Author: Tony Poderis

For a very long time I wanted to write something which championed the cause of overworked, underpaid, and under appreciated staff development professionals. But while I was still working as a member of that glorious “clan,” I felt that I was not in the best position to make the case for my many (often) under-appreciated colleagues.

Being retired, I can now better voice my opinions than I could while still working as a DOD – when perhaps I might have been seen as self-aggrandizing.

For my colleagues, still at it today, however, I wanted to bring to the surface some of the feelings I know they must keep to themselves.

I am reminded of the many times I was sitting in the back seat of a box in our Cleveland Orchestra concert hall with my donor/prospect guests nicely ensconced up front in the choice seats. (They were, earlier that evening, our guests at a festive reception and an excellent dinner.)

On stage, the finest Orchestra in the world was playing the best in classical music … “just for them,” and they were looking forward to meeting the conductor and other Orchestra notables at a party following the concert. I knew they were greatly satisfied. It was the perfect setting for building donor loyalty and setting the stage for even bigger future gifts.

All of which would have me serenely survey the scene in front of me, then lean back in my chair, and say to myself, “I made all of this happen! I’m really, really good at this job! They’re lucky to have me!” (No one knew I felt that way until now!)

Hopefully, you feel that way too !!

No matter what (type of) organization you work for, you should be (privately) patting yourself on the back when you have those magic moments – when you see the good things that happen because of your hard work and dedication.

Maybe it’s when you see an otherwise severely physically challenged youngster find new vitality and strength as she/he is put astride a horse at your Therapeutic Riding Center; seeing the smiles from the hungry as they are fed in your hunger center; as you breathe the clean air your organization is making possible for all in your community; when you are saving and preserving a wildlife refuge; while attending another graduation class ceremony at your school or college; helping to reclaim and repair the life of a rape victim.

In short, whatever the mission of your organization, you should/must have those secret, personal and justifiably proud moments regarding whatever your organization is able to do … because of what you do !!

Think of it. You are helping to enhance/enrich the quality of life for scores of people or animals, and you are generally helping to make life more fulfilling for broad segments of our society.

Remember, the work you do behind the scenes makes it possible for others to be in the spotlight … as your organization makes positive differences in the quality of life. You will find that your acceptance of who rightfully gets the public rewards and recognition for success will more than ever be personally and professionally satisfying to you.

And you should feel good about what you do — very good — but keep it to yourself, and savor every moment of it. You are really, really good at your job. “They” are indeed lucky to have you.

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

If you have a question or comment for Tony, he can be reached at Tony@raise-funds.com. There is also a lot of good fundraising information on his website: Raise-Funds.com

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

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.

Continuing (from Tuesday) to devise/structure the process for rebuilding our relationship with our lapsed donors….

Our next step is to design our solicitation strategies based upon how “major” the lapsed donors’ gifts were … and might be again. That helps us decide whether we just send solicitation letters with return gift envelopes enclosed; if we send letters followed by phone calls; whether we just call for decisions over the phone; or, if we write or call to seek meetings to discuss their renewals in person.

We also give serious (sensitive) thought and consideration to deciding if we’ll ask that they renew their previous/last gift, or if we see potential for seeking an increased contribution.

Consider using one or more of the following statements sometime during your lapsed gift renewal contacts as you seek to convince those lapsed donors to reinstate their gifts:

• Your support has always meant so much to us. May we count on you again this year?

• We missed your participation in our campaign last year (or specify if it’s been a longer period). Please join us for another year.

• We take great pride in having your name associated with our institution. We have missed that association, and I hope we can count on your participation again this year.

• We are aware that you chose not to renew your gift to us last year (or in the year it ended). We welcome this opportunity to ask if that was because of something we did that we can now remedy, or if it is something out of our control. We will soon contact you to ask what we can try to do to win back your important support.

• I was reviewing this year’s list of important contributors, and could not help but notice that your name was missing. That’s why I wanted to contact you, to respectfully ask that you consider renewing your gift for this year’s campaign.

• There is a good chance we will establish a new record of gift support this year for our institution, but only if important contributors such as you continue to invest in our institution. Can we count on your support again this year?

And, an added note: We always looked to connect the renewal of lapsed gifts to a current matching or challenge grant program. which tends to be a compelling “selling” point. And we found, more often than not, that the “challenger” allowed us to use those renewed gifts as “new” money when that was a requirement for matching funds.

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

If you have a question or comment for Tony, he can be reached at Tony@raise-funds.com. There is also a lot of good fundraising information on his website: Raise-Funds.com

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

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.

It’s an old saying in development, that your best prospects for the next time are the people who gave to you last time … or the time before that, or the time before….

Based on our best knowledge and understanding of the people who’ve given to us before, we should be making case-by-case judgments on how to bring our lapsed donors back into the fold.

