Category: Finance

This posting by: Hank Lewis

I Recently saw the heading on a listserve posting relating to naming an annual award after a donor. It started me thinking about the ways that a donor could be recognized for their support. (BTW, I didn’t read that posting, just to be sure that whatever I wrote wouldn’t be repetition of someone else’s words.)

One question that occurred to me was the dividing line between recognition and donor perks. But, since that can often be too fine a distinction, I decided to ignore the issue. I’ll let you decide which is which !!

So, I’ll start with “Naming an Award” after a (major) donor. The award can be given to almost anyone for almost any reason; but, the ideal is that the award goes to someone who has dramatically helped advance an organization’s mission or who exemplifies what an organization represents. Note, that this award would not necessarily be based on the size of the donor’s gift … that the only connection is the name of the award, whether the award is an object or cash.

An organization that wishes to honor someone in this manner as a regular part of their donor recognition process must first adopt a set of policies that will guide the process: Is there a specific dollar requirement? Who, by description, would not be eligible to have an award in his/her name? Will the board have to vote on every instance, or will this now become automatic? Will the award be presented every year, every other year, once, for five years, or in perpetuity? What other issues and qualifications must be considered as part of the policy?

I recommend against having an endowment created just to present an award based on the income generated by the endowment. That’d be a waste, unless the “award” is a scholarship … or something similar !!

The Founder’s Award, or an Award named after someone (who was pivotal in getting the organization started, re-started and/or expanded, and getting it wide recognition), can be presented major donors to give them recognition; but, again, this should be guided by a carefully drawn set of policies.

Naming a Program or part of a Program is something I’ve previously addressed, but is worth repeating. For this, the first step is the identification of (parts of) programs that are worth naming: a lunch program for pre-schoolers or seniors; buying science books for the local library; taking kids on a museum field trip; etc.

Naming Gift Clubs … this was addressed in detail in a prior posting.

Naming an Ad Hoc Committee: Occasionally an issue arises that requires some temporary attention. Naming the committee created to research/advise on that issue can be a significant honor for the person being named … especially if that person is invested in that issue/question.

Naming a Table at An Event: It’s been standard for tables to be “named” for people or corporations buying a table at an event. I’m thinking that a table could be named in honor of someone who has previously made a major gift … whether or not they buy a ticket/table for the event. Again, it would help to have a set of policies in place….

I’ve also been told about three other ways major donors are recognized at events or conferences:
• Taking the donor to the “Green Room” to meet the celebrities who will be speaking at the event.
• Having a Reception/Presentation just for (Potential) Donors prior to an event or conference. Please note, that if the reception is just for donors, then a pro rata share of the cost of the reception must be subtracted from the deductibility of their gift. If non-donors or potential donors are also invited to that reception, the “deductibility” question goes away – ask a tax attorney to be sure, I’m not one !!
• Donor Track at a Conference, where specific sessions allow admission only to donors at certain levels.

If you have some ideas/thoughts you’d like to share about Creative Donor Recognition, please comment on this posting. We’ll publish your ideas and give you credit for them.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program? With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, I’ll be pleased to answer your questions. Contact me 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.

This posting by: Tony Martignetti.

Last month I gave you two things you need in place to make Planned Giving feasible.

Now we’re ready to start promoting your inaugural Planned Giving program. Who are the prospects?

Your best prospects are:
 55 and over
 loyal, consistent donors, irrespective of dollar amount
 board members, irrespective of age and giving consistency

Lots of charities don’t have age in their database. If you’re among them, do that donor survey you’ve been thinking about and ask for birthdate (preferred) or age. If you’re planning a wealth or other data screening, include an age overlay.

Maybe your constituency is familiar to you and good prospects are popping into your mind. Give it more thought, canvass your staff, and you’ll come up with still more planned gift prospects.

If none of those apply to you, then rely only on giving history (and your board). If someone has been a donor for 15 or 20 years, there’s a good chance they’re in their late forties or fifties, putting you in the ballpark.

If your charity hasn’t been around that long and you don’t have age data, then you’ve got no choice but to consider each of your consistent donors a prospect. Are you sure you can’t get out a survey?

