Author: Hank Lewis, MA, CFRM

An email began: A chapter of Catholic Charities is set up as a single-member corporation, that member being the diocese as represented by the bishop. The board is convinced that they are really just an advisory board and have no right, authority, or need to question the actions or expenditures of the CEO, and are utterly clueless about their regulatory or fiduciary responsibilities. They assume the diocese has all the power and all of the liability. And the diocese — and its legal counsel — has no interest in having them think/act otherwise.

I’ve worked with a number of NPOs “affiliated with” the Catholic Church, and in every instance, the corporation was set up as a single-member corporation, that member being the diocese as represented by the bishop. And, in each case, there was a Board of Trustees/Directors/Governors that, in reality, had no authority or responsibilities other than what the Diocese granted. And, often, the authority and responsibility was changed periodically.

Boards of NPOs “owned” by the church (any church) serve at the pleasure of the church.

The responsibilities of Board Members, as traditionally known, don’t apply in those circumstances.

In my experience, the more common scenario is where the Diocese (or Archdiocese) lets the “board” believe they have the “authority and responsibility.” The key is the phrase “lets the board believe.”

I recall working with an NPO that had been created by an Archdiocese to provide the community with a cultural center and a variety of cultural experiences – within “acceptable” limits.

My work was with the “Board” – to create Board-like processes/procedures and committees, suggest revisions in the by-laws, create development and marketing programs, and, in general, lift them out of the rut they’d been in for many years under the direction of a priest/Executive Director.

This Board was left alone as long as they raised money, but the entire Board had to report to the Archbishop and his council once each year, where the Archbishop’s counselors recommended that he approve or disapprove what the NPO’s board was doing/planning, especially any changes in by-laws.

The frustration of the process was that, no matter how much progress I might make with the Board, it was all subject to review/revision/approval/ disapproval by the hierarchy.

Of course, I understood the relationship going in, and did feel much was accomplished, but church-owned NPOs will never be like those we experience in the secular world.

Not a comment, just an observation.

The email continued: How would YOU advise a lone board member in this or a similar situation? How do they buck a “get along” board, a despotic CEO, and the perceived power of a major institution (the diocese, in this case) to expose and correct the misuse of charitable funds?

To your other questions, I would observe that CEOs of these NPOs are (usually) appointed/hired by the hierarchy (read, diocese), and that, in the context of the situation, are more the voice of the hierarchy than is the Board. The Board (literally) has no choice but to “go along.”

Dioceses (usually) have very good business managers and legal counsel, they do their own audits of the NPOs that they own, and it would be very surprising if they didn’t know of the CEOs activities/actions. Along with the business-like operation, there is an atmosphere of “don’t rock the boat.”

Any Board Member (or other individual) could bring their concern directly to the diocesan legal staff, or the (Arch-)Bishop’s clerical staff. But that’s no guarantee of any result or consequence.

Taking the matter outside the “church” can get real messy.

Recommendation to the concerned Board Member: Think very carefully about how committed you are to making a change, and how your efforts to effect that change will impact your life.

Not saying you should or shouldn’t…. just think hard, first.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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 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 welcome your questions/problems.
They are likely 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.

You may be an experienced, knowledgeable development professional, and you may know/discover what is it that a (prospective) client needs, but a basic concept of the consulting business is that you can only sell a nonprofit what it wants to buy.

The larger the NPO, (usually) the better they understand the elements of the development process and the more sophisticated their development operation. The corollary relates to the smaller/newer/less sophisticated NPOs; but, for both extremes (and the middle), it’s still what they want to buy.

I’ve been in single practice since ’83, and I found, early on, that I sign up fewer clients when I try to sell them what (I think) they need, than I do when I submit a contract to sell them what they think they need.

A colleague has often talked about the amount of time she spends with prospective clients working to arrive at a meeting of the minds — a point at which she understands where the NPO wants to go and where they need to go, and where the NPO understands what needs to be done to get to where they want to be. And, only then, do they write a contract incorporating all of what they agreed was needed to achieve the agreed upon goals.

I believe that approach is the ideal, but for consultants who find themselves in the valley – the period of reduced income between clients, I would suggest a simpler approach – simpler in appearance, not intent.

After the initial meeting(s) with the prospective client, when you have a pretty good idea of what they want and what they need, you can prepare a contract that has as its “Objective” the attainment of the NPO’s “wants,” but includes in “Methods” (whatever you call that section of your contracts/proposals) those activities (worded appropriately) that will help them satisfy their “needs.”

There should/must be a section of your contract/proposal that describes those activities for which the client organization will be responsible, and that section should also take the above into consideration.

As not everyone can be (fully) educated via the one-on-one (pre-contract discussion) process, we must often rely upon them seeing the light through their involvement in the process we create after our contracts are signed and the relationship proceeds.

I found out a long time ago that I can be more effective using the subtle/indirect method of educating a client, than I can using a more direct (pre-contract) approach.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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 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 welcome your questions/problems.
They are likely 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.

That was a question that recently found my email inbox, along with the explanation that one of those organizations has a medical focus, the other is in the arts.

