I just talked to my friend who is also my personal banker and is in charge of giving for his bank in my home town.  He is a great guy who cares about philanthropy.  He has been supportive of me in the community.   In our conversation, I told him that the Giving USA Report had come out and 2009 went down 3%.  He said, “Bob, I came to your house for that reception, and a fundraiser for a local museum and another for a social service organization came up to me and asked to visit sometime. I said ‘sure.’  That was seven months ago and neither has called me.”

Did you get that?  Neither one called in over a seven month period!

Giving went down $10,000 as a result of negligence on the part of two fundraisers.

I know both of them.  They had both had talked a lot about how difficult fundraising was for them in this economy.  And yet, they walked away from a gift.

That baffles me.  Why would they do that?  Are they too busy to raise money?  Are they worn out by “beating the streets?”  Did they say “no” for him?  What do you have to do?

It reminded me of a fundraiser for a domestic violence facility who said last year, “This is why we have reserves.  We shouldn’t be asking people for gifts now.  Nobody is giving any money away.”

So three different fundraisers, for very different causes, bought into the common view that no one was giving away.

Did you see the latest Chronicle on Philanthropy article on 50 large institutions that have had increased fundraising in the first quarter at more than 30% over the past year?

You may be hearing two stories.  One story is that “people are saying” no one is giving money away.  The other is based on fact and last quarter data on actual dollars raised.  It says money is available for those who are willing to go the extra mile, get creative, and demonstrate a compelling, urgent need.

Which story do you choose to believe?

The myth that small budget nonprofit organization cannot or should not pursue multimillion dollar campaigns is exactly that: a myth.

The size of your nonprofit organization’s operating budget does not dictate its fundraising prowess.

How do I know? The nonprofits who have been successful:

A battered women’s shelter with an annual budget of $90,000 raises $2.1 million

A youth summer camp with an annual budget of $300,000 raises $8 million

A community arts groups with an annual budget of $160,000 raises $3.8 million

A statewide professional society with an annual budget of $40,000 raises $7 million

A small town Boys & Girls Club with an annual budget of $280,000 raises $2.5 million

A group helping sexually abused children with an annual budget of $450,000 raises $4.5 million

A community based drug and alcohol recovery organization with an annual budget of $150,000 raises $1.3 million and 30 months later raises another $1.1 million.

There are more examples, but I think you get the point.

There are always reasons not to pursue a comprehensive campaign:

“The economy is poor.”

“We don’t have enough staff.”

“The board is not engaged.”

“We don’t have answers to a lot of our questions answered yet (I call this one paralysis thru analysis).”

“We have no big gift donors (and you won’t if you don’t do a campaign).”

“There are groups currently doing campaigns in our city.”

“We’ve never done a multi-million dollar campaign before.”

And my personal favorite, “No one knows who we are (beyond money, campaigns serve to greatly increase the visibility and profile of an organization).”

All of these dynamics were true for these nonprofit groups. Still, they went on to raise major dollars in service to the clients served by their nonprofit group.

Each of these groups had a different mission and a different type constituency. What these successful organizations have in common is a desire to better serve their clients and to serve more people in need. These groups engaged fundraising counsel and each pursued a major campaign. On any given day they had their doubts and concerns about their fundraising, but each trusted and pressed forward with the fundraising process.

Most importantly they did not allow their doubts and fears to delay or high-jack their ultimate goal of raising more money to better serve their clients.

If an organization of any size allows the current view of itself, including the size of its annual budget, to influence its future it strikes me that its future will be much like its past.

by Guest Blogger Robert Swanson, Vice Chairman, Hartsook Companies

Robert G. Swanson has worked with fundraising and nonprofits since 1987. He completed his nonprofit career as CEO of the Emporia State University Foundation. He has worked with nonprofits in 16 states and over 200 communities. His current client roster includes nonprofits in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. He is the author of Fundraising Magic: Turning Board Members into Fundraisers.

Fundraiser, Lawyer and Lobbyist: these are my three roles.  I always wanted to be a banker, but I didn’t take that road.  It’s just as well.  These days, I think I made the right choices.   I’m proud of each of my career paths. My clients, employees, and friends are better off because of those choices.

I used to joke about how these three professions are perceived.  You know I never miss a good punch line.  It’s almost too easy to make people laugh at finding one person who has chosen these three careers.

No more!  I have made it clear that I am devoting the rest of my life toward changing the quality of the fundraising profession.

I can’t change how lobbyists or lawyers are perceived.  But I can damn well have an impact on the perception of fundraisers.  This is not a measure of the quality or character of those who, like me, chose this career path.  It is a fundamental preparation problem.

We call fundraising a profession.  It’s mixed, though, and that’s putting it gently.  Plumbers have a better set of standards for their profession than fundraisers!  Let’s take a lesson from this profession.  You might not know it, but plumbing and fundraising are a lot alike.

Plumbers, in the end, either get water flowing or stop it.  Anything in between is not acceptable. Fundraising is that way: you either raise a buck or you don’t.  Like plumbers, fundraisers get credit for someone else’s good work.  The guy who installed the dishwasher did a great job.  So when the next plumber puts in the garbage disposal, it works great!

Fundraising is the same.  We value and appreciate donors, we recognize them and we use the money the way the donor intends. The water runs when it is supposed to and doesn’t when it shouldn’t.

But plumbers have more reliable standards than fundraisers for telling the consumer whether they can depend on us to do the job.

In an interview with a prospective client today, I was hit with the same old stuff:  Why don’t you raise money on a commission? Can you guarantee success?  We have hired people like you in the past, and they didn’t raise anything.

