As a fundraiser, there are countless demands on your day – are you maximizing the time you spend with your top donors, how is that grant proposal coming, are the plans for the next special event where they need to be today, is your direct mail appeal ready to mail, and why aren’t your board members do more fundraising themselves?

Those demands can overshadow an important tool for your success in fundraising: a professional association.  There are a variety of associations you can join for building a collegial and supportive network, including Association of Fundraising Professionals and The Giving Institute, and then there are industry-specific associations such as the Association for Healthcare Philanthropy.  Colleagues in these forums can offer you advice, a shoulder to cry on, and three cheers for your wildly successful endeavors.  They understand exactly what you do in your job, like no one else.

You know how it is: people ask what you do, you tell them you're a fundraiser, and either there's a blank look or they head for the hills, afraid you're going to ask them for money! But when I first joined my fundraising association, I was delighted to find myself surrounded by people who knew much more than I did about the fundraising profession, and I didn't have to explain that it goes way beyond bake sales. I met people deeply engaged in and committed their work and who were curious about mine.

The professional association that I have belonged to for almost 20 years is the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP).  My first fundraising job was at the Eleanor Roosevelt Institute, and I had the fortune to work for someone who believed in the value of professional associations, especially AFP.  She supported my attending the monthly educational meetings and had the organization pay my membership dues.  She even endorsed my scholarship application for the annual AFP International Conference, which I attended in Los Angeles as a junior fundraiser.

As a member of AFP, I took the opportunity to learn from the more seasoned professionals I met and cultivated several informal mentorships.  I enjoyed being part of the group and was proud to be a member of an association that promoted ethical fundraising and continuing education to make us better at our jobs.  About five years after becoming a member and volunteering on a few committees, I was nominated to join the board.  It was an honor (and not a little bit frightening) to think that I was joining the ranks of these committed professionals.  It has turned out to be one of the most rewarding experiences of my professional life.

Now I am serving as the Executive Director for the AFP Colorado Chapter, and I’m excited to be playing such a pivotal role with the organization.  It’s a thrill to work on my favorite event of the year, National Philanthropy Day.  The award winners' stories are so inspiring and remind me why I do this work.  I also have the privilege to work on a premier conference, the Rocky Mountain Philanthropy Institute, held in Vail, Colorado in September.  This conference provides a venue full of networking and excellent educational offerings, all in a fabulous scenic location.  The local chapter of AFP also provides a formal mentorship program and countless volunteer opportunities to give back to the profession.

If you haven’t already, I highly recommend that you consider joining a professional organization like AFP to find like-minded colleagues and build your network.  I truly believe that I’ve reached this place in my career because of my experience with AFP.  Hopefully, your employer will support you in joining an association like it, giving you time to attend their educational sessions and paying your annual dues. It’s worth every penny! And if you choose to join AFP, please introduce yourself to me at one of our educational sessions so that I can help you take advantage of all that AFP has to offer.  

AFP is the leading professional association for individuals responsible for generating philanthropic support for a wide variety of nonprofit organizations. The Association advances philanthropy through its more than 30,000 members in 230 chapters throughout North America. Since 1960, AFP has inspired global change and supported efforts that generated over $1 trillion, with members raising more than $100 billion annually. This is equivalent to one-third of all charitable giving in North America and millions more around the world. The International Headquarters is located in Arlington, Virginia. Check out their video.

DeAnn Acosta, Certified Fund Raising Executive (CFRE), is the Principal Consultant at Mosaic Fundraising and is the Executive Director of the Association of Fundraising Professionals/Colorado Chapter.

In a conversation the other day with a friend who is a major donor and volunteer working on a capital campaign, she asked me about the efficacy of email versus direct mail. As we talked about the pros and cons of each, I quickly noticed that we weren't really talking about these tactics - or, well, we were, but that wasn't the real issue. The real issue plaguing the progress of my friend's capital campaign was the lack of an overall strategy for the entire effort - the "campaign" part of the equation was missing.

The reason capital campaigns are so named is because raising some factor more than an organization's annual budget (which is generally part of what defines a capital campaign) takes time. Maintaining momentum, knowing where the organization stands as time marches on, and what to do differently in each stage of a campaign is what makes for success. And the key to an effective campaign is a plan.