Inaugurate your program with bequests—charitable gifts by will. For several reasons:
 they’re easy to understand
 everyone should have a will by the time they’re 55
 donors like knowing they can change their minds
 donors like knowing they don’t have to tell you about their gift
 there’s no lifetime cost

Those features make bequests the foundation of any Planned Giving program. Expect three-quarters or more of your planned gifts to come from bequests.

The most effective way to promote gifts by will is personalized direct mail. It’s also the most expensive, so if your budget can’t support that, stick with me. There are plenty of other channels, which I’ll cover in coming posts.
Direct mailers should use all the outreach ideas I recommend, not just mail.
If you can afford to mail to your prospects, write an appropriately worded letter. This is the toughest part, I know. It’s also something I routinely do for my clients, so I have lots of experience to share with you next month.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
In May, “Write The Letter & Other Promotion Channels: Bequests II.”
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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.

This posting by: Tony Poderis

When hiring a professional development officer, the emphasis should be placed on the personality characteristics which are important for the appointed person to be able to effectively carry out the position requirements.

Specifically, you hire someone who can accurately and effectively communicate the mission of the organization, and who understands the importance of close interaction and teamwork among the development office, public relations and marketing, other professional staff and management.

This person will also represent the organization externally in ways which foster the best possible relations with volunteers, actual and potential donors, and sponsors and granting agencies.

In succinct terms the requirements are:
— Knowledge of basic skills of fund-raising management
— Superior organizational and communication skills
— Donor and volunteer service mentality
— Analytical capabilities
— Conceptual skills

Position Temperament
Considerable attention should be centered upon the personality aspect of the individual involved, since, most often, the right temperament will dictate whether or not he or she will be successful. The development officer must be willing and capable of maintaining a low profile, allowing the volunteers and donors to receive the proper credit.

The development professional must be flexible, persistent and very attentive to detail. He or she is an organizer and director, as the principal charge is to develop numerous efficient and compelling opportunities for donors to give their support, and at the same time making those experiences satisfying and rewarding for them.

From a newspaper essay written by syndicated columnist Sidney Harris titled “Temperament for High Office May Succeed More Than Talent”:

“Most of us prefer to ignore our temperamental incapacities for certain jobs and functions. We imagine that because we have the skills and the knowledge and the expertise, we are thereby fitted for the task.

“Yet it has been my observation over the years that temperament is the most important ingredient in many crucial posts – and one that is too often ignored, both by those who proffer the jobs and those who accept those jobs.

“It has also been my observation that more people succeed by temperament than by talent, especially in those jobs where relating to people is the prime ingredient. A person cannot be dumb, but need not be especially smart if he or she has a native shrewdness and tact in handling people; whereas a far smarter person may come to catastrophe by overvaluing brains at the expense of other personality factors.”
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you 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.

This posting by: Jayme Sokolow

Ready to be a Warrior?

At the 2012 APMP (Association of Proposal Management Professionals) national conference, participants were treated to a lively address … about proposal professionals as warriors, by Eric Gregory, Vice President for Business Development at CACI, Inc.

I do not agree with his metaphor or with everything that he said, but Gregory is a thoughtful person, a very successful proposal professional, and someone who has contributed a great deal to the proposal profession. For these reasons, his remarks should be taken seriously.

Although Gregory was addressing proposal professionals who work in companies submitting proposals primarily to federal agencies, his remarks also apply to proposal professionals working in nonprofit organizations who apply for grants from federal agencies.

Gregory wondered whether successful proposal professionals have a certain personality or perspective on their work? He concluded that there are ten attributes to a proposal warrior – as follows:

1. Courageous – a proposal professional performs well under difficult conditions, often by enduring criticisms, doubts, anger, disappointment, long hours of work, and difficult assignments.

2. Committed – to working on a team and winning bids.

3. Leader – leads by example and works at least as hard as anyone else on the team. As a leader, a proposal professional is an optimist and believes that his or her proposals can be improved.

