A degree in fundraising? It’s a no-brainer

Is it a case of the cobbler's shoes? Universities are increasingly turning to philanthropy to funds their needs. But how many of them actually teach fundraising?

Charles Keidan asked a similar question recently in Times Higher Education.  "While universities arm themselves with a “philanthropy workforce” and sophisticated donor-profiling software, another question has received far less attention: where is the academic scholarship and teaching about philanthropy?"  Where indeed?

I should declare an interest. It is my fond hope that one day I will find a nook in academia somewhere, where I can devote my time to researching and teaching new generations of practitioners about philanthropy and fundraising.

And I’d like especially to focus on ‘fundraising’. What is the state of play with regard to researching and teaching fundraising at present? I'd be grateful to anyone who can add to the following roll call.

In the US, the two best-known centres for research and teaching of fundraising are the Schoolof Philanthropy at Indiana University  and the Hauser Center at Harvard . (Although, from their brochures it looks as though neither of these offer fundraising as a major).

In the UK, there appear to be three places. A new course has been launched at the University of Chichester. The University of Plymouth is home to Adrian Sargeant, as Professor of Fundraising . Lastly, Cathy Pharoah holds the position of Visiting Professor of CharityFundraising at CASS Business School, University of London. 

Apart from these places in the US and UK, from where will we find any tertiary trained fundraisers?

There are, and this is no bad thing, a growing number of university research centres studying and teaching philanthropy and civil society more widely. Unsurprisingly, the majority of these are in the US. However, according to Times Higher Education, Europe is home to eight dedicated academic centres of philanthropy and two chairs. 

Australia has its Australian Centre forPhilanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, and The Centre for Social Impact ( a four university partnership which includes the  Asia-Pacific Centre for Social Investment and Philanthropy). Of course, the more we understand philanthropy, civil society, the various distinct and hybrid forms of social investment, nonprofit management, NGOs and so on the better.  But none of these in Australia teach (as a major) or research fundraising.

However, it still begs the question of where any of this (including social investment) would be without fundraising? (And, of course, this also links back to where would the institutions where these research and teaching activities exist, be without fundraising?).

Perhaps we can take some comfort from the fact that only recently the question was being asked, “Where is the research and teaching on philanthropic foundations?” In preparing to write this blog I came across this 2010 blog entitled 'Is there a future for the academic study of the philanthropic foundation?'. My own PhD supervisor, Michael Liffman, wrote an article this year in Alliance Magazine, explaining how he came to found what in 2002 was the first Australasian course offering a professional education in grant-making, philanthropy and social investment

I hope that Michael will share my view that a degree in fundraising (given universities are increasingly dependent on fundraising) is equally important in 2014 - and will forgive me stealing his Alliance article's title!

What's the 3rd sector for?

What do we have a third sector for? 
By third sector I mean that group of activities that are done not by elected governments and not by privately owned enterprise. The sector sometimes called the voluntary sector, the civil sector or the non-profit sector.

Let's think of some of the things that this sector is doing today.

• At great risk to their lives humanitarian aid workers are attempting to bring relief to the hundreds of thousands of innocent men and women and children trapped in the maelstrom of Syria Iraq.

• Again, risking their lives, medical workers are dealing with the nightmare of Ebola in central and west Africa

• Scientists and researchers working in our universities and research institutes are discovering new mechanisms for combating and curing life destroying disease.

• Activists of all sorts are putting themselves in dangerous and uncomfortable situations, often defying governments and large corporations in order to promote a vital discourse around the delicate balance between the natural and man-made orders.

• Other activists are fighting for freedom from oppression, torture, executions and shining lights into some of those dark corners of our geo-political world where our governments and commercial enterprises are constrained, or afraid to intervene.

• Organizations are providing support, counseling and practical assistance to a range of minority groups whose votes or dollars are insufficient to trigger the interest of the other two sectors – minority groups such as but not limited to children at risk, disabled of all sorts, minorities of many kinds, refugees, homeless and so on.

• Artistic and cultural artefacts and practices are being preserved and promoted through museums, galleries, theatres, opera houses and concert halls as well as a myriad performing groups and talented individuals.

In all these cases, these activities are happening not because they win votes toward political power or generate financial revenue and private wealth. These activities are happening because thankfully in the circuitry of human existence there are links and conductors of empathy and moral imagination. We are able to see, feel and hear the plight of others then imagine, articulate and execute ways to make a difference.

