Author: Tony Poderis

An email read: “I own a catering company and we often donate goods and services to nonprofits in our community … to a generous degree. Frankly, we are discontinuing the practice, [as we’re] just tired of being treated like ‘second class’ donors.”

Having heard that complaint many times before, I responded:
I know exactly how you feel. That’s one of the main reasons I wrote my article regarding In-Kind donations. I have, far too often, known of shortsighted nonprofits that deal badly with In-Kind donations, thinking that such products and services, given generously to them, do not represent “real money.”

And when such In-Kind donations are given some degree of recognition, often nonprofit leaders become contentious, even pugnacious, arguing that the public credit of an In-Kind donation should be cited in terms of the wholesale cost, rather than recognizing the donation for what it would have cost the nonprofit at retail.

My mantra, in that regard, has always been: “Don’t Be Unkind to In-Kind”

At the close of a successful capital building campaign with a client, the time to finalize the design/content of the wall plaques of donors’ names … at their respective donation levels, a few top leaders of the organization were indignant when I urged that the donor of paint for the entire interior of the building be placed at the $20,000 level, as that was what the project budget said would have been the cost of the paint to the organization.

Those leaders insisted that we find out either the wholesale cost, or what it cost to manufacture the paint. I told them in strong terms that such disregard for a truly major gift would be insulting and highly absurd. I felt strongly about the issue, I was insistent … and, thankfully, I won the argument.

I’ve also had my own personal bad and disappointing experience as a capital campaign consultant. In the final stage of a successful campaign, when I saw that my role, for the most part, was mostly fulfilled, I (with what I considered as philanthropic intent) informed the organization that they didn’t have to pay me for the last month of our contract.

I soon found out that my In-Kind donation was not regarded by the organization as “real money.” That’s what the Director said when I asked to be named in the organization’s donor publications for the campaign. I was not even an In-Kind donor. To them, I was no donor at all.

The basic message here is that nonprofits must regard all types of gifts, including those that are “In-Kind,” with the care and consideration they deserve. It’s so easy, and so appropriate, to acknowledge “real” cash and securities properly. But all too often, when it comes to In-Kind gifts, it’s another kettle of fish. It should not be.

Speaking to all who make those “In-Kind” gifts, maybe it would only take a little reminding on your part regarding the insensitive way the organizations, to which you donated willingly, accepted your generous donations. And it would be worth “asking” why they do not give those gifts the credit and regard they deserve.

If they don’t get it, discontinue your support, tell them why, then move on to another, worthy, but appreciative, nonprofit organization.

Certainly, you care about what is good in your community – even if some of the receivers of your In-Kind donations seem to be uncaring, you should reconsider your plan to totally discontinue giving.

You may feel less fulfilled personally if you discontinue your donations to all nonprofits. Don’t lose that warm-and-fuzzy feeling.

And, we know there are nonprofits out there that would greatly benefit from your generosity, and at the same time, know how to show it, gratefully and enthusiastically, and treat you as the first-class donor you are.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a question or comment about the above posting?
You can Ask Tony.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you heard about
The Fundraising Series of ebooks?
They’re easy to read, to the point, and inexpensive ($1.99-$4.99)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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 Campaign (Annual, Endowment Or Capital) Is Over And The Goal Has Been Achieved — Life Is Good!

Issue a press release and a final newsletter thanking campaign leadership, volunteers and the donors. Single out people who should be commended, and praise the campaign chair. Then, be sure to convene a meeting of the campaign leadership for in an-depth, no-holds-barred, assessment and review of what was accomplished and what was learned.

Follow the First Rule in evaluating a completed campaign: Don’t wait! The Second Rule is to get the evaluation done quickly. That way, knowing all that is important about the finished campaign, leads to helping the next campaign to be an even better one.

The Campaign Is Over And The Goal Has Not Been Achieved — Life Has Been Better!

This has happened to me more times than I like to admit. Goals and resources do not always match, campaigns do develop insurmountable problems, and sometimes you just can’t pull it off. Fundraising professionals have to be prepared for the occasional failure.

Bear in mind, however, that a campaign can come up short of its goal and still have demonstrated a lot of accomplishment. You may still be able to say congratulations to volunteers and donors. Though not enough, the money raised may be an all-time high for the organization’s annual fund.

