A Campaign Vision

For my colleagues at Georgetown, and for colleagues elsewhere, here's the first draft of our campaign vision. The purpose of this document is to a set the tone for the campaign and to make the broad case for what makes this University unique and why it matters, especially now. It is a preamble to the a financial prospectus that will follow and is designed to inspire and motivate.

I welcome your reactions. Here goes:


What We Ask of Ourselves
A Vision for 2020

“All of us (at Georgetown) enjoy a privilege that is very rare in our world – a beautiful world – but a world marked by injustice…a world in desperate need of your dreams. What you do with this privilege matters. We are not alone. We have each other. We also have women and men who need us – who are looking to us – to respond to the challenges that define our world today. In the words of former Jesuit Superior General Pedro Arrupe, we must accept the responsibility of being women and men for others: Women and men who accept responsibility not only for their own personal development…but for the collective development of the human family.”

With these words, President John J. DeGioia welcomes the freshman class to Georgetown University each fall. In so doing, he does more than orient them to a campus; he defines what it means to be of Georgetown, now and forever. It begins with not what we ask for ourselves but what we ask of ourselves, about how we will use the gifts we have been given to achieve something far greater than ourselves.

As a global university, what do we ask of ourselves as it becomes increasingly clear that all the people of the world live in one environment, one economy and one society, and that a weakness in one part, if left unattended, is a threat to the whole? As a Catholic Jesuit University, what do we ask of ourselves when cultures clash and war in the name of faith? As a university in, and so much a part of, one of the most important cities in the world, how can we ensure that its might will be increasingly derived from right? As a university with the ability to change lives and propel those from the most modest means to lives of fulfillment and reward, how do we grant admission and share our talents in the most just way to achieve the greatest possible good?

It is within this moral framework that Georgetown’s contemplates its role in, and responsibility to, the future. It is in this context that the leaders and shapers of Georgetown ask themselves another set of more specific questions to set the University’s course for the next decade and beyond. Those questions include:

How do we, in our admission practices and scholarship support, ensure the privileges of this university are accessible to strivers from many different places and of all socio-economic strata?

How might we strengthen the student experience at Georgetown to ensure that our graduates are prepared to understand and take on the challenges that define our world, today and tomorrow?

How might we further promote the generation and application of new knowledge to improve the human condition and create a widening circle of opportunity?

What must we as a University do – through our policies, practices, aspirations and actions – to develop the human family?


“There is nothing quite like this moment.”
President John J. DeGioia

These questions take on a greater urgency as a shaken nation and a world searches for the bedrock on which to build a better future. We have seen too many seemingly tall houses wash away because they were built on the sands of expediency, falsity, foolishness, fear and intolerance. We look to the institutions that remain, particularly those that have thrived over centuries, and ask which of those can still be believed in and trusted to live up to their principles and deliver on their promise. Georgetown University is such an institution. It now stands poised and prepared to make a far greater contribution than ever before.

As a University that has reached the highest levels of achievement with the most modest of resources, Georgetown offers an efficiency of purpose and performance that is perfectly suited to these times. As supporters have come to understand how comparatively modest investments in Georgetown have been, and continue to be, so efficiently converted into significant and lasting gains, they have increased their investment in the University. In fact, in the last year, in the face of the most depressed economy in the past 75 years, Georgetown supporters gave in record numbers and record amounts.

What these donors have come to see is that Georgetown is not a just a University that you give to -- to realize specific campus objectives -- but a University you give through to create a better world. They see the far reaching impact that a gift to Georgetown has, including:

How a scholarship not only supports a worthy student but how that person will become a “difference maker” in any number of fields;

How a gift to the curriculum hones the skills and shapes the conscience of those who will, in remarkably large numbers, go on to care for the sick, create law, shape public policy, influence foreign affairs, spur economic growth, foster innovation, create, teach, or build richer, more diverse communities;

How a gift to research generates knowledge that leads to more efficient government, sophisticated and humane health care, environmental sustainability, enlightened jurisprudence, inter-religious understanding or conflict resolution;

How a gift to capital improvements creates model environments for leadership development, character formation, citizenship, multi-cultural understanding, and artistic or athletic development.