Of course, care should be taken to avoid asking lapsed donors to reconsider their support if they previously made it explicitly clear that they wanted to be removed from the donor list and that they did not intend to give again. And, also of course, that depends on the quality/accuracy of our records.

If we kept good records, we would know why they did not want to be asked again.

But, through my rose-colored glasses, I always look for some hint that some of those “don’t ask me again” lapsed donors could now be thinking otherwise — especially if the reason for the halt in their giving was something which has changed in our institution, something we could fix, or that they might now be in a better financial or personal position to renew their support.

In those very special instances, we would say to the lapsed donor, “I know you said no to our request in the past, and we did take you off our regular solicitation list as you requested, but I wanted to determine that we did that because you were unhappy with something that we did or did not do at the time … or if the reason was something out of our control.”

(Since they once felt good about their relationship with our organization, they would, invariably, appreciate the call and would tell us if they had, indeed, wanted to be taken off the list because of a grievance.)

The purpose of our call was to find out if we had done something wrong and, if possible, restore our relationship with those donors. Sometimes it was something we could now fix. Sometimes, even though we never asked, they would even reconsider and make a gift.

So, our first step was to determine how far back is “lapsed.” Maybe three years with no response is a good cut off point. Some institutions go back five years.

Then we calculate a minimum donation level, based on what is practical, relative to good use of time and effort vs. potential dollars. (With an eye on those below the minimum cut off who are thought to have greater giving potential than their last gift.)

— This post continues on Thursday of this week —

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

If you have a question or comment for Tony, he can be reached at Tony@raise-funds.com. There is also a lot of good fundraising information on his website: Raise-Funds.com

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

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.

I once was not even remotely considered as a candidate for a fundraising development job with a hospital. I came from another non-profit background, and no matter my credentials, I did not even get an interview.

The hospital’s “call for resumes” had an explicit condition that anyone applying for the job, “Must have at least five years experience in the medical sector.” Subsequently, when I was hired by The Cleveland Orchestra as its Development Director, I did not know one note of music from another. I had only been in the concert hall twice in my life. Twenty years later — when I left to go into consulting — as I was completing my last day at The Orchestra, I still did not know one note of music from another. Nothing to brag about, to be sure, but you get the idea.

I loved the art, but I did not need to be steeped in an artistic environment to appreciate it. I did not need a background in arts & culture to understand and believe in the Orchestra’s mission. More to the point of this little essay, the Orchestra management was far more enlightened than the hospital’s. It made no difference at all where I came from when it came to carrying out my duties and knowing the fundraising process, a process which is basically the same in any field.

Anyone having non-profit fundraising experience knows well that the only real difference affecting fundraising practices for social service, arts & culture, educational, religious, and health-related organizations is their financial support constituencies. We know that the concepts of fundraising can, and do, apply across the board for all of them. What is mostly different is where the money comes from.

Just look at listings of the thousands of books on fundraising, or note the countless presentations of fundraising workshops and seminars, and you will see they overwhelmingly appeal to the broad spectrum of non-profit organizations. And, where non-profit fundraising issues are addressed every day in Blogs and Internet discussion groups, far more often than not, the participants have no knowledge whatever regarding the types of organizations being discussed. They just want to know how to fund-raise.

Most any successful fundraising campaign for any type of organization is a straightforward, concise process of executing well-defined components arranged in a step-by-step progression. I know this to be so because I have seen it done over-and-over again. After twenty years in the arts, my first few consulting engagements were — in this order — a Vietnam Veterans memorial, a community hospital, a therapeutic riding center, a retirement/nursing home, etc.

Those examples are not meant as my ego-building bio, but more to demonstrate and prove that the fundraising process is basically the same for any cause, as I have seen that process work time and again.

Anyone seeking to work in development for an organization which has its leadership insisting the candidate must come from that same field to get the job, should politely work to point out that most all of the dollars raised for some non-profits come from people who directly avail themselves of its services, such as arts & culture patrons, grateful hospital patients, alumni, etc.

Where the clients/users of some non-profit’s service cannot give money, such as those who are homeless, hungry, etc., those having money in the community respond directly to support those organizations.

This is usually a much larger grouping of people who, while they do not avail themselves of a non-profit’s services, nevertheless indirectly benefit because of what the organization does for the community in which they live and do business, and have concerns and cares about.

While there are indeed unique elements to be found in the various types of organizations — even in similar organizations from one to another — the fundraising process is basically the same. Fundraising challenges and issues are in very close parallel to the process when seeking to raise money for a ballet company, for academic scholarships, for a hospital’s new MRI, for new church pews, etc.

