|
One need not look very far to find a development program with a planned giving effort not yet up to speed. Many reasons are cited: We’re in a capital campaign, we don’t have enough staff, or I just don’t know enough about it. The greatest opportunities appear to be found in the small shop.
Here are a few steps you can take now, to launch or advance your planned giving effort.
1. Use your governance process to identify, recruit, and actively engage the top two or three financial advisors in your community. Enlist them to support your planned giving effort, beginning with the recruitment of a strong committee of their colleagues.
2. Identify your long-term donors – individuals who have supported your organization year in and year out – and reach out to them with a periodic educational offering, or the opportunity to opt-in to a special estate planning newsletter.
3. Add a brief and simple estate planning message to all of your communication. Remind your current donors that you accept planned gifts.
4. Create a “heritage society” or similar donor recognition program, enabling you to thanks and recognize the planned giver’s generous intent during their lifetime; building awareness, and encouraging others to join them.
5. Include a regular planned giving feature in your monthly e-letter or quarterly newsletter. It need not be long or complicated. Give a by-line to your volunteer committee members.
6. Stay focused on wills. While other charitable estate planning vehicles might be more exciting, remember that most of your planned gifts will come in the form of a simple bequest. Remind your constituents why they need a will, what happens if they don’t have one, and how easy it is to include their favorite charity.
You can start and sustain a planned giving program in your small shop. Stop putting it off. You can’t afford to wait.
T. Christian Rollins, MBA, CFRE
Executive Vice President
In his February 1 blog post, entitled “Mind the Gap,” AFP President Andrew Watt responded to Mark Rosenman’s piece in the Chronicle of Philanthropy about the widening wealth gap between large and small charities.
Mr. Watt points out that there has long been a great deal of disparity among charities, and that the old 80/20 (80% of funding coming from 20% of donors) is now more like 90/10. He goes on to suggest that this ratio applies to where those donations go, saying that, “about 80 percent of all charitable funding is going to the largest 20 percent of charitable organizations,” and added, “it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that the ratio is now closer to 90/10.”
As President of AFP’s New Jersey Southern Chapter, I endorse and applaud the Association’s mission to advance our profession, and serve the entire charitable sector. While there is a core curriculum applicable across all fundraising organizations, we must understand, appreciate, and embrace the small shop, whose unique perspectives, challenges, and opportunities must be addressed. “These differing needs become even more important during difficult economic times,” Andrew reminds us, in announcing that AFP has “developed new membership categories for large and small charities.” This is good news for not-for-profit organizations, as this gap is not going away.
I remain encouraged by Andrew’s appreciation for the small development shop, and his commitment to meet their needs. Pride Philanthropy is dedicated to guiding the tremendous work of our clients, their extraordinary volunteer leadership, and the hard working staff members who support them.
T. Christian Rollins, MBA, CFRE
Executive Vice President
“Charities need to better understand the different motivations that drive high-net-worth women’s philanthropy, their more strategic approach to giving, and their desire for a deeper, more collaborative experience with the organization they support.”
Una Osili, Director of Research, Center on Philanthropy
In 2004, the IRS reported that 43% of the nation’s top wealth holders were women, and valued the assets of the 1,173,000 women at $4.6 trillion, or 41.8% of the total wealth in the category at that time. Approximately 35% of those women were in the 50-65 age range. Four years later, the Center for Women’s Business Research estimated that there were about 10.1 million privately-held, 50% or more women-owned firms in the US, accounting for 40.2% of all businesses in the country, and that those firms generated $1.9 trillion in annual sales, and employed 13 million people.
Women’s education and income continue to rise in the 21st century. The percentage of women in the workforce almost doubled in the second half of last century, from 32% to 62%, while the percentage of women attending college rose steadily from 42% in 1970 to 56% in 2000. Women’s median income increased over 60% over the past 30 years, while men’s median income was relatively flat. According to Diversity Best Practices & Business Women’s Network, women are responsible for 83% of all consumer purchases, and make most of the healthcare decisions for their families.
Women live longer than men by an average of 5.2 years, and – according to Boston College’s Center on Wealth and Philanthropy – will inherit 70% of the $41 trillion in intergenerational wealth transfer expected over the next 40 years. Many women will inherit twice, once from their parents, and again from their husbands.
