Category: Finance

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..

When I started my career in fundraising, in the late ‘70s, my first employer was one of the traditional capital campaign-consulting firms — one of those firms that, for the most part, only engaged in feasibility studies and capital campaigns.

Like many like similar firms, there was little attention paid to the broad concepts of “Development” and how a campaign could/would/should impact an NPO’s future relations with its community.

I was a campaign director – the fellow who moved into town for the length of the campaign and worked with the non-profit’s leadership to guide the campaign. Most often, I was working with an NPO for which my employer had already done a “feasibility study.”

Back then, it turns out, whatever firm did the “study,” was the firm that was (almost always) “selected” to provide campaign direction.

It didn’t take me long, especially after talking with my colleagues and counterparts at other campaign-counselling firms, to figure out that the “studies” were not just the foot-in-the-door for those firms, but the means for keeping the door wide-open!!

The “tradition” had been, and still is for many consulting firms, that all study interviews must be confidential. That means, in essence, that an organization hires a consultant to conduct a study where no one could be quoted directly about what they said about their own potential giving or leadership roles … or those of others.

The study report could indicate that some interviewees thought that Mr. Xyz would make a good leader and/or that Mrs. Abc would likely make a large gift, but you couldn’t report that Mr. Xyz said he’d be happy to lead or that Mrs. Abc said she’d make a large gift. Huh !!

The report might have indicated that there were three people who would likely make six-figure gifts, eight people who indicated that they’d make five-figure gifts, and three people who would volunteer to be and would make excellent campaign leaders.

But, because the interviews were confidential, only the consultant really knew who said what, and why, and the “confidential information” was not included in the Study Report.

See Why I Object To Feasibility Studies – 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.

I have been a grants professional since 1974 — that’s a long time. I have worked in agencies that range from the largest single local public agency in the country to a tiny seminary … and everything in between.

During that time I’ve taught countless grant seekers in graduate and continuing education courses, and in professional workshops. In those early days of teaching, I structured my courses around the three basic principles of seeking grant funding — program design, funder research and proposal writing.

The process started with a well-structured, compelling program or mission statement for organizations seeking targeted core support. Then the grant seeker needed to conduct a comprehensive search of grant makers and their priorities.

Today that’s all done electronically, but in years past it required endless hours search through printed directories. That research yielded a list of potential funders that then had to be filtered further — for a variety of factors that “qualified” them appropriate prospects to be sent an application.

Those factors included geography, applicant eligibility, funding range and program compatibility. The final list included only those funders whose priorities matched those of the applicant. Next, the applicant wrote proposals that were consistent with the funder’s guidelines, submitted those applications, and then waited.

That was, and still is the standard curriculum for courses on grantsmanship, whether one-day workshops or semester long seminars.

This structured, sequential approach is, in fact, the process that grant seekers must follow, but it is a process that hardly guarantees success.

Eventually I came to recognize that we well-meaning professionals were doing a disservice to grant seekers by presenting this cookbook approach as the road to getting funded. As I wrote in an earlier blog, grants represent the greatest effort for the least return of any fundraising strategy. Only 5% to 10% of grant application are funded in any cycle.

Want to increase your odds ?? Watch for Part 2 … next Tuesday, June 29 !!

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

For the last 50-60 years, a Feasibility Study has been “required” before planning and/or implementing a Capital Campaign, and its basic concept and structure hasn’t changed in all that time. I contend that it’s more than obsolete, it’s counter-productive.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t first determine the feasibility of acquiring leadership for and attaining the goals of a major fund raising effort.

Of course we must interview prominent members of the community, prior donors and prospective leaders/example-setters. Of course we want to determine if success is likely, even probable. Of course we want to begin the education and cultivation of those who will be campaign leaders and major donors.

But feasibility studies are designed to ask interviewees if they think the goal is feasible, if they think there are any individuals who could lead a campaign to its goal, if the “community” will support the effort. A typical question is, “With your knowledge of the community, do you think/believe that ‘this’ goal can be achieved?”

If you’re asking people if they think you can succeed, you give them the impression that you might not. Why plant the seed of doubt? In fundraising, a “Study to determine Feasibility” is really bad psychology.

