My Asian Venture Philanthropy Adventure

My background lies squarely in so-called, traditional philanthropy – especially major gifts – and in corporate partnerships, including sponsorship. Venture philanthropy was something that I was aware of but in which I claimed no expertise. When drawn into conversations with people who worked in the venture philanthropy field I found myself mystified by the jargon. Last week, however,  I attended the very first Asian Venture Philanthropy Network Conference in Singapore.  I now pronounce myself much more enthusiastic.

One thing that won my heart was the admission by one of the key note speakers that venture philanthropy has been around for aeons.  In fact it has. Depending on your own definition, original philanthropy was exactly that - venture philanthropy. Islamic philanthropists established schools, hospitals, hostels and soup kitchens as ventures to serve humanity. In the mid-13th century most of Egypt's agriculture and Cairo's buildings were funded by philanthropic endowments. Mediaeval Italy saw the first successful micro-finance schemes the Montes Pietatis. The first social housing was funded by the 15th century Fugger family. Fast forward to 18th-century Britain where successful Victorian industrialists and financiers funded urban housing projects and industrial villages.  London's University and Queen's colleges were funded by shares. Many British provincial universities grew out of a mixture of philanthropic subscriptions and capital endowments.

I was also gladdened by the admission of many attending that they were equally uncertain of the true definition of venture philanthropy. It is a slippery beast. In fact many speakers were comfortable with the concept of a continuum of philanthropy embracing traditional philanthropy at one end and the newer philanthropic financial instruments at the other. Several people talked of the importance of blended solutions. There was a refreshing lack of dogmatism.

Equally encouraging was a spectrum of views about the role of metrics in impact analysis.  Many made the important point that how and what you measure depends on what your intended outcomes are. Some agreed that, sometimes, stories of impact were as effective, if not more so, than statistics. There was agreement that both stories and stats have their role to play.

What was most exciting though was the palpable commitment of the 300 or so attending, drawn from all over Asia, to using wealth in creative and flexible ways to meet the many challenges of the region and of humanity in general. Those attending were a mixture of individual philanthropists, philanthropy intermediaries and nonprofits. All were comfortable in each other's company sharing ideas, successes and failures. All recognising that we are living extraordinary times that require extraordinary measures and imaginative and daring philanthropy. In Asia we are surrounded by great wealth and great poverty. To create a more equitable sustainable world requires commitment and risk taking by those that are fortunate by birth, education and success in business.

An encouraging aspect of the gathering was the number of young educated people of all nationalities committed to using their financial and /or intellectual capital to serve their fellow men.

One of the more persuasive cases of the effectiveness of philanthropic financial and intellectual capital being applied to achieve socially beneficial outcomes was the story of how social ventures Australia assembled a consortium of nonprofits to rescue the collapsed ABC childcare. (If you are not familiar with this you can read about it in NonProfit Quarterly)

In all there were only perhaps a dozen Australians amongst the 300 or so from the rest of Asia.  None of these were philanthropists per se. I would love to think by the time the next conference comes around that this number will have quadrupled and that there will be an Australian billionaire or two sharing the platform with the Indians, Chinese and Singaporeans that were there on this inaugural occasion.

Growing a culture of philanthropy

I have had a number of contacts with organisations recently that caused me to think about the importance of a “culture of philanthropy”.   I don’t know when the term first started to be used, maybe someone can tell me? However,   if you Google on the phrase you will come up with a large number of excellent articles by top fundraising consultants such as Pamela Grow, Simone Joyeaux and Karen Osborne.  Significantly, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, in its 2012 Review of University Funding, makes growing a culture of philanthropy a key recommendation.

What exactly is a culture of philanthropy?  For me it is an appreciation within an organisation, from the top all the way down, of the importance of donations, grants and bequests. And of the givers themselves, including volunteers who are givers of time and effort.  The top means the board and the senior executive group, not just the chair and the CEO.  All the way down means including those vital people who meet and greet visitors at the reception desk, who answer the phones or who serve the drinks and nibbles at our events.  In the very centre, of course, are the program people, the operations staff:  the field workers, artists, teachers and researchers who actually do the work that donors and volunteers support.

