“I Can’t Tell People What They Should Give!”

No one would argue the fact that every fundraising campaign needs a goal and that everyone connected with the campaign, including prospective donors, needs to be aware of that goal.

Why, then, do people so often fight the setting of a goal for each prospective donor and the sharing of that goal with the prospect?

Trustees often blanch at the idea, and it is the rare solicitor who for the first time he or she is told that there will be a suggested giving amount for each of his prospects does not respond with, “I can’t tell people what to give!”

They’re right! Solicitors shouldn’t try to tell prospects what to give, as that will likely engender a great deal of resistance.

Yet, setting a personal goal for all prospective individual donors, letting prospects know what their goal is, and helping them see where and how it fits under the umbrella of the campaign goal, are probably the most important elements of any campaign.

No matter what prospective donors you are approaching, you need to be ready with a suggested giving amount in line with what each prospective donor is capable of giving. Dealing with foundations, corporations, and government funders in this manner is easy. In fact, it us usually required. Grant application forms have a blank space where you fill in the amount requested. But when it comes to individual donors, we seem to think it is a different kettle of fish. It isn’t.

If a fundraising campaign is to have a realistic chance at succeeding, we must, in the case of every prospective individual donor:
   1. Rate and evaluate the person’s ability to give.
   2. Seek a realistically large—hopefully the maximum—potential gift.
   3. Provide the donor with a suggested gift amount.

This rating and evaluating process applied to as many of our key potential donors as possible will allow us to suggest what we would like them to give. It does not tell them what to give.

Most prospects will welcome a suggestion of what would be appropriate. People nearly always want to know what the “price” of something is. It is rare that anyone decides to purchase an item without first looking at its price tag. The same is true when it comes to making a philanthropic donation.

People want to know how much the soliciting organization needs, and those responsible for fundraising should always have a ready answer. That answer should be a specific dollar amount determined by a rating and evaluating process, but far too often it is:

1. “Give what you can:” Requesting that multimillionaires give what they can is capricious.
   You seldom are likely to be asking any one person for resources of that magnitude.
2. “Give what you are comfortable with.” People can be comfortable with giving $10 when
   you need $100 and they could give that and more.
3. “We would appreciate a gift in the range of $ ________ to $ ______.” Asking for a gift,
   for example, in the range of $100 to $1,000 tells the prospect you haven’t determined
   what your real needs are and you certainly do not know the prospect’s potential to give.

You should always suggest a specific number, and that number must be presented in a way that is neither annoying nor demanding. There is only one person who can and will decide the size of the gift – the individual making that gift, and most prospects will welcome and consider a request made that way.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a question or comment for Tony? He can be reached at [email protected]. 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 🙂
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
We’re going to take a break, now, for the July 4th Holiday,
then we’ll begin our once-a-week (Thursdays) Summer Schedule.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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.

CFC Summer 2013 Action Planning — What Do They Want?

Update on Proposed Changes to CFC Regulations:

First, regarding the proposed changes to the CFC regulation (in my May 30 posting), I want to thank you if you took the opportunity to send a comment to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) about the proposed changes.

While the Federal Register comment period closed on June 7th, it is not too late to contact your Congressperson and Senators and let them know the damaging impact the new regulations will have if adopted as proposed.

You can also sign the White House petition to have the CFC regulations brought to President Obama’s attention.

I’ll continue to keep you posted on the proposed new regulations. But, since the proposed changes to the CFC would not take place until the 2015 campaign season, let’s focus, now, on how get the greatest benefits possible for your non-profit in the 2013 CFC campaign.

CFC Summer 2013 Action Planning

In my posting on January 31, I presented The Five Phases Of A Non-Profit’s CFC Campaign. We are now in Phase I (CFC Non-profit Planning, Organizing, & Recruitment), which runs from March to July — some of the timeframes in the phases overlap.

As you plan for your organization’s CFC campaign, it’s important to answer the question in this post’s title, “What Do They Want?”

The first question is who are “They?”   They are:
• Your donors
• Your staff, including both paid staff and volunteers
• Your board members
• The beneficiaries of your non-profit’s mission

Next, you should know the answers to the following questions:
1. Why do your donors support you? (Their reasons, not yours!!)
2. Why do your volunteers choose to volunteer with your organization?
(Remember, they could go to many other organizations.)
3. What motivates your paid staff?
4. What skills and leadership development experiences do your paid staff
and volunteers want to develop?
5. What skills and leadership development experiences do your board members
want to get a chance to practice?
6. Why do your board members want to serve on your organization’s board?
7. Does your community know what your organization does?