Never ask if an interviewee thinks the goal is attainable? Avoid asking “if,” but rather work to create the impression that success is a given. Get people to buy into that success, then you’re more likely to succeed.

What if the answer is “No”? Those questions raise issues you don’t want raised.

If you’re planning (even thinking about) a capital campaign, please, for the sake of your organization and that of your community, don’t do a Feasibility Study !!

Let’s do Planning Studies or Research Projects, but no more “Feasibility Studies.”

Coming soon, discussions of Study Interviews and Confidentiality, and The Planning Study As The Real Beginning of a Program/Activity/Fundraising Effort.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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.

When the question of major gift fundraising first arises, many unsophisticated board members, volunteers and staff immediately begin talking about the “rich and famous” — with Bill Gates being the name at the top of almost everyone’s list.

The wrong assumption that many people make — and one that can become a major time waster — is that an organization’s prospect list should contain the names of every conceivable wealthy person.

Indeed, yes, the first steps of a major gifts effort should include the generation of a list of wealthy individuals. But the distinction is whether they are likely to become “prospects.”

Major Gift Prospects are people who:
1• Have wealth, and may derive satisfaction from using that wealth to advance the causes in which they believe;
2• Are accessible to you and/or (even better) are current major donors to your organization;
3• Have a need that will be satisfied by making a significant gift to your organization;

Ideally, but not necessarily, Major Gift Prospects are also:
4• Aware of the effectiveness of your programs and the business-like manner in which you operate;
5• Passionate about wanting to see your mission achieved; and,
6• Involved with your organization and/or its programs, and demonstrate a commitment to the success of your mission.

You can have a long list of wealthy people, but unless they meet the criteria, they’re not “Prospects.” They’re people you’d like to think of as likely donors, but you have no evidence to support that wishful thinking.

Bottom line is, for people to be Major Donor Prospects; you must have enough of a relationship with them to satisfy the above qualifiers, and to know them well enough to recognize/identify their needs.

Major gift fundraising is more about the needs of the donor, than about the needs of the organization.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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 AskHank@Major-Capital-Giving.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen The Fundraising Series of ebooks ??
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting.

Many Non-Profit Organizations (NPOs) use the term “Major Gifts” to refer to those that are larger than the usual range of gifts that arrive in the mail. Typically, $1,000 is the magic number.

But, unless an organization’s budget and/or the amount to be raised via the fundraising process is unusually small, gifts of $1,000 won’t significantly aid in pursuing financial goals.

A Major Gift, which could be a planned gift, is not based upon exceeding a specific dollar figure — as above, but requires:

1• Amounts that will significantly help to attain fundraising goals
— 1% or more of the goal would be significant. If your goal is
$1,000,000, at $1,000 each, you’d need 1,000 gifts; and, unless
you have the prospect base with that many donors who have given
at that level in the past, that’s not very likely. Realistically, for a goal
of that size, gifts of $10,000 and up are necessary. (We will address
the concept, construction and use of a Gift Table in a subsequent posting.

2• That prospects be cultivated and solicited on a face-to-face basis.
Consistent with the concept/practice of “development,” in order to get
donors to want to make “major” gifts, there must be a relationship
between the donor and the person doing the asking. And that person
must also be one of the people, in not the person, doing the cultivating
and educating of the prospective donor.
(Prospect Cultivation will be addressed in-depth in future postings.)

3• Ask amounts that are well thought out and well researched.
When asking for ANY gift to a non-profit, it should always be for a
specific dollar figure. For a major gift, it should be a figure based
on the donor’s ability to give … and you should always be able to
give the donor a good reason “why that amount” !! (For discussion
in a future posting.)

4• The development and implementation of an individual plan,
or strategy for getting each potential donor to the point where s/he is
ready to make the gift you want him/her to make. (For further discussion
in a future posting.)

[If you’ll describe a particular prospective donor [in depth, no names], we
will suggest a possible cultivation process for that individual.]
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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 AskHank@Major-Capital-Giving.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen The Fundraising Series of ebooks ??
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting.