Young Donors a “Lost Cause?”  Think Again.

Organizations that seek support from young donors have been tracking a disturbing trend for several years.  The participation rates of young donors are low and in many instances falling, in comparison to historical trends.  Unlike their predecessors, young donors are not following a pattern of gradual but steady growth in participation which traditionally came with maturity.

While the trends are clear, few organizations have been able to identify why this is happening. We’ve inferred that student indebtedness, generational attitudes towards “institutions,” technology, and other factors may play a role.  But might the real problem be the way in which organizations are engaging young donors?

Here at JGA we have partnered with Achieve in a three month long study to survey donors between the ages of 22 and 40 about their philanthropic giving.  The results will be published in April, but early results point to some fascinating responses.  Young donors don’t appear especially interested in making undesignated gifts to the annual fund, they want to know specifics about how their gifts will be used, and they want to see proof that their giving is having an impact.  They also have some surprising attitudes about how the ways in which they wish to be communicated with.

Could it be that the problem with young donor participation isn’t with the philanthropic inclination this age group, but with the failure of organizations to adapt their cultivation and solicitation methods?

Stay tuned for the full survey results which will be made available in April.  Please submit your contact information here to receive the results as soon as they are released.  Until then, feel free to share your thoughts on the findings so far, by posting in the JGA comments section below.

That’s one of the key findings from a recent survey conducted by JGA in partnership with Achieve - an Indianapolis based consulting firm focused on strengthening fundraising programs and donor engagement (www.achieveguidance.com).  Furthermore, the results also suggest that a broad appeal for funds will leave many young potential donors looking for other giving opportunities.

Over the past three months, JGA and Achieve surveyed donors between the ages of 22 and 40 about their philanthropic giving, communication and relationship preferences.  While JGA and Achieve will unveil the complete results of the survey next month, some preliminary findings merit special attention – most notably, the data suggesting that more than 53% of donors in this age category will support only those organizations that provide specific information about where a donation is going.  In addition, it should be noted that more than 52% of these donors said they will not respond to general requests for support.

What does this mean for organizations?  If you intend to court next-generation donors, you’ll need to let them know what you plan to do with their resources before you receive them. Fail to provide this clarity and they’ll move on to organizations that make clear and concise appeals and include a specific call for action.

Want to learn more?  Stay tuned for the full survey results which will be made available in April.  Please submit your contact information here to receive the results as soon as they are released.  Until then, feel free to share your thoughts on the findings so far, by posting in the JGA comments section below.

A good portion of my work with non-profits, especially education clients are working with the board of trustees to ensure they are doing all they can to support the mission and vision of the organization.  There is a tendency by staff and even us consultants, to blame the board for issues the organization is facing.  I am certainly guilty of this myself.  And there are times when the board has not served their role adequately, but this isn’t always the case.

The other day I was sitting in a board meeting and listening to a similar discussion.  It dealt with fundraising and the role of the board.  Bottom line: the board was not pulling their weight in fundraising according to the report.  It got me thinking about why this board was perceived as failing and my experiences with other boards.  The following are some things to consider when evaluating the work of your board:

• Do they understand their role?  Many times we invite people to serve on the board, but we are not realistic about the amount of time or financial expectations.  It is inappropriate to say “give whatever you can” and then be disappointed that they aren’t making gifts that you anticipated.  Have you oriented the board properly and effectively to enable them to be successful?

• Are they being adequately supported by staff?  Volunteers are not thinking about your organization in the same way as a staff member.  They rely on staff to do the homework, provide the support and follow up, and then use their skills and gifts to enhance your organization.

• Not having faith in staff?  Volunteers should be advocates for your organization.  They should be a member of the board because they believe in your organization and want to make it a better place for the future.  It can become incredibly frustrating for volunteers if staff is not meeting their expectations. 

Granted, there are many times board is not acting properly or supporting the organization as it should.  However, all organizations need to take a hard look at the staff. 

Is your board meeting your expectations and are you meeting theirs?  Let us know your thoughts in the JGA comments sections below. 

I recently studied the MacMillan Matrix for Competitive Analysis, thanks to Carolyn Dederer, Executive Director of Day Nursery Association. Carolyn brought this tool to my attention, and I would encourage you to review it as well.

The MacMillan Matrix is a tool that is especially designed for nonprofits to assess their programs against trends of increasing demand for smaller resources, to avoid duplicating services, and to increase collaboration. 

