Running on Air

Remember Wile E. Coyote? He’s that character in the Roadrunner cartoons who is always running off the edge of the cliff. As long as he keeps his eye straight ahead, he seems to be able to run on air. But once he looks down, watch out.

A lot of nonprofits are like Wile E. As long as they don’t look too carefully at their financials, everything seems copacetic. They keep truckin’ on, not paying attention to the need to bring in more revenue, cut back on programs that have grown too large or extras that are really not necessary.

I once worked at an organization which had a serious structural deficit. But the CEO liked his food, which meant that every meeting we had—and there were lots of them—were catered events. So Monday morning staff meetings turned into full blown breakfasts. Mid-day gatherings had hors d’ouevers to die for. It cost the organization a ton of money we didn’t have. Worse, it impacted our mission negatively.

Most of the organizations I know aren’t doing that sort of thing, but they also aren’t taking care of business. In a survey just released by the Bridgespan Group, 93% of charity leaders said that their organizations were feeling the impact of the economic downturn. That’s up from 75% who were feeling the impact a year ago.

All indicators point to an even more difficult year in 2010 for the sector. Organizations that relied heavily on grants, are finding they are needing to look elsewhere for financial support. I get a lot of calls now from organizations looking to start an individual giving program.

But while individual giving makes up about 80% of the charitable pie, it takes a long time to build up a strong donor pool. I think it’s good that these organizations are looking to diversify, but I also want them to understand it probably won’t solve their current funding problems.

Nor, alas, will social networking. I know, we’ve all read about the huge increases in online giving and the wild success of this or that twitter/cellphone/facebook campaign. But to make any of those successful takes the same type of prospect pool needed to for any individual campaign and then getting those prospects to the site so they can make a gift. And that is often something smaller nonprofits just don’t have the juice to do. And yes, I know all about viral marketing, but unless you have a large number of “hosts”—i.e., people who are looking at what you want them to look at—there is no one to pass on the virus.

So okay, gloom and doom. What do we do? I think for starters, making sure you are covering your basics. Have you appropriately thanked every donor who made a gift of time or treasure this year? Even if yes, perhaps in the waning days of 2009 you should send a personal note to those who could make your new year a bit brighter.

What about those folks who have given in the past but haven’t made a gift this year? Perhaps they can’t, or don’t want to make a smaller gift. But if you contact them directly, odds are they will meet you part way. So if in the past I made $1,000 gift each year this year it may be only $100, but that’s a $100 you didn’t have before. More importantly, you will have touched a donor who will remain a donor.

This may also be the time to start thinking about how you can bring down your fundraising costs while increasing the value of making a gift to your donors. I don’t think it can be said often enough that fundraising is essentially about relationships.

I was thinking a lot about this the other day. One of my alma maters is in the midst of a year end phonathon. Students from the university call me—but I keep refusing to take the call. Why? They can’t get my name right. I don’t mind if they pronounce it Leveen or Levine, that seems to be a coastal thing, but I do care if they ask for Janice Levay or, as the person did last night, “Jane Lee—lee, er, is Jane there?” Not knowing my name is no way to solidify a relationship. I mean please. Read the name. If the pronunciation isn’t clear, ask! “Hi, may I speak to Janet…and I apologize, I’m not sure how to pronounce the last name,” shows that you at least care.

Beyond knowing my name, think about what your donors really want. Don’t know? Well, heck, ask them. And what a wonderful way to connect with prospects. While you are asking, don’t forget about your Board. Ask them what they want, and then ask them to ask their contacts what would make them happy donors. Your Board may not want to ask for a gift, but they may be very willing to broach this subject with their friends.

Speaking of Boards, how about an end-of-the year meeting asking every Board member to come with a revenue generating idea that will not stretch the limits of your financial or other resources? Make it a brainstorming session, with the understanding that brainstorming means no idea is dumb and everything should be brought to the table.

Think outside of your normal constituencies. Who are the people you haven’t been targeting? Why? What might be a way to get them interested in what you do? Who are the folks who are already interested but you’ve not asked them to support you for one reason or another—often because they “are poor” or because “they already give so much of their time.” Think about those issues differently.

When I first got into sales, a very successful salesperson told me that I should understand that I wasn’t selling something to someone but, rather, giving that person an opportunity to get what he or she wanted or needed. That is even more true when we are talking about fundraising.

Instead of focusing on why people won’t be giving this year or next, consider what opportunities you can offer. You may be pleasantly surprised at the results.

