by Kris Kindelsperger

For nonprofits and donors alike the signs are promising.  The Dow has passed 12,000, a wide range of economic indicators are improving, corporate profits are strong for many companies, and many have recovered much of their personal wealth. 

Yet, despite all these positive indicators, the news that may have the most important impact on philanthropy may be two years of certainty about key tax issues.

The psychology of giving is complex, but clearly in times of significant recession many individuals had fewer resources with which to fund their philanthropy. 

But, despite signs of recovery in the 3^rd and 4^th quarters of 2010, donors seemed to lack confidence in a sustained recovery, and thus were reluctant to make significant philanthropic commitments, as evidenced in a recent Chronicle of Philanthropy study that showed giving by the biggest donors was down significantly in 2010. 

One obstacle was the fear that proposals by some in the house and senate would result in significant changes to personal income and estate tax policy, which would wipe out the gains many were making.

Congress resolved these fears, at least for two years.  The psychology of this, many believe, will lead to clarity and confidence, something that has been missing for some time.  This recent New York Times article examines in great detail the impact the deal could have for charities in the short term.

Our recommendation?  Gift officers should test the concept of the “two year window of opportunity” with prospects.  For the next two years donors can make significant philanthropic commitments knowing exactly the tax consequences. 

Will two years of certainty fuel 2011 giving? We think so.  What does it look like from your vantage point?

by Ted Grossnickle

A recent NY Times article articulates something we have seen growing the last several years in the world of philanthropy . . . more donors desiring a louder ‘voice’ in how their money is spent.

In “Donors Demand a Bigger Voice in Catholic Schools,” Paul Vitello captures issues we hear frequently in our discussions with major donors. Impassioned donors today are less willing to sit by the sidelines, write a check and hope for the best.

More people today approach philanthropic decisions as they do major business decisions.  They want to see ROI.  They want to know their funds are being used efficiently and effectively to have a material impact on the issues they support. And to some extent, that is really a good thing.

The question for non-profits is how to facilitate and engage with this desire for input.  How do we provide meaningful involvement for major funders that facilitates input and discussion rather than a dynamic of dictatorship? Or one way conversations?

Part of the solution, as noted in the article and implemented by the New York archdiocese school system, is appropriately matching those donors who wish to be more involved with those areas where they can implement more change. In New York, this involved matching donors with schools in an “adopt-a –school” type program where donors are given greater input into the nuts and bolts operation of the schools.

Managing the solution, however, demands that you have enough of a relationship to have authentic dialogue with your major donors. And it also means as a donor you had better be prepared to learn. What works in your business does not automatically work in a non-profit!

It is the dynamic between a non-profit CEO and a major donor that is really at issue.  Are you willing to spend the time it likely will take to be able to speak honestly to one another about how gifts can have their best and largest impacts? It means the CEO must let the donor know about how the organization really does its work. And the donor has to keep an open set of eyes and try to understand the context in which the organization must perform its mission. 

This stuff takes time.

It can make a huge difference.

By Dan Schipp

As 2011 gets underway and New Year’s resolutions are still fresh and largely untested, I am reminded of a brief article I read in Seminary Development News several years ago. 

The article, entitled “All I Need to Know about Development,” was written by Karna Burkeen, then associate director of development and seminary relations at Lancaster Theological Seminary.  She began the article with these words:

“Sometimes I think all I need to know about development I learned in my home as a child:

 1) Ask nicely for what you want;

2) Be polite and mannerly; and

3) Say ‘please’  and ‘thank you’.”

Ms. Burkeen then wrote,

“Development, of course, is more than just being polite and asking nicely, and even remembering to write letters and say thank you.  Our work is much more complex than that.  Nevertheless, those skills were foundational in my youth, and they continue to serve me well in my adult life.”

Yes, successful development involves more than just minding our manners. 

It is important that we

• assess performance and benchmark our results with those of similar organizations,
• plan and carry out solid programs in annual giving, special opportunities and planned giving,
• provide for the on-going education of staff and volunteers, and
• actively build relationships with donors and prospective donors. 

But, at times, do we get so caught up in our plans, goals, strategies, and research that we forget about those core insights noted by Ms. Burkeen? 

As we begin a new year, maybe it’s a good time to remind ourselves of these fundamentals and to recommit ourselves to doing well what we learned as youth:  ask nicely, be polite, and say thank you.

by Ted Grossnickle

I was recently asked during a television interview for Inside Indiana Business what I thought major donors were thinking about now compared to a year ago.

