by Ted Grossnickle

The Chronicle of Higher Education recently ran an article that updated readers on the billion dollar campaigns at 32 American universities. During the most recent month for which they had data available, these schools raised $268.4 million in gifts and pledges. Over the past twelve months, the schools reported gifting of $6.3 billion.

Of the 32 campaigns, 24 have goals in excess of $1billion; there are 10 of these with goals in excess of $3 billion.

These are the largest higher educational campaigns – but represent just 32 schools. America has something like 1.9 million non-profits – including churches.

All of this is underway during this very challenging economic time. To be sure, higher education has a longer and more deeply rooted tradition of campaigns and donor understanding than most other categories of non-profits. But this is still a remarkable set of statistics which reflects some important things to remember about gifting in America.

Even while we hear about declines in gifting and in our practice at JGA, we must somehow take notice of the sheer size and scope of philanthropy. What happens every year in this country in terms of campaigns, gifting by donors and sheer aspiration on the part of colleges and universities is massively different from 2-3 decades ago. The scope of private philanthropy is so much larger than during the 1970s and 1980s. A decline of a few percentage points now means something very different from what it used to mean.

In one sense, the amount not being given right now is larger than what has been seen in other campaigns. And in another sense, the amount still being given is vastly more than ever before.

Here at JGA, the clients we serve are collectively seeking to raise in excess of $1 billion.

All of this makes me believe that what we are currently experiencing is but a “bump” in a decades-long history of growth in what Americans think they can accomplish. This is not to suggest that we will return to what was before this economic crisis; I don’t think we will. But it does suggest to me that there is an deeply embedded and continuing desire in our society to accomplish great things which will motivate those who give and those who seek to raise money.

It’s good to remember this as we think about the future.

by Meg Gammage-Tucker

I recently read a entertaining—and timely—blog called the “The Silo Mentality—Coping to Collaborating,” by a great colleague, fundraiser, and educator, Lilya Wagner. It started my mental juices flowing about how many of my clients and colleagues over the past two and a half decades have had serious problems communicating and how many—either formally or informally—preferred putting up walls and preventing communication.

Some reasons that individuals and departments do not effectively communicate include, but are certainly not limited to:

• The silo systems that organizations have developed over time—it simply goes against the cultural grain to help another department out.
• The insecurity of leadership—these individuals control the flow of information and access to resources as a formal strategy for to assure their own program or personal success.
• A true inability to communicate (or play well) with others.
• Lack of direction, guidance, and/or understanding that sometimes one plus one can make three.Or,
• A truly unfortunate one, the human ego—the more I know and others don’t, the more important I am.

The message that I have historically shared with colleagues— and continue to emphasize with our clients— is that effective communication is vital to the success of their organizations and the relationships upon which they are built. Nonprofits are about engaging individuals in the fulfillment of missions. It is as basic as that. If you can’t effectively communicate, you cannot engage your colleagues, your clients, or your supporters—either donor or volunteer—in your activities and you are literally undermining the ability of your organization to fulfill its mission.

It may be difficult to change the culture of your organization or get past the negative influence of a fellow staff member whose ego or behavior encumbers the communication process. But if you truly want your organization to succeed, you must take steps—no matter how small they may be—to open the channels of communication. Your organization and the relationships that are necessary for its success will all be the better for it.

by Dan Schipp

A JGA client recently inquired about the pros and cons of establishing a foundation to do fundraising for the organization. The client is considering launching a development program and is grappling with whether to situate fundraising within the organization or to establish a separate foundation for that purpose. Convincing arguments can be made for each option. As I thought about the client’s situation, the following “positives” and “negatives” of each option came to my mind:

Situating development within the organizational structure

Pros:

• Promotes more ownership of development by the organization’s staff as a whole;
• Avoids confusion about the relationship between the organization and this “other entity” doing fundraising for the organization;
• Attracts donors who prefer to give directly to an organization rather than through a supporting organization;
• Enhances the organization’s bottom line by including gift income on its balance sheet.

Cons:

• Necessitates, most likely, making some changes in the composition of the organization’s board, evolving it into more of a fundraising board with members with influence and affluence;
• Requires a financial management system capable of segregating gift income from other sources of income.