Someone who has been through a campaign before, someone who knows how to perceive the "lay of land" (in this case, who are the prospects, what do they care about, how much can they give, what will motivate them to do so, etc.) and someone who can galvanize others (in other words, a leader) is needed to develop a plan that will carry the organization through from alpha to omega in the process. Needless to say, this plan must be strategic and visionary - in other words, it must consider the big picture and the long range. It also must be flexible, identifying key indicators that call for this option or that. It must also have milestones so everyone involved can see what progress is being made and that trigger certain activities from specified people.

In my friend's case, the lack of a campaign plan became clear to me because of several things she mentioned: 1) they were moving into "Phase 2" of the campaign, 2) they were beginning the public appeal process, from which they expected to raise $250-500k, and 3) they still needed to raise a third of the total. For starters, most campaigns have three or more fundraising phases, the last of which is the public appeal. This may seem counterintuitive: why wouldn't you want to let as many people know about the campaign as early as possible so you could raise money from as many people as you can? Well, the reason is that most campaigns raise the largest amount of funds from a few major donors. For example, my friend's $15M campaign has already raised $10M, and only about 20 people have committed funds so far. This is pretty typical.

Also, the "public appeal" raises the smallest dollar amount, but involves the largest number of people. Because of this, it signals the time to make a big public announcement of the campaign. And this takes place when the overall success of the campaign is assured. (No organization wants to face the reputation crusher of a campaign announced that doesn't reach its goal or fails altogether!) It is a very important phase, galvanizing the entire community around the cause, but it should not be announced prematurely - whether by email or snail mail or any other tactic.

Finally, when my friend told me her organization still needed to raise a third of their total (~$5 million), but that they were starting the public appeal from which they expected $250-500k, it was clear that the overall logic and sequencing of the campaign had not been worked out. When a campaign plan is weak or missing, a common result will be debates over the merits of tactics, instead of evaluating them based on a common understanding of the campaign's phases and overall momentum. These debates can degenerate into full-on conflict if the organization doesn't address the underlying issue - and fast.

There are plenty of fabulous new ways to raise money these days - and discussing the merits and options among them is a great idea. However, one thing hasn't changed and isn't likely to: raising big money is a big undertaking and requires big leadership with a big-thinking plan. That's why a capital campaign is still just that - a campaign.

By Rebecca Reynolds


Donor motivation isn't mysterious. It’s common sense.

All choices are influenced by what motivates us - that's obvious. Whether a potential donor chooses to give to an organization or not is one such choice - and the possible motivations for giving or not are various. As a colleague said to me today "when someone asks what makes a donor give, I say, show me the donor." In other words, people have different motivations for making the choices they make.

We all share similar motivations, but some of them (and some combinations of them) are more common to certain types of funders. Some donor motivations include:      

- Participate in something worthwhile
- Become involved with something in which one believes
- Increase connection to something cared about
- Align with something positive
- Support shared beliefs, values, priorities
- Respond to a friend’s request
- Gain access to a particular group of people 
- Recognition of an effective effort
- Assuage guilt
- Give back 
- Learn something
- Support a desired change
- Get a tax deduction

Donor motivation is one of the most important aspects of fundraising since it's what drives the donor to give or not. Unfortunately, donor motivation is something many nonprofits fail to carefully consider. And the result is too often one-size-fits-all fundraising.  An organization that doesn’t understand or consider donor motivation in its fundraising program is like a person visiting a foreign country without considering the language barrier. Effective fundraising means understanding donor motivation and actively addressing it.

How does an organization effectively address donor motivation? Well, ideally, each donor would be cultivated using tailor-made communications, materials and benefits to fit their unique motivations. And this is exactly what makes major gift fundraising successful. However, creating a custom package for every single donor simply is not possible - so successful fundraising designs different campaigns to appeal to a broad range of predictable donor motivations.

The important thing to remember is that motivation creates expectation.

Motivations create expectations from the donors about what the organization should do once it has their money. For example, some individual donors may expect nothing more than a good feeling that they helped out, but most also expect, at minimum, an
acknowledgment of their gift for tax purposes. Others may expect some form of recognition (name listed in a program, annual report or on a website); some will expect inclusion in events and perhaps even something tangible like a mug or poster. 