Janet Levine is a consultant who works with nonprofits and educational organizations. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Her online grantwriting class is available at www.janetlevineconsulting.com/classes.html.

Thank You, Thank You

I recently facilitated a workshop where 35 discrete organizations were represented. During a discussion on retaining donors, I asked “How many of you send a thank you letter to every single donor?”

You may not be surprised, but I was when only two hands went up. I shouldn’t have been. I hear often enough from donors who complain about not being thanked for their generosity. And while I believe them when they say they don’t receive thank you letters, I also want to believe that these letters are going out, it’s just that it’s not enough or not timely enough for donors. Or, perhaps, donors weren’t opening these thank you letters, thinking it was just another solicitation letter.

Clearly, however, I was giving more credit to nonprofits than many of them deserve.

That started me writing an online course, Step by Step Stewardship, which will be available in the spring at the to-be launched next month (November) http://lmlearningstation.com>. While I am not above self-serving advertising (obviously), the other reason I mention this what has come up as I’ve been researching and writing.

I’ve long known that what can seem to be fundamental is often not-so basic to many organizations. More importantly, these basics do define development programs. Which leads me seamlessly into my soapbox oration of the day.

When I started in this field about 25 years ago, there was a real push to stop calling it “fundraising” and focus on the word “development.”

Development is synonymous with such words as expansion, progress, improvement. It suggests a continuum of activity that grows over time and makes things better. It implies involvement, which, in turn, certainly means that relationships are built and, yes, nurtured. Stewardship.

Fundraising, on the other hand, focuses on that one act of getting money or other kinds of support. It’s more transactional than development, and more often than not (think politics), there is some quid pro quo--something for something—involved.

Because the pendulum has swung back, as it generally does, the word development appears mainly in titles (development department, development director. The function of those who work in the area is to fundraise, pure and simple. And what that does is put the emphasis on getting the gift. Once the gift has been gotten, the job is done.

Thinking (and acting) that way, of course, makes the development director’s job more difficult. Since the most likely prospect for a gift is an existing donor, it’s only smart to keep that donor happy.

Remember the last time you gave something to someone—your kids, your spouse, someone else’s kids, a friend. How would you have felt (or, perhaps, how did you feel) if they simply took what you gave and walked away? Now think how you would feel if the next time they deigned to speak to you was—yes!—when they were asking you for yet another something.

Unless you are a lot more saintly than I, you probably weren’t looking upon that someone so kindly. Indeed, while you mayhave given them what they asked for this second time, if they didn’t change their behavior, you sure wouldn’t give them anything a third.

Donors are no different. If you don’t thank them for their gift, they are not going to be inclined to make a second gift. And you will have spent a lot of time and effort to get minimum return.

Start by making sure you say “thank you” to every single donor at the time they make their gift. Then think about the many ways you can develop that relationship. For here is a basic truth that you should never forget: Donors give because they care about the work you do, have a connection with the person who asks for the gift, feel connected to the organization and generally are involved with your organization in as many ways as possible.

Janet Levine is a consultant who focuses on increasing productivity for nonprofit organizations, their staff and volunteers. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Gets Grants!, an online grantwriting class is is available at www.janetlevineconsulting.com/classes.html.
Other online classes will be available November 1, 2009 at http://lmlearningstation.com>

Not not

In his September 15th blog (http://sethgodin.typepad.com) , Seth Godin said two things that really resonated. The first was his opening sentence where he took nonprofits to task for identifying ourselves as what we are not. Defining what we are is something many of us have a problem with.

The second thing he said was that nonprofits abhor change. I agree, but I wouldn’t focus just on nonprofits. And I certainly wouldn’t—as Seth Godin does—focus on the fact that many nonprofits (but not nearly as many as he claims) are not utilizing social networking well. That hardly proves his case.

What is real, however, is the paralysis that hits too many nonprofits when faced with doing things that make them uncomfortable. Far better, I suppose, to wring your hands and (as Godin aptly points out) complain about lack of resources than to actually go out and do something proactive about it. But I don’t necessarily think that social networking is the answer.

An answer? Sure. But at best it is a way to increase the number and frequency of small donors. This can be huge as, yes, the Obama campaign showed. But the truth is that most nonprofits are not national in scope; many aren’t even of concern three blocks from where they have offices. Pareto’s principle, which in fundraising terms says that 80% of the dollars raised come from 20% of the donors, is still pretty viable. What that means that is that social networking can be a great boost to your annual campaign, but probably won’t provide enough funding for those changes that Godin advocates.