This, it seems to me, is what the third sector is for. I have nothing but respect for those of my friends and colleagues who have chosen to work in government or private sector. However, I am very comfortable being part of this vital other partner in the success of humankind and the preservation of our globe.

How do you get the rich to support the arts?

The typical Aussie billionaire finds his fulfillment in watching himself climbing up the Rich List.

So said art and film critic John McDonald, adding he could name only two out of Australia's 39 billionaires who had “a cast-iron commitment to art.”

His turn of phrase is interesting, if innocent. A look at the list of Australian billionaires reveals that the majority are - if not casting iron exactly - certainly engaged in mining or construction. Digging holes and building towers, I would suggest, tend not to be the occupations of aesthetes and art lovers.

Much of the rest of McDonald's article relates to corporate rather than individual support for art. However, it is his suggestion that the rich should support the arts that concerns me. I agree that it would be nice if there were more support for the arts. Equally, I believe it is important that we do what we can to encourage philanthropy  of any kind from the wealthy and not so wealthy more generally. However, there is a another side to this equation. That is the side of the beneficiaries of philanthropy - whether they be the arts and artists, or other sections of our civil society.

The responsibility of those of us who work for civil society is to enter into a positive dialogue with the wealthy and make the case that we are worthy of support. McDonald makes these points in the final paragraphs of his piece. "Many donors, large and small, complain that they have been treated with rudeness or a lack of consideration," he says. "Sending out letters and starting campaigns will never do the trick."

Of course not. What we need to do is investigate and understand the minds of our potential patrons. The comment I made above about digging holes building towers was intended as a clue. To start with we need to identify whom the most likely supporters will be. What are their interests and what do they value?

Interests amongst the first and second and second generation that dominate the Australian very wealthy tend to remain close to the source of their wealth.  Their preoccupation is with the industries from which their money has come and they hope will continue to come. Miners and builders tend not to be very interested in the arts. However, some are philanthropic. Of the Aussie billionaire miners, Andrew Forrest gives generously to indigenous programs.  Of the billionaire developers, Frank Lowy has given time and money to football. There are readily found clues in the background of each which point to these preferences. Their personal stories have been told again and again in the media.

The two billionaires whom McDonald specifically mentions as supporters of art are are Kerry Stokes (media) and Kerr Neilson (finance). Both are art collectors, the latter owns a gallery. In my view he unfairly overlooks the Pratts (Packaging) and Packers (Media and Gambling). Both are billionaire families who have made substantial contributions to performing and visual arts over decades. In fact, he dismisses James Packer's $65 million commitment to the arts as "a sweetener" to a property development - Barangaroo - in which Packer has a substantial interest. This, though, is to overlook the history of involvement in the arts of other members of the Packer family.

Family background has its influence on philanthropy. James Packer could have linked his sweetener to indigenous matters or to sport, either of which would have gained him brownie points with the government. Philanthropic decisions are rarely made unilaterally. The Pratt family link to the arts can be discovered through the biography of its principal characters.

Incidentally there is an honorable list of Australia's not quite, or once-but-no-longer billionaire families and individuals who do support the arts.  The Balnaves (media), the late Elizabeth Murdoch (mother of media magnate, Rupert), the Fairfax family (another media owning family), the Myer family (retail) and the Belgiorno-Nettis family (civil engineering) John Kaldor (fabric), Pat Corrigan (freight).

My point?  We enlist the wealthy by identifying those who are most likely to share our values and beliefs, developing relationships with them and offering them opportunities to support our work where it most seems to match their own interest. In my view there is nothing to be gained by complaining about or hectoring those who may have other genuinely held values, beliefs and interests.

The very, very rich got even richer

Wealth-X and UBS have just released their 2014 research into the world's billionaires. 

The numbers have increased, which will surprise nobody who subscribes to Thomas Picketty's argument that you and I will never catch up to the wealth of people who are already rich.

There are now 2,325 people with a net worth of at least $1 billion this year – 155 more, or a 7% increase, from 2013. They collectively control $7.3 trillion dollars in total wealth. Jacob Davidson, in Money put is, "that means a group of people about the size of a typical suburban high school student population could fund the entire United States defense budget for 14 years." 