These are important questions … because the answers will:
A. Help you recruit and develop your non-profit’s CFC team … by selecting people
who want to develop and practice the skills needed for workplace giving campaigns,
skills that they know will help them advance in their careers;
B. Help you build relationships with your potential CFC donors; and,
C. Generate broad awareness that your organization participates in the CFC.

How do you learn the answers to the seven questions — by building relationships, and the key to building relationships is listening, not talking. Begin with the people that it’s easiest for you to reach, your staff, your volunteers, and your board.

Select Your Team
From Peter Senge’s classic book, The Fifth Discipline: The Art And Practice Of The Learning Organization, there are two of his “disciplines: that I want to highlight: Personal Mastery and Team Learning.

The ability/opportunity to learn, develop and practice new skills is basic to keeping people motivated and dedicated, and workplace giving actually provides many of those opportunities for staff, volunteers and board members to do so.

What are their “personal mastery goals” for the next year?

Public speaking, writing and organizing are some of the skills that can be developed while working on a non-profit’s CFC campaign. In your organization’s 2013 operational and communications plans, who on your board and staff have expressed a desire to work on these types of personal mastery goals?

Do some of them, for example, like-and-are-good-at public speaking? If so, you should encourage them to take advantage of speaking opportunities at CFC kick-off events and charity fairs

Team Learning
Once your CFC action team has been selected, the first step is to determine who is going to play what role on that team.

For example, who will be in charge of communications and messaging — including press, social media, and materials (all, with your CFC number included); and, who (it can be a volunteer) will be the person(s) to distribute information and present your organization’s story at CFC special events?

In the context of team learning, also plan on educating the entire staff and volunteers about your organization’s participation in the CFC. If you truly believe that your organization is “donor centric” then it’s important to let your donors choose how they want to support you, and, for many Federal supporters, the CFC is their preferred method.

Senge’s point about team learning is that when teams learn together, they learn faster and are more in sync about the benefits and how to accomplish a particular goal.

What’s next?
In my next post I will discuss Phase III, the CFC Non-profit Campaign Outreach Campaign, which runs from June to November and provides many opportunities to both tell the story of your non-profit and learn from your supporters and your community.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
During his 25-year career in the Federal sector, Bill Huddleston, The CFC Coach,
served in many CFC roles. If you want to participate in the Combined Federal
Campaign, maximize your nonprofit’s CFC revenues, or just ask a few questions,
contact Bill Huddleston
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Take a look at
The Fundraising Series of ebooks.

They’re easy to read, to the point, and cheap 🙂
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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.

It’s a Blogiversary – The 300th Posting of the Fundraising Blog…

Adding new post on WordPress

…and I’m taking this opportunity to thank a few people and emphasize the fundraising rules upon which all of the blog postings are based.

Giving Thanks
First, I have to thank Carter McNamara, owner of this website and creator of the Free Management Library, for inviting me to “invent” the Fundraising Blog, and to keep it going for well over three years … with no end in sight ☺

I also have to thank the other “regular” writers whose experience and expertise have really made this venue a valuable resource for the nonprofit community:
Andrew Grant, an early contributor on the subject of Grants & Grantsmanship;
Natalie Lewis, for her writing on Special Events;
Rick Christ, for his look into Fundraising and Social Media’
Lynn deLearie, for her ongoing, in-depth look at Grants & Grantsmanship;
Jayme Sokolow, for clarifying the mystical world of Federal Grantsmanship;
Bill Huddleston, for sharing his expertise on the Combined Federal Campaign;
Christine Manor, for her insights on the Accounting “Rules” for fundraising;
Tony Martignetti, for beginning our education into Planned Giving; and,
Tony Poderis, for sharing the insights gained over his 40 years in Fundraising.

I also want to thank, for their Guest Postings: Carter McNamara, Gail Meltzer, Ken Ristine, Mari Lane Gewecke and Andrea Kihlstedt. And, I invite you to think about submitting a guest post – to Guest Posting.

Fundraising Basics
Grants & Grantsmanship are not matters of sending as many requests for funding as you can generate to foundations, corporations and government entities. This is about researching, assembling a team, working to create the appropriate grant request for each potential funder, establishing relationships with funders, and demonstrating to funders that you’ve used their support as you’d agreed and that it has made the desired impact/result.

