How Nonprofit Boards Can Make Good Decisions -- Part 6 of 7

Having set a small group to work, a group that really can do deliberative thinking because they have the kind of time and assignment that gets them past the psycho-dynamics that normally impede deliberative thought, let’s go to step #4.

4. Small group recommends action. They look at the problem or issue from all sides, getting input from individual Board members they know will have a point of view. Looking at what other organizations do or have done with the same problem. They examine a variety of possible solutions, and, with that, a series of outcomes that will result from each of the possible solutions. And my thought is that it is only at this point that they can choose one of those possible solutions to recommend for Board action and implementation. You’ve got to know the field well before you can really understand which solution will work best for this organization at this time and in these particular circumstances.

It can’t be a solution based on anecdotal evidence. It can’t be a solution based on hearsay and opinion. This type of thing is typically what is going to be heard in a full-board discussion. People working in larger groups do only two things well: they can brainstorm and they can tell stories. But they can’t do deliberative thought. So they brainstorm, and, in so doing, they’re going to give you what’s on the top of their head that moment, on that day. The stories, the anecdotal evidence, and “I’ve heard that...” and so forth. But that’s just a start, just a suggestion of a direction. It’s not the basis for a good decision. So that’s why the small group is so necessary. It gets down below that superficial level and ferrets out the facts, the alternatives, then makes a solid, workable recommendation that we know in advance will meet the needs of everyone involved.

5. Executive and small group work individually with each Board member in advance. Even though we’ve had Board input on this through the small group, we still want to be sure we have everyone’s buy-in on the recommendation coming from that small group BEFORE we get to the Board meeting. Why? Because it’s important that the needs, wants and values of each particular individual board member be met by the final action the Board produces. Why? Because that keeps the Board working together, it supports governance, avoids divisions and ensures consensus.

6. Bring the issue to the Board with full documentation passed out in advance and only when we know in advance that all members can support the action. No surprises, right? Board chair and executive working hand-in-hand; small group gets input from Board members as part of its process; small group and Executive “shop” the proposed solution around the board informally to get input and make sure all needs, wants and values are heard and taken into consideration; then the decision and its documentation is published to the Board members in advance of their action meeting. The item is clearly on the agenda; it gets introduced thoroughly at Board meeting. The Board chair explains where this has been, what’s going on, what’s needed, calls for a motion, entertains “last minute” questions for clarification only, and then takes the vote.

I think the most essential work is going to be done OUTSIDE the Board meeting, but in a way that involves Board members and takes seriously their opinions, points of view, stories, prejudices, experiences and all the input they have to give, and then focuses that input on a deliberately thought out solution that has the best interests of the institution at heart and is workable given the strategic plan, the resources, the personnel and the situation at hand. Here’s where the payoff is that compensates the organization for the fact that the whole Board would be incapable of doing the deliberative thought that would bring about this quality of decision-making.

Here is a high-quality decision that I think will work, that will have participation and buy-in from all concerned, and one that will have good results for the organization.

Now, I promise that tomorrow we’re going to get over to Example #2 of Boards trying to do deliberative thought in decision-making – that’s where the Board is considering an investment of resources in fundraising infrastructure.

Tricky question, right? And you know it will come only at BUDGET TIME! Thoroughly confusing the issue.

How Nonprofit Boards Can Make Good Decisions -- Part 5 of 7

Continuing from yesterday, if the desirable outcome is a fair, just and equitable solution that's workable and focuses on the long-term good of the nonprofit organization, then you would use a process constructed to produce that kind of result. That means we need to work harder and do our homework. There are at least six steps to such a procedure, and I'm going to give those to you in just a minute, but bear with me, there's another issue we have to deal with here.

Why is it that board members can come onto a nonprofit board with the belief that so little will be expected from them?

If you look at the way nonprofits are set up, it's contradictory to the way we recruit board members, isn't it? Nonprofit boards serve a wonderful social purpose. I heard a speech by Lawrence Lindsey, a governor of the Federal Reserve Board, many years ago in Kansas City. He addressed one of the first assemblies of the National Conference on Planned Giving and said that if you give a charity a dollar, they'll most likely return about 6 dollars’ worth of service to the society. But if you give the government $6 in taxes, you're going to be lucky if you get a dollar of service in return. I assumed he knew whereof he spoke

So charities are effective and efficient, right? They serve a social purpose. What's the root of their effectiveness? VOLUNTEER BOARDS. The charities are run by volunteers who have philanthropic motivations – the love of human kind – at heart. They're self-policing. The United Way scandal a number of years ago was handled INTERNALLY, by their Board members who blew the whistle on the exorbitant salary of the national executive. They cleaned it up themselves.

So charity boards serve a distinct social purpose: their volunteer governance is responsible for achieving the social and charitable objectives of their nonprofit organization. Who in their right mind would, then, assume, that the work of the individual board member on the individual nonprofit board would be easy or without responsibility? It just doesn't make sense.

But that's what seems to happen in all too many nonprofits: board members are recruited on the flimsiest of excuses, seldom trained, frequently not told what they must do and how they should do it, never told they have to give. But yet we expect the board to perform. We expect the board to do strategic planning that directs the nonprofit in ways that will assure its achievement of its goals and purposes. We expect the board to provide the financial resources necessary to carry out that strategic plan. We expect the board members to be community leaders who give at a leadership level. But when we recruit them, what do we tell them? "Oh, it won't take that much time out of your schedule, it won't be a hassle."

Why does this happen? It happens only where there is not a well-thought-out process for recruiting board members.

What should happen is this:
1. The board has a job description written out, known in advance, repeatedly emphasized in board meetings. One that includes all the board responsibilities, including meetings, committees, giving, advocacy in the community, leadership among volunteers, etc.

2. Board members are brought on the board with a process that includes a full nine-step process:
- identifying many prospective members,
- recruiting only the best of those,
- fully disclosing to those prospective members all aspects of the board's life,
- installing them with public ceremony,
- training them in what they must do for the organization,
- evaluating their performance,
- re-training periodically in the various responsibilities, and, finally, at the end of the line,
- de-briefing them before they leave after their stated tenure is finished.

But it seems very few nonprofits do this. The really successful ones do. But of the more than 4000 groups and organizations in southeast Michigan that have 501-c-3 nonprofit status from the IRS, how many do you think engage in this kind of rigorous board recruitment process? From what I've seen in 22 years here, practicing actively among the charities for the past 10 years, my bet is that maybe 30 organizations have such a process in place.

No wonder we have a tough time getting board members to give!
But now we really MUST get to our Example #2.

How Nonprofit Boards Can Make Good Decisions -- Part 4 of 7

Well, we can't really go on to Example #2 before we give Board members their due. After all, they're human beings, too! Right?

So what do we hear around the Board table when the subject of "Board giving" comes up? Well, we hear things like: "You can't force me to give" or "I give my time, isn't that enough?" and "The approach you're using to get this done really turns me off." and "not everyone can give at the same rate?" and "nobody ever told me I'd have to be a fundraiser to serve on this board" and then there's the all-time favorite reaction "we've never had any rules about board members giving before; we don't need them now."

And each of these points of view does have a kernel of truth in it. That's what is so confusing to development staff and their executives. Each board member does have a point to make. There really can't be any force involved – it's counterproductive. Yes, people really do sacrifice other kinds of goals to give time to our non-profit and they deserve recognition of that because without that service we couldn't, as nonprofits, achieve what we do.

And, yes, there are some ways I've seen some board members lay it on their fellows in such a demanding, almost obnoxious way that the rest of the board is pretty much turned off to the idea of giving or of setting a board giving goal just as a way of reacting to that demand.

And, yes, not everyone can give at the same level. No doubt about it, some are more capable than others of both giving and "getting." Of course, if you go around the table and analyze who is likely, because of their profession or other factors, to have more capability than others, no one wants to admit they really COULD give more. But, generally speaking, you can figure that the attorneys and the business owners on a board will have greater capacity than the social workers, right?

And, yes, it is probably the case that when the board member took on this assignment he/she was NOT told they'd have to give a certain amount or at a certain level, or go out and cultivate and solicit gifts. Nonprofit staff tend to recruit anything that can fog a mirror as a board member. $500 gift? Make him a board member. Volunteered last year for the auction and did a great job? Make her a board member. Expressed interest in the cause? Make that one a board member, too! It's no wonder board members think they can be on the board without giving at leadership levels! We just put 'em on the board for the slightest of reasons, tell them "you won't have to take much time, you won't have to do anything very much." And we let it go at that, thankful that we filled the board roster again this year, now let's go on to all the other things we have to do.