This is not to say that nonprofits shouldn’t engage in social networking. Of course they should outreach in every way possible. But I think that the change that is necessary in the sector will come from very different actions.

Which brings us back to Godin’s first sentence. How we define ourselves is key. How we tell our stories is also important. But stories without purpose are not much more than entertainment. What is too often missing is that strategic, long view of what we do and how we do it, now and in the future. Nonprofits tend to be better at that from a programmatic point of view than they administratively and, especially, when it comes to resource development.

Fundraising is too often not at the table when the party is being planned but is expected to somehow come up with all the presents. If fundraising were truly infused throughout the organization, if planning took into consideration not just how much something will cost but where those funds must come from, then and only then will nonprofits be able to systematically and continually find the funding they need.

Once nonprofits can support themselves and their programs, then they can begin to focus on what they are and understand than “nonprofit” (or not-for-profit”) is actually a positive. Unlike for profit businesses that exist to make a profit, we have been organized for other purposes, which may be charitable (relating to generosity), educational, scientific. And this is nothing that should make any of us who are committed to this sector feel ashamed.

Janet Levine is a consultant who focuses on increasing productivity for nonprofit organizations, their staff and volunteers. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Her online classes will soon be available at http://lmlearningstation.com>

Working Social Networking

Recently, I took a road trip with my 34-year-old daughter. I was amazed—though I shouldn’t have been—at how many hours she spent in social networking. During the day she texted non-stop, or would have if I hadn’t taken her phone away when she was driving. And at night, in our hotel room, she chatted with her friends on Facebook.

First she would type madly for a few minutes, then sit back and wait. When the tone that indicated someone responded sounded, she would lean forward, read for a moment, then type madly again. I was reminded of Billy Crystal’s line about dancing—that it was just like standing still, only faster. This was like a conversation, only slower.

I’ve been thinking a lot about social networking as I get ready to teach a workshop on how social networking can augment a nonprofit’s existing fundraising programs. The power of social networking is clear; it is the time consumption that concerns me.

I remember when word processing became ubiquitous. We all thought that it would make our offices more efficient. At first, of course, it didn’t, but there was the learning curve and it was sure to come. Then, one day I asked my secretary to prepare a memo for me to send to my boss. In the old, typewriter days, it would have taken less than an hour before a clean, typed copy was on my desk.

Two days passed.

“Claire,” I finally said. “That memo?”

”Oh yes,” she answered brightly. “I should have that done this afternoon.”

”Is there a problem?”

Well, no. There wasn’t. And yet, yes, there definitely was. She was “formatting” the memo—playing with fonts and sizes and styles. She could bold,, italicize, underline, and a whole host of other things that she had been unable to do before. It was awesome. But here’s the dirty truth—it wasn’t better, it didn’t add value, my memo wasn’t more effective.

I don’t want to sound like a neo-Luddite. I’m not. I love my computers—and yes, that’s a plural, I have two. I love the things I can do that I couldn’t do when I started working. I love the possibilities that technology brings. My husband swears I love my iPhone almost as much as I love him. But I don’t love inefficiencies and I abhor spending work time unproductively.

A recent study surmised that for a nonprofit to effectively use social networking for development purposes it would take 20 hours a week. Now, that’s just the managing of the technology. It will take additional time to develop the strategies, create the content, and evaluate the successes of your social networking programs. If you are a small nonprofit where you are already too busy to fundraise or do anything else, you will really have to think long and hard about jumping on this particular bandwagon.

I don’t think that nonprofits can afford to ignore technological advances. I do think that social networking must be part of their advancement program. But these are techniques and channels that must be used judiciously and with planning aforethought.

You will not raise tons of money solely by putting a “Donate Here” button on your website. Developing a Facebook page will not bring wealthy donors ripe for solicitations. Your Tweets may get you a Twitter following, but if you are not clear about the purposes for which you are using these tools, you will build nothing worthwhile.

These are tools that, used well, can help you to reach more people. Used well, they will allow you to build relationships that might otherwise not be possible. And fundraising is, above all, about relationships.

But there is a price to be paid. The wise nonprofit understands that and makes sure that before starting out on this journey, they have carefully mapped out what seems to be the best route, and have an understanding of what side roads could be interesting to explore.


Janet Levine is a consultant who works with nonprofits and educational organizations. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Her online grantwriting class is available at www.janetlevineconsulting.com/classes.html.

Whose Rolodex?

