Too Busy To Fundraise

The Blame Game

janet@janetlevineconsulting.com (Janet Levine) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:50:00 +0000

If I can blame you for all my problems, then I don’t have to face facts or—heaven forefend—reality. Kids do that a lot. It’s not my fault, they say, as if that solved anything. But kids grow up and we can hope that in growing up, they learn to take responsibility.

What about organizations? What happens when the organizational culture is one of pointing fingers rather than finding real solutions? Of refusing to accept culpability for bad or even neutral things?

Pointing fingers can wear many different guises. The organization who “can’t fundraise” because they “don’t have resources,” is playing the blame game just as much as the man who says his failures are all his mother’s fault.

It’s not, of course, just about fundraising, though organizational attitudes about fundraising do have implications that reach far and wide.

There are ongoing discussions about what nonprofits are and are not. Some of those discussions center around financial issues: Can or should a nonprofit actually be profitable?

Personally, I’ve always thought this as bogus. Yes, clearly what sets nonprofits apart from for-profits is the focus—the latter on earnings, the former on mission. And yes, frequently, perhaps always, that mission is by definition something that cannot pay for itself, let alone make surplus dollars. But the organization always has other options for earning revenue. Beyond that, the organization has an obligation to spend what monies it does have wisely.

So OK, the core mission is a money-suck. The nonprofit is always scrambling to meet payroll, to pay vendors, to keep moving its mission forward. Organizations whose culture is one of accountability and responsibility, of understanding that part of running the organization is ensuring its fiscal health, seem do well.

Those organizations somehow understand that fundraising is as important a part of the organization as are the programs. It isn’t someone else’s responsibility—it is everyone’s. That doesn’t mean that every staff member and volunteer goes out and asks people for money. It does mean that development must be incorporated into the organization. As plans are made and budgets are developed, fundraising must be considered.

Every professional fundraiser will tell you that the hardest money to raise is unrestricted dollars….unless you can clearly show how that money will make a difference in your mission and why that mission matters.

Think about it. If someone asks for $1,000 to allow her to do what she does, your reaction won’t include reaching for your checkbook. But if that same person were to explain to you that the salary she gets from her part-time job leaves her $1,000 short in order to pay her school tuition, you may at least consider it. And if she can show you why her school tuition is important not just to her but also to you, odds are you will be moved to help.

Organizations where the leadership—and make no mistake, culture flows from the top—blame others for their failures do no service to the missions they claim to serve. It’s not the board’s fault that the needed funds did not come in; it’s not the development director’s fault if his job description wasn’t clear and no one bothered to monitor what he was doing, and it certainly isn’t the fault of those who haven’t given, especially if they haven’t been appropriately asked!

In fact, assigning blame for things that are less than successful is a losing proposition. It takes you off task, allows you to duck and not do what you should be doing. Far better to identify what the problem really is, and to create a real plan of attack that will if not completely solve at least begin to mitigate the problem. Who knows? If you stop playing the blame game, you may find yourself involved in activities with far better outcomes, ones that lead to success.

Janet Levine is a consultant who works with nonprofits and educational organizations. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Her online grantwriting class is available at www.janetlevineconsulting.com/classes.html.

Here We Go Again

janet@janetlevineconsulting.com (Janet Levine) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:01:00 +0000

Edward and Marcia Dawson have made incomes commensurate with those of Wall Street bankers. They are, however, not bankers but the founders of Social Vocation Services, a nonprofit social-service organization in California.

Personally, I don’t care how much money Mr. and Mrs. Dawson have made. But they seem to have done it in not such an ethical manner. That will give a certain group of people the ability to say, “Aha! Those nonprofits—they are just not trustworthy.” And that I do care about.

Nonprofits, it seems to me, get tarred with two sides of the same brush. First we are told we are not business-like enough. We’re inefficient, poorly managed, and unrealistic. On the other side, organizations that play by business rules are bashed because they are untrustworthy and care more about the bottom line than the mission they were created to fulfill.

There’s truth and falsity in both those sides. Nonprofits are businesses, and there should be an expectation that they are run professionally and well. Not that all businesses meet those criteria, but we should be striving to be the best. But as nonprofits, we are also mission-driven organizations, and that mission—not profit—should be what rules.

I worked in higher education for a long time and over the years, the push was to become more “business-like.” The result, I think, is that universities and colleges focus on what brings in revenue rather than on education, which presumably is their mission. Programs are decimated not because they don’t bring value to an educational organization, but rather because they don’t sustain profitability.

The educational sector is not alone in this.

Over the years, I’ve seen too many nonprofits lose sight of their mission. I see that a lot when it comes to grants or gifts that the organization really shouldn’t be seeking.

More than a decade ago I was working with an organization that was offered a grant for a project that did not meet their mission in any way, shape or form. The CEO was all for it—the grant, after all, was equal to a quarter of his operating budget. Saner heads prevailed. They helped the funder find a more appropriate organization for their grant. And for their efforts they received a much larger grant to enhance a core project.

It doesn’t always work that way, of course. Greediness often prevails. People forget why they got involved with nonprofits to begin with. Or, like so many of us, they get seduced by easy money, access to powerful people—all the same things that entice most of us.

They may or may not be bad people, but they are bad for the sector. Not so much, I think, for what they do but for what others make them stand for. A CEO of a for-profit business makes obscene amounts of money, or runs the organization into the ground. People will shake their heads and some will even be enraged. But the business community as a whole isn’t excoriated.

Let the antics of an Edward and Marcia Dawson get out, however, and trust for charitable organizations plummet.

Perhaps it is understandable that we should be held to a higher standard. But until the many, many organizations that hew to that higher standard are topics of front page news, we will have to work harder to ensure that we are letting our supporters know that we not only do good works but that we do them well and we are, therefore, worthy of their gifts and of their trust

Janet Levine is a consultant and trainer, teaching fundraising, board development and grantwriting skills online and face to face. Contact her at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com.

Finding the Right Who

janet@janetlevineconsulting.com (Janet Levine) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:22:00 +0000

Maybe it’s the season. Or perhaps it is the economy. Whatever, a number of my friends, acquaintances and clients are in the market for development staff.

”Can you recommend someone?” is the way the email generally goes. Well, yeah, but first I have to know what you are actually looking for. More to the point, you have to have what you are looking for. And no, it’s not just “someone to raise money.”

I’ve been reading Who by Geoff Smart and Randy Street, a book just about this topic. Like too many books of its kind, Who is a great magazine article masquerading as a book. That means there is a lot of filler. But there is also a lot of solid and good stuff. Good, I hasten to add, because we are in agreement.

The authors of Who note that one of the most critical points of failure in hiring come about because the managers are unclear about what is needed in a job. The other thing Smart and Street say that I really like is that instead of focusing on a bunch of activities—you know, “identify, cultivate and solicit donors and manage the donor database”—to hire the right person you must understand what is that you want the person to accomplish. Specifically. Now.

In order to be able to pinpoint that, the manager or members of the search committee will first have to have a clear vision of where the organization is and where it needs to go.

For example, many of my clients have been heavily dependent on grants for charitable revenue. We all know the direction that’s heading, so many of them really need to develop or expand an individual giving program. In order to hire the right person to do that, they will first have to define what that means in their context.

Organization A may actually have a fairly robust database of individuals who give annually very small gifts via direct mail. They will need someone who has the ability and skills to segment that data and move some of those donors up the giving pyramid.

Organization B, on the other hand, has no database and no natural constituency of individual prospects. This organization needs a rain-maker—someone who can get out there and create interest in the organization in order to build a prospect pool.

These two organizations have very different needs and the right person for one would probably be a poor hire for the other. This is why it is so important to know what you need.

But this isn’t just something to think about when you are hiring. Management jobs—and especially those involved with development—should be reviewed regularly. You must be asking: What do we need this person to accomplish now?

This question takes into consideration the initiatives you are currently working on as well as those you will be implementing shortly. It is informed by the external environment (things are different now than they were just six months ago—how have you adjusted for these changes?) and by how well your organization has managed its resources.

This doesn’t mean that you are constantly changing what you expect from staff. The things they will be doing probably won’t change. Fundraisers will continue to prospect, cultivate, solicit and steward. But the things they must get done may change.

If, for example, like so many other nonprofits, you are finding that your donors are giving less than they gave a year ago, the focus for your fundraiser may move to identifying more prospects who can give at this lower level. If your direct mail is dying on the vine, the person responsible for direct mail may also need to be looking at ways to augment this fundraising technique.

This also has serious, and to my mind terrific, impacts on evaluations and the setting up of metrics. In the past, both these activities were fairly generic if they existed at all. We should be creating a set of measurements based on what is needed over a specific time frame. Therefore these measurements may just change each year.

That makes a lot more sense to me than arbitrarily insisting that a fundraiser raise 5% more than last year (despite the economic environment), or make 112 prospect calls each year (regardless of how many prospects have already been identified) or—more likely—setting no requirements and then being disappointed because your development director didn’t meet your unstated expectations.

Janet Levine works with nonprofits on issues of productivity, resource development and board development. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com

Control Freaks Anonymous

janet@janetlevineconsulting.com (Janet Levine) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:29:00 +0000

There always seems to be one at every organization. Typically, it’s a manager, often the CEO. At a nonprofit, it frequently is a Board Member. Heck, once I had a secretary who fit the profile perfectly.

