I can think of no better way to start the new year than to reflect and remind ourselves that philanthropy is a social compact, an unwritten, culturally-held agreement between donors and doers to get something of mutual interest done. For that compact to work, both parties must be very clear about what each thinks is possible at what cost. The less unrealistic and self-serving each party can be, the greater the chances of success.
Ways in which organizations can be unrealistic include:
Overstating its aspirations. For instance, no one is going to cure cancer in the next few years. Wouldn’t it far wiser to tell donors exactly what can and can’t be done to increase the comfort and survivability of those stricken with cancer in the next five to ten years than to promise something that sounds nice but offers nothing tangible to anyone anytime soon?
Touting a purpose without a practical plan to make it happen. Whether it is becoming more green, global or diverse, a donor should be able to ask, “What are your short-term and long-term goals? What benchmarks or milestones are you driving toward? How is this organization using the uniqueness of its brand to make a significant and sustainable difference?” And organizations should be prepared with specific satisfying answers.
Expecting great support without a great idea. Throughout my career, I’ve met leaders who hoped to secure large gifts – including some in the nine-figures – but had no idea, project or plan that would justify a gift of that magnitude.
Expecting great support without putting forward a great effort. Yep, even with a good idea and a great cause, a great effort is required from the leader, the board, the advancement team and all those who hope to benefit from philanthropy. Everyone must be willing to knock on a lot of doors, listen to a lot of potential donors and to adjust their plans according to what the philanthropic market will and will not bear.
Ways in which organizations can be self-serving include:
Asking on the basis of institutional “giving levels” rather than budgeted project need. We all like nice round numbers, like one million, but a well-developed case for support is built on a well-crafted budget. An exact budget shows that an organization has thought carefully about, and is asking only for, what it needs. If there’s any rounding to do, let it be done by the donor.
Expecting loyalty to be the donor’s primary motivation. Organizations should ask for support on the basis of what might be, not what is or was. Expecting loyalty is really assuming that an organization has already done enough to keep a donor’s support. In fact, the best way to sustain support is to show the donor how continued giving will produce ever more impressive results.
Believing a noble cause is enough. Nobility of purpose or goodness of intention is no substitute for the relentless pursuit of better, faster, more economical ways of delivering more value to more constituents. Indeed, one could argue that the greatest of causes should hold themselves to the highest standards of practice.
Asking for money without being ready. Donors want their money to be put to work, whether it is to build an endowment or a new structure, to launch a new program or augment an existing one. They want their money to make a difference. When an organization fails to expend donated funds in a timely manner, for whatever reason, it owes the donor an explanation of why the delay occurred and when it will be overcome. It should never hold “current use” gifts to generate earnings.
Wanting too much in reserve. I know I’ll arouse the ire of many but I think too many organizations put too great an emphasis on building overly-large endowments. Yes, little or no endowment can leave an institution vulnerable but too large an endowment can leave it complacent, or even smug, which, in turn, make it less adaptive to necessary change and responsive to emerging opportunity.
Asking for more to avoid tough decisions. I wish I could tell you how many times in the past year I have heard donors say, in so many words, “My business has had to really tighten its belt and make some very tough decisions but I see little or no evidence of that from organizations asking me for money.” In too many cases, the criticism is warranted. Some organizations seek to raise more, even in a contracted economy, to keep from upsetting internal stakeholders, rethinking outmoded assumptions and making necessary but painful decisions.
Failing to ask, “What would our donors think?” Whether it is determining the payout rate for endowments or deciding how much to spend on a holiday party, organizations, especially when they are about to make a decision that benefits internal stakeholders, should ask themselves this question and search their souls for the right answer. Even when considering such questions it is wise to imagine a donor in the room, the kind that we all hold in great regard, and ask ourselves if we would be comfortable advancing the idea with he or she present. That, I believe, is true stewardship.
A healthy, well-led organization is able to ask itself if these tendencies have crept in and, after earnest reflection, will begin to do its part to restore and re-balance the social compact. Thoreau said, “To regret deeply is to live afresh.” I would say those organizations that reflect deeply on these kinds of issues can accomplish the same and, in so doing, refresh their authenticity and reestablish their relevance with each passing decade.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Monday, December 21, 2009
Charity, Philanthropy and Civility in American History
Scholars, in ever larger numbers, are coming to see that the study of philanthropy is a means of gaining deep insight into American culture and history. This trend was made manifest in, and furthered by, the publication of Charity, Philanthropy, and Civility in American History (2003). The book is a compilation of scholarly essays exploring the roots, dimensions and evolution of Americans' remarkable range of efforts to reform social ills, fight disease, improve education and to create a more just, democratic, peaceful and prosperous society.