Many years ago, when I was applying for my second fundraising job, I was asked a question I thought very…well, questionable. “What donors can you bring with you?” the chair of the search committee asked me.

To be honest, I was quite nonplussed. I had only been in the field 3 or 4 years, but it seemed to me that donors were not the same as say the clients of a hair stylist who would bring his or her customer book to any new location. Donors, I thought then and now, don’t “belong” to the development staff. Rather, they have been cultivated and solicited because they had been identified as someone who would want to be involved with an organization’s mission.

As a fundraiser, I may have coordinated and facilitated their gift, but it was a gift to the organization or institution for which I worked. It was not a gift given because they personally liked me.

So, baffled as I was, I simply sputtered, “None.” And didn’t get the job.

While it was the first time I was asked the question, it was far from the last. And each time, I tried to explain that I considered my job to cultivate donors for the organization and if I had done my job right, when I left, the donor would have relationships with others who worked and volunteered at the organization and so would remain a committed supporter.

Further, I would tell my interviewer, just as I won’t be bringing donors with me, I won’t take donors from you when I leave.

Since I was offered a number of these jobs, and was able to continually move up the proverbial food chain, it was clear that many people understood and possibly agreed with my position. And yet, I can’t help but think that there often was a disappointment that I didn’t bring with me a fat rolodex of people who would write a check within weeks of my arrival.

I, however, always want to be more than merely a money machine to any organization I work with. I want to create or strengthen a foundation where there is sustainability. I think our job as fundraisers is, as I said a few paragraphs ago, to mainly be a coordinator and facilitator—both to help donors make satisfying and effective gifts, and also to assist volunteers and other staff members to be part of the process.

This is not to say that I have never offered a donor I knew from one organization the opportunity to support another if I thought there was a reason to believe that donor would be interested. After all, as every good fundraiser knows, the best indicator that someone will become a donor to your organization is that he or she is a donor to another organization.

Still, I think it shows a complete lack of understanding of why development is important to an organization to expect a fundraiser to bring donors along with her. Yes, yes of course, fundraising is about bringing in money. But it is mostly about building relationships that will help to nourish and grow an organization.

If you believe that, then it is clear that the right question to ask a potential fundraiser is not who do you bring with you but rather, how do you go about finding and caring for those to whom our mission matters? And what steps would you take to ensure that this person (or organization) is well connected to our organization and feels part of the work we do?

Fundraisers who can answer those questions are worth their weight in gold. And, trust me on this, over the long haul, they will bring in far more gold than someone who brings his gravy train along for the ride.

Janet Levine is a consultant who works with nonprofits and educational organizations. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Her online grantwriting class is available at www.janetlevineconsulting.com/classes.html.

Can Do

I’m having one of those days when I want to run away, pull my blanky over my head, shut out the world. Nothing is particularly wrong, but on days like today it is so easy to focus only on what isn’t right.

Starting the day with the news adds to my malaise. But it is the things closer to home that sit most heavily. Like the fact that everything takes longer than I anticipated, or costs more or—even worse, delivers less. Particularly on days like today, however, the most insidious is the “can’t do” attitude of some of my clients even some of my best friends.

You know this one. Maybe you are this one, and if so—STOP IT, stop it right now. It’s when no matter what solution, idea, suggestion comes your way, you find all the reasons why you cannot implement it.

I never had much use for Spiro Agnew (the disgraced Vice President of the equally disgraced Richard Nixon), but I share his frustration, as shown in his overly alliterative words : Nattering Nabobs of Negativism Over the years I’ve worked with too many people who would rather moan about the darkness than light that proverbial candle.

The rotten economy seems to be making this tendency even worse. My experience is, of course, anecdotal. The client that tells me they can’t spend any time building a development program because the board won’t do its job. Or the development officer who cannot possibly whatever is recommended because “it just won’t work.” My favorite, though, are the people who are stuck in either “We tried that and it didn’t work,” or the ones who tell you that “this is the way we do it.”

Did you ever notice how self-fulfilling prophecies are? If you think you can’t, usually you can’t. And if you focus on what is not, you somehow never notice what is. Fundraising is not all that much different.

If you really believe that your mission is good, that the organization works well, that you use your money wisely, asking people to support your cause isn’t very difficult. It’s not necessarily easy, mind you, but being positive about your cause goes a long way.

Likewise, focusing on what you can do instead of bemoaning what you can’t really does make a difference. First of all, your energy is now on doing something rather than preventing action from happening—and we all know that the more you do anything (eat, sleep, even donate to charity) the more you tend to do it. As you concentrate on what is possible, you will find that you can actually achieve much more than you thought.