No matter our particular cause across the entire spectrum of types of non-profits, we raise money from people who:

• Have it
• Can afford to give
• Are sold on the benefit of what we are doing
• Wouldn’t have given it to us unless we had asked
• Receive appreciation and respect for their gifts

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

If you have a question or comment for Tony, he can be reached at Tony@raise-funds.com. There is also a lot of good fundraising information on his website: Raise-Funds.com

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

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.

Recently, during a meeting at our Church, I talked to Alice, our pastoral associate, about my wife Joyce and I offering to give a special major contribution for a program she heads.

Alice is in charge of a group who regularly review the cases of fellow parishioners in desperate need of money to pay overdue bills for household utilities, rent, mortgage, medical expenses, and other critical needs.

I have a long history of assessing and evaluating the financial “sustainability” of non-profit organizations and know it to be one of the key factors that grant-making organizations and donors use in deciding whether or not to contribute.

While most solicitations of donors are made without the presentation of spreadsheets and statements, we know that numbers usually do count, and that at the very least we better be ready to produce them when requested.

Thus, I found myself carrying forth those lessons learned from my non-profit evaluation experience when I began asking Alice questions at length about the designated recipients of our proposed donation.

I probed the “worthiness” of those in need of the generosity of our gift. I asked:
• What degree of research goes into the amounts requested?
• How sure is the church that the beneficiaries will use the money for the purpose for which
it is given?
• Will the recipients do their best to get on their feet so that further assistance isn’t needed?

In the middle of my questioning, I suddenly stopped and began to silently ask myself:
• Had I completely forgotten what philanthropy is?
• Where had my belief in charity gone?
• Had I lost my understanding of the humanitarian intent of my gift by encumbering it with
strings of implied “accountability?”
• Was I making units of measurement more important than an act of compassion?

As I struggled with those thoughts I realized that something even worse was in danger of happening. I was inadvertently dismissing and diminishing the good work that Alice and her committee were doing to address the very issues I was laboring over.

Shortly after arriving home from Church, a thought came, no doubt inspired from that sacred setting where I talked to Alice. I remembered what the apostle Paul wrote: “God loves a cheerful giver,” and that reconnected me to what our gift was really about.

I had been completely unaware that my searching, and to a degree intrusive, questioning of Alice was the reverse of the thoughts and actions of a cheerful giver.

My concerns were too much about my desire to know who was getting the money, how much they were getting, and whether they really deserve it. I had momentarily lost my understanding of the spirit of giving. I had become a “grim giver.”

I realize taking the “cheerful-giver” attitude too far can cause us to overlook the rational path we usually want our money to travel. But, there are times when we do not need to fret about our “return on investment.” There are times when we don’t need to wrap our giving in hard logic.

For me, this was one of those times. Temporarily, I had forgotten, that our parishioners’ desperate need to receive was the perfect balance for my need to give.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

If you have a question or comment for Tony, he can be reached at Tony@raise-funds.com. There is also a lot of good fundraising information on his website: Raise-Funds.com

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

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.

Why Not Work on Percentage, Bonus or Commission?

I have long and unyieldingly stood against any form of contingent-pay in the non-profit sector — having an organization’s staff development officer working for compensation based on a percentage of funds raised, a bonus, or a commission.

Such arrangements, and any variations, are denounced by major “for-the-profession” associations. They go so far as to state, emphatically, that contingent-pay is unethical.

Most development professionals themselves think it’s a bad idea. But I do far more than just cite high standards and strong ethics as good reasons to have nothing at all to do with the contingent-pay practice.

I let the contingent-pay principals know of the very real harm possible when working in that way. In my article on the subject I list a number of very real and damaging consequences that may befall both parties when working to such an arrangement. (See: The Argument Against Paying Development Professionals Based Upon The Amount Of Funds Raised For Non-Profit Organizations)

My hard stance against contingent-pay was bolstered even more by a personal experience, several years ago, when I was engaged as a fundraising consultant for a major organization. Sadly, it represents what appears to be an ever-growing issue.

During my several months serving the organization, I conceived, developed and produced fundraising plans where there had been none. Annual, endowment, capital, sponsorship, and underwriting campaigns were all fully developed and were being phased into the duties of the organization’s new and first-ever Director of Development … whom I helped hire.

The individual was hired at a straight annual salary basis while I was nearing the end of my consulting term. Soon, the Director of Development was up and running very well and I concluded my consulting engagement.

In a routine phone call some months later, just to check in to see how that individual was doing, it became readily clear that the several key development initiatives I had set out for the organization had not progressed much, if at all, except for the Annual Fund.

There were no ongoing cultivation activities. Recruitment of a volunteer fundraising team was abandoned. There was nothing in place to ensure opportunities for long-term funding. What was clear was that the Director of Development was dead set only on meeting the Annual Fund goal.

Why? Because after I left, the next salary review with management allowed the D.O.D. to work toward a bonus of $5,000, contingent upon meeting the Annual Fund goal by the end of the campaign/fiscal year.

