skip to Main Content

November 2017

The Art of Biting Your Tongue*

No matter how much equanimity one might have, there are times in a fundraiser’s life when emotions and feelings tend to take over rational thought and action.  Whether this tide of mixed thoughts and reactions is justified or not, our emotions sometimes take over.

My friend, a respected consultant, told me the following of a time when she felt emotions take over.  “During my tenure as Associate Vice President for University Advancement, I worked for a vice president who lived over 50 miles from the university where we were employed.  He served for four years in this position and during the last year began to spend more and more time away from his role as VP.  I was asked to attend many meetings, including administrative planning sessions, and to represent the department for numerous functions while still carrying my regular workload.  I remember dealing with emotions that bordered on frustration, anger, disappointment, and fatigue due to this additional work load.  

“In particular I remember one experience that came near the end of this VP’s tenure.   I received a request from him to respond to a letter that was directed to him but was very complex, needed some research and some finesse in responding and would go out under his signature.  I felt absolutely overwhelmed at that time so I sent the letter back to him requesting that due to my heavy workload, would he please respond.  He sent the letter back with a note that he would not be able to do that and wanted me to prepare the letter.”

At this point, of course, those of us professionals have several reactions.  Does a boss have the right to ask an employee to do anything and everything?  What recourse does an employee have when the request is unjust?  How do we, when a request does seem to be unreasonable and well outside of professional leadership behaviors, react so that we don’t lose control of ourselves and the situation?  Here’s how my friend handled her dilemma.

“My first response was anger, frustration and feeling how unfair this situation was.  I had asked for relief and been refused.  I chose to not make an issue of this and sought for inner strength to carry out the task without complaining to other staff members because this would confirm their already biased views against our VP.  I did choose to share my frustration with someone outside of our department and she allowed me to vent while encouraging and supporting me.  After that, I was able to focus on the letter and realized it did not take me as long to complete as I had originally anticipated.  The problem the letter represented was the cumulative effect of all that I had been experiencing.”

I personally offer kudos to my friend for mature, professional actions and reactions.  She shared suggestions  that allowed her to handle her situation in the best ways possible.  She said, “By following the three steps of 1) focusing on the task at hand, 2) not burdening others in my department and 3) discussing the situation with someone outside of my department, my initial emotional reaction was dissipated.  I also discovered that I had the experience and inner resources to set aside my emotions and accomplished the task in record time.  I chose to complete the project without allowing my emotions to totally consume me.   Shortly after that, while representing my area at an all-day planning meeting, other vice presidents expressed appreciation and understanding for my situation and affirmed my contributions.”

As I stated earlier, we react differently to those irritations and irrationalities of our fundraising experiences, depending on our personal orientation, personality type, and level of experience as well as emotional maturity.  A few suggestions might help us take this to the next level.

  1. Take a deep breath and try to analyze the situation carefully.
  2. Allow yourself the deepest, darkest feelings but bite your tongue.
  3. Find a respected, trusted individual to whom you can vent, but avoid selecting a colleague who won’t have an unbiased view and therefore will either become too involved or may expose your reaction before you’re ready to act.
  4. Take time, even if it’s only a half hour, to think about this.  If you are a “feeling” person, make yourself think as rationally as possible.  Remember, your reactions may have an effect on your job as well as your career.
  5. Perhaps write down what you would LIKE to say, then delete the file permanently.
  6. Finally, select your best choice in terms of actions and reactions and know why you are selecting this particular course of action.

Of course, sometimes it’s necessary to vent, but choose carefully to whom you unleash your words!  And don’t forget, there are times it’s best to bite your tongue, no matter how much it hurts.  

*Due to the sensitive nature of this column, the author prefers to remain anonymous.

October 2017

Should we pursue a planned gift or a current gift?

By Eddie Thompson

The correct answer to the above question is BOTH.  A trend among nonprofits is to combine responsibility for securing major gifts and planned giving into one position. Recently, I was speaking at a conference and took the opportunity to sit in on another presenter’s session. He asked how many fundraisers were wearing two hats—responsible for both major and planned gifts. The hands of most attendees immediately shot up.

On the negative side: This dual responsibility often results in a concerted effort toward current gifts to the detriment of future gifts. The tendency is to go after the major gift as a first priority and the planned gift as a distant-second option because of 1) the demand for current gifts and 2) often performance metrics only rewards fundraisers for current gifts.

On the positive side: Wearing two hats actually puts fundraisers in the position of soliciting blended gifts—a mix of current and future gifts. By incorporating deferred gifts and current gifts into blended-gift decisions, the overall solicitation process addresses the two big donor questions.  Do I have enough to live on for the rest of my life?  What should I give to my children?

