You have worked hard.

You have built a high performing development team that raises a lot of money.

Great.

When you move on, when you hear the siren call of another position, will the organization that you worked so hard to build survive your passing?

Is your development operation sustainable?

Over the last three years, Peter York, senior vice president of the tcc group, (www.tccgrp.com), has deployed an assessment tool within seven hundred not for profit organizations to determine what internal qualities make a not for profit organization sustainable. 

In short, his findings were illuminating:

1.        Sustainable organizations have the resources to deliver essential programs.

Every development operation should maintain, at the very least, a strong and dedicated annual fund, major gift and data management capability.  Notice I used the word “dedicated”:  this term translates to having distinct  and qualified staff managing these areas.  Relying upon persons that have multiple responsibilities for the management of multiple programs is a recipe for organizational disaster.

2.       Sustainable organizations evidence “reflective” management (my words).

Every development operation should have a clear understanding of the performance metrics associated with each and every implemented program.  How do we know what to do if we do not clearly understand what does and does not work?  If our development programs and methodologies are informed by either routine or tradition, I can assure you that you are wasting money in implementation of your advancement programs.

3.       Sustainable organizations raise money well.

Duh, you may say.  Yet, development is not just a volume business.  You may raise a lot of money, but how, for example, are  your donor retention and acquisition efforts going?  “Development” is not a one trick pony and effective development organizations earn that title by performing well in a myriad of areas.

4.       Sustainable organizations are well led.

Every great leader has three things in common.  They can articulate a vision, they can get their management team to “buy into” that vision and can articulate methodologies whereby that vision can be realized.  Creativity.  Collegiality. Focus.   

York’s complete study can be found at http://www.tccgrp.com/pdfs/EffectiveAdvocacy_final.pdf and I would recommend that you spend some time reviewing it.

I write this newly returned from the 2010 National Direct Marketing Association Conference.

There were, of course, amazing, compelling and uplifting programs presented by a host of people who are a lot smarter than me.

What really rocked my world, made my head almost explode actually, was what I discovered when I walked through the vendor area.

Imagine three hundred companies, all in the same room, whose sole focus is to optimize the way in which you communicate with your constituents. And by and large, each of these companies utilize state of the art technologies to do so.

Some of this stuff is not cutting edge, it is not leading edge, it redefines where the edge begins.

And it dawned on me: these companies sell a lot of their product to a lot of not for profit organizations (or so they told me) to optimize the way in which they raise money.

These are the organizations with whom you compete, every day, for the philanthropic dollar, and these organizations are implementing technology platforms and processes that are, for lack of a better term, mind blowing.

Work hard at moving past direct mail as your sole or primary solicitation methodology.

It is in your best interest.

Donor Fatigue. 

It was a term that I heard a lot when I was a diocesan development director.

Sure, each year, our annual appeal surpassed previous performance levels.  Yet, over five years, our donor base contracted over twenty percent.  In speaking with my colleagues throughout the northeast, I discovered that they were experiencing similar performance dynamics within their annual program.  Of more interest, of those diocesan development directors who were experiencing growth within their annual giving base, such growth was being achieved by simply adding more donors than they were loosing.  Yes, they were adding contributors, but they were also experiencing significant donor attrition.

Donor fatigue. 

What are the symptoms of this common affliction:

1.  Reduce campaign response rates.  Sure, people move.  Sure, people die.  Sure, their philanthropic priorities change.  Yet, a reduction of more than 3% in campaign participation rates should be a red flag that something more than a change of address or human mortality is impacting your annual fund.

2. Increase in letters or calls indicating why current donors are no longer supporting your annual program.  I was always amazed at how much time and effort current donors put into explaining why they were no longer supporting my annual program.  It should be a matter of concern if you are spending more time on the phone than usual hearing the mea culpas of individuals who have traditionally supported your annual program.

What causes this affliction?

I believe that the cause, to quote the bard, is not in the stars but in ourselves.  If all we do is ask for money, then people are going to get tired of the conversation. 

So, you may ask, what is the cure?

1. Diocesan development officers need to consider developing a strategic donor communication program that creates meaningful, constant, and relevant communication patterns with annual appeal donors.  Emails, newsletters, and other communication vehicles should be pushed out to the donor base on a consistent schedule.

2.  Allow the donors to rest.  Consider creating “blackout” periods where annual fund pledge statements are not mailed to donors. 

Give them a chance to catch their breath, and they may stick around.