by Angela White

I recently recorded a short video interview on why we advocate feasibility studies at JGA. A feasibility study provides vital answers to help an organization create and run a successful fundraising campaign. By conducting a feasibility study, an organization can receive a third party perspective on the organizations upcoming campaign or project.

Here are some questions a good feasibility study should help you answer.

1. How much money can you expect to raise in a capital campaign?
• What are donors willing to do to aid your organization in achieving its goal?
2. Who are your potential volunteer leaders?
• Who might be able to partner with staff to make the campaign a success?
3. What are the perceptions of your organization among your constituents?
• How do donors connect to the leadership of your organization?
4. Are there underlying issues impacting your organization’s potential for success in a campaign?
• What might be out there that could maximize your giving?
• Are there challenges that could cut back on the amount of gifting you are likely to receive?
• Are there issues impacting your constituency of which you need to be aware?
5. What are the broader questions that need to be asked specific to our organization?
• How can we position this campaign to be successful today and set the stage for long term growth?

A feasibility study can be a valuable tool to help develop a thorough understanding of how successful your campaign may be and where you may encounter problems.

But from my perspective, to get at the broader answers about the campaign you need to tailor the approach specifically to the organization.

Through the years, we have recognized that the feasibility studies that yield the most useful information include the following:

• Detailed, custom plan development specifically to meet your organization’s needs, not a cookie cutter approach
• A tailored selection of questions that allows a feasibility study to take into account your organizations history and current situation
• Face to face interviews with clients which yield more insights and build closer relationship to volunteers and donors
• Enough time for a thorough study of the aspects that could impact your campaign, sometimes up to 90 – 120 days
• Go beyond donors and involve committees, staff, volunteers and other constituents important to your success

Taking this extra step to tailor the questions and the approach to your organizations unique needs allows the feasibility study to answer the bigger question of what do you need to be successful not just today in this campaign but to set the stage for long term philanthropic growth.

by Ted Grossnickle

I am honored to be a campaign co-chairman and trustee for my alma mater. This makes me think about the advice I am asked to give to clients in a new way.

When I talk with clients about what ought to be expected of trustees and other volunteers, I have a perspective as a trustee and volunteer in addition to that of a consultant.

It’s not that the two are mutually exclusive. They’re not. But they are different.

Certainly you want a consultant to be objective- even dispassionately so. You want a trustee and co-chairman to be passionate about the cause.

Both perspectives are required for success in a campaign. It is the blend of those two ways of looking at strategy (and tactics) that help (in this case) a College find its way with philanthropy in challenging economic times.

From these two perspectives, I recently shared in a short video what I believe are key questions a trustee should ask when they hear about a proposed campaign:

1.  Do you understand why a campaign is proposed and will it advance the mission of the organization? Will it help you help people? Will you do better work?

2.  Have the staff and the CEO thought through the campaign… thoroughly? Do they know what will be required of them? Can they support the effort? Are they ready to support volunteers?

3.  Are you prepared to be personally very generous to the campaign and also serve as an ambassador sharing your passion and explaining the mission of the organization to others?

4.  Has an objective set of eyes studied the campaign – and reported authentically on what will make it work— and what might derail it?

I’d be interested in hearing your perspectives about these key questions. Please let me know what you think. We’re all students when it comes to getting it right for our institutions…

by Kris Kindelsperger

In today’s economy, does a major comprehensive campaign make the most sense or is a series of smaller project based campaigns a better approach?

Two commonly used campaign strategies are the comprehensive campaign strategy and the individual project based strategy. Each offers their own advantages and disadvantages.

Comprehensive campaigns offer several advantages:

• One fundraising plan can address a range of important needs
• Their mix of components can better match the varied interests of donors in the campaign
• Their broad scope allows them to address high level strategic initiatives of the institution

While successfully run comprehensive campaigns can be truly transformational for an organization, they also have drawbacks to consider:

• They take longer to plan and complete
• They are more expensive to run
• They can push the limits of donor capacity
• They demand more of staff’s time and endurance

Individual project campaigns, on the other hand, are effective in:

• Achieving goals in a shorter amount of time
• Meeting an obvious and compelling need
• Minimizing the demand on donor capacity
• Lowering the risk of fatiguing staff

But consider where the individual project campaign falls short:

• Its singularity of focus might leave other important needs unmet
• Donors may find the project fails to pique their interest or meet their philanthropic goals

So which is the “better” of the two options? 

