Director’s Message

One of the influential and significant organizations in our field is the Urban Institute, which houses the Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy. Based in Washington, DC (see www.urban.org), the Center, long led by Dr. Elizabeth Boris and currently by Sarah Rosen Wartell, published in late 2016 a most significant report—State Regulation and Enforcement in the Charitable Sector. PSI sometimes fields questions about regulations, which can be challenging to track and at times understand, so this document is of great value in ensuring NAD organizations are in compliance.

The study is the first systematic analysis of state-level oversight and regulation of charities in the U.S. and was done in collaboration with Columbia Law School and consists of three components. The first is a legal analysis of laws in the 56 U.S. jurisdictions. The second is a survey of the state and territory offices charged with oversight, regulatory and enforcement authority. Interviews with about two-thirds of the officials at these organizations comprise the third section.

A few highlights of the report, which is available on-line, are the following:

• No single state law regarding charities exists; the laws are complex and cover many areas.
• Organization and staffing of the offices also varies.
• Most registration oversight is with the state attorneys’ general offices, followed by secretary of state offices, as well as other entities listed in the report.
• Uniformity is encouraged among states.
• Fundraising abuses, trust enforcement, and governance are the three most common areas of activities.

While the report is complex and cerebral, the astute fundraising professional would benefit from a perusal to at least develop an acquaintance of the basic information it presents, and to have this resource on hand for referral.

As most of our readers no doubt know, the Association of Fundraising Professionals is a leading group for the fundraising profession, and one of PSI’s collegial organizations.  Perhaps one of the best features of the association is its journal, Advancing Philanthropy (click here—featuring the spring issue).

As the website for the journal states, “A true member benefit, Advancing Philanthropy, the bi-monthly magazine published by AFP, provides practical information, useful tools and other resources to help members succeed and advance.”  The short summaries of research studies, special news about chapters or new publications, the feature articles, the Q/A section, and more, all provide a well-rounded information source for the inquiring and thoughtful professional.

We’re particularly proud when on occasion PSI staff and their constituents and/or colleagues are featured in articles or news items.  A recent article, “Show and Tell,” by Wilson “Bill” Levis, Randy Fox, Benjamin Miller and Cathy Craver featured the Fundraising Effectiveness Project (FEP) and provided highly relevant information on understanding how comparative fundraising statistics can be understood and applied to practice, particularly in the area of donor retention.

Launched more than a decade ago and building on the work of pioneers such as Bill Levis and Jim Greenfield, the FEP has seen increasing use by the progressive and careful practitioner and now sports a site on the AFP general website.

The article, “Show and Tell,” has sidebars as well as readable and readily understandable graphs that aid in the application of this innovative and highly useful tool.  The readers is invited to submit comments or questions to FEP@afpnet.org.

We’re focusing on this feature article in Advancing Philanthropy this month because it’s an exciting and progressive tool and because PSI has developed its own version, the Fundraising Fitness Test.  But we also value our collaboration with AFP as a collegial association, which adds to the service impact of both PSI and AFP.  We encourage you to read Advancing Philanthropy for your own professional growth and knowledge acquisition and will keep you informed about essential items that specifically capitalize on our association with AFP.

When I first entered the profession of fundraising, there were few journals—or for that matter, few books as well—that were available for us to read and learn. These were credible and helpful as I developed professionally, and putting together a bibliography of such printed resources was a cinch. That’s no longer true!

On the positive side, there are many journals of substance which contain excellent material and these are the ones that I will bring to your attention each month via the PSI website. On the flip side, there is reading material produced today that perhaps doesn’t quite measure up to high-quality standards and even may border on hype. Of course, these will not be named, except to say, “If you’re going to spend time reading, and money in purchasing subscriptions, make sure that you get the best, that you choose material that truly represents the best in professional practice in fundraising.”

A journal that I have found useful because it contains helpful how-to articles and news items is NonProfit Pro (see nonprofitpro.com). A recent article particularly caught my attention, which appeared in the January 2017 issue:  “The Best of Tech–New Platforms We Love In The Nonprofit Sector.”

