I am hearing this more and more as I travel and speak with diocesan development officers:

We are considering adopting a university model of development

I served as the chief advancement officer for three institutions of higher education.

Even with this experience, I am not really sure what a “university” model of development is.

I think, and I may be wrong, that diocesan development directors look to the higher education advancement arena in relation to that sector’s emphasis on securing major gifts and, from such witness, decide that they, as their counterparts in higher education, need to develop and staff a major gifts office.

Yet, this imperative, of securing and developing a major gifts office, is not the exclusive practice of colleges and universities. 

It is just good and essential not for profit development practice.

There are, however, some similarities between annual fund operations in both the higher education and diocesan setting.  Firstly, one must understand that 30% of the operating support a college or univeristy receives comes directly from alumni.  This being said, how does a college maximize the revenue received from this sector?

• Alumni giving is directly dependent upon a positive student experience. (Do you think that individuals give to your diocesan annual appeal if they have had a bad experience with a pastor or other church official?)
• Alumni giving is dependent upon ongoing engagement as their is a direct relationship between the size of gift and the length to which the alma mater has engaged the prospect/donor. (How often do you communicate to your donors and what do you communicate?  Do you only reach out to your appeal donors when you send them a pledge reminder?)
• Alumni give when asked and young alumni should be asked for a small contribution (In your direct annual appeal mail pieces, do you have the same guide to giving to all of your constitutents?  Are you asking lapsed or never givers to make the same commitment as current donors?)

 

It has been a rough summer out here in the northeast.

Several dioceses have announced reductions in force, the sale of significant properties, and other measures that connote financial distress.

I just finished a great book by Ron Mattocks entitled “The Zone of Insolvency.”

Some interesting points:

- prior to the economic downturn, 1/3 of all not for profit organizations in The United States were in some form of financial distress (this, for Mattocks’, is the “zone of insolvency”)
- as a result of the recent financial downturn, 1/3 of those organizations that were in financial distress will cease to exist by the end of the year (for those of you who like math, that is 50,000 not for profit organizations)

Mattocks spends a lot of time, largely through the use of case studies, delineating why entities in the not for profit sector slip into financial duress.

One specific reason caught my eye:

A charitable mission that has become irrelevant ….

Now before you grab your crosiers and beat me to death, I am not suggesting that the mission of the church has become irrelevant.

What I am suggesting, however, is that how and what we may communicate to our current and potential donors about our mission may be … just may be …. irrelevant.

Don’t believe me?

Look at your annual appeal participation levels over the last five years.

Do you know what inspires your donors to support your annual appeal and do you speak to that inspiration?

Do you know if donors are opening those lovely annual appeal brochures that you send each year?

Simply ask yourself: Why are my donors leaving, and what can I do to make this appeal relevant in their philanthropic lives?

If I look back on my professional life (I am 46, such reflection is not uncommon), I notice two threads that I now realize are intimately bound to each other. 

• Every position that I held required me to build a program from almost scratch.
• It was very hard to leave those positions

I now know that I suffered from “Founder Syndrome”.

I got the diagnosis from one of those high tech Foundation Center podcasts.

Founder Syndrome.

I think development officers need a general innoculation against this management virus.

What are the symptoms?

1. The person managing the program and the program are seen by both external and internal constituencies as “one”.  It is “Jim’s” program.  As the person who gave birth to the program, the creator is intimately bound to that which is created.
2. Letting go of the program, even small pieces of the program, is difficult for the person suffering from “Founders Syndrome”.
3. If there is a governance board associated with the management of the program, then the director, the “founder”, has a close association with that board.

So, you may ask, “who cares?”

Having “Founder Syndrome” manifests itself in small, and often, problematic ways:

1. The Founder finds risky decisions difficult.  It is, after all, their organization.  As such, the management environment can become stagnated, often relying upon the old addage, “that is the way that we have done things.”  As such, performance metrics can become stagnated and innovation may be seen as a threat.
2. The Founder may micromanage.  Ownership breeds control:  it is a simple management truism.
3. The Founder never leaves the organization.  No one likes leaving one’s child – so the Founder sticks around and management, like fish, gets really bad after a period of time.

Founder Syndrome.

I was listening to those new fangled development broadcasts on my ipod and heard a great line

“Donors, not gifts, are the life blood of the organization”

I thought about this and reflected on the many conversations that I have had, as of late, with many diocesan development directors.

A lot of people are really happy that, in this economy, they have met their annual fund goals.

Yet, although the receipts are robust, there seems to be a general pattern of donor attrition among my diocesan colleagues.

“Receipts are up … Donors are down”

So, I say to myself, self:

“What are we doing differently to get these people back into the fold”

Some thoughts on the matter:

1. Their return to the fold is essential. As your donor numbers continue to diminish – their ability to sustain your current and ever increasing appeal expectencies will be pushed and, eventually, they will find the bottom of their pocket.

2. Stop trying to reacquire your lapsed donors through direct mail. You have been mailing to them for years in the hopes that they respond. They have not.

3. Consider more relational based marketing platforms to reacquire those lapsed donors including web microsites and personalized uniform resource locators.

These tasks are essential for the strategic health of the annual campaign.

Good luck and enjoy.

I have been doing a lot of traveling as of late.

My current position requires such, but even the air miles I put on the board last month was, as my mother used to say, “a little much.”

But I learned something.

I spent a lot of time in a lot of development offices, talking to a lot of development directors.

They all told me the same thing:

“I have been told to downsize my department.”

Apparently, with the current economic contractions, the cognoscenti have asked their development teams to downsize in order to save money.

Huh?

Look, if the economy is getting leaner, and I suspect that it is, then the number of people who support charitable causes, ANY charitable cause, will become fewer.

Stands to reason, don’t it?

And if those who can support ANY charitable cause are becoming fewer, and the number of charitable entities continue to grow (which they most certainly will), the demand for philanthropic support will become more intense.

More consumers, fewer contributors, increased competition for the philanthropic dollar.

Sounds like a great time to downsize the development team.

I study how the for profit world survives during economic contractions – and what is really interesting – is that those companies who survive – and thrive – regardless of the economic climate – all have one thing in common.

They ramp up their marketing expenditures during a lean economy – they spend more money to retain current clients and attract new customers.

We should consider doing the same.