So all these reactions have half a grain of truth in them. And the other half grain is more or less an excuse, a reaction to process, an internal response to the operation of the psycho-dynamics and other pressures within the board and within each board member. This is a mixture of internal and external "stuff" that mostly resides in the mind of each board member, but which also has a very real effect on the work of the whole body.

Point is, if we're going to make an intelligent decision and come up with a workable long-term solution that truly benefits the ORGANIZATION itself, we have to get beyond the half-truths and analyze the full situation, get all the issues out on the table, expose them, delve into them, find out the facts. But boards typically can't do that. They don't have the time – they're in a rush to get out of there and back to work or wherever it is they need to go after the meeting (golf, anyone?).

They don't have the inclination, either – they've got an agenda they need to accomplish before they leave the room early for their next appointment. And, even if they had the time and the inclination, you could put them in a room together all day and still not come up with a resolution on board giving that was fair, equitable and just, and that focused on the long-term good and welfare of the organization. It's just not something they're able to do because they are a group of people, and they tend to operate with the dynamics of a group, rather than being able to do deliberative thought, as an individual can do when working alone or with one other person.

Question: if all this is the case, then why do we persist – as development staffs and executives – in trying to get our boards to make decisions like this? If we know it's impossible, if we suspect there's another way to do it, why do we just waltz in there with this kind of an agenda item and hope and pray something positive happens? That's a mystery we'll delve into further tomorrow.

Your comments are appreciated. This blog is designed to be a little sharp and provocative, so if you're dander is up, that's good, and let's hear from you. Give us your thoughts.

How Nonprofit Boards Can Make Good Decisions -- Part 3 of 7

We ended yesterday’s post saying that generally the psycho-dynamics of the group will tend to overcome the board’s ability to do deliberative thought, but that may not be all that's involved here. Let’s explore this further.

Once a set of giving strategies is developed (slightly complicated "brainstorming"), the board must decide how to put these strategies in place, implement them, evaluate the results they're getting at regular intervals, and then provide a way to make any mid-course corrections that might be needed depending on what the strategy evaluation shows.

This is not only detailed work, but a fairly time-consuming activity for a board, and it will take a longer-term process than most board members can tolerate. It takes some concentration, commitment, open-mindedness and a lot of patience with the details in order to be done correctly and in a way that will bring a positive result to the organization. But the members of most boards I have seen operating feel they have neither the time nor the patience to engage in this kind of process. And, don't forget, those questions of self-image and other-perception are working unconsciously to impede this kind of work.

Not only that, but wouldn't it be good if the decision could be based on full consensus by the board rather than done by “majority vote”? But that would mean all viewpoints have been voiced, heard, taken into account and everyone fully included throughout the process. This would promote a strong sense of ownership and "buy-in" for all the Board members. But very few, if any, boards are disposed to take the time and energy to get that far in their decision-making.

Consensus decision-making can be a pretty complicated process, but it also can bring about a solid decision that has positive results. But the psycho-dynamics of a board's working together make it nearly impossible for a board to make such a decision in this way, using deliberative thought. So what generally happens?

One of two things generally happens with such a decision-making process: either the executive director of the nonprofit will have the perspicacity to have his/her staff do most of the deliberative work and bring alternatives back to the board for them to review and approve; or, what happens all too frequently, the executive just bulls on ahead, gives the board the decision, let's them go at it in helter-skelter style without any expertise or guidance, and hopes they emerge with some kind of giving process that most of the board can tolerate.

In the process, of course, the organization may well lose some good leadership as the more disgruntled board members, who feel their legitimate concerns were not heard, simply give up and resign. Pain all around.

Why pain? Because the decision is flawed to start with, which makes it difficult to carry out; pain because some people are left out or passed over; pain because the ability of the board to lead has been hampered rather than strengthened by the decision-making process; pain because the staff will have to implement the board giving program and yet have had no substantive, deliberative input.

Why? Because the board was given a task that, essentially, they are not prepared or qualified to do – they were asked to do deliberative thought, when what they really do best is brainstorming and telling stories.

Before I suggest a better way to make such a complicated decision – let's take a look at example #2, which, you’ll remember from Monday's post, has to do with the board making a decision to invest some of the nonprofit’s revenue in ramping up its fundraising infrastructure.

This is a little more complicated kind of decision that once again calls on the board members to do deliberative thought in order to produce a sound, workable decision. We'll find further insights

How Nonprofit Boards Can Make Good Decisions -- Part 2 of 7

Let's take two common examples. These are two very common decisions that Boards are called upon to make.

1. The decision about Board giving levels and making regular and substantive giving a part of the Board's life.

2. A budget-related decision about whether to invest significant financial and personnel resources in improving fundraising infrastructure for the nonprofit, and starting a major gifts cultivation and solicitation process.

Before we dig in, let's see what "deliberative thought" might entail here. We're talking about the ability to deliberate and make decisions about the complex issues involved in either one of these topics.

The reader will want to keep in mind that we're basically talking about a four-step process.
1. First comes the process of identifying and prioritizing those issues that are especially relevant to where the organization wants to go strategically. This step will be easy, because it involves brainstorming, something the group can do well.

2. The group then needs to decide on the kind of goals and objectives that will need to be accomplished to make either of the above decisions result in positive increases in the capability of the nonprofit to function and accomplish its fundraising objectives. This step is going to be more difficult for the group to do.

3. Next, the group must be able to delineate a variety of possible strategies, along with sets of tactics to implement each of those strategies. This is also a brainstorming process but is not always an easy task for a group.

4. Then the group needs judiciously to choose which of those possible strategies the organization is best equipped to carry out, in terms of its resources, its context, its methods of operating. This is perhaps the most difficult step for a board to take. It gets tedious and requires concentration away from the "image" scenarios playing themselves out in the board members' heads.

So let's start with example 1: The decision on Board Giving: Here's what needs to be done.

First, we need to brainstorm the issues involved in Board giving. Here are just a few issues that you might find surfacing in a discussion such as this. Most boards are very good at this part of the process.

1. We will find that board members vary in their ability to give
2. Board members also vary as to their motivation to give.
3. Board members also have differences in their understanding of the organization's need for leadership.
4. What is the community's image of this nonprofit and its Board?
5. How can this image be improved?
6. What are the financial needs of the organization?
7. How can the board members collectively address that need from their own personal/corporate financial resources?
8. What are the consequences of the board's refusal to take a leadership role in giving?
9. What does the organization's strategic plan call for in terms of revenues?
10. What does the strategic fundraising plan call for in terms of board giving?
11. What needs to be accomplished, and how will it be accomplished and by when?

The next step is that the board will need to prioritize these issues relative to their importance in this particular situation. Some may be more relevant and pressing than others. This is typically where boards start to have a hard time, because prioritizing issues calls for more deliberative thought; people need to match up issues with context, mission, capability, etc.

Next, we need to provide detailed answers to the questions posed. When the questions are answered, the answers need to be sorted out in a way that provides a series of alternative strategies from which the Board members will need to choose. Boards are notoriously incapable of doing this step with any kind of consistency. Even though this is mostly a "brainstorming" task, it nevertheless involves linking pieces together to form action strategies.

The next step is a complicated process: creative thought. It's similar to the scientific method – yes, that "scientific method," the one we learned in school, in chemistry or physics class.

You may remember the steps of the scientific method:
1. Form the hypothesis,
2. Test the hypothesis,
3. Evaluate the results,
4. Come to some tentative conclusions with a new hypothesis,
5. Test that new hypothesis.

It's clearly beyond the ability of most groups of people, including nonprofit boards, to do this by working together. But we frequently demand that they do this even though most board members are not equipped to carry this out, and are not psychologically prepared or capable of doing it. They can work individually; they can work with one other person. But the psycho-dynamics are too overwhelming to allow these steps to be done by the group.

But there's more to this process, and we'll see what that is tomorrow.

How Nonprofit Boards Can Make Good Decisions -- Part 1 of 7

You've probably heard the saying "A camel is a horse designed by a committee"? Does your nonprofit's Board exemplify that cliché?

A lot of boards that I have seen and worked with over the past 10 years certainly have engaged in processes that have strange-looking results as their outcome.

