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?