By Kris Kindelsperger

The recent announcement of a $23.7 million gift by Lilly Endowment to Ivy Tech Community College in Indianapolis for the purchase of a building which will be renovated into new facilities to house Workforce Development operations bucks the trend of what would seem to be a declining interest among funders in investing in facilities.

Recent experience with comprehensive capital campaigns with three of our clients revealed that funding for new programs and endowment proved far more attractive to donor prospects than did science buildings, student unions and performing arts buildings. 

It wasn’t that many years ago that many fundraising professionals touted the adage that building money was easy to raise, but endowment funding was much more difficult. 

The 2008 CASE Campaign Report provides statistical results that showed a 27  percent decline in donor interest to fund facilities and a 19 percent increase in their desire to fund programs and endowment from 2006 to 2008.

What’s behind these trends? 

Clearly sophisticated donors are gaining an appreciation for the importance and value of endowments.  And, funding to support the introduction of new programs that deal directly with emerging issues and challenges can certainly peak donor interest.

But, it’s less clear why donor interest appears to be leaning away from facilities.  The anecdotal evidence is there, the study evidence is there, but evidence of why this is happening is less clear.

What’s been your experience with funding major facilities?  What works?  What’s not working as well today and what trends do you see?

By Angela White

The Women’s Philanthropy Institute at the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University just released the second part of its Women Give 2010 research.  You can also review my October blog post if you’d like to find out more about the first part of the report.

This second research release is entitled Causes Women Support and asks the question, “Are there differences between male and female single-headed households across all subsectors of charitable giving?”  

To answer this question, this study used the Center on Philanthropy Panel Study of 2,500 households to examine the likelihood and amount of giving across 11 areas of charity. This is the only national study that examines all areas of giving across single-headed households.

So, what did the study find out? Among key points, the results show that female single-headed households are more likely than any of the male single-headed households to give to

1. religion,
2. combined purposes eg: United Way, community foundations, etc.,
3. helping people in need,
4. health care,
5. education,
6. youth or family,
7. community, and
8. international.

Female single-headed households are as likely as their male counterparts to give to arts & culture, environment, and other.

The study also found that the top five areas in which female-headed households are significantly more likely than their male counterparts to give are the international, community, religion, health care, and youth & family areas.

Why?  The study’s summary report gives this insight:

While more research is needed to assess why the top five areas resonate more deeply with women (international, community, religious institutions, health care, and youth and family), a common thread may be connectivity. From previous research, we know that women are drawn to causes and organizations with which they or family members are connected or to which they can closely relate. Perhaps the connection with these types of charitable organizations is deeper and thus reflected in women’s likelihood to make philanthropic investments.

I believe that this research illustrates the opportunity we have to engage both women and men in connecting their charitable giving to their passions. What do you think?

As a national speaker and faculty member of the Women’s Philanthropy Institute Speakers Bureau, I applaud these important initiatives to increase the understanding of why women give in our industry.

by Dan Schipp

I was seated across the table from the chief executive officer, a highly successful fund raiser.  We were having a conversation about the record-setting, fundraising year his organization had just completed. 

He leaned across the table and said, “But I want more for this institution . . . I want to ensure that the success we are currently having in fundraising continues well beyond the tenure of the present team – CEO, advancement staff, and volunteers . . . I want to “systemize” a high-functioning, productive development program.”  

How do you do that?  How do you provide for continuity and on-going, long-term success in fundraising?  How do you build a culture of effective development?

For answers to those questions, I look to an organization, located in Indiana, that has had a strong, distinctive development culture since the 1960’s. 

How has this organization gone about systemizing its approach to development? I can identify four primary ingredients in its recipe for successfully sustaining a consistent, distinctive effort in fundraising:

1. A vision or philosophy of development.  Early on the architect of the organization’s program articulated his vision for development, captured it in writing, and passed this “philosophy” on to those who succeeded him.  For nearly 50 years, this philosophy with its foundation stones of planning, communicating values, and inviting support has guided the  program. 
2. Orientation, on-boarding and mentoring of new staff.  Efforts are made early on to familiarize new administrative and advancement staff with the organization’s tradition of development.  Through written materials and frequent oral reminders about the program’s basics, new staff members are instructed in the organization’s approach to fundraising.  The orientation often includes extended conversations or mentoring relationships with those who have previously worked in the development office. Lastly, a common frame of reference for staff is established by having the executive leadership and all development officers attend The Fund Raising School’s “Principles and Techniques of Fund Raising” course.
3. Emphasis on building relationships.  From the outset, the organization’s  development program has focused on building mutually rewarding relationships with benefactors.  The emphasis has been on long-term returns rather than immediate results.  Thus, cultivating and nourishing relationships with benefactors through frequent contact with institutional leadership and advancement staff is a hallmark of the program.
4. Longevity of staff.  For an organization to develop a culture of effective fund raising based on building relationships, it cannot have a constant turnover in executive leadership or advancement staff.  Over the past 50 years, this organization has had six presidents and four chief advancement officers.  Such stability in leadership comes about when the leadership is motivated by the mission and values of the organization and the organization offers a rewarding work experience and competitive compensation to the leadership.