The essays examine the intentions and consequences of various philanthropic ideals and initiatives, as well as their benefits, drawbacks and unintended consequences. In an essay entitled, "Woman and Political Culture," Kathleen McCarthy enumerates the distinct and disproportionate contributions women made to philanthropic pursuits as well as philanthropy itself and what philanthropy did for women. She writes, "Far from being apolitical, many middle-class housewives were deeply enmeshed in the practice of governance well before they won the right to vote... Although the first female-controlled charities were founded and managed by female elites, by the 1810s a national infrastructure for mobilization and reform had emerged... Over the past two centuries, American women effectively invested their time, talents, and funds in building an array of public services. Through their philanthropic activities, black and white women -- both North and South -- backed their churches, founded charities and literary societies, participated in social reform movements to end slavery and extend the vote, and worked in tandem with state and federal officials over the course of the Civil War. These activities enabled at least some to win political and legal benefits for themselves, to accord women's and children's issues a prominent place on the public agenda, and to promote social change to a degree unmatched in other industrialized nations. In the process, they managed to shape American government and the American welfare state from the periphery of the political arena through the power of philanthropy."
She concludes her cogent thesis by saying, "Women played a vital role in the emergence of civil society as well. Through public-private partnerships with local, state, and federal policy-makers, philanthropy and the nonprofit sector enabled an array of groups to claim a place on the public stage. Each group used these activities and institutions in different ways, to achieve often differing ends. We are just beginning to understand the impact of philanthropy in shaping American government and American governance, efforts exemplified by the continuing history of women's compassion and generosity."
There is so much more to learn about philanthropy. Kathleen McCarthy and others are helping us better understand how it has been shaped and by whom and, in turn, how it has shaped all of us. Among the conclusions I draw from these studies are:
1. That as we, as individuals and a society, pursue the creation of opportunity for others, we create unimagined opportunities, personal and professional for ourselves;
2. That in the pursuit of redressing inequity, we force ourselves to challenge assumptions, to think in different ways, and to create new competencies -- be they scientific, administrative, analytical or emotional -- that find far greater and farther reaching applicability; and
3. That the pursuit of philanthropic purposes, if conducted with humility and a selfless objectivity, will prove to be one of the greatest forces in shaping human history in the coming centuries.
Thank you for reading my blog. I wish you a joyous holiday season and endless contentment in the new year.
The essays examine the intentions and consequences of various philanthropic ideals and initiatives, as well as their benefits, drawbacks and unintended consequences. In an essay entitled, "Woman and Political Culture," Kathleen McCarthy enumerates the distinct and disproportionate contributions women made to philanthropic pursuits as well as philanthropy itself and what philanthropy did for women. She writes, "Far from being apolitical, many middle-class housewives were deeply enmeshed in the practice of governance well before they won the right to vote... Although the first female-controlled charities were founded and managed by female elites, by the 1810s a national infrastructure for mobilization and reform had emerged... Over the past two centuries, American women effectively invested their time, talents, and funds in building an array of public services. Through their philanthropic activities, black and white women -- both North and South -- backed their churches, founded charities and literary societies, participated in social reform movements to end slavery and extend the vote, and worked in tandem with state and federal officials over the course of the Civil War. These activities enabled at least some to win political and legal benefits for themselves, to accord women's and children's issues a prominent place on the public agenda, and to promote social change to a degree unmatched in other industrialized nations. In the process, they managed to shape American government and the American welfare state from the periphery of the political arena through the power of philanthropy."
She concludes her cogent thesis by saying, "Women played a vital role in the emergence of civil society as well. Through public-private partnerships with local, state, and federal policy-makers, philanthropy and the nonprofit sector enabled an array of groups to claim a place on the public stage. Each group used these activities and institutions in different ways, to achieve often differing ends. We are just beginning to understand the impact of philanthropy in shaping American government and American governance, efforts exemplified by the continuing history of women's compassion and generosity."
There is so much more to learn about philanthropy. Kathleen McCarthy and others are helping us better understand how it has been shaped and by whom and, in turn, how it has shaped all of us. Among the conclusions I draw from these studies are:
1. That as we, as individuals and a society, pursue the creation of opportunity for others, we create unimagined opportunities, personal and professional for ourselves;
2. That in the pursuit of redressing inequity, we force ourselves to challenge assumptions, to think in different ways, and to create new competencies -- be they scientific, administrative, analytical or emotional -- that find far greater and farther reaching applicability; and
3. That the pursuit of philanthropic purposes, if conducted with humility and a selfless objectivity, will prove to be one of the greatest forces in shaping human history in the coming centuries.