No, I’m not being Pollyanna-ish. The first step is to identify what you are supposed to accomplish. Let’s look, for example, at a worst-case scenario: the task that is impossible to accomplish. Rather than focus on that inevitable end, let’s try to figure out what you can do to at least begin walking up that trail.

Raise $1,000,000 when you have no prospects. Really, you have no prospects. And I agree: You probably cannot raise $1 million with no prospects.

You can get stuck there, or stuck at bemoaning the real fact that your board just won’t or can’t introduce you to people with capacity OR you can start to identify what you can do to begin identifying prospects. Does that mean reading the business section of your local newspaper and sending a congratulatory note to that newly named CEO, inviting her to tour your organization….and then following up to set an appointment? Does it mean getting involved with your city council or local service club?

Yes, it’s a long row to hoe (and it is one of those days where I’m throwing in every metaphor in the book!) but (watch it, here comes another) you do need to that first step on every journey. And it does get easier, more do-able. The first few months you may only identify and get to meet one new prospect, but that one will lead you to others. More, you will get better at figuring out what actions are effective and which ones are not.

So make my day—and yours—and stop being so negative. Throw off your blanky and (last one—I promise) pull your head out of the sand and look to the horizons for all the opportunities you do have. I promise, you’ll be awed and amazed at what you can accomplish step by little step.


Janet Levine is a consultant who works with nonprofits and educational organizations. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Her online grantwriting class is available at www.janetlevineconsulting.com/classes.html.

Looking a Gift Horse....

Lately, I’ve been doing a lot of grant work. That’s unusual for me. I do teach grant writing and occasionally I critique grants. But it’s been years since I actually spent much time writing and researching grants. It’s been good for me, and good for my students. I feel more confident that I am what I am teaching is current and reality based. Of course, I’ve always had an ace in the hole—a co-teacher who is a director of grants and so lives and breathes the topic.

What is of most interest to me, however, is the fact that so many nonprofits still think first of grants and events when they think of resource development. No matter how many times I tell clients or classes that 76% of all charitable monies come from individuals, no matter how many times they express surprise and say, “wow, we should look in that direction,” most still go back to relying on events and grants. And most of them never quite get out of financial crisis.

On the event side, it’s because no matter what most nonprofits think they net, they haven’t really considered all the true costs. Most importantly, they don’t act on the fact the event itself is not the end of a process, but rather the beginning. If, once the event is over you aren’t individually cultivating every last attendee, you aren’t working an event.

On the grant side, the issues are a more complex. The truth is that most grants are not moneymakers for an organization. Indeed, oftentimes grants cost more than bring in. What grants do best is to provide the wherewithal to implement a program or project that you wouldn’t otherwise be able to start. That’s the good.

The bad and the ugly is that while most funders expect that the project will then become institutionalized, or supported by the organization or other funding mechanisms, that seems to rarely happen. Especially in the case of multi-year, seven figure projects. They grow and sometimes thrive for 3 to 5 years, then as the grant disappears, the pieces get dismantled and it’s as if that program never even existed.

To be sure, there are good grants. Or more to the point, there are organizations that use their grants well. But they are the ones who understand that a grant is not really a gift.

A gift is something that someone gives you without any strings attached--or at least not the kinds that yank back the gift if you don’t do exactly as requested. In the nonprofit world, a gift with strings is called a restricted gift; ones without strings are unrestricted. In the former, the donor says that the gift is to be used for a particular purpose or at a particular time. Most grants are a form of restricted gift, but they go further. Grants have deliverables. And it is these that up the price.

Let’s imagine that some nice person gives me a gift to buy a stove. I cannot use it for a sink, a refrigerator, to go out to dinner. I can only use it for a stove. The gift is restricted. But typically, I can put that money toward whatever stove I want and buy it when I am ready.

If, on the other hand, I get a grant to buy a stove, I can expect that the type and even model of the stove will be proscribed, as will the timeframe in which I have to buy it. The deliverable will be the proof I must supply the grantor that I complied with the restrictions of my grant.

Now let’s say that the grant I request is to fund a cooking course for which I will have to buy a stove. This is a program grant and it is the most typical kind of grant made. Then I will have had to describe exactly how I will be using that stove. I will need to document what I will cook on it, how many people will be using the stove, what the results of what we cook will be. And I will have to track my results and write reports for the grantor.