Special Events are not “fundraisers” that get thrown together when you need money. These activities are planned, staffed, implemented and followed-up as any development activity should be. You need a committee that can bring attendees, give at levels that set the example, and get others to give. You need the ingredient(s) that will make people want to attend/participate.

Social Media are marketing venues. Giving via social media is productive only if you can get vast numbers of people to give the “smaller” gifts. Social media are best used to get people to want to know more about you, to want to volunteer, to want to support you, and to thank them for doing all that.

Planned Giving scares a lot of people because they think it’s all about insurance, trusts, complicated documentation and state registration. In fact, 90% of planned giving involves none of that, and it’s easy.

The Combined Federal Campaign raises billions, and too few nonprofits take advantage of that opportunity. The CFC could have federal employees doing face-to-face solicitation on your behalf.

• At the “Base” of it All, Whether it’s about a Major Gifts Program, A Capital Campaign, the Annual Fund, or any/all of the above subject areas, fundraising is about getting the (potential) donor to want to give to you. And the key to making that happen is understanding that the donor gives to satisfy his/her needs, not yours. When you’re getting ready to ask people to support you, ask yourself, “Why would they want to give to you?” The answer probably has less to do with your organization and its mission than you might think.

All 299 of the other posts to this blog are available to you via the links at the right of the on-line page. All postings are accessible by clicking on the category in that list.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Many of the blog postings have been compiled, by subject, in
The Fundraising Series of ebooks.
They’re easy to read, and cheap ($1.99-$3.99) 🙂
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Have a comment or a question about this blog, this posting or about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program? Ask Hank

Special CFC Update: Congressional Hearing on Proposed CFC Regulations

CFC Regulations

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The Congressional Hearing on OPM’s Proposed Changes
to CFC which was originally scheduled for June 26, 2013
has been postponed.
The hearing is tentatively being rescheduled for July 10, 2013
Watch This Space for Updates.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) received more than 800 comments about the proposed changes to the CFC regulations and there is a Congressional Hearing scheduled for Wednesday, July 26th at 1:30 pm (Approximately 60-90 minutes) in the Rayburn House Office building to “Help Congress Better Understand the Impact of what OPM is proposing for the CFC.”

If you’re in the DC area, please plan on attending, if you’re in another part of the country or can’t attend, please contact your Representative to let them know the damaging impact the new regulations will have if adopted as proposed. House.gov lists addresses and phone numbers for all Members of Congress by name and by state, if needed.

To see my complete analysis of the proposed regulations, “Back to the Drawing Board! – An Analysis and Recommended Responses to the Proposed Changes to the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) Regulations” please go here: Analysis

I’m including (FYI) in its entirety, below, the letter from the SavetheCFC coalition, organized by America’s Charities.

Hope to see you at the hearing !!

Bill Huddleston

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

We encourage you and others from your organization to attend.

A large turnout will serve as a testament to the concerns held by many nonprofit organizations. If you plan on attending the hearing, please let us know by emailing Geoff Rixon at [email protected]. Also, please allow time to go through security and locate the hearing room.

It is our understanding the hearing is informational in nature and will allow key members of Congress to become familiar with the proposed changes and the nonprofit sector’s concerns about them. The hearing is under the auspices of the Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service, and Census Subcommittee chaired by Rep. Blake Farenthold (R., Tex.). It is a subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Witnesses are being selected by the subcommittee staff, and we are active in the process of making recommendations. We anticipate witnesses will include representatives of impacted charities, a member of the Save the CFC federation coalition, OPM, and perhaps others.

Following the hearing we will report back to you and let you know what actions to take.

If you have any questions, please contact Barbara Funnell or Robyn Neal at:

[email protected] or [email protected].

Thank you for helping us keep the CFC viable!

Sincerely,

Steve Delfin
President & CEO, America’s Charities

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
During his 25-year career in the Federal sector, Bill Huddleston, The CFC Coach,
served in many CFC roles. If you want to participate in the Combined Federal
Campaign, maximize your nonprofit’s CFC revenues, or just ask a few questions,
contact Bill Huddleston
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen the
The Fundraising Series of ebooks.

They’re easy to read, to the point, and cheap !!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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.

More Direct Mail: Bequests III

White envelope on a brown desk

In May I helped you write your direct mail bequest letter.

This month, tips on what to do with your letter.

If your budget won’t allow direct mail, don’t worry. There are plenty of other bequest promotion channels and I’ll get to them.

These ideas will improve your direct mail bequest letter:

Personalize. Use full inside address and a formal salutation (Dear Miss/Mrs./Ms./Mr.). Please don’t use “Dear friend” or “Greetings!” The subject is too personal.

