Thursday, January 31, 2013

Philanthropy and the Fourth Grade


My daughter's fourth grade has a classroom economy.  Students have jobs that pay different amounts, they owe rent on their desks, and they earn bonuses or fines depending on meeting (or not) goals and expectations.  It's a real-world way for them to talk about money, responsibility, and how economics works. 

We talk about the classroom economy a lot at dinnertime and I'm fascinated by the aspects of it that stand out for my daughter.  She already wonders about fairness and how to be ethical in her role as one of the classroom bankers.  Being the classic only child of a fundraiser, she also wonders how to incorporate giving.  I offered to go into her class and talk about it.

Ms. van Bueren had written the word philanthropy on the chalkboard when I arrived.  It was fun to watch the students pour into the room and immediately try to pronounce it.  A few had heard the word and associated it with giving and sharing, but for many it was a new term.

What struck me, however, was that there was nothing new about the concept.  Keeley's class is definitely very diverse socioeconomically, yet every single student lit up as I asked for examples of ways they have given or shared their time or talents or treasures (thanks to this wonderful website: http://learningtogive.org/ for that great phraseology).  They all blurted out real examples of how they had helped a neighbor, donated food for the food drive, or volunteered at a community event.  One girl shared how proud she was to donate to a horse rescue operation for her birthday.  They all agreed it feels really good to give and that this feeling lasts for a long time. They might not know the word philanthropy, but they definitely know what it is.

Our kids are the seeds for philanthropy and at the ages of 9 or 10 at least, they see it as a good and wonderful thing.  But, because we don't purposefully and directly talk about it, kids aren't thinking of themselves as philanthropists. When we teach about something it becomes worthy and important.  Mrs. van Bueren's class was already a room full of philanthropists in their own ways, but they didn't know it until we talked about it. 

Now they do.  And, apparently, they spent the next hour after I left discussing what they want to do as a class to help the whole school. I love the idea of a whole 4th grade of philanthropists and I wonder how can we nurture this feeling that philanthropy is fun and meaningful in the grades beyond.

People often ask me what our organization is doing to help get kids involved – and I'm sure by that they mean how are we teaching kids directly about our mission of conservation in the Methow Valley.  But, maybe in addition to the important conservation-based educational and fieldwork opportunities we can provide, we have a responsibility to get kids involved in our philanthropy.  Giving them a voice in protecting a place they love might be the most empowering conservation message we could teach. And, maybe, by empowering them to be philanthropists, we'd learn a thing or two about how to ensure our messages and mission stay relevant over time.  Who knows…we might even spark the fire for a future fundraising professional.

Do you think nonprofits should engage youth in philanthropy or does that somehow feel manipulative? What can I do with Keeley's class as a follow up to empower them as philanthropists?

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Why Scott Harrison Was Right...and Wrong


Scott Harrison went no holds barred at the International Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) conference last April. 

His nonprofit charity: water is a relatively new social media and fundraising force raising millions for clean water projects worldwide.  A charismatic former NYC nightclub promoter, Harrison is out to "reinvent charity."  He and his staff don't hang out with other nonprofits because they don't find them inspiring.  After more than two years of searching, he still can't find a Development Director.  He basically told a room of more than 3,000 nonprofit fundraising professionals that we were washed up, out of touch, and on the verge of extinction.

His flippant frustration at the nonprofit sector seemed a bit drastic and unfair, but it also struck a chord with me (as I suppose both AFP and Harrison himself were hoping it would!).

Here's why I think Scott Harrison was right:
  • charity: water focuses on building a movement of people who understand that there is a water crisis in the world and who feel empowered to do something about it by banding together. Instead of a Development Director, they hire videographers, "producers" of special events, and "Supporter Experience Managers."  Semantics?  Yes.  But, also an important perspective shift that permeates the organization. Every job at charity: water is focused around pulling people into the movement.  Imagine how the roles at your favorite nonprofit could be re-structured that way and the difference it would make. 

  • There are some lessons the nonprofit sector should be learning from the Googles, Twitters, and other companies Harrison prefers to hang out with.  Technology aside, these companies are focused on making individuals feel connected, heard, empowered.  For too long, most nonprofits have seen the world through an organizational lens, thanking donors for helping the organization make a difference.  At charity: water, donors are thanked for making that difference directly. Twitter recognizes it is just a conduit.  So is charity: water.  If we all reframed that way, we might create more movements.

  • It is, ultimately, about being passionate.  charity: water is a very hip and cool organization with a start-up mentality.  Harrison's lesson, though, isn't that all nonprofits have to become hip and cool in a NYC nightclub sort of way. It is, however, all about wearing your beliefs on your sleeve (or website, brochure, etc.).  It goes back to getting nonprofits to think beyond mission statements to their own "Lush Lists" of what they value, believe, and stand for.  Shared passions and values make a movement.  