Some organizations have whole departments dedicated to managing the spending and reporting side of grants. There is nothing wrong with this, except it does add a layer of cost that may be at the expense of the core programs of the organization. Of more concern is that too many organizations contort their missions to meet the requirements of a grant, thus spending more money to do things that don’t always serve their clients well.

Go after grants, sure. They can be an incredible boon to an organization. But make sure that you are looking for funding for a program or project that truly moves your mission forward. Don’t be grant seeking as much as seeking funding for a needed project.

There are, of course, unrestricted (or pretty unrestricted) grants that in effect pay for you to continue doing the good works you are already doing. Those are the best, and as with charitable gifts they are the hardest to get. The one good news of this horrible economy is that more and more foundations are discovering the value of these unrestricted operating grants.

This is good news for well-run nonprofits. My one hope here is that the new deliverable for these unrestricted grants be proof by the organization that it is, indeed, well run and that the clientele served get what is needed in a timely, respectful and helpful way.

If I were given these grants, I’d want to see that there is adequate and trained staff to accomplish the mission and that the staff is appropriately paid. And I’d want to know that the board is engaged, and all members support the organization with their actions and their wallets and not just their mouths. I would also want some proof that the board is strategically overseeing the work of the organization, regularly evaluating the CEO and themselves, and that they understand and follow the laws of nonprofit organizations.

Janet Levine is a consultant who works with nonprofits and educational organizations. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Her online grantwriting class is available at www.janetlevineconsulting.com/classes.html.

Keeping it Simple

A lot of my time in spent thinking about and helping my clients become more productive in their approaches to fundraising. I call this blog Too Busy to Fundraise because I’ve found that many people who have development responsibilities never seem to find the time to do the things that fundraising requires. I know. I’ve been there.

Oftentimes—and especially at times like now where the economic outlook is anything but good—we look for quick fixes to fundraising, as if some special technique will painlessly raise funds. We want something that will work, as if that something could do it without any help from us.

Making the time to fundraise, therefore, is the first step to actually bringing in gifts. The second step is to use your time and your resources wisely. That means keeping things simple.

That should be easy enough, but somehow too often, what should be a productive way to raise funds and increase your prospect pool gets turned into something that takes more time and effort than it warrants.

Like many consultants, I often remind my clients that the Board is their best fundraising magic bullet. This is especially true for smaller nonprofits with one or no dedicated fund development staff person. But most board members do not feel comfortable asking their friends for gifts. Since the actual solicitation is the last step and only one part of fundraising, I encourage board members to be actively involved in the beginning part of the process. I believe that board members are most effective at identifying potential donors and in introducing those prospects to the organization (and vice versa).

One really nice and easy way to do that is for the board member to host a small gathering, either at the organization or in his or her home. And by hosting I mean that the board member draws up the invite list from his or her personal or business rolodex, sends out the invitations and pays for whatever refreshments will be on tap. I also recommend that we, yes, keep this simple. A wine and cheese, coffee and cake, finger sandwiches. Nothing elaborate; nothing expensive.

Ditto the event itself. It’s meant to be intimate, where the board member can tell friends and colleagues why this organization is near and dear to his or her heart. The executive director or another staff member tells—briefly—what the organization does and shares some success stories. And either the host or someone else asks the attendees to “Join with me in supporting this wonderful organization.” Pledge cards are handed out, and the event is essentially over. Appropriate follow up with every person invited, of course, is necessary.

Simple, right? Doesn’t cost the organization much. And brings new people to the table. Except that I see too many folks turning this simple and effective event into a major production.

Suddenly, centerpieces or a particular color tablecloth with matching napkins are deemed necessary to the success of the gathering. The host decides that the attendees need “favors” or that a drawing would be a good idea, and now the scramble is on to find the goodies (and who is going to ask for them?). And rapidly this becomes a big deal and not particularly productive at all.

Once again, we find ourselves Too Busy To Fundraise. Too involved in turning a simple idea into a time-consuming monster. So, STOP! Re-think. Go back to the basics. Keeping it simple will—I can guarantee it if you actually do it—make your fundraising more successful and all those involved, more productive.


Janet Levine is a fundraising consultant. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Her online grantwriting class is available at www.janetlevineconsulting.com/classes.html.

What's Work?

For just about 20 years, my work consisted of going to meetings, then meeting with staff to assign projects or share information so that they could do those projects. What I didn’t ever get to, where the things that I thought I should be doing in order to get my work done. Then, a little over a year ago, I started consulting.