They see the spirit in which Georgetown advances an agenda for the 21st Century, the sense of commitment and service that pervades its thinking, and the determination with which it seeks to leverage its prominence and place for the betterment of the human family. They know that Georgetown does not pride itself in nice or noble sentiments but in resourcefulness, action and innovation, in taking on the most rigorous challenges, confronting the grittiest issues, and in finding opportunity in the most unlikely places and situations. They understand that “the Georgetown way,” while rooted in long held values, is ultimately practical and profoundly relevant to the needs and hopes of the 21st Century.

In the next decade the University aspires to become the institution that best leverages its purpose, place, moment and unique strengths to make the most lasting contribution to the human family. It seeks to achieve this goal by:

1. Making Georgetown the destination of choice for the world’s most accomplished and altruistic young people;

2. Designing a complete, comprehensive campus life experience that ensures the most competitively selected students in Georgetown’s history develop their talents and deepen their conscience so that they can become “difference-makers” in whatever field they choose;

3. Attracting and maintaining faculty that nurture and guide the talent of the remarkable young people entrusted to their care by the far-reaching relevance of the knowledge they produce, and the passion and proficiency with which they share that knowledge in the classroom and beyond;

4. Creating a microcosm of a meritocratic world on our campuses, a world that places equal emphasis on the capacity of one’s intellect and the content of one’s character, a world that respects the dignity of each individual and demands adherence to the highest standards of ethical and intellectual conduct, a communicative, inter-connected world that allows difference-makers and problem solvers to interact and innovate, and a world whose form allows its members to function at the height of their abilities; and

5. Launching a series of initiatives from our positions of greatest strength to address the challenges that define our age, including those in globalism, conflict resolution, systems medicine, international development, global leadership development, environmental sustainability, transnational law, and (other examples).

So that it might better serve in these ways for these purposes, Georgetown University seeks to secure $1.5 billion for the following uses:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that's it for now. The next part will get into the specifics of the financial case for support. I'm happy to share it with you as it develops

The President As Fund Raiser

Whether we’re speaking of the president of a college, non-profit, medical center or research institute, it has become axiomatic to assert that he or she MUST be a fund raiser or, even more pointedly, that fund raising is their MOST important duty. There’s one problem with that: a president too focused on the act of raising funds may fail to understand or fulfill the duties that make an organization a viable contender for private funds in the first place. To ensure fund raising success, what presidents really must do is:

1. Explain in clear, compelling terms what distinguishes and differentiates their institution on a local, regional, national or global level;

2. Then articulate how those differentiating and distinguishing features can be amplified, with sufficient funding, to allow the institution to deliver more value to those it exists to serve;

3. Then lay out a series of projects that demonstrate exactly how, when and to whom that value will be delivered; and

4. Assure their supporters, and demonstrate how their institution is a “cause-oriented” culture with a deep commitment to service, accountability, gratitude and reasonableness and will make the most of the private support it receives.

Presidents who do those things well will do more for fund raising than the “glad handers” and “eager askers.” But let me make sure I haven’t made it sound too easy. Project design, emphasized in my third point, in particular, requires a great deal of skill, discipline and imagination. A project-specific plan makes for a more compelling case for support, which leads to more effective fund-raising, which allows an institution to make a greater impact, which sets the stage for continued growth and distinction. To make my point, let me give examples of how various schools might attempt to secure support for the same purpose: financial aid.

College A announces the contracting economy and loss of home values has caused many more students to have financial need. Their plan is to raise $50 million in the next five years to make up for this shortfall. Their fund raising materials feature inspiring stories of, and stirring testimonials from, students and alumni who have benefited from financial aid.