Those are one organization’s key ingredients for systemizing a highly effective development program.  What other ingredients would you add to the formula?

By Ted Grossnickle

A wealth of free information is available for download this week from the Center on Philanthropy at IU and Bank of America Merrill Lynch. 

The release of their 2010 Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy provides details of the giving habits of high net worth households in the US including why they give, why they stop giving and how you can get them to give more.

The 75-page report is chock full of valuable information, but the more skimmable 10 page key findings also provides some great insights into the giving of high net worth households, including:

• Average charitable giving dropped 34.9 percent in 2009, after adjusting for inflation.
• Some charitable sectors saw increases in giving, including arts, environment/animal care, and international causes.
• Others saw significant declines, including 63.7 percent for health organizations, education and combined purpose organizations (such as United Way, United Jewish Appeal, or Catholic Charities)
• High Net worth households were more prone to give to general operation funds or a particular program than they were to support capital gifts (such as construction projects or equipment purchase) or endowment giving.

We have heard from donors, and this research study also certainly supports our experience, that high net worth donors are concerned about the uncertainty in the current tax situation. 

The study reports that 67 percent of respondents indicated they would somewhat or dramatically decrease giving if income tax deductions were taken away.  Repeal of the estate tax would induce 43 percent of respondents to somewhat or dramatically increase their charitable bequests.

Wanting to lure more wealthy donors to support your charity? 

When determining where to give, high net worth households look for sound business and operational practices, acknowledgement of contributions, appropriate overhead expenditures, protection of personal information, and full financial disclosure.

Wondering why you may have lost some high net worth supporters last year? 

The most frequent reason donors cited they stopped charitable support for an organization was after being too frequently solicited or asked for an inappropriate gift amount. This begs the question of how strategic you are being in your donor solicitation and if you are doing the appropriate level of research on donation requests.

I encourage you to download the report and put this information to use in your own planning arsenal.

Thank you to the Center on Philanthropy and Bank of America Merrill Lynch for this great addition to the philanthropic industry’s body of knowledge.

By Meg Gammage-Tucker

An active and committed board of directors is an essential component of any successful non-profit.

Boards have several duties that include:

• Determining and managing the organization’s mission and purpose.
• Selecting, managing, supporting, and evaluating the efficacy of the chief executive officer.
• Conducting effective organizational planning and evaluation.
• Determining, monitoring, and evaluating programs and services.
• Enhancing and effectively managing the organization’s public, legal, and ethical integrity.
• Recruiting, orienting, supporting, and assessing board performance and engagement.
• Ensuring and effectively management appropriate and adequate human, financial, and organizational resources.

While all are very important to the success and growth of nonprofits and the fulfillment of their missions, it is simply impossible to overstate the importance of board members’ leading by personal gifting.  Why, because a board’s fundamental responsibility is to ensure the sustainability of nonprofits and their programs.  To do so they have to lead by example.

Why should a prospective donor give to an organization whose leadership has not given themselves?  If the leaders—who are legally and ethically responsible for the health of the organization—are not personally committed enough to invest their own precious resources, why should someone else?

The Board member that leads through personal gifting is the board member that is able to be an honest advocate and broker for the organization:  “I gave, this is why, and this is why you should too…” 

There is no better indicator of the strength of the leadership of a nonprofit than 100% board giving to its campaigns –whether annual funds or capital projects. 

If you are on a board—lead by example.  Truly, there is no more important role you have to assure its success.

By Angela E. White

In Indianapolis, the community where I work and live, our business journal (the IBJ) recognized twenty Women of Influence who are outstanding leaders in their chosen fields.

Each of these women is in a high-profile position of power in both the for-profit and non-profit sectors. For example, Jennifer Pope Baker, Director of Women’s Fund of Central Indiana and one of her board members, Myrta Pulliam, were honored as philanthropic leaders.

And, Dr. Lisa Harris, CEO and Medical Director of Wishard Health Services, was honored for her work in overseeing the third largest safety net health care system in the nation, while also playing a leadership role in building a new hospital from the ground up.

Even with the recognition of Jennifer, Myrta, and Lisa and the 17 other tremendous women leaders, there is still one big problem.

The problem is that women of influence don’t roll off the tongue as easily as do the names of their male counterparts. As an example, who do you think of when I say the word “philanthropist?” Probably Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, the Rockefellers, etc.

Why don’t women’s names roll off of our tongues as easily?

Check out the recent blog by Amanda Ponzar, Director of Communications for Global Corporate Leadership at United Way Worldwide. In her blog, Amanda reminds us that a simple internet search found hundreds of women philanthropists (they DO exist) — but she hadn’t heard of most of them.

I challenge us all to be intentional about recognizing and engaging women leaders and philanthropists and to learn their names in your own communities and around the world.

Don’t forget to check out the most recent research findings about women’s philanthropy in the report Women Give 2010.