I still go to meetings, but these tend to generate a different kind of work. They clarify what I need to get done. After these meetings, I spend a lot of time writing proposals, researching information, designing and then interpreting surveys and questionnaires. I write up the results of assessments, create reports, develop plans. Often I conceive courses or workshops, and frequently I end up in front of a group, teaching or facilitating these courses and workshops. And often, after several days without meetings, I start to panic. I need to work, I think, and here I am, having fun. It takes awhile for me to remember how productive I’ve actually been.

Ironically, weeks when I meet friend for lunch, attend (rather than lead) a workshop, I feel as if I’ve accomplished, well work. All of which translates to my feeling guilty for getting things done and thinking I’m working when really I’m not.
Work, obviously, is the issue. What’s work? Sitting in generally unproductive meetings whose main purpose seems to be giving out information and talking about the fact that something needs to be done (presumably by somebody), then having other meetings in the hope that someone will actually do something with that information? Or should it be accomplishment based? Gather the information and then use that information to move something forward and thereby get something done?

The latter, I think. That means being very clear bout the purpose of your job or the jobs of your subordinates. If that job is fundraising, then (duh) the purpose of your job should be to bring in funds. That is the easy part on which to get consensus. How to do that…there’s the rub.

Being an effective fundraiser depends a lot on your organization, the size of your fundraising staff, the resources you can tap into. What works in one place may not work in another and the amount of effort one must expend to raise a gift isn’t static. Therefore, to help you be effective, your job description—the things you are expected to do—must be specific and make sense in your particular context.

Most fundraising job descriptions say that you are responsible for “identifying, cultivating and soliciting (here you must fill in the blank with something like “Annual,” or “Major” or even ”Corporate”—unless you will be responsible for it all, in which case you must leave out the blank altogether)—prospects. Then, in most cases, there are a whole host of other tasks you are supposed to accomplish, none of which ever raised a dollar but all of which take enormous amounts of time. Note that we haven’t yet mentioned all those other things you are expected to do or to attend, all of which also take up your rapidly diminishing time.

The more “other tasks as assigned” you have, the more your ability to fundraise suffers. You become less focused, and more stressed. All that money they expected you to raise doesn’t materialize. Is it any wonder that the typical tenure of a fundraiser is 18 months at any one job?

In my consulting work, I typically have a first meeting where we talk about the client’s situation. I then write a proposal, based on what I think the scope of work is, what methodology I will use to accomplish that work and what deliverables I will be able to provide. Sometimes we tweak something here, add or delete something there, until we are in agreement what I will be doing, and what they will do, during a specific period of time.

Occasionally, a client will want me to attend a not-terribly-necessary meeting, or do something that is outside our agreed upon scope of work. Because my payment depends on me accomplishing a certain number of things in a specified amount of time, I cannot afford to let myself to get sidetracked. Nor, when I point out what will have to give if I do A instead of B, do my clients. For the most part (there is always that exception!) we stay focused, on track and on target.

Consulting, of course, tends to be made up of a number of finite jobs, each with a definite beginning and ending. Full time work, on the other hand, is often more fluid with many more things on your proverbial plate. Still, if managers and staff took the time to regularly identify the scope of work that must be accomplished during some period of time, how that work will be addressed and what results will be expected, I suspect that a lot more work, and a lot less busy work, would get accomplished.

Janet Levine is a fundraising consultant. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Her online grantwriting class is available at www.janetlevineconsulting.com/classes.html.

Could you pick out a fundraiser in a crowd?

Cecil B. Ledesma has found the light. He wants to be a fundraiser. And so he wants to know if I’d be able to “tell by talking to someone or having them take a test whether they would be good at fundraising as a lifelong career.”

Great question, and one I should be able to answer. After all, I “is” (or was) a fundraiser and I’ve hired many more. But truth to tell, I didn’t always feel that I was “good” at my job and certainly not all my hires were successful.

I decided, therefore, to ask some fundraising colleagues this question. Then I decided to also ask Board members at a few charitable organizations and CEO’s—those who hire the fundraisers. I even asked if I could quote people, but I got so many responses (see my last blog entry—Asking for Advice) that they all shall remain anonymous. But thank you, thank you to all.

A large number of people wrote back to say that they look at past performance as an indicator as to whether someone will be a good fundraiser. Well, yeah. But that’s not helpful for someone who is trying to break into the field. Others look at how much money a person had raised over the past several years. That seems to me as useless as the question I always got on interviews: Tell us about your largest gift.

