Funny how time slips away.
I wrote this blog two years ago. Nothing I have learned since has changed. In fact, my musings then may have even greater relevancy now (not always the case, to be sure!). Higher education and mission-driven nonprofits have the same issues. Not having time, or taking time, is central to the challenges of hiring the right staff, training them (is that an acceptable term?) and keeping them. I thought I would revisit it, and see. Al Green knew. KCB
The day fund raising goals became a line item in college and university budgets a paradigm shifted, and development and alumni relations, whose fundraising efforts used to provide for " the margin of excellence," were now was on the hook to raise fungible dollars for existing programs and projects…in a stressed environment to set tuition and fees, improve post-2008 endowment investment returns and, in the case of public universities, ever dwindling state support. Add to those challenges the seismic shift in the way education can be delivered and priced, the search for valid measures for the "value" of a traditional education, the rising wave (all good) of non traditional students, and the inevitable decrease (demise) in boomer and silent generations, is it no wonder that development and institutional advancement offices are stressed? Yet, expectations only soar.
Mission-oriented nonprofits share similar issues and challenges, and while the scale might be smaller, the pressure is proportional; perhaps felt even more acutely. With some notable exceptions, most nonprofits are totally dependent on charitable contributions. Few have sizable endowments, capital or operating reserves. Staff turnover can be crippling. Donor pools ebb and flow, but rarely dramatically in either direction. Yet, expectations soar.
The new paradigm has created a generation of development officers who are skilled in "process:" wealth screening, donor surveys, outcomes, productivity metrics, clearance, and prospect meetings. Smaller, or under-resourced development shops need fund raisers to produce newsletters, edit magazines, feed social media channels…and spend serious time on sorting resumes and leading search committees.
The more time spent on process about donors (and staff), leaves less time to spend with prospects and donors. Less time is allocated for cultivation, and for building long-term relationships and donors’ trust.
Organizational impatience, and the pressure to hit monthly targets, can result in asking too soon, and settling for a smaller gift, or even not securing a gift at all. Less time is available to learn the craft, or to accompany a skilled fund raiser on a call. Intuition and the art of fund raising aren't observed, or learned. CASE- or AFP-style training helps; but experienced colleagues and mentors are better. Development leaders and search and placement firms (like mine) lament the dearth of candidates for major or principal gifts positions who have actually asked for gifts!
Those fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to "learn the craft" and close large gifts are in high demand; there simply are not enough of them. In my experience, it takes three years for a new hire to truly get up to speed and be productive; which is about the time that experienced professionals are lured away by higher salaries and better titles, causing all manner of disruptions for people and organizations.
A former president of Harvard famously had 80+ personal one-on-one visits with a potential donor before he secured a nine figure gift. Who these days has that kind of time, patience, or commitment? How many major gifts are closed after one visit?
The current generation of development officers has extraordinary passion, smarts and talent. Leadership needs to free them from Excel, and Powerpoint, and teach them the craft. Heed the admonition of an old friend, colleague, and superb fund raiser: "Spend time with rich people.” Easy peasy, if you have the time.