What's the dynamic that's operating in these kinds of situations? Why do groups of people, many with the best of intentions, and some with considerable governing experience, turn out decisional products that are convoluted, multi-faceted, illogical and hard to administer?

Essentially, the heart of the problem is the "Psycho-dynamics" that operate in groups. Boards that don't function well inevitably have some dysfunctionality because it is almost impossible for any group of three or more people who get together relatively infrequently to do any kind of productive, deliberative thinking.

Why? Because every member of the group, often unconsciously, has tons of other agenda they're trying to accomplish for themselves, personally, that simply overrides any agenda they have for the nonprofit.

You might ask, "Would Board members of a nonprofit organization really do that? Would they really have their own agenda that would override consideration of the agenda the Board is supposed to be working on?"

Sure they would... and do; regularly. Yes, even these stalwart pillars of the community who are brought together to govern a public trust, which is what a nonprofit is; they can and do bring their own agendas into the meeting and press those agendas, in some cases, to the exclusion of all else.

And your reaction may be "But wait a minute, John, I've been to lots of Board meetings and the people on those boards are quite serious and down to earth and ready to help. After all they're volunteering their time to help the nonprofit. How can you say that?"

Back to "Psycho-dynamics." This isn't something they necessarily do consciously. They don't come into the meeting and purposively give the charity's agenda short shrift. They are intelligent, for the most part well-educated, frequently very well motivated and dedicated people. They don't really set out to sabotage the work at hand. If you asked any person around the table, they would stoutly deny that there's anything untoward going on in their heads. But here's how it works.

On looking closer, we discover that there are some sub-conscious questions any person in any group of people is asking.
1. "What do I think of myself in this group, how do I see myself, what is my image of myself in this context?" Each person around the table has a set of self images upon which they draw, depending on the group they're in, the role they have to play, and what they want from the group.

2. Every Board member around the table is also very interested in the question "What is the image that the other person (each other person at the table) has of me? How do they see me? What do they want/need from me?"

3. Every Board member at the table is also internally asking "What is my image of that person – what do I think of them? What do I know about them? What do I think they want of me, what do I think I can give to them?"

4. Every Board member is sub-consciously going to go to the next level, which is "How can I either alter that person's perception of me, or confirm that perception? What do I need to do or say to bring my images of myself, my image of what that other person thinks of me, and what I think about that other person into some kind of harmony that I can accept?" And this goes on around the table ad infinitum throughout the Board meeting.

This internal mechanism of assessment of others and behavior adjustment to that assessment goes on at either a subliminal level or, sometimes, at a more conscious level. It depends on many factors operating in the particular Board member's life at that moment. But this assessment and adjustment mechanism continues operating nonetheless.

Given the fact that this kind of internal psycho-dynamic is operating in each and every Board member, and in every staff member around the room, is it any wonder that there is little room left to engage in "deliberative thought" about matters that concern the nonprofit? Each person in the room is busy sorting out and finding ways to act appropriately for their own benefit as determined by their assessment of the group context in which they find themselves.

Now, what do we mean by "deliberative thought" in this situation? Basically we mean the logical, orderly, reasoned progression of thought that solves problems and creates solutions. If you will think back to your school days, it's the "scientific method" as applied to problems of governance, planning and fundraising for the nonprofit organization. It is the steps of data gathering about a problem, stating a hypothesis about what could solve the problem, testing solutions, gathering data about what works and what does not, then evaluation of the best model and drawing a conclusion, often expressed as a policy or procedure in the board context.

What we're saying here is that this kind of decision-making is practically impossible in the nonprofit boardroom situation. In fact, people in groups of three or more persons can only do two things well: they can brainstorm and they can tell stories; but they cannot do deliberative thought.

I am indebted to my mentor in organizational dynamics Dr. Paul Dietterich, who for many years was the founder and executive director of the Center for Parish Development in Chicago, for having expressed the phenomenon that way.

But here we have a situation where we expect, and we have set this up in society, that groups of volunteers are asked to come together as "governance boards" that are given charge of a public trust: governing a nonprofit charitable institution. Yet their heads, by nature, are so jammed with the psycho-dynamics of interpersonal relationships and communication that their best productive activity is reduced to brainstorming and telling stories.

And, if we look at the story-telling process, we find that it, too, is just another, perhaps more sophisticated, version of brainstorming. It links together a series of remembered, imagined or invented thoughts to form a story that is amusing or delivers a particular point to one's audience.

Ah, but I know you're looking for more content about "deliberative thought". And there's more to be said about internal agenda in board members that isn't necessarily very subliminal. We'll take that up in the next few posts on this subject. So stay tuned for more.

Using Volunteers in Cultivate and Solicit – Part 5 of 5

I recently got back in touch with an old friend: Ambrose Bierce – Civil War veteran, writer, one who observed his times and gave pungent commentary. I thought readers of this blog might enjoy reading this definition:

PHILANTHROPIST, n. A rich (and usually bald) old gentleman who has trained himself to grin while his conscience is picking his pocket.
-- taken from Ambrose Bierce’s “Devil’s Dictionary” 1868


So... you started with a list of 150 people who were “C/S” or Cultivation and Solicitation prospects, you winnowed those down to the first 20. You then oriented and trained them, and each of them now has a list of 20 donor prospects that they are going to cultivate and solicit over time, and the written strategies (the “moves management” system) by which they are going to do that.

Your job’s not done. But of course you knew that. Now you’ve got to manage the work of these 20 volunteers and evaluate what they’re doing and how effective they are at it.

The first thing you need to do now is write down a set of performance standards by which you will measure the effectiveness of each volunteer. What are the characteristics of their performance that you want to evaluate? Here are some suggestions, but you can certainly add your own.
1. Did they ultimately get the gift at the desired level?
2. Did they follow the cultivation and solicitation strategy as devised?
3. Were deviations from that strategy done with imagination and skill?
4. Did the volunteer do a good job of relating personally to the prospects? Was the chemistry good, was it productive?
5. Did the volunteer come away with new (and potentially even better) prospects to cultivate and solicit as a result of their relationship with the donors?
6. Did the volunteer have a good time doing this work? Did they come away from the job still enthusiastic about their own skill, the organization and the mission or cause?
7. Was the volunteer low-maintenance or high-maintenance to work with?

Any more thoughts on this from readers? Leave a comment and let us know.

The evaluation process can be formal or informal. I prefer both informal and personal. Get with each volunteer over lunch or coffee and informally go through your list, but not FROM the list. They don’t want to know they’re being evaluated; it’s scary and internally disruptive to think that your fine efforts as a volunteer are being “judged” by your “supervisor.” Not a good position from which to derive daily motivational highs. But just talk with them about their experience, take some notes, and then go back to the office and write all this up in a brief in the volunteer’s file. Later you’ll use this information to evaluate the overall volunteer corps you’ve put together, the individual successes and problems, etc. and judge whether or not to keep this volunteer in the C/S corps.

Another aspect of your management system for these C/S volunteers is that you need to coach them along the way. So you’re going to be in touch with them on a fairly regular basis by email or on the phone, getting feedback from them, seeing how they are doing, understanding what they need on an almost daily basis and de-briefing them on their experiences. They’ll need someone to talk to and you’re that person.

You’ll also probably find that there is a need for occasional further training in various aspects of the cultivation and solicitation process. So be prepared to devise little training sessions for one or several volunteers at a time.

Other than that, you’re ready to sit back, relax, put your feet up and tally the gifts that come rolling in. AND.... get the next batch of 20 volunteers selected, oriented trained and ready to be deployed against another list of donor prospects.

“A mother’s work is never done!”

Using Volunteers in Cultivate and Solicit – Part 4 of 5

Let’s say, for example, that you’ve succeeded in identifying 150 or so prospective "C/S" volunteers (Cultivation and Solicitation volunteers) from your database, based on their giving and any preference data you happen to have on them, and that you’ve vetted this list with board or other volunteers to get even more information about them. Now you’ve winnowed out the first batch of 20 and you’re anxious and ready to get them in the field tackling that long list of major gift people you THINK could be major gift prospects. So, what do we do now?

First off you’ll need to inform them, then you’ll need to bring their expectation levels up, and then you’ll need to give them some orientation and training in the fine sport of cultivation and solicitation of major gifts donors. At first blush, when these volunteers see what you’ve got in mind, they’re going to say “No way, Hose! and run the other way. So you’ve got to at least be careful if not cagey in how you approach these folks.