You’ll still be able to build or renovate … perhaps reduced degree. You’ve raised a goodly amount of endowment funds, enough to help safeguard your organization’s future. More donors than ever before may have given. More volunteers worked the campaign than any before. The campaign may have come within 10 percent of a goal we knew to be very ambitious.

It is the rare campaign in which you cannot find a positive accomplishment to call to the attention of volunteers, donors, and the public. Make lemonade from lemons.

So issue a press release and a final newsletter thanking campaign leadership, volunteer solicitors, and the donors. Single out people who should be commended, and praise the campaign Chairperson. Thank-you functions are still appropriate. Donors still need to be told how much they are valued and appreciated.

With the people who worked on the campaign, you need to be practical and honest about the disappointment, but don’t let words of regret, frustration, and unhappiness get to the ears of those who gave.

If you become preoccupied with the shortfall and forget all the good things that happened, you do a disservice to those who worked a campaign and to those who gave to it. They should never be left to think their efforts were a waste.

I liked to host a thank-you function or functions for my volunteers and major donors. The format should be in tune with the organization and the community — a cocktail party, picnic, or open house, for example. Don’t forget to seek underwriting for this event. Board members may contribute food and drink at their home, country club, yacht club or even in their corporation’s board room.

Editor’s Note: As has been emphasized so often in these postings: Goal setting is not an arbitrary process!! If adequate research and planning precede goal setting, the risk of not attaining the goal is reduced dramatically.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a question or comment about the above posting?
You can Ask Tony.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen
The Fundraising Series of ebooks?
They’re easy to read, to the point, and inexpensive ($1.99 – $4.99)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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.

A recent email asked: “What is a reasonable goal to ask a development person to raise for a non-profit organization?

“Our Executive Director, a former college president, expects me to raise 6 to 8 times my salary in new money, which was the expectation at the college.

“Have you heard of that concept before? I’ve been a Director of Development for a few organizations in the past and never heard of this!!”

Almost always, when I learn of the impossible situations in which too many good development officers find themselves, I reply in ways intended to ease the pain as best I can and, when I can, offer soothing and workable ways to help them change the minds of their bosses.

This is not, however, one of those instances. What this development officer is experiencing not only troubles me, but it makes me angry to see once again the gross short-sightedness of a supervising official at a non-profit seeking to impose the impossible.

Now, I will calm down (only a bit) and tell you what I told this harried development officer.

First, there is not, nor could there be, any reasonable expectation of someone raising new money based on x-times her or his salary.

That expectation – edict – is based totally on ignorance regarding how money is raised for most nonprofit organizations.

Unfortunately, I have heard of such numbers before. Different numbers, at different times, because they are almost always made up by people who know no better.

Even more to the point of such an expectation being totally unfounded, is the fact that the development office is to be “the” fund-raiser, either mainly, or solely. That is even worse, regardless the way any goal is set – even a legitimate goal.

Any boss telling the development officer that she or he must work to such an 8 to 10-times-money-raised number, as it is relates to the development officer’s salary, needs to tell everyone else why and how they came up with that meaningless formula.

For that matter, why ten times? Why not fifteen, or twenty, or five? You get the idea. There is no sense or order to such a ratio. And how could there be justification further to throw out an 8-10 salary-X range, where the difference could be huge in the amount ordered to be raise.

Think of it. Let’s just say that being paid $50,000 for the year means that the development officer is required to personally raise $500,000. And this is to be “new” money.

From where will this money come?

The boss can make up a goal such as this one, but the boss cannot create prospects from phantoms. And, with the rush and crush to raise “new” money to meet the so-called goal, you can bet that some of the “old” (previous contributions) money would not be pursued with the same vigor. And, certainly, there would be little-or-no time to emplace a cultivation process to provide for future fundraising.

Even so, what if the institution needed more than that particular salary-Xs amount to balance the books and meet its fund-raising goals? Would the institution then expect the development officer to raise say, 15 times the salary?

Suppose, on the other hand, the institution could forecast that it would be in position to balance its annual operational budget, thus able to meet a fund-raising goal with less than the previously-set salary-Xs formula. Would the ratio then be dropped accordingly? I don’t think so.