Thank you for reading my blog. I wish you a joyous holiday season and endless contentment in the new year.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Insight from the Heartland
In searching the web for examples of insight into, and or innovations in, philanthropy, I came across some wonderfully sound, simply-phrased advice dispensed on the website of the Nebraska 4-H branch. The information appears to have been posted years ago but it is still very much germane and I know of many universities and non-profits that would do much better if they would heed to it. Here are some selected excerpts, some of which I follow with brief comments.
"Are your group goals clear, specific, and action-oriented? Clarify what your group will do with the money raised. It is easier to raise money for specific projects than for the general support of an organization." Too many philanthropy-seeking organizations state their fund raising objectives in the form of broad categorical objectives such as faculty excellence, financial aid, or capital improvements rather than specific projects designed to produce results (e.g. to raise an additional $10 million to double the number of the most qualified, first generation students in five years).
"People donate money in direct relation to how strongly they believe in the program or group. Your success in fund raising indicates the popularity of your program. If contributions are not coming in, it may indicate the need to revise your program, to update your product, to change your image to be more responsive and appealing to the concerns and interests of prospective contributors. Publicize the good works of your organization. Sell your program rather than the need for money. People don't buy Buicks because GM needs money." This is so refreshing to read. All too often, when an organization fails to raise money, the tendency is to blame the fund raising apparatus rather than to ask if the program or initiative was ill-designed.
"Map out your strategy. It is what you do in advance that counts the most... Your market is everyone who will benefit directly or indirectly from your organization or cause." A strategy is the means of reconciling internal aspirations with external realities. The more market-sensitive your plans, the greater your chances of success.
"Understand that you must work with the world as it really is, rather than as it should be. People come prepackaged with different ideas, emotions, and values. To make your fund raising plan succeed, you have to do your homework and take the time to think about what makes the targeted donor tick. Each person give for a different reason. Tailor your appeal to the specific concerns, needs and interests of the individual." Hard to say it any better than that. We have to align our aspirations with the sensibilities of those that might support us.
"Give value for value. Clearly indicate what donors will receive in return for their contribution. This might include:
A statement of exactly what their contribution will buy, (e.g. $75 will send two kids to camp).
A statement of how the donor will directly or indirectly benefit as a result of your group or program, (e.g., we will lobby on behalf of you and other ranchers to....").
Personal recognition.
Good public relations for the donor.
A tax deduction.
Feeling good about themselves and what their contribution makes possible.
A sense of immortality. " There are those who might say this advice is too transactional in tone but there is something about it that strikes me as genuinely American and makes me smile, including the "sense of immortality" you might achieve by giving $75 to send a couple of kids to camp.
"Give your personal testament as to the benefits of the group or program. Be upbeat and positive. The advantage (or disadvantage) of face-to-face communication is that your personal commitment and enthusiasm (or lack of it) are going to show through. Be specific rather than speaking in generalities (e.g., "I would not be able to speak to you except for the public speaking skills and confidence I've gained through Scouts. Your support will provide other young people with the same opportunity.") Look the prospective donor in the eye, and ask for the targeted amount." If someone in a Scout uniform made that pitch to me, there's no way I could say, "no."
"Practice. Never ask for a donation without having practiced first. Our natural fear and discomfort in asking people for money is overcome through good preparation and practice."
"Follow-Up. Acknowledge the gift with a personalized letter. Report on results. Be accountable. Interview benefactors and publicize how the program has benefited them. Build a donor relationship in anticipation of next year's fund raiser."
"Celebrate. Get together after the fund drive. Frankly discuss the work, share funny stories, applaud your success, and strategize on the hard cases. Fund raising is more imposing for new members, so give them an extra boost. Reward yourselves for a job well done."
"Be Prepared for Disappointments. Sometimes things go wrong. How do you rebound from a fund loser, and save morale? Get together as a group as soon as possible to talk about what went wrong and what can be done immediately to recoup your losses. If there were any mistakes of judgment, the chairperson should quickly accept responsibility. Simply say, "It was my fault." The purpose of your meeting is not to pin the blame. Make a list on paper of what went wrong and what to do differently next time. It is a great psychological relief to pin down the precise problem so it doesn't seem like everything went wrong. Stop dwelling on the "failure," and instead focus on what you will do to make up the loss." I'd love to see some variation of this played out at a university or oh-so non-profit. I'd better not push it any farther than that.
