As a fundraising consultant, I interact with others from the charitable sector in online chatrooms on a regular basis. Most of these exchanges are constructive where we share opinions and useful tidbits of information that will help our professions and the organizations we serve. However, I engaged in a rather sad and unnerving discussion earlier this week with an Executive Director that I am sure is representative of far too many leaders in our business.
The individual in question was seeking advice for hiring a fundraiser because her organization which provides frontline services for poverty-affected people had completed a fruitless round of interviews with candidates. None were selected since they were deemed under-qualified or their salary expectations were “too extravagant”.
With my interest sufficiently sparked, I expressed my frustration with charities – except the author’s I assured her – that pride themselves for allocating as little as possible towards staff compensation, particularly in fund development. I opined that such gestures were committing a large disservice to the non-profit sector across the board by advancing the severely flawed notion that keeping overhead low frees up more money to “go directly to programs”. Perhaps hiring a former board or staff member to occupy the role on an interim basis for a nominal stipend until an appropriate candidate is recruited was my suggestion.
Yet the author seemed mildly annoyed with my idea as she asserted that theirs was a small charity. Her major concern was how diverting funds from frontline services to a “risky” area like fundraising was speculative and “did not directly support service delivery”. The organization lacked the “infrastructure” of larger groups and according to the author, there are never any “guarantees when investing in fundraising”.
While few would disagree the number of people devastated socially, economically and mentally by the pandemic continues to rise at an alarming rate, investing in fundraising is not taking food out of their mouths. Conversely, not spending money on fund development is a surefire way of prolonging their strife.
The author’s contention is the charity is denying assistance to people who urgently need it by directing resources to fundraising. In reality, pouring all organizational resources into frontline needs immediately jeopardizes its ability to help these vulnerable people in the future because its leaders have no idea from where the necessary funding will come.
Embracing such a reactive attitude towards fundraising is self-destructive. Money is what enables a charity to obtain the resources that are necessary to implement the solutions that create positive change. Fundraising strengthens an organization’s ability to enhance the vitality of their communities. Ignoring or neglecting fundraising prevents them from getting what is needed and exacerbates the problem.
Prevailing negative attitudes about fund development commonly arise when a charity’s leaders are hyper-focused on the transactional side of fundraising. The board and staff fail to see that sustainable fundraising is based on cultivating relationships with individual, institutional and corporate donors. The secret is working with your donors to help them develop an affinity for the cause and a passion for creating the change that makes their community a better place to live, work and play for everyone.
Building a base of support consisting of loyal and committed donors who wish to do all they can to improve the lives of vulnerable citizens involves zero risk. However, it does involve the organization engaging its donors regularly and showing them the impact their generosity is having on the lives of the people it serves.
Upon engagement, a charity’s objective should be to increase each donor’s passion by reminding them of the transformative change their gift achieved. Donors must experience an escalating sense of ownership over the organization’s accomplishments. As their attachment to the cause heightens, so does a donor’s willingness to increase their investment.
Another barrier to sustainability is viewing the task of requesting donations as begging or “inconveniencing” donors. Bear in mind that a charity is the primary resource that is used to create positive change. Donations are investments in that resource’s capacity from those who wish to see it produce optimum impact.
When a specific charity’s programs deliver impact that improve the lives of their friends, family and neighbours, why wouldn’t a donor feel compelled to invest all they can in its work? Asking for contributions is not harassment when the donor has much at stake in an organization’s programs. Rather it is a privileged invitation to perform a heroic feat for people in their orbit.
The longer a charity harbours a hostile mindset about fundraising, the harder it is for it to transcend its “hand-to-mouth” existence. Establishing a “fundraising friendly” environment that begins at the top with the board and permeates throughout the organization is a crucial first step towards sustainability. Only by nurturing a solid donor base can a frontline charity proactively respond to the evolving needs of the vulnerable citizens they serve.
Stay Well,
Mike