I am, perhaps not so obviously, talking about the person who has to control everything that goes anywhere near them. These are the people who are so busy working, they frequently don’t get anything done. And they certainly don’t allow anyone around them to accomplish their work.

If this is you, stop. Take a deep breath. Look around. There are competent people there who could be doing a credible job if you would just let them.

But if this is you, you probably don’t recognize yourself. If, however, you are someone who works with or for this person, you know exactly what I’m talking about. And believe me, I feel your pain.

Working for or trying to work with someone who has an issue with trust or control is more than difficult. Frustrating is one word that comes to mind. But in a world where funding is increasingly more difficult to get and where opportunities must be grasped when and where you can find them, the micromanager is more than simply frustrating. He or she becomes a serious liability.

When that person is also a CEO of talent, passion, charisma, it is that much more depressing. The very person who should be leading the organization onto what my colleague Jeff Wilcox calls “higher ground,” too often is a lead anchor. Since nothing can happen without that person’s direct input, and since that person is just too too busy for words, the result is that indeed, nothing happens.

Or rather, something, but that something isn’t positive. Nor is it benign.

I have watched as even a basic direct mail appeal cannot go out on time because the CEO has to put his or her imprint on it. So the October drop date morphs into November and when the appeal finally goes out it is in the middle of the holiday season. What might have brought a respectable 4 or 5% response, gets under 1%. And the control freak says, “See. If I hadn’t taken over, we would have gotten no response at all.”

This behavior is particularly difficult for small organizations where fundraising doesn’t get enough attention to begin with. If plans are created, they are not implemented because actions get stopped at the leader’s door. They are, they will tell you, too busy to give the plan their attention, so it will just have to wait until they have time.

I understand these people. Shoot, I am one. But when I work with someone who shows me that he or she is up to the job—cares about the outcomes, accepts responsibility for mistakes, and mostly keeps me constantly in the loop, I will, reluctantly, give up the reins and let them fly.

My mother used to tell me not to get mad but rather to get even. If you work for a control freak, getting mad just convinces them that they are right in not allowing you any freedom. Your “unjustified” anger proves that. So get even, by mastering your job and by always, always letting your controlling boss know what you are up to. Eventually, most will grant you an “area of expertise” where you will be the go-to person—even for them.

But even if that doesn’t happen, if the control freak just keeps on holding fast to everything and keeps your work from getting done, you can just take your expertise elsewhere. Hopefully somewhere where you will be able to shine.

Janet Levine is a consultant who focuses on increasing productivity for nonprofit organizations, their staff and volunteers. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Gets Grants!, an online grantwriting class is is available at www.janetlevineconsulting.com/classes.html.
Other online classes will be available November 1, 2009 at

Thank You, Thank You

janet@janetlevineconsulting.com (Janet Levine) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:26:00 +0000

I recently facilitated a workshop where 35 discrete organizations were represented. During a discussion on retaining donors, I asked “How many of you send a thank you letter to every single donor?”

You may not be surprised, but I was when only two hands went up. I shouldn’t have been. I hear often enough from donors who complain about not being thanked for their generosity. And while I believe them when they say they don’t receive thank you letters, I also want to believe that these letters are going out, it’s just that it’s not enough or not timely enough for donors. Or, perhaps, donors weren’t opening these thank you letters, thinking it was just another solicitation letter.

Clearly, however, I was giving more credit to nonprofits than many of them deserve.

That started me writing an online course, Step by Step Stewardship, which will be available in the spring at the to-be launched next month (November) http://lmlearningstation.com>. While I am not above self-serving advertising (obviously), the other reason I mention this what has come up as I’ve been researching and writing.

I’ve long known that what can seem to be fundamental is often not-so basic to many organizations. More importantly, these basics do define development programs. Which leads me seamlessly into my soapbox oration of the day.

When I started in this field about 25 years ago, there was a real push to stop calling it “fundraising” and focus on the word “development.”

Development is synonymous with such words as expansion, progress, improvement. It suggests a continuum of activity that grows over time and makes things better. It implies involvement, which, in turn, certainly means that relationships are built and, yes, nurtured. Stewardship.

Fundraising, on the other hand, focuses on that one act of getting money or other kinds of support. It’s more transactional than development, and more often than not (think politics), there is some quid pro quo--something for something—involved.

Because the pendulum has swung back, as it generally does, the word development appears mainly in titles (development department, development director. The function of those who work in the area is to fundraise, pure and simple. And what that does is put the emphasis on getting the gift. Once the gift has been gotten, the job is done.

Thinking (and acting) that way, of course, makes the development director’s job more difficult. Since the most likely prospect for a gift is an existing donor, it’s only smart to keep that donor happy.

Remember the last time you gave something to someone—your kids, your spouse, someone else’s kids, a friend. How would you have felt (or, perhaps, how did you feel) if they simply took what you gave and walked away? Now think how you would feel if the next time they deigned to speak to you was—yes!—when they were asking you for yet another something.

Unless you are a lot more saintly than I, you probably weren’t looking upon that someone so kindly. Indeed, while you mayhave given them what they asked for this second time, if they didn’t change their behavior, you sure wouldn’t give them anything a third.

Donors are no different. If you don’t thank them for their gift, they are not going to be inclined to make a second gift. And you will have spent a lot of time and effort to get minimum return.

Start by making sure you say “thank you” to every single donor at the time they make their gift. Then think about the many ways you can develop that relationship. For here is a basic truth that you should never forget: Donors give because they care about the work you do, have a connection with the person who asks for the gift, feel connected to the organization and generally are involved with your organization in as many ways as possible.

Janet Levine is a consultant who focuses on increasing productivity for nonprofit organizations, their staff and volunteers. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Gets Grants!, an online grantwriting class is is available at www.janetlevineconsulting.com/classes.html.
Other online classes will be available November 1, 2009 at http://lmlearningstation.com>

Defining the Problem

janet@janetlevineconsulting.com (Janet Levine) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:24:00 +0000

My friend Ruth is a prodigious seminar taker. A few years ago she took one that taught how to solve a problem by first defining the problem. I think that is a seminar most nonprofits should take.

To me it has always seemed obvious that you cannot solve a problem if you are unclear about what problem you are trying to solve.

Most of my clients would define their problem as a lack of money (or, as nonprofits love to whine, “not enough resources”). But perhaps it would be more accurate to say that is the cause or, more likely, the result of the problem and not the problem itself.

Defining the problem often means accepting responsibility for what is going on. If lack of money is the problem, well, that’s not necessarily anyone’s fault. If, on the other hand, the real problem is how the money is allocated and spent, that’s a whole different kettle of fish.

For many organizations, the problem seems to be circular: we don’t have enough money or resources so we cannot invest in a program to develop money and resources, which means we don’t ever have the money and resources. This in turn generally leads to a paralysis that ensures that there will be no money and/or resources and that means that your mission doesn’t really move forward.

From where I sit, it feels like I am watching a comedy of errors. Once, a client paid me good money to write a direct mail piece. Several weeks after they approved the package, the Executive Director sighed that they just didn’t have time to get it done. I said I would get the printing and mailing quotes, and then once a vendor was chosen, I would follow the mailing through. First, however, I needed to know how many pieces they would be mailing.

Well no one, it seemed, had time to check out how many records there were on the database and numbers like 2,000, 5,000 or maybe around 8,000 flew. Not helpful. I couldn’t go into the database to check because it was held on one computer and I guess that computer was in use 100% of the time every day of the week. Must have been.

I took my best shot, got a quote, and eventually got an okay to move forward. Except—yep, no one had time to export a list. And so, the mailing never happened.

An extreme case? I’d like to think so, but I’m not entirely convinced.

Whether or not your organization resembles this, being clear on the problem will make a positive difference. If your organization writes grant proposals, you already know how important the problem or need statement is. The clearer and more precise you can be about why what you want to do is necessary and important, the better your chances are of actually getting funded.

More importantly to my way of thinking, a clear need or problem statement helps to ensure that you are going after a grant that will move your mission forward. Likewise, identifying the right problem ensures that you look for the right solutions. This is turn will help to make sure you are getting where you actually want to go.

Janet Levine is a consultant who focuses on increasing productivity for nonprofit organizations, their staff and volunteers. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Gets Grants!, an online grantwriting class is is available at www.janetlevineconsulting.com/classes.html.
Other online classes will soon be available at http://lmlearningstation.com>

Helping Your Donors Make Wise Charitable Choices

janet@janetlevineconsulting.com (Janet Levine) — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:46:00 +0000

Could everybody repeat after me: Fundraising is about relationships. And relationships not only take time, they take nurturing. You can’t walk up to a virtual stranger and say “gimme,” and, on the off chance they do, walk away with nary a thank you and expect that the next time they will give to you again.

Yet, this is what so many nonprofit organizations try to do.

I sometimes speak on how to make wise charitable choices. One of things I urge potential donors to do is to look at the stewardship practices of the organization in which they have an interest.

Does that organization provide timely tax receipt with the appropriate substantiation or quid pro quo statements? Six month or a year after a gift was made, do they follow up and let you know how your generosity made a difference? In fact, do they connect with their donors at any time other than when they are asking for another gift?

At first I was surprised, then I got to expect it, when more than one-quarter of every single group I talk to feels that they have made a charitable gift and never received a thank you! My mother, who insisted I write a thank you note for any kindness I received let alone anything concrete, would twirl in her grave.