How do you grow a culture of philanthropy?  And whose responsibility is it?  Well the good news is it is uses exactly the same skills you use every day as a fundraiser.  To grow a culture of philanthropy, you talk to people. You tell your colleagues stories about what you do, the people you work with, their challenges, hopes and frustrations.  But more, much more, than that, you listen.

The enjoyable times and successes in my fundraising career  happened because  development teams I have worked in were social hubs.  Thier  spokes radiated to lots of other people in different parts of the organisation.  So we had conversations, listened to criticisms, and built relationships with all kinds of colleagues surrounding us.  This led to our discovering donors, learning about projects and developing great cases for support.  It led to those surrounding colleagues sharing and enjoying fundraising. And it led to those colleagues becoming donors themselves.

The first signs of an incipient culture of philanthropy are when a development office becomes the “come to” office.  When people drop by because they want to chat and engage with the development team.  In an arts festival where I worked, the development office was the first place where people would come to learn about the programming plans. These weren't secret.  It was just that the programmers, the artistic team were to wound up in their own daily grind to share their information.  So marketing staff and the education people would learn in advance what they needed to know about the program from the development team.  In return, we discovered opportunities and got involved in things the marketers and education team could  plan which we then could take to potential supporters.

Another example involved a development office in a university that was, unfortunately, having something of  a leadership crisis.  The development office, which was very new, was in danger of losing its ability to engage with donors and continue to raise funds because of that.  But we identified worthwhile projects (and even donors) and started some green shoots of philanthropy.  This was because between us we engaged widely with colleagues across faculties and the administration. Ultimately, the university was lucky enough, eventually, to recruit a dynamic VC who believed in development and prepared to invest in it.  It subsequently has been very successful at development.

This brings me back to the point that a culture of philanthropy has to run from the top leadership through all points below.  Once the CEO, the chair, board members and senior staff feel comfortable dropping into the development office to share their experiences you can be sure that there truly is a culture of philanthropy at work.

The three terrible trip ups!

I am about share with you the “three terrible trip ups”. The three things that can go wrong in a major gift solicitation process.  In order for it to make sense, I'm also going to take you through the Seven Steps of Major Gift Fundraising. 

(This blog was initially a webinar for which I am grateful to EducatePlus for hosting).

Some of you may know these seven steps as five or six or eight or nine or 10 – I think I've even seen as many as 11 or 12. However I usually talk about the seven steps of major gift fundraising. And I also talk about the Case for Support being at the very centre of the seven steps. Each of the steps interacts with and is informed by the case to support. Often when I show the seven steps as a diagram I do so with the Case for Support in the middle as the hub and the seven steps as the spokes.

What do I mean by that?  Let's start with the first of the seven steps. Identify. My first job in major gift fundraising was a capital campaign to raise funds for a medical research institute for the University of Edinburgh. So it was fairly obvious how we would identify our prospects: our potential donors. They would be medical alumni. Or to some extent there might be drawn from the other sciences, biological sciences for example.  But immediately you can see how the Case for Support influenced identification of prospects.

Of course identifying prospects is only the beginning. The next step is researching them. In this first job, I was very lucky.  It turned out that I got to share an office with what was then a very unusual creature. A Prospect Researcher.  At that time – this was about 20 years ago – I'm not sure if there were any Prospect Researchers in Australia. There were only a very few in the UK. Our institution was one of the first to have one. And I was lucky enough to share an office with her. Lucky because by sitting next to me, Liz, that was her name, was able to listen and see and participate as we developed the Case for Support. She got to learn about the campaign and what we were looking for. She then became very good at finding what turned out to be some extraordinary good prospects. Some of whom became some of the significant donors to the campaign.