College B says the economic decline has made it particularly difficult for students from the lowest socio-economic quartile to attend. They set a goal of raising $60 million over the next five years to not only augment the financial aid packages of current students but to increase the enrollment of students from the most modest backgrounds from the 5 to 10 percent in that same period of time.

College C announces that it has conducted an extensive analysis to understand exactly how economic crisis has affected its application and enrollment patterns and discovered that it is receiving fewer acceptances to its offers of admissions from students whose families earn $60,000 or less, particularly those from major urban areas, including the city in which it is located. It makes the case that the “true test of any great school is to make it possible for those who come from the most modest means to earn an education that will put them on an equal footing with the most privileged students from the most prominent schools” and, by that measure, it is determined to be great. The President of College C announces that it has targeted and established partnerships with the five urban high schools in their service area that have produced the most college-bound graduates in the last decade. Further, she says, her college has worked with the principals of those urban schools to secure support from business leaders in the targeted cities “to identify, encourage, mentor and support” students who demonstrate a desire and a determination to improve their lives. Each business has pledged $100,000. The President now calls upon the alumni and supporters of College C to provide financial aid for the graduates of those urban schools so that the students who work hard and succeed will know that another opportunity awaits them. She says that if the College C is able to secure $75 million in support, including $60 million in scholarships and $15 million for academic and career advising, and other critical support services for these students, they will be able increase enrollment of targeted students by 100 percent in five years, and serve as a model for the state and nation.

So, you get my point. College A is properly responsive to change and the adverse effect it is having on their students, but its plan is reactive, not forward looking; it seeks to stem the tide of growing need and offers few project details. Its case says, in essence, “We have a need; please give us money.” College B is more specific in defining the target population for its financial drive and sets a goal of not only retaining students from the lowest socio-economic quartile but expanding its enrollment. It’s better than College A but it does not define the project in enough detail. Only College C puts forward a true project, one that defines the purpose of the institution, an analysis of the market it serves, how it might use its unique strengths to deliver value to achieve specific purposes by a certain date. College C had made an investment of time and energy in the project; it has developed partnership and secured business support before turning to its own supporters. What it asks is reasonable given the importance of the goal. It does not act entitled; it expects to serve in very concrete ways for the support it receives. It has differentiated itself, explained how addition funds will allow it to be better serve and put forward a very credible project to secure the necessary support.

I don’t know if the President of College C is the best fund raiser but she has clearly put her institution in a position to raise the most funds. And that's the kind of president for which the best fund raisers want to work.

Music to Donors' Ears

Here's my list of the top ten things donors most like to hear from those seeking their support.

1. "We would appreciate the opportunity to earn your support." This is a good way for a fund raiser to start the conversation. The tone is solicitous and the key word is "earn." Acting or sounding entitled to someones philanthropy is completely off-putting.

2. "We are committed to taking the necessary time to understand what is important to you and to securing your trust." Donors have been over-exposed to the worst practices in philanthropy. They assume every call from a fund-raising organization will be an abrupt solicitation, not matter what is promised. They've been ambushed too often. Setting the right tone early on gets the donor off the defensive and establishes a refreshing, responsible, professional tone.

3. "We want to bring you in during the early stages of this project." That means the donor is not just going to be asked to support someone else's grand idea. They will be treated as a stakeholder. This is particularly important to entrepreneurs.

4. "The person in charge of the project (that we would like to interest you in) is eager to meet with you." Donors understand the role of fund raisers but, ultimately, before making a significant commitment, want to meet the person who will see the project through to completion.

5. "Our institution is making a strong commitment to the project." If the project you're raising money for is so dang important, your institution needs to show that it somehow committing resources to it, that it, too, has some skin in the game. An institutional commitment reduces the risk of failure and ensures the donor's money will be used more carefully.

6. "We want to show you how we arrived at this budget." This suggests the philanthropy seeking organization is completely transparent and is willing to show exactly how much it needs to get the job done. The days of the nice round numbers, i.e., "It will take a million dollars to get this done," are over. The new language sounds more like, "After careful planning, we concluded that we can complete this project with a budget of $927,312 dollars." (Okay, maybe I'm getting a bit carried away).