Therefore, when I am asked the “how-many-times” question for funds to be raised based on a salary figure, as related to what is average, standard, or likely, I reply that everyone involved must consider the extraordinarily wide range of non-profits’ actual money needs, the respective contribution potential possible to them, the means and resources available to raise the money, the experience and skills of the development officer – and a good measure of luck.

When any institution’s leadership tells the development officer that she or he must raise an amount of money based on a salary-multiple factor, I would like to be there and ask that particular supervisor how and why such a number is presented. There could not be a good answer.

As previously noted in this blog, fundraising is performed based on a plan derived from reality – not at the ignorant whim of an executive director or board member.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a question or comment about the above posting?
Send an email to Comments to offer your thoughts. Your comments, with appropriate attribution, could be the basis of a new posting.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen
The Fundraising Series of ebooks?
They’re easy to read, to the point, and inexpensive ($1.99 – $4.99)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

(Continued from Last Week)

Surely, anyone can see that there is a huge difference between selling a Ferrari, and “selling” a nonprofit institution.

The automobile salesperson is responsible for selling cars.

In “selling” a nonprofit institution to its (potential) donors, the development professional has the dual responsibility, along with volunteer leadership, for helping to keep a community asset healthy and strong for current and future generations, and for helping the donor satisfy his needs through his giving.

It’s that simple. One is about the value of a “product,” and the other is about what we value in life.

I’ve been fighting this development-as-sales battle for many years, and I fear we are all losing ground with the growing trend of having boards of trustees believing that fundraising is someone else’s responsibility, and development staff too often willing, or forced, to take on the role of solely or mostly being “the” fundraisers for their institutions.

“Meet your goal this year, then see next year’s goal set arbitrarily higher.” “Make it, or else.” Burn out, high turnover, reduced opportunity for building long-term relationships, and a weakening of the profession, are but some of the long-term consequences when a development staff becomes a sales staff.

There are, of course, some who do star in their roles as institutional staff solicitors; but, when they leave … and they will in time, they almost always take with them their personal donor relationships, and other contacts and resources. This results in having the new staff person, their replacement, being in the position of starting from scratch.

We cannot continue to go this way and succeed (as per Willie Loman) with mostly a “smile and a shoeshine,” making the “sale” for today, but not being given the time and resources to build for the future.

I’ve had numerous communications with frustrated and frantic development professionals lamenting that they are not at all able, or desirous of being their institution’s fundraiser of first resort. Many of those professionals have become so, by order of their boards or by having it imposed upon them by their supervisors. If this continues, I fear we could be seeing the death of a profession, as we once knew it.

And, it all goes back to the Boards of Trustees and other volunteers. Volunteers are the lifeblood of a development operation, and board members are the most important volunteers of all.

My favorite mantra: “There is no greater strength in a fundraising campaign than a board ready and willing to lead. There is no greater weakness than a board that sees fundraising as someone else’s responsibility.”

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a question or comment about the above posting?
You can Ask Tony.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen
The Fundraising Series of ebooks?
They’re easy to read, to the point, and inexpensive ($1.99 – $4.99)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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.

Not long ago, I received an email from the CEO of a large nonprofit medical center. She referred to an article I had written that was completely at odds with what she was told by the president of a major fundraising consulting firm the hospital is going to hire.

The consultant was advising the hospital to only have their paid staff make all key solicitations. To reinforce his assertion, he said to her, “You would not send out an amateur to sell a Ferrari, so why would you put at risk a major donor in such hands?”

My response was to point out that selling a Ferrari is a completely different transaction than “selling” a nonprofit institution’s program, service, or project.

Coming from my nineteen year background of “selling” lighting for General Electric, and subsequently “selling” the music of The Cleveland Orchestra for twenty years, I have seen five key success qualities at work in both worlds, one way or the other, relative to the salesperson’s/solicitor’s shared position to that of the respective customer/prospect:

1. Career Status
2. Economic Status
3. Social Position
4. Interest In The Institution (Company)
5. Mutual Respect

The sale of a Ferrari involves an explicit selling and buying environment that customers understand and expect. It is a quid pro quo deal. The best professional salesperson will do the job well needing only to possess qualities No. 4 and No. 5. In fact, most of the time, those are the only two of the five qualities that the salesperson could possess.

