Category: Financing & Loans

Many nonprofit organizations boast lists of honorary trustees, board members and/or directors. And the vast majority of those named individuals are “there” in name only. The question that must be asked is how does that benefit the NPO.

There are two basic reasons why a person gets the “honorary” title. S/he may have been of great service to the organization and/or the people it serves; or, s/he may be very well known, respected and influential but has done little or nothing for the organization and its constituency.

The former is a traditional, valid way to recognize and give visibility to a person’s service … while, at the same time, signaling to others that they could get the same kind of recognition if they, too, provided major service to the organization and its constituency.

The latter is based on the belief that recruiting those big “names” to add to the letterhead will add credibility to the organization’s activities and/or that by adding a VIP’s name to your “honorary list” it will motivate that person to become an active leader/donor.

When you add a name to your letterhead, give that person recognition and don’t expect that person to be an active leader or donor, you send the message that “important people” don’t have to do anything for you in order to be “recognized.”

Any time someone is seen to be affiliated with your nonprofit organization and does not set the proper example, s/he creates an example you hope no one will follow.

If you have someone on your letterhead who, by virtue of that listing is perceived as a leader/supporter of your organization but does not lead, support or donate, you make your potential leaders/donors question why they should….

Also to consider, VIPs know each other. Wealthy people (your potential major donors) know each other … or know of each other. If their peers are part of your leadership in name only, they’ll know it … or will eventually hear of it.

The only people you may be kidding are the people who can’t be leaders or make the big gifts … and maybe yourself.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From now through Labor Day, we’re only posting on Tuesdays of each week. We’ll be back to Tuesdays and Fridays beginning on September 7.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or question about starting or expanding your fundraising program? Email me at AskHank@Major-Capital-Giving.com. With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, we’ll do our best to answer your question.

In the nonprofit sector there are two types of “Advisory” groups: those that advise, and those that don’t.

In my experience, Advisory Boards are created for just about any reason you can think of; but very often – in the non-profit sector, the term is a euphemism for a group of major donors who have agreed to help raise money from their peers and/or is a way to give recognition to those donors.

The key to the successful functioning of (that kind of) an Advisory Board is to (first) clearly define its mission, goals and objectives, and to have a clear job description (if that “board” really has a mission, goal or “job”) for the members of that group.

If you create an Advisory Board, and it’s not clearly understood by the members of that group that they are not there to advise (other than for fundraising purposes), you’d better be prepared to take the advice that comes from that Board/Committee.

If the group is not there to advise, that sort of suggests it might be better to call it something else.

I’ve often heard folks in the Non-Profit sector express the feeling that people who are recruited to an Advisory Board for their skills, insights, contacts and/or common sense shouldn’t be asked for money in addition to being asked to “work” for the organization. That’s a serious mistake!!

Anytime an NPO creates a Board or Committee of any kind, it should be understood that if the members of that group have any visibility in the “community” — as individuals and as part of that group — then whatever they do sets an example for the rest of that community.

If those visible individuals do not give to the organization, it suggests that they are not fully committed to the achievement of the mission — that they are merely indulging in a pastime or hobby — that the organization might be worth lending their name and/or giving some of their time, but not worth investing their money.

Anytime there is a (formal or informal) group created to help advance the mission of an organization, the members of that group must also support the organization financially. Anything else sends the wrong message to the community.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From now through Labor Day, we’re only posting on Tuesdays of each week. We’ll be back to Tuesdays and Fridays beginning on September 7.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or question about starting or expanding your fundraising program? Email me at AskHank@Major-Capital-Giving.com. With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, we’ll do our best to answer your question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a question about starting or expanding your fundraising program? Email me at AskHank@Major-Capital-Giving.com. With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, we’ll do our best to answer your question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a question about starting or expanding your fundraising program? Email me at AskHank@Major-Capital-Giving.com. With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, we’ll do our best to answer your question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Part 2 – Planning Study – Part Two

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

Have a question about starting or expanding your fundraising program? Email me at AskHank@Major-Capital-Giving.com. With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, we’ll do our best to answer your question.

To be sure that all board members will do all that’s required of them, the Planning Committee meets with them to outline the board’s role and emphasize that a visible demonstration of the board’s support is essential to “set the example” for potential leaders and donors.

And, as the planning process proceeds, it’s part of the Planning Committee’s job to ensure that the board members make their contributions to the event.

The Planning Committee has ultimate responsibility for the success of an event, as they are the people with the connections who “fill the seats” and “fill the coffers.” In that role, they have the clout (in so much as anyone does) to get the Board members to do what they need to do.

Board member contributions include their dollar support and their participation in the outreach process. That participation can be as minimal as generation of (realistic) lists of names of potential attendees and donors, or as supportive as making substantive contact with likely leaders and major donors.

Board members who made a major gift to the organization earlier in the year can still contribute to the event, but it depends on how you (and they) want to structure their giving, and how open you are about it from the beginning. Springing an event on a board and expecting them to pony up another $5,000, $10,000 or $20,000 will not serve you well.

Frequently board members will make their (pardon the use of the term) “annual gift” early in the fiscal year. Then, they can have their companies match their gifts and have those matches support the event. That way, both the board members and their firms get the much-deserved recognition – the recognition that will make it more likely that they will (want to) participate the next time.

Board Members will do what’s needed when they’re motivated to do so.

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

Have a question about creating or expanding your special event? Email me at Info@NatalieShear.com. With over 30 years in conference and event planning, we can help you turn your vision into reality.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen Natalie’s ebook on Special Events ??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a question about starting or expanding your fundraising program?
Email me at AskHank@Major-Capital-Giving.com. With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, we’ll do our best to answer your question.

A couple of questions appeared in my email recently … from an organization getting ready (!!??) to plan an event, ”How do we put together and structure our event committee?” Should our board be the committee?

The answer to the latter question is an emphatic “No!!” The board should not be the committee.

Some key members of the board can be on the committee, but an event committee should include a broad, representative segment of your constituency … including major donors, friends and colleagues of the honoree, and some people who have shown an interest in wanting to work with you but for whom you’ve not had a particular role….

You can construct a Host Committee composed of public figures who only lend their names, not their time/efforts/money – i.e., Members of Congress or state or local government types … Governors, Mayors, etc. Or, you can set up a Host Committee that requires a gift from each member of $5,000 to $10,000 (pick a number) … for the “privilege” of being on the committee.

To create the right/best kind of committee for your event, you really need to know your audience.

A tested and proven event structure is composed of 2 Co-Chairs, 2 Vice-Chairs, a Host Committee and a Planning Committee (typically, 5 or 6 people) … who will make calls and help raise money and awareness.

Be sure to include on the planning committee the “assistant” to the honoree – the person who works closest with s/he who will be the event’s star attraction, the draw. It’s that “assistant” who tends to be essential to raising money from the honoree’s friends and colleagues.

Your board has a job description that includes being part of and supporting your events. But you should not rely on the board to do all the work … that’s what the event leadership and committees are for….

How Do You Get Your Board to Do What They’re Supposed to Do For Your Event?
— Coming on July 16 —
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Have a question about creating or expanding your special event? Email me at Info@NatalieShear.com. With over 30 years in conference and event planning, we can help you turn your vision into reality.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen Natalie’s ebook on Special Events ??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a question about starting or expanding your fundraising program? Email me at AskHank@Major-Capital-Giving.com. With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, we’ll do our best to answer your question.

The grant making process is highly subjective. The vast majority of private foundations are family foundations that show up in the research resources, but that select their grantees on the basis of personal preferences. Most do not even accept proposals. Their grants are akin to individual donations, and the fact that they are grants at all is merely a function of the IRS Code. It simply is more advantageous to the donor to create a foundation than to make gifts directly.

Even government agencies are prone to subjectivity. While funding guidelines are statutory, specific priorities often are determined by what’s currently hot in the area covered by the grant program. In some scientific disciplines, only a handful of individuals across the country may be qualified to evaluate grant proposals in their discipline, and it’s typical that they know each other’s work.

What does this mean for the grant seeker? Once a non-profit agency has decided to devote resources to grant seeking, its staff needs to follow a realistic approach. That includes following the steps outlined in (Part 1 of Grant Seeking By The Book) my previous posting, but they must be tempered with a focus on forming relationships with the funders, and not merely submitting proposals identified by their research.

Networking is one of the most important items in the grant seeker’s resource kit. Every effort should be made to establish a personal relationship with the funder. That includes making contact with government program officers and seeking out foundation trustees, especially those located in the applicant’s community.

Many times it’s not possible to do that, but submitting a cold proposal without prior discussion should be considered a last resort resulting from a strategic decision to incur that opportunity cost.

In grant seeking, as in most things, success leads to additional success. Often, the best resources can be found among the funders who have already made grants to an organization. The professional grant seeker should not be bashful in networking among his/her current grantors to open new opportunities. They need to make the subjectivity of the grants process work for them, not against them.

We’re taking a break, not blogging over the long July 4 weekend. Be back on July 6 with Part 2 of “Another Reason Why I Object to Feasibility Studies.”

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

Have a question about starting or expanding your grants program? Email me at Andrew@GrantServices.com..