You might invite your 20 C/S prospects to a general information meeting and there you could given them their information and orientation all together. That sure would be a savings of time. But if you do it that way, you’re probably going to double your “fallout” rate. They’ll be in shock, and they’ll be in a group for the first time, and the number of people who will want to drop out will still include some who really do have the talent and experience to do this assignment but they’re either cowed by the group or motivated by a sort of “group shock.”

My preference is to meet with each of these volunteers personally. At most two at a time. This way, you start the whole venture out on a very personal note, which is symbolic of the fact that the whole major gifts enterprise is highly personal in nature. But more than that, you have the opportunity to “look-‘em-in-they-eye” and notice those nonverbals, and therefore minutely tweak and adjust your “pitch” to meet their needs right away.

Some of these people you’ve chosen are going to be keenly sensitive to any kind of pressure, but they are curious, have experience, have great ideas and abilities, and you want them on the team. So get with them personally and start by encouraging them to use their proclivities and talents for the benefit of your organization and the furtherance of its mission.

Your first job with these about-to-be-recruited C/S prospects is to get down through their list of objections. So the first item of business when you meet with them is to let the cat out of the bag carefully and gradually, but nevertheless straightforwardly. You can say something like this:
“Mary, there‘s a very special job we’re asking just a few volunteers to undertake on our behalf, and this is the cultivation and ultimate solicitation of some fairly large gifts for our organization. We know you’ve been a long-time and vigorous supporter of ours and we believe that your influence with certain people you know could be very beneficial in our being able to gather some special gifts for our work. We have a carefully conceived plan for this work and have devised a set of specific information inputs and action steps that will make your job pretty easy, and we think you have the motivation, experience and skills to make this happen."

The first objection is going to be “Why me?”

So you’re going to open up with something that makes them feel special but not “singled out.” You’re going to say, “Mary, we’re looking for some specially talented people who we believe have the kind of cognitive and people skills to do a very special job for ABC Charity. Bill and Susan Smith, your neighbors (and you know Bill is one of our Board members), suggested you would be such a person.

The second objection is going to be “I don’t know anybody.”

So you’re going to help them feel at ease with the fact that you’ve already figured out that they probably know only a few of your major gifts prospects, and those only superficially. But you’re going to let them know that the job includes a “getting-to-know-you” component and you’re fully prepared to show them how to go about this part of the task, too. You’re going to be sensitive to their issues and their objections, but you’re also going to use “feel, felt, found” with them so as to assure them that their objections are heard but easily overcome.

By the way “feel, felt, found” runs like this:
“Yes, I know you feel that way, and in fact, over the years, we’ve found that lots of people have shared your concern. But our experience tells us that...” And here you give them the exact opposite of what they are thinking.
So the volunteer says “I’m afraid that I don’t really know any of the people on your list.”
And you’ll say, “Yes, that’s true, and I know that might feel sort of awkward at first, but we’ve found that this is a better situation than knowing them too well. In reality, the very fact that you don’t know them adds a greater sense of acceptance with most donor prospects than if you were part of their inner circle. You’ll be much more effective if you’re not that close.”

The third objection is going to be “I don’t have any time for this; I’m already too busy.”

Here you’ve got to tread carefully, because most good people ARE too busy and they’re rightfully protective of their time because they have priorities on everything they are now doing.

So your task is to work with them to pull out the inner motivations that have made them good donors over the years and make those motivations work for you. You’re going to heighten those motivations and lift them up in a way that, from inside themselves, the prospective volunteer will understand how much of a priority this work is for them. In other words, you’re going to make their inner motivations do your persuasion work for you. Put them in touch with the things that move them and they’re all yours, you might say.

The fourth objection is going to be “I don’t know enough about the organization to do this.”

This one’s easy, because you can assure them that you have already figured that out and have prepared an orientation session and an information packet, plus some hands-on volunteer experiences that will close this information gap quickly and easily. When you’re done with this part of the work the prospective volunteer will be panting to get started.

Why? Because you’ve previously connected with the emotional “hook” that connects them to your organization and your work; now you’ve shown them just how easy and possible it is; and you’ve filled them with excitement that they can achieve something really remarkable in terms of financial support, and they’re going to be rarin’ to go!

Now the rest is easy. You give them the orientation session; you give them the information; you bring them into a short-term volunteering role to let them see the “inner workings” of mission delivery, and these inputs give the typical volunteer just about all they need. The only other ingredient you can provide for the few who are not yet experienced in cultivation activity is a bit of role-play to let them get used to the face-to-face cultivation situation. Not a lot of your volunteers are going to need that, but you should have it at the ready in case there are a few who do.

Now you’re off and running. More tomorrow.

Using Volunteers to Cultivate and Solicit – Part 3 of 5

If we’re going out to find volunteers for our nonprofit’s fundraising effort, where do we go to find them? How do we put together a cultivation and solicitation list of volunteers, which we will call a "C/S List"?

One thing we know is that the Baby Boomers are a hands-on lot, and that they enjoy volunteering for the organizations they support. So one of the first places we might go to find volunteers is to our donor and prospect database. We can search here for basically the same characteristics we might use to find good donors: amount, recency, frequency, size of gift over time and lifetime giving.

So get yourself a printout based on those characteristics and see who you come up with. If you’ve got a database of 5,000 donors, you’ll probably get about 250 people out of that. If your database is about 10,000 people, you might come up with 500 possible volunteer prospects.

The next step would be to find out more about those prospects – who they are, where they are in the community, what they like and dislike, who in your organization already knows them, and so forth. Send the list of names to your board members, and/or program volunteers if you have such, and ask them to check off the people they know... even a little bit. Then go to each board member and ask them to tell you about each of the people they checked on the list. Pretty soon you’ll have a thoroughly annotated list and you can then begin to craft individual letters to these people asking them to volunteer for the organization.

Not all people who respond to your letter of invitation will be good material for cultivation and solicitation work. But many will be. Two ingredients might make up a process to find out: an orientation session for volunteers, and personal interviews with candidates for your final “C/S List.” You’ll get other volunteers as well, so it might be best to have some program volunteers along on the orientation so that candidates who are more oriented to program can help out there and you can skim the top of the lot for your list.

But there are other places to go for volunteers as well. For example, the next time you give an interpretive presentation to one of the services clubs in your town, take along some volunteer sheets and hand them out. These will ask for contact and preference information from those who are interested in lending a hand to your nonprofit’s mission. Do the same thing with church groups and any other groups you happen to address on behalf of your charity.

There’s another source, however, and that is to get your board members together around a table and have a volunteer-hunting party. Ask them to reveal their rolodexes and comb through them for their friends and associates who maybe haven’t been giving to your cause but who might do so and volunteer if the board member who knows them did a little cultivation with them.

Here you have almost a “mentoring” situation, where each board member selects a half dozen of their peers and agrees to mentor them into volunteering and being effective cultivation and solicitation people. This is perhaps one of the most solid foundations on which to build volunteers for this work, because these volunteers will be coached and mentored as they work in ways that the director of development or executive director could never afford the time and attention to do.

Next level, go to the friends of the organization, widen the pool of people who are looking for volunteers. Keep the same methods as you scan wider horizons. Connect with people, do orientation sessions, conduct individual interviews. Make the process as personal as you can, and provide direction and training along the way.

Next up: what to do with these volunteers when you get them.

Using Volunteers to Cultivate and Solicit – Part 2 of 5

I’ve heard some executives and development directors decry the use of volunteers. Some say “too busy.” Others say “too much problem.” Others feel “too pressed to take the time” to meet their revenue goals.

Hey! I’ll be first in line to say that, yes, volunteers can be very heavy maintenance sometimes. Yes, it does take time to find them, train them and then to monitor and evaluate them out in the field. And, yes, you have to go with them most of the time.

But the payoff is in the fact that they steer you away from the “duds” and right to the gold, and that they bring home the gold with so much greater frequency, not to mention the fact that they extend the capability of the whole fundraising operation quite a bit. Staff simply cannot handle the cultivation and solicitation load that a typical nonprofit needs to meet its revenue targets. Conversely, if the nonprofit is limited by the cultivation and solicitation reach of its development staff and executive, it will not be able to raise the money it needs to adequately perform its mission after the first year or two. I cannot imagine why it wouldn’t be worth the time, bother and aggravation to have that much more revenue!

