While our country’s business schools are pumping out MBAs armed with the latest research on human motivational theory, precious few nonprofit CEOs, executive directors, or development directors are benefiting from this new body of information, instead relying on old-fashioned and short-sighted “carrot and stick” tactics which do more harm than good.

This year’s AFP Major Gift Symposium in Seattle was a real gift for people like me who lie awake at night pondering these issues. The planning committee deserves our applause for pulling together a group of speakers who seem to be aware of the new research coming out of Stanford, Princeton, Harvard, and Tufts. For those of you who didn’t make it, I recommend picking up a copy of Susan Howlett’s slender new book entitled, “Boards on Fire: Inspiring Leaders to Raise Money Joyfully.” Her ten suggestions for board management are refreshingly down to earth. If you are familiar with Gail Perry’s 2007 book, “Fired Up Fundraising: Turn Board Passion into Action,” you’ll recognize many of the same concepts distilled to a more simple and accessible form.

Symposium leaders also unveiled a new “dashboard” tool for measuring fundraising performance that goes beyond simply counting the dollars raised. Besides being a more accurate predictor of fundraising performance 24-36 months out, this tool promises to improve the job satisfaction for the countless development professionals whose work is so often misunderstood or unappreciated by executives and board members. If you want a copy, I’d suggest contacting the AFP-Washington board. I don’t know if they’re giving it out to people who weren’t at the Symposium, but it can’t hurt to try.

While we’re on the topic of good management skills, I also want to put in another plug for Daniel Pink’s 2009 book, “Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us,” which I wrote about in a previous blog post a few months ago. This remains my favorite book for describing how to effectively motivate non-profit professionals and volunteers to remain loyal, inspired, and effective in our work. You can make it a holiday present for your boss.

So, now that I’ve shared mine, what resources are you coming across, dear reader, that are informing your staff and volunteer management style? Drop us a line at TCG and let us know.

Last week was no exception.  At a focus group for the Northwest Kidney Centers, I was able to interact with a group of individuals who are living with kidney disease, some of whom have undergone multiple transplants, or been on dialysis for decades.  Working with Northwest Kidney Centers has been my first introduction to kidney disease and the ways it affects the lives of patients and their families.  I was astounded to hear that one in seven adult Americans has Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) – most commonly caused by diabetes and high blood pressure.

The good news – it is highly preventable with very simple lifestyle changes, and increased communication with your doctors.  In an article published earlier this year in the Woodinville Weekly, CKD patient Glenda Roberts shares her emotional story of being diagnosed with CKD at age 21, losing her father and brother to the disease, and finding ways to manage her health, allowing her to stave off dialysis for decades.  The end of the article includes a list of ways to prevent the disease.  I strongly encourage you to read this article and share it with your friends and family.  For more information on CKD, or to support the amazing work that Northwest Kidney Centers is doing, visit their website (www.nwkidney.org).



On the surface, the project appears seamless – a plan that promises to change the face of philanthropy in the coming decades. No one can argue with the fact that a handful of mega-gifts can significantly impact overall giving. Giving USA 2010 showed that individual giving held steady in 2009, but only as a result of five gifts from high-net-worth donors totaling nearly $1.6 billion.  Without those gifts, overall giving by individuals in 2009 would have declined by 1.1 percent.  The problem with the Giving Pledge’s promise to change philanthropy, however, is that much of the money will not be transferred for years, and even then may be dispersed at a very slow rate.

Many of the families that have signed on so far have pledged to transfer their wealth after their death. Ron Rosenbaum of Slate magazine criticizes this practice.  “Show us the money if you want the credit,” he writes. “And show it to us now, before you die, not in some distant future where a lot of poor and diseased people will themselves have died for lack of timely aid.” While the pledging parties certainly have the option to transfer their wealth during their lifetime, it’s likely that in those cases the money will be funneled into charitable family foundations – and many of those foundations are only required to make grants totaling five percent of their assets each year. The argument is that it could take decades before the money finally trickles out to the organizations that need it now.

While I certainly agree with the above criticisms, the problem I see with the pledge is the spotlight it shines on the rare mega-gift, and the attention that it takes away from the everyday donor. While the donations made by the über-wealthy are certainly generous, in many cases they are not stretch gifts. Personally, I am far more moved by middle class families that have remained committed to supporting the organizations in their communities even in the face of their own pay-cuts and job losses.

Don’t get me wrong – overall, I think the Giving Pledge is a great project. But it would be sad to see organizations become fixated on claiming their piece of the mega-gift pie when there are so many mid-level donors that have continued to give, even when it hasn’t been easy.

From Crisis to Opportunity: Learning from One Region’s Response to the Economic Downturn is an FSG Social Impact Advisor report that profiles Northwest funders who changed their policies and practices in response to urgent needs over the past few years. With input and comments from a large number of Pacific Northwest funders, the report explores four guiding principles of Northwest funders for the challenge of “doing more with less.” It also provides the reader with ideas on which of these strategies will continue to drive giving into the future.  While this report has national significance, its focused look into Pacific Northwest funders means that it could not be more relevant to our community.

What’s Next for Philanthropy: Acting Bigger and Adapting Better in a Networked World is a study funded by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and national in scope that explores what’s next for philanthropy in the coming decade. Moving beyond the past decade’s focus on efficiency and effectiveness, the study argues that the “next practices” for philanthropy will include an additional focus on how funders can act bigger and adapt better for increased impact.