The report provides some interesting tidbits for those who are interested in the lives of the rich and famous. For example it offers a month by month billionaires' social calendar, noting the events they are most likely to attend. The US Masters and PGA Championship feature prominently . But also, at least 23% of the world’s billionaires are likely to attend at least one, if not more, of the many elite art shows held annually around the world.

However, more comforting is the discovery that more than 70% are active in the philanthropic sphere. Excluding future pledges, the report says "billionaires, on average, donate just over US$100  million cumulatively over their lifetimes. This is equivalent to 3% of their net worth – more than the average  billionaire’s real estate holdings".

Topping the list are Chicago's billionaires. 100% of these billionaires are active philanthropists. New York and Los Angeles follow at 96%. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia at 95% beats Singapore's 94% of philanthropically inclined billionaires. Only 85% in London show interest in philanthropy.

Education, and Higher Education are top two on their list of preferred causes. The Arts come fourth after Health. Religion, unlike for the population more generally (most studies show) falls bottom with only about 4.5% supporting church, temple or mosque.

Chicago's billionaires give especially towards improving living conditions and the developmentof their city. Those from Tokyo, in contrast, show interest in disaster relief and the environment.

Also just published is a new book by Brookings Institute academic Darrell M West 'Billionaires: Reflections on the Uppercrust.' One of this book's cautions is that we need to be aware of new models of billionaire gift giving. Cultivating wealthy individuals requires considerable tact, persistence, personal contacts, and know-how, he rightly notes. Being results oriented, many billionaires focus on concrete objectives, and they want demonstrable impact for their money.

West cites Matthew Bishop Michael Green, the authors of Philanthrocapitalism . They describe how the very wealthy bring skills and tools from the business world to their philanthropy. They push nonprofits to focus "in some cases for the very first time" on specific outcomes for their work and performance metrics.

He could also have cited Paul G Schervish, who coined the term hyperagency for the behaviour of the very wealthy. As he describes it:

"Hyperagency  is the ability to exercise effective control over the conditions and circumstances of life rather than merely living within them. Hyperagency, in contrast to agency, means that the wealthy are able to construct a world that suits their interests". Schervish, PG & Herman, A 1988, 'Empowerment and Beneficence'.

In a later work, Schervish - who has studied the philanthropy of the very wealthy in United States in greater depth that anyone - has also identified 13 strategies followed by philanthropists in what he likes to call the New Golden Age of Philanthropy. (Schervish, PG 2000, 'The modern Medici')

Theresa Lloyd and Beth Breeze have recently published a study of why rich people in the UK give to charitable causes.Lloyd, T & Breeze, B 2013, 'Richer Lives: Why Rich People Give' 

For Australians, a work worth reading on what motivates major donors (though not billionaires per se) has been written by  Wendy Scaife, Katie McDonald and Sue Smyllie (2011 'A Transformational Role).

Data protection spells disaster for fundraising

I was struck by the headline of an item in Third Sector. "EU data protection plans 'potentially disastrous' for charity fundraising" it proclaims.

The article went on to quote from a report from a fundraising agency "Fundraising depends on big numbers and economies of scale; by generating enough new donors, the cost of finding and keeping each one gets small enough to make donor recruitment profitable." My question is, "Does it?" 

Without wanting to denigrate the commitment of those of you fundraisers who specialize in mass appeals, my understanding of successful fundraising leads me to quite the opposite conclusion. Could it not be that instead of disaster, perhaps restrictions on the use of lists, telephone campaigns and direct mail would be a victory for effective fundraising?

Effective fundraising, it is generally reckoned even by those who practice more mass-market approaches to fundraising, requires building a relationship. So what if suddenly we switched our effort from list-buying, mailing and calling segments, postcodes and sociodemographic profiles? Instead, what if we spent our time identifying and researching people who  really are connected and close to us? Who are part of our real social constituency not just the product of data analysis. Our existing donors, our volunteers and their families and friends? And, those that have been touched by and share in our causes? What if we actually took time to talk personally and directly to these people? What if we got to know them on a one to one basis? What if we asked them to become part of a network of personal connections? What if our contact with them was social, face-to-face and responded to their interest and passion for what we do uniquely, valuing them as a person instead of as a data point?

That, of course is the basis of major gift fundraising. It is also the way to successfully approach business partnerships and to get support from trusts and foundations.