For example, here’s the ABC Charity. They’ve been scraping along on about $250,000 of contributed funds each year. Of course “strategic planning” for this group consists of making up each year’s budget, so it bears the "curse of the finance officer" – no new revenue sources because that person doesn’t trust that there’s any new source out there that will produce! So they limp along. Executive director Mary does program work and development work. She’s in charge of seeing to it that the $250,000 happens. She has precious little time to go scouting around after a bunch of volunteers, and relies on a couple of nerve-wracking events and the ability to write a couple of proposals each year to local foundations. Those volunteers are trouble enough as it is! She can't be bothered.

But what that organization REALLY needs is about $500,000, and if Mary would slow down enough to take the time to do a reasonably good job of putting together a gift pyramid and selecting a decent list of prospects, she could see her way to finding that much money in a community that has been able to produce the $250,000 only with difficulty.

Now, if Mary would get herself a dozen volunteers and turn them loose on that prospect list, she would find out where the gold is, and would probably have added another couple dozen new prospects the volunteers thought of. If she turns them loose in the community to solicit, after having given them a bit of training and a thorough knowledge of the organization’s case for support, her job, basically, would be done. Mary would have cut her time in the field soliciting approximately in half! Yes, she’s still working hard for that half million, but the TYPE of work she’s doing is more oriented towards supporting and managing the people who can REALLY get the job of cultivating and soliciting done. And in doing that, she’s set the organization up for continued and incremental success in the future.

Tomorrow we’ll talk about finding volunteers.

Using Volunteers to Cultivate and Solicit -- Part 1 of 5

In the past decade I have not seen very many of the smaller nonprofits moving in the direction of using volunteers to cultivate and solicit gifts of any kind, much less major gifts. With the exceptions of the hospitals and universities, most boards and executives around this area expect that when they hire "a fundraising professional" that person is going to relieve them of the burden of contact with donors. Even some of the larger charities don't have very large contingents of actively soliciting volunteers.

What a waste! Volunteers, who have made their gift to a campaign or project,are the most efficient and productive fundraisers; the use of volunteers in the field is really the way to do major gifts fundraising.

The first reason I can think of for using volunteers in fundraising generally, but especially in cultivating and soliciting major gifts, is that volunteers bring home the bacon far more often than anybody else. If you send the consultant out, the gift comes about 30% of the time; if you send the development director out (“just another ‘hired gun,’” I’ve heard people say), the gift comes back about 50% of the time; if you send the executive director out, the gift comes back about 65% of the time (probably because people like to be visited by the top banana!).

But if you send a volunteer who has made a significant gift out to a prospect, the gift comes back about 86% of the time. Volunteers, quite frankly, have the most credibility. My statistics come from observations of solicitation effectiveness during my time working with the Salvation Army, the Detroit Institute of Arts and with a few longer-term clients.

You probably know the next fact already, because you’ve seen how volunteers worry about whether they’ll make some kind of mistake, but I’ve seen volunteers – no matter how much we have prepared them in advance – go out there and stumble around, get red in the face, then suddenly blurt out what they think is the case for support, and still come away with the most marvelous gifts!

When I’ve gone back under other circumstances to some of those donors, the feedback I get is that those donors highly respected both the extent to which those “inept” volunteers had a visible, palpable commitment to the organization, and the fact that they had the guts to go in there in that situation, make fools of themselves and make the pitch all because they believed so much in the organization’s work. Their own commitment made it an easy sell to the donors.

Frankly, with a volunteer, you can’t lose! Unless you’re in a situation where the prospect flat out has no motivation to give, or has no financial capability to make a gift. In that case no one would come out with a gift; it's "blood out of a stone" time.

Another reason I think volunteers are so productive in cultivation and solicitation is that volunteers know the community. They know its history; they know the fights and grudges; they know where the skeletons are buried. They know a lot about who has what degree of financial capability. They know who is aligned with your organization and who’s really not interested no matter what they say outwardly. If you give a volunteer a list of 20 people, he or she will be able to guide you directly to the productive targets. You winnow down the list, waste much less time and come away with good gifts.

In a similar vein, volunteers know the people in the community. They know who’s been appearing in the symphony’s playbook for years; they know who attends the big auctions; they know what people need in terms of ego stroking; they know what people value, in terms of types of charitable work they do; they know who’s volunteering at which charities; they know what people want in terms of recognition. These volunteers are priceless!

It is, in my mind, therefore, inappropriate for any nonprofit to go into the marketplace of donors and prospects looking for major gifts without letting volunteers take the lead. These executives and development staff of smaller nonprofits are barking up the wrong tree when they don’t or can’t take the time to get together a strong contingent of volunteer solicitors, train them, monitor and evaluate their work and turn them loose in the community with substantial prospect lists and cultivation/solicitation assignments. They’re missing the boat – read “money” – if they don’t use volunteers.

More tomorrow.

Delivering the Case for Support – Part 4 of 4

If it isn’t really “news” articles that people want to see and will respond to, what is it that will turn on our donors and prospects?

Let’s take that article about decorating the charity’s offices and teaching rooms that we talked about yesterday. Suppose we add an element of donor involvement. Then let’s give some examples that connect donor generosity to our mission with youth. Let’s thank, and commend, and talk about “going beyond” the expected.

“We’re extremely appreciative of the many donors who responded to our spring mail appeal. People like you gave us an unprecedented $5000 over our goal for this mailing. So we are using your generous gifts to reach our young learners with new enhancements to their learning environment.

“For example, thanks to your generosity, and that of three long-time volunteers, we now have newly painted learning rooms that are brighter and more professional-looking. We have found that already there is a keener interest on the part of our students. The teachers are using the new corkboards for exhibiting students’ work, and we invite you to come see how their learning has improved with the new decor and arrangements.

“Thank you so much for going that extra mile to give us more than we had hoped. You have made such a difference in the lives of our students. Take Julie and Mary, for example. They were so excited by their new homeroom that they now come a half our early, and we can’t get them out of there at closing time because they are so eager to stay involved in their projects.”

Or we could delve into that second article about teaching components. The first sentence in this article is good, with just a little modification. But then we need to take it in a different direction:

“Some of our generous donors, like you, often wonder why we tutor our students at our site as opposed to our volunteer tutors meeting the children in their homes or in a public setting such as a school or library. After all, wouldn’t it reduce our overhead costs?

“We know you want us to deliver our highly effective curriculum in the most efficient ways possible. That makes your hard-earned, generously-given dollars go further. So we’ve done studies with our students to see which environment offers the most complete and lasting learning experience. After all, we know that you would agree that if the learning doesn’t “stick” then it’s not real “learning,” is it?

“We set three groups a similar learning task. One group went through their learning process at our center; the second group went to a public library; the third group was taught in a local school classroom after school hours. All students were taught by our trained volunteers. And we know you are wondering about the results obtained from a curriculum that was exactly the same for all three groups.

“What we found was that the ingredients of our learning center were 75% more effective than those experienced by the other groups. You’ll appreciate the fact that when we asked the students in each group what motivated them the most, the students who learned in our center environment said they preferred our private rooms where they could have one-on-one learning experiences. You might also identify with some of the students who felt that the peer-to-peer learning in our small group writing sessions was invaluable, too.

“Your generous donations have made it possible for us to set up our center with unique advantages for this type of student. As you may know, often these students have pretty low levels of self-esteem. That means privacy is helpful at the start, because many are embarrassed that they don’t know much. Later, their peers, struggling together, become the best teachers. You can imagine our surprise to see Susan – the one who started out last in the class – now teaching the younger kids coming up through the ranks!

“We would love to have you come and visit with us to see the progress these young people can make in our new environment. And, if I haven’t already said it, we are so grateful that you gave more than we asked for! It has helped immensely. One of our girls said just the other day, ‘Don’t forget, Miss Hamilton, to mention how thankful I am to the people who gave the money for the paint and pictures.’ So I’m letting you know that your gifts have brightened the hearts, the learning and the lives of our 15 young learners. Thank you so much!”

In other words, the “newsletter” is just a long “thank you” letter to donors. You see, the point here is not to give a list of pedagogical features of the ABC Charity’s program. That’s academic, dry and uninteresting, unless you’re an academic and a researcher in the field. What donors and prospects want to know is how THEY figure into the learning equation, and how THEY are getting THEIR OWN objectives accomplished through the charity’s work. They feel great about the fact that ABC Charity is being effective. They want to know that the work is carried out efficiently and that it gets results. They want to know that staff is doing a lot with a little bit, and that volunteers are involved. But mostly they want to know how THEY are making a difference, and how THEY have helped people learn.