For example, she heard about somebody who had sold his business –a place where pharmaceuticals were tested – to an American competitor. It turned out he was a medical  alumnus - although one who had dropped off the radar. Sadly this gentleman had a significant amount of cash – several million pounds. Eventually he made a very generous gift to the medical research Institute. Again you can see how research interacts with the case to support.

What is research about? It's about discovering what the linkages and interests are that people have with the case for support. It is also about their capacity to give. In this case, of course, we discovered that this person had a large amount of money. But research is also about understanding where a person is in their life cycle or career cycle. For example do they still have children at school or at university, or are they empty nesters? Are they still midcareer or building a business, or like this gentleman have they just sold a successful business?

What else is research for? It is to find out how to develop a relationship with a prospect. But there is an important step that comes before that.  Planning.  I am sure you will got your own aphorisms, but the one I use is, "To fail to plan is to plan to fail".!

And what is planning about? It's about planning how you develop the relationship. How you cultivate each prospect. How are you going to introduce them to the case for support? How are you going to involve them? Who are you going to involve them with? What types of activity will they enjoy?

It turned out that the prospect I was talking about earlier had, with a couple of friends, developed a cabaret act they liked to perform. So what did we do? We invited them to perform at some medical reunions. That was a way of cultivating him.

I often describe cultivation is the dance steps that take the prospect to the ask. Generally I suggest that you start with big events, public events – lectures, open days et cetera. Events at which the key prospects don't necessarily feel singled out. Although of course you will ensure that people are well briefed about them. And then later as you research them more and know them better you're able to tailor more intimate events. Usually these are aimed at bringing the prospect together more closely with the volunteers or the leaders whom ultimately you want to be the askers.  Those who will offer the prospect the opportunity of contributing to the campaign.

And as you know, if you don't ask you don't get. That is ultimately what we have to do. I could talk a lot about asking. And I run workshops on asking. However I think the best way of explaining it that I have ever heard was from Guy Mallabone, of Global Philanthropic. He describes asking as, "Putting a number on the table". You are letting somebody know an amount which you hope they can contribute towards achieving your Case For Support.

However, rarely does anyone reach into their jacket or into their drawer and bring out a cheque or a bag of coins. In fact the first time that happened – someone who began to write out a cheque – I asked to put it away. It wasn't the purpose of that visit. I hadn't gone there to ask for money. We hadn't developed the relationship. We hadn't done the research.

There may be a number of reasons why somebody isn't able to give you the money straight away. Often they may commit to a gift or a pledge but they're not in a position to hand over the money. In one example I asked somebody for a gift, which they were keen to make. However our research hadn't told us he was in the middle of a divorce settlement. It was an amicable settlement which is why we hadn't heard about it.  However it meant that he would not be able to make his gift until that had been settled. On other occasions a person might need to talk to an adviser a financial adviser or stockbroker. Or they may want to talk to their family, their spouse or their children. Hence there may be missing pieces in the jigsaw that need to be filled.

And then, finally, perhaps the most important step. What do you do after they've made a gift? Well thank them of course. And thank them again. But much more than that. You need to look after them. Keep them informed. Let them know what their money their investment is doing. Steward them. Cherish them.

This is most important because apart from anything else you may want to go back and asked them to make another gift in the future. This is particularly true in universities. But it may also be in schools where there is more than one generation passing through that school.

So these are the seven steps. Identify your prospects. Research them to discover their linkage interest and ability. Plan how to build the relationship. Cultivate them, the dance steps. Then of course ask and close. And finally look after them cherish them so you can ask them again.

Now let's talk about the three terrible trip ups.

The first: speed dating! Going straight to step 5

I can still vividly remember my best example of this. I had just joined a University to help manage a campaign. It was for a Centre of Brewing and Distilling. It was a university in Scotland where, of course, whisky distilling is very important. Within my first few days the vice chancellor said to me, I want you to come down to London with me. We're going to meet with someone who may be able to make is a very substantial gift. He had had a tipoff that this person had come into a substantial amount of money.