”If you don’t take care of your friends,” she would tell me, “don’t expect them to take care of you.”

And of course, they don’t. Donors get tired of always being asked for money and getting little if anything in return. Corporate reps get leery every time a nonprofit approaches with hands held out to receive but offering not a whole lot in return.

I know, I know. This is about gifts. We’re talking charity here. People should give without thinking about receiving.

Right.

Thinking that way is just naïve. There are so many good organizations out there—so many important, needed missions—that donors have many choices to meet their philanthropic goals. So why would—should—a donor chose yours?

That’s not a rhetorical question. And yes, it does circle back to relationships.

The important relationship is between the prospect or donor and your organization. More importantly is the understanding that it doesn’t start with you. Your needs are not the guide star here. The donor’s needs are.

Make no mistake—donors have very specific needs that must be fulfilled if you are to have a happy and consistent donor. It starts at the beginning—understanding why they may support you.

While your mission plays a role, it actually goes back further than you. Studies point out the very real fact that the most likely donor to any organization is a donor to any other organization. Philanthropic people (or organizations for that matter) are philanthropic. Before you look for wealthy folks, look for those who share whatever their wealth is.

Once you know they are philanthropic, find out what kinds of programs appeal to them. In an ideal world, you’d first always find out what matters to them, and then you’d tell them what you have that matches that interest. But the world isn’t perfect, and sometimes you have a need that must be met, which means that all prospects must first be approached to support that need.

But don’t just jump in with your hands out held. Talk to your prospects. Find out what matters to them. Then tell them of your need but speak from their perspective. Tell them how their gift will do what it is they want done. If your donor wants recognition, talk about naming rights, publicity, whatever you have that will tout their goodness and support to the world.

If they want to do something specific for your clients, make that match your focal point. Don’t make things up—but do connect the dots that show your donor that his or her needs are being met along with yours. And if what you need doesn’t match what they have told you they want, tell them—and then see if there is something else at your organization that they can support.

Above all, remember that isn’t about you and what you think you need. It is about your donors and what they think they need and most of all, it is about your clients and what they really need in order for your organization to meet its mission.

Janet Levine is a consultant who focuses on increasing productivity for nonprofit organizations, their staff and volunteers. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Her online classes will soon be available at http://www.lmlearningstation.com>

Making a Point

janet@janetlevineconsulting.com (Janet Levine) — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:38:00 +0000

Taglines. Those great, pithy sayings that well, say it all. You know—Nike’s Just Do It. Apple’s Think Different. It’s those few words that catch the essence of who you are or want to be (or, when we’re talking marketing and sales as we were just a sentence ago—what you want your customer’s to think about as they plunk down hard cash for your goods).

Nancy Swartz and her company Getting Attention have a great way to get nonprofits to understand the value of taglines—and what makes communication great. She’s culled through over 1,700 tagline entries in 13 categories and has chosen 60 for your vote. But rather than steal all her words, let me share her blurb with you:

Spot the Next Great Nonprofit Tagline
Vote here for the 2009 Getting Attention Nonprofit Tagline Awards. http://is.gd/2NQx7
Voting will:
• Sharpen your understanding of what does and doesn’t work in nonprofit communications.
• Inform and inspire your organization’s messaging.
• Give you the chance to register for the free 2009 Nonprofit Tagline Report, with 2,500 tagline examples.
The 60 tagline finalists have been culled from over 1,700 entries in 13 categories. Now it's *your* turn to select the best.
VOTE Now. Polls close midnight, Wednesday, September 30th. http://is.gd/2NQx7

Do vote—but more than that, look at these taglines and think about why they are so good. Then look at your organization’s tagline, or consider the fact that you don’t have one, and try to put your organization’s mission and meaning into two to six words.

Janet Levine is a consultant who works with nonprofits and educational organizations. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Her online grantwriting class is available at www.janetlevineconsulting.com/classes.html.

Not not

janet@janetlevineconsulting.com (Janet Levine) — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:00:00 +0000

In his September 15th blog (http://sethgodin.typepad.com) , Seth Godin said two things that really resonated. The first was his opening sentence where he took nonprofits to task for identifying ourselves as what we are not. Defining what we are is something many of us have a problem with.

The second thing he said was that nonprofits abhor change. I agree, but I wouldn’t focus just on nonprofits. And I certainly wouldn’t—as Seth Godin does—focus on the fact that many nonprofits (but not nearly as many as he claims) are not utilizing social networking well. That hardly proves his case.

What is real, however, is the paralysis that hits too many nonprofits when faced with doing things that make them uncomfortable. Far better, I suppose, to wring your hands and (as Godin aptly points out) complain about lack of resources than to actually go out and do something proactive about it. But I don’t necessarily think that social networking is the answer.

An answer? Sure. But at best it is a way to increase the number and frequency of small donors. This can be huge as, yes, the Obama campaign showed. But the truth is that most nonprofits are not national in scope; many aren’t even of concern three blocks from where they have offices. Pareto’s principle, which in fundraising terms says that 80% of the dollars raised come from 20% of the donors, is still pretty viable. What that means that is that social networking can be a great boost to your annual campaign, but probably won’t provide enough funding for those changes that Godin advocates.

This is not to say that nonprofits shouldn’t engage in social networking. Of course they should outreach in every way possible. But I think that the change that is necessary in the sector will come from very different actions.

Which brings us back to Godin’s first sentence. How we define ourselves is key. How we tell our stories is also important. But stories without purpose are not much more than entertainment. What is too often missing is that strategic, long view of what we do and how we do it, now and in the future. Nonprofits tend to be better at that from a programmatic point of view than they administratively and, especially, when it comes to resource development.

Fundraising is too often not at the table when the party is being planned but is expected to somehow come up with all the presents. If fundraising were truly infused throughout the organization, if planning took into consideration not just how much something will cost but where those funds must come from, then and only then will nonprofits be able to systematically and continually find the funding they need.

Once nonprofits can support themselves and their programs, then they can begin to focus on what they are and understand than “nonprofit” (or not-for-profit”) is actually a positive. Unlike for profit businesses that exist to make a profit, we have been organized for other purposes, which may be charitable (relating to generosity), educational, scientific. And this is nothing that should make any of us who are committed to this sector feel ashamed.

Janet Levine is a consultant who focuses on increasing productivity for nonprofit organizations, their staff and volunteers. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Her online classes will soon be available at http://lmlearningstation.com>

Sales and Fundraising

janet@janetlevineconsulting.com (Janet Levine) — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:26:00 +0000

A friend and I have an ongoing argument—she is horrified that I even think that there is a correlation between sales and fundraising, let alone that I believe they are virtually the same. I am frustrated that she can’t see the connection. So I was particularly excited to hear from Ron Walrath, VP for Development at Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary.

“[W]e have to sell our product…every day,” he wrote. But he doesn’t think of that as a problem. “When one adopts a sales approach,” he continued, “strategic vision, mission, operations and detailed development plans all begin to mesh into a coherent effort aimed at customers and prospects.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Sales too often has a dirty name. People think of someone who is slick, a little greasy, conniving, and not quite honest. Ron and I both have sales backgrounds, and I don’t think either of us fit that description. The American Society of Training and Development (ASTD) doesn’t agree with it either.

According to them, professional selling is "The holistic business system required to effectively develop, manage, enable, and execute a mutually beneficial, interpersonal exchange of goods and/or services for equitable value."

I like that definition, just as I like thinking about myself and my colleagues as “professionals.”

What’s to argue with having vision, mission, program and development all meshing? Transactions and relationships should be mutually beneficial. It’s what we should be aiming toward. I think that’s why I find the sales model so enticing.

In all my sales training, the emphasis was on selling the benefits of my service or product and not on the features. That’s what I think we should be doing in fundraising—show our prospects how what we do benefits our clients and our donors. In order to do that, we—the fund development staff and volunteers—need to understand what those benefits are. That means, as Ron implies, we need to have a strategic vision and mission for our organizations. We must have an operation that promotes the mission and vision. And we must have a development plan that will raise the necessary funds for the operations.

The plan, of course, will not by itself raise money. That’s where resources—human and otherwise—come in. They support the plan. People have to work the plan, and they must have the skills and tools to do that.

All of which pinpoints what I think is the basic differences between most sales and most fundraising. Salespeople generally get trained on the products and services they sell. They know the features and the benefits. Fundraisers are too often fuzzy about what they should be raising funds for. Our training tends to focus on fundraising channels rather than on the purposes. The more complex the organization, the more problematical that problem becomes.

And then there is the fact that too often fundraisers are not rewarded for raising funds. I’m not—repeat not—advocating for a commission based model, which is how much of sales works. But there is something about the concrete connection of what you do with how much you earn that is missing from fundraising and which too often leads to no fundraising at all.

In short, we need to stop thinking that nonprofits are “above” selling and recognize that there is nothing wrong—indeed there is much right—in, as Ron Walrath says selling our product every day. After all, our “product” is something we should be proud to tout and prospects eager to buy.