I’m bewildered sometimes at things I hear from institutional executives about their focus on current gifts (generally gifts from discretionary income) and the lack of focus on gifts from net worth.

As powerful as a long-term fund-development strategy can be in creating organizational momentum, the reverse is equally true with a shortsighted strategy. In other words, the approach that has the potential of directly addressing donor anxieties is abandoned for a strategy that often increases it—that is, soliciting only current gifts from discretionary income. 

THE BIG IMPORTANT POINT

We talk through these two big questions each year with thousands of donors in our estate planning discussions. We approach both questions from a position of disinterested benevolence—that is, we’re not soliciting for the organization but focusing exclusively on donor needs and desires, as well as giving objectives. Since we have no other agenda, they tend to unload anxieties about family and finances, as well as their anxieties about the nonprofits they support.

Here’s the big point: Donors discuss their deep personal concerns and anxieties with me on a regular basis, even donors I’ve only known for a short time. That’s not because I’m very smart or have an engaging personality. It’s primarily because 1) I talk to them about future gifts, 2) I’m very attentive to their anxieties, and 3) I focus exclusively on their interests. This is not rocket science. It’s something any officer with the dual responsibilities for both planned giving and major gifts can do with a blended-gifts approach.

Getting to know your donors, focusing on their needs, and understanding their concerns all happens naturally in discussions about future-gift commitments. By scaling back on long-term planned giving initiatives, organizations, in effect, scale back on the opportunities for the deepest personal conversations with their donors.

Eddie Thompson, Ed.D., Founder and CEO of Thompson & Associates, the nation’s premier charitable estate planning firm, brings over 35 years of planning experience to the leadership of his company established in 1996. Eddie has planned over 3,200 estates ranging from $2,700 to almost a billion dollars.

Today, this innovative and proven process is engaging organizations and their donors nationwide.  The Thompson & Associates’ team, consisting of over 45 attorneys and experienced professionals, help individuals and families plan to pass their estate assets to their family and to the organizations they support in a manner consistent with their values and objectives. This proven process delivers unprecedented results for donors, their families and nonprofit organizations.  This unique process resulted in the successful completion of estate plans that directed several billion dollars to charities and billions more to families.

Copyright 2017, R. Edward Thompson

September 2017

Mistakes to Avoid in Building Your Board – Part 2

By Ken Turpen, CFRE

Every nonprofit executive knows the importance of having a dynamic board and how it can ensure the future of the organization. Beyond the common, but still relevant, acronyms that most use to define which board members to select (i.e., W.W.W. as in board members who provide Work, Wealth, and Wisdom, or T.T.T. as in Time, Talent, and Treasure), there are plenty of mistakes to avoid when selecting individuals to create the perfect board for your nonprofit. I’ve made some of these mistakes and I’ve seen other mistakes made over the years. Don’t you make them! (See Part I in the August column.)

5. Failure to hold out for the right “Talent.” Too often nonprofit executives forget the value in waiting for the right match. Perhaps that’s because we fail to have discussions about what talents are needed. One of the best ways to manage this process is to create a board matrix and to keep track of what type of board members we have and where we would like to go in the future. I think it’s important to make a board as diverse as possible while reflecting the community it serves, all with the understanding that they have to come with the three W’s or T’s. I’ve seen more than a few boards over the years that had a board member with the needed treasure, but had absolutely nothing to contribute to board meetings and was not respected in the community. Most of the time those individuals wound up on the board because they could contribute significantly, but at a huge cost to the board and the nonprofit organization in general. Those individuals were “know-it-alls,” or “bullies,” and other board members were then turned off and tended to lose their passion for board service. My suggestion is to hold out for the right person rather than choosing someone who is available or convenient. Look for individuals who are successful in whatever they’ve done, and hope that their success will rub off on your organization. The best word to describe what you’re looking for is finding the right board member who has “passion” for your organization, not just wealth.

6. Lack of board training. Getting the right people around the table is half the battle; the other half is making sure that they understand what their roles are as board members once they take a seat (literally). In my career, I’ve seen plenty of talented boards (and yes, the members were writing checks to the organization) who thought their role was to “run” or manage the organization. Obviously it’s not. Great boards spend their time collectively visioning for the future of the organization, holding the administrative team accountable to the public, and helping make things happen for long-term success. Boards need to be trained by an outsider who can say the tough things that can’t be said safely by paid staff or the executive director. If you can’t afford to hire someone to train your board, ask another nonprofit executive to help. An hour spent every year on understanding board member roles is time well spent. Every three to four years the board should spend a half-day in board training and building a greater understanding of how they can collectively make a difference.