7. "We have a project timetable with deadlines for each phase." That tells the donor your organization is determined to get the job done, that you're doers not just dreamers.

8. "We can not only tell you who will benefit from your support, but how and when." You've truly committed to those you serve.

9. "We'll craft a gift agreement to ensure that we keep our promises." That means the donor won't have to ask, "Whatever happened to my gift?" or to be surprised by how you use it. Good stewardship begins with a well-crafted gift agreement.

10. "Our gift agreement will include a stewardship plan." We will spell out how your gift will be announced, recognized and accounted for as the project progress and after it is complete.

Tactics and Strategy

These two words -- “tactics” and “strategy” -- are among the most misused and misunderstood in the English language. An understanding of both, and their relationship to each, is of great importance to the running of all organizations and significant efforts, including any philanthropic enterprise.

I will not try to define them with abstractions. I will use the metaphor of a bridge. A good tactician is like one who knows how to design and build a bridge; a strategist is one who determines the optimal place to locate it. Both functions are essential but to build a bridge without giving thought to where it can be of greatest utility, now and in the future, limits its effectiveness. An exquisitely built bridge in a poorly chosen location is truly “a bridge to nowhere.” It would be unwise to even start designing a bridge until the best possible site was carefully thought through. That would entail not only thinking about the role of the bridge today, but the role it might play in shaping the future. For instance, a good strategist would ask, “How might this bridge link two major metropolitan areas and thereby promote commerce and economic development? How might it anticipate shifts in population that might allow a city to grow that reduce traffic congestion and improve the environment? How might it allow more people to have access to cultural or natural amenities?” Good strategists do not just think about reacting; they think about improving. They study trends and patterns and try to anticipate that which is coming. They try to get a jump on the future, to profit – economically, culturally, or spiritually – by better understanding what will be. They think about how current hopes and plans will have to adjust to changing realities.

Sound strategy determines the function; tactics are the form that follows function. To put it plainly, strategy always comes first. Philanthropy is ill-served by too great an emphasis on the tactics of fund-raising as a means to an end. Those tactics must always be subordinate to the strategies that imagine how an organization can make a greater difference in the lives of those it purports to serve.

And, yet, strategy without sound tactical execution consigns the potentially transformational project to the drawing board forever. To have vision or the most noble of intentions is not enough. Indeed, so many philanthropy-seeking organizations fall short of worthy aspirations because they think that’s all it takes. Do-gooders need doers. Visionaries need implementers.

Some strategists have the tendency to sniff at “mere tactics” while tacticians paw the ground at the mention of strategy and say, “Let’s just get on with it.” Leaders understand the importance of both, and work to convince each of the importance of the other. Great leaders know which one they are not and seek out their counterpart.

Philanthropy is about a bridge to a better world. It begins by defining where a difference most needs to be made. Actually making the difference requires sound engineering and dedicated steel workers.

How To Be A Better Donor

All those who give to a good cause should be the object of our collective gratitude. They make the world a better place. And, yet, if their generosity were coupled with deeper discernment, their good works would have even greater impact. It is, then, with that hope that I offer these tips to those who are thinking about giving.

1. Look inside. Don’t be passive and wait for organizations to contact you and tell you why you should care. Ask yourself who or what made a difference in your life, and if you would like to make that kind of difference in someone else’s life. Ask yourself the most important lessons life has taught you and how you can use philanthropy to extend the meaning of your life to others. Ben Franklin, who struggled as a printer’s apprentice, left a portion of his estate in the form of a loan fund for young tradesman to start their own businesses. In so doing, he sought to promote economic development by making opportunities available to others that had been denied to him.

2. Listen to your feelings. When you read or listen to the news, what developments give you the most hope or the greatest pause? What makes your spirits soar or tugs at your heart? Ask yourself which organizations are best dealing with the issues, causes and concerns that affect you most deeply, and how you might be able to help them.