Janet Levine is a consultant who focuses on increasing productivity for nonprofit organizations, their staff and volunteers. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Her online classes will soon be available at http://lmlearningstation.com>

Donors Not Dollars

janet@janetlevineconsulting.com (Janet Levine) — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 01:28:00 +0000

Fundraisers are exceedingly proud of the money they raise. They are particularly proud when it is more money than what was raised the prior year. Already I have two problems. Even in a staff-centered development operation, fundraisers alone do not raise money. But, okay, let’s ignore that for now. What I really have a problem with is counting dollars instead of donors.

Fundraising, I really believe, is about relationships. A good fundraiser helps to create and nurture the connections that donors feel about the organization, its mission, the programs it provides. Fundraisers who are focused only on dollars are missing the point.

More insidiously, they are often being untruthful about the value of the money they are counting.

A case in point: I recently lunched with a colleague who waxed eloquent about the fact that the development department brought in almost twice as much this year to the organization as it had in the prior fiscal year. But that wasn’t actually the case.

The main reason for the huge bump in revenue was a bequest. Nothing wrong with a bequest, but I think it is wise to pull out these unique gifts when comparing income year to year. It’s not like this donor is about to make another gift any time soon. Moreover in this particular case, there was some question as to whether the organization should be a major beneficiary so a lawyer was hired on contingency, and his take was 35%. Counting the entire amount of the bequest, therefore, is somewhat disingenuous.

Another large “gift” was actually a contract between a company and the organization which was written as a restricted gift. There is nothing wrong or illegal about this, but the development department had little or, more likely, nothing to do with this transaction.

I don’t mean to pick on my colleague. He’s a really good fundraiser. Far better than I ever was. But, and here’s where we part company, I have always been more interested in creating a development program is sustainable and, therefore, responsive to the ongoing and ever-changing needs of an organization than in getting any single gift.

To me that means tying the goals and objectives of the organization to what the development department is doing. Making sure, in other words, that I am raising the gifts that are needed and not just the gifts I can get. The key to that, I believe, is having a solid core of donors who are committed to the organization, care about the mission and, therefore, are receptive helping out when there is a specific need.

When your focus is on raising dollars, too often your time ends up being spent on gifts that make your bottom line look good but do very little for your programs.

When I started in this business, there was a real move to change the term “fundraising” to “development.” With good reason, I think. The former has a focus on the funds. The latter, on the building and growing of the relationship. When times are hard, as they most certainly are now, it becomes too easy to simply scramble for the gift. In the long run, however, I think that hurts everyone.

Janet Levine is a consultant who focuses on increasing productivity for nonprofit organizations, their staff and volunteers. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Her online classes will soon be available at http://lmlearningstation.com>

Working Social Networking

janet@janetlevineconsulting.com (Janet Levine) — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 19:46:00 +0000

Recently, I took a road trip with my 34-year-old daughter. I was amazed—though I shouldn’t have been—at how many hours she spent in social networking. During the day she texted non-stop, or would have if I hadn’t taken her phone away when she was driving. And at night, in our hotel room, she chatted with her friends on Facebook.

First she would type madly for a few minutes, then sit back and wait. When the tone that indicated someone responded sounded, she would lean forward, read for a moment, then type madly again. I was reminded of Billy Crystal’s line about dancing—that it was just like standing still, only faster. This was like a conversation, only slower.

I’ve been thinking a lot about social networking as I get ready to teach a workshop on how social networking can augment a nonprofit’s existing fundraising programs. The power of social networking is clear; it is the time consumption that concerns me.

I remember when word processing became ubiquitous. We all thought that it would make our offices more efficient. At first, of course, it didn’t, but there was the learning curve and it was sure to come. Then, one day I asked my secretary to prepare a memo for me to send to my boss. In the old, typewriter days, it would have taken less than an hour before a clean, typed copy was on my desk.

Two days passed.

“Claire,” I finally said. “That memo?”

”Oh yes,” she answered brightly. “I should have that done this afternoon.”

”Is there a problem?”

Well, no. There wasn’t. And yet, yes, there definitely was. She was “formatting” the memo—playing with fonts and sizes and styles. She could bold,, italicize, underline, and a whole host of other things that she had been unable to do before. It was awesome. But here’s the dirty truth—it wasn’t better, it didn’t add value, my memo wasn’t more effective.

I don’t want to sound like a neo-Luddite. I’m not. I love my computers—and yes, that’s a plural, I have two. I love the things I can do that I couldn’t do when I started working. I love the possibilities that technology brings. My husband swears I love my iPhone almost as much as I love him. But I don’t love inefficiencies and I abhor spending work time unproductively.

A recent study surmised that for a nonprofit to effectively use social networking for development purposes it would take 20 hours a week. Now, that’s just the managing of the technology. It will take additional time to develop the strategies, create the content, and evaluate the successes of your social networking programs. If you are a small nonprofit where you are already too busy to fundraise or do anything else, you will really have to think long and hard about jumping on this particular bandwagon.

I don’t think that nonprofits can afford to ignore technological advances. I do think that social networking must be part of their advancement program. But these are techniques and channels that must be used judiciously and with planning aforethought.

You will not raise tons of money solely by putting a “Donate Here” button on your website. Developing a Facebook page will not bring wealthy donors ripe for solicitations. Your Tweets may get you a Twitter following, but if you are not clear about the purposes for which you are using these tools, you will build nothing worthwhile.

These are tools that, used well, can help you to reach more people. Used well, they will allow you to build relationships that might otherwise not be possible. And fundraising is, above all, about relationships.

But there is a price to be paid. The wise nonprofit understands that and makes sure that before starting out on this journey, they have carefully mapped out what seems to be the best route, and have an understanding of what side roads could be interesting to explore.

Janet Levine is a consultant who works with nonprofits and educational organizations. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Her online grantwriting class is available at www.janetlevineconsulting.com/classes.html.

Whose Rolodex?

janet@janetlevineconsulting.com (Janet Levine) — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:58:00 +0000

Many years ago, when I was applying for my second fundraising job, I was asked a question I thought very…well, questionable. “What donors can you bring with you?” the chair of the search committee asked me.

To be honest, I was quite nonplussed. I had only been in the field 3 or 4 years, but it seemed to me that donors were not the same as say the clients of a hair stylist who would bring his or her customer book to any new location. Donors, I thought then and now, don’t “belong” to the development staff. Rather, they have been cultivated and solicited because they had been identified as someone who would want to be involved with an organization’s mission.

As a fundraiser, I may have coordinated and facilitated their gift, but it was a gift to the organization or institution for which I worked. It was not a gift given because they personally liked me.

So, baffled as I was, I simply sputtered, “None.” And didn’t get the job.

While it was the first time I was asked the question, it was far from the last. And each time, I tried to explain that I considered my job to cultivate donors for the organization and if I had done my job right, when I left, the donor would have relationships with others who worked and volunteered at the organization and so would remain a committed supporter.

Further, I would tell my interviewer, just as I won’t be bringing donors with me, I won’t take donors from you when I leave.

Since I was offered a number of these jobs, and was able to continually move up the proverbial food chain, it was clear that many people understood and possibly agreed with my position. And yet, I can’t help but think that there often was a disappointment that I didn’t bring with me a fat rolodex of people who would write a check within weeks of my arrival.

I, however, always want to be more than merely a money machine to any organization I work with. I want to create or strengthen a foundation where there is sustainability. I think our job as fundraisers is, as I said a few paragraphs ago, to mainly be a coordinator and facilitator—both to help donors make satisfying and effective gifts, and also to assist volunteers and other staff members to be part of the process.

This is not to say that I have never offered a donor I knew from one organization the opportunity to support another if I thought there was a reason to believe that donor would be interested. After all, as every good fundraiser knows, the best indicator that someone will become a donor to your organization is that he or she is a donor to another organization.

Still, I think it shows a complete lack of understanding of why development is important to an organization to expect a fundraiser to bring donors along with her. Yes, yes of course, fundraising is about bringing in money. But it is mostly about building relationships that will help to nourish and grow an organization.

If you believe that, then it is clear that the right question to ask a potential fundraiser is not who do you bring with you but rather, how do you go about finding and caring for those to whom our mission matters? And what steps would you take to ensure that this person (or organization) is well connected to our organization and feels part of the work we do?

Fundraisers who can answer those questions are worth their weight in gold. And, trust me on this, over the long haul, they will bring in far more gold than someone who brings his gravy train along for the ride.

Janet Levine is a consultant who works with nonprofits and educational organizations. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Her online grantwriting class is available at www.janetlevineconsulting.com/classes.html.

Right and Left Hands

janet@janetlevineconsulting.com (Janet Levine) — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:48:00 +0000

I read a lot of fiction. One thing that strikes me is how often the characters go off in strange and unlovely directions simply because they fail to communicate with each other, or at least, fail to communicate fully.

Of course, I’m struck by the same thing in real life, but who pays attention to reality anymore (unless it is televised)? Certainly not those who think that there really is a fund raising magic bullet.

But, surprise!, I’m not going to rant here about the lack of understanding of certain board members and CEO’s who are sure that everyone is just dying to give them some money if only somebody (else) would ask. I am going to rant about communication gaps.

Nothing, and I do mean nothing, is more irritating than finding out that you are the right hand who doesn’t know a thing about what the left hand has just done. I wish I had a dollar for every time a program officer informed me that someone in my organization just submitted a proposal for $5,000 so they could not consider the one for $50,000 we had been discussing until the next funding cycle. I wouldn’t be rich, but I could buy a pretty fancy dinner. And let’s not even mention the Board that decides that instead of the one-on-one major donor solicitations they had agreed to, they’ll throw another “fundraiser” event instead. So what if that will net very little?