Here's why I think Scott Harrison was wrong:
  • Every thoughtful, professional, and experienced fundraiser I talked to after that session already thinks this way.  Yes, this means that at times they have to reshape the expectations of their role at their organization and yes, this means they often do much more than their job descriptions or titles.  But, good fundraisers get this, welcome it, and actually make it happen at their organizations.  Now we just have to figure out how to make it happen in every nonprofit.

Do you think charity needs "reinventing?"  If so, in what ways?  How can we, as a fundraising profession, hold onto what works while still innovating?

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Why Fundraisers Aren't Invited to Career Day


Given the likelihood that I might have scared some of you away last week with a too long and rambling post, the goals this week are to be crisp, concise, and conversation-starting. 

"Half of Fundraisers in Top Job Would Like to Quit."  That's the headline screaming in my daily email from the Chronicle of Philanthropy this week.  Digging in to the article only proves more depressing:  one in three CEO's is at best "lukewarm" about their top fundraiser.  A two-way street of fundraising dissatisfaction.

This does not bode well for the future of philanthropy.   For giving to thrive, we need capable, committed, and satisfied development professionals who bring value to their organizations and who are valued.  It is time for some radical reformation in how we attract people to fundraising and how we train them to be successful.

I have not yet met anyone who announced in the fourth grade that he/she would become a fundraiser (and if you are out there, please speak up!).  Development professionals were not at my high school's career day and no one came to my small liberal arts college looking to hire the next great fundraiser.  In fact, most every one I know who works in fundraising came to it initially through a back door.  We wanted to work on a cause we believed in and the only jobs always available involved raising money (and usually six other tasks, too).  Or, we actually had another role in an organization but soon enough someone on the development side left and our friendly personalities ushered us to the fundraising desk. 

Some of us, myself included, are grateful for that happenstance, for it opened our eyes to a very inspiring and challenging career path.  But, as the Chronicle article highlights, it's a process that, in general, isn't working.

I see at least three key steps for ensuring we have a steady stream of smart, strategic and passionate people seeking out fundraising as a career: 

1) We must talk about philanthropy and fundraising with our kids. Exposure to philanthropy and its joy just might spark a fourth grader to realize that one path to changing the world is by getting involved in nonprofits and fundraising. 

2) Those of us who love being in this profession must talk about it more.  We have to find our way into career days or make sure our media outlets include stories of satisfaction from a job in development and philanthropy. For a profession so good at running campaigns, we haven't yet done a very good job inspiring people to CHOOSE our career.

3) We must ensure that our job descriptions are about more than meeting fundraising goals.  Think about most of the postings out there for development staff.  Unless you are already committed to the profession, they aren't all that enticing.  We do much more than raise money.  We need to make sure that our organizations recognize that and recruit people to jobs that "broker dreams" (ala Sissy Bouchard).

And, we must do more to support and train people when they first climb into that development officer's chair.  We need to go beyond fundraising workshops, conferences, and classes. 

First, we need a concerted effort to create a mentorship program so every new development officer, rural or urban, from a big or small organization, has a chance to connect with a professional who loves his/her work. 

This past year I participated in an empowering mentoring program through AFP Washington. I was paired with a smart and savvy fundraising professional in Seattle and during our monthly phone calls we each learned from each other, sharing what's worked, what hasn't, what inspires us and what doesn't.  I'm a better fundraiser for that relationship and I'd like to think that if everyone just starting out could have such a support, we'd see so much less dissatisfaction.  Such programs exist, but they are small and voluntary and typically take a backseat in professional organizations to planning the next conference, workshop, or gathering.  Just like in fundraising, personal connections make a difference and mentoring programs deserve to be elevated in their importance.

Second, we need to try experimenting with other ways of building the fundraising capacity of nonprofit organizations.  My experience has been mostly in small and now rural organizations, so I'm thinking of them first and foremost here.  What if we experimented with actually placing a fundraising coach/mentor with a few organizations each year, rather than giving grants for trainings or projects?  I'm picturing a teach-them-to-fish-rather-than-giving-them-fish concept or a sort of loaned executive program. 

It takes going through a whole year to really understand how your organization and fundraising cycle works.  So, after carefully screening organizations for the basic foundations of potential, we could offer them a professional coach for a whole year.  The nonprofit's staff would do all the actual fundraising work, but they'd have a guide, a sounding board, a source of resources and experiences to help them plot their own best course.  Fundraising concepts and ideas are more likely to "stick" when they are directly relevant to your organization and you don't have to translate what you heard at a conference to your own day-to-day efforts.

I bet that after a year of support for the board and staff, the organizations would be more than ready to raise their own funds into the future.  Slowly, but deeply and surely, we'd actually change organizations' cultures and capacities for fundraising.  If we could do that, we'd make a big dent in the attrition and dissatisfaction that plagues our profession.  And, then, we can really start changing the world through philanthropy.