The prospect was the chairman of a well-known family brewer. So we went down to the brewery, a historic site in London. We were shown around the brewery, the process by which the beer is made. Converting the hops and barley into liquid, fermenting it and then producing the ale, which we then got an opportunity to taste in the tap room.

Then we all went to the boardroom and sat around the table. It was an oak panelled room with velvet curtains and hunting prints on the walls. The chairman began to talk about the family business the history of the firm and how he had and how he had become to be involved in it. After he had spoken and it was a very interesting story it became time for the vice chancellor to take his turn. Almost immediately he began by saying thank you for this opportunity to come down and meet with you. What we would like to ask you to make a gift of around £1 million to our centre for brewing and distilling.

You almost immediately feel the atmosphere thickening. You could hear a pin drop. Everybody appeared to be frozen.  Barely a flicker crossed the chairman's face and within a moment he resumed the conversation. He switched it to some anodyne comments before inviting us to an already scheduled lunch. It was not the convivial  lunch we had hoped to enjoy.

Of course, we had done no research. We had done no cultivation. No planning. We hadn't explained the case to support. We had simply asked.

The aftermath to that came a few months later. We finally felt it was time to mend bridges. The vice chancellor invited the chairman of the lunch. We met at a club in London. Soon after the chairman arrived, before we had started the soup, he reached into his pocket saying, "I have decided I would like to make a gift to your campaign". And he handed over a cheque which we dutifully accepted and looked at suitably gratefully. It was a cheque for £5000. What he had done is something clever. It's called inoculation. He had successfully prevented us from being able to ask again for a large gift for a least the duration of this campaign. Asking too soon. That's terrible trip up number one.

Terrible trip up number two: falling in love with cultivation.  Stopping at step 4.

I haven’t as much  a story,  as a general warning.  However I will give one illustration which is also about inoculation  It was during  a campaign I was working on for a sculpture space. 

Our prospect was a wealthy widower, a collector of art. We had invited him to be on our campaign board, or advisory committee. He had suggested that these be held in his home. As time went on, his catering for these meetings became ever more elaborate. He was a keen cook. What he was doing was effectively saying I'm making my contribution not only by being on this committee but also by hosting these meetings. Meantime he was also quietly making it clear that he wouldn't be in a position to make a substantial contribution. Nonetheless, he was enjoying the cultivation.

What very often happens is that those people whom we want to involve with the prospects  – Vice Chancellors, Headmasters, Heads of Department, Deans – are initially reluctant to be involved. Then they discover that they enjoy it. It's sociable. they get to meet interesting people. Important people show an interest in them and their work. Sometimes if we are not careful, these relationships go off piste. They begin to meet each other outside of our carefully planned cultivation process. They forget that this is a carefully planned process. These are steps in the dance that a leading towards asking for a gift. Forgetting that is terrible trip up number two.

Terrible trip up number three: forgetting the donors. Forgetting step 7.







The development office where I was working was in its own building, an old freestanding building on a university campus.  We were coming to the end of the quiet phase of the campaign. We would soon be going out to talk with some mid-level donors to offer them the opportunity to become involved.


From where I was,  I could see the rest of the office.  One day one of the ground keepers knocked at the door, in his orange overalls. He and his co-workers had been cleaning up a part of the campus and he had something he wanted to show us. We went down to the pickup truck outside. On the back of the truck were several blocks of granite on which were inscribed names. It was the honour board for a campaign about which we had known nothing. A campaign from several years ago of which there was no record in our office. And amongst those names, were several of those who we were about to go out and talk with about this new campaign.

Imagine if we had gone to them and did not acknowledge and thank them for their contributions to a previous campaign! This is the third terrible trip up, forgetting your previous donors. Not showing that they are cared about, that their previous contribution is remembered.

