Answer: always!  That's according to well-respected fund developer Simone Joyaux in a series of articles for Nonprofit Quarterly this past spring, and I'm inclined to agree with her.  Like so many things in life, a donation is rarely just what it appears to be: the transference of money from a person or organization to another organization or person.  It is a transaction, but one imbued with a variety of subtleties and hidden meanings.  Remembering that those meanings are always under the surface and are motivating gift giving is part of the key to fundraising successfully.

People, on the whole, don't just let go of money randomly.  If they did then charitable causes would be on equal fundraising-footing and it would just be a matter of which organization was most tenacious in going after funds--a sort of early bird gets the worm scenario.  Rather people are shaped by their experiences, beliefs, and values and these factors motivate their giving.  Ms. Joyaux writes that "[F]undraising helps people follow their own interests, express their values, and advance their own aspirations" so that, ultimately, the act of fundraising should be about the "emotional fulfillment" of the donor.  

Does the emotional fulfillment of your donors (and potential donors) guide the way you conduct fund development?  If not, maybe it's time to start thinking about what the donation is really about and how to connect with the hidden meanings that guide each and every person when they make a gift.  One way to get started--and with a willing and eager participant!--is to begin thinking about interests, values, and aspirations that have been expressed through your own giving.  Consider how a fund developer might get to know you better, then let this personal insight help to guide your interactions with potential allies to your cause.    

Diana Aviv, the president of Independent Sector, the national association of nonprofits and foundations, has been traveling the country talking to nonprofits and foundations at brainstorming sessions.  One of the complaints she has heard again and again from many communities is that collaboration is extremely difficult and many people feel it doesn't happen often enough.  I couldn't agree more!

I don't think this is a very surprising revelation, but maybe that's because I've spent a fair amount of time professionally (both within the nonprofit world and outside of it) trying to get people to collaborate and have witnessed what a struggle it is to make it happen.  People have all sorts of reasons for why collaboration doesn't happen, but in my experience it usually boils down to three issues: time, proprietary knowledge, and proprietary job duties.

Time is an easy one to understand: people are busy putting out day-to-day fires, finding funding, etc.  There are only so many hours in the day, so something has to give and anything new, like a collaboration, is an easy ball to let drop.  Not to mention, a person can always hope that someone else involved with the project will pick up the slack.

In my experience, proprietary knowledge is an underlying not oft talked about reason why many collaborations are never even considered.  The truth is many organizations are worried that collaboration will lead to donors being siphoned off, because through a collaboration with another nonprofit the individual, corporation, or foundation will be introduced to another worthwhile group.  My guess would be many groups don't talk about this concern openly because they don't want to be perceived as greedy and putting money before mission.  

The final reason collaboration isn't pursued is that within each organization individuals contemplating collaboration can be concerned about their job status and protective of their job duties.  This reason is much less likely to be mentioned than time since it can make the person saying it come across as petty, not a team player, etc.  People--perhaps sometimes rightly, depending on finances and dysfunctional workplace dynamics--worry they will seem less special or important in a cooperative environment and that they will lose some of their power, because of the sharing dynamic.

No matter what the reason for not pursuing collaboration, the reality remains that this lack of cooperation can be detrimental to the bottom line as well as to the mission of many organizations.  For a variety of reasons collaborations are beneficial: 

• Many foundations are eager to fund applications that involve two or more nonprofits
• There are cost savings to be had in sharing space, administrative staff, etc. as well as in bulk purchasing
• Whether it's "many hands make light work" or "two is better than one" these adages often ring true
• Several nonprofits working together makes their work seem more significant and thus gain the attention of the press, government leaders, donors, etc.
• Working with others exposes a group to new ideas and ways of thinking that can broaden their horizons, deepen their understanding of issues, and help them see new solutions

These are just a few of the reasons collaboration should be considered very seriously before being passed over.  Not every opportunity needs to be jumped at, but considerably more opportunities should be pursued than is being done currently.  

My supposition is the way forward involves open, honest communication, which, if the self-help sections of bookstores are any indication, is a struggle for many people and thus the institutions they represent.  But just because it's difficult doesn't mean it can't be done.  Perhaps keeping in mind the words of our 26th president, Theodore Roosevelt, would help as we seek to make these changes and take on new tasks: 
“Nothing in the world is worth having or worth doing unless it means effort, pain, difficulty… I have never in my life envied a human being who led an easy life. I have envied a great many people who led difficult lives and led them well.”

Reading a brief news piece on a recent study called "Billionaires: Master Architects of Great Wealth and Lasting Legacies" I was struck by the conclusions drawn from the study, but even more so by a reader's comment.  The reader wrote that they enjoy giving money to the person on the street without expecting anything in return--no stipulations on how the money should be spent, no public recognition for the donation.  That reader's feeling was apparently in stark contrast to the way billionaires give: they like to see measurable results and receive recognition.

Personally, naming rights and other long term donor recognition platforms don't compel me to give, but, of course, most of those opportunities are far outside my budget and thus a moot point anyways. But I do feel the push and pull between the concept of giving directed by measurable results and giving directed by a the simple desire to help in the moment, especially when there is an obvious degree of suffering that can be alleviated by my brief act.  The struggle for many people is that their money is limited and thus a decision has to be made about whether to give in the moment or be more strategic.  

For example, say you're walking down the street and you see a person with a sign up ahead reading "Hungry, please help me."  Do you give them the dollar in your pocket or send the dollar to the local food bank?  Both options will help alleviate hunger, but one will be immediate and the dollar will purchase food on the open market whereas with the donation to the food bank the dollar will be leveraged to purchase more food at discounted rates or staff a food bank where food is donated for free.  What to do?  

What if you're on the same street and it's a child asking for money to support an after school education program?  The child is adorable and ignoring their plea seems cruel, but you don't know if the program is any good or how they spend the money.  What to do?

Some people argue for a completely rational based method of giving, such as the effective altruist Peter Singer in his new book The Most Good You Can Do.  Other people suggest a giving method that is more in tune with hedonism: give where and when it makes you feel good.  I'm of the mind that both methods have their place.  Though I'm drawn to the logic of effective altruism, I'm not afraid to admit I'm human and as such the temporary spike in feel-good emotions when I give to the person on the street is appealing.  

Taking these ideas away from the personal and into the professional, negotiating the push and pull between people's desire to feel good and give effectively can be a tricky situation for fundraisers to navigate.  It highlights the importance of getting to know your donors and understanding what works for one person--facts and figures--may not be appealing to another person--moved by stories and meeting people in person or virtually.  Much as in our own lives where there is room to give in multiple ways, there is room for appealing to donors on multiple levels and in fact figuring out the best strategy for your charity should be an area that is consistently revisited as times and donors change.