As the author, Maya Bur, states that the relationship between nonprofits and technology is always evolving. And at the same time the value, utility, and significance of technology, especially social media, in carrying out our fundraising efforts is of inestimable value. (For data on how social media is working and increasing in returns, write PSI).

She also acknowledges it’s tough to keep up with the developments. I certainly was surprised to read about some of the new strategies such as GiveCampus and Benevolent. Not only does this article introduce us to some of the best platforms but it also explains “Why we like it,” in other words, why professionals use these and get good results.

NonProfit Pro is worth a look, especially for smaller organizations. You may wish to peruse their website and perhaps get a sample copy.

As promised in my last Director’s Message, each month I will summarize an article of significance to fundraising and also highlight the best journals in the field.  Those of you in higher education are familiar with CASE Currents, of course, but this journal frequently has articles that apply to other organizations and best practices.

The December issue of Currents contained a useful article by Sandra Gurvis titled “Ten Reasons Why People Give (and Five Why They Don’t).”  This article points out some of the most useful motivations that fundraising should note.  There is other research on the topic that we can share with you as well, but this is a great start to making ourselves aware or at least reminding ourselves why people would respond to our requests.

For example, the first reason listed is one to which I relate, with pleasure—“Giving is like eating chocolate cake!”  The second reason should resonate with Adventist organizations because we know (and research has proven this) that it’s more blessed to give than to receive—“Giving is an innate trait.”  By the way, a PowerPoint set of slides on the topic of “it’s more blessed to give than to receive” is available by writing to me.

The reasons listed in this article parallel much of the research conducted by Paul Schervish and John Havens, which can be found at this website: http://www.bc.edu/research/cwp/publications/by-topic.html.  There are other excellent resources on that site as well.

Of course, there are valid reasons why people DON’T give as well, and much of it has to do with how we treat our donors, including respecting their wishes and respecting THEM!

For more information on the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, please see www.CASE.org.

Wishing you well!

—Lilya Wagner

Our profession and field of activity is privileged to have a number of excellent publications that inform our practice and keep us up to date. PSI is fortunate to be able to subscribe to what we consider the best in the myriad of information that assails us!

During 2017 I will be sharing with you key articles from the best publications, and thereby informing our constituents and clients about what’s in print currently, which might be helpful for you to know. I will summarize the highlights of key articles and refer you to the original publication. Of course you may know some of these publications, but others might be new to you.  Or, if you’re new to the field, this will broaden your outlook on what’s available “out there,” and supplement what PSI can do for you.

First, of course, is the long-standing publication on which many of us have relied for years. In my experience it’s been the best all-around resource because it includes articles on current issues, highlights best practices, lists funding sources, has some jobs’ information, and in general keeps us current. A fairly recent addition is the Daily Update, which I appreciate very much because it keeps me reading on a regular basis and truly keeps me up to date. I’m talking about, of course, The Chronicle of Philanthropy (see https://www.philanthropy.com/).

For example, an article published in the latter part of 2016 addressed the economic impact of faith-based organizations, both nationally and in our communities. The article cited an important study, the Religious Freedom Project issued by Georgetown University professor Brian Grim and his daughter Melissa, who is a research fellow at the Religious Freedom Center. It will be most instructive for you to peruse this report— https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/rfp.

Faith-based organizations might be able to use some of the information, as reported by the Chronicle, as they make a case. These organizations contribute nearly $1.2 trillion annually to the nation!  Congregations in particular are credited with $418 billion in economic impact. That’s highly significant as we reach into our communities for additional funding, besides income from our immediate constituents (i.e., Adventist church members).

I hope that you will find these monthly columns instructive as they point you to additional resources and also the most valuable publications in our dynamic and exciting field!

As always, my best wishes to you for your continuing success,

Dr. Lilya Wagner

David sat back with a satisfied sigh.  In another week he and his organization were going to celebrate real victory!  Because of his work and management of a capital campaign, the goal of nearly $3 million had been reached–and ahead of schedule.  Besides that, he had incrementally increased the annual fund income and added to the endowment fund, in spite of the dire economic circumstances of the country and his city.