Establishing a separate foundation to do fundraising for the organization

Pros:

• Presents an opportunity to build a board with influence and affluence and to engage board members with new or specialized skills;
• Segregates fundraising revenue and expenses, allowing for more “clean” accounting;
• Draws donors who are attracted to the “aura” of a foundation (foundation name may add legitimacy);
• Limits liability, in some cases

Cons:

• Involves significant time and expenses to set up a foundation;
• Presents potential for conflicts to arise between the organization and the foundation and their boards over such matters as programming and how the foundation is presenting the organization in its appeals for support;
• Complicates creating a clear identity for the organization since it introduces another entity to be “explained”.

What additions would you make to this listing?

I think our client is wise to be assessing both options. There is not, for all not-for-profit organizations, one correct answer to the question of whether or not to form a fundraising foundation. The response really depends on the circumstances, needs and resources of the particular organization.

by Angela White

Make an appointment with yourself. Block out time on your calendar. The adages go on and on but you get the point – remember to hold open time on your calendar.

At JGA, we often talk about holding some time on the calendar to think. Yes, think. Think about our clients’ needs now and into the future. Somehow, in today’s society, it seems that scheduling time to think is not valued. When you sit at your desk or on the back porch or in a coffee shop and are not busily connecting via your SmartPhone or typing on your laptop, you run of the risk of appearing lazy. After all, who has the luxury to just sit and think?

I admit (as you might guess from my previous blog on emailing!) that I struggle with allowing myself ample time to think beyond the daily demands of clients and family. However, I have come to value my time to think strategically about the future. So, I have gotten better about carving out time to think and to reflect beyond the tasks of the week. As summer comes to an end, I encourage you to schedule some time on your calendar to think. And, if you are lucky, you might find that time to think while floating on a raft down a quiet stream or taking a walk along the beach!

by Ted Grossnickle

I found myself in a board of directors Retreat recently – and while there received a powerful reminder of the power of conviction.

The group of directors had spent a considerable amount of time grappling with a series of important and complex governance issues. They dealt with potential changes to the board’s make-up, to their own future as directors, to how they would be expected to work together and changes to where they would devote most of their attention. As with any board, some persons focused on strategic issues and aspects of the questions; others approached it from a more tactical or “mechanical” perspective.

There came a point – after several intense hours of discussion and debate – when the dynamic in the room became tense. Directors began to zero in on details and small points. Progress slowed or stopped and positions began to harden a bit.

Then an interesting thing happened. The institution’s president asked to speak and asked everyone to think about their work in a different light, to reconsider what they were really there for, not just that day but as board members. He went on to argue with real conviction that the purpose of the group was at a much higher level – and one that really required the group to rethink how they organized themselves.

This changed everything. I watched body language shift; board members leaned forward in their seats and they paid attention – including a few who had previously begun to show signs of losing interest. And this was no group of shrinking violets either… They are forthright and not concerned about expressing opinions or constructively disagreeing with one another.

From that moment on, the discussion was different. There was an implicit but clear sense that the president had “raised the bar” on both the importance of what they were dealing with as well as the necessity for some changes.

That president chose the right moment to weigh in and share his deeply held convictions that the group was important, but needed to rethink why they were there. What an incredible difference it made and will make in the future. That board went on to take just enough of a different view of their situation and their trusteeship to do that rethinking. In a time when leadership is critical, the willingness to lay it on the line and speak your mind is priceless – and very powerful.

by Kris Kindelsperger

This railroad catchphrase pertaining to organizational chaos originated in the early 1920’s, but seems an apt one to describe some modern day human resources policies. I have had a number of painful discussions with development professionals over the course of the past several months about their experiences in being separated from their non-profit employer.

Most of them run something like this.

“I was called into the president/CEO/executive director’s office and told that I was being terminated immediately. I was then asked to leave the office/building/campus and return after business hours to meet someone from HR who provided a cardboard box with which to load my personal effects. My e-mail, voice mail, computer access, and other means of communication were immediately cut off and I had to agree not to personally contact any donors/friends/alumni, etc. or risk losing any severance that had been offered.”