Just about all of the warnings I cite in my article were at work in this case. Money was being raised only for this year. There was no thinking/planning for tomorrow.

When I see all the wrong that can befall an organization, or an individual, in contingent-pay schemes, I cannot imagine for the life of me why anyone would want to go that route.

What do you think? I’d be interested in your comments.

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

If you have a question or comment for Tony, he can be reached at Tony@raise-funds.com. There is also a lot of good fundraising information on his website: Raise-Funds.com

We should (and usually do) work hard to make our best possible case for support to corporations … wanting them to know as much as possible about us. But an equally important issue is, “What do we know about them?”

I was recently thinking about the extent, the depth, to which we have to know our corporate prospects in order to make the assessments, ratings and evaluations that must precede our (best) requests for their money.

One thing that came to mind was the annual fund-raising conference held in our area, and the notes I made each year, over several years, from attending the corporate-giving panel sessions. The conferences usually included three or four corporate contributions managers — representing large corporations and banks.

Each time, the different corporate contribution managers cited their “Top Ten” requirements/preferences for any non-profit institution to be able to attract their corporation’s attention for funding. My notes, even though they were different people, representing different corporations, indicated basically the same “Top” three things those stewards of corporate funding wanted from contribution seekers.

They said:
(1) Know Who We Are:
• Read our corporation’s Annual Report.
• Have you looked at our website?
• Do you know what we make and sell?
• Who are our customers?
• How many employees do we have?
• Where are our locations?
• Who are our Officers, and are any of them involved in your organization?

(2) Understand Our Concerns:
• What are our policies regarding endowments, capital campaigns, annual operating support,
giving to projects and services, and United Way supporting agencies?
• And if you wish to “double dip,” when it comes to obtaining our support for a specific campaign,
you should know whether we will also support a special fund-raising event or project you are
producing.
• Keeping your organizations’ solicitations organized/coordinated is supremely important to us.
Make certain that if more than one individual from your organization contacts us, that they
know what the “left and right hands are doing.”

(3) Understand Our Interests:
• Do we employ a strategic philanthropic practice, i.e., be it focus on education (what type),
health care, social services, arts & culture, etc.?
• Are any of our employees donors to your organization?
• Do we match their donations with our corporation’s funds? If so, how much?
• What is our corporate citizenship mission in your community?
• Do we want/need to be recognized publicly with our corporate sponsorships, be they local,
statewide, national, or global?

From the mouths of those stewards of their corporations’ money — while it’s obvious they want to know about our organizations — they certainly made it clear that we had better know more about them than the easily available surface information.

All of that, then, becomes the basis of the profile we develop for our best chance to be on the receiving end of the corporate money flow.

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

If you have a question or comment for Tony, he can be reached at Tony@raise-funds.com. There is also a lot of good fundraising information on his website: Raise-Funds.com

Recently, a disgruntled grant seeker I know told me that he was so upset with what he said was a “blatant” turndown from a foundation Program Officer that he was going to go over that official’s head to appeal to a board member of the foundation — someone whom he knows.

My immediate reaction was that he needs to know how to take “No” for an answer. By not doing so, he increases the likelihood that he will poison that foundation’s “philanthropic well.”

The rejection should be followed by a gracious acceptance of that program officer’s decision.

It’s best to leave the grantor better conditioned for the next time the organization wants to go back to that “well” for funding — which will probably be sooner than later. To do otherwise risks burning that “funding bridge” beyond repair.

Going over the head of a program officer promises nothing but trouble. My rule of thumb is never leapfrog over anybody. In general, woe befalls the fund-raiser who goes around the program officers.

There could be double trouble, should the higher-level contact be displeased to be put in the middle of such a thorny issue – that of needing to rule on what a subordinate has already decided.

Consider that some program officers may zealously guard their positions of authority – even to ensure they are the last resort in the granting process.

For us not to accept that stance can imply that we question their expertise and judgment – even their integrity. Any instance of real or perceived criticism, or the suggestion that a program officer can do a better job or that they did not do the job at all, may well evoke the real risk of a seriously negative reaction to the next proposal we submit.

We should have it fixed in our minds that program officers always do a great job, even when they deny our requests for funding and we think they erred in their judgment.

Even if we think they made a major error, we should not be foolish enough to suggest that by going over their heads. We have got to be smart, and not to risk making an enemy of a person who could very well have a commanding position to decline our future grant requests.

A highly regarded foundation authority once said: “The grant seeker always comes to grantors, psychologically, on their knees. Most grantors work with care and diligence to find a way to lift them to their feet.”

To that I say, “While on our knees before grantors, even if we don’t like being in that position, we don’t bite them on their ankles.”

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

If you have a question for Tony, he can be reached at Tony@raise-funds.com. There is also a lot of good fundraising information on his website: Raise-Funds.com