Don’t Invoice. Use a closed outer envelope, not a window carrier. The subject is personal, private, and serious, so your letter shouldn’t look like an invoice.

Reply. Include a reply card with options for people to tell you they’d like more information or would consider including you in their will, and—most important—that that they already have included you.

Secure. Your reply card gets returned in an envelope. Don’t design it as a self-mailer. The return information is sensitive. I don’t even like self-mailers that fold over to conceal responses because they don’t feel as secure as an envelope.

Stamp It. Apply a live stamp, at the first class presort rate (to save money over first class). I don’t like bulk mail or metering for your personalized, sincere letter.

Direct mail gurus may disagree with what I recommend. They may even have research supporting different advice, but the research I’ve seen is never based on long-term, informational mailings. This is what I do for clients, and it works.

Your objective isn’t strictly to hit a target rate of reply. Largely, mailings like this are educational and informative. Although you need to include the reply device, you’ve hit a home run if someone saves your letter for retrieval when meeting an attorney years from now to prepare or revise their will. This is long-term fundraising.

In July we’ll digress from promotion and I’ll explain why bequests are the foundation of your Planned Giving program and why we’ve started promotion there.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Tony Martignetti, Esq. is the host of Tony Martignetti Nonprofit Radio. He’s a Planned Giving consultant, speaker, author, blogger and stand-up comic. You’ll find him at TonyMartignetti.com.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen
The Fundraising Series of ebooks ??

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

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.

In Government Grant Proposals … You Should Address The Needs of The Reviewers

Grant reviewer going through a government grant proposal

In the process of applying for government grants, we often talk about the need to address the specific agency’s hot buttons and issues in our proposals. But how many of us address the way in which reviewers of our proposals make decisions?

Over the past twenty years, there has been a great deal of research in the fields of psychology, cognitive science, economics, learning, decision-making, and others that should inform the way we design and write proposals. This field is called Heuristics, or the study of how people make decisions.

Daniel Kahneman, a psychologist, has been one of the more influential people writing about decision making. His many articles address the ways in which we think, and discuss the typical biases and errors that are part of that process.

He was the first psychologist to be awarded (in 2002) the Nobel Prize in Economics … for his pioneering work in that field, and his findings have important implications for proposal development.

Thinking, Fast and Slow
For a clear and enjoyable summary of Kahneman’s work, read his best-selling Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011). To summarize his themes, this is what he says about our decision-making processes:
• Most people use fast and frugal mental processes to make everyday decisions and
solve problems because their cognitive resources are limited.
• Most people make decisions and solve problems with the least amount of effort
and information possible. Good decisions do not always require amassing large
amounts of information.
• We use straightforward mental processes to make decisions because of time
pressure, incomplete information, and the inability to calculate consequences.
• These mental processes usually lead to accurate decisions.

Design Proposals from the Reviewers’ Perspective
Based on the research of Kahneman and his colleagues, you should design your government grant proposals with the following characteristics to help reviewers evaluate them:
• Make it easy for reviewers to read and understand.
• Make it easy for reviewers to gather and process information.
• Make it easy for reviewers to move through your proposal quickly and with
as little effort as possible.
• Make it easy for reviewers to quickly find and understand the information
that interests them.
• Make sure that all your major themes have solutions, benefits, and proof.
• Write your grant proposal for non-technical reviewers.
• Use good visuals to emphasize your features, benefits, and major themes.

In grant proposals, as in life, “cues and clarity foster recognition and recall.” A good grant proposal that is easy to evaluate is more likely to be scored higher than a great proposal that is difficult to evaluate.

Read Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow and learn how to design grant proposals that take into account the decision-making processes of the people who will be reviewing those proposals.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dr. Jayme Sokolow, founder and president of The Development Source, Inc.,
helps nonprofit organizations develop successful proposals to government agencies. Contact Jayme Sokolow.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Look for Jayme’s ebook on Finding & Getting Federal Government Grants. It’s part of The Fundraising Series of ebooks

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

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.

Donor Retention and Donor Databases

Group of donors interlinked together

A Guest Posting by Mari Lane Gewecke (The second of two guest postings on this subject)

A client contacted me after being approached by a donor database sales representative with a proposal to solve their donor retention challenges by replacing their current database.

The feature in the new software that most interested my client was an automatic pop-up alert when they have lapsed donors. They felt that this feature was much simpler than making the effort to run a query in their current software and, thus, would help them retain donors.