7. Failure to utilize term limits. Not having term limits is one of the most common mistakes made in nonprofit organizations. Perhaps the reason for this is that few individuals think of this when establishing the bylaws for the newly formed nonprofit. The founders are simply in a mode where they are glad to have anyone to serve at all, and don’t see the long-term implications of rotating board members off the board and finding new ones. Perhaps it’s time to create a bylaws committee of the board and then create some definitions for length of board service. I remember starting out as a nonprofit executive and feeling that if I lost a particular board member it would ruin the board and hurt our organization. While it’s true that an individual board member can have significant impact, it’s also true that bringing in new people with fresh ideas can also have long-lasting positive results. Another positive about rotating individuals off the board is the reinforcement that the organization’s success is never about any one individual; it’s a team approach. Finally, our jobs have tremendous political implications and sometimes having board members rotating off according to policy is a “Godsend” and will do the least amount of damage as opposed to asking them to resign. My recommendation is that board members serve either a two or three-year term, with the option of serving one more term if they have completed a self-evaluation and have successfully fulfilled their responsibilities in the first term. The executive director should administer the self-evaluation and a private interview with the board chair. This should help the board member decide whether another term is appropriate. Remember that once board members have rotated off your board, they can serve again in the future, and sometimes those board members end up being the most valuable.

8. Not preparing for board meetings. Without getting into “mistakes made in creating effective board meetings,” I do want to mention that one of the reasons we have a difficult time finding the right board members is because the word has gotten out that our board meetings are too long and deal with too many operational decisions. Recruiting the right board members means that you are usually looking for very successful individuals to serve who have a huge passion for your work, but are often way too busy to run your organization, nor do they want to. So, spend some significant time planning your meetings, rehearsing the agenda, and getting materials and the agenda prepared and circulated well in advance. When you invest significant time in preparation for these meetings, board members will appreciate how professional their board service is, and how valuable you think their time is. Remember, your board members only have so much time to serve. When I served as a board chair for a private school, I would always have to ask myself, “Would I rather have them sitting around discussing how much to charge for a pint of milk, or out raising funds for scholarships and capital needs?” The answer is simple. Give the board members great things to accomplish and they will rise to the challenge. Give them nothing to do and they’ll be bored to tears and look for ways to help you “run” your program.  

In closing, great nonprofit executives will spend time educating themselves about how to manage boards and recruit the right board members. It’s a beautiful and dynamic process that deserves time and attention. I recommend that you join some nonprofit blogs on boardsmanship so that you can read and contribute to recent thoughts and ideas. Become familiar with BoardSource. They are considered a leader in nonprofit boards and have tons of materials that can help you with your own education and some things for your board members as well. I subscribe to Gail Perry’s free e-newsletter on boards and she always has great ideas. She wrote a wonderful book on boards called “Fired-up Fundraising: Turning Board Passion into Action.” Finally, I will always be indebted to Robert C. “Bob” Andringa for his contribution to my understanding of how to build a successful nonprofit board when I had the opportunity to receive training from him. His book “Nonprofit Board Answer Book: A Practical Guide for Board Members and Chief Executives” is wonderful and full of great resources.  You should read it, too.

Ken Turpen, CFRE, Vice President at Thompson & Associates, has served as a senior foundation executive of five nonprofit organizations during the past 25 years and consultant in secondary and higher education, and healthcare fundraising. He has unique insights into nonprofit boards, CEO leadership, management, community activism and donor perspectives as his career has brought him opportunities to excel in each of these areas.

August 2017

Mistakes to Avoid in Building Your Board – Part 1

By Ken Turpen, CFRE

Every nonprofit executive knows the importance of having a dynamic board and how it can ensure the future of the organization. Beyond the common, but still relevant, acronyms that most use to define which board members to select (i.e., W.W.W. as in board members who provide Work, Wealth, and Wisdom, or T.T.T. as in Time, Talent, and Treasure), there are plenty of mistakes to avoid when selecting individuals to create the perfect board for your nonprofit. I’ve made some of these mistakes and I’ve seen other mistakes made over the years. Don’t you make them!