The constituents and friends of his organization had pitched in with unprecedented vigor, and he felt the warm satisfaction of having led in that team spirit.  Seeing a volunteer who had hesitated to get involved in the first place accompany him to close a major gift had been one of the highlights of his professional life.  According to what he had learned, particularly through The Fund Raising School training he acquired over time, having a peer participate in major gift cultivation and solicitation was a significant success factor, and he was happy to give credit to his boss and volunteers for the significant sums they brought in.  He knew his boss appreciated his work and enthusiastically participated in bringing the campaign to a successful closure.

Then his face clouded and he shut his eyes as a rush of memories stormed to the forefront.  His euphoria faded as he remembered some conversations.  First, he could still hear his boss telling him, “I’m retiring.  Yes, I know.  It’s a bit earlier than I had expected but now with this campaign behind us, I think I can do so and not leave you or the school in a lurch.”  David sighed.  His boss had been uncommonly supportive, he knew.  He had heard plenty from his professional friends and in particular a senior-level fundraiser who finally quit her job because the better she did, the less her boss liked it since it demanded more activity and accountability on his part (the board was watching and wasn’t pleased with his avoidance tactics).  His boss went on, “But we’ll have a major celebration and I will remind the search committee for my replacement that fundraising has been very important in building this organization to its present prestigious status.”  David would miss him, but he was fairly confident that his success of the past five years of either reaching or exceeding his goals would carry him through the transition and on to more years at the institution.

Imagine his surprise when he learned that a consultant was being brought in to conduct an audit of his department.  Presumably, the organization’s leadership wanted to see if they were on course and what they should consider for the future.  Why? was the first thought that popped into David’s mind.  Then he relaxed.  With the growth of his program and his evident success, perhaps all the assessment would do would be to show that he was doing well, and perhaps even convince the leadership that his work deserved more support.  He had quickly learned that the organization’s future focus was going to be on program development–not that they had anything for which to apologize, but it seemed like the physical plant and fundraising would not be a priority anymore.

David expected to be included in the preparations for the assessment.  After all, that was accepted protocol, business as usual.  Once again he was surprised when a consultant showed up, bypassed him, and began interviews.  Wasn’t he going to be asked for recommendations on whom to interview, particularly donors and volunteers?  Apparently not.  David was justifiably insulted, and disappointed when he learned who had been selected for the interviews—that the deck had been stacked!  Why? he once again had to ask himself.  What was going on here?  Should he take this as a hint?  Was the fundraising program in danger of being downsized?  Was he not needed anymore?  Normally an upbeat person, David couldn’t fight the dejection and depression that hit him, and hard.  Clearly, he was being marginalized. Maybe it was time to bow out rather than fight unworkable situations.

Finally he made the decision that it was better to resign while showing positive growth and much success, rather than risk a downturn in both funding income and his reputation.  He took little comfort in the sympathy of his professional friends and family.  He truly cared about the organization and this didn’t bode well for his department.  He also worried about what would happen to his donors, those whom he had cultivated and had cared for with sincere feeling.

David gathered his wits and wisdom around him and began a job search.  He had to learn how to present himself and his success, how to match his skills to a particular job opening and modify his resume accordingly, and he had to keep up his confidence and self-respect–perhaps the hardest task in view of what had happened.

As he proceeded on his job search during a tough economic time, he had to do a lot of personal evaluation and soul-searching.  Did he really want to stay in fundraising, he asked himself?  Was it time to turn to some other career experience and expertise he had acquired over the years?  As we leave David to his job search, we can ponder along with him the following conclusions:

Life isn’t fair.  Get over it.

It’s not about you.  It’s about the leadership, and more often than not, it’s about the particular point in time in the organization’s life.

There’s only so much a professional can do.  Sometimes circumstances divert a successful path.

No matter what you do as a fundraising professional, sometimes it just doesn’t work!

Sometimes it’s better to bow out while on top rather than go down with the ship (yes, he knew he was mixing metaphors but at that point he didn’t care).