I am intrigued by the notion that actual human contact with our donors could be replaced by software. But then, I am old-fashioned enough to think that donor stewardship is the way to retain donors.

Knowing the specific needs of the client organization, my suggestion was to review the new software for the following:
• How many options can you use to code a constituent?
• How are grants, campaign pledges and pledge payments recorded?
• How does campaign pledge payment invoicing work?
• How does the software handle importing of new records and/or data elements,
such as phone numbers or zip+4 codes?
• How and in what formats does it export data?
• How is annual development income tracked and reported? By program?
• How does it manage annual appeals?
• How are grants tracked and reported?
• How does report generation work, and what types of reports can be generated?
• How does the mail merge work?
• How do you search the database using multiple criteria?
• How do you segment a group of constituents?
• How are special events managed and reported?

A good software database can satisfactorily address all of the above questions, and can track donor retention through reports. All you have to do is run the appropriate query.

Of course, if a database is too complicated for staff to use it effectively, then perhaps it is a good idea to switch to something easier to understand.

It is better to have something that is limited in scope but usable than something that can do everything, if only you knew how.

In the end, donor retention cannot be accomplished by software. Retaining donors comes from effective donor relations, which involves recognition and communication, not automated pop-ups on a computer monitor.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mari Lane Gewecke, of Lane Gewecke Consulting, has been advising client organizations on their strategic and fund development planning for more than 20 years. Read more about Mari at http://www.incolor.com/mlg/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you heard about
The Fundraising Series of ebooks.

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

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.

Choosing a Nonprofit Database

A nonprofit database

A Guest Posting by Ken Ristine
(The first of two perspectives on this subject, by two guest writers. The second piece will post this Thursday.)

Ever since desktop computers became common, nonprofits have found it a challenge to evaluate and adopt new technology. During the early years my major questions of organizations requesting grants for computers were: What software do you plan to use, and how is it applicable to your operations?

That was important because few software products really worked well for nonprofits and, more critical in those days, not all software worked on all computers.

All too often the answer revealed that not a lot thought had been given to those questions, and that many nonprofits got caught up acquiring technology before they really understood how they were going to use it.

Today hardware is much more flexible, so the major concern is software. And with the “new normal” that’s emerged in the last several years, the key software for nonprofits tends to be fundraising-related.

But, when choosing fund raising software (a database), many organizations fail to consider what information they have, what information they can gather, and what they will do with that information.

I’m in the final stage of helping a small organization, where I’m a board member, to adopt a fund raising database. I say final stages because there have been several key steps.

First, this organization’s key volunteers, such as the board, had to understand the basic changes facing the organization. In our case it is the decline of foundation and corporate grants and the need to grow individual giving.

Second, it was critical make key changes to the board’s monthly financial reports to clearly reflect those revenue sources and trends. The new reporting made the trend clear and has allowed the board to see the changes over time.

This understanding was critical to the third step, a commitment to our future.

The organization has chosen a path for where it needs to be in 3 to 5 years. That plan, and the organization’s commitment to it, tells us what kind of information we are going to need in 3 to 5 years. Knowing that, we know what information we need to be capturing and putting into a database today.

That commitment is critical; information doesn’t fall into a database by itself. It takes work; it requires mundane things like forms to capture information, and data entry. It means a commitment to taking the time and effort to collect and enter that information into the database.

It also takes a commitment for an organization to keeping that information stored and to retrieving it in meaningful ways. That commitment means paying attention to computer backups, report designing/writing, report running, and security issues—as in what information are you going to collect and who is allowed to see any-or-all of it.

Do you want to host your own database? Should it be on a network server? Should you look at a cloud-based system? You can only provide the best answers to those questions for your organization if you have looked at your past and your present, and made a commitment to the future.

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

Ken Ristine is a senior program officer with a private family foundation in the Pacific Northwest. He has worked in nonprofits for over 35 years with experience in program development, fundraising, organizational development, and technology. He writes Ken’s Corner, a blog for the Puget Sound Grantwriters Association and can be reached at [email protected]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you heard about
The Fundraising Series of ebooks ??

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

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.

Developing Financial Information for Grants: A Team Effort – Thank Goodness! (Part I)

A team developing financial information for grants

I admit it: program budgets, operating budgets, budget narratives, budget justifications, and audited financial statements are not some of my favorite things. Fortunately for me, and possibly many grant managers, developing program budgets and other financial information needed for grant proposals is a team effort.

