The Wall Street Journal recently reviewed the tax filings of some major arts institutions and reported several paid their executives more than $1 million dollars in 2013.  For example, Museum of Modern Art (NYC) Director Glenn Lowry "took home $3.4 million, nearly five times his base salary" when perks and bonuses were factored into the equation.  Not too shabby.

Putting aside the larger moral or ethical question about whether high pay for nonprofit executives is right--a very tangled and gnarly question--I would instead ask nonprofits to focus on the role of executive pay in the context of donor relations at their own organization.  What happens at MoMA is for MoMA to worry about and each organization is unique, so understanding how donors to your particular group will react to executive pay is what is important.  This means 

1. Thinking about pay in terms of your group's mission and public image
2. Getting to know your donors and how they feel about this issue, which can be a scary conversation to start

The good news about #2 is that beginning the conversation will probably result in new, unexpected conversations beyond pay scale that will illuminate the nuances of your donors and lead to better fundraising in the future.

I would start with #1, because this is something you can do in-house and knowing your own thoughts (and thoughts of other staff) will help you anticipate what your donors might think and the questions they may have about this issue.  These are the questions I would ask to get the ball rolling: 

• How would I justify the salaries of our leadership if a donor asked?
• What role do fair wages play in the realization of our organization's vision?  For example, if a vision is a world without hunger then many people might say fair pay is a part of realizing that vision.
• Is transparency important?  For example, if a salary is less than the minimum required to be reported on the IRS 990 tax form will you still want to make that information publicly available and, if not, why?
• Would you be hesitant to donate to an organization with the same mission as your own if you knew they paid their leadership more than what you pay your leadership?  Less than?  Same as?
• What is an acceptable executive to worker pay ratio?

I'll come back to #2 in a future post, because this seems like more than enough food for thought for one day.

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.          

Your organization is fabulous!  Important, meaningful, nuanced work is being done by you, the staff, and volunteers.  Your organization offers something--a program, a set of staff, a mission, etc--that no one else offers and that special something is worth believing in.  People should be eager to contribute to your work, because it's an opportunity to make the world a better place.

Is this above paragraph similar to your own inner voice?  I hope so, but probably your inner voice isn't quite as peppy and may express doubts.  It's okay and natural to have doubts, but problems arise when those doubts get in the way of fundraising success.  If they are influencing you to set lower goals, not approach a potential donor, or forgo a grant opportunity then it's time to examine those thoughts.

It may sound cliché, but the old adage "If you don't believe in yourself, who will?" makes a lot of sense, especially when it comes to fundraising.  You have to show people how worthwhile your organization is and why they want to be part of your movement, and if you have doubts tugging at the back of your mind they compromise your ability to be a confident presenter, conversationalist, writer, etc.  Think of those infomercials you see where part way through you start thinking "Maybe I do need that."  (The ones that always got me were for the Ronco Rotisserie--and I don't even eat meat!)  I'm not suggesting you imitate their style exactly, but there is something to be learned from their confidence and ability to exude belief in the product.  Your nonprofit is infinitely better than any product advertised on TV, so if they can be that confident surely you can, too.

Many times people get particularly anxious when approaching a donor for a large gift, because it feels very personal: it might be one-on-one, in a private location--perhaps even their home--and you're going to have to mention money, which can be a taboo subject.  But if you think of your ask as an opportunity for the donor to fulfill their personal giving goals and support a cause they believe in then it isn't as scary.  And it never hurts to remember another old adage: What's the worst that could happen?  They could say "no."  Of course the corollary is that they could say "yes," and isn't that worth the risk? 


Fundraising & the Power of Confidence
How to Nail the Soft Skills of Fundraising: The Face-to-Face Ask 

While reading the article "Fundraising is Fundamental (If Not Always Fun)" in the Stanford Social Innovation Review the following snippet really caught my attention and got me thinking: "A cardinal rule of nonprofit fundraising is to start with members of your board. There should be an expectation that board members will not only make a major financial gift to your organization, but also help to identify, cultivate, and approach other potential donors. If members of your board aren’t contributing in these ways, then you need to get a new board." 

My instinctive reaction to this excerpt was 1) board member fundraising involvement is way too often ignored by many nonprofits, which is a debilitating mistake, and 2) to be concerned about how this cardinal rule could be used to keep people without financial means and powerful connections from serving on nonprofit boards when they may actually have quite a lot to offer an organization.  I do agree that board members should absolutely be key members of the fundraising team and should know involvement with fund development is an expectation of their service.  

So with those thoughts in mind... There should be an expectation each board member will make a gift that is significant in accordance with their financial means.  They will be given the training needed to make them confident in identifying, cultivating, and/or approaching other potential donors (individuals, foundations, etc.), so that, with their particular strengths, they can best contribute to the financial sustainability of the nonprofit.  If members of your board aren't contributing in these ways, then you need to get a new board.  If your organization is unwilling or unable to provide board members with the guidance and training necessary to be successful, then you need to take a hard look at your organizational culture.

