|
We understand that the small development shop faces a unique set of challenges. One of them is the prioritization of time; carving out appropriate allocations for each of the necessary components of a well-rounded development program. What we must not allow is this hurdle to be the reason we abandon those essential elements: annual giving, planned giving, and – of course – major gifts.
I hope we can agree that major gifts needs to be at or near the top of your to-do list. With that established, let’s commit to giving major gifts the time, attention, energy, and focus it requires and deserves. That means – by the way – the time and attention of both you and your volunteer leadership. An important early step, therefore, is determining how best to involve these key individuals.
Your organizational structure must include a committee created for the purposeful engagement of individuals willing and able to give at this level. Volunteer donors, who – having made a major gift themselves – are uniquely qualified and positioned to successfully enlist the support of their peers. Identifying and recruiting them to a specific and clearly articulated task, and supporting them through a targeted cultivation and solicitation process enables even a one-person shop to extend its reach, and successfully ask for major gifts. Guide and support these important leaders through a continuous process of prospect identification, assignment, cultivation, solicitation, and stewardship.
Major gifts have the power to launch or complete your campaign, advance your charitable mission, reinvigorate your development program, elevate your organization, engage your community, attract top leadership, transform your board, and create a culture of philanthropy.
Join us online at 10:00 EDT, on Friday, March 16 for “Major Gifts: Go Big or Go Home.” Details and registration are available here.
T. Christian Rollins, MBA, CFRE
Executive Vice President
A recent Blackbaud study showed a cooling of online giving in 2011, increasing just 0.3% over last year, after gaining 35% from 2009 to 2010.
Small to medium-sized organizations enjoyed the most growth. The 2011 Online Giving Report showed increases for all sectors, except International Affairs, which saw a 50% drop, from 2012, which may have been inflated by the huge online response to the Haitian earthquake. When International Affairs is included in the analysis, overall fundraising growth drops to 0.3%.
Larger nonprofits, with annual budgets over $10 million, saw online fundraising grow by 8.6%. That number swings, however, to a negative 15.5% when International Affairs organizations are included. NPOs with annual budgets between $1 and $10 million, saw online fundraising climb by 13.1%; while small nonprofits, with annual fundraising less than $1 million, earned a 12.8% increase.
Year-end giving accounted for 34.8% of online giving, with December representing 20.3 percent of this total; prompting report co-author Steve McLaughlin to caution against relying too heavily on year-end giving. “It is possible to build an online program that avoids the make-or-break end of year fundraising crunch,” he said, “evidenced by the education and healthcare sectors that have benefited from concerted online fundraising efforts during other parts of the year.”
“2011 did not have the 35% year-over-year growth rate in online giving that happened in 2010,” said MacLaughlin, “but, as with all large numbers, the bigger the overall percentage gets, the slower it tends to grow.”
For the fourth time since taking office, President Obama on Monday proposed limits on itemized deductions, intended to reduce the federal budget deficit by $584 billion over the next 10 years. This proposal would limit the percentage of income that wealthy donors can write off for gifts to charitable organizations, as well as for such other purposes as medical expenses and housing costs.
The plan, part the President’s 2013 budget proposal, would limit the value of the itemized deduction to 2% for couples with incomes of $250,000 or more, and individuals with incomes of $200,000 or more.
Another proposal in the budget plan would require every household with more than $1 million in annual earnings to pay at least 30% of its income in taxes. The “Buffett Rule” could have a significant impact on giving by the wealthiest Americans.
As he promised in his State of the Union address, the President said he does not want to significantly diminish these contributions, and pledged to work to restructure the tax code in a way that would not, “disadvantage individuals who make large charitable contributions.”
At a time when charities have become increasingly dependent upon these largest of gifts, from a few top donors, this proposal is troublesome.
Last week, participants from Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas gathered in Captiva; site of this year’s Pride Development Institute. Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised that such a beautiful setting was also the backdrop for a powerful leadership conference.
Had I any doubts, they were quickly dismissed as Tom Kleinhanzl, President and CEO of Maryland’s Frederick Regional Health System, began his keynote presentation, during Wednesday morning’s opening session. While pointing out that fundraising is the most efficient way to raise capital, Tom described philanthropy as, “the lever to organizational excellence.”
A panel discussion on volunteer leadership focused on the importance of setting expectations. Sessions on donor retention, major gifts, messaging, staff and volunteer roles, donor recognition, and governance kept coming back to the themes of focus, discipline, and consistency; amplifying the importance of deliberate volunteer recruitment and sound organizational structure.
As the week drew to a close – and hospital and hospice staff and volunteers reflected on a valuable seminar – Daryl Ward, a trustee from Louisiana may have summed it up best, saying, “we are excited to get back home, and get to work!” I, for one, am excited to see the results!
T. Christian Rollins, MBA, CFRE
Executive Vice President
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
|
|