Evidence presented by the Center on Philanthropy supports real gender differences when it comes to philanthropy. Single women are significantly more likely than single men to make a philanthropic gift. Married men and married women are both more likely to give, and to make larger gifts than single men, suggesting that women influence the charitable habits of their husbands. A 2009 Barclay’s Wealth study, showed that women in the U.S. give an average of 3.5% of their wealth to charity, while men give an average of 1.8%.
Women appear to be motivated differently than men:
Moved at How Gift Can Make a Difference – Women 81.7% and Men 70.9%
Giving to An Organization that is Efficient – Women 80.5% and Men 69.2%
Give Back to the Community – Women 78.2% and Men 63.3%
Volunteer for the Organization – Women 65.7% and Men 49.8%
Women are more likely to influenced by certain factors than men:
Personal Experience with an Organization – Women 81.9% and Men 73.0%
Own or Public Knowledge of an Organization – Women 72.7% and Men 68.9%
Organization Connection to Self, Family or Friends – Women 72.5% and Men 73.0%
Organizations Communication of Impact – Women 46.4% and Men 32.0%
There are also differences in the reasons men and women stop supporting a charity:
Too Frequent Solicitation or Asked for Inappropriate Amount – Women 49.3% and Men 61.2%
Decided to support Other Causes – Women 41.0% and Men 32.9%
Household Circumstances Changed – Women 30.6% and Men 27.4%
It is imperative that charitable organizations understand this critical constituency. Women’s important role in philanthropy – as volunteer leaders, development professionals, and donors – warrants a deliberate and well-planned approach, to earn their interest, engagement, and support.
Join Pride Philanthropy and guest presenter, Beth McCall, Executive Director of the Munroe Regional Medical Center Foundation in Ocala, Florida, for our February 17 webinar. We will discuss donor motivation, and share numerous examples of effective and successful tactics to enlist the investment of this critical constituency.
T. Christian Rollins, MBA, CFRE
Executive Vice President
The National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization recently published its annual report: “Facts and Figures: Hospice Care In America”.
In addition to providing a global perspective of the field, this report contains interesting and persuasive facts, which hospice development professionals and volunteer fundraisers will find useful and compelling, as they articulate their case for support to the communities they serve. Among other valuable statistics, the report indicates that:
- The number of patients served continued to grow, up to 1.58 million in 2010 (a slight rise from 1.56 million served in 2009).
- The median length of service in 2010 was 19.7 days, a decrease from 21.1 days in 2009.
- The average length of service dropped to 67.4 days in 2010 from 69 days in 2009.
- A growing proportion of heart disease patients are accessing hospice care, increasing to 14.3%.
- Cancer is still the leading diagnosis, though down from 40.1% to 35.6%.
The sustained growth in the demand for hospice services, and the resulting need for capital and programmatic reinvestment and support, presents ongoing challenges for hospices across the country; further elevating the importance of fundraising. The ability to successfully fulfill this need creates the opportunity for hospice fundraisers to play an increasingly significant role in advancing the missions of their organizations. Proactive hospice development programs will be poised to take advantage of the current recovery in charitable giving. Pride Philanthropy is honored to support the development efforts of non-for-profit hospices across the US.
Hospital fundraisers do well to understand how to engage their medical staff. Here is a possible checklist of steps to launch or advance a physician program:
- Form a separate, small committee of 3 to 5 influential physicians.
- Create a physician component within your major gifts program, specifically encouraging their engagement, and recognizing their support.
- Acknowledging that physicians are most likely to respond to their colleagues – but understanding that some strategic assistance from the CEO, board chair, or other volunteer leadership can be influential – create the opportunities to bring both of these persuasive powers together in your cultivation and solicitation effort.
- Be prepared to embrace the physician whose interests may not fall within your current campaign or priorities.
- Consider whether or not you need to develop separate collateral material.
- Explore unique recognition opportunities in the lobby or physicians lounge.
- Identify, recruit, orient, and fully support the best possible leadership.
- Plan how to approach employed, contracted, and independent physicians. You may need to tailor your message.