By Kris Kindelsperger

It has struck me how many times we have begun work with non profit clients only to find that their list of “top donors” is populated with prospects for which they know very little.  The “Top 50″ or “Top 100″ turns out to contain more “suspects” than prospects.

If you believe that major gift fundraising is about building relationships, engaging donors with your organization, and bonding prospects to your cause, then watch for these telltale signs that you may not be pointed in the right relational direction.  Do you find yourself saying any of the following about your prospects?

1.  “Mrs. Jones is a close friend of one of our board members.”  Yes, but will this friendship translate into a potential relationship with your organization and is the board member willing to broker the relationship on your behalf? 

2.  “Our president/CEO/ED met with Mr. Smith just last year.”  Fine, but a year is a long time.  What has happened in the meantime?  Was there any follow up contact or have you dropped the relationship ball?

3.  “I see the Johnsons in attendance at our events all the time.“  A good sign, but does anyone from the development team engage them or are they simply attendees?

4.  “We’ve heard that Mr. Smith’s business is doing very well. ” Better than hearing that the business is doing poorly, but do you have any specific knowledge to back this up?  Have you done in-depth donor research on the individual or peer screening that would match the observation with potential support for your organization?

5.  “Mrs. Simpson has been a loyal $1,000 donor for more than ten years.”  Loyalty is great, but has anyone taken the time to personally cultivate this prospect and determined if there is greater potential than the same give year after year?

These are all telltale signs of under-cultivation, but this is not an exhaustive list.  What are the signs you look for that tell you that you should be doing more to cultivate your prospects?

By Dan Schipp

The other day someone reminded me of the “Rule of Three.”  The rule states that if you want someone to remember something, break it down into three key points. 

Since  lately I’ve led several development staff training sessions on gift solicitation, I thought I would write about the three most important things to keep in mind when soliciting a gift for your nonprofit organization.

The three keys are:  plan, engage, ask.

Before even picking up the phone to call for an appointment, make sure you have a plan for the meeting and have taken the time to determine the desired outcome. 

• What do you want to accomplish? 
• What are the primary messages you want to convey? 
• Who, if anyone, should accompany you in the call? 
• What questions and objections might you encounter and how will you respond to them? 
• What will be the amount of “the ask”? 

Don’t go into a meeting with a prospective donor without having a strategy for the conversation.

Engage the prospect.  Avoid letting the conversation become a monologue.  As you make the points for investment in your organization, seek feedback from the prospect.  Ask for their views on the points you are making.  Listen and respond to their interests and concerns.  The more you can get them actively involved in talking about your organization and its plans for the future, the better your chances of having a successful outcome to the conversation.

Finally, provided you have not heard anything in the meeting to cause you to think this is not the right time to move forward with a request for support, make the ask clearly and confidently.  Lead into the ask by asking permission of the donor to solicit a gift:  “In light of the discussion we have just had about the impact that XYZ organization is having on health care in our community, may I now speak with you about a gift to support XYZ’s work?”  Then ask for a specific gift and having done so . . . stop . . . be quiet . . . let the prospective donor be the next one to speak.

That’s how I would apply the “rule of three” to philanthropic gift solicitation – plan, engage, ask. 

What do you see as the keys to successfully soliciting financial support?

By Angela E. White

Today, the Women’s Philanthropy Institute at the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University released a key set of research findings about the gender role in philanthropy.  Women Give 2010 was received with strong praise and interest from the news media, including stories by the Associated Press and a front page story in USA Today. 

What’s all the fuss about? The study examined giving by single men and women across five income groups, ranging roughly from $23,000 to $100,000+ a year, controlling for factors that affect philanthropic behavior such as income, wealth, education, race, number of children, religion, and health of household. The results show that women, when compared to men,  across nearly every income level are MORE LIKELY TO GIVE and GIVE MORE than their male counterparts – in many cases, nearly twice as much.

As a frequent speaker for Women’s Philanthropy  Institute (WPI), I have discussed  women’s giving patterns with a broad range of professionals and donors in the philanthropic community.  And, as counsel to Women’s Fund of Central Indiana, I have seen the transformational power of women’s philanthropy at work.  My colleagues at Johnson, Grossnickle, and Associates (JGA) and I are committed to the importance of changing the way we think about women and philanthropy.  Women Give 2010 provides just the kind of research that will continue to strengthen the dialog on this important topic.

I anticipate more insights to come on women’s roles in philanthropy over the next several months.  More discussion and insights will emerge next week in Chicago as I attend the “Upholding Our Half: Making the Case for Women’s Philanthropy,” a conference in Chicago October 28 – 29, jointly sponsored by WPI and CASE.  And, to continue the conversation, JGA is proud to be a sponsor of the 2011 Women’s Philanthropy Institute’s Symposium “Women World Wide: Leading through Philanthropy” being convened in Chicago next March.

I will do my best to share with you the learnings and trends that emerge as we come together to focus on women’s issues in philanthropy, but I also hope you will join me in attending these wonderful events and discussing the issues in forums like this blog.