Complaining, however, is one thing. Communicating so that complaining is less necessary is another. You’d think that in a world so full of noise, communication wouldn’t be such a hard thing to do. But it is.

The first step is to make sure that you are not part of the problem. You are only allowed to complain about how they don’t tell you what you need to know if you are telling them what they need to know.

Speaking of reality as we were a few paragraphs back, recognize that not everyone communicates and the best response to that is to communicate with that person.

My husband, who is an engineer and we all know how well they mix with communicating, used to have a bad habit of not telling me if he was going to be late or if he was bringing someone home for dinner. I, a sales type with motor mouth who informed him of everything I might possibly do that day, decided that two could play the no communication game.

Instead of making things better, it made them worse because now neither of us had a clue what was happening. It was so bad that my dogs too often did not get their evening walk as because the one who was home was waiting for the one who wouldn’t be home until 10 but hadn’t bothered to inform the other. And instead of learning from my lack of information, he decided that it was now completely OK to forgo telling me anything. That notion, I might tell you, took a lot of work to undo.

With fundraising, communication is even more important. Fundraising is much like a dance, and if both partners don’t know the steps, you are liable to stomp on each other’s toes. Practically speaking, that means that your organization needs to have a plan of action and that action must be communicated to everyone. Everyone.

Communication can be even more basic. Recently, I was conducting a workshop to help board members make the case for giving. The first step, I told them, is to define the situation, the problem or the need.

”Everybody knows the situation,” the ED snapped. “We don’t need to belabor that to everyone.”

Beyond setting my teeth on edge, that attitude is exactly the one that (a) too many nonprofits have and (b) is guaranteed to keep donors away from you. YOU may know what you do, how you do it, and what all those acronyms nonprofit and educational organizations are so fond of, but I guarantee that most of your prospects, many of your donors and even a large percentage of your board, don’t. If they do, it’s not necessarily on the top of their thoughts and they will (silently) thank you for being communicative with them.

Besides, you won’t necessarily be saying “Homelessness means that someone doesn’t have a home.” Rather, you will talk about why homelessness in your community matters to your community and by extension to your prospect.

Communication in the dictionary of Janet is defined as the fine art of including people into your world so they will want to be involved. Or, as businessdictionary.com so eloquently puts it:

Two way process of reaching mutual understanding, in which participants no only exchange information but also create and share meaning.

Think about it. Give and take. Sharing. Creation. Aren’t these all things that good nonprofits practice? And aren’t they all the things that move your good mission forward?

So, talk to me and to each other. Make sure that the right hand does know what the left is doing and vice versa. But also, perhaps especially, listen. Hear what the other is saying. You will be astonished at how much more you can do—how much better you will do it—if you communicate.

Janet Levine is a consultant who works with nonprofits and educational organizations. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Her online grantwriting class is available at www.janetlevineconsulting.com/classes.html.

Perfection

janet@janetlevineconsulting.com (Janet Levine) — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:49:00 +0000

For years I’ve tried to no avail to learn another language. It isn’t so much that I can’t master the grammar or learn the vocabulary (though none of that comes easily to me) but rather because I wouldn’t use what I knew. I wouldn’t speak the language because I couldn’t speak it well.

That was dumb. And I knew—know—it was (is) dumb. And yet I could not make myself speak it because everyone would know I wasn’t perfect.

Perfection. Sigh. When I was a little girl I thought perfectionists were people who did things perfectly and I wanted desperately to do be perfect at something. I haven’t completely outgrown that desperation—or the desire to do things without error. But I have learned that perfection is a pain—and it can also be a barrier to doing anything at all. Hence my mono-linguism, and perhaps, your organization’s inability to actually fundraise.

Over the years, I’ve heard boards and staff tell me that they can’t possibly fundraise yet because:

• We don’t have an elevator speech.
• Our database is messed up.
• We don’t actually have a database.
• No one knows who we are.
• Our website is embarrassing.
• We don’t have any brochures.
• Name your favorite non-fundraising excuse.

In short, things aren’t perfect so we can’t possibly move forward and ask anyone to help us move our mission forward. And speaking of mission, have you noticed that no one ever says, “We can’t ask anyone for money because we aren’t doing good work”?

It seems to me, that if your mission is good and you aredoing good work, you are perfectly situated to raise funds. Yes, you do need to let people know about you—but you really don’t need fancy brochures. Databases are built over time and by themselves, don’t actually fundraise for you. And an “elevator speech” is nothing more than a statement of your passion about your organization.

Good fundraising does rely on a strong database and great communications. But—to coin a cliché—every journey starts with a single step. Begin by identifying five people who you have reason to believe would support your organization. Find out if anyone on your board knows any of those five—and what size gift they think is reasonable as a first gift.

If you can convince your (fellow) board members to set up meetings with these five, you will probably get three to five meetings. If you can’t, count on one. And each time someone is willing to join with you in supporting your organization, add that person to your database. More importantly, ask that person who else you could call on and, by the way, would they be willing to introduce you? Next, add another 5 potential prospects to your list.

Slowly, surely, you will develop that elevator speech. The more you tell others about your organization, the more you will understand what catches their attention and fans their flames of passion.

Your database will get filled with premier prospects and more and more people will know who you are. If you actually start fundraising, you will start to raise funds. And I ask you, what could be more perfect?

Janet Levine is a consultant who works with nonprofits and educational organizations. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Her online grantwriting class is available at www.janetlevineconsulting.com/classes.html.

Taking Care of Business

janet@janetlevineconsulting.com (Janet Levine) — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:22:00 +0000

We all know them—those nonprofits that have a wonderful mission, really good programs, but the operations side of the house is run so unprofessionally and so poorly that we are constantly amazed they make it through yet another week.

I’m not talking here about the organization that struggles to make ends meet, though the places I am talking about do that, too. I am talking about places that simply do not take care of business.

Too many nonprofit organizations like to protest that they are not, really, businesses at all. They are mission-driven. They are good people doing good works. But if you don’t do well at doing good works you won’t be doing anything much at all for long.

And besides, non-profits arebusinesses. After all, most are 501(c)(3) corporations. Like all businesses, there are rules and regulations that must be met. This is not a bad thing. On the contrary, most of the time I think it is something very good.

Picture your favorite on-the-edge nonprofit. Think about the work it does, the clients it serves. Now picture it as a well-run organization, with policies and procedures that are in place and actually followed. How many of these would neglect to send appropriate thank you letters to donors? And now, picture those donors. Instead of complaining they are happy and happy to give follow on (and perhaps larger) gifts.

In this organization, budgets matter. Staff (and the board!) knows what it can spend and for what. Programs can grow and flourish; more clients can be serviced.

And staff….they know the job they are to perform and whether they are accomplishing what they are supposed to accomplish.

All right, I admit it. I do have a rich fantasy life. And even most for profit businesses don’t reach those standards of excellence, or even of okay. But that’s not a good excuse for us not to do better.

One problem is that too many nonprofit leaders, and development directors, don’t ever educate themselves on the legalities and, yes, the niceties of running a nonprofit. They don’t know when they have to send substantiation or quid pro quo statements or what the difference is between the two.

Staff and board members don’t understand nonprofit accounting rules, and therefore, are too often confused about when and for what purpose they can touch certain pots of money. And they don’t, therefore, understand what kind of gifts they need to raise and what kind of donors they should cultivate.

While it is good to be passionate about the mission of your organization, it just isn’t enough. We all need to be professional and insist on a level of knowledge and proficiency in every aspect of what we do.

Janet Levine is a consultant who works with nonprofits and educational organizations. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Her online grantwriting class is available at www.janetlevineconsulting.com/classes.html.

Wise Investing

janet@janetlevineconsulting.com (Janet Levine) — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:30:00 +0000

The question was how would you invest a $5 million gift given to expand your organization's base of individual donors? One respondent said that after he thanked the donor, he would “put the money to good use within the charity to do good. I would then continue what I was doing knowing that as a Charity I did what my mantra was- help others, as opposed to becoming a charity burdened with administrative costs. “

Besides, he said, a lot of good pr comes from the announcement of such a large donation and that “ just promoting the donation will lead to growing your donor base without having to invest in it. “

This answer bothered me on two counts. The first was the smug naïveté of it all. It’s the “people should support us—after all, we do good work,” nonsense so many nonprofit folk spout. Here’s a news flash: No one “should” or even will support you merely because you think you are doing good.

The larger concern, however, was this person’s clear unconcern for what the donor wanted, and frankly for the legal restrictions this donor’s gift put on the organization.

If a donor wants a gift to be used for a specific purpose, and you accept that gift, you must use the gift for that specific purpose. Period. You may not decide that you have a better use for that money.

You can, of course, discuss the matter with the donor before you accept the gift. On a couple of occasions during my fundraising career I thanked a donor for his or her good thoughts and tried to direct them to make the gift in a manner more fitting to our needs.

Once it worked out wonderfully. They actually liked the new idea better—twice as much in fact, as reflected by the twice as large gift we received.

Several times it worked out fine. They agreed that they would give the gift for our requested purpose.

And twice the donors said no thank you and took their money elsewhere. One of the donors did give us a smaller gift for our purpose and then continued to be a regular and major donor. The other time, well to be honest, we never heard from that donor again.