"Are your group goals clear, specific, and action-oriented? Clarify what your group will do with the money raised. It is easier to raise money for specific projects than for the general support of an organization." Too many philanthropy-seeking organizations state their fund raising objectives in the form of broad categorical objectives such as faculty excellence, financial aid, or capital improvements rather than specific projects designed to produce results (e.g. to raise an additional $10 million to double the number of the most qualified, first generation students in five years).
"People donate money in direct relation to how strongly they believe in the program or group. Your success in fund raising indicates the popularity of your program. If contributions are not coming in, it may indicate the need to revise your program, to update your product, to change your image to be more responsive and appealing to the concerns and interests of prospective contributors. Publicize the good works of your organization. Sell your program rather than the need for money. People don't buy Buicks because GM needs money." This is so refreshing to read. All too often, when an organization fails to raise money, the tendency is to blame the fund raising apparatus rather than to ask if the program or initiative was ill-designed.
"Map out your strategy. It is what you do in advance that counts the most... Your market is everyone who will benefit directly or indirectly from your organization or cause." A strategy is the means of reconciling internal aspirations with external realities. The more market-sensitive your plans, the greater your chances of success.
"Understand that you must work with the world as it really is, rather than as it should be. People come prepackaged with different ideas, emotions, and values. To make your fund raising plan succeed, you have to do your homework and take the time to think about what makes the targeted donor tick. Each person give for a different reason. Tailor your appeal to the specific concerns, needs and interests of the individual." Hard to say it any better than that. We have to align our aspirations with the sensibilities of those that might support us.
"Give value for value. Clearly indicate what donors will receive in return for their contribution. This might include:
A statement of exactly what their contribution will buy, (e.g. $75 will send two kids to camp).
A statement of how the donor will directly or indirectly benefit as a result of your group or program, (e.g., we will lobby on behalf of you and other ranchers to....").
Personal recognition.
Good public relations for the donor.
A tax deduction.
Feeling good about themselves and what their contribution makes possible.
A sense of immortality. " There are those who might say this advice is too transactional in tone but there is something about it that strikes me as genuinely American and makes me smile, including the "sense of immortality" you might achieve by giving $75 to send a couple of kids to camp.
"Give your personal testament as to the benefits of the group or program. Be upbeat and positive. The advantage (or disadvantage) of face-to-face communication is that your personal commitment and enthusiasm (or lack of it) are going to show through. Be specific rather than speaking in generalities (e.g., "I would not be able to speak to you except for the public speaking skills and confidence I've gained through Scouts. Your support will provide other young people with the same opportunity.") Look the prospective donor in the eye, and ask for the targeted amount." If someone in a Scout uniform made that pitch to me, there's no way I could say, "no."
"Practice. Never ask for a donation without having practiced first. Our natural fear and discomfort in asking people for money is overcome through good preparation and practice."
"Follow-Up. Acknowledge the gift with a personalized letter. Report on results. Be accountable. Interview benefactors and publicize how the program has benefited them. Build a donor relationship in anticipation of next year's fund raiser."
"Celebrate. Get together after the fund drive. Frankly discuss the work, share funny stories, applaud your success, and strategize on the hard cases. Fund raising is more imposing for new members, so give them an extra boost. Reward yourselves for a job well done."
"Be Prepared for Disappointments. Sometimes things go wrong. How do you rebound from a fund loser, and save morale? Get together as a group as soon as possible to talk about what went wrong and what can be done immediately to recoup your losses. If there were any mistakes of judgment, the chairperson should quickly accept responsibility. Simply say, "It was my fault." The purpose of your meeting is not to pin the blame. Make a list on paper of what went wrong and what to do differently next time. It is a great psychological relief to pin down the precise problem so it doesn't seem like everything went wrong. Stop dwelling on the "failure," and instead focus on what you will do to make up the loss." I'd love to see some variation of this played out at a university or oh-so non-profit. I'd better not push it any farther than that.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Family and Faith: The Heart of American Philanthropy
In my lectures, seminars and writings, I often speak to the spiritual roots of American philanthropy and stress how important it is for philanthropy-seeking organizations to understand, respect, align with and further develop this profoundly important aspect of our culture.