  1. No job description. When meeting a prospective board member for “the” discussion about their possible membership, I think it’s imperative that you have a board member job description in tow. That’s correct. Carry a physical piece of paper with you that has their job description listed in bullet points. If the board member knows what is expected, in clearly defined language, and right up front, you have a much better chance at having a happy and productive board member than not. Without the job description, they will wonder what exactly is expected of them. The fear we usually have is that we think we will blow them away with the enormity of what we need from them. But the truth is that we need to identify individuals to serve who see our mission as critical to the needs of the community or society, and they feel honored to be asked and deeply respect us for being honest with the expectations that are required for service.
  2. There’s no required sacrifice. This mistake is directly related to “no job description,” but bears definition because it is critical to the recruitment process and ultimately will yield greater results and a happier board member in the long run. It is my thought that when we sacrifice for something we tend to place greater value on the object of sacrifice. So, when we create our job descriptions and start explaining exactly what we need from the prospective board member, we need to be very specific in detailing what those sacrifices mean. Is there an annual gift required? Is there a specific amount that each board member must give? What is the expectation in terms of board attendance? Is there a board attendance policy? These are all questions that need to be answered long before sitting down with your board recruit.
  3. Thinking that giving “time” in board meetings is the best use of time. If you could get 20 hours of time from your board members every year, and had to divide that time between time spent in the board meeting versus getting things done for your organization outside the board meeting, how would you split it up? I contend that you are much better off with a 30/70 split, and that the best use of board member time is outside of board meetings. Board members should be opening doors, making calls, and assisting in donor visits and solicitations. Too often we weigh board members down with marathon board meetings and involve them with day-to-day operational decisions and discussions that could be handled by the executive director. We forget that if we have recruited wisely that we have board members who don’t want to spend long hours in the board room and would rather be doing something meaningful for us.
  4. Selecting board members for wealth and treasure alone. There’s nothing like having board members who have the resources and the commitment to give. But if they are not willing to attend board meetings and don’t have significant respect from the community, then we are much better off treating them as “most honored” major donors than as a trustee of our organization. The fact that they won’t attend board meetings and contribute their “wisdom” to the future of the organization will speak volumes to other board members about their involvement and will have a net negative effect on the nonprofit in general. This might even leave the wealthy non-attending board member with the impression that “they just want my money.” When we have wealthy board members attending and contributing the same wisdom to the future of the organization that brought them wealth, then everyone in the organization (board members included) will have a much higher opinion of the work of the board and the organization’s value to the community.

_____

Ken Turpen, CFRE, Vice President at Thompson & Associates, has served as a senior foundation executive of five nonprofit organizations during the past 25 years and consultant in secondary and higher education, and healthcare fundraising. He has unique insights into nonprofit boards, CEO leadership, management, community activism and donor perspectives as his career has brought him opportunities to excel in each of these areas.

July 2017

The Value of Nonprofit Management Education

By Wesley E. Lindahl, Ph.D.

I’ve dedicated my career to the development of the field of nonprofit management—particularly the field of fundraising. So, I had to step back for a second to fully explore the question—what is the value of nonprofit management education? Today we’re seeing two academic programs emerging that will provide different answers to this question.

First, the undergraduate major in nonprofit management provides students the opportunity to enter a field to start a career with eyes-wide-open. At North Park University, we require all our business majors to take one 2 SH course in nonprofit management. As they start the course, most students are totally confused about nonprofits. “So, you mean you actually get paid to work at a nonprofit?” is one of the typical points of confusion. Our nonprofit majors continue to build their understanding of volunteer management, board development, nonprofit finance, nonprofit marketing, and nonprofit fundraising. They know about careers in the field through internships and they are ready to move into their careers with a fundamental understanding of the how and why of working in mission-based organizations.

Second, the graduate master’s degree program provides adult students with a way to learn–in a year or two of courses — what they would take a life-time to learn from experience. At North Park University, our students repeatedly say they can apply what they experience in the classroom to the work setting the very next day. We provide this practical education that accelerates our students’ growth as they develop into ethical leaders who can influence others and provide service to their clients. That brings us to the last point. A master’s degree specifically in a nonprofit field (e.g., Master of Nonprofit Administration) will help to identify a leader ready to be promoted or given new, higher-level, responsibilities at a different organization. A real value to their career and a real value to the organizations they serve.

Finally, as the academic programs grow and as the research that provides the academic foundations to the field accelerates, we’ll be seeing doctoral level programs in nonprofit management develop as well. The value for these programs will be in their ability to truly develop the profession over the coming years.

Wesley E. Lindahl, Ph.D. is Dean of the School of Business and Nonprofit Management and the Nils Axelson Professor of Nonprofit Management at North Park University in Chicago, Illinois. Lindahl has worked as a professional fundraiser for almost eighteen years at Northwestern University, most recently Assistant Dean and Director of Development for the McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science. He volunteered as the Vice President for Resource Development at the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA) for two years, and has written two books, “Strategic Planning for Fund Raising” (1992) and “Principles of Fundraising: Theory and Practice” (2010). He recently completed his term as the Chair of the Research Council for the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) and recently served as Book Review Editor of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly (NVSQ). He is on the board of the Swedish American Museum in Chicago and is the Chair of the board of the University Center of Lake County. Lindahl has a Ph.D. in administration and policy studies from Northwestern University; a master of science in mathematics from the University of Minnesota, and a bachelor of arts in mathematics from North Park University.