So these are the terrible trip ups.  I’d love you to share some of your own stories.  It is from these that we all can learn.

Where do social media fit with fundraising?

I’d be very surprised if any of you reading this haven’t scratched your head from time to time and asked this very question. Social media have permeated our lives to a significant extent.  You may also have scratched your head and asked whether media is a plural or collective noun?!  Here’s an answer.

Back to social media and fundraising. My suggestion is start with the basics.  What is required for effective fundraising? Identifying prospects.  Finding out more about them. Building a relationship. Making a case to them. Offering them an opportunity to support your case. Thanking them for their support.  Keeping them informed about what you are doing.  

Let me go out on a limb here.  I think that social media can do – in one way or another – every single one of these.   Here’s some ideas.

Identifying prospects.  If you haven’t already, start a Facebook page, a LinkedIn Group and/or Company Page and get Tweeting.  Identify who engages with you. Engage them back. Befriend them

Finding out more about them.   The beauty of befriending or following anyone via these media is the access it gives you to their information.  You can begin to learn about their interests and their networks. As well you may find basic information including occupation, employer, contact details (other than through the social medium itself) and links to their other social media and / or website.  Both LinkedIn and Twitter are especially good for this.

Building a relationship.  Here is what it’s really about.  Isn’t this why it’s called social media?  Warning notice.  This is where you will discover just how much time and effort using social media for fundraising will cost you.  All I will say that over time you will develop your own techniques and disciplines.  Plus there are some good tools to help you monitor and manage your relationships.

Making the case.  This is where discipline helps.  Remember you are using social media for fundraising (OK “ friendraising”).  What you want to be sure about is that you are tweeting, posting and messaging with a purpose.  You are offering insights and soundbites and tidbits related to your case for support.  Stay on message whatever the temptations.

Offering them an opportunity to support your case.  There are Facebook apps available for you to ask for donations directly from your page.  Both Facebook and LinkedIn offer you ways to advertise and promote events.  With all media you can link to opportunities for people to contribute, attend events or volunteer.

Thank them for their support.  Facebook allows you to directly link a thank you mention to a donor public profile.  Twitter handles (that’s the @name bit) can be used to spread the love around.  Of course, direct messages can be sent via all three of LinkedIn, FB and Twitter.

Keep them informed.  You betcha!  Need I say more.

For the many of you who will want to explore this topic further here are some links to guides, blogs and reports that are worth a read.


On line experts share their fundraising and marketing ideas
Blackbaud

Use social media to reel in big fish donors. Beth's Blog

LinkedIn for identifying, qualifying, and engaging your prospects. NPEngage

Social media and major gifts. Passionate Giving Blog

Social media infographic. Mashable

India vs Australia (Who's winning this test?)

I have just come back from India where I had the opportunity to attend the Indian Philanthropy Forum in Mumbai. I was able to listen and talk to a number of nonprofit leaders. To say I am impressed is an understatement.  In fact, I would say inspired.  And would even say that I saw and heard lessons to be learned and models to be copied that would benefit practice in other countries including ours.

I listened and watched some extraordinary presentations.  They came from small and medium sized, indigenous NGOs pitching their cases for support to social investors and philanthropists. The clarity and structure of the information, usually pitched with considerable passion and conviction by the group’s CEO was exemplary. In part this was due to their coaching and training by Dasra the hosts of the Forum about whom more later.

There is famously one nonprofit for every 400 people in India!  This statistic, however, is massively inflated by the fact that it represents gross registrations.  Unfortunately, there is no de-registration of those that are defunct.

Generosity in India is pervasive.  Around 80% of the population, according to a 2012 Charities Aid Foundation survey, give to help others. The big challenge is that only around 27% is given to nonprofits.  The larger portion is given directly to individuals in need – family, servants, neighbours, beggars.  Giving to charities represents about 0.3-0.4 per cent of gross domestic product – behind the US at 2.2 per cent, yet ahead of fellow Brics - Brazil at 0.3 per cent and China on 0.2 per cent of GDP.   High net worth individuals in 2012 donated ten times the national average - 3.1 per cent of their income.  (Australia currently does not produce comparable up-to-date statistics).