In an article in The Global Spiral, Stephen G. Post underscores the singularity and cultural centrality of American philanthropy in asserting, "The most significant history of America is the story of how those committed to freedom and to the public good have used wealth to found and maintain institutions of education, health, culture, spirituality, and humanitarian aspiration. It is also a story about millions of people devoting time and energy in small ways to good causes. Our American histories are usually shaped by themes such as politics, culture, expansion, war, and the economy. We need to recognize that the history of this nation is at least as much one of philanthropy as of anything else, and that only through the spirit of philanthropy is there any ultimate hope for a prosperous, pluralistic, democratic future. Government has a vitally important role in responding to the needs of citizens, especially of those in dire need. But we also need philanthropy."
In the same article, he points to family history and religion as wellsprings of American philanthropy. "If we do live in an age of narcissism, the remarkable thing is that so many individuals and families act philanthropically," he says. "The traditions of philanthropic families seem strong enough to sustain the spirit of giving, and, if today's events are a measure, to help other families enter into this spirit. As one scholar who has studied philanthropic motives in depth through interview analysis concludes: "Most of the wealthy people we interviewed also cited family tradition as a reason to give to charity. For some, the family had a history of responding to the needs of communities where they had been 'leading families.'" Next to family history, spirituality and religion are often mentioned, and these features are usually a core aspect of family history. And, importantly, people want to pass this spiritual tradition of generosity on to their children. Some parents engage their children in volunteer work in adolescence, teach them by modeling a life of service: some involve their children actively in the life of the family foundation, including site visits and responsibility for some small grants."
The market research we have conducted through Georgetown's Advancement office shows that the majority of our most generous and loyal donors identify themselves by their faith and have had multiple family members attend the university. The correlation of spirituality to philanthropy is powerful according to Arthur C. Brooks, who, in a Policy Review article, entitled "Religious Faith and Charitable Giving," writes, "Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions."
So, given the strength of this evidence, I continue to challenge those philanthropy-seeking organizations who resort to soul-less, short-term, and metrically reductive approaches to fund raising. I believe that donors give despite, not because of, these approaches. These organizations would be better served, and would better serve the American philanthropic phenomenon, by giving more time and attention to designing goals and activities that would tap into and satisfy our deepest spiritual aspirations and by asking what they might do to not only raise more gifts in the next year but to earn the support of families over many generations.
In an article in The Global Spiral, Stephen G. Post underscores the singularity and cultural centrality of American philanthropy in asserting, "The most significant history of America is the story of how those committed to freedom and to the public good have used wealth to found and maintain institutions of education, health, culture, spirituality, and humanitarian aspiration. It is also a story about millions of people devoting time and energy in small ways to good causes. Our American histories are usually shaped by themes such as politics, culture, expansion, war, and the economy. We need to recognize that the history of this nation is at least as much one of philanthropy as of anything else, and that only through the spirit of philanthropy is there any ultimate hope for a prosperous, pluralistic, democratic future. Government has a vitally important role in responding to the needs of citizens, especially of those in dire need. But we also need philanthropy."
In the same article, he points to family history and religion as wellsprings of American philanthropy. "If we do live in an age of narcissism, the remarkable thing is that so many individuals and families act philanthropically," he says. "The traditions of philanthropic families seem strong enough to sustain the spirit of giving, and, if today's events are a measure, to help other families enter into this spirit. As one scholar who has studied philanthropic motives in depth through interview analysis concludes: "Most of the wealthy people we interviewed also cited family tradition as a reason to give to charity. For some, the family had a history of responding to the needs of communities where they had been 'leading families.'" Next to family history, spirituality and religion are often mentioned, and these features are usually a core aspect of family history. And, importantly, people want to pass this spiritual tradition of generosity on to their children. Some parents engage their children in volunteer work in adolescence, teach them by modeling a life of service: some involve their children actively in the life of the family foundation, including site visits and responsibility for some small grants."
The market research we have conducted through Georgetown's Advancement office shows that the majority of our most generous and loyal donors identify themselves by their faith and have had multiple family members attend the university. The correlation of spirituality to philanthropy is powerful according to Arthur C. Brooks, who, in a Policy Review article, entitled "Religious Faith and Charitable Giving," writes, "Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions."