The “newsletter” is not about the organization; it is about the donors and prospects out there. The “newsletter” is not a newspaper, but a “thank you” and a “here’s what you did” sort of publication. It keeps people in touch in a motivational way that builds both involvement and a set of expectations in the donors. The so-called “newsletter” is a “reach out and touch” kind of publication, and if it doesn’t result in new, more and bigger gifts, it’s a waste of time and money.

Delivering the Case for Support – Part 3 of 4

Let’s take a look at the content that charities are putting out there these days. There’s quite a variety of communications. Mostly what comes across my computer screen or desk is newsletters. And a lot of those newsletters still have the “we do, we do” or “we need, we need” kinds of entries, but nothing compelling or motivating for donors to sink their teeth into.

It may be the case that those nonprofits that are publishing these newsletters have taken the term “newsletters” a bit too seriously. Maybe these folks feel that any missal that carries “news” or any word of what’s going on in the charity, will serve as a communication that “stays in touch with donors.” But this isn’t really what donors want to see.

It might also be the case that some of the board members, other volunteers or constituents have given development and marketing staff the idea that they want “news” from the nonprofit. I’ve heard comments such as “I just want to be kept informed of what’s going on here,” and “just let me know what’s happening from time to time.” But these comments, when carefully analyzed, are not exactly true and complete representations of what constituents really want to know.

What people won’t tell you is that they want to know how THEIR OWN involvement with the charity is able to help them feel good about themselves and their priority choices to support and be involved with ABC Charity. They can’t come right out and say this in a focus group or board discussion, because it makes them look more self-centered than they want to be seen. But, in truth, if you look at the donor’s eyes and check their interest level, you’ll find that there’s quite a difference between a “news” article and a motivational, compelling article that demonstrates how a donor’s gift went to work on a program recipient with unusual power and great results.

Consider this story from a recent nonprofit newsletter that I received:
“The ABC Learning Center is currently undergoing a beautification process; an ongoing project we call 'Making Learning Beautiful.' The center will be cleaned, repaired and reorganized. Our new and improved facilities will be awaiting a response from [foundation grant maker] in the hopes of adding radiant artwork and new computer desks and chairs for our students...”

Here’s another “news” article:
“People often wonder why we tutor our students at our site as opposed to our volunteer tutors meeting the children in their homes or in a public setting such as a school or library. After all, wouldn’t it reduce our overhead costs? Having our students come to our center is imperative! Here is a list of crucial program components that are received by our students and volunteers when coming to our site.....” And the article goes on to give a laundry list of program components with the reasons why each component is considered necessary to the learning process.

Now, if you’re really into decorating, you might feel like continuing with the first article to see what new decor features are a part of that project. Otherwise, it leaves the reader cold, because there’s no involvement that meets the donor’s or prospect’s self-interest, or their own needs, wants and values.

In the second article, if you’re an academic or researcher into methods of teaching, this listing of program components might be valuable. Does it motivate donors? Does it wake them up and make them feel alive and well and happy? Does it compel them to give sacrificially?

But if that’s NOT the case, then why have the newsletter in the first place? What I’m saying here is that the nonprofit’s constituents really don’t want “news” so much as they want to see themselves reflected IN the news; they want to have their own egos stroked, they want to see how their own objectives are getting met.

Maybe the trick here is to stop calling these communications devices “newsletters” and start calling them “motivational shots in the arm.” Maybe we should call them our “ego boosters” or our “inoculations” against our donors moving to another charity. In any case, what is needed here is not a piece with a lot of “news” articles, like a newsPAPER – we’re not needed as journalists here, we’re looked to as fundraisers, development professionals. So let’s “develop” some continuing interest and motivation in the donors and prospects with whatever we put out there for people to read. Otherwise the money we spend on these kinds of communications is simply wasted, because these “news” articles aren’t any more than mildly interesting.

“But,” you might say, “if these sorts of news articles aren’t helpful, what kind of information would help donors and prospects respond more positively?” We’ll deal with that tomorrow.

Delivering the Case for Support – Part 2 of 4

Well, the reason why a case for support isn’t just a list of “we do this, and we do that” is that this kind of recitative just makes donors’ eyes glaze over. Without knowing WHY this is important, no one cares except the administrators of the charity.

It is rather distressing to see textbooks on fundraising published today perpetuating this old, time-worn idea that the case for support is a document focused solely on the organization itself, and not on the donor. For example, Greenfield's "Fund Raising" or Seiler's "Developing Your Case for Support," or Pakroo's "Starting & Building a Nonprofit." These books talk about "the case." but apparently have no idea that the case for support that appeals to donors is the one that speaks of the organization's good works and need for money from the donor's perspective.

Take Greenfield, for example. What does he advise as the ingredients for a case for support? The problem or opportunity to be addressed, trends affecting the problem, your response to the problem, the role of the donor, your mission, your history, your goals and strategies and objectives, your organizational resources, your accountability and evaluation procedures, your future plans for your organization. This isn't a case for support, it's a recitative of an organization's strategic plan.

However, when we establish WHY donors should give, then we have the donor’s interest and attention in a way we did not have it before. So we want to avoid having a case for support that is a recitative of the strategic plan written from the standpoint of the charity’s administrators. We want to move to one that is written from the standpoint of the donor’s interest, or the donor’s possible need for information that is relevant to what the donor wants to achieve in society. Because, unless that first “hook” is set, the donor, quite frankly, just isn’t going to be that interested.

So let’s see if we can start out our case for support with a remarkable and attention-getting reason why the donor or the prospect should pay attention. How about a few of the following:
Secondary school: “Mary’s talents are going to go to waste because she can’t go to college. Why? Her teachers never understood the unique ways that Mary learns. You gift today helps us give Mary and 150 other students the education they need to become productive citizens of their community.”

Homeless shelter: “The Martin family has been living in a dumpster for 2 years. We helped them find, afford and move into a new home on Main Street last month. Your gift last year helped us provide new, affordable housing to 124 families like the Martins. The result? Family crises resolved, breadwinners back to work, children back to school. Life is good. Can you help again this year? It's important. You can make a difference.”

Safe house: “We saved Susan from being shot to death by her estranged and deranged husband. Your gift helps us protect Susan and 58 other women and helps them get the legal help and psychological counseling they need to keep going and make a new world for themselves.”

Food bank: “In the richest county in our state 20% of the population goes to bed hungry each night. You contribution can change that. Please make your donation today so others can have the food they need to keep going.”

After school program: “We not only kept Mike out of jail, but we have helped him discover a real purpose in his life: learning how to set up a business. That happened because people like you gave generously last year. We need your gift this year, too, because there are still 1000 more Mike's out there in our community who desperately need your help.”

Do you see the point here? If you don’t like these lines, then write your own. But that IS the point, that you should be writing more effective, compelling, motivating case for support copy based on the understanding that to get a donor’s attention, one must address a situation that the donor finds intolerable and wants to see fixed. Without that, a mere recitative of programs your charity has no use in a case for support.

Now, armed with that understanding we can write a case for support that might look like this:
1. There’s a crying need in our community that’s not going to go away without a lot of effort. (describe the specifics of the need – 1000 kids went to jail last year because they didn’t know what to do with themselves after school.”)

2. Our charity makes a difference. We’ve been around a long time and we know the kids. We know how devious their little minds are. And we’re getting remarkable results. The number of kids on the street has been reduced by 75% due to our programs.

3. Now there’s a new crisis (or opportunity, if you phrase it that way), because the facilities we use to help Mike and Susan are so crowded and small that we can hardly breathe around here! We can't serve them well because of our physical space limitations.

4. But our Board, in its wisdom and out of its concern for our community's well-being, has devised a plan to expand our physical plant and enhance our services to youth. This plan involves building a new service headquarters with advanced technologies that will do a lot more for community youth than we’ve ever dreamed of doing.

5. We will need $5.6 million dollars over the next three years to bring about this new expansion of physical plant and program enhancements. That’s an investment we are asking our community to make in order to ensure that our youth aren’t wasted and thrown away just because they don’t have anything to do with themselves after school.

6. Without donors like you, we can’t do this; but with your support we can accomplish service levels that will return this community to the halcyon days of old, just like you remember they were!

7. Your gift will be recognized and celebrated; even if you want to give anonymously, you will know that deep down we care about you and are grateful for your generosity, and the community will understand that your gift made it happen.