Okay, I am a conservative, and I’m not usually in favor or more controls.  But I think it is time for us in the fundraising profession to consider some oversight.  Not from the IRS, but from the commerce department.   The refractory issues are not that of the IRS.  The question is, “are we competent to do our jobs?”

We know what needs to be done.  The Hartsook Chair at Indiana University established the only licensure for fundraisers in the UK.

Fundraisers need to be held accountable for what we say we do.  I am weary of having to defend fools who set up shop as fundraising consultants or join national groups or attend classes and get certification from prestigious universities for sitting in a seat and never demonstrating they know how to identify, let alone cultivate or solicit, major gifts.

I am proud of my profession.  We have accomplished incredible, seemingly impossible tasks.

I am doing something to improve it.

What are you doing?

What was to be a Day of Service designed to help nonprofits with their funding needs turned into four days.  As a part of the first National Growing Philanthropy Conference, Hartsook Companies, the Avila University Hartsook Institute for Fundraising, along with The Greater Kansas City Community Foundation, sponsored this event.  We expected 12 nonprofits to take advantage of our highly skilled and talented Hartsook teams.  Instead, over 50 signed up.

This wasn’t just a “drop by and get some advice” event.  This was a hands-on commitment to growing philanthropy.  Each nonprofit agreed to participate in a pre-consultation interview, bring at least three people including at least one board member, agree to three action steps as a result of the two-hour session, and be available for a follow-up in 60 days.

In mid-December we distributed the announcement that nonprofits with funding challenges were invited to participate.  On the first day of the announcement, 23 nonprofits responded.  The second day, there were 31, then 36, and so on.  We decided, to the extent possible, we would turn no one away.  By mid-January, over 50 had signed up.  Our Institute at Avila University in Kansas City found a bigger room and we recruited more consultants.  The program was held on January 20 and 21, and will finish on February 11 and 12, with 16 Hartsook consultants working with nearly 200 board members and staff of Kansas City area nonprofits.

The morning of January 21, there were six groups engaged at one time with two or three consultants working with each nonprofit.  Each of our consultants has wonderful, inspiring stories to tell but since this is my blog, I will tell mine.

I worked with four very eclectic groups: a community symphony, a health education center, a children’s home, and the felony-to-work organization, Beyond the Conviction.

So I began my day with three men who represented convicted felons.  I am so thankful to them and to the scheduler that they were my first visit.  They expanded my horizons.  If you think you have trouble raising money, try doing it for felons!

Mike Jackson, Ruben Paiz, and Patrick Danley were articulate, thoughtful and, frankly, successful.  I asked what their goal was and they said, without hesitation, “safety first—for the public and the felon—and developing the best-qualified job seeker.”

Like every nonprofit, they have a mission and a need.   Through a long conversation, we developed a three-point plan.  They have placed staff at some of the largest corporations in the city.  I told them those were their prospects, along with their board members.

The Hartsook team and partners knew going in we wouldn’t change the world in just two hours.  But we also knew the power of a plan, no matter how small, when combined with goal-oriented, committed individuals.

Well, two days later Mike proved our point.  Already, he had contacted the community foundation to establish his Donor Edge file and was on a schedule to get in front of two of his major supporters.  Each of these groups has moved dramatically as a result of their efforts and our work.

I couldn’t be more proud of the men and women of Hartsook who made this day happen.  Beyond helping these nonprofits, the payback was how good our team felt by giving of their talent, which just happens to be fundraising.  Ask any nonprofit where their needs lie.

As fundraisers we spend a lot of time celebrating philanthropy and little time highlighting what we do: fundraise.

You may get tired of hearing that Hartsook Companies and Hartsook Institutes are committed to GROWING PHILANTHROPY.  It’s not just talk.  Ask Mike, or any of the other 149 people we worked with.  It is real, and it is happening right before our eyes.

As I was listening to ESPN the other morning . . .  Wait, Bob Hartsook listens to ESPN?

Sometimes.  Okay—rarely, but that’s beside the point.

Back to my comment . . .

A national anchor was interviewing a bookie who runs the largest gambling facility in the world.  I don’t have any idea what a gambling facility is, but this person owns it.

According to this guy, Americans will spend $560 billion on sports gambling in the USA this year.  Just so you know I was listening, Las Vegas is a small part of that betting world.  Learning is my passion.

Did you read that? $560 Billion?

According to the IU Philanthropy Center’s Giving Report, about $300 billion is given away in philanthropy each year.  Because you’re reading this, I’m guessing you already know I am a critic of the amount of philanthropy we give.  We take pride in this amount, but so many needs go unmet while the growth of philanthropy is hardly a growth.

But the growth in gambling is real.

Gambling doesn’t have a Gambling Center at a prestigious university, but as I have been able to assemble the data, in 2008 $500 billion was gambled; 2007, $430 billion; 2006, $360 billion . . . then the data begins to drift.  (Maybe I should start a Center on Gambling Data for America . . . right after I start my Center on Alcohol Consumption, my Center on Vice Predictions, and my … well you get it).

I know I am preaching to the choir.

Speaking of the choir, do you realize that of the charity dollars we provide, only $100 billion goes to religion?  While $560 billion goes to gambling!  I am not into guilt, but seriously?!?

Our problem with philanthropy isn’t wealth.  We all know there is plenty of that to go around.  The problem is how we as fundraisers access wealth.  (You knew I would get to the fundraiser eventually, didn’t you)?

We access wealth through the quality of fundraisers.  I am the first to take responsibility!  I am at fault that the separation between philanthropy and gambling is $260 billion.  While I may have had my successes, it wasn’t enough.  I haven’t done my job.  But that is ending.

Maybe we should