So, given the strength of this evidence, I continue to challenge those philanthropy-seeking organizations who resort to soul-less, short-term, and metrically reductive approaches to fund raising. I believe that donors give despite, not because of, these approaches. These organizations would be better served, and would better serve the American philanthropic phenomenon, by giving more time and attention to designing goals and activities that would tap into and satisfy our deepest spiritual aspirations and by asking what they might do to not only raise more gifts in the next year but to earn the support of families over many generations.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
A Cultural Check List
My wife recently participated in the Susan G. Komen 3-Day Race for the Cure (of breast cancer). The popularity and success of this event, which is staged at different times in different cities across the country, can be attributed to way it taps into the deep roots of American philanthropic culture. In particular, the event works because it:
1. Defines common cause ("race" underscores the urgency while "cure" defines the purpose; an audacious goal stated in clear and simple terms);
2. Promotes community (the event attracts thousands of walkers who trek together over three days, ultimately traversing 60 miles, bonding with each other as they go and with the many well-wishers who line the route and offer their encouragements);
3. Encourages individual expression (with walkers donning all sorts of costumes and get-ups, and coming up with names that incorporate or pun on "breast" or its more colorful synonyms, and, yet, it is e pluribus unum -- "out of many, one" at its best);
4. Requires a significant investment of time and effort (walkers are required to raise a minimum of $2300 and walk 60 miles but they get so much out of it precisely because they put so much in);
5. Makes effective use of symbol and ritual (there's an opening and closing ceremony for the walkers, a ritual beginning and end; in the closing ceremony the walkers enter a large circular enclosure while the "inner circle" is reserved for the cancer survivors; for many of those survivors, crossing the finish line brings closure to their struggle; they "made it" with the help of family and friends);
6. Combines solemnity with celebration (many walkers carry "in memorium" messages of love ones they have lost, as do the well-wishers along the way but they also celebrate those who survived; the celebration of life exists side by side with the sorrow of loss).
These six success factors serve as a check list for all philanthropy-seeking organizations who wish to find the way to strike the most resonant cultural chords. As you evaluate your messages, events and other channels of communication, ask yourself how well you stack up against this criteria.
1. Defines common cause ("race" underscores the urgency while "cure" defines the purpose; an audacious goal stated in clear and simple terms);
2. Promotes community (the event attracts thousands of walkers who trek together over three days, ultimately traversing 60 miles, bonding with each other as they go and with the many well-wishers who line the route and offer their encouragements);
3. Encourages individual expression (with walkers donning all sorts of costumes and get-ups, and coming up with names that incorporate or pun on "breast" or its more colorful synonyms, and, yet, it is e pluribus unum -- "out of many, one" at its best);
4. Requires a significant investment of time and effort (walkers are required to raise a minimum of $2300 and walk 60 miles but they get so much out of it precisely because they put so much in);
5. Makes effective use of symbol and ritual (there's an opening and closing ceremony for the walkers, a ritual beginning and end; in the closing ceremony the walkers enter a large circular enclosure while the "inner circle" is reserved for the cancer survivors; for many of those survivors, crossing the finish line brings closure to their struggle; they "made it" with the help of family and friends);
6. Combines solemnity with celebration (many walkers carry "in memorium" messages of love ones they have lost, as do the well-wishers along the way but they also celebrate those who survived; the celebration of life exists side by side with the sorrow of loss).
These six success factors serve as a check list for all philanthropy-seeking organizations who wish to find the way to strike the most resonant cultural chords. As you evaluate your messages, events and other channels of communication, ask yourself how well you stack up against this criteria.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Notes From the Field
I thought I'd share with you some issues that came up in the last week and my response to them.
1. A donor was nice enough to offer her apartment in Paris for an auction. It's a wonderfully generous offer from an exceptional person but I tend to steer clear of auctions for all the reasons mentioned in my last few blogs; it suggests philanthropy is about getting something in return. I know; I shouldn't be so picky. In this case someone has offered a property that can be converted into cash for philanthropic purposes but, if you do too much of that, doesn't it contribute to a culture of "so what do I get for my giving?" Silent auctions are preferable but I wonder if events that rely heavily on them have a tendency to attract more "bargain hunters" than a philanthropists, and if we bring out too many of the former do we scare away or turn off the latter? Live auctions are more troubling to me. They seem to detract from the dignity of a philanthropic event which should be much more about the spirit of giving, the love of humanity and how the organization in question has made a lasting difference in the lives of those it exists to serve. I worry about making a spectacle of bidding on luxuries when we should be promoting the quiet contemplation of how we can work together to help those in need. Finally, I'm very skeptical about the efficacy of one-time or stand-alone fund raising events like galas and black tie events. The overhead for such events is usually very high, sometimes as much as one-third to one-half of the proceeds. If one took the same amount of money and invested it in field work (discovering and engaging prospects), it would generate more philanthropy in the long run. The best events are those that a highly substantive, that showcase the most selfless activities, and are part of a much longer approach to community building.