June 2017

Conference leadership MUST become more overt in their fundraising efforts

By Philip J. Bond

Every Conference president has a vision more grand than just keeping the lights on and paying the bills of the Conference office. They want to see the Gospel proclaimed through successful evangelistic efforts, a robust educational system, and a strong youth and young adult program. Accomplishing this vision, however, takes money. Tithe, of course, covers some, but did King David expect the tithe to cover the costs of building the temple. (1Ch: 29:5) No! He cast his vision among the people and appealed to them to join in. So, if appealing to the people, (fundraising) is Biblical, why do we not see more Conferences doing it?

I often hear: “We just don’t do it that way.” or “Doesn’t tithe cover all the Conference’s expenses?” or “I really don’t know what the Conference actually does.” These responses must be addressed and refuted if the Seventh-day Adventist Church is going to remain a viable platform from which we may proclaim that salvation is available to all and that the Lord is coming back soon. Let’s drill down on each of these.

“We just don’t do it that way.”
Well, why not? As mentioned above King David had no problem appealing to the people. Nor did Moses when he needed items for the wilderness temple. (Ex. 25: 1-7) But, these are capital campaigns, how about other types of appeals. Check out 1 Corinthians 9:1-18 where Paul makes his appeal for his ministry.

“Doesn’t tithe cover the Conference’s expenses?”
There is a set policy on how much of the tithe dollar may be used for specific expenses. In Florida, 34.7% is allocated to pastor/ministerial expenses, 24.2% goes to education, 4.1% goes to youth/children’s ministries, etc. What if the vision (or need) is greater than what these percentages afford? Nowhere to go unless we do a little fundraising!

“I really don’t know what the Conference does.”
Well, all I can say to this is, “Shame on us for not communicating better.” This is a challenge, though. Not everyone reads the Conference magazine. Not everyone attends camp meeting. Every Conference should have a Public Relations Department whose sole job is to communicate the vision and milestones reached of the Conference.

Successful ministries, both Adventist and not, are reaching our members with dynamic fundraising strategies that communicate their vision and their successes. Our Conference’s had better learn from them or we, too, will go the way of the buggy whip – Sayonara!

Philip Bond is the Development and Planned Giving Director for the Florida Conference.  He is married to Sheri and has two sons, Russell and Sam.  Prior to joining the Florida Conference in 2012, Phil served as the Development and Planned Giving Director of Adventist Frontier Missions in Berrien Springs, MI.  Before receiving that call, Phil was a Business and Personal Banker in Greensboro, NC.  Prior to this, he was an owner manager of a family owned travel agency in Macon, Georgia, which is where he grew up.  He graduated from the University of Ga. with a degree in Economics.

May 2017

Do you really have to register in every possible state that an appeal letter might go?

By Thomas Wetmore

The answer is that they probably need to register in the states where they regularly solicit contributions. There are only 3 or 4 states that may not require registration. However, the requirements and registration process vary among the states that do require it.  There are a variety of service providers that provide multistate registration services. A uniform registration statement is accepted by most states. For more info see http://multistatefiling.org.

The Multistate Registration and Filing Protocol website – may also be worth exploring since it provides an online multistate registration. This is apparently a pilot project working with the National Association of State Charity Officials, NASCO.  (See http://www.nasconet.org/category/single-portal/). I do not know how many states are participating.  A good source of info about the whole topic is through the National Council of Nonprofits.  Their website has a dedicated section to the topic with links to multiple other resources and information. https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/charitable-solicitation-registration.

We typically do not have to worry about this registration, however since churches/religious organizations are exempt in most states. And I believe that most states also exempt educational organizations. Also, solicitation of donations from members does not fall within the definition of charitable solicitation that would trigger registration.  But even these exemptions vary among the states.  Any charity that does not fall into those categories should be mindful of the requirements and register wherever they are actively soliciting donations.

Additional information: National Council of Nonprofits

Thomas E. Wetmore is an Associate General Counsel for the General Conference and North American Division where he specializes in pension/employee benefits, tax, employment, corporate matters and general nonprofit law. He was appointed Associate General Counsel in 1984.  Mr. Wetmore received his B.S. (Mental Health) from Columbia Union College in 1980 and his J.D. from George Washington University in 1984.  He is a member of the Maryland, District of Columbia, and Florida bars. He is also a member of the Association of Corporate Counsel, and the American Bar Association where he has been an active member of the Exempt Organizations Committee of the Tax Section since 1989 and is currently co-chair of the Church and Religious Organizations subcommittee.