When we are seeking a voluntary charitable contribution, we are not working in the same product-selling-transactional-environment. We are not selling to a prospective donor; we are presenting her with an opportunity to satisfy her own needs … by supporting/contributing to an organization that serves her community and her concerns.

The volunteer possessing all five of the qualities listed above would make the most effective solicitor. (Like the Ferrari salesman, paid development staffers also only possess No. 4 and No. 5.) Based on long experience, that informed/trained volunteer, meeting with a key donor prospect, cannot be so crassly dismissed as an “amateur.”

We must always keep in mind that we are not selling prospective donors an institution’s “product.” In the nonprofit sector, we ask prospective donors to consider making a gift … giving to something in which they believe … and that they want to support.

Next week, in Part Two, Tony continues his passionate cry for the rescue of the Development Profession.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a question or comment about the above posting?
You can Ask Tony.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen
The Fundraising Series of ebooks?
They’re easy to read, to the point, and inexpensive ($1.99 – $4.99)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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.

What would we do without Shakespeare’s quotes to fit any occasion or mood? Thus it is with my seeming futile battle against the ever-mounting rise throughout the non-profit sector where development staff members become nothing more than paid solicitors.

Whenever I’m impelled to remind anyone who the fund raisers should be in their organizations, keeping in mind that there is often some energetic (negative) pushback, there is one of the Bard’s quotes that comes to mind:

“What’s gone and what’s past help, should be past grief.”
— Paulina in The Winter’s Tale

 

What’s gone and what’s past help seems to be true with how the development process has evolved over the past several decades, but my grief remains.

I’ve been fighting the development-as-sales battle for too many years, and I fear we are all losing to the growing trend of having boards of trustees believing that fundraising is someone else’s responsibility, and to development staff too often willing, or forced, to take on the role of solely, or mostly, being “the” fund raisers for their organizations.

There are, of course, some who do star in their role as staff solicitor for their organizations, but when they leave – and everyone leaves eventually – they will likely take with them their personal relationships with donors … and other contacts and resources, resulting in having the individual taking over their role in the position of pretty much having to start from scratch.

I have, and continue to have, ongoing communication with frustrated and frantic development professionals, people who are lamenting that they are not at all able or willing to be their organization’s fund raiser of first resort, but are de facto in that role by order of their boards or their supervisors.

I know I am mixing literary metaphors here, nonetheless I think it apt to bring in Arthur Miller, looking to his “Death Of A Salesman” as a perilous parallel to our formerly glorious fundraising “family” becoming more and more populated with despairing and failing Willy Lomans. As such, I fear we could very well be seeing the “Death Of A Profession,” as we once knew it.

I tell anyone within reach that we cannot continue to go this way and succeed with mostly a “smile and a shoeshine,” making the “sale” for today, but not being given the time and resources to build for tomorrow.

And, it all goes back to the Boards of Trustees and other volunteers. Volunteers are the lifeblood of a development operation, and Board Members are the most important volunteers of all.

There is no greater strength in a fundraising campaign than a board ready and willing to lead. There is no greater weakness in a campaign than where the board sees fundraising as someone else’s responsibility.

But, those formerly true and highly successful fundraising principles are now being abandoned in favor of the quick fix, using paid outside- or staff-solicitors.

And while there are some proven and workable aspects to social media, micro-giving and crowd fundraising campaigns, far too many organizations are all too willing to put all or most of their effort to those mass-media appeals made to mostly temporarily-caring audiences for the smallest of contributions.

The tried-and-true development process to ensure future financial stability is all but being abandoned for today’s limited vision and an annually renewed urgency to meet (mostly) arbitrarily-set quotas.

“How poor are they that have not patience!”
— Iago, in Othello

 

Next Week, our millennial, K. Michael Johnson, talks about how he’s ticked off some of his older colleagues with his so-called “new ideas.”

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a question or comment about the above posting?
You can Ask Tony.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen
The Fundraising Series of ebooks?
They’re easy to read, to the point, and inexpensive ($1.99 – $4.99)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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.

An all too common question … that usually arises far later in an organization’s forming process than it should have been asked.