Corporations’ motivations for giving are generally related to marketing. Specific expectations may include various opportunities for name alignment with the organization, entertainment opportunities for customers and employees, and visibility of the brand and/or
products. Foundations, on the other hand, are in the business of investing in nonprofit organizations and so have the expectation of an effective service or product delivered with evidence of its benefit achieved. Foundations’ funding motivations and expectations then are more similar to a bank considering a loan. Although the foundation doesn’t expect or want to be repaid, it will use similar criteria to assess the worthiness of the nonprofit as a recipient of its funding.

Effective fundraising programs take into account these differing motivations and expectations, and design clear communication up front about what expectations will be met and how. However, when gifts are received fundraising work is still not complete. The successful nonprofit follows through on what has been promised to the donor - in other words, fulfills the expectation, and in doing so, sets the stage for the next fundraising appeal.

Fundraising is a cycle of relationship. Knowing and anticipating your donors' motivations, designing ways to appeal to them, and following through all create a satisfying donor experience. And a satisfied donor is a repeat giver, just about every time.  

Nonprofit-KnowHow covers this topic in greater detail in the Fundraising 101 and Asking for Money chapters. Find out more. 

By Rebecca Reynolds

"Nonprofits aren't sustainable." How many times have I heard that? Too many. The idea that nonprofits aren't sustainable, that they are too dependent on gifts and grants, that they can only truly succeed with some sort of earned income stream reveals a fundamental lack of understanding about the nonprofit business model. Let's take a look.

First off, the idea that only earned income (the exchange of goods or services for money) is sustainable is ridiculous. How many for profit businesses have gone out of business because their source of earned income was no longer viable? Plenty. Earned income falls prey to the same ups and downs of the market that contributed income does. So, it's more apt to say that what is sustainable is having a broad enough income stream (funds coming in from a variety of sources) to ride the vicissitudes of the economy. Just as a financial advisor advises for a retirement portfolio, this is common sense.

Second, contributed income (grants and gifts) being unsustainable long-term is also ridiculous. United Way, Planned Parenthood, and the Boys and Girls Clubs of America - to name a mere few - have been in the nonprofit business with substantial funds coming from donations for more than 100 years each. That sounds pretty darned sustainable to me.

"Over dependence on gifts and grants" is like saying that Coca-Cola has an over dependence on its customers' willingness or ability to buy their product. Ridiculous. In fact, people have always been interested in contributing to good works, especially when there is the added incentive of a tax write-off for doing so. This doesn't mean these gifts can be taken for granted, any more than Coke can keep selling the same old way without regard to changing demographics, social trends and other market drivers. Nonprofits need to innovate just as continually and effectively as Nike or Coke (and rely on those specialists with the expertise to do so - more on this below).

Now let's look at where these fallacious ideas come from. I usually hear the nonprofit sustainability criticism coming from people in the for profit sector (often people with MBAs!) The idea of contributed income - money given without material gain - is foreign there (and I daresay, anathema). So, too many nonprofits are misdirected by board members coming from for profits who, not understanding the asset of the 501(c)3 or the profession of fundraising, push earned income methods such as golf tournaments, galas, and now online programs - all to avoid "dependence" on gifts. This misses the entire point of the nonprofit sector business model!

There's nothing at all wrong with golf tournaments or galas - many nonprofits make good money and many new friends with these types of revenue generators. But there also is nothing wrong with writing grant proposals to foundations that are in the business of granting money each year (5% of their funds, by law) or cultivating relationships with major donors who are looking for ways to put their money to good use. Nor is there anything wrong with applying for government grants that are specifically designed to encourage innovation and good works beyond the reach and ability of government.

In fact, the nonprofit sector is set up to benefit from the fact that it does good and important work for our society that is, for the most part, not commercially viable (if it was, there'd be a for profit taking it on, you can be sure!) In exchange for this good work, the American people 1) don't require income tax be paid on any profits generated (and yes, nonprofits CAN make a profit - it just can't be distributed to owners or shareholders) and 2) allow those who financially support these good works through organizations with 501(c)3 status to deduct the amount on their tax returns. In this way, nonprofits have an income stream wholly unique to them, with people expert in capitalizing on it.