April 2017

DEMOGRAPHICS MATTER!

By Alphonce J. Brown, Jr., ACFRE

It is no secret that Americans have always given generously to charitable causes. With philanthropists giving more than $358 million in 2015 to nonprofit organizations, it would be an interesting exercise to closely examine the demographic makeup of the more than 1.3 million donors who contributed to them. For the fundraising practitioner, how we approach each cohort can make the difference between our charity meeting or exceeding its fundraising goal…or not!

In her book, Changing Demographics: Fund Raising in the 1990s, author Judith E. Nichols, CFRE makes a case for developing fundraising strategies that specifically target demographic markets. With limited resources, today’s fundraisers need to do more than simply targeting the upper 10 % – 20% of its major donors to meet its annual fundraising goals or to successfully launch a successful capital campaign.  In fact, whether soliciting unrestricted annual gifts at the base of the giving pyramid or cultivating major donors for a capital campaign atop the pyramid, it is helpful to have as much information as possible to generate the best optimal results.

If asked, most nonprofit professionals would readily admit they tap their consistent core donors far too often for programs and services with critical financial need.  The professional fundraiser also would speak soberly of their need to expand the philanthropic landscape of their organizations to include new enthusiastic contributors. What kind of demographic information might be useful to actively target and elicit the support of new prospective donors?

Intuitively and experientially, we have become proficient at segmenting our various markets based on geography. We also know the differences between approaching a prospective Baby Boomer donor and a Generation X (Gen X) prospective donor.  While group characteristics of the Gen X cohort are still being define, we know the demographics for it will be significantly different than any other age group. Nichols identifies a list of demographic factors that impact the way we cultivate and solicit prospective donors. They include age, sex, race, occupation, income, household composition and life cycle.

Nichol also makes a case for understanding the mental, emotional and spiritual attributes that would cause a particular individual or specific group to give. She defines these characteristics as psychographic measures, and they include such factors as attitudes, social values and beliefs, lifestyles, interests, opinions, lifestyles and benefits.  Today, most savvy nonprofit organizations place a premium on conducting extensive donor research and aligning their solicitation approaches with the behavior predilections of their targeted audiences.

What is becoming increasingly clear is that demographics play an increasingly important role in how we raise money in a progressively diverse and competitive philanthropic environment. Whether it is the fundraiser, key leaders or both responsible for short and long term financial stability of the organization, all parties must refine their ability to effectively and efficiently raise external philanthropic funds. Today’s prospective donor wants and expects to be cultivated and solicited in a manner discernable to them.

Years ago, when I rented a modest home in a small tight-knit community in Bellflower, California, the neighborhood was initially ethnically mixed and balance. McDonald’s and other merchants sent direct mail appeals with weekly coupons that were written both in English and Spanish. The advertisement was attractive and artfully designed to lure prospective customers to their places of business.

By the end of my one-year lease, 99.9% of the residents living in the neighborhood were Hispanic! Promotions sent by McDonald’s and others businesses were now entirely in Spanish. I lamented at the time, “These businesses cannot know I am the only non-Hispanic resident in entire the neighborhood!”

Successful businesses get it! They conduct extensive research to understand their markets and develop creative ways of communicating with their various constituency groups. Their communications are laser-focused and personal—whether ads, posters, commercials, fliers or billboards.  Visuals include children, families, senior citizens and others reflective of the targeted population.

Taking time to understand and leverage knowledge gained from researching and analyzing the psychographic characteristics will not only determine the type and frequency of communication we use to solicit diverse donors, but will provide nonprofits with a more scientific method of approaching prospects in the most personal and decisive way.

[1] Nichols, Judith E. “Changing Demographics: Fund Rising in the 1990s. Bonus Books, Inc., Chicago, IL, 1990.

[1]  Ibid., p. 9

[1] Ibid.