8. As a longtime member of our inner family, you will receive our regular updates on how we are using your money to make it possible for Mike and Susan and all kids like them to lead productive lives, go on to college and become standard-issue, regular American contributors to society.

Now, here’s a case for support that, regardless of the specific program attributes being described, brings the charity’s programs and needs face-to-face with the donor’s needs, wants and values. Now the charity’s work is described in ways that demonstrate how a donor’s concerns for social problems can be, and will be met through their donations.

Now that we have gotten specific about what a case for support is, let’s get down to this question of delivering that case for support to donors and prospects on a regular, frequent, persistent and consistent basis.

Delivering the Case for Support to Prospects, Part 1 of 4

My observation is that a great many charities give too little thought to delivering their case for support to their donors and prospects on a consistent, persistent and frequent basis.

For one thing, everyone seems to want to do this by remote control, so to speak. There’s the website and the newsletter and the email blast, and then folks stop because those are the easily automated ways of communicating.

But what do they typically do with those communications pieces? They write newsletter articles from their own viewpoint, not that of a donor or prospect. They write the website copy as if everyone visiting the site had the perspective of the executive director of the organization. Navigation generally suffers, too, on that count. You can’t find your way around the charity’s site unless you think like a nonprofit administrator! And the e-blasts come across as if the only thing a recipient donor or prospect had on their mind is that particular charity’s need.

There are actually three issues that need to be addressed here: first, the content of the communications that charities choose to put out there; second, the need to broaden and deepen the communication channels necessary to effectively get the case for support out to the people who can help the charity through financial support; third the definition of “case for support.”

Let’s start with the last one first, so we know what we’re talking about before we discuss how to get the CFS to the people who count.

The Case for Support, as I have come to understand it from a donor’s point of view, is a set of reasons why donors should support a charity.

Mostly what I see happening out there in the real world is that charities want to make their case for support a list of their programs, and a statement of why they sorely need funds to accomplish their mission. There are also many texts, such as those by Timothy Seiler, James Greenfield or Joan Flanagan, whose authors advise sharing all the various internal and planning items: your history, your mission, your goals, strategies and objectives, your organizational resources, etc. Everything is about the organization. NOTHING is about the donor!

But as tempting as I know that is to do, it nevertheless makes a donor's or a prospect’s eyes glaze over. This constant recitative of our programs and who they serve and down to the nth detail of what we do. This is NOT a case for support, in my opinion. It is just a list of programs. "We do this, we do that, we need this, we need that, therefore please give."

But there’s no motivation in it, nothing compelling, unless you read between the lines and understand that, for example, the reason we have this safe house is that there’s a maniac out there trying to get to Melissa to kill her, and the donor is standing between Melissa and certain mayhem or death. Now THAT’s compelling. But nobody says it that way, of course.

So, let’s take it a step at a time. What are the reasons why anybody should give to ABC Charity? Well, one would think that the best reasons to give would have something to do with the reasons donors do, in fact, say they support any charity. Here is a list of the reasons donors typically give to explain why they contribute generously to nonprofit work:
1. The charity has a long-standing history in the community, a squeaky clean image, and is getting great results with their programs.

2. The charity is accomplishing something remarkable that the donor wants to get done in the community, or in society at large.

3. There is a crisis or an opportunity in the community that the charity is addressing so that the donor can see the crisis is clearly resolved or the opportunity is clearly being met.

4. The charity has a definite plan for meeting the opportunity or resolving the crisis and the plan is both workable and “ironclad and copper-bottomed.”

5. The charity needs a defined amount of contributed cash to support this effort over a defined amount of time.

6. The charity needs the donor’s gift, and cannot, in fact, do the job without that support, which donors are asked to give.

7. The result of making a gift to the charity is that the donor will be thanked and recognized for their support.

8. Those who donate to this effort will be considered “one of the family” and will be kept up-to-date on how their money is being used and the results it is bringing in the community.

So, let's take the reasons why people give money to charity and transform them into a case for support that will meet the donor’s needs rather than just meeting the needs of the charity’s administrators.

And why is this so important? Because when we do that we will have a case for support that has its orientation in the donor's needs, wants and values; one that shares our nonprofit information in ways that meet those values and entice, motivate, compel the donor to give out of THEIR OWN motivations, values and needs, not out of our nonprofit administrative perspective.

Now that is a case for support! Stay tuned for the next post on this tomorrow.

“Faith” and Fundraising Part 3

Continuing with our thread from the past two days, which do you think comes first: the chicken or the egg?

Is it necessary that the myths, dogma and theology involving the afterlife necessarily precede doing good and loving humankind? Is it only the myths and dogma, then, that gives people faith, so that then they can be productive and be self-giving and have many positive relationships?

Or can people live lives that are productive, self-giving, self-assured, mature, reasonable, responsible and full of many positive relationships just by their own discernment and through their own nature? Is the only way we can achieve personal and societal charity, then, necessarily the result of priests deciding to invent the myths, dogma and theology involving the afterlife as a way to get people to conform their behavior in ways that ultimately can move society along in positive ways?

Question: Do we only get productive, self-aware, self-giving, positively relational human beings IF there is some sort of myth that they can believe about the afterlife? Is that the only source of grace and peace? Clearly, if we look at what has been produced by some of our world’s religions, this seems not to be the case. Far from giving us impetus to be kind and generous to others, religion with its myths and theologies has produced people who are going around bombing each other because of this belief in an afterlife. And, as I say, we've been doing the equivalent for centuries.

Or is there some natural state of being human, when all the factors come together just in the right way, that promotes health and maturity, and that includes productivity, self-awareness, self-giving and positive relationships all on its own without the myths?

I am inclined to think that the sort of being who breeds generosity and love of humankind occurs naturally, without benefit of religion or "faith," though perhaps not as often as we might wish. Or else that loving and caring come from other than religious roots.

It seems that the priests have attempted to manipulate people through the myths and dogma and theology in order to foster a "faith" kind of answer to life's Big Question that satisfies enough to permit human beings having this "faith" to set aside their baser nature and let their natural love and generosity come through.

Many people have had satisfying, productive, happy, healthy lives, full of good relationships, etc. and yet have not been people who "believed" the myths of religion. They simply developed a kind of "faith" in the world at large and in the "way things are," quite aside from any particular religious myth and dogma. Perhaps one can lead a moral, helpful, responsive life without religion.

We see throughout history how religious dogma, the myths and the theologies have repeatedly disintegrated into racial, class, gender, economic or political power wars and genocide. The mythical and dogmatic produce of the priests is used by the priests themselves and by believing persons, to bring about mob violence against unbelievers, economic wars, political power plays and other manifestations of greed, anxiety, fear, hostility and warlike nature.

So we now have, and have had for centuries, the Christians against the Muslims, the Muslims against the Hindus and Buddhists, and everyone against the Jews. And this is in response not only to humankind's essentially "sinful" or “baser” nature, if you want to use a Christian term, but also as a response to belief in the myths and dogma concerning an afterlife.

Consequently, now, we have people running around killing the guy next door because he has a different myth of the afterlife by which he lives. What kind of sanity is that? The very myth that was designed to help people be satisfied enough to feel nurtured and cared for has for centuries erupted as the basis for being out there killing and maiming and raping the people from the neighboring family, tribe, clan, village, state or country next door.

But one thing that we can see here in this country is that the myth about the afterlife, in all its various manifestations, has permitted also a kind self-giving of one's substance to help others who are needy, and this we call “philanthropy:”: the "love of humankind." Why do we love humans? Is it just because we have come to believe there is an afterlife, in which we can all feel secure, IF we do the "right things;" and we have been taught to understand this includes being self-giving and helping the poor, etc. called “giving back to the community?”

Many people have demonstrated that it is possible to figure out for one's self, quite apart from religious myths and dogma and theology, that such giving, right along with being productive, having will-power for the long haul, having a vision for the future, seeking well-rounded, mutually satisfying relationships, etc. will have a positive affect on the ability of humankind to grow and develop in positive ways. That being the case, we really don't need artificial insemination of the priests' myths, dogma and theology in order to make good things happen for the people around us.

But there's yet another aspect of this thread that we must explore. That is the fact that even when we know (from whatever source or impulse) what we need to do to help another person achieve his/her best personal goals or values, making the decision to do that -- at whatever small or large cost to ourselves -- is one of the most difficult decisions to make.

Regardless of our best intentions, the extent of our education and understanding of the human predicament, the height of our belief in the myths and theologies, or the fact that we know how to make moral decisions, making that decision to help the other person, or give them what they need for survival and enhancement, is still the most difficult of decisions.