My immediate thought/response was, simply, “Yes.”

You just have to be sure that both organizations have a signed agreement as to how the expenses will be paid, and by whom; and, it must be clear to event attendees how/if the funds raised will be split between the two organizations, and what that split will be.

The one “problem” you might encounter is how to acknowledge contributions to the event. Do donors get a choice which NPO they support, or what percentage of their gifts go the which org? Which organization gets the names and contact information of the ticket buyers/attendees/donors? How will the thank you note and/or receipt be worded?

Of course, if tickets are sold for the event, it must be made clear what percentage of the ticket cost is tax deductible. The IRS is very picky about that.

The best way to cover all the bases is to be totally transparent — to make it clear, up front, how the expenses are being covered and how the net is being split.

That response evoked the following:

What if the organizations do not do what you have explained above?

I simply know that someone is having a fund-raiser with two completely distinct and different non-profit organizations. One is receiving all the monies raised while the other in bringing in the “clients” to donate. None of the donors knows the way the funds are being disbursed.

They are advertising that the ticket cost is tax deductible. But they do not say if the two non-profits will both receive funds.

Should I mention something to the hosts or just not worry about my donation and tax deduction to be legit ??

The IRS makes it clear that the cost of a ticket cannot be fully deductible if the purchaser is to receive any “real” benefit. And, if the IRS learns to the contrary, both organizations could put their (c)(3)s, and their donors, in jeopardy.

To not fully inform those people who are expected to buy tickets, is to risk both organizations’ credibility/standing in the community.

It sounds like what you are describing are a couple of amateur organizations — with no professionals in the development office, and no educated board members.

The questioner then wrote that he/she has “donated a significant sum to this non-profit — worrisome indeed for us that have.

If the “board” of these non-profits will not heed any advice given, is there recourse or a way to inform the IRS of the wrongdoings of this organization? There are many abusing the non-profits for their own advantage.

My final thought: The donor is always better off donating directly to a nonprofit, instead of through a so-called fund-raiser.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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 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 welcome your questions/problems.
They are likely 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.

It may get old, hearing the same thing over and over again, but it’s still worth starting a posting with a reminder that “Development” is about relationship building … with the intent that the relationships that are built will result in (financial) support for the nonprofit organization.

Development Communications function in helping to build those relationships and in maintaining them; and, the basic objective of these communications is to get your (prospective) donors to want to support you. To do that, your communications must say something that, to some degree, satisfies the needs of your (potential) donors.

Communications range from the printed, through the electronic to the verbal … and non-verbal.

Printed communications would include actual hard-copy brochures, fact sheets, envelope inserts, newsletters, personal notes, press releases, etc. And, all of those must be written not as laudatory pieces for your organization but with the focus on how people have been and are being helped, and will be helped because of the support of donors.

Your electronic communications, including your website, email, tweets, newsletters, DVDs, etc, must also be about people.

Verbal communications convey how the speaker feels about being part of “something,” being able to help, seeing the good his/her (verbal, emotional and financial) support has helped happen, feeling good about his/her relationship with the people who run the organization, make the programs happen, serve the people, and feeling good about his/her role in the process.

Non-verbal communications include a smile or a handshake … some action or body language that shows appreciation/gratitude.

Development Communications should be about people, people who have been and are being helped, and will be helped, and people whose support has made or will make a (specific) difference.

It’s not about an organization. It is about the people without whom you couldn’t do what you do … and help the people you help.

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

There is an old saying in the development field, that a person soliciting a major gift can only ask for a gift equal to or less than the gift he/she has made … with three exceptions: a person of the clergy, a prominent community figure/politician and a nonprofit Executive Director (or whatever the title held by the CEO).

The Executive Director holds a unique position in a nonprofit. She must know and oversee all elements of: running the business aspects of the organization; the various programs, how well they function and who they serve; the relationships the NPO has with the community; the interactions with local, state and the national government; the relationships with the organization’s board; and, the relationships with the people whose (financial, moral, public) support makes it all possible.

Of all the people in an organization, even, often, including the board members, with whom would a prospective major/corporate/foundation donor rather have contact – the person who has the answers to the business/program/regulatory/financial questions – the ED.

Who would be the best person to speak to (potential) donors about the organization’s programs? …to explain the need for various items in the budget? … to be able to describe how much of a difference their contributions would make or have made?

Of course the ED doesn’t do it all by himself. There are others who identify likely prospects, cultivate them, create the relationship, and do the Asking. But, the ED brings a presence – a body of knowledge to the relationship, to the cultivation, to the Asking.

Having the Executive Director be part of the development process adds to the depth of the relationships. An Executive Director who won’t participate in Cultivating and Asking reduces what could be raised.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you heard about
The Fundraising Series of ebooks?
They’re easy to read, to the point, and inexpensive ($1.99-$4.99)

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

First, going back to the definition of “development,” it is the creation, nurturing, and maintaining relationships that (ideally) engender charitable contributions.

If that is a Development Officer’s basic role, how does that apply to the various roles that they play ??