I always reply, saying, “Before you make commitments for expenses for which you may not have the funds, I suggest you begin with your Board Of Trustees. You should have on your board, at the beginning of your creation process, as many serious givers-and-getters as possible – people who are rated at the best levels for giving of their own money, who are willing and able to get money from others, and who are willing and able to recruit others who they know will do the same.

Chances are that most “new” organizations will be serving constituencies that are unable to pay for their services; and, so, neither would/could they be donors. Those new NPOs, then, must look with their board to other sources.

Most new groups, in order to have time for developing paths to outside funders, should have each board member commit personally to a set amount — which each may contribute from their own pockets, may raise from sources close to them, or may raise the funds from a combination of both. Compliance to this concept, or the lack thereof, would be a good indication of whether you’ve assembled the right board to ensure that your organization will have a future.

[Editor’s Note: If your Board Members can’t/won’t support, won’t give to their own organization, why should anyone else, why would they want to ??]

When I was in that position, before my development career began and as a board member of a new organization, each of us agreed to go out and raise a dollar amount that was calculated by dividing our number of fund-raisers into the amount needed to balance the books for that fiscal year. We each had a fundraising goal of $1,800.

Off we went, giving what we could of our own money, then asking family, friends, our employers, and owners of places we did business. (I received donations from my company, doctor, dentist, florist, dry cleaner, etc.) We all, individually, worked to our own goal to collectively meet the overall goal of the organization for the year.

Along with that productive activity, we were researching local granting foundations and corporations, learning who they were, what they gave to, how much they gave, and seeking to know of any personal or business links our board had with officials of the grantors. You, too, can easily learn who those grantors are from the Foundation Center directory and from references in your local library – and the good old, and very effective, “word-of-mouth.”

As well, your team should work to gather annual reports and other of their publications from organizations similar to yours and review their listings of donors as potential donors to your particular cause.

These are but a few of the ways you must slog along to learn who cares about your organization and who might care. You cannot expect to get funding from distant and uncaring donors.

You find qualified donors only in those ways – working from the inside out.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
We’re Taking a Break for Two Weeks.
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday and a Happy & Healthy New Year.
See you on January 7

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a question or comment about the above posting?
You can Ask Tony.
There is also a lot of good fundraising information on his website:
Raise-Funds.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen
The Fundraising Series of ebooks?
They’re easy to read, to the point, and inexpensive ($1.99 – $4.99)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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, click on the title of this posting, then go to the bottom of the on-line version to offer your thoughts.

This week, two short and to the point pieces from Tony !!

1. Staff Involvement In Strategic Planning

Should/must nonprofit staff be involved in the strategic planning process ??

With all of the discussion that I’ve seen/heard on this subject over the years, with the range of positions respondents have taken – from the globally inclusive to the highly restrictive, and considering the passions that this question and its responses often evoke, I offer, here, my attempt to clarify the issue:

• The Board of an NPO has the sole responsibility and authority for determining vision, mission and strategic goals;

• Staff of an NPO are employees who can be great resources in the vision and planning processes, but who do not have the authority, responsibility or mandate to shape the future of an NPO, just to pursue the vision the governing Board has adopted;

• Absolutely, staff should be included in the process, but only when the Board, in its wisdom, requests/requires that participation;

• Ideally, it would be wonderfully warm and fuzzy for all to be included in the planning process, and it would be preferable to have staff buy-in to the process end-product (the strategic plan); but,

• The CEO hires/evaluates/replaces staff on the basis of whether they do their jobs in a way that supports/advances the NPO’s mission.

It is not my position that staff should be excluded from the planning process, but neither should it be imposed upon a Board that they must include staff members.

It might be nice if all aspects of NPO “vision-making and planning” tended toward inclusivity, but in some cases, more can be accomplished in “restricted” groups.

The key is in knowing what would work best in specific circumstances, and not insisting it has to be any one way.

==============================
2. Keeping in Touch with Donors

Even if you successfully get donors to make site visits, to see personally what your organization does, and are able to reach out to them with visits to where they do their business, it is not enough.

You need to do more !!

After all, how many times a year will a donor be willing to come to the organization, or how frequently can you call for an appointment without becoming a pest? There are many ways to communicate and express interest in donors.