2. Several members of my staff did some exceptional work in looking at the number of prospects required to run a successful $2 billion campaign, then comparing that goal to the number that we currently had at all levels, where the largest gaps were, how many leads would be necessary to generate a sufficient number of prospects, how many discovery visits it would take to convert leads into qualified prospects and how many development officers would be required to complete the task. The exercise proved to be a great management tool and a teaching aid; it vividly demonstrates the time it takes to build a broad prospect base and how labor-intensive it is. It also demonstrates the need to keep a portion of an organization dedicated to discovery even during the most intensive campaigns so that there is the potential of greater sustained support after the campaign than before.
3. Though our work at Georgetown University over the past few years has produced a much broader field of prospects, appointments with those prospects are proving more and more difficult to secure. Where it once took about 10 calls to secure one face-to-face appointment with a new prospect, it now takes 20. And, we still see a large number of donors who, because they are very skittish about the stability of the economy, are reluctant to make multi-year pledges.
4. Donors continue to ask what institutions of higher education are doing to keep their tuition in check. Today's New York Times has an article about universities who have hired Bain Consulting to find ways to reduce their costs. Such efforts, whether they are guided by external consultants or the result of rigorous internal reviews, constitute a responsible reaction to changing times and growing public concern.
1. A donor was nice enough to offer her apartment in Paris for an auction. It's a wonderfully generous offer from an exceptional person but I tend to steer clear of auctions for all the reasons mentioned in my last few blogs; it suggests philanthropy is about getting something in return. I know; I shouldn't be so picky. In this case someone has offered a property that can be converted into cash for philanthropic purposes but, if you do too much of that, doesn't it contribute to a culture of "so what do I get for my giving?" Silent auctions are preferable but I wonder if events that rely heavily on them have a tendency to attract more "bargain hunters" than a philanthropists, and if we bring out too many of the former do we scare away or turn off the latter? Live auctions are more troubling to me. They seem to detract from the dignity of a philanthropic event which should be much more about the spirit of giving, the love of humanity and how the organization in question has made a lasting difference in the lives of those it exists to serve. I worry about making a spectacle of bidding on luxuries when we should be promoting the quiet contemplation of how we can work together to help those in need. Finally, I'm very skeptical about the efficacy of one-time or stand-alone fund raising events like galas and black tie events. The overhead for such events is usually very high, sometimes as much as one-third to one-half of the proceeds. If one took the same amount of money and invested it in field work (discovering and engaging prospects), it would generate more philanthropy in the long run. The best events are those that a highly substantive, that showcase the most selfless activities, and are part of a much longer approach to community building.
2. Several members of my staff did some exceptional work in looking at the number of prospects required to run a successful $2 billion campaign, then comparing that goal to the number that we currently had at all levels, where the largest gaps were, how many leads would be necessary to generate a sufficient number of prospects, how many discovery visits it would take to convert leads into qualified prospects and how many development officers would be required to complete the task. The exercise proved to be a great management tool and a teaching aid; it vividly demonstrates the time it takes to build a broad prospect base and how labor-intensive it is. It also demonstrates the need to keep a portion of an organization dedicated to discovery even during the most intensive campaigns so that there is the potential of greater sustained support after the campaign than before.
3. Though our work at Georgetown University over the past few years has produced a much broader field of prospects, appointments with those prospects are proving more and more difficult to secure. Where it once took about 10 calls to secure one face-to-face appointment with a new prospect, it now takes 20. And, we still see a large number of donors who, because they are very skittish about the stability of the economy, are reluctant to make multi-year pledges.
4. Donors continue to ask what institutions of higher education are doing to keep their tuition in check. Today's New York Times has an article about universities who have hired Bain Consulting to find ways to reduce their costs. Such efforts, whether they are guided by external consultants or the result of rigorous internal reviews, constitute a responsible reaction to changing times and growing public concern.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Admissions, Development and Institutional Integrity
After holding forth in my last two blogs about what philanthropy-seeking organizations can do to lessen the tendency of donors to engage in quid quo pro gift-giving, I heard from a friend who said she understood my larger points but still wasn’t sure what a development officer was supposed to do when confronted with an aggressive parent who whips out a checkbook and says, “Okay, exactly what do I need to give to get my daughter admitted?”