So we'll hopefully see you on Monday with more on this theme. Have a great weekend -- and be kind to someone, give a little. If you can bring yourself to do that, it will be internally rewarding.

“Faith” and Fundraising Part 2

Back somewhere in the mists of time, someone at the dawn of the human age must have noticed that very few people around him/her had what we called in the previous post "natural faith." Those who did have this quality seemed to be extra-ordinarily productive, were self-giving, self-motivated, self-assured, maybe even self-actualizing people. They probably had the kind of relationships that were nurturing, mutually fulfilling and well-rounded. These people seemed to be able to put away the baser elements of human nature and let more positive qualities predominate.

Other people in the family, tribe or clan – in fact, probably the great majority of people observed by our long-ago sage -- seemed to let all the qualities of greed, fear, anxiety, and a warlike nature supersede any more peaceful inclinations. Whenever an incident would happen, most of the people would give in to these emotions. An opportunity for food or shelter would trigger greed; the mastodon triggered fear; the lack of resources would occasion anxiety; an aggressive move by a neighboring clan would provide the opportunity to make war on them and beat them into submission.

So this person somewhere in the dim dark past figured out that one of the most perplexing questions a human being can have is the question, "Isn't there anything after this life? Is all we get just one go-around at this existence? Does it have to be this mean and ugly, so absent of grace, beauty and peace?"

So, being very creative, our lone individual decided to invent a scenario for human existence in which there was an after-life, and he/she began to tell friends and neighbors all about it; how great life will be in the time beyond death, how the streets will be paved with gold, or whatever. This probably relieved the fears of our sage, personally, because the more she/he talked about this view the more belief in the scenario seemed to come alive. Not only that, but family, tribe or clan members gradually got the hang of it, and they too started to believe.

The "priests" of whatever religion this made-up story was about to become, came immediately to the fore. They, too, were motivated by greed, fear, anger and anxiety. They saw the opportunity available in other people’s fear and saw that they could cash in on this phenomenon, this new view of the universe that included an after-life. They saw ways to use this scenario to make a more secure life for themselves than those around them had. They did this by taking on the "duties and responsibilities" of perpetuating the set of beliefs, rituals and rites that came to be in vogue or dominant at any given time, and their work tended to satisfy the question about life after death, relieved the general anxiety of the population, and gave them some comfort. So people did what the priests of this new phenomenon called "religion" said to do in order to have their fears calmed and their lives made a little easier -- at least in their minds. So religions of one kind or another have been perpetuating this idea of an after-life ever since.

This has also turned out to be something of a civilizing agent, although the history of the various religions still has in it a lot of war and skulduggery. It became a way to get people to put down, put away, or at least to discipline their baser nature of greed, fear, anxiety and warlike nature somewhat so that they can be productive and have good relationships.

So the religions that developed served three purposes: First, it helped people to act in more socially appropriate ways that allowed civilization to grow and develop a more materially and emotionally comfortable existence. Secondly, it did so by relieving peoples' fears about this life being all there is to human existence, and giving some meaning and purpose to the daily drudge, helping people overlook the really rotten conditions they lived in, and the oppression of the greediest ones that, over time, robbed the other people of all they had, including their dignity and self-respect. Third, religions helped the priestly class develop a life for themselves that extended their own greed and fear through the power they developed over the people. It became intoxicating, self-aggrandizing, as they now had the power of even the rulers in their hands to manipulate.

Now, we need to link how faith and, ultimately, philanthropy grow out of the situation. It gets even more interesting, if you’re into this kind of thing. The next post will take a look at this.

“Faith” and Fundraising

Here's a train of thought having to do with religion as a stimulus for philanthropy and a motivation for engaging in the various activities of fundraising.

This was occasioned by attendance at the memorial service of a friend. During the service those assembled heard statements such as: "He was a true father to me; he had pride in what I did and let me know how proud he was of what I ended up becoming." We heard friends of the deceased say, "He didn't need to 'find himself.' He already knew who he was. He had faith, family and friends in his corner at the end." Another speaker said, "He had faith that everything would turn out all right."

Faith seems necessary for living a life that has the attributes of productivity, an ability to give of self and many, well-rounded, mutually-fulfilling relationships with fellow human beings. But is it religious belief, or the religious community's infrastructure and marketing mechanisms that are responsible for the giving of those who are religiously active?

What is "faith" in the context of making charitable gifts?

"Faith," as observed in those who claim to have it, seems to consist of a person's ability to “see” the future, envision the possibilities that can happen, gain a sense of the circumstances and the concomitant actions that can bring about those possibilities.

"Faith" might also involve, the ability to dig in and work for those possibilities with a vigor and strength that makes them happen. "Faith" is often said to help its believers meet adversity head-on, overcome the blocks and barriers in one's path, while believing, knowing, "having faith" that the outcome will be positive and we have results somewhat along the lines envisioned, even though one is in the midst of the unknown.

"Faith," then, seems to be the ability to keep applying one's better nature throughout life, to the various problems and situations of life, without dissembling, and without letting one's baser nature (fear, anger, greed, anxiety, warlike nature) have sway over one's thoughts and actions. And here we might ask the question, "What motivates atheists to be good, or to give to charity?"

Those who have this quality of "faith" in a natural way seem to be rare. By “natural,” I mean not stimulated by religious dogma and training. If one is prompted by dogmatic proclamations that come from other peoples’ heads and by training that inculcates someone else’s thoughts, then that person’s “faith” is simply letting someone else do one’s thinking.

Having a sense of security in an unknown future that comes from observation of the present, tempered by the internally generated understanding that the future can be better and the intuitional “guessing” that points to the probable characteristics of that future is what I mean here by “faith.”. Some of the other factors that affect one’s “faith view” might include nurturing and supportive parents, a leadership personality forged by trying and failing/succeeding at leadership, a strong self-will or self-discipline able to be applied in a positive direction rather than for war and mayhem.

The quality of "faith" seems to vary with the extent of one’s ability to look ahead and see the possibilities as well as the time, effort and resources it will take to realize them. This also demands a certain quality of persistence of the vision of faith. This is the understanding of the amount of hard work it’s going to take to bring the future into being, even in the face of personal or professional opposition, many blocks and barriers, and frequent events that seem to defeat the vision.

Let’s pause to think this over, and we’ll continue in the next post.

Measuring Nonprofit Board Performance

So now we come to this aspect of our thread on board performance: What are appropriate elements of measurement for a board's work? What kinds of ingredients should we put into a job description and performance standards that can helpfully and effectively be used in board performance evaluation?

First, I would say that any board performance measurement vehicle needs to comprise two distinct parts: The job description and standards of performance for the board as a group; and the standards of performance for each member of the board.

For the performance evaluation of the board as a group, we might delineate the following areas of performance to be measures:

1. Strategic planning on a regular basis to reaffirm the social aims desired by the board for the institution and to update and provide mid-course corrections for the strategies that the board believes will bring about those social aims. This is also a good time to make sure that the policies the board has set are really achieving the results they thought would happen.

2. Management of the executive director – a regular procedure should be developed for the performance evaluation of the executive.

3. Program overview -- the board should be kept abreast of happenings locally and nationally, and within the organization to make sure that the strategies delineated in the strategic plan are actually working the way the board hoped they would. Otherwise mid-course corrections should be programmed into the board’s strategic planning review process. Staff should be providing regular reports on the agency’s programs and on local and national trends in the field of service.

4. Financial overview – the board should be reviewing the financial condition of the organization at least quarterly to ensure proper financial management. Staff should be providing regular reports to the board.

With regard to performance evaluation of individual board members, I think there would be at least the following specific areas:

1. How much money has the board member given personally or been able to raise from others?

2. Attendance at board and committee meetings should be well above 50%.

3. The extent to which the board member has advocated for and publicly supported the organization throughout the geographic area in which the charity is situated. Board members should be attending gatherings of other organizations in order to promote their nonprofit in the most appropriate ways.

4. Each board member attending board training sessions. These sessions should be a regular part of board meetings and should be programmed by the executive working with the board president. Topics might range from the latest strategic planning techniques to program developments, to fundraising techniques and strategies, to government and policy concerns in the field of service. Training sessions should be short but packed with information the board members need to know to do their work effectively.

These are some of the yardsticks we can use to measure board performance. You might be able to think of others. If so, I invite your comments.