The above "rule" is aligned more closely with the realities of small and medium sized nonprofits who may not be able to attract particularly wealthy board members.*  This rule is also better in tune with the philosophies of grassroots groups, social service organizations, and other nonprofits who may be more concerned with having board members that are representative of the population they serve or the cause they seek to advance.  Even for those nonprofits, though, it is imperative board members step up to keep the organization financially afloat, so training and guidance are important.  If a board member is going to be asked to do something then it is only fair the expectation be upfront--everyone on the same page, eyes open--and the tools be provided so they can do the job well. 

*Note: Don't be afraid to ask!  You never know what the response will be.  Stay tuned for a future post on being confident in the worthiness of your nonprofit.     

I've been fascinated by word choice for quite some time (nothing like writing grants to make you consider the impact of each and every word!).  So when I read this post on Nonprofit Hub one sentence in particular really struck a nerve: "If someone complains about higher overhead (or as Le calls it “critical infrastructure”), a nonprofit can counter with the difference they make in the community."  I'm not familiar with Vu Le, the speaker being quoted, but I love that he has reframed an issue to convey true importance/value and that he's taken control over how his organization's expenses are perceived by others.  

Overhead has become a four letter word in the nonprofit and funding communities and is attached to all sorts of negative connotations.  Overhead’s status as the ugly stepchild of doing good may be deserved in some instances, but it is also critical to the survival of an organization and dismissing it out-of-hand as something that should always be minimized is too simplistic an approach.  Maybe “critical infrastructure” isn’t the word choice your organization would gravitate towards, but it pays to take the time to consider the words you use and whether they convey the proper meaning and value.

I can think of other words I’ve seen used in annual reports and similar documents that are frequently left unexplained to the reader.  It’s vital to remember that a reader likely brings his/her own preconceived notions into the reading of your organization’s documents.  For example, “fundraising related expenses” is commonly one of the budget items found in a pie graph illustrating yearly expenses.  Left unexplained that broad, indeterminate choice of words lets the reader come to their own conclusions, which could leave them thinking that piece of the pie paid only for wining and dining corporate sponsors.  That’s probably not the conclusion you want them to come to; however, you haven’t left them much alternative other than to make up their own story, because the words are so unclear and there’s no accompanying explanation.  This could be a great chance to introduce the people who do your organization’s fundraising tasks and even tell a story about how that piece of the pie gets used.  Similar to “overhead” perhaps “fundraising related expenses” is a phrase in need of a makeover.  Maybe incorporating words like sustainability, support, or outreach would do a better job of explaining this budget area.  

You can probably think of other words/phrases your organization uses that could use some deeper thought and consideration.  Take some time with board members, staff, volunteers, and those being served by your nonprofit to brainstorm and discuss.  This is the sort of project that, once you put the idea in people's heads, they will keep thinking about and come back with new ideas over time.  Whatever you do—new words, explanations, or both—take control of your organization’s narrative and help the reader, who is hopefully a potential donor, volunteer, or advocate, understand how your organization responsibly stewards its funds to maximize its impact. 

When I ask nonprofits whether they invest in training related to fund development the answer is frequently "Well..." followed by an explanation about how they look to their general operating fund for money to pay for conferences, webinars, etc. when the opportunities present themselves.  I would argue that the truthful answer in these situations is "No, we don't invest."  This might sound harsh, but what isn't acknowledged can't be changed and I'm a big advocate of facing up to reality in order to make the future better. 

If a staff person has to go begging to the general fund anytime a training opportunity arises this sends a clear message to them: you are taking away money from this organization's mission.  Furthermore it implies a lack of interest in the continued professional development of the staff, which can be demoralizing, and a lack of understanding about the often difficult and complicated nature of fund development, which necessitates ongoing learning.  

By no means do I believe a lot of money has to be set aside for training and even a modest amount can be quite meaningful if used appropriately.  (By modest I mean truly modest: $100 can buy quite a few books or a webinar on a salient subject or maybe even membership in a local group for fundraising professionals.)  What's most important is the act of setting aside the money--and the necessary time to engage in training--because it shows a level of professional respect for the person(s) who is endeavoring to keep your organization financially afloat.  When this happens then an organization can say they invest in fundraising training.

Final thought: investment in training isn't just for paid staff or only for staff who have the words "development", "fund", or "grant" in their titles.  This investment is as important (or even more important) for volunteer staff and board members.  Volunteers staff deserve the utmost courtesy and respect for their devotion to an organization and one way to show this is by helping them gain new skills, connect to professionals, etc.  The topic of board member involvement in fundraising is complicated and often fraught with unspoken expectations by both the organization and board members and perhaps I'll touch on this more in a future post, but suffice it to say that boards should also set aside time and money for their own fund development education.  There is nothing to be lost by having more people connected with a nonprofit who understand the value, strategies, and peculiar nature of fund development.