And that's my next point. The only time there's anything wrong with gifts and grants is when the people trying to bring funds in from those sources don't have the know-how to do so. Trust me - I've seen it. It's like a group of earnest folks deciding to perform an appendectomy on someone in need - the gesture may be well-intentioned, but most of us would prefer a surgeon. It's no wonder board members get fed up with "fundraising" and want to do something they understand: sell something!

But this is simply cutting off the nonprofit's nose to spite its face. The fundraising profession has gotten better and better as the demand for good work increases (nonprofits account for more start-ups than for profits) and the pace of change drives the need for innovation. Nonprofits can't rest on their laurels and rely on the same foundations, major gifts and government grants year after year. Times change and so must fundraising strategy. In this environment, the value of expert fundraising professionals is significant, and savvy nonprofit boards will view them as just as critical to business success as their mission professionals. 

So, if we agree that sustainability comes from a diverse revenue stream, then nonprofits having contributed as well as earned income makes good business sense. In fact, it makes them incredibly sustainable, which is why the business model still works.

Advisory Boards: Part 2
By Rebecca Reynolds

Picking up from where we left off with advisory boards last week, we'll continue our discussion of what the nonprofit needs to consider and decide about its advisory board before bringing on any members.  To reiterate, all the decisions the nonprofit makes with regard to the role and
functioning of advisory boards should be concisely articulated in the chartering document. The charter creates internal clarity and also serves to inform the prospective advisory board member when the time comes to begin recruiting. As always, setting expectations from the outset makes for a good match between board member (no matter what type of board) and the nonprofit.

Let's take contributions first - should advisory boards be expected to make them? While this is a decision for the particular nonprofit, it’s generally a good assumption that if a potential advisory board member is willing and able to give a major contribution then s/he probably should be on the governing board. This is because the nonprofit wants individuals on the governing board who are highly committed and able to lead in raising money; a major contribution is indicative of both. So, in most cases advisory board members are not expected to donate funds to the organization since what is wanted from them is their advice and stature - a huge stake in the nonprofit is not necessary.

One case where a financial contribution may be merited is for advisory board members who have been outstanding board members, and the advisory board position is used as an honorary position. In such a case, the individual will likely continue their charitable giving and may set an example for other advisory board members. However, this practice is more of a blurring of advisory and honorary boards, which may or may not be a beneficial strategy.

Terms are another question that should be addressed in the advisory board charter. Since the advisory board member’s duties are fairly limited (that is, answer a question or make a connection now and again and lend their name to the letterhead and website), the term may be indefinite. This may best suit the nonprofit anyway since this type of individual is not as easily replaced. Imagine if your organization was able to secure one of the leaders in its field as an advisory board member – would the organization want that individual to rotate off? Likely not. So, as long as the person is willing, and their name and position are in good standing, the nonprofit should have no reason to want to rotate him/her off the advisory board.

Finally, the nonprofit will want to develop a list of prospects for the advisory board. The primary criteria (although there may be others) are:

1. Mission and/or mission support expertise needed by the nonprofit and the willingness to advise

2. Position and standing in the community and/or industry of the nonprofit

3. Willingness to have their name on the nonprofit’s letterhead/website

4. Accessible to supply expertise, advice and contacts as needed by the nonprofit (see below for how often)

5. Not suitable for the governing board (no interest, not enough time, not an appropriate match to other governing board members, etc.)

As to the number of advisory board members, this is also a matter of choice, but a good guideline is too few (less than five) may appear thin and not enough to constitute a board. (If the nonprofit has a few individuals who would make great advisory members, they could be listed simply as special advisors, rather than a board.) While too many members (more than a dozen) may be difficult to keep track of and to find space for in marketing materials. However, some large institutions have quite large advisory boards (as well as a host of other special entities and groups) to create layers and breadth of organizational support. This is an excellent practice, as long as the nonprofit has the capacity to maintain each group and to be sufficiently clear about its role, purpose and functioning.