Here’s what I would recommend: When asked “what it will take,” a development officer should say, “I can track your child’s application and advocate on his/her behalf if the dean of admission tells me that he/she meets the general criteria for acceptance (in other words, your giving, past or prospective, cannot compensate for poor academic performance; your son or daughter has to be a credible candidate). The advocacy of the development office can be brought to bear when the dean of admission is trying to make a choice among equally qualified applicants and we can point to one who comes from a family with a long history of support of this institution or (if the parent is not an alumnus) an impressive philanthropic record elsewhere -- and the longer that history, the better.”
Development officers should not offer to advocate on behalf of an applicant if the parent puts a particular sum on the table or asks, “how much?” They should say they will have to recuse themselves from the admissions process if a direct offer is made and advise the parent that such an approach will not be well-received by the institution at any point.
In my ideal world, universities should give philanthropic preferences in this order:
1. To alumni families who have given consistently to, and been active volunteers over many years at the institution to which their child is applying;
2. To alumni families who have given years before their child applied;
3. To alumni families who gave just before their child applied;
4. To non-alumni families with impressive philanthropic records elsewhere.
Development officers and other institutional representatives should be exceptionally wary of parents who throw around promises of large gifts should their child be admitted. Parents with great financial capacity but no record of philanthropy anywhere are a high risk. If their child is admitted, they are likely to find reasons for reneging or to put additional quid pro quo conditions on their giving.
Considering a family’s philanthropic record if the child is admissible is ethical in my estimation. Admission directors will tell you that there is a bell curve to every admissible pool of applications with an eminently qualified group on the right tail and a marginal group on the left, and a “great middle” within where the differences between candidates are so slight or so subtle as to render them indistinguishable and statistically insignificant. A family’s philanthropic record, particularly if considered in the context of their means, is a legitimate way to differentiate among that group. And, the practice of “development admits” is even more defensible if the institution has a real commitment to “need blind admission” and to identifying and encouraging applicants from the most modest economic circumstances. A “development admit” should not displace a more qualified or a less economically-advantaged applicant.
If such policies and practices are in place, and the development staff is well-trained on how to articulate them, the efforts of those who try to buy their child’s way in can be blunted, the interests of constructive, consistent donors with qualified children can be protected, and the conscience of the school can be preserved.
Here’s what I would recommend: When asked “what it will take,” a development officer should say, “I can track your child’s application and advocate on his/her behalf if the dean of admission tells me that he/she meets the general criteria for acceptance (in other words, your giving, past or prospective, cannot compensate for poor academic performance; your son or daughter has to be a credible candidate). The advocacy of the development office can be brought to bear when the dean of admission is trying to make a choice among equally qualified applicants and we can point to one who comes from a family with a long history of support of this institution or (if the parent is not an alumnus) an impressive philanthropic record elsewhere -- and the longer that history, the better.”
Development officers should not offer to advocate on behalf of an applicant if the parent puts a particular sum on the table or asks, “how much?” They should say they will have to recuse themselves from the admissions process if a direct offer is made and advise the parent that such an approach will not be well-received by the institution at any point.
In my ideal world, universities should give philanthropic preferences in this order:
1. To alumni families who have given consistently to, and been active volunteers over many years at the institution to which their child is applying;
2. To alumni families who have given years before their child applied;
3. To alumni families who gave just before their child applied;
4. To non-alumni families with impressive philanthropic records elsewhere.
Development officers and other institutional representatives should be exceptionally wary of parents who throw around promises of large gifts should their child be admitted. Parents with great financial capacity but no record of philanthropy anywhere are a high risk. If their child is admitted, they are likely to find reasons for reneging or to put additional quid pro quo conditions on their giving.
Considering a family’s philanthropic record if the child is admissible is ethical in my estimation. Admission directors will tell you that there is a bell curve to every admissible pool of applications with an eminently qualified group on the right tail and a marginal group on the left, and a “great middle” within where the differences between candidates are so slight or so subtle as to render them indistinguishable and statistically insignificant. A family’s philanthropic record, particularly if considered in the context of their means, is a legitimate way to differentiate among that group. And, the practice of “development admits” is even more defensible if the institution has a real commitment to “need blind admission” and to identifying and encouraging applicants from the most modest economic circumstances. A “development admit” should not displace a more qualified or a less economically-advantaged applicant.
If such policies and practices are in place, and the development staff is well-trained on how to articulate them, the efforts of those who try to buy their child’s way in can be blunted, the interests of constructive, consistent donors with qualified children can be protected, and the conscience of the school can be preserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