P.S.  I was recently asked if the content of my columns is real.  Yes, every column is based on real-life incidents, sometimes a bit disguised by a combination of events and circumstances to protect the innocent and not divulge the identity of the not-so-innocent.  If you have nightmares to share, send an e-mail.

Last month we met George and his dilemma at Global Works, where his colleagues were happily entrenched in a world of silos.  “Turfism” frustrated him to no end, and worse yet, hampered his assignment and responsibility for fundraising.  While trying to change the prevailing mentality, George had outlined some benefits for collaboration, along with some possible steps that an organization could take to accomplish that goal.  That, however, was the easy part.  He knew that if any change would take place, negotiation would play a significant role.  So he began to research what negotiation really meant.  Happily, he found just the right source in Forbes.  He read:

If you’re in the middle of negotiations, “non-starter,” “take it or leave it” or “not at that price” shouldn’t be part of your vocabulary.

Most universities don’t offer Negotiation 101, and few parents teach their children the nuts and bolts. It’s a learned technique, and picking up the basics isn’t hard. Whether you’re a veteran sales rep for Pfizer or a Merrill Lynch trader, you can always sharpen your skills no matter extensive your experience.1

That seemed encouraging.  He read on.  The first piece of advice was to listen!  How elementary, George thought.  Then he wondered just how much he had listened to his colleagues for whom the silo-mentality was as comfortable and natural as breathing.  He remembered his own advice–to understand why others might not want to collaborate.  Perhaps he ought to ask fewer questions, complain less about “turfism,” and listen to not only what colleagues were saying but to listen and listen again, particularly paying attention to what was implied as much as what was said.  OK, point number one noted mentally.

The article went on, listing three basic points to consider before even beginning to negotiate.

• At the outset, everything is on the table.

• Unless you’re in the military and can give orders to subordinates, there will be give and take.

• The purpose of negotiation is to cut a deal–not to smash your opponent to bits.

Defining the issue, the article stated, and gathering the information was essential to getting started.  George thought he knew what the issue was, as well as all relevant effects and side-effects, but perhaps he hadn’t really listened   The author wrote, If possible, get relevant information from the other side. Organize it logically so you can refer to key points during the discussions as needed.

Well, what were the real issues?  Lack of office supplies, no matter how frustrating,  wasn’t as relevant as lack of information flow.  How could he bring people to the table and encourage a sharing of information that was so vital to his getting his own job done?  He read on.  Assess the strengths and weaknesses of your position. Think how you can use your strengths to increase your gains.

So, what did he really bring to the organization?  How could he help others at Global Works see the strengths and progress he perhaps represented?  At this point George began to make a list on paper, remembering what he had just read, and adding on as he continued through the article.

• Listen.
• Define the central issue(s) but don’t ignore other side issues which may be equally critical for skillful negotiation.
• Be cooperative but stay alert. Try to anticipate what the other side will say and do.
• Be clear on what you want, but outline what you will give up and the price of this concession.
• Remember that there’s always a way around a problem no matter how big it may seem at the time.
• Make it possible for both yourself and the other party to concede gracefully.  Remember that both sides leave with something in hand after a good negotiation.

George sat back and reflected.  How did all this apply to the basics of fundraising?  He reviewed his list and applied it to his fundraising plans.

• Talk to colleagues once again, this time focusing on their goals for accomplishment, and defining how fundraising fit.
• Identify reasons for the silo mentality, then come up with a minimal list of why collaboration would help achieve the goals in stated above.
• When stating what you want, show how it helps all in the organization.  Your colleagues won’t much care how you get your job done, but they probably will pay attention to reasonable and credible statements about results.
• Acknowledge you won’t achieve everything in the first negotiation, but that you can have minimal win-win steps over time.

George tried his approach.  At first suspicion reigned.  Then reluctance.  But when George found a funder for a shared-interest cause, and showed how most divisions brought strengths to the project, the first step was accomplished.

Six months later, George had an office fully stocked with the necessary supplies, the good will of many colleagues, and one funded project that required half of the senior personnel to work together in order to reach the goal.  Perhaps, he reflected, he should be the one to write a curriculum for at least a one-day workshop if not an academic course which he would name, Negotiation 101!