The people you want to interview are those folks who can and will likely have an impact on your ability to successfully implement the programs, campaigns and/or activities that you’re considering.

Next is the creation of an extensive list of questions that relate to the NPO’s mission, programs, fundraising and what you want the study to accomplish. Questions must be designed/worded to avoid planting doubt as to the need for or likely success of any particular program or activity.

As it will not always be appropriate to run down the prepared list of questions with every interviewee, the interviewer must be able to “read people,” must be able to know when to forget the prepared questionnaire and just chat with Mr./Ms. Jones about the NPO’s issues and possible futures.

Sample interview questions might be:
* On a scale of 0-10, how would you rate the importance to you
(and to your family) of “this” aspect of the NPO’s mission?
* On a scale of 0-10, how would you rate the importance to you
(and to your family) of “this” program?
* What would it take to get you to want to be part of the leadership
for a major fundraising effort?
* What would it take to get you to want to be a major donor for
such an effort?
* What should we do to get other potential leaders/donors enthusiastic
about the project/activity we’re considering?
• When might be the best time to kick-off the program/campaign? Why?

For Part 3 – Planning Study – Part Three
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Have a question about starting or expanding your fundraising program? Email me at AskHank@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, we’ll do our best to answer your question.

Want to create a Major Gifts Program, a Bequest Program, a Special Event, a Recognition Program, a Capital Campaign ??

The most important information you’d want to have is whether your (prospective) constituents/donors will agree with what you want to do, and what would motivate those folks to want to support and/or participate in your activity.

The best way to get the best answers to those questions would be to ask. And, the best way to ask would be by means of a “Planning Study.”

That the “Study” is for “Planning” purposes suggests that you’ve not committed to taking a particular action and/or to creating a specific kind of program – even though you may have!!

When you ask someone to participate in this kind of “Study,” you are asking for their advice and saying that what you do (or don’t do) will be impacted by what they say (or don’t say).

Unlike the obsolete “feasibility study,” with all its “baggage,” a “Planning Study” asks in-depth questions about a broad range of subjects. Then, based on the study’s findings, an NPO will be able to proceed with programs/activities it knows will be supported by its constituents.

And, by the way, the reason the “Planning Study” is “almost always the first step” is because it is a strong means of cultivating the folks you hope will be your leaders and donors … when you do whatever it is that you’d like to do.

When you ask someone’s advice, they’re more likely to look upon you favorably … because you were smart enough to know to ask them ☺

To quote an old fundraising saying: “If you want advice, ask for money; if you want money, ask for advice.” And a “Planning Study” is a great way to ask for advice.

For Part 2 – Planning Study – Part Two

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

Have a question about starting or expanding your fundraising program? Email me at AskHank@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, we’ll do our best to answer your question.

This piece was motivated by Renata Rafferty’s Posting of June 8: see “The-Politically-Incorrect-Guide-To-Donors”

Renata’s method of “classifying” donors by motivation, which revisits a subject that doesn’t get enough attention, reminded me of a series of articles I read, many years ago, in The Chronicle of Philanthropy.

Those articles, based on the book, “The Seven Faces of Philanthropy,” by Russ Alan Prince and Karen Maru File, focused on their version and description of seven types of people/mindset as related to who donors are, what types of organizations they support and why they support those organizations.

Since I read those articles, 10-15 years ago, whenever I’ve worked with clients to create or expand a major gifts fundraising program, I’ve emphasized the need for the entire staff (and board) of the nonprofit organization to understand why their donors give to them, and I’ve referenced that book as a means to stimulate their thinking.

When we first have the conversation, the vast majority of board members and staffers (at all levels) are pretty sure that their donors give to them because of the wonderful things they do.

That’s like believing that the wizard is the source of all those things (especially contributed income) that make it possible for the organization to do all that it does.

Nonprofit staffers and board members must learn to think about the various motives that move donors to give, motives that are as varied as the population at large. Those nonprofit folks need to learn/understand what really moved their donors to write the check. With that understanding will (hopefully) come the ability to see what would make a potential donor take out his/her checkbook.

As I’ve said on many occasions (and will, no doubt, continue to say as often as I can get people to listen, “It’s about the needs (and motivations) of the donor!!”

Considering copyright restrictions, I can’t reprint the articles from the Chronicle, nor can I excerpt from the textbook, so here’s a link to a description of the book: “Seven Faces of Philanthropy.” I don’t get a commission, but I do recommend the book to clients and students, and from now on, I will also recommend Renata’s article (and hope she expands on it in a future blog or book !!).

I (will) recommend both because those resources can make the reader think about donors, who they are and the real reasons for why they give … without the rose colored glasses (or ruby slippers).

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

Have a question about starting or expanding your fundraising program?
Email me at AskHank@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, we’ll do our best to answer your question.

For decades, the old style capital campaign firms have insisted that all feasibility study interviews must be confidential.

The usual explanation for the need for “confidentiality” of the interview process was the assumption that interviewees would be more comfortable, more likely to express themselves fully and honestly if they knew that their comments (especially negative comments about others) would not be attributed to them in the “Report” to the non-profit organization!!

That might sound reasonable/logical if, at the same time, it wasn’t so unlikely that a non-profit organization would engage a firm to work with them on their campaign that was not the firm that did the Study.

Why would a non-profit organization want to hire a firm that didn’t have all that “confidential” information !!??

And, the corollary, why would the firm that did the study want to give all that “confidential” information to the non-profit !!?? In fact, why would all those capital campaign-counselling firms want to do “non-confidential” interviews??

I believe that “non-confidential” interviews are more honest and more comfortable. Many of my colleagues have discovered, not to our surprise, that even when we tell interviewees that we’ll be passing on their comments to the non-profit organization, they are still willing to be quite open and candid.

And, by the way, many major gift prospects have been major donors to, board members of and/or have been involved in the “study” process for other organizations. They know what’s happening. They know the purpose of the study, and how the information will be eventually be used. If you tell these sophisticated individuals about the “confidentiality” of the process, the only one you’re kidding is yourself.

Many capital campaign consultants still conduct “confidential interviews,” simply because “that’s they way it’s always been done.” Some, of course, still believe that that’s the way to lock the client in to a relationship.

The question that’s not being asked often enough: “What would be best for the non-profit organization?” What do you think?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Have a question about starting or expanding your fundraising program? Email me at AskHank@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, we’ll do our best to answer your question.

When I started my career in fundraising, in the late ‘70s, my first employer was one of the traditional capital campaign-consulting firms — one of those firms that, for the most part, only engaged in feasibility studies and capital campaigns.

Like many like similar firms, there was little attention paid to the broad concepts of “Development” and how a campaign could/would/should impact an NPO’s future relations with its community.

I was a campaign director – the fellow who moved into town for the length of the campaign and worked with the non-profit’s leadership to guide the campaign. Most often, I was working with an NPO for which my employer had already done a “feasibility study.”

Back then, it turns out, whatever firm did the “study,” was the firm that was (almost always) “selected” to provide campaign direction.

It didn’t take me long, especially after talking with my colleagues and counterparts at other campaign-counselling firms, to figure out that the “studies” were not just the foot-in-the-door for those firms, but the means for keeping the door wide-open!!

The “tradition” had been, and still is for many consulting firms, that all study interviews must be confidential. That means, in essence, that an organization hires a consultant to conduct a study where no one could be quoted directly about what they said about their own potential giving or leadership roles … or those of others.

The study report could indicate that some interviewees thought that Mr. Xyz would make a good leader and/or that Mrs. Abc would likely make a large gift, but you couldn’t report that Mr. Xyz said he’d be happy to lead or that Mrs. Abc said she’d make a large gift. Huh !!

The report might have indicated that there were three people who would likely make six-figure gifts, eight people who indicated that they’d make five-figure gifts, and three people who would volunteer to be and would make excellent campaign leaders.

But, because the interviews were confidential, only the consultant really knew who said what, and why, and the “confidential information” was not included in the Study Report.

See Why I Object To Feasibility Studies – Part Two
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Have a question about starting or expanding your fundraising program? Email me at AskHank@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, we’ll do our best to answer your question.

For the last 50-60 years, a Feasibility Study has been “required” before planning and/or implementing a Capital Campaign, and its basic concept and structure hasn’t changed in all that time. I contend that it’s more than obsolete, it’s counter-productive.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t first determine the feasibility of acquiring leadership for and attaining the goals of a major fund raising effort.

Of course we must interview prominent members of the community, prior donors and prospective leaders/example-setters. Of course we want to determine if success is likely, even probable. Of course we want to begin the education and cultivation of those who will be campaign leaders and major donors.

But feasibility studies are designed to ask interviewees if they think the goal is feasible, if they think there are any individuals who could lead a campaign to its goal, if the “community” will support the effort. A typical question is, “With your knowledge of the community, do you think/believe that ‘this’ goal can be achieved?”

If you’re asking people if they think you can succeed, you give them the impression that you might not. Why plant the seed of doubt? In fundraising, a “Study to determine Feasibility” is really bad psychology.

Never ask if an interviewee thinks the goal is attainable? Avoid asking “if,” but rather work to create the impression that success is a given. Get people to buy into that success, then you’re more likely to succeed.

What if the answer is “No”? Those questions raise issues you don’t want raised.

If you’re planning (even thinking about) a capital campaign, please, for the sake of your organization and that of your community, don’t do a Feasibility Study !!

Let’s do Planning Studies or Research Projects, but no more “Feasibility Studies.”

Coming soon, discussions of Study Interviews and Confidentiality, and The Planning Study As The Real Beginning of a Program/Activity/Fundraising Effort.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Have a question about starting or expanding your fundraising program?
Email me at AskHank@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, we’ll do our best to answer your question.

When the question of major gift fundraising first arises, many unsophisticated board members, volunteers and staff immediately begin talking about the “rich and famous” — with Bill Gates being the name at the top of almost everyone’s list.

The wrong assumption that many people make — and one that can become a major time waster — is that an organization’s prospect list should contain the names of every conceivable wealthy person.

Indeed, yes, the first steps of a major gifts effort should include the generation of a list of wealthy individuals. But the distinction is whether they are likely to become “prospects.”

Major Gift Prospects are people who:
1• Have wealth, and may derive satisfaction from using that wealth to advance the causes in which they believe;
2• Are accessible to you and/or (even better) are current major donors to your organization;
3• Have a need that will be satisfied by making a significant gift to your organization;

Ideally, but not necessarily, Major Gift Prospects are also:
4• Aware of the effectiveness of your programs and the business-like manner in which you operate;
5• Passionate about wanting to see your mission achieved; and,
6• Involved with your organization and/or its programs, and demonstrate a commitment to the success of your mission.

You can have a long list of wealthy people, but unless they meet the criteria, they’re not “Prospects.” They’re people you’d like to think of as likely donors, but you have no evidence to support that wishful thinking.

Bottom line is, for people to be Major Donor Prospects; you must have enough of a relationship with them to satisfy the above qualifiers, and to know them well enough to recognize/identify their needs.

Major gift fundraising is more about the needs of the donor, than about the needs of the organization.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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.

Many Non-Profit Organizations (NPOs) use the term “Major Gifts” to refer to those that are larger than the usual range of gifts that arrive in the mail. Typically, $1,000 is the magic number.

But, unless an organization’s budget and/or the amount to be raised via the fundraising process is unusually small, gifts of $1,000 won’t significantly aid in pursuing financial goals.

A Major Gift, which could be a planned gift, is not based upon exceeding a specific dollar figure — as above, but requires:

1• Amounts that will significantly help to attain fundraising goals
— 1% or more of the goal would be significant. If your goal is
$1,000,000, at $1,000 each, you’d need 1,000 gifts; and, unless
you have the prospect base with that many donors who have given
at that level in the past, that’s not very likely. Realistically, for a goal
of that size, gifts of $10,000 and up are necessary. (We will address
the concept, construction and use of a Gift Table in a subsequent posting.

2• That prospects be cultivated and solicited on a face-to-face basis.
Consistent with the concept/practice of “development,” in order to get
donors to want to make “major” gifts, there must be a relationship
between the donor and the person doing the asking. And that person
must also be one of the people, in not the person, doing the cultivating
and educating of the prospective donor.
(Prospect Cultivation will be addressed in-depth in future postings.)

3• Ask amounts that are well thought out and well researched.
When asking for ANY gift to a non-profit, it should always be for a
specific dollar figure. For a major gift, it should be a figure based
on the donor’s ability to give … and you should always be able to
give the donor a good reason “why that amount” !! (For discussion
in a future posting.)

4• The development and implementation of an individual plan,
or strategy for getting each potential donor to the point where s/he is
ready to make the gift you want him/her to make. (For further discussion
in a future posting.)

[If you’ll describe a particular prospective donor [in depth, no names], we
will suggest a possible cultivation process for that individual.]
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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.

The biggest mistake that many non-profits make is their belief that grants from corporations, foundations and government will continue, or (even) increase, over the long-term.

Historically, those sources of funding for specific programs either remain the same or decrease – especially during rough economic times (Remember !! … It wasn’t that long ago).

While overall costs of operation tend to rise, few foundations or corporations want to make long-term commitments to a non-profit organization.

Planning-for-the-future, therefore, involves identifying potential sources of funding sufficient to ensure continuation or expansion of the programs that satisfy the needs of the people and the communities being served.

Worded another way, “Ensuring future funding requires minimizing the risk of losing a large percentage of your income.”

Most foundations help a NPO initiate a program/concept, help them create the structure that will support it, and then go on to do the same with other organizations.

Corporations want to be perceived as supportive members of the community. The more NPOs they support, from the same, limited pot of money, the more visible they’ll be and (generally) the better their image.

It’s also dangerous to rely just on events — no matter how successful, as someone else’s event or activity may prove to be a greater attraction for your attendees, or the economy may engender second thoughts about buying those event tickets.

Ask yourself, “When the grant for a specific program runs out, do you end that program and discontinue service to those who need it, or will you have a backup plan … a reliable source of ongoing funding ??”

Roughly 80% of contributed dollars come from individual donors or their estates. And the common wisdom is that at least 80% of that amount — or about two-thirds of all contributed dollars – come as major gifts from individuals.

A major gift program is easier to design/implement and more cost effective than direct mail and the vast majority of events. Major gifts are also a more reliable source of long-term charitable funding than all others.

And, by the way, the second biggest mistake that many non-profits make is to assume that this doesn’t apply to them !!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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.