However, if we step back in time it was also the way that philanthropy originally was born. Mass-market fundraising only really started in the early part of the last century. Street fundraising originated with the YMCA and wasn't popularised until the 1980s by Greenpeace. Direct mail fundraising is really only a post World War II phenomenen. Its precursor direct mail marketing began the 1900s. Telephone fundraising, as I'm sure many of you know came much, much later.

Prior to these, fundraising for social causes including the arts and education was achieved by personal connection between social activists, volunteers and donors. The main fundraising tools were events of various sorts including balls, concerts and lectures. Fundraising letters were written personally -think of Mrs Jellaby in Dickens' Bleak House. Other forms of  eighteenth and nineteenth century fundraising also included financial tools and instruments curiously similar to those that we describe as "new philanthropy". The significance of any of these older forms of fundraising is that they involved networks of individuals interacting viscerally, personally and socially.

So, if suddenly, governments introduced regulations that limit our ability to buy lists, to mail and telephone people whom we don't know, will that really be such a disaster?

One must travel, to learn (Mark Twain)

 "If the passenger visits better countries, he may learn to improve his own", wrote Samuel Johnson,  in 1755.

As I have spent the past two weeks in India a thing that has struck me as I read my morning news has been the number of stories about local nonprofits. 

It has led me to think afresh about the importance of nonprofits (NGOs) and social enterprise in the space between what government and the for profit sector can do. It is in this space where change can happen, a difference can be made and humanity can be found. What would the world be like without all the various organisations in that space where you live?

There are said to be around 200,000 nonprofits in India more than one for every 600 of its 1.2 billion people. In India, as in much of the developing world, the ability of governments and the for profit sector to deal with the huge demands of extreme poverty and a fast growing population has limits. Here are some examples of how Indian nonprofits are stepping up to the challenges. 

Keshav Srushti in a bid to spread awareness on solar cooking, will be recruiting students from 500 schools across Mumbai to cook solar-powered dishes. This solar cooker is a rudimentary piece of plastic foam that can reach a maximum temperature of 120ºC and can save up to 10,000 units of electricity on a daily basis and is functional for a year.

Salaam Balak  is trialing solar powered school bags for the poor. This idea came to its designer when she was talking to her domestic help, “She told me about the problems her children faced while studying at night. There are frequent power outages in her slum". The backpacks look like regular schoolbags but turn into a lamp when their front pockets are unzipped.

GOONJ  responded to the problem that 68% of rural women cannot afford sanitary napkins. When women cannot afford sanitary pads they resort to using cloth pieces or nothing. This causes infections and can lead to cervical cancer. GOONJ decided to act on this issue and started a movement of making sanitary pads out of waste cloth for rural women.

Sewa Trust  provides free meals to city slum and street dwellers admitted to hospitals who are unable to afford their own. Many of the beneficiaries are migrant workers drawn to the cities from rural India by the opportunity of work and separated from family support during their time of need. Says one beneficiary, “I regularly come to this organisation and am offered free food by the members. I live on a footpath and do not have enough money to buy food for myself". 

Sangama, an NGO for sexual minorities, sex workers and people living HIV has been asked by the Kerala Government  to conduct a socio-economic and situational survey of transgenders in the state through an NGO with a view of formulating welfare measures for them.

To celebrate Indian National Day on 15 August, the Times of India ran a feature that highlighted several more NGOs and social enterprises:

Basic school skills

The focus of in-school programs has always been on children achieving basic skills. The depressing fact is that of children enrolled in class 1, about 40% drop out before class 8 and a total of 70% drop out before class 10, makes basic literacy and numeracy an urgent social goal. Akshara’s effort began in Bangalore when remedial programs were implemented with volunteers, trained to identify children with learning deficits and give them specialized inputs. 

Microcredit and crowdfunding

Rang De combines microcredit and crowd funding to help people achieve freedom from poverty. It acts as a bridge between people who want to help the under privileged and those who need money to invest in small businesses. People living in cities can choose from a huge database of borrowers on rang these websites invest as little as Rs.100 into their business.

Out on the streets

Started in 2010 by an anonymous group of volunteers Ugly Indians are out on the streets fixing pavements, fearing a garbage, removing unauthorised posters, painting walls and planting saplings all over India. The regional initiative in Mumbai has been to document all the filthy and rundown parks and playgrounds and lobby the city council to remedy these.