4. Decisive – thoughtful but always action-oriented.

5. Agile –embraces change and reacts quickly when changes can improve a proposal.

6. Creative – capable of developing new solutions to problems and finding new ways to win bids.

7. Disciplined – very focused on winning bids and is relentless in taking action to achieve this goal.

8. Compassionate – works hard to defend his or her work and the team along with the best interests of the organization.

9. Intelligent – uses his or her intelligence to become more successful and create better proposals.

10. Resilient – works well under stressful and difficult conditions.

Gregory concluded his presentation by pointing out that proposal professionals often are underappreciated by their organizations. They must find ways to convey their value to senior management and make a strong case for their importance to their nonprofit’s success.

What do you think about Gregory’s approach? Is he accurate? Are there any traits you would omit or add? Are you a grant proposal warrior?

According to Dr. Heidi Grant Stevenson, a blogger for Psychology Today and the author of an intriguing new book, Succeed: How We Can Reach Our Goals (2011), even very bright people often do not understand why they succeed or fail. Recent research on achievement shows that successful people reach their goals not because of any inborn traits or unusual intelligence but because of what they do inside and outside the workplace.

Like Dr. Stevenson, Gregory believes that a certain set of attitude and behaviors are likely to lead to success. Although Dr. Stevenson’s list of successful traits does not exactly match Gregory’s list, there is a plenty of overlap.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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.

This posting by: Hank Lewis

In a recent exchange of email….

“What’s the standard thought on nonprofit annual employee appeals (a.k.a. asking your employees to donate back to the organization)? Is this standard practice? Is it a good/bad idea?”

Like almost everything else in fundraising, there is no “standard” thought about annual employee appeals. There is, however, standard thinking that questions whether you can (or should) run an effective fundraising program if an organization’s insiders don’t/won’t support it.

• It’s always good to be able to say to (potential) donors that all of the members of your “family” give … to the best of their ability !!

• How can you ask outsiders to give to your organization if the board and staff don’t?

• Now, to be able to leverage “family” giving effectively, it would be best if all “family members” made a gift early in the year, i.e., early January. That way, you’ll be able to say to potential donors (individual, foundation and corporate) that every board and staff member is also a donor.

• Should it become known that your family members don’t support your organization, you can be sure that there’d be a drop-off in contributions from outsiders. And, by the way, many foundations ask about staff giving … and consider that information when deciding on grants.

• I have a problem with the concept/reality of asking staff to “give back.” Unless a staff member (or one of their family members) has benefitted from your services, the question of giving back is moot. Asking staff to contribute money to your organization is not “giving back.” One must assume that they are being paid for the work that they perform – that there has been an even exchange of value.

• Staff should support the organization they work for because they believe in the mission and get satisfaction from seeing what is accomplished on a day-to-day basis.

“I’ve had conversations internally and with acquaintances in other nonprofits about this topic. There seems to be two primary thoughts (as you say, no standard). One is exactly what you’ve stated…. The other goes something like: nonprofits pay so little to begin with (compared to the corporate world) that it’s an insult to ask employees to give back to the organization they’re already working so hard for.”

• That “insult” excuse is what people say when they’re afraid to ask, and/or when there is lousy employee morale. It’s never a question of whether an employee can afford to make a gift – even the poorest person can afford a dollar. It is a question of whether an employee feels good enough about the organization/mission to want to give.

The reality should be that employees (and board members) give to the best of their ability. And, being able to say that that is the case can only strengthen your position when asking others to give.

Caveat: Staff members should not be required to give. Giving is their decision to make, and must not be coerced.

One last thought: A nonprofit organization should never have an annual appeal … either for “family” or outsiders. Donors should be allowed/encouraged to give as often as is comfortable for them – not just once each year !!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program? With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, I’ll be pleased to answer your questions. Contact me 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.

This posting by: Lynn deLearie.

Since Andrew Grant wrote in his post, Impress Funders with Your Grant Proposal: Target Your Outcomes, “funders have become consumed with the notion of outcomes assessment.” (The link to Andrew’s piece is at the bottom of this post.)

I agree, and have found the evaluation section of proposals to be the most critical in winning grants. Potential funders want, and need to know how you will determine if your programs are successful and, by extension, if their money will be well spent.