Standard HR policy? Perhaps. Sound development strategy? I’m not so sure.

By nature, good development work is about building personal relationships. The most successful development officers have built long term relations, established trust with their donors, and have fostered those relationships with a strong program of stewardship. Assuming an absence of an immediately actionable firing offense by the development officer, I am struck by how senseless and ultimately harmful it is these sever these relationships with such immediacy.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to trust that an ethical and well serving development professional could transition donor relationships in a positive manner, if given, say a couple of weeks? Wouldn’t donors think more highly of the organization if they heard from the development professional that they were “moving on” rather than learning from a third party that their trusted contact at the organization had “left for reasons we cannot discuss?”

There has got to be middle ground where the legalistic needs of HR can be accommodated, but in a way that respects the relational nature of development. Am I wrong here?

by Ernie Vargo

Have you ever heard someone say, “She is so lucky to have Mr. and Mrs. Smith make such a large gift”?

Is it really luck? Williams Jennings Bryan said, “Destiny is not a matter of chance; it is a matter of choice.” I firmly believe that those who work hard and take advantage of their situations are the same people who are successful. It really isn’t about luck.

The past 11 years, I have worked with probably 75 or more clients that are quite varied in their mission and fundraising capabilities. The common thread with the organizations that thrive and are successful is the drive and will of the leader. I worked with a CEO who was always a bit nervous about celebrating success. He wondered if they celebrated would they lose their edge. I don’t agree with him, but you get the idea.

People are always seeking ways to shortcut fundraising. They don’t want to take the time to create a vision, articulate the vision and invite others to be part of the vision. Instead they want to take the fast approach. Let’s ask them for a seven-figure gift even though they have no relationship with your organization.

The key is to do your homework. Create a plan and work the plan. Work harder than your competitors. Aggressively, but thoughtfully engage and cultivate prospective donors. Work the plan. Then people will be asking how you got so lucky. Maybe luck has nothing to do with it, but most people will never understand.

by Angela White

On Thursday, August 13, JGA had a new computer server installed by Port-to-Port Consulting. As you can imagine, this meant that we would have a disruption in our email service (as well as all other network services) for an estimated 24 hour period.

Even though we had ample advanced notice, there were some frightening moments leading up to our forced email sabbatical. How would we communicate with clients? What if we couldn’t view our electronic calendars? You get the idea. Well, I assumed that I would be one of the most nervous about this situation (you’ll recall my prior blog about my email addiction). Just the opposite occurred – I was actually excited about a day free of the constant checking of email and glancing at my iPhone at stoplights!

I wasn’t excited because of lessened client contact (all I had to do was pick up the phone and call my clients), but rather I was excited to have permission not to be tied to my email. Much to my dismay, our email was back up on working by 1:30 p.m., thanks to the good work of our tech providers at Port-to-Port. However, this email-free day did cause one of my colleagues to wonder if we should have a self-imposed monthly email-free day. Not a bad idea – a day free of checking email and more attention to the face-to-face contact and telephone discussions.

Have any of you tried this? Do you think it’s worth trying? Send me an email and let me know!

by Meg Gammage-Tucker

In the recent economic downturn, we have had been asked to provide even more detail on why we should be hired as fundraising counsel. These requests are coming from staff and volunteer leadership and from all nonprofit sectors—from the arts and education to social service and environmental organizations.

And, while it takes time and effort on our part, I say, “kudos to you for asking!” And, we should do it anyway…

Consultants should never take their client relationships for granted. And we, as consultants working in the philanthropic sector, should appreciate more than many in the consulting field, the importance of those inquiries.

These inquiries illustrate the nonprofit’s commitment to fulfilling its responsibilities to its clients and investors. It demonstrates an awareness of, and need for, accountability, transparency, and legitimacy. It also demonstrates that the organization is attempting to effectively manage its resources to the fulfillment of its mission rather than wasting precious resources.

Such inquiries are also beneficial to us as consultants. It requires us to be diligent with respect to the plans, systems, structures, and processes we provide. It forces us to consistently assess and reassess what value we bring to our clients, our partners. And, it assures that we are communicating openly, clearly, and authentically.

So I say, bring it on! Ask us what we can do for you today…