The MacMillan Matrix helps nonprofits assess each current or prospective program based upon four key criteria: fit, program attractiveness, alternative coverage, and competitive position.  Click here to learn more about the MacMillan Matrix or search “MacMillan Matrix” online for additional resources.

Let Angela know how helpful the MacMillan Matrix is for your organization and share your results by posting in the JGA comments section below.

Give Dan your thoughts on his article by posting in the JGA comments section below, or share your feedback on the Indianapolis Star website.

If the youngsters in your life haven’t yet delved into their first book of the New Year, I have a few suggestions to get them off to a great start – and I even threw in a suggestion for your New Year reading, as well.  All three books are on the importance of giving.

For the youngster, I recommend Shel Silverstein’s classic, The Giving Tree, first published in 1964.  This wonderfully written and illustrated book offers children (and adults) an inspiring example of giving generously.  It also has something to say to all of us about trust and selflessness in a relationship.

Another great book for teaching children about sharing and caring for others is one that my colleague, Angela White, mentioned in her blog a few weeks ago – Three Cups by Mark St. Germain.

For you, I suggest Rambam’s Ladder by Julie Salamon, published in 2003 by Workman Publishing.  Salamon’s book, subtitled “A Meditation on Generosity and why it is Necessary to Give”, is a thoughtful reflection on the Ladder of Charity by Maimonides, a twelfth century philosopher and scholar.

May your New Year reading inspire you and your little ones to be great givers and philanthropists.

Let us know how you liked Dan’s suggested readings, or provide your own suggestions by posting in the JGA comments section below.

One of the characteristics of strong and effective fundraising organizations is that the president/CEO/executive director (whatever the appropriate title) is heavily engaged in relationship building with top donors and is effectively used as the “face” of the organization when it comes to all phases of development work.  Done well, the CEO is the best member of the development team, understands the important role he or she needs to play, and devotes a significant portion of their time (20% to 50%) to development activities.

Two phenomena tend to hold back effective work by the CEO.  On one hand, some CEOs don’t necessarily enjoy development work, don’t think it is an important use of their time, or are consumed with other organizational issues to the point that there is no time left over for development work.  In other cases, the development staff does not do enough to position the CEO as the development leader.

It is difficult to overcome the challenges of dealing with a reluctant CEO, but it is inexcusable if the development team is not doing everything they can to position the CEO for development success.  Placing the CEO at the right events, involving the CEO in appropriate community boards and activities, assisting the CEO in managing a portfolio of key donors, creating situations for the president to interact with emerging prospects, and watching the CEOs “blind side” (as the football themed movie in theatres now so aptly points out) are all routine functions of a strategic development program that supports its CEO.

Is your organization positioning your CEO for development success?  Let us know what you’re doing right in the JGA comments section below. 

Registration is free.  If you are interested in attending the webinar, please register here.

Angela will also moderate the special program, “Who Decides and Why it Matters: Married Couples and Charitable Decision Making,” presented by the Women’s Philanthropy Institute at the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University from 3:45 – 5 p.m. on February, 11, 2010.  The program will be held at the IUPUI University Library Auditorium in Indianapolis.

If you are interested in attending, please contact Andrea Pactor at apactor@iupui.edu or 317.278.8990.

We want to hear from you!  Let JGA know your thoughts following the webinar or the program by posting in the comments section below.

I will admit that I really don’t identify with the word “vendor”. As a consultant at JGA, I identify much more with the word “partner”. I believe that my role at JGA is to partner with our clients to help them achieve their missions through philanthropic investment.

But, alas, sometimes I know that we are considered vendors. So, it did my heart good to read Jeff Lindauer’s blog, “Working with Vendors“. Give it a read and let me know what you think about your relationship with vendors – are they partners or just service providers? How can we make certain that the vendor/client relationship is a partnership to achieve the best for those you serve? I look forward to your comments.

Let Angela know what you thought of Jeff Lindauer’s blog or share your secret to a successful vendor relationship in the JGA comments section below.  

Angela has also been invited to speak on the topic at the January 13, 2010, Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) luncheon in Lafayette, Ind. To learn more, or to register to attend, please see the Indiana Chapter of AFP’s website.

If you are unable to attend and would like more on the outlook for giving in 2010 as well as some steps non-profits can consider taking to ensure greater success in the new years, be sure to visit the recent Inside INdiana Business segment featuring JGA’s Ted Grossnickle. The segment can be found on the Inside INdiana Business website.

Let JGA know how your non-profit fared in 2009 or what your own predictions are for philanthropy in 2010 by submitting your thoughts in the comments section below.