Here’s how to write an effective evaluation section of your grant proposal:

1. Work with your program staff! As I wrote in last month’s post, “Using Credible Research To Write Compelling Needs Statements,” your program staff members are the experts on what your organization does, and they’ll have the most relevant and up-to-date research related to their programs. Work with them to define the goals, outcomes and metrics for their programs, and then include this information in grant proposals.

2. Include quantitative metrics. Quantitative metrics are measurable, and grant reviewers are increasingly asking for more meaningful data. For example, one foundation requests that, “for an academic measurable outcome we strongly suggest using a standardized test as the instrument to gauge improvement.” Remember that your programs are intended to change behaviors and/or attitudes. Measuring how many people showed up is no longer good enough. However, measuring knowledge before and after a particular program activity (pre- and post-testing) would be a viable quantitative metric.

3. Define whether you will conduct an internal evaluation or hire an outside evaluator. Who will collect the program outcome data, and what records will you keep? Will this be the responsibility of your program staff, your administrative staff, your grant manager, or an outside evaluator? Who will interpret the data and report on the findings? Include this information in the evaluation section of your grant proposals.

4. Use your evaluation findings to modify program design. Your evaluation findings should be used to assess your program’s effectiveness, AND to inform your future work. If your evaluation findings show that a particular program outcome was not achieved, discuss this with your program staff. Why do they think the outcome was not achieved, and what would they change going forward? Include this information in the evaluation section of your grant proposals. This will demonstrate that your organization takes program evaluation seriously. You are evaluating your programs to improve their effectiveness, not just because your grant applications require that you do so.

Impress Funders With Your Grant Proposal: Target Your Outcomes
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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.

This posting by: Tony Poderis

We know that a Planning Study (see: What is a Planning Study) is a tool a non-profit uses to determine whether it should go ahead with a Major (capital or endowment) Fundraising Effort.

Such a Study is essential for an organization in order to assess the likelihood of success before entering into a campaign. An organization that does not do so puts the campaign, the project for which the money is to be raised, and even the non-profit itself at risk.

Sad to say, however, when many such studies are conducted, and when the Study Reports are completed and presented to commissioning organizations, all too often their leaderships balk and resist implementing the Study Recommendations simply because the study may tell them what they don’t want to hear.

Those leaders find it so hard to believe, though they must, how their “family-and-friends” — the interviewees they’ve suggested, may actually be critical of the organization’s operation under their leadership.

For those leaders, let me say, “I understand. I do know where you’re coming from – and I empathize, but your rejections of fact can be seriously counterproductive.”

You suggested that those people be interviewed in the first place — you knew they cared and supported the organization, or had influence in the community you serve, and you wanted their input.

The Study Report, then, provided you with their thoughts and perspectives, and you must, therefore, give serious consideration to what they said.

And you must ... make sure that you take the time to go over every element of the Study Report. Don’t skip over any of the negative … that on first reading may seem minor. Be even tougher in your analysis than the person who wrote the Study Report and made the Recommendations.

When it comes to deciding whether or not to go ahead with the campaign, you must give credence to the thoughts/perspectives/recommendations you solicited.

It would be folly to take the time to conduct a Planning Study, spend the money on it, then risk alienating people important to the organization by ignoring their input.

An organization that ignores some or all of a study’s findings makes a mistake that can fatally damage the campaign, the project, and even the organization.

The study might recommend against proceeding with the effort until the nonprofit first repairs the (perceived) “faults” and/or installs new elements of its basic infrastructure – an updated strategic plan, a better defined mission, a strengthened board, or a myriad other things. Diligence is essential in carrying out such recommendations.

I am still awaiting the final payment for a Study from an organization that didn’t like what the 25 people they chose, and whom I interviewed, had to say.

In another instance, I had to fight tooth and nail to get an organization’s executive director and president to share the results of a study with their own board – as they had promised to do going into the process. The more negative a study’s results, the more important that they be heeded.

If the Study’s results tell you so, it is far better not to start a campaign, even if it means postponing or giving up on a project, than to begin a campaign that fails.