Let’s begin by looking at communication that is more about the donor than the organization. Send birthday and other appropriate greeting cards. Send get-well cards and even flowers to a donor in the hospital. Keep your eye open for items about donors in newspapers. When you see one, clip it and send it along with a “congratulations” note to the donor.

In the more formal communication media: You should have a regular newsletter that goes out to donors. By regular, I mean at least every other month. Actually, I would recommend monthly. The newsletter can be sent as paper or email.

The latter will cost far less and make a more frequent schedule easier to maintain, but be prepared to get paper into the hands of those who do not want to receive email. I would expect that number to be very small and shrinking almost daily. The newsletter should be aimed at the donor community, rather than something that goes to everybody from clients to employees.

Include donors on your press list and make sure they get copies of every press release you send out. Think email again.

Send photographs of things the organization is doing. Again email is easier, quicker, and far less expensive.

And, finally, send something special that reflects well on the organization. If you’re a social service organization and your clients make crafts, how about sending something made by a client?

Share with donors the thank-you notes you receive from the people whom you serve – names withheld, unless you have an OK. Have clients of the organization write to a donor explaining the difference the organization has made in their lives. You would be surprised how many would be ready and willing to do so. Just ask.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Next Week Hank Lewis revisits the GIFT TABLE,
It’s Construction and its Use.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a question or comment about the above posting?
You can Ask Tony.
There is also a lot of good fundraising information on his website:
Raise-Funds.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen
The Fundraising Series of ebooks?
They’re easy to read, to the point, and inexpensive ($1.99 – $4.99)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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, click on the title of this posting, then go to the bottom of the on-line version to offer your thoughts.

On June 18 & 25, Lynne deLearie wrote about “Reason and Emotion in Grant Proposals.” Coincidentally, I’ve recently been involved in some discussions in which some folks were leaning much too far in one direction or the other.

Those conversations were prompted by what one participant reported as an interesting article in The Chronicle of Philanthropy (April 4, 2014) about “grantors acting more like investors.” An excerpt:

“For at least a decade, movers and shakers in philanthropy have been trying to persuade donors to behave more like data-driven investors.

But the so-called effective-philanthropy movement suffered a significant setback last month when the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, a prominent champion of the idea, announced that it was ending an eight-year, $12-million effort to get donors to rely as much on their heads as their hearts.

After this year, it is dropping support for groups like Charity Navigator, GiveWell, and GuideStar that provide publicly-accessible information about the financial performance and social impact of nonprofits. (Editor’s Note: The previous sentence has been revised to more precisely describe the initiative.) [The Foundation, however] is continuing to fund groups that provide research on philanthropic strategies that produce measurable results.

The decision pleases some critics worried that philanthropy has become too heavily focused on short-term measurements at the expense of worthy efforts that may not bear results for years.”
……….

That excerpt has a few points made which are not as I have come to know them – the first being the relatively short time span cited by the writer of “at least a decade” of the philanthropic community working to convince donors to be more data-driven. (Head over heart.)

The head part of the dichotomy was in place over four decades ago, in 1971, when I began my career in non-profit fund-raising. I believe those contrasting approaches to what prompts donors to give their money had a head-related history long before my time. (Flexner/Carnegie and Rockefeller/General Education Board, as prime examples.)

Fast-forwarding to the 90s, I really saw the head rearing itself when the tech bubble was at its peak, and those tech billionaires greatly influenced the head, not only for reasons of giving, but as well bringing their entrepreneurship methods of making millions into non-profit board rooms – expecting, even demanding, that those non-profits operate in the same bean-counting manner as their Silicon Valley businesses.

Most of our local foundations, for the most part, still operated mainly by the heart, though some were beginning to weigh in on how to use financial ratios as units of measurement to gauge the sustainability of non-profits.

Thus, the worthless and harmful self-proclaimed arbiters of the worth of non-profits were created – such as CharityNavigator. (Interesting how those self-appointed judges of non-profits had no similar evaluations made on their own effectiveness.)

I also believe that the Chronicle writer ascribed too much worth to Hewlett’s decision to end an eight-year funding program. Over my long career, I could count on one hand the number of foundations granting for more that five years.