Previously, I outlined the financial information to include in your grant proposals: your line-item program budget; sometimes a budget narrative and a budget justification; and always a statement of program sustainability; and, as attachments: your operating budget for the current fiscal year; your audited financial statement for the most recently completed fiscal year; your IRS Form 990; and, a list of your foundation and corporate grantors, including grant award amounts.

This posting focuses on how you – and the other members of your team – can prepare this information for grant proposals.

Program staff: your NPO’s program staffers are the experts on the programs you are describing in grant proposals. They know the staff, volunteers and other resources necessary to carry out their programs, and you must work closely with them to develop the program budgets you include in grant proposals.
Finance manager/staff accountant: The individual responsible for financials at your NPO may or may not be a CPA; they may be a paid staff member, a contract position, or a consultant. When it comes to developing financials for grant proposals, it doesn’t matter. They are on your team and critical to developing accurate financials you will need when submitting grant proposals and reports.
Database manager: This staff member has their finger on the button, OK buttons. They can provide a list of foundation, corporate, government, and individual donors (and donation amounts) that you will need to submit with some grant proposals.
Audit firm: You will need to submit your audited financial statement for the most recently completed fiscal year, and these folks can provide you with this document, along with your NPO’s IRS Form 990 (if your organization asked them to prepare this along with your audit).
Development director: Depending on the culture at your NPO – and the personality of your DD – they may want to be integrally involved in the preparation of financials needed for grant proposals, or they may delegate this responsibility. Better to ask permission than beg forgiveness ☺

As I wrote in my December 6th post, a growing trend among grantmakers is the adoption of a common grant application. I have used the Missouri Common Grant Application and the budget templates they provide – these are available for download on the website of the Gateway Center for Giving.

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

Lynn deLearie Consulting, LLC, helps nonprofit organizations develop, enhance and expand grants programs, and helps them secure funding from foundations and corporations. Contact Lynn deLearie.

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

Look for Lynn’s ebook on Grants & Grantsmanship. It’s part of The Fundraising Series of ebooks

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

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.

Who Dreams Up This Stuff?

A dream cloud

An e-mail sent to me recently….
“I have read that when setting a donation goal for each major donor prospect you should project 10x their largest single gift. Is this a good rule of thumb?”

This is yet another of the several similar hard-to-believe instances over the years when someone cited such an unfounded and useless “rule.”

I strive to be respectful of my colleagues, but there are times when I cannot abide by what some of them sometimes say is “Gospel” – what they suggest as a “standard,” or a “rule-of-thumb.” Anyone promoting such a “formula,” clearly has no idea how the process works – prospect identification, assessment, rating for giving potential, and the subsequent asking process.

No such (10x) arbitrary extrapolation could/should be presented to any donor, be it a granting foundation, a corporation, or an individual. If you apply that, or any other formula, to any donor source’s largest single donation, and you come up with an ask not based on reality – it can only cause distress and dismay from your prospects. They will know that the organization making such an ask did not do its homework.

When talking about granting foundations or corporations, you simply start by understanding their range of giving, to look, possibly, at their median gift when considering an ask amount. Factor in which types of organizations were favored for their bigger donations, and determine if those organizations have missions and/or constituencies similar to yours?

What kind of reactions and suggestions do you get from your board members as they look over the list of the foundations and corporations – complete with the names of those entities’ officers and top staff? Can you find any friendship and/or business links they might have with foundation and corporate leaders? Can your board members use those connections to help you to determine the appropriate ask amounts?

For an individual who has a history of giving to your organization, you’ll know what their largest gift was. Even then, if I was a donor to your NPO and my biggest donation to you in recent years was $1,000, it would make no sense to arbitrarily peg my next ask at $10,000.

Using the 10x factor, and asking me for that dollar figure would greatly damage your credibility. People in your organization would/should know enough about me to suggest a number based on their perception of my giving capability.

Suppose I could give much more than $10k? You would miss out. Or, suppose my $1,000 gift was a real and hard stretch for me in the first place? I would be uneasy, maybe even embarrassed, to be asked for such a large donation well out of my range of giving, and then having to refuse.

It would be better if people from within the organization did do their homework, so they can ask for a more sensible and defensible gift.

You must do your best to “know” each and every prospect. A made-up multiplying factor, simply will not work, and can be damaging to your relationship with your donors and to your fundraising program.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a question or comment for Tony? He can be reached at [email protected]. There is also a lot of good fundraising information on his website: Raise-Funds.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen The Fundraising Series of ebooks ??
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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.