Alphonce J. Brown, Jr., ACFRE is a senior consultant for Philanthropic Services for Institutions and president of Docere Consulting Inc. Mr. Brown is the former chairman of the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP)—an international professional fundraising organization with a membership of 33,000. He founded Docere Consulting, Inc. in 2003 to serve small to midsize nonprofit organizations wishing to operate more effectively and efficiently. Docere provides a full array of fundraising services. Prior positions held include the director of development, National Minority AIDS Council; vice president of development, National Academy of Public Administration, Washington, DC; vice president of University Advancement at California State University, Dominguez Hills in Carson, California; executive director of the National Kidney Foundation of Southeast Texas; president & CEO of the Prairie View A&M University Foundation and assistant dean of External Relations, College and Graduate School of Business, University of Texas at Austin. Brown is one of 106 senior professionals to receive the Advanced Certified Fundraising Executive (ACFRE) designation and is an AFP certified Master Trainer. He is a frequent lecturer and teacher, and he has conducted fundraising workshops throughout the United States, Canada, China and Europe. He has published a number of articles on fundraising and diversity.

March 2017

Story Telling for Fundraising IMPACT

Advent Newsletter

How to Convert Engaged Friends to Donors through Storytelling

By Kae Dakin

Do you use stories in your fundraising? You should! Let’s see why the art of storytelling is a tool that you need in your bag of tricks!

Stories are essential! Good storytelling can inspire and motivate donors to give.  Your appeals for donations, not only face to face and on your website, but also in your print materials, will get better results with real stories of how your organization makes a difference to your community.

Why?  Stories build emotional ties to your organization; these ties are hard to break. Stories create passion for your work and they impact the heart.  They hook, attach and connect the reader to your mission. They reinforce your brand which is your identity and your promise.  It is what distinguishes you.

The story of a little boy, James shall we say, whose life was saved because of the training that you held for your staff which they in turn passed on to their clinicians who took care of James is what opens pocketbooks. James was saved because of you!

What is a good story?  What do you want your story to be? It must be clear, compelling, creative and show change or impact  because of the work of your organization. Great stories are ultimately about change-positive change that has happened because of your organization.

It must move people to act because it is memorable. It must have a beginning, middle and end with real characters. It puts a face on a complex issue. It must be compelling to grab attention, memorable and distinctive from other stories and move people to act on behalf of your organization.

Always remember your purpose. Are you telling the story to raise money or increase awareness of your work? Who is your audience? Past donors, peers in your field, prospective foundation sponsor?

And, what will your platform be? Is it for print? Your website? A speech for your CEO? A short paragraph for Facebook.? Even a script for outreach by your board. The message needs to be consistent throughout all of these different platforms and throughout the different departments.

Build a story bank or data base that you can adapt for whatever you may need, such as the annual report, a director’s letter, or a social media appeal. These can be your core stories; you can then be flexible to engage various audiences.

Create a story bank where you store all your good stories. Start a storytelling culture today; start each board or staff meeting by having people tell stories about what happened this past week. Write them down and bank them for the future. It will save time and money, and you will be at the ready-never at a loss for words!

While every organization needs hard impact data, emotional stories will move people to act–engage and give.  Tell stories now!

Best of luck,

Kae

Kae Dakin Consulting

Kae Dakin’s first job was as  a Peace Corps volunteer in Kenya , an agricultural project,  1965-66. She served, with her husband Don, as a dairy officer.  Following the PC, Kae worked for the first half of her career with learning disabled children in both Libya and London. All of her various volunteer projects  taught her what a need there was for sound management of nonprofits. This led her into nonprofit leadership and management of several ngos. She continues her consulting practice, kae dakin consulting, helping organizations meet their goals through financial sustainability. Kae is married, has 3 sons and 3 grandchildren. She earned a BA from the U of Vermont, an MS in psychology from Yeshiva U and an MS in nonprofit management from U of MD.

February 2017

Bequest Establishes Legacy Academy and Call

By Janel Haas Ware

For we are the product of His hand…

Shenandoah Valley Academy (SVA), a Seventh-day Adventist secondary boarding school in New Market, Virginia, was founded by a bequest from a young man and church worker, Charles Zirkle, whose deathbed request was to be granted his inheritance to establish a school which would prepare young people for God’s service. The dying Zirkle watched from his window as 42 acres were staked off, succumbing on the Sabbath after the gift was finalized on Friday. The school opened its doors to the first 15 students in 1908.

Heaven’s poetry etched on lives, created in the Anointed, Jesus…

The Academy’s founding established a compelling legacy of giving for the Adventist education of young people at Shenandoah. To generations and more than 5200 graduates Zirkle’s gift has demonstrated the power of a heart transformed by the grace of Christ, inspired to selfless action for the sake of others knowing and serving Him. For 109 years, this legacy has been an echoing call to give time, talents and treasure for young people knowing Jesus as Savior and Friend, an invitation for fundraiser, donors and beneficiaries to become working members of the Body of Christ.