Most of the time, however, nonprofits simply take the money and try to meet the donor’s wishes. Sometimes that works; sometimes not. It never works if you take the money for one purpose and use it for another. Donors have brought lawsuits over this very practice.

So what would you do if someone were to give you $5 million to expand your base of individual donors? I know exactly what I would do. I’d use that money to ensure that development and communications had the resources—human and otherwise—to identify, cultivate and steward donors. I’d make sure that staff had the tools, which includes appropriate training, to do their jobs well. I’d make sure that my development managers were coaching staff and using regular evaluations to ensure that good actions were being reinforced and bad ones replaced by good ones via training.

I’d get the Board involved. They are a major key to building up your individual donor pool. But it doesn’t always come naturally, so I’d make sure that they had the training they needed to be part of the solution.

I’d bring my individual prospects and donors in to my organization, so they could see first hand how their generosity was being used and how it (and they) were making a difference. I’d ensure that we were hearing from them about how they felt about their involvement and what else they would like to see.

And I would thank (and thank and thank) that original donor over and over again for understanding that it truly takes money to make money, and that with enough money we really can build a better mousetrap and be far more successful.

But first I’d spend time with that donor, brainstorming ideas on what would be a good use of the funds for our organization and create a comprehensive plan to build a sustainable development program that would ensure we never needed another infusion of funds just to build up our prospect pool.

Janet Levine is a consultant who works with nonprofits and educational organizations. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Her online grantwriting class is available at www.janetlevineconsulting.com/classes.html.

Why Johnny or Jane Can’t Fundraise

janet@janetlevineconsulting.com (Janet Levine) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:04:00 +0000

Lately, it seems, I’ve been writing a lot about why fundraisers can’t actually fund raise. There are lots of reasons—from Board members who won’t carry their share of the load to other staff members who don’t carry theirs.

This is not to say that all fundraisers would be raising funds if it weren’t for all those other people. Much of the problem is within ourselves. But a bigger problem is the lack of understanding by the various and sundry powers that be of what it takes to actually raise money.

I know this not just because I’ve worked for over 25 years in this field and you’d have to have your head hidden in the sand not to recognize that fact, but because I tend to read job descriptions.

Here’s part of one that recently came across my desk or rather, computer (and yes, this is just copied and pasted from the actual ad with the organization’s name expunged).

ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
Regular duties include the following. Other duties may be assigned on an
on-going basis:
1. Fund Raising - Establishes short and long-range plan for meeting Organization’s budget needs. Organization’s current goal is to raise at least $3 million per year. Researches, strategizes and orchestrates methods of approach to individuals, corporations, foundations, government agencies, planned giving as well as hosting events. Works with program staff and Board of Directors to develop and implement the strategy.
2. Database and Records Management - Oversees and implements maintenance
of database. Maintains security and quality controls. Generates queries,
reports, exports and any other collection data as needed. Manage any related vendors.
3. Development & Public Relations - Supervises most development and communications matters, for example the creation of various
communications such as the annual report, marketing packets, PowerPoint
presentations, and government and donor relations.
4. Financial Reporting - Interface with team to fulfill information
requests and maintain reporting accuracy.

I might mention that this particular organization has a staff of…are you ready? Three. That means that the development director ends up “supervising” him or herself. Ummm. But even if there is staff—and I’ve been in both places—the person managing all this does not have time to actually do much fundraising. There must be other people dedicated to going out and nurturing the relationships that will result in the funds being raised.

Board members and CEO’s must get regular reality checks so that, perhaps, overtime they will understand that hiring a development director and foisting all manner of related (and sometimes, unrelated) other duties on that person will not result in success. Fundraising is a full time job. Someone needs to oversee all the people involved—those running events, managing the database, writing the communication pieces. And, while I think this person should also be fundraising, he or she should have a small book of business, primarily the largest donors to the organization. The other pieces of fundraising should be handled by development officers dedicated to this or that area.

OK, I’m hallucinating. These organizations are too small to have such a large staff. But here’s the killer: They will remain small if they don’t invest in fundraising.

Studies show that mature development organizations increase fundraising five times with each new dedicated development staff person. The key is the word mature. So start with one dedicated fundraiser and when he or she raises two times his or her salary, add another fundraiser. In this way, your organization can and will grow and flourish. But a second key here is the word dedicated.

One person cannot oversee, manage, plan and implement it all. If you are that one person, you need to document how you are spending your time and make sure that your board and CEO understand what you do and why, and what it would take to raise that $3 million (or whatever fundraising goal your organization has). If you are hiring or managing that one person, understand that you are setting them and your organization up for failure.

Meeting Expectations

janet@janetlevineconsulting.com (Janet Levine) — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:01:00 +0000

My sister is the chair of the development committee for a small nonprofit in the education field. She’s been the chair for a couple of years, and to tell you the truth, she’s pretty burnt out.

“How,” she asks me periodically, “can you stand to do this for a living?”

What frustrates her (and frustrates me as well) is the fact that for many people fundraising is what others(namely, you) do—even if they have it as part of their job or volunteer description.

More than that, there is this clear lack of understanding that fundraising takes time. Add these two together and you get zero, as in “we hired/appointed YOU to do our fundraising. Where is the money?”

Ahhh, I see lots and lots of you nodding your heads. You know this; you’ve been there. The big question is how do you manage expectations? The second big question is how do you engage them so they understand that fundraising really is a team effort?

I wish I had a magic bullet to offer you. I don’t. Managing expectations is hard work, but maybe not as hard as engaging your “team.” There are, however, things that will keep your stress level down to a minimum.

The first is for you to have real clarity about what you can accomplish given your resources and available time. In my sister’s case, for example, the development plan called for a certain amount of money to be raised by each board member. When the total goal was not reached (by a very long shot) because most board members did not do their job, my sister felt like a failure. Had she been an employee instead of a volunteer, that “failure” may have had an adverse effect on her job.

Since my sister could not control what board members would or would not do, she needed to clearly identify what she could accomplish. And then she needed to loudly celebrate her successes.

This celebrating serves several purposes. It proclaims that you have done what you said you would. It shows that success is possible. And both those, in turn, act as an impetus to others and can help to motivate them to do their fundraising jobs.

Okay, I get that my sister, as a volunteer, has a lot more leeway. Too often us paid workers have to live with goals that others set for us. Which is why it is vital that you take that goal and create a plan that clearly outlines how you will go about reaching it. If you don’t have a goal, writing a plan to discover your goal is even more important.

This plan needs to be very specific. None of this “Identify prospects, cultivate and solicit” stuff. Remember—a big piece of what you are doing is managing expectations of others. So, if you are supposed to raise $1,000,000 and your organization has never raised more than $375,000, well you may just have an expectation gap.

Your plan would show where you want to get, and then what resources you have to get there. That means you will need to make some assumptions about how many prospects at what levels are necessary. Then you should show how many prospects at those levels you already have and where they are on the cultivation (for this next gift) continuum.

Your plan will also take into consideration how and where you can find new prospects and how long it would take to turn those prospects into donors. What are the steps you need to take? What are the tools you need in order to take those steps?

By now you should realize that your plan may have a hidden agenda. If you are expected to move from $375,000 to $1,000,000 and you do not have the appropriate resources to be successful, where can you get with what you have? Your plan needs to show that. For example, if given the donors you have and the prospects you’ve already identified and begun to cultivate you feel confident that you could raise $500,000 you would show that in your plan.

To reach the next $500,000 (or whatever dollar amount is your nut) might take introductions from your board and/or additional staff (or more events, direct mail campaigns, whatever) you would clearly delineate that in your plan.

As you work through your plan, you need to keep the Board, your boss, whoever, informed. The best way to do this—and the way that will get heard—is to show your successes, and be very clear what it took to be successful.

If the $50,000 gift you just got came about because your Board chair introduced you to one of her clients, make sure the rest of the Board knows that. If it came from an existing donor, they need to hear about the donor’s history with your organization.

If, however, your search for new prospects is still in the search phase, get that message across. But no whining. Report that you have been to three chamber mixers and have collected 45 business cards. You’ve contacted 25 of those folks, had a meeting with 3, and think that perhaps one of them will—eventually—donate.

In this way, you can educate and explain without seeming to that fundraising takes time. It is about relationships. And those relationships need to be nurtured.

And here we are, back to the point that the more they do their part in fundraising the more successful your fundraising program will be, and the more likely that everyone’s expectations will be met.

Janet Levine is a consultant who works with nonprofits and educational organizations. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Her online grantwriting class is available at www.janetlevineconsulting.com/classes.html.

Can Do

janet@janetlevineconsulting.com (Janet Levine) — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:06:00 +0000

I’m having one of those days when I want to run away, pull my blanky over my head, shut out the world. Nothing is particularly wrong, but on days like today it is so easy to focus only on what isn’t right.

Starting the day with the news adds to my malaise. But it is the things closer to home that sit most heavily. Like the fact that everything takes longer than I anticipated, or costs more or—even worse, delivers less. Particularly on days like today, however, the most insidious is the “can’t do” attitude of some of my clients even some of my best friends.

You know this one. Maybe you are this one, and if so—STOP IT, stop it right now. It’s when no matter what solution, idea, suggestion comes your way, you find all the reasons why you cannot implement it.