In times of transition or uncertainty, a project campaign may represent a good short-term way of staying engaged with your donor population.  Project campaigns can be a good warm up to a larger comprehensive campaign, testing staff and volunteer leadership and building capacity.

If a compelling strategic plan, proven capacity and strong staff and volunteer initiative is in place, a comprehensive campaign is likely the best use of institutional resources and a successful campaign can truly be transformational for the organization.

The best answer for you may not be one or the other, but rather a grouping of components that provide donor choice but at a smaller total goal that better aligns with capacity. 

This approach may offer most of the advantages of a comprehensive campaign while offering the shorter time frame and more focused approach of the project campaign.

By Andrew Canada

Budget cuts, tuition increases, reduction in services offered, staff furloughs and reductions in force seem like common titles to news articles these days.

The changes that have taken place in our economy the past few years have drastically altered the way all organizations make budget and staffing decisions. What role will philanthropy play in how these key decisions are made?

Many organizations are hoping donors will help make up the deficits their budgets are facing, and so are increasing the goals placed on their fundraising staffs.

However, are they making strategic decisions and providing fundraisers with the resources needed to reach these new expectations?

In a recent article for the New York Times, Lisa Foderara talks about the decisions many public universities are making in her article “Amid Cuts, Public Colleges Step-Up Appeals to Alumni.”  She discusses how schools are looking for ways engage their alumni and encourage their support to help relieve their budget shortfalls.

Organizations have to make strategic and sometimes difficult decisions. It is not an easy or popular decision for a President to hire more development staff when they are either cutting or not hiring new faculty members.

But in order to meet the new goals, this is what many institutions are doing. Without proper staffing and resources, development staffs cannot reach the ever increasing needs of their organizations.

It would be wonderful if there was enough private support to make up the shortfalls facing organizations today, but this does not happen overnight.

It takes time and hard work to engage potential donors with your organization. Your mission and case for support has to be sharply focused and you have to prove your organization is a solid investment. Donors are taking longer to make major philanthropic decisions and they are viewing their gift as an investment in the future of not only your organization but also their community. 

Investing more in your development staff can be a strategic investment, but don’t look at it as a quick fix for today’s budget woes.

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 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.

by Ted Grossnickle

It’s no revelation that our very tough economy is causing many nonprofits to have to deal with a range of issues and decisions that are new for them.

As we work with our clients, those of us at JGA occasionally hear something like this:

“Look, we know that there is a right way to do a campaign, but we need funds now. Why not just go out and start campaigning right now?” 

This impulse is one that has organizations willing to ignore:

• the lack of readiness of their donors
• uninformed and disengaged staff or volunteers; and,
• their own half-completed planning and preparation.

The implicit trade off is to sacrifice preparation and “just go raise funds…”

Activity associated with a campaign often seems to suggest progress, to create enthusiasm and excitement and to hold promise of better days and more resources. And we all know that sometimes activity is a terrific camouflage for not dealing with the real issues. It is an understandable impulse.

What we can say in our experience over many years is that the track record for campaigns which had their genesis in a hurried up idea without adequate preparation is lousy. Some of the best known campaign failures are those which got their start in this fatally flawed manner.

A successful campaign must be rooted in:

• a sound business model and strategic plan
• board and staff leadership on the same page with regard to a Case for Support
• volunteers and staff oriented and trained to get the most from prospective donors
• a sense that you are ready for whatever the world may throw at you.

When hit by tough issues or economic hard times, campaigns that have done the right stuff up front respond and respond well and go on to succeed. Properly planned campaigns take the time to get it right so that when the inevitable uncertainties and problems arise, they know what they are doing and have thought about contingencies and can move ahead with dispatch, confidence and some elan’.

We have an old carpenter’s saying here in the JGA culture: “measure twice and cut once.” It’s even more important in bad times than it is in good ones.

Despite the pressure, stick to your guns and do it the right way….