…to accomplish the good works God arranged long ago. Ephesians 2:10 (VOICE)

This call has echoed resoundingly in own my life, from arriving on campus as a freshman; to my first gift for a worthy student requested by a trusted teacher; and later as a parent-board volunteer working with mentors who role-modeled extending Christ’s grace to young people through their own giving and work. Two years ago, when called to fundraising ministry as Development Director at Shenandoah, I had experienced the joy and blessings of giving and working for young people to know Jesus. Then and today, I make no claim to fundraising expertise, but I can testify to the power of the Holy Spirit working through The Body to extend the grace of Jesus to young people, and to bring about the financial salvation of our school. God continues to work mightily through Charles Zirkle’s founding bequest to call and inspire generations to the good works He arranged long ago, most of all through our wonderful young people who will carry forward the great commission and lead us into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Implications for Fundraising Ministry:

  • Know your school/organization legacy story, to draw and share inspiration of God’s leading and provision. (Psalm 116:12-14, DA 348.2)
  • A single act of generosity for the expansion of God’s kingdom has the potential to grow into something far beyond what we could ever ask or imagine. (Ephesians 3:20)
  • Those who give and those who receive are called into relationship with Jesus, and to active membership in the Body of Christ, to work for others knowing Him. (1Corintihans 1:12)
  • Testify and share the joy of witnessing God’s faithfulness and evidence of His grace in your work. “It is not our plan or effort. It is God’s gift, pure and simple.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Janel Haas Ware, Director of Development and Alumni Relations, fundraises and builds relationships to support the students, mission and sustainable excellence of Adventist secondary boarding school education at Shenandoah Valley Academy in New Market, Virginia.

January 2017

What Is Your Proposal’s Irresistible Value Proposition?

By Jack Boyson

As a foundation officer for nearly two decades, I encountered many human service nonprofit leaders around the world who would submit proposals to me seeking financial support to transform a need or a problem facing a vulnerable people group into a solution.

The first question I would always try to answer when reviewing a proposal is, what is the proposal’s irresistible value proposition?

An irresistible value proposition of a proposal clearly demonstrates the tangible measurable results that will be achieved by the organization with the population it serves, and their alignment with a donor’s grant making priorities.

In helping me to further understand what a proposal’s irresistible value proposition is, I would ask myself a series of questions when reviewing it:

Is the proposal compelling? Does the proposal offer appropriate and timely solutions to an urgent and critical need?

Is it client/participant focused? Is the proposal clearly client-focused rather than organizationally-centered? How well are the perceptions of those to be served incorporated into the proposal? And how involved will they be in the project as outlined in the proposal?

Is its Theory of Change Model viable? Does the proposal incorporate the key elements of a change model that concisely and systematically outlines the linkages between the resources needed to conduct activities that will make promised changes become a reality for a particular vulnerable people group?

Is it feasible? Will the project described in the proposal likely to achieve its outputs, outcomes, and long-term impacts? How realistic is it? What are the risks? What is the nature and extent of the human, material, and financial resources needed to reach its targets and impacts?

Is it cost-effective? What is the relationship between the cost of implementing a project as described in a proposal and its benefits? Sometimes when I would compare the different methodologies, activities, and tasks outlined in proposals from applicants from the same geographical area, the best proposals to be considered for funding were the ones that achieved the desired results at the most reasonable cost–but not necessarily the lowest cost.

Is it relevant? A proposal may be both feasible and cost-effective, but may not be relevant because it fails to directly and effectively address the need it set out to tackle.

Is it non-duplicating? How well does the proposal idea fill a unique gap or unmet need and not duplicate what other organizations may be doing?

Is it sustainable? The final question in determining a what a proposal’s irresistible value proposition is, can the project outlined in the proposal go on delivering benefits after funding has ended? If so, how?

Those proposals which provided concise cogent responses to the questions listed above, all converged to become the proposal’s irresistible value proposition and thus merited approval for funding.

Jack Boyson is an international development professional with extensive experience in designing, managing, and evaluating workforce development and NGO institutional capacity building programs in Asia, the Balkans, Eastern Europe, Latin American, the Middle East and North Africa, the Philippines, and Russia. He has trained hundreds of undergraduate and graduate students and nonprofit professionals around the world on how to conduct community needs assessments, plan projects, and write proposals that merit funding. Mr. Boyson was formerly employed by the SDA Church for 25 years as an educator and international development worker, and by the International Youth Foundation as Senior Programs Director for 18 years. Currently his most recent clients include ADRA International, Catholic Relief Services/Ethiopia, Impaq International, the Inter-American Development Bank, International Youth Foundation, JBS International, Making Cents International, RTI International, and the United States Agency for International Development.

Back To Top