- Will you approach practices for a corporate gift?
- Respect their time and availability for committee and/or individual meetings.
- Recognize the potential impact of their endorsement and active engagement in a grateful patient program.
The January 7th issue of The Economist featured an interesting piece on social media and fundraising. In an article entitled One Thousand Points of Like, the magazine opined that, “raising money online is harder than it sounds.”
Imagine that.
The virtual space is flooded with social-networking tools and apps, offered to raise money for charitable organizations. Causes, Crowdrise, and Network for Good, to name only a few. Blogs, webinars, and tweets too numerous to count promise the secret handshake of social media success. NPO’s large and small struggle to maintain their online presence, while waiting for its unfulfilled fundraising promise.
A recent report indicates that those raising consequential donations on Facebook have an average of almost 100,000 followers – more than 15 times that of most organizations! (No surprise: they also devote significant time and expense to maintaining and tracking their online activity.) The same report showed less than half of responding charities raised more than $10,000 a year from Facebook, and only 0.4% reported raising $100,000 or more. While Blackbaud predicts 2012 donations to increase, they project no significant gains from social media.
The article offers the argument that social media offers a handy, low-cost way to build a network of supporters, who share ideas and information; and then the rebuttal that, while that may be true, the evidence suggests that donations come only when the bonds are strong, and the network is quite large.
Though not referenced in the article, Network for Good recently reported that the percentage of donors who made an online gift increased from 4% to 65% between 2001 and 2011. Their findings also admitted that over that same period, the average online gift dropped from $226 to $73. The total contributed online in 2011 was estimated at $140 million. Compare that to the $290 billion given to all charities the year before, online and otherwise.
While the potential results of social media may not yet be fully realized, the notion that nonprofits will raise significant charitable income online has the sound and substance of a campaign promise. Charities would do well to allocate time and resources judiciously, while focusing their energy and volunteer leadership on building the genuine relationships that engage their donors, and earn their investment.
Imagine that.
T. Christian Rollins, MBA, CFRE
Executive Vice President
41%. That’s it. 41%.
That’s the median US charity’s donor retention rate. According to the Fundraising Effectiveness Project (FEP) – a 10-year study, launched in 2006 by AFP and the Urban Institute’s Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy – 59% of the median NPO’s 2009 donors did not give again in 2010.
41%. Ouch.
Over the study’s life to date, cumulative results reveal that nonprofits lose over half of their donors between the first and second donation, 30% of those donors in each subsequent year, and 30% of regular donors from one year to the next.
Yikes! 41%.
We know these things to be true: Our current donors are our best prospects for larger gifts and planned gifts. Attracting new donors – especially in these challenging economic times – is difficult and expensive. Direct mail response rates have fallen off the table, and aren’t coming back any time soon. The promise of social media remains unrealized. A declining donor pool is a harbinger of difficult times.
Are you singing and dancing for every dollar, counting on inefficient events to earn the support of disengaged participants? Is inattentive stewardship allowing true mission givers to wander off, unappreciated and disenfranchised? Is a detached solicitation effort clumsily failing to build genuine relationship with 56.9% of those who have invested in your organization?
41%. Unacceptable. Unsustainable.
Now, more than ever, as charities continue to wrestle with challenging economic conditions, it is essential to sustain your donor pool. Even as we work to attract new donors and dollars, donor retention must be a priority. Effective stewardship, recognition, and active engagement all play an important role in retaining our appreciated donors. Join Pride Philanthropy online at 10:00 AM, on Friday, January 20 for The Donor Retention Imperative. Register here.
T. Christian Rollins, MBA, CFRE
Executive Vice President
Blogger Liz Braden has proposed that millennials may just be the “perfect donor.” Really?
First, she contends, “millennials give dollar by dollar,” which I take to mean that, once engaged, and with a genuine understanding and appreciation of the impact of their contribution, they will give what they can. While that is likely a very small gift today, we all understand the notion of getting donors started in the habit of giving, not to mention growing our donor pool (no small feat these days!).