3. Develop philanthropic objectives. How much do you want to give each year? How much of your net worth would you like to give to good causes? Do you plan to give to one or many organizations? What will be the criteria for determining how much you will give to each? To which will you give the most? Why? Thinking all these things through before you engage in specific philanthropic discussions will allow you to sort among many requests and to guide those who you deem most worthy of your support.

4. Seek to fill gaps. Look for the organization that is truly filling the gaps in service or opportunity around the cause you care most about. Give to the organization that best makes a difference where a difference most needs to be made. Give to those who can best demonstrate the difference your gift will make, including precisely who will benefit, how, and when.

5. Avoid replication. Don’t create another non-profit or another foundation, if there are others doing essentially the same work. It is more productive to help make existing organizations better than to start your own and compete for the same resources, especially now. Don’t let your ego get in the way of the angels of your better nature. Look at Warren Buffet, the “sage of Omaha,” who decided to give most of his wealth to the Gates Foundation. His wisdom will be long honored.

6. Set conditions for engagement. As you explore where your support can make the greatest difference, let organizations know how you want to conduct the negotiations. Lay out the conditions under which you will review their proposals, when you will respond, and the criteria you will use to make your decisions. If you are passive or indecisive, you will invite aggression. One of the reasons that so many organization engage in heavy-handed or even obnoxious fund-raising practices is because too few donors say, “I won’t give to an organization that conducts itself this way.” Indeed, if you really want to understand an organization, ask about its fund raising policies and practices, including who does it and how they are evaluated and compensated. If you see a lot of spending on fund raising quotas and little on relationship-building and stewardship, beware.

7. Ask tough questions about institutional planning and performance. See who holds up best to questions the difference their organization is making, and how they plan to make an even greater difference. Again, the reason that so many organizations get away with wishful thinking and mediocre performance is that their donors ask too little of them. Perhaps some donors think of themselves as loyal by not asking tough questions but blind loyalty can contribute to sloppy thinking, poor planning and corrosive complacency.

8. Monitor, don’t manage. By all means, ask the organizations you give to for regular updates on how the project you supported is progressing but don’t try to manage the project itself. Before you give make sure you understand who will be seeing the project through, what is to be accomplished and when, but don’t tell them how to do it.

Asking and Answering the Most Important Questions

Donors can help organizations reach higher levels of achievement, and make philanthropy an even more important social force, by asking the right questions before they give. In my estimation, those are:

1. What difference will my gift make?
2. Who will benefit?
3. How will they benefit?
4. When?

Wait a second, you say, “what about vision, mission, goals and objectives? Aren’t those the things that donors should be asking about?” Well, yes, but just asking about them and getting broad answers in return doesn’t yield the most productive philanthropic compacts. For instance, a leader of an organization may be able to articulate a compelling vision for an organization and that vision may be backed up by a thoughtful mission statement, strategic plan, and even a set of objectives. But go to that same leader and ask, “If I brought you a donor capable of making an unrestricted $100 million gift (or even any eight-figure gift) who only wants to know how it will transform your organization and those it serves, what specific plan would you put forward?” In my experience, most leaders of most major organizations cannot answer the question when first asked. Many say, “Oh, I can think of lots of things” but can’t articulate one truly transformational concept. What most do is bundle a set of smaller needs or ideas. Of the very few who can, I have met even fewer who could at the level of detail required by my first four questions. So vision, mission, strategies and goals are of little impact unless we are able to explain how specific gifts will make a specific difference.

For philanthropy-seeking organizations, the four questions can serve as a great test of your case for support or even an important proposal. Let’s say you set a campaign goal of $180 million and then put together a gift pyramid to determine how many gifts you need at various levels to reach that goal. Can you, for each and every gift level, answer those four questions with a compelling degree of specificity? How specific can you be even for the most modest gift levels on your pyramid? The more specific, the better.