So, let’s start with the Development Officers who function in a limited arena – and there are different titles/designations for the various functions.

The Grant Writer, doesn’t just sit and write grant proposals. S/he must interact with board and staff members to determine what programs need or may need funding – and, to be effective in that aspect of the role, there must be solid internal relationships.

The Grant Writer must then conduct research to determine which foundations have interest in and might fund the (proposed) needy programs. The next step is contacting the foundation, possibly a program officer, to determine what would have to be done to get the foundation to want to fund the program. That’s the part that involves creating and nurturing a relationship with foundation staff-and-or-board.

Whether or not a grant proposal is successful, the Grant Writer will want to maintain a relationship with the staffers/board-members of the foundation with an eye toward future funding.

A similar role to that of the Grants Writer is the Corporate Relations Officer. S/he needs to determine which Corporate Officers and/or Board Members would have an interest in the nonprofit’s programs, in supporting the organization, in being visibly associated with the organization and/or in having the corporation visibly associated with the NPO.

Again, it’s all about creating, nurturing and maintaining relationships. And, let me emphasize, the relationships are with people, not foundations or corporations.

A Director of Special Events (and this does not include so called “fund raisers) may be the expert at the behind the scenes logistics for events … working with venues and vendors; but, the people who make an event successful are those who can get others to attend/pay the ticket price, to support/contribute to the event, to lend the prestige of their social/business/political positions to getting others to want to participate/contribute/attend.

The Director of Special Events helps to create and nurture the relationships with the movers-and-shakers, without whom there would be no event.

Some organizations have a Development Officer in-charge of their Direct Mail Program; and this, too, is about relationships. It’s not about sending “junk mail” to people who wouldn’t even open the envelope. A major part of this person’s job is to identify who would respond positively to solicitation mail from his/her organization. It’s testing mailing lists; testing the content of the mailing pieces; and, testing the timing of how often people are sent a solicitation. All that is about determining who the people are that you can establish a relationship with that will result in ongoing support for the nonprofit.

And it is a relationship. Those supporters will gain great satisfaction at helping the people you help, at being part of your “family,” at getting the thank you, the recognition for helping make something happen, for being part of your “family.”

A Major Gifts Officer must (directly or indirectly) create/maintain/enhance relationships with (potential) major donors. I wont’ beat this to death, since I’ve written extensively on major gift fundraising. But, I hope, by now, you get the idea.

In closing, I’ll talk about one other role, that’s the Chief Development Officer – whether it’s a Director of Development, a VP of Advancement, or other such title, that person must have the experience/expertise gained by having served in other development roles.

This person is all about relationships; and, in the planning of the various “fundraising” programs, must ensure that all development staff, other organizational staff, board members and volunteers are educated as to the importance of relationship building, maintaining and enhancing.

Next week I hope to address the Executive Director’s role in the Development/Fundraising process.

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

Note, I used the term “fundraisers” in the title, not Development Officers. It is an important distinction. Maybe, also, the title should be “Why Fundraisers Shouldn’t Be Staff Members.”

Development officers plan/design and evaluate development programs. They work with board members and volunteers to identify potential donors. They work to develop plans for the cultivation of those potential donors, and for the stewardship of those folks once they become donors.

Development officers work to design and implement structures that result in the creation and maintenance of relationships with (potential) donors.

The more skilled and experienced a Development Officer becomes, the more time he/she must devote to planning, evaluating and overseeing the performance of an organization’s development efforts.

Where one development officer, in addition to his/her planning/evaluating/etc. efforts, would only be able to cultivate-and-solicit a small number of (potential) donors, that same person could train-and-supervise a number of volunteers who could each cultivate-and-solicit a comparable number of (potential) donors – thus multiplying a development officer’s effectiveness.

Yes, I’m aware that there is a trend, in a segment of the nonprofit community, to hire “fundraisers,” not development officers. But, while those “staff fundraisers” might generate significant income, at some point they will move on.

“So what?” you say !!

Well, in order for those “staff fundraisers” to bring in the big bucks, they will have to create/nurture their own relationships with donors; then, when they leave to go to their next position at a higher salary, they take those relationships/donors with them – relationships that were not with the nonprofit organization.

Next week’s posting will address the roles of the various development officers and their relationship to the development and fundraising processes.

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

(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.

How nice it will be to sit back and listen – and pounce when I know one or more will proudly trumpet how well they conduct interviews with stakeholders, asking them just where, on the gift table presented, those interviewees would consider giving.

I can recall at least ten nonprofits, during my consulting career, which had me come in following studies made by various consultants. The organizations were dismayed when, in each case, the final reports recommended a campaign goal much lower than what the organizations themselves could roughly assess as being attainable.

Each time, when they handed me the full report, I went right to the questionnaire used, and with no surprise, I saw that the interviewer did just what I said above. In one case, a million dollar prospect proffered that “you can put me down in the $25,000 category.”

What else could be expected? That prospect, in effect, was actually solicited when the exercise was supposed to be a study to see if such a campaign was feasible in the first place.

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.