What do you think we need to do to recruit and retain more passionate, qualified, and inspiring people in fundraising?  Do you think we'll ever hear a fourth grader say "I want to be a fundraiser when I grow up?"



 

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Authenticity & Flow


Some of the best parts of launching this little experiment last week have been the links some of you have sent me to other blogs or articles that have you thinking.  Yes!  There is a big world of smart people out there analyzing and philosophizing about philanthropy and I'm thrilled for any and all suggestions you have for expanding my world. 

Natalie Lamberjack, consultant extraordinaire from The Collins Group in Seattle, sent me a link to a post on Katya's Nonprofit Marketing Blog, entitled "The Great Donor Exodus – And What to Do About It." The author, Jay Love (former CEO of eTapestry) provides an interesting synopsis of the Fundraising Effectiveness Project by the Urban Institute and the Association for Fundraising Professionals.   Think of the Project as an important treasure trove of statistics designed to help nonprofits learn to fundraise effectively.

As Love writes, the recent Project report shows that nonprofit donor retention is actually rather dismal:  a 41% donor retention rate across the nonprofit sector pales in comparison to a 96% customer retention rate in the commercial for-profit world.  While I’m still trying to wrap my head around what, exactly, it means for the for-profit world to have a 96% retention rate, the difference is nonetheless stark.  Moreover, the report estimates that increasing the nonprofit sector's donor retention rate could result in significant fundraising gains. 

Love's advice is for every nonprofit to know their statistics – what's your retention rate, which donors return every year, who doesn't, etc.  Good advice, for sure.  But let's remember data analysis is only a starting point and the real rubber meets the road when we try to think about what to do to change our stats.  And, that has me thinking and pondering on this way-too-beautiful a sunny day here in the Methow Valley – so if I sound overly impatient or antsy in what follows, forgive me for outside is calling!

I started by searching around the web for theories and approaches to donor retention. A whole army of fundraisers stand ready with lists promising "10 Things to Keep Your Donors," or "The 5 Steps to Lifelong Donors," or "The 25 Must-Do's to Keep Your Donors Engaged" (full disclosure – I made up those titles, but trust me, google donor retention and you will quickly find yourself swamped in a series of short, pithy lists to guide you to philanthropy's silver bullet).

While many of these lists include very smart and appropriate advice (like PLEASE always thank your donors and show impact before you ask again), they leave me frankly a little depressed.  After reading enough of them, I could all too easily conclude that fundraising is just a series of checklists or hurdles to cover before I achieve success and have a donor engaged to the point of making a long-term and significant gift.  My job as a Development Professional, it would seem, is to "move" donors along these set milestones and assure consistent, generous support.

Wow, does that NOT feel like how I approach my passion.  Yes, there are basic protocols (like thanking, reporting back, etc.) that if not done, will ensure the loss of a donor.  But, I don't believe there is one recipe, no checklist, no five things that guarantee the commitment of a long-term donor.  I respect all of our supporters way too much to assume that.

Thank goodness we've had smart thinkers like Penelope Burk (and many of you!) through the years to remind us that fundraising is not transactional, but is all about relationships.  Like most fundraisers I know, I absolutely agree.  Why is it though, that even this rather deep philosophical concept too often gets boiled down to a series of utilitarian steps. Steps with a more personal flair, for sure, but steps nonetheless.  Listening carefully to your donors becomes a step, asking the right questions, tailoring your message, etc. 

It reminds me of the time I led a workshop session on how my organization engaged donors in a really big capital campaign and in the midst of explaining the underlying philosophy, I shared examples of some of the materials we created.  Only after someone came up to me at the end of the session to say, "thank you so much for the idea of sending donors postcards of the land they have protected," did I realize I had failed in conveying the central point.  It's not about the design of your card or the timing of your appeal or the font you choose….the magic is in finding a way to say clearly and believably you, donor, have made a real impact.  The postcard is just the vehicle. 

Maybe I'm crazy, but I've always tried to approach the whole process in the way that I'd like to be treated if I was the donor.  I wouldn't care about receiving 7 contacts before being asked or at least one email update a month.  For me, it all starts and ends with authenticity. 

I genuinely believe that all of the donors I have the honor to work with are partners in my organization's efforts to make the world (or at least one piece of the world) better.  We are in this together.  I have a real passion for my mission and when I reach out to donors, I share that genuinely – maybe not always in exactly the right words or right way, but what I strive for is an authentic sense of a shared love for our mission.  I also genuinely respect all of our donors and when I ask them about what matters to them, I actually care.  Not just so I can make a note and send them a follow up card that speaks to their heart, but because I really want to know what inspires them.  I learn from them.  Understanding what moves them is what gives me satisfaction – the human connection (the philanthropos tropos, if you will)—in my work. 