The decision whether or not to go ahead with a major effort is one that the organization makes in relative privacy. A failed campaign is a public event that reflects negatively on:

     • Campaign leadership
     • Campaign volunteers
     • The organization’s board
     • The organization’s staff
     • The organization’s image

A failed campaign makes it harder for future campaigns to succeed. People give to organizations they perceive to be competent. The best volunteer leadership for both fund-raising endeavors and governance is drawn to organizations that are perceived to be winners.

If a Study tells you what you don’t want to hear that was said by those having the influence and affluence that would affect your campaign and your organization, don’t blame them or the people who conducted the study and don’t try to hide the results.

Listen to and act upon what your organization’s family and friends tell you. Fix what must be fixed, explain what can’t be fixed, and at least acknowledge and explain what may be mistaken impressions and opinions.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you 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.

This posting by: Bill Huddleston

Massive CFC Changes Proposed

…Riveting Reading in the Federal Register
I realize I’m mixing metaphors in the headline, but the intent is to get your attention about something that is very important to any nonprofit that is enrolled in the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC), or is considering applying in the future.

During the 50th Anniversary of the Combined Federal Campaign in 2011, there was a special advisory council formed, named the CFC-50 Commission with the charter to hold several public hearings and make recommendations to the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on ways to improve and streamline the CFC.

As I write this (in late January), the draft CFC regulations have been proposed, but they have not yet been published in the Federal Register, which is the government site where all proposed government regulations are posted. The standard window for public comments is 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal register.

By the time you’re reading this, the regulations will probably be published, and I will have information on my website about them and how to comment. As citizens, anyone can comment and suggest improvements or concerns about proposed government regulations, which by law, the sponsoring agency must consider.

I realize that this is different than all of my other postings on how to use the CFC as one of the tools in your development toolbox for generating unrestricted funds, but this is a rare opportunity to make the case about ways to improve the CFC for both charities and donors. Regulations have been updated over the years, with the most recent being in 2007 when the CFC code numbers went from 4 digits to 5 digits and many of the application hurdles were eliminated.

These proposed cfc-50 rule changes are a much bigger deal. They’re on a par with changing the rules of football so that touchdowns are worth 10 points, but it’s now to be played on a 120-yard field.

The proposed regulations print out on 53 pages so I can’t cover it in detail in this post. The intended goal of the proposed regulations is to “streamline the operations and increase the effectiveness of the program to ensure its continued growth and success.”

I certainly agree with that goal, but I do have two types of concerns with the draft regulations, one type is that I think some of the proposed regulations will not have that effect, and indeed will instead have a negative effect, such as the proposal to completely eliminate the printed catalog of CFC charities.

The second type of concern I have, and this is even more fundamental is what is not included in the proposed regulations, and there is no mention about whether it was considered or not. As fans of Sherlock Holmes will recognize from the headline above, in the case of the Silver Blaze Mystery the major clue was the fact that the watchdog did not bark. In the case of the proposed CFC regulations, what’s missing is any consideration or approach for allowing retirees to continue to contribute to their favorite charities through the CFC, if they wish to do so. Given the amount of Federal retirements that have already taken place, and will continue to occur as the baby boomers retire, this has huge consequences for the CFC and the charities the Federal donor supports.

Another proposed rule change is to have some type of application fee associated with the CFC, but the amount and how this would work is not specified.

Another example of something not mentioned, is that when the 2007 regulations were proposed, one of the stated reasons for going to a 5 digit code was so that any Federal employee could donate to any nonprofit, regardless of where he or she lived. For example, if someone living in the Washington DC area wanted to donate to mom’s favorite CFC nonprofit back in Iowa, they could. This is not allowed under the current organization for local charities, and it is not mentioned in the proposed regulations.

I will have a detailed analysis of the proposed regulations on my website by the time you are reading this. Please check it out for both the analysis, and instructions on how to comment on proposed regulations through the Federal Register.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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 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.

This posting by: Hank Lewis

I received the following email:
I am involved in local education foundations which is a 501(c)(3). We do some really neat things that help to educate kids in our community, and we have a few big fundraisers each year. On our website and in the marketing info for the events, we’ve been using language like…” Funds raised are used for mini-grants for creative and innovative class programs, scholarships, specialized educational equipment and staff training in our schools “.