Femininity and Fearlessness

The Fearless Collective are artists, activists, photographers and filmmakers who use art to speak out against gender violence. It was formed in response to the Nirbhaya rape and murder. The collective aims to redefine fear, femininity and what it means to be fearless.

Pay from your heart

Seva Cafe is a pop-up restaurant run entirely by volunteers. At the end of the meal  diners don't get a bill, just a little note which says "Pay from your heart!".  A hundred percent of the restaurant profits is used to support social service projects.

See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0V1XVzD7ik

Is the Death of Corporate Philanthropy Exaggerated?

The end of corporate philanthropy was predicted in a post on the Forbes Leadership Forum. I reckon not and  the answer lies in stirring the alphabet soup.


Paul Klein, who heads business and civil sector consulting group Impakt, encourages any corporations who are giving away their hard-earned dollars to charity to stop.

Klein, admittedly, doesn’t go as far as Milton Friedman famously did, saying that the only responsibility of a business was to make a profit, or as Jamie Whyte implied even more stingingly in the Wall Street Journal, “Corporate philanthropy is theft.” However, Klein spares no punches when it comes to charities. He recommends they “can address the loss of 5% of their revenue by reducing costs, improving efficiency.” (Those who argue that charities should spend more on overheads will wince at that uppercut.) The five-percent figure quoted is the corporate contribution to nonprofit income.

The Giving USA statistics from which the number is drawn also show that corporations’ giving to charities declined during 2013. Yet there has been a steady flow of reports and articles pointing out that companies who do good in the world do well. A 2013 Cone Communications/Echo Global CSR Study says companies are “expected to be an active participant—if not a driving force—in solving the most pressing social and environmental issues.” Cause marketing—such as Toms’ “One for One,” (Product) Red, and Patagonia’s “Common Threads”—has been highly successful. Millennials, we are told, choose to join and stay with companies on the basis of their volunteer programs and social commitment.


However, it might just be a matter of semantics. Aren’t all the above types of doing good by companies forms of corporate philanthropy? Or are they corporate citizenship? Or corporate social responsibility? Impakt on their website extends this lexicon with yet another label: corporate shared value.

Might it be possible to take a contrary view that has corporate philanthropy is alive, well, and kicking—and adopting many different guises? I have always argued that the best thing for corporate fundraisers to do is to decode then rearrange the letters in the corporate alphabet soup. As well as CSR other acronyms in the soup are  CP (Corporate Philanthropy or Partnership), CSI (Corporate Social Investment), CSV (Corporate Shared Value) and more. The solution is to rearrange it as a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum is the hard edged advertising and marketing related type of corporate partnership at the other softer gentler fuzzier community, social and political objectives.

Your job as a fundraiser is to understand what opportunities your organisation can offer and where it fits in the spectrum. Once you know that, you are a better position to identify whom or what department to target. If you have opportunities that are going to drive sales, or enhance corporations product brands then you're at the hard edged and and you need to be talking to sales and marketing executives. If your organisation offers opportunities for corporate volunteering, then you probably want to be investigating the company's human resources Department.  If your organisation has good government connections then you might offer opportunities for companies government or public affairs relationship building. If you are doing good in a particular community, especially one that is linked geographically to companies activities then you will probably be wanting to talk to corporate affairs.

Of course, one of the advantages your nonprofit may have is that you may have benefits at several different places on the spectrum to offer  a company. Take for example a health charity that stages a public event, such as a marathon, that offers branding and product placement opportunities for a business partner.  As well your nonprofit may have strong links  with government health or welfare departments. Such links offer opportunities for business partners to be seen supporting a government backed initiative and may offer networking opportunities to develop  relationships with officials. A major arts festival by which I was once employed offered both these opportunities.  We worked alongside brand and product managers to achieve outcomes at the hard end of the spectrum and with corporate affairs directors and the CEO's office to facilitate networks and contacts at the other more subtle end.

The secrets to developing successful corporate partnerships is to understand your corporate partner. If you can get inside the company's skin, that is see and hear through the corporate executive's eyes and ears then you have a good chance of pitching an opportunity.

Note: Some paragraphs of this blog were first published as a NonProfit Quarterly Newswire on 21 July 2014