Okay, maybe you’re worked up again. You’re thinking, “Is he really saying that I should be able to make a specific case for a $1,000 gift or even less?” Well, that would be ideal – and I think the organizations that can best show how modest gifts can put to specific use will raise the most money. But, if you can’t make a specific case for a $1,000 gift, can you make one for $10,000? If so, you can show $1,000 donors how they can get you one-tenth of the way toward that goal – and that should be far more satisfying than giving to a fund with very broad purposes.

Remember, philanthropy is about investment; donors want to provide the margin of excellence, to move an organization from good to great, not from intensive to critical care. They want to know that their gift leaves the organization and those it serves better for their contribution. If you can show how every gift will have a specific impact, you will introduce an powerful element to your case for support that will make the statements of vision, mission, strategy and objectives seem so much more appealing and attainable.

When Fund Raising Undercuts Philanthropy

When I lecture on some aspect of philanthropy, those in attendance express their support for my approaches and proposed innovations but say, "I only wish my boss were here." They then go on to tell me how they are being asked to raise money for institutions that have no real strategic vision and to work in environments where the altruistic spirit of philanthropy has been supplanted by a grim, grinding style of fund raising, one marked by the application soul-less technique and mindless metrics. They say they are expected to ask for money on the first visit to a prospect and to meet unrealistic dollar goals each year. And they know what they are being asked to do doesn't work very well. They "go along to get along" but plan on leaving for what they hope will be a better job at the first opportunity. They refer to these environments "as churn and burn" and shake their heads at its demoralizing effects.


They're right, of course. Such approaches do not work, in the short run or the long run, and, if practiced too extensively, threaten to drain philanthropy of its ennobling spirit and transformational societal impact. The fact that such practices are employed as often as they are is bewildering because they simply are not effective. Sure, the grimmest of practitioners can point to some results but they don't realize that those outcomes may be despite, not because, of what they do. And there is growing evidence that just pounding away on prospects with the drum beat of "more, more, more" is leading to increasingly diminished returns.

Donors give for two broad reasons -- their relationship to an organization (and the web of relationships it provides to them), and the relevance of that organization to their most deeply held beliefs and convictions. Successful philanthropy-seeking organizations must, now more than ever, constantly refresh those relationships and re-establish their relevance to in an ever-changing world.

The churn and burn approach might appear to work for a while because it is applied to long-established donors with deeply held beliefs in the relevance of the institution. And, yet, all this technique does is harvest years of accrued good will but it will soon use up what predecessors have left and will leave little or nothing for the future.

Major donors to colleges and universities, for instance, do not suddenly leap out of the mist of obscurity and drop a wad on their alma maters. I have seen and conducted various analyses to determine how many years an average alumnus will give before making a $1 million gift to their school. Any guesses? From the various institutions I have studied, it averages between 14 and 17 years. For eight and nine figure gifts, it's even longer. This past December, Georgetown received an $80 million gift, the largest in its 220 year history, from an alumnus who had given for 54 years. Those who give large gifts in less time do so, in general, because they see that institution as they best means of making a difference where they think a difference most needs to be made.

The churn and burn approach grubs for what might be available now, often at the cost of something far more significant in the future. And, by being oblivious the power of relevance, it grabs for what is most immediate for the least amount of work. Whatevr it succeeds in getting will be far, far less than what is possible, both in the present and the future.

This "grab and run" syndrome produces a downward cycle. The most talented and successful advancement professionals will feel their ideals compromised and their relationship-building talents minimized. They will leave and be replaced by those who will be more willingly "work within the system." They will most likely have less talent and less of an emotional, ideological or spiritual connection to the institution. With philanthropy, you get what you put out. If you send out fund raisers with selfish, short term objectives, you attract donors with the same outlook. They give less and want something in return. Long-term philanthropic compacts devolve into short-sighted transactions.

If an organization wants to pull out of this kind of tail spin, it must replace the "grab and go" model with a "relationships and relevance" commitment, and it must be prepared to make a significant investment, in time and money, before damage done will be repaired, and significant and lasting returns will be realized.