Secondly, as their facebook pages can attest, these kids have friends. Lots of them. Okay, they may not actually know the hundreds of other millennials with whom they have connected, but they will interact in the virtual space. A lot. Some of this may take the form of advocacy and testimony, and some of that may ultimately translate into gifts of time and support. Temper your efforts with realistic expectations of potential return, and an appropriate and proportional allocation of your time, and keep it real. Demonstrate genuine need, and real results.
Finally, Liz asserts, this demographic is passionate. “Millennials will give to the causes they care about, the ones they’ve researched and found to be trustworthy. They care where nonprofits spend their money, and whether or not they are getting the most bang out of their buck.” Not a bad trait, that.
If these millennials are in fact the perfect donors, there just might be hope for the future. Like those before it, this generation can change the world. As responsible stewards, together, we could help them do it!
T. Christian Rollins, MBA, CFRE
Executive Vice President
I will spare you a retweeting of the countless predictions for fundraising and philanthropy for 2012, currently burning up the blogosphere.
I visited a colleague one morning near year’s end. We talked about how his year was finishing up, and what lies ahead. In very few words, we agreed that next year would be full of challenges. And – I added – opportunities.
All of us can remember when circumstances caused many organizations to adopt a reluctant fundraising posture. Many NPO’s rolled up the sidewalks after the 2004 Indian Ocean quake and tsunami, and post-Katrina. The results were no surprise. Those organizations that stopped asking saw their gift income drop precipitously. Conversely, those who continued to advocate, cultivate, and solicit – who correctly maintained the undiminished importance of their respective charitable missions – fared well.
Those who refuse to allow the economy to be a reason not to ask are continuing to raise money. We have already seen evidence of this. Early indications are that 2011 finished on a high note. Overall, wealth remains strong. Large gifts are still being made. Volunteerism remains high. Demand for many charitable programs and services has never been greater.
Here’s my prediction: If you bring hard work, a sound plan, and positive energy to your development program, you will have a great 2012. Happy New Year!
T. Christian Rollins, MBA, CFRE
Executive Vice President
Recently, a talented colleague and friend made a comment that really caught my attention. “You know, Chris,” she said, “our fundraising is backwards.” Intrigued, I couldn’t help but say, “Tell me what you mean.”
Charities work hard to acquire donors – I was reminded – devoting time, energy, creativity, and budget to get that important and often difficult first gift. Then, having done so, they redouble their efforts to build a relationship, recognizing and engaging the donor, moving them closer to the organization, and enlisting greater support over time.
Conversely, I was informed, the hospice donor transaction is likely to start with an intense and personal experience, and a relationship that begins with the largest contribution – typically a memorial gift – that the donor will ever make. Hospice fundraisers then struggle to sustain a declining relationship with a donor moving away from the organization.
While I understood the perspective, and the unique challenge of this inverted donor relationship, I couldn’t help but ask why. Why must we accept this ?
It wasn’t that long ago that hospice was thought of as being outside of the “healthcare” sector; a misunderstood, not-often-spoken-of, quasi-clinical practice. To prescribe palliative care was tantamount to admitting medical defeat.
Today clinicians and patients acknowledge hospice as a part of the broad continuum of care. Many of us have been the fortunate beneficiaries of the wonderful services these outstanding organizations provide. We may well think of our local hospice in much the same way as our hospital, valuing it as a vital community asset, whose services we will likely need and appreciate again.
Why, then, should we accept the notion that these important charities should play on an uneven philanthropic field? Why shouldn’t a hospice work towards establishing and growing donor relationships over time? Why should our interaction with donors be limited to memorial gifts? Why should our recruitment of volunteer leadership be compromised by a prerequisite of personal loss?
In our work with our hospice clients, we implement the best practices that serve other charitable sectors exceedingly well. While understanding the unique challenges hospices face – and not attempting to bang a round fundraising peg through a square hole – we adopt a posture of equality with the worthy charities in each community, refusing to be marginalized by a history of “gifts in lieu of flowers.”
Quite the contrary. As our population ages, we know that the need for hospice services will only increase. In order to meet the growing demand, it is appropriate and necessary for this vital sector to advance its development programs now, with the attitude and expectation that our communities will respond to our appeal, and support our worthy cause.
T. Christian Rollins, MBA, CFRE
Executive Vice President
|
|