Pacific Northwest funders’ actions over the past two years indicate that this region will continue to be at the forefront of philanthropic leadership in the next decade. Many of the “next practices” for acting bigger and adapting better are practices being implemented in our region: looking to understand the larger context of problems; activating networks and leveraging resources across sectors; and continuing to take risks. Reading these reports side-by-side reminded me of how committed and determined our funding community is, and of the incredible role they play in addressing urgent needs and affecting longer-term social change.

It’s tempting to add a couple of zeros to your next major solicitation and see what happens, isn’t it?  While we all wish we had prospects with that kind of capacity, it does seem to be a positive indication for overall giving in 2010.

Ager’s approach to a “mini-feasibility study” would indeed be less costly and less time-consuming than a traditional feasibility study. Problem is, it’s not a feasibility study. It’s a glorified focus group. A fun setting, tasty food, and questionnaires are not the hallmarks of a successful feasibility study. What Ager suggests is a good recipe for a cultivation event, but falls far short of yielding the quality of opinions and data you get by employing a distinct methodology which would include an analysis of your organization’s internal readiness for a major campaign, in addition to focus groups and targeted one-on-one interviews. In the “mini” method, you’ve gathered opinions and can write up findings, but you haven’t studied anything.

A campaign feasibility study has two main outcomes: 1) it tests your organization’s preparation for and ability to carry out a significant fundraising campaign and 2) it evaluates the community’s potential leadership and financial investment in your project. No matter where your organization is located or what size it is, a “mini” study won’t get you where you need to be.

The Collins Group knows that well-executed feasibility studies help organizations find the best path forward for fulfilling their missions by strengthening donor and volunteer relationships and by finding creative approaches for meeting community needs. This requires a strong partnership between an organization and its consultants and a rigorous approach to assessment of potential, with solid research supporting every conclusion.

Feasibility studies are not a luxury that just some can afford; for a well-researched and well-run major fundraising campaign, they are a necessity. As many nonprofits will affirm, spending $35,000-55,000 on a professional feasibility study up-front to determine a realistic goal is money well-spent. If you are asking your donors, your board and staff, and your community to invest in your organization and your project, you owe them a thoroughly researched study and a plan to move forward.

Focus groups and an online survey (Hope Consulting conducted the research) tapped the opinions of more than 4,000 individuals, half of whom were from high net worth households. Their methodology, in Hope Consulting’s words, “investigated behaviors, not simply stated preferences” and “forced individuals to make trade-offs to mirror real life decisions and minimize pro-social responses.”  Based on this research, the report develops six different donor segments and provides advice for reaching each one.

The survey’s key findings overturn some conventional wisdom in fundraising:

• Donor demographics, in particular, age and gender, are not reliable predictors of high net worth donors’ actions
• While donors care about the quality and performance of nonprofits, few take the time to research them
• High net worth donors are not behaving differently from other donors

And some less surprising findings:

• Donors, once connected to a nonprofit, are very loyal to it
• Donors feel they are being asked for support too often

The Money for Good project is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, the Aspen Institute of Development Entrepreneurs, the Metanoia Fund, and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Click here to download the full report.

The article describes how nonprofits research donors by using wealth screening tools, public records and databases that provide career and education information, stock holdings, charitable giving history, campaign contributions, and home and real estate values. Researchers have been mining this data for years; it’s nothing new. What’s new is how the internet and software tools have made the practice quicker, easier, and more comprehensive.

To those of us in the profession, we understand that this (publically available and legally-obtained) information is just one part of the equation that will help us understand our organization’s best donors and prospects. This information is balanced with a donor’s affinity for our organization and work, their giving history to us, and their connections to our staff and volunteer leaders. Together, this helps development staff focus their efforts, and make the best use of time and money, in order to advance their missions and create positive change for their communities.

Last week I attended the Willamette Valley Development Officers regional conference and heard Portland State University staff describe a program to connect with donors and alumni. Initial phone calls placed by a recent alum help PSU learn about their donors’ interests and experiences and their communication preferences so that staff can best engage with them in the areas they care about. This program is successful in identifying donors who are interested in learning more about PSU, its schools, and future plans, and those who are not – all of which is important information for their development staff. Their program is respectful, responsive, donor-centered – and research-based.

How do we avoid being creepy? By following the ethical standards set by the Association for Fundraising Professionals and the Association of Prospect Researchers for Advancement, and by developing donor confidentiality and prospect research policies for our organizations to ensure that information is used judiciously and respectfully. Also, by not saying creepy things to donors (or anyone for that matter) such as “when I was googling you the other day, I saw that…”

As far as the special treatment we bestow upon those we see as future major donors, a question brought up in the WSJ article in reference to hospitals and medical institutions, that is one each organization must reconcile for itself. Are you donor-centered or creepy? What would your donors say?

Key findings from the survey include:

• Nearly 90 percent expect 2010 to be as difficult or more difficult than 2009; only 12 percent expect 2010 to be financially easier for their organizations
• While 80 percent of nonprofits anticipate an increase in demand for services in 2010, just 49 percent expect to be able to fully meet this demand level
• 35 percent of organizations ended 2009 with an operating surplus;  Only 18 percent of organizations expect to end 2010 above break-even
• 61 percent of organizations have less than three months of cash available; 12 percent have none.

Hopefully, the Labor Department’s monthly report on employment – expected to come out later this week – will show the significant national job growth that many economists are predicting, and give all of us a sign that recovery is on the way for the many people who rely on the nonprofit sector during this period of economic uncertainty.