The fact is that we do use a portion of the funds for necessary overhead – and we recently hired an executive director with the goal of moving the organization forward. Does this “paying of our overhead” need to be mentioned in statements of what we do with income from the fundraisers? Is it illegal or unethical (or misleading) not to mention that a portion of the funds raised will be used to cover overhead, or is this a “given”?

==================
I responded:

I can’t speak to what the laws in your state might require regarding disclosure/transparency; but, I have no hesitation in pointing out the ethical question.

You raised the issue, and there will likely be others outside of your organization who will do the same – “Is all the money contributed to the foundation being used to fund programs and activities to (directly) benefit the students?”

If the answer is, “No,” then you can’t use any wording that would say, or even suggest, that that is the case. At the least, it would be unethical. At the worst it could be construed as fraud.

Use a statement such as: “Over 90% of all funds raised go directly to support programs and activities to benefit our kids.” Or: “All contributions, directly or indirectly, are used to support programs and activities to benefit our kids.”

On another subject, I’m not sure how to interpret your reference to “a few big fundraisers.” I would hope that you are not relying on events to provide all/most of your funding. That, for the long-term survival/effectiveness of your foundation, can be disastrous.

If you’re not securing major gifts from individuals, you’re missing out on the biggest source of funding for nonprofits — 60% of all contributed dollars to nonprofits come from such support.

In addition, I hope that your new Executive Director is well versed in “real development/fundraising,” and will spend a significant percentage of his/her time working with and training volunteers to make it happen.

I’ll add this closing thought, that so much of the fundraising potential of (so called) Local Education Foundations (LEFs) is never realized because the organizers/leaders/board members never get past the PTA and/or Bake Sale mentality.

No matter the state of the economy, there will always be corporations, foundations and individuals that can/would provide significant support … if the approach was based on the development process and not just focused on “fundraisers.” Gad, I hate that word !!
(See: ‘Development’ and ‘Fundraising’ are Not Synonymous)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program? With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, I’ll be pleased to answer your questions. Contact me 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.

This posting by: Tony Martignetti.

Last month I gave you five reasons why you should have a Planned Giving program.

Your organization doesn’t need much to get started, but you do need a few things in place. Here’s what I look for to decide whether Planned Giving is feasible at a nonprofit.

7 years under your belt. I used to say a nonprofit should have a steady 10 years working in its mission, but I’ve relaxed that to seven. You need that because you’ll be asking prospects and donors to include you in their estate plans, which will mean cash to you at their deaths (for the overwhelming majority of planned gifts).

Donors need confidence that your work will survive them. If you’ve been at it for less than seven years, your longevity is questionable. Everyone hopes your good work will live on forever, but there won’t be great confidence if you’ve been working it less than seven years.

Individual donors 55 and over. That’s the age I start promoting Planned Giving. It’s the age at which large numbers of people begin recognizing their will or other estate plan as a method of charitable giving. Before then, it’s much more about guardianship for children and security for college educations and the mortgage, as well as gifts to family.

To be sure, thirty- and forty-somethings include charities in their wills. But not in large numbers. Not in numbers large enough to justify spending your scarce time and money promoting the idea to them. It’s an unwise use of resources.

I also want you to avoid risking the much greater likelihood that those younger than 55 will change their minds and remove you from their wills.

In our twenties, thirties and forties do we know the charities that are close enough to us that we’ll maintain them all our lives next to our spouse, children and grandchildren in our will? With as many as 60 or 70 years to live–no we don’t.

The sole exception to this is board members. As the most invested volunteers, each of them should include you in their will. Some will remove you after their term, but while they’re serving you should be in their estate plan.

The Stelter Company has research that disagrees with me, and encourages Planned Giving promotion at age forty, much younger than I counsel. There’s a link to their research and my response on my blog.

With these two features in place, your organization is ready to promote Planned Giving.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Next month, “Start Promoting Planned Giving: Bequests I.”
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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.