As for what advisory boards may expect in return for their support of the nonprofit, the nature of the relationship generally indicates limited expectations on the part of advisory board members. That's one distinct advantage of advisory boards. However, since the advisory board member’s role is to give advice, the nonprofit should avail itself of this expertise periodically. The frequency of contact will be up to the individual nonprofit, but remember that if the advisory board member is never called, the individual will likely forget about the relationship or perhaps even take offense at not being asked to fulfill the role. If called upon too often, the individual may find the position an annoyance. (Calling too often is likely a sign that the nonprofit really needs that individual's expertise on the governing board.) Finding the sweet spot of how often to contact advisory board members is up to the individual nonprofit and the type of individuals on the advisory board, but a good rule of thumb is between one and four times per year.

Regarding the use of the advisory board member’s name and affiliation, it should go without saying that there is no margin for error in the nonprofit's getting the name correctly spelled and the affiliation correctly titled. Beyond this, keeping the advisory board member apprised of the nonprofit’s efforts and achievements makes good sense. Any other kindnesses and/or acknowledgments for the advisory board member’s service are at the discretion and creativity of the nonprofit. It is wise for the nonprofit to carefully consider the type of individual it will seek for its advisory board, and then develop a range of possible acknowledgements appropriate to them. (This principle applies to all forms of acknowledgment.) Some research into what other similar organizations are doing is always a good starting point.

All told, advisory boards can be a tremendous asset to a nonprofit, and can be a smart investment in the nonprofit’s time in its early days since the long-term benefits of advice and credibility are incalculable. However, like all boards, advisory boards are generally more valuable to nonprofits that have done the work up front to define and articulate roles and expectations.

By Rebecca Reynolds

A lot of nonprofits raise money quite well with events. But many are just plain worn out from throwing party after party, most of which have little or nothing to do with the mission. If this is you, here's another way to think about events.

The best thing about events is that they put the organization in direct contact with people. And one of the fundamental principles of fundraising (and you can learn about all of these in Nonprofit-KnowHow) is that giving is based on relationship. So events are a terrific opportunity to meet people and cultivate relationships.

But if the nonprofit is so busy picking napkin colors, selling tickets, taking registrations, assigning seats or tee-times, the relationship part can get lost in the shuffle. So how about doing events that are ONLY about relationships instead?

We did this at one of the nonprofits (an arts organization) I worked with - it was a young organization and I realized that we just didn't know very many people in town. So, I created the concept of "warm-ups" - intimate and brief events designed to meet people and get acquainted. That's it. No speeches. No presentations. No asking for money or shoving a pledge card in under the napkin.

We also kept the format simple. Here's what we did (and feel free to adjust any of the particulars to suit your style!):

1) Cocktail party format: 2 hours right after work so people could drop by on their way home, held in a setting appropriate to the nonprofit. We held ours at the artistic director's home because he had mementos of performances from all over the world decorating his home - perfect conversation starters!

2) A simple invitation with 3 or 4 optional dates for the same time, night of the week, and spread out over 6-8 weeks. This made it much easier for people to say yes since they could pick the one that fit their schedule.

3) Our design was a simple card in an envelope, but the card was actually a postcard, with our mailing address on the back. The guest filled out their name in a blank provided and checked the date, then put it in the mail back to us. (You can also use e-invites, if your target audience is tech savvy.)

4) We used the board to build the invitee list, which was easy since no one was being asked for money. We put everyone on the list we could think of: CEOs, heads of foundations, legislators, philanthropists, artists, educators - everyone who we wanted as part of our circle.

5) At first, the RSVPs were minimal - I think we got five people at the first event, so we padded the guest list with board members and volunteers, and told everyone to mingle and have a good time! Soon the word grew that these were great events to meet people, and our RSVP ratio went up.

6) We did these regularly for four years until we met and developed relationships with every opinion leader in the city, and then we did them intermittently as needed. 

What were the benefits? We were on a first name basis with many influential people, with whom we had shared stories and broken bread. These relationships paved the way for a wide range of good things for the nonprofit for years to come. We made a modest investment that gave back over and over in foundation grants, real estate assistance, estate gifts, new board members, special treatment at the bank and on and on.

So, the next time you consider doing a lot of work to put on an event to raise a few bucks, ask yourself: would it be better to focus on building relationships instead?