Let’s face it, on the basis of those questions someone who has been raising funds for a Harvard University, for example, will be perceived as more talented than the fundraiser at your local homeless shelter. An unfair and, frequently, untruthful assessment.

Interestingly, only one of my respondents mentioned “transferrable skills,” as important indicators of success for someone who is trying to break into the field. But my respondent didn’t elucidate as to what those skills might be. I imagine that a good place to start would be with the characteristics many of the respondents said they look for.

Listening skills was one that most people valued. And here I concur completely. Now, I love to talk. I love to talk. But unless you are really hearing what your donor or prospect is saying, you won’t be able to build solid relationships. And relationships are the foundation on which development sits.

Along with listening, a few people touted eloquence and personality. Both good traits, as long as they don’t cross the line into glibness.

Passion was another thing many people mentioned, though it was unclear to me whether it was passion for the cause or for the activities connected with fundraising, or something else entirely.

Virtually everyone agreed that no test could identify a good fundraiser. Seems that you can’t get away from the old-fashioned interview process—sitting across from someone, asking questions and listening hard to their answers. This, at least, should give you a strong clue if the person will fit into the culture of your organization. And fit is critical. You can’t be positive about a place if you feel that you don’t belong there.

What was interesting was the number of people (and the number of those people who were the very people who did the most hiring of fundraising staff) who said, “Haven’t a clue.” Or, as one friend wrote, “What an interesting question. I wish I had an interesting answer. How can you tell if someone is a good dentist?”

Some responses were more interesting by dint of who said them than what was said. The several people who serve on various nonprofit boards looked at whether a person gave of his or her own time or money. Those who get paid to do this work—fundraisers--were less likely to see that as important. They identified knowledge of philanthropy and development strategies as necessary, though a number of them added that knowing and doing can (and often are) two different things. People in executive search also cared whether a candidate could converse about trends in fundraising, but a candidate’s past history was their most important indicator.

Several people mentioned creativity as an important trait, but I’m at a loss as how you could measure that during an interview. Only one person mentioned writing skills. That, I confess, surprised me. Writing is something that fundraisers do a lot, and while I have known some very good fundraisers who can’t write, I think it limits a person.

Reading all the responses made me think a whole lot more about what makes a good fundraiser. All the above, I would say, along with fearlessness (or the ability to act as if you are fearless) and an attention to detail. Oh, I know, that’s boring, but necessary. Too many gifts don’t get brought in because someone dropped the ball. And more money has been raised not by schmoozing (which is, I believe, totally overrated as a fundraising technique) but by a person who crosses the “T’s”, dots the “I’s” and calls when he or she said he or she would make a phone call.

Unlike music or art, where you really do have to have some talent to succeed, fundraising is something that can be learned. So beyond everything else, to me the most important traits are someone’s willingness to ask for help, listen to new ideas, put his or her ego on the back burner and remember that, above all, it is about helping our clients and moving the mission of our organization forward.

Janet Levine is a fundraising consultant. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Her online grantwriting class is available at www.janetlevineconsulting.com/classes.html.

Less is More

Passion is a wonderful thing. But sometimes, a person is so passionate about another person, some toy, or a cause, that they become almost monomaniacal. They talk incessantly about the object of their passion, telling everyone more than anyone really wants to know.

No one is more passionate than people involved with nonprofit organizations. That creates the proverbial good news/bad news scenario. We love our organizations so much, and are so proud of everything we’ve ever done, that we want to tell everyone about it all.

But when you are out with a prospect, you really need to be listening more than you are talking . Find out what matters to that prospect. Especially, before you start telling someone about this thing your organization does, make sure this particular something is of interest or, at the very least, not something that is bound to upset them.

When writing grants, it is really important to understand that most of the time more is definitely less. If the guidelines ask you to describe the project for which you are requesting funds, describe the project. Don’t give them the entire history of your organization from founding until today. Don’t tell them of all your successes and the many, many things you do. There is a place for that information. It’s called the introduction and it is where you introduce your organization to the funder.

Even there, though, be circumspect. You don’t need to give them the encyclopedic version. Just tell them the information that will help them to understand why your organization is a good organization for this particular project.

Before you write or say anything to a possible supporter, think about what you are writing or saying. Does it add value? Are you sure (or as sure as you can be) that is on topic—topic being that which will move your prospect closer to supporting you.

Janet Levine is a fundraising consultant. She can be reached at jlevine@levinemorton.com. Her online grantwriting class is available at www.levinemorton.com/classes.html.