So whether I am sending a donor a personal email on the day I saw an eagle try to drown a gull out my office window and it made me realize how grateful I am that as a donor they keep a place like the Methow alive and wild, or whether I am sending a postcard to 1000 donors to thank them for protecting another special place, I think first about how to be genuine in my gratitude, in my awe at their impact, and in my belief that our work only happens because so many band together. 

I'm sure a fundraiser auditing my process for its retention potential would be abhorred at the lack of checklists and steps and programmed-out plans for contacts.  I've tried that and it didn’t work and I didn't like it.  Because it didn't feel authentic.  Of course, I recognize we need to communicate, and I readily admit to times when I have missed a good opportunity, but I try to stay focused on making communications about the things – little or big – that make our daily work come to life for our donors so that they truly do feel a part of the organization.  Because, and this is the secret sauce, I believe they are!  I can't manufacture those moments to fit some prescribed timeline.  To work – for every one of our donors to feel connected – those moments and how we convey them, have to flow.

I believe that when you can do that, your donors will sense the authentic impact of their giving and they will want to continue to be a part of your movement—and that should be our goal rather than donor retention.

So sure, I keep track of our donor renewal rates and as student of economics, I like to analyze statistics and find some comfort in logic and formulas.  But, what I do is much more art than science, more about connection than calculation.  And, that's just the way I'd want it.

What's your take on the essentials for the nonprofit sector to retain more supporters for our movements?  As either a fundraiser or a donor, what do you think lies at the heart of keeping people engaged?  Maybe we can come up with our own Top Ten List :)

Thursday, January 3, 2013

What If....



If I could donate a dollar for all the times I have heard a nonprofit person say, "if only we didn't have to fundraise," I'd have a whole lot of money to give away!  It's the prominent theme among boards, Executive Directors, and programmatic staff that fundraising is a sort of necessary evil.  It's the thing you have to be successful at to get your real work done.  It's the thorn in your side, the thing in your way, the task you'd most like to give to some salesperson or better yet be entirely relieved of by the existence of a generous endowment given by an anonymous benefactor you never have to thank.

This unfortunate, but prominent take on fundraising means that development staff are often tucked in a desk on the outer edges of the office, tasked with next to impossible fundraising goals and given little insight or voice into the future, the strategy, and the key positioning of the organization.  It's why the average fundraiser changes jobs every 3.9 years[1].  It is also, I would argue, why we've been stuck at a national giving level of less than 2% of GDP for way too many years.

But, there is another way.  I've been fortunate to spend my entire fundraising career with nonprofits that buck these trends.  I've never worked for an organization that sees the fundraiser as Cinderella's ugly stepsister.  As someone with fundraising responsibilities, I have always been embraced as a key player in the health of the organization and my success has been seen not only as a means of helping programmatic staff get their work done, but also as a key function of reaching our mission.  I have only recently realized just how lucky I am.

So, here's the secret.  The organizations I have worked for have all had missions, goals, and strategies that reach beyond helping X number of people or protecting Y number of acres.  They have all wanted to literally create or change a culture around their core mission.  Building an ethic means that you can't only do your program work well, you also have to change or inspire the hearts and minds of your community. 

A fully realized "fundraising" program is the way to do that.  This means taking the emphasis off the actual financial transaction of giving.  It takes reframing the idea of fundraising to see it as it's own mission of providing people with a way to express their values.  Fundraising isn't just a means of financing programmatic work; it is, by its newly defined nature, a means of doing your work.

Providing people with a way to make a difference, to feel connected to a cause they care about, and to become engaged should always be one of a nonprofit's key goals.  Done well, that's what fundraising is—it is matching people who have a passion, vision, or belief with an organization who can meld their dreams with the dreams of others and actually have an impact. 

I can't cure homelessness on my own.  I can't protect everything I love about the Methow Valley all by myself and I can't ensure that my daughter will grow up with exposure to all the fine arts.  But, when I give to organizations that can, even if I can only give modestly, I become part of the solution.  The very act of giving makes me feel differently about the cause I have just written a check to.  I am now, very literally, invested.  I am more likely to talk to others about that cause, to attend their events and learn more, to volunteer, and to ultimately care even more. 

A good fundraising program is more focused on getting me "hooked" as a passionate proselytizer of the cause than getting my name on next year's list of donors.  It is how you rally people together.  It's the catalyst for change.  It's how you make your mission about more than just your organization.

Of course, you've got to back up good fundraising with awesome programs and results – the two are definitely symbiotic.  But, by pushing fundraising to the side, we limit our abilities to really have an impact. 

If the millions of development professionals in this country are truly going to make a difference, we have to help our organizations redefine fundraising.  What if we all saw our role as building a movement and not just building a donor base?

What do you think?  Is it possible to reframe fundraising in this way?  What are the first steps?  


[1] 2011 AFP Compensation and Benefits Survey