As well, what I interpret as conflicting are statements that Hewlett was ending grants to charity evaluators whose mission was head-based, but that Hewlett would continue to fund groups that provide those very same head-based outcomes. So, I do not see Hewlett’s action as a trend, rather than a grant program simply reaching the end of the line.

The argument which we continually make regarding head and heart giving differences implies – indeed asserts – that they are somehow far apart.

For the most part, I do not think they can be all one or all the other. It’s mostly a blend of head and heart. It must be, to some degree.

Few, if any, major granting foundations would make feel-good grants which had little or no operational or outcome sense. Conversely, they would not be inspired to give money to the best constructed, rational, proposal which did not excite or move the heart.

But, there are some caveats.

The granting foundation Program Officer does indeed have a heart. She or he could really care about your institution, but the money they help give away is not theirs. Except in the case of a tightly controlled family foundation, those people are stewards of other people’s money.

Stewards must, to a great extent, base their gift recommendations on logic and the value proposition placed before them. They are going to feel less comfortable making a judgment call from the heart, and are more likely to feel compelled to rely upon the reassurance of sound numbers. Further up the line, when there are volunteer review and distribution committees, heart-giving could indeed hold sway.

But, let’s not get too heart conscious when dealing (solely or mostly) with the Program Officer “gatekeeper,” whose very job depends on much more than gut instinct and having a heart.

So, carefully crafting proposals with the “right” blend is the challenge, and we more likely will know the correct weighting of head and heart when we know our prospects.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Next week we offer some Tech Advice for Millenials
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a question or comment about the above posting?
You can Ask Tony.
There is also a lot of good fundraising information on his website:
Raise-Funds.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen
The Fundraising Series of ebooks?
They’re easy to read, to the point, and inexpensive ($1.99 – $4.99)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

If you 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” at the bottom of this page.

A fundraising campaign brochure can be an important tool for communicating the worth of a campaign to a targeted audience, as well as for making an organization’s “family” more knowledgeable about their organization and the purpose and structure of the campaign.

Often, when the subject of a campaign brochure publication comes up, it is greeted with an exclamation that goes something like this: “A brochure won’t raise a nickel !!” That response is far too dismissive and, if left unaddressed, could result in a disregard for what is actually a key fundraising tool … particularly for capital and endowment campaigns.

True, “People raise money, publications don’t,” but people can be more effective in raising money if they are given the resources that can help establish the best possible climate for a solicitation.

Having an official brochure in hand is essential in establishing the perception in the minds of some potential donors that the campaign is structured and is being conducted in a professional manner. It is also a necessity for some volunteer leaders and solicitors as a bolster to their levels of comfort/confidence.

Hand some people a brand new, “off the press” publication and watch their faces brighten and eyes spark with interest. Just the feel of the publication in-hand often works wonders.

Too Many Cooks (Writers/Designers/Editors) Can Doom A Campaign Brochure
On this subject, I have seen campaigns languish and die because the organization could not agree on the text, design, length, graphics, etc. of the brochure.

Typically, this impasse occurs more often in capital and endowment campaigns than in annual fundraising efforts because campaigns, which are (by definition) of limited duration, are viewed as special events.

Because they are not repeated every year, a previous brochure is not there to serve as a comfortable model. Faced with the prospect of creating a document from scratch, everyone on the campaign committee seems to be magically transformed into a writer or creative artist.

In their need to feel adequately prepared for success, volunteer leaders often have the tendency to become inordinately involved with the actual nuts and bolts of developing the campaign brochure.

Therefore, the campaign management professionals, guided by the expertise of communications specialists, should make decisions about the brochure and other related materials … and stick to those decisions.

Accept the fact that it will be impossible to obtain the complete agreement of everyone involved on each and every point, so don’t set up a situation where you have to ultimately disregard some campaign leader’s stated preference about a favorite color or treasured phrase.

While consensus is important in fundraising, it does not mean that you must arm every member of your campaign committee with veto power….

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a question or comment about the above posting?
You can Ask Tony.
There is also a lot of good fundraising information on his website:
Raise-Funds.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen
The Fundraising Series of ebooks ??
They’re easy to read, to the point, and cheap ($1.99 – $4.99) ☺
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

If you’re reading this on-line and 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. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.