I never had much use for Spiro Agnew (the disgraced Vice President of the equally disgraced Richard Nixon), but I share his frustration, as shown in his overly alliterative words : Nattering Nabobs of Negativism Over the years I’ve worked with too many people who would rather moan about the darkness than light that proverbial candle.

The rotten economy seems to be making this tendency even worse. My experience is, of course, anecdotal. The client that tells me they can’t spend any time building a development program because the board won’t do its job. Or the development officer who cannot possibly whatever is recommended because “it just won’t work.” My favorite, though, are the people who are stuck in either “We tried that and it didn’t work,” or the ones who tell you that “this is the way we do it.”

Did you ever notice how self-fulfilling prophecies are? If you think you can’t, usually you can’t. And if you focus on what is not, you somehow never notice what is. Fundraising is not all that much different.

If you really believe that your mission is good, that the organization works well, that you use your money wisely, asking people to support your cause isn’t very difficult. It’s not necessarily easy, mind you, but being positive about your cause goes a long way.

Likewise, focusing on what you can do instead of bemoaning what you can’t really does make a difference. First of all, your energy is now on doing something rather than preventing action from happening—and we all know that the more you do anything (eat, sleep, even donate to charity) the more you tend to do it. As you concentrate on what is possible, you will find that you can actually achieve much more than you thought.

No, I’m not being Pollyanna-ish. The first step is to identify what you are supposed to accomplish. Let’s look, for example, at a worst-case scenario: the task that is impossible to accomplish. Rather than focus on that inevitable end, let’s try to figure out what you can do to at least begin walking up that trail.

Raise $1,000,000 when you have no prospects. Really, you have no prospects. And I agree: You probably cannot raise $1 million with no prospects.

You can get stuck there, or stuck at bemoaning the real fact that your board just won’t or can’t introduce you to people with capacity OR you can start to identify what you can do to begin identifying prospects. Does that mean reading the business section of your local newspaper and sending a congratulatory note to that newly named CEO, inviting her to tour your organization….and then following up to set an appointment? Does it mean getting involved with your city council or local service club?

Yes, it’s a long row to hoe (and it is one of those days where I’m throwing in every metaphor in the book!) but (watch it, here comes another) you do need to that first step on every journey. And it does get easier, more do-able. The first few months you may only identify and get to meet one new prospect, but that one will lead you to others. More, you will get better at figuring out what actions are effective and which ones are not.

So make my day—and yours—and stop being so negative. Throw off your blanky and (last one—I promise) pull your head out of the sand and look to the horizons for all the opportunities you do have. I promise, you’ll be awed and amazed at what you can accomplish step by little step.

Janet Levine is a consultant who works with nonprofits and educational organizations. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Her online grantwriting class is available at www.janetlevineconsulting.com/classes.html.

Being All You Say You Will Be

janet@janetlevineconsulting.com (Janet Levine) — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:45:00 +0000

I spent much of the other day listening to complaints about development staff. Not any particular staff, just fundraisers in general. It was discomforting because there was so much truth in the generalizations that the complainers made.

”At the interview,” one person said, “we’re told that the person will help us to raise a lot more money. But once they get here, what we actually get are excuses as to why they aren’t raising money.”

He then went on to enumerate those excuses:
1. There isn’t enough buzz about this organization. First I have to improve our communications.
2. The board isn’t stepping up to the plate.
3. The database—it’s either a mess or it’s nonexistent. In either case, the emperor has—er, the fundraiser can’t raise dough.
4. I’m not the person who raises money. You are.
5. I have no time to raise money. I’m focusing on communications.
6. I can’t talk to you right now, I’ve got a lunch date.

Are you wincing? I was. These are excuses I hear every day and somehow it doesn’t matter that there is some truth to every last one of them.

Fundraising does depend on message. Communications are important. So is the involvement of senior management and the Board. I agree that in an ideal situation, the development staff’s role is to coordinate and facilitate fundraising efforts of the Board and senior staff. However, few of us live or work in an ideal world. And given that fundraising is all about relationships, databases do matter and so does lunch. But all these things are parts of what we need to do, and we can’t get lost in one to the expense of actually getting out there and coming back with financial commitments.

What’s a fundraiser to do? For starters, understand your job (and make sure that your bosses and the Board understand it also). Some of you are not going to like this, but the definition of fundraising includes variations on these words from Wikipedia: “…by requesting donations from individuals, businesses, charitable foundations, or governmental agencies. “ In other words, whatever else we do, we ask others to support our mission.

In order to make sure you are asking, you really must have a plan and that plan should focus its outcomes on how many requests you will be making. To figure out what that number must be, you must first know how much you need to raise, what the fundraising history of your organization is and how you are going to go about raising funds.

Once you have your outcomes, you can work backward to figure out how best to get there. I like calendars. First you block out all things that will prevent you from fundraising at those times. Holidays, vacations, doctor’s appointments all should be put in this calendar.

Next, put in dates for events, grant deadlines, direct mail, etc. Make sure you are blocking out not just the endgame, but the steps you have to take to get there. Put in times when you will be on the phone, trying to get appointments. Add those appointments. Needless to say, much of this will be changing on a regular basis, but you have to remember that you must control it.

If you want to see three major donor prospects a week, you will probably have to block out several hours a week making those appointments. Try to get into the habit of blocking out those hours a week or two in advance and then treat those as if they were meetings with the President. Only change those times if there is no other option. If you must, practice saying “Gee, I’m sorry. That’s not a good time. How about...” and then fill in with a blank time on your calendar.

But what about that communication plan? And, really, the database is a mess. Well, fine. Calendar in the times you need to spend in those areas. But be realistic. If you are spending 6 hours a day working on a communication plan or fixing the database you are not doing the job that is expected of you. Which brings me to my final piece of advice (well, for this posting): Manage expectations.

Fundraisers have a tendency to oversell what we can do. And those who don’t fundraise rarely understand what it takes to raise funds. A realistic plan with clear outcomes and a calendar which visually shows what is required will go a long way to turning those complaints into compliments.

Janet Levine is a consultant who works with nonprofits and educational organizations. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Her online grantwriting class is available at www.janetlevineconsulting.com/classes.html.

How (Not) to Hire a Fundraiser

janet@janetlevineconsulting.com (Janet Levine) — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 01:30:00 +0000

There were seven of us talking about this and that when the conversation turned to how it was for organizations to hire decent development officers.

It’s because they don’t know what they are looking for and don’t understand what the job should entail,” said one.

”That’s for sure,” said another, which turned the conversation to a dissection of the interviews we’d collectively been on over the years, sharing horror stories and hilarity.

”And then there’s my favorite question,” someone said with a laugh and we all jumped in: Tell us about your largest gift and what your role was in securing it.

I don’t know about you, but over the years, many of the largest gifts received on my watch came in as bequests. Frankly, in most cases, I had nothing to do with it. The second largest gift I ever received grew out of a business deal with my institution. Oh sure, I had to write the proposal and make sure that the right people were involved—and I did arrange for the check presentation.

The third largest fell into my lap when an annual donor called to tell us that he had sold his business and now had a huge an financial problem with appreciated stock. Could we help? You betcha.

This is not to say that what we do isn’t important, but judging by size gift is not the best way to understand how someone goes about the business of raising funds. Indeed, I’ve worked hardest for some of my smallest major gifts. Picture a shrug here. Was I happy that I had spent a lot of time to get a small return? Of course not. But I know that fundraising is about relationships and I also know that the best donor is an existing one, so I knew that over time the odds were that this donor would make a large gift. And it would be because I had cultivated well and—most of all—knew the value of keeping in touch with my donor in between asking for a gift.

So how would I hire a fundraiser? First of all, I would spend a lot of time thinking about what I really wanted this person to do.

Too many nonprofits hire a development director and then expect that person to log in the gifts, send out thank you letters, manage the annual gala and the golf tournament, make nice to board members (but don’t for pity’s sake ask them for anything), keep the files up to date, get out a newsletter, arrange for the bus to pick up….and oh yeah, in your spare time, could you make sure you close the financial gap between our revenue and expenses.

All these tasks may belong in the development department. But not even superman could accomplish all and do any of it well. For starters, these all require different skill sets. Beyond that is the fact that most people who are not in the business of fundraising do not seem to understand that development is not a single thing with a single set of tasks that require a single set of skills to be accomplished in a single timeframe.

The skills to be a good annual giving fundraiser are vastly different from those required of a planned giving officer. Major gifts need a lot of lead-time—and are best accomplished with a team. Each type of fund raising requires different things, and while your organization may be able to afford only one fundraiser, when you start thinking about hiring, be realistic about your specific needs. What type(s) of fundraising does your organization really require?

Be clear about your expectations and make sure that your job description outlines them completely. And then develop questions that will truly dig into a person’s style and beliefs. Make sure your questions will let you know if someone honestly knows how to do the job you want done.

If my organization doesn’t have a robust fund development program, I want to know the steps someone will take to develop one. If we don’t have a rich prospect pool, I will ask what—exactly—will this person in order to create one. I want to know what they think is most important in fundraising, and why. But I don’t really care about the size of the gifts they’ve gotten, or what they are going to tell me they learned from a mistake.