My first response was that the majority of major and lead gift donors for our JGA’s clients have conveyed two key messages during the past six months:

First – we want to continue to be generous but we may take more time making up our minds, and

Second – we will shorten the list of causes we support.

My colleagues at JGA and I have heard these or variations on these themes for a good part of 2010, and we suspect that these will continue to motivate many donors in 2011.

The impulse to give and to help people is universal and deeply felt. And while we all noted the declines in gifting this past year we also can choose to help our donors and friends continue to give what they can. In fact, it may be that the act of giving becomes even more important for the donor during a time like this.

Traditionally, it’s been my orientation to think about the impact of gifting on the organizations we serve – and that is perhaps as it should be.

But I also wonder if the decision of so many around our State and nation to continue gifting – even when they perhaps are doing so from a reduced base of assets – signals something very important.

It may mean that giving is itself an important way of reminding ourselves that we can have a positive impact, that we can make things better for others and that we can do with a bit less ourselves.

If that is one of the legacies of this very tricky and difficult economic time, then perhaps we will all end up a bit stronger in the years ahead.

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 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 Ted Grossnickle

Back in April of this year (wow, it’s been six months now) JGA and Achieve, LLC announced results of the Millennial Donor Study — and the response to that donor research since then has been unlike anything either firm has seen.

Perhaps we should not be surprised given the topic and interest in philanthropy around the nation in this millennium! Since April there have been more than twenty blog postings about the study results — and those are only the ones we’ve managed to catch.

What surprises me is the continuing circulation of the research even now. There are recent comments regarding the applicability of it to fundraising by national political parties in this midterm election season and a posting this past week on the Social Edge blog forum from the Skoll Foundation – affiliated with the founder of eBay- about the importance of young donor engagement for social entrepreneurs.

At this rate, I expect the results of our research to show up in Christmas cards!!

We believe it is time to seriously rethink our perceptions about younger people in philanthropy and volunteerism.

For too many years, there has been the assumption that “they’re too busy,” or “they don’t have resources yet,” or “they’re just not interested,” or – perhaps worst- “we can’t expect them to engage with causes the way everyone else does.”

All of these are pretty much incorrect — at least according to our research (http://www.millennialdonors.com/) and to the many people who have followed our Study.

I can tell you this — there is more to come. JGA and Achieve are partnering to conduct a second round of nonprofit research in this area and you can expect more results during the spring of 2011. 

Want to be a part of the next Millenial Donors study?  We are in search of 10 institutions to participate in the study of young donor attitudes and engagement trends.  If you are interested in participating, please contact Joanna Nixon at Achieve or download the Request for Interest application.

by Meg Gammage – Tucker

Nonprofit professionals are regularly asked to justify the efficiency and effectiveness of their missions, programs, staff, and all other elements of their existence.   The reason—we live in an era of substantial competition for limited financial and human resources; under the light of growing public attention and scrutiny; and greater demands from donors for evidence of organizational impact and importance.

How can nonprofits deal with the growing demands of volunteers, audiences, clients, and donors who need more justification to invest in us and our missions and programs?  For the majority of the 1.6 million+ nonprofit institutions, the response has historically been to produce reports that generally outline the need for their “vital” services.  The organization then lists the number and amount of gifts received. 

It becomes somewhat circular as a justification process. 

Our clients and those who attend my classes often indicate that those reports are the extent of what they can generate given the substantial limitations on their time and staff resources.  Planning, modeling, evaluation, reports, impacts, outcomes—take too much time and they limit the energy available for running their organizations and developing and deepening donor relationships. 

It is not enough, however.   More justification and reports are necessary.  Why?  For the very reasons that you shy away from the concept:

• you have limited resources,
• your competition is growing, and
• you  have to justify our existence, let alone any possibility of growth or greater impact or influence. 

In other words, you simply need to work smarter, be better, and share the results of your successes (and, sometimes, your challenges).

How can we do this?  Employ simple and effective models and metrics to:

• illustrate your effectiveness;
• gain the support and greater engagement of your volunteers and investors; and—certainly not last or least—
• justify your existence. 

They do not need to be elaborate, but they do need to be meaningful, reflective, informative, and useful.  Start simple and seek board input.  Once you engage that audience and answer their questions, you can offer larger audiences more insights into your nonprofit’s efficiency and effectiveness.