Much of my visit was spent with nonprofit organisations whose work is to change this imbalance.  They are run on shoestring budgets.  They are lead and staffed by university educated Gen X or Y, women mostly. Members of the fast growing middle class.  All these people could be earning several times their salaries in the private sector. Their offices are spartan, often in rented residential accommodation adapted to provide workspace.  Every single person I met was incredibly welcoming.

CAFIndia encourages both individual and corporate giving.  It has established payroll giving in India.  Indian Parliament is about to pass a law making it compulsory for corporate India to spend 2% of its profit on CSR initiatives.  (However, as I heard one speaker at the Forum note, “There’s many a slip between cup and lip”. India’s Parliament moves slowly).  CSR in India has traditionally been understood to mean corporate philanthropy.  This, for now, until other elements of CSR are adopted, is likely to create a huge opportunity for substantial growth in giving. (Australian equivalent is CAF Australia).

Centre for the Advancement of Philanthropy for 25 years has provided the nonprofit sector with training and advice on governance and legal issues.  This is no mean feat in a federation where there is a plethora of Acts and regulations of Central and State governments for nonprofits and fundraisers.  The founder and driving force of CAP left what he described as a “cushy job” as a lawyer.  Ever since, he has helped nonprofits through the legal labyrinth. He also writes extensively and champions the sector to both business and government. (As far as I know there is no equivalent in Australia).

Dasra was founded by two people who left the security of careers on Wall Street and brought their skills to the Indian nonprofit sector. Dasra puts philanthropists and social investors together with nonprofits.  It intensively coaches and mentors these nonprofits.  The proof of the Dasra pudding was the nonprofits I saw and heard make cases so persuasively. (Possible the nearest comparison would be Social Ventures Australia).

Guidestar India was started to provide robust information about the performance of nonprofits to would be donors.  Its founder was driven by her training and experience in the Indian finance sector and her strong desire to help others.  The searchable online database now has information on 3,500 nonprofits.
Indian Foundation for the Arts meets a difficult challenge close to my heart. Even in the face of poverty and other social issues, artists and creative people will do a great deal to change India’s society for the better. (Australia has no equivalent to Guidestar).

Indian Foundation for the Arts makes grants, runs training programs and advocates for the arts, all without any government support.  As described to me: “IFA does everything that a government funded arts council (like the Australia Council) does but with no government funding!” (Nearest equivalent would be the government funded Australia Council).

Resource Alliance South Asia is part of the global organisation of the same name. It runs a certificated training program, workshops and an annual resource mobilisation conference in Asia.  It conducts an awards program for nonprofits. It also offers consulting services – “tailored capacity building” – drawing on its international network of experts. ( Resource Alliance has a presence in various regions but not Australia)

Saampradan Indian Centre for Philanthropy was founded in 1996 to promote philanthropy through research and exchange of information.  Nowadays, it focuses on creating regional community foundations outside the major metropolitan hubs. (No real equivalent down under).

South Asian Fundraising Group (SAFRG) is the veteran, founded in 1987.  Its most valuable contribution has been its annual Workshop.  This brings fundraisers from all of South Asia together to learn from fundraising experts from around the world.  In addition it runs one day masterclasses led by local experts.  These programs have recently been joined by a certificate course in fundraising and marketing.
All of these organisations have first to raise their own funds. Governments provide no financial support for the sector.  They do not charge memberships. And usually they charge only minimal fees for their activities and advice.  (An organisation with similar intentions would be the Fundraising Institute of Australia).

There is one lesson I took back with me from this trip.  It is that there is a key difference between the developing and the developed world. The first is described by a verb (well a gerund, to be precise), the second by an adjective.  One is active, doing. The other, well, static….