Because I believe that interviews are two way streets, I also want to make sure that my candidates know what they could be getting themselves into. What questions I ask should give them a transparent picture of the situation. If not, why am I asking? I once was asked in great detail—several questions in fact—what I would do in my first 90 days to connect with current major donors. Not a bad question except this particular organization had no current major donors. They had no individual donors at all. They had been largely federally funded and wanted to change that. The questions they should have asked me would have focused on how would I begin to identify major donors and what would I do—if I would do anything—to build an annual giving program.

Hiring the right person is hard. It takes a lot of work and a lot of serious thought and planning. Don’t shortchange yourself, or your new staff person, by creating a job description and developing screening questions that have no connection to reality. The average tenure for a fundraiser is 18 months. Given the disconnect between what most fundraisers think they are getting into and what most of organizations think they are getting, it’s a wonder that fundraisers stay on the job that long!

Janet Levine is a consultant who works with nonprofits and educational organizations. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Her online grantwriting class is available at www.janetlevineconsulting.com/classes.html.

For the Common Good

janet@janetlevineconsulting.com (Janet Levine) — Sat, 23 May 2009 02:08:00 +0000

It’s a sign of growing old….older. Lamenting what youth is coming to and being very sure that the world, once they take over will fall apart. As if we’ve done such a good job.

In business, even the nonprofit business (or perhaps especially in the nonprofit world) issues of succession loom large. Once us boomers retire, who is going to take over? I mean, everyone (being us) knows that younger people (that’s they) just aren’t as noble, as involved, as committed. All they care about is texting and twittering. They don’t care about causes and helping others.

Wrong. Very wrong.

There’s a lot going on out there and social networking is actually doing a lot for good. Danny Moldovan, Director at Jobs for Change recently sent me an email, and I’m sure he won’t mind my quoting from it:

"Jobs for Change is a career service and marketplace for social change jobs that we’ve created in partnership with dozens of nonprofits, including Young Nonprofit Professionals Network, AmeriCorps Alums, Echoing Green, Network for Good, and Encore Careers. You can check it out at
"Our goal is to spark a nationwide movement toward careers in the common good – including nonprofit, government, and social enterprise jobs. We’re currently building a huge database of social change jobs with our partners and have just hired a team of career advisors who will be blogging every day to provide guidance on finding and developing a career in social change.
"We’re currently reaching out to likeminded bloggers and nonprofit leaders to help build momentum for the campaign and spread its vision. Would you be willing to sign a statement about the importance of mission-driven careers? You can see the “vision statement” at It would also be awesome if you might mention this on your blog."

I’ve always wanted to be awesome, so I’m mentioning it. But I’m also jazzed and, yes, awed. These guys are my kids age. Younger, actually. And they are doing amazing and wonderful things.

Amazing and wonderful because they are helping a whole group of people see what awesome really is: doing what needs to be done to make our world better.

No matter what your age, visit the site. If you are already in the nonprofit sector, tell a friend who isn’t. If the crisis we are all facing now has taught us one thing, it is that we had best recruit the best and the brightest to lead the nonprofit, government and social enterprise sectors.

Or, as the Jobs for Change vision states:

"This is a moment of incredible potential. If together we harness the renewed interest in public service by recruiting and developing the next generation of leaders in the social sector, we can overcome the challenges we face and build a better future for us all."

Stuck On Start

janet@janetlevineconsulting.com (Janet Levine) — Sat, 16 May 2009 23:19:00 +0000

The meeting was great. The committee all agreed on what needed to be done and each task was assigned to someone who was to have primary responsibility. We felt good. We felt like, finally, things were going to happen.

Then a week went by. Two. Finally it was a month and a half and very little had occurred. Worse, it was clear we had missed the deadline. And once again we were stuck on start.

Sound familiar? If you work or volunteer at a non-profit where there isn’t enough paid staff to pick up the slack, odds are it does. It’s not that anyone plans on not doing what he or she was assigned to do. Or that anyone means to miss deadlines. But the rest of life gets in the way, and no one has really taken charge of ensuring that all the pieces that have to come together do.

What you need is a “Chief Executive Nag.” The one person whose job it is to keep all the parts moving. Sounds simple, but believe me, it takes a lot more than just appointing someone as the CEN.

I’ve been that nag often in my life—both personally and professionally. What I’ve learned is that no matter how good a nag I am (and trust me, I nag fantastically), unless the entire team agrees that this project is something we all want to succeed, all nagging will fall on deaf ears.

Bring it home. I spent years nagging my kids to clean their rooms. The problem was that my definition of clean and theirs didn’t match. And my need for clean was, well, my need. They frankly didn’t care.

Take it back to your organization now. Clearly, the first thing is that everyone must be truly committed to getting it done. Whatever it is. The negotiations as to what constitutes “it” and what has to be done must happen up front. I also believe in writing it all down and getting buy-in from all concerned. And then—and this is really important—clearly and concisely, chart out who is responsible for doing what, when.

I used the word chart deliberately. Everyone involved needs to see how what they do impacts what others can and cannot accomplish, and how the whole comes together. I’m not above asking everyone to sign off on the document.

And now, the nag. That person’s main job should be to call each and every person involved and find out the status of his or her task(s). And then, the nag should, on an agreed upon time (Twice a week? Weekly? Bi-weekly?—whatever works for the group) let everyone know what everyone else is up to (or not!). This is really crucial.

Without consequences, things often get put on the back burner. The consequence of everyone knowing that I am shirking my duties, or at the very least, much further behind than I should be, is a great goad to getting my work done. And a wonderful way to ensure that your project does not get stuck on start.

Janet Levine is a consultant who works with nonprofits and educational organizations. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Her online grantwriting class is available at www.janetlevineconsulting.com/classes.html.

Fundraising Blueprints

janet@janetlevineconsulting.com (Janet Levine) — Tue, 05 May 2009 16:41:00 +0000

Often I am asked if I can share a sample fund raising plan. Sure, but it is kind of like asking an architect to show you a house plan. You may get to see blueprints for a 5,000 square foot house on a interesting 5-acre lot where the person building has millions to put into construction. Great if that’s you, but I have a flat, small plot of land with only industrial views and not even close to one of those millions to spend. Blueprints for my project would be very different indeed.

Now, what I may see—and benefit from should I hire this architect—is the creativity, attention to detail and skill that he or she brings (or doesn’t) to the job. And I may learn how to read a blueprint, or in this case, to set up a basic fundraising plan

But style is one thing; substance is entirely something else. It is the substance of your fundraising plan that will make the difference.

Fundraising plans should not be stand-alone items (just as fundraising should never be disconnected from the rest of the organization). A good development plan sits on top of the organization's strategic plan and links that to the annual business plan.

Now, what do I mean by that?

Too often fundraising is just something we do because, well, we need money. We don’t consider what makes a good gift in the context of our mission. Nor do we build our program plans based in part of how well they lend themselves to fund development.

While that may appear to be appropriate, what I’ve seen is too many cases where a staff member or volunteer is telling someone about the work of the organization and the person asks, “How can I help?” Without a fundraising plan, the response is often a variation on “Uhhh, well, ummm……” At best, there is a blurted “you could give us some money.”

Now picture that conversation where there is clarity on what something costs and how much of that something must be raised from private donors. “That program costs $75,000 each year, and we have to raise $35,000 of that annually,” gives that potential donor a feel for what he or she can do that will make a difference.

Your fundraising plan, of course, would be more comprehensive than one program. I said a few paragraphs back that it should sit on top of your strategic plan. That presupposes that your strategic plan presents a roadmap for what your organization wants to look like over the next 3-5 years with a concrete idea of what that would cost.

Without knowing the cost of your goals and objectives, your strategic plan is just air. Once you know the price tag, how much comes from what sources, you can set your fundraising goal. And you can begin to develop which of the parts of the plan are most marketable for fundraising. And which fundraising techniques will be most appropriate for which parts.

But the strategic plan is long range. So your development plan also needs to consider the business or work plan. What, exactly, are we doing in the next 12 months? How will this change what we need to do?

Once you know the what, you have to consider the how. How you go about raising funds depends in large part on how you’ve gone about raising funds in the past.

No, I’m not suggesting that you blindly do what you’ve done and only that. What I am saying is that you must assess what you’ve done, see what is successful that you can build upon; what’s not been so successful or seems tired that needs to change. But you have to do more than that.

What you can do depends in large part on your resources. What size prospect pool do you have at every level? How involved and engaged is your board? Is there money and human resources to have a full comprehensive development program, or are you a one-person office with no budget? Do you have the technical expertise as well as the technology to take advantage of electronic ways on connecting with your donors?

There are no right answers here. The answers to these questions will, however, provide guidelines to help you develop the plan that works for you.

I recently worked with an organization that wanted to raise a large amount of money in a short amount of time. Unfortunately, they had been totally dependent on grants as their sole fundraising effort. They had no database of prospects and the board didn’t believe that it was their responsibility to either give or get.

The plan I wrote—which they hated—took a long view and recommended steps for building first awareness of the organization and then, slowly, major donors. They, of course, wanted instant gratification and felt that because their program was good, people should support them. I tried to explain that “if you tell them, they will give,” is not quite the whole picture of fundraising. And besides, no one should support anyone. We have to make a compelling case for their support.

Janet Levine is a consultant who works with nonprofits and educational organizations. She can be reached at janet@janetlevineconsulting.com. Her online grantwriting class is available at www.janetlevineconsulting.com/classes.html.