Fair point?  What do you think?

Facts and Figures

India is the second most populated country in the world with approximately 1.2 billion. Its GDP per head is USD$3,900.  Thirty percent of the population live under the poverty line, which the Indian Government defines as about $0.50 a day. On a more generally accepted measure of $1.25 a day the percentage would be the more commonly stated 40% living in poverty. India ranks 134th of 187 in the United Nation’s Human Development Index.

Now some good news.  India’s economy is ranked 50th for growth at about 7% p.a. (Australia is 103rd, New Zealand 139th). India’s rapidly rising middle class should grow from more than 160 million people in 2011 to 267 million people in 2016.  HNWI numbers are around 120,000. 

Should we be grateful for “Twiggy”?

“Twiggy” and Nicola  Forrest  are the first Australasians to sign the Giving Pledge.  They pledge to give away half of their fortune during their lifetime.   You can read their actual pledge letter here.   “Twiggy”, of course, is no stranger to controversy.  There are more than a few who are vocal in opposition to his business activities and his views on indigenous issues.  If you are one of the few who haven’t heard these debates (or have forgotten)  it’s worth a read of this ABC Four Corners transcript.  Or just scan some of the headlines compiled by Crikey.

Should we be grateful or should we be alarmed by the capacity of 115 or so mega rich signatories to the Pledge to intervene in national or global affairs?  The Forrests propose to work with governments and other organizations to deal with issues related to aboriginal communities and to modern slavery.  Bill and Melinda Gates already work with governments and NGOs across the world to deal with problems in education and health.   Others on the list have similar broad reaching agenda.

Ought we to be concerned that individuals such as the Forrests and the Gateses have been able to accumulate mind boggling wealth and influence?  Or ought we to recognize that the rich like death and taxes will be always with us?

I adopt the latter policy.  It is not within my capacity to change the rules of global power and wealth.  As fundraiser I can do my bit in a small corner of the philanthropic ecosystem.  My small contribution is to encourage the very wealthy to think seriously about doing good.
The truth is that the very rich will continue, as they have done since the beginning of time in all cultures, to be philanthropic.  There are varying schools of thought as to their motivations - religious belief, search for meaning, guilt?   The one quality that potentially all have in common is what US sociologist Paul Schervish calls ‘hyperagency’ .   In layperson terms this is self-belief and ability to get things done multiplied hundredfold.

So yes, I celebrate Twiggy and Nicola and all the others joining the Giving Pledge and the hundreds and thousands of other wealthy people who are philanthropic.

Footnote: There is an interesting debate on a similar issue here in the Gawker.com  and Forbes.com  blogs,  ‘Do the Good Rich Exist’ and  ‘Yes the Good Rich do exist’

Revolving DODs

It’s a common topic of conversation and it’s been given a recent new spark by a US survey of nonprofits by Compass Point . How come certain Directors of Development roles rotate so frequently?
“All too often, nonprofit organizations pin their hopes and dreams for fundraising on one person—namely, the development director. And, our survey data confirm that many of the fundraising challenges facing nonprofits today can be traced to high turnover and other problems in the development director position”.
Having been a director of development and having watched and work with many of you, some of the insights ring clearly. Unrealistic expectations, lack of resources, lack of engagement in fundraising by CEO and Board, a failure to understand process and methodologies of fundraising.
My worst experience of all of these at once was taking on a role attracted by a juicy target ( I was still young and eager to impress) only to discover that there was no agreed case for support, no identified prospects and not even a functioning database.
But hang on! Does the US experience, as reflected in the report really ring true of the Australasian environment? I am not sure that it does. I am not sure that the situation is nearly as stark here. Many of not the majority of the Directors of Development that I know has been in their roles for some time. Think around your colleagues.
Whilst some express frustration, a lot are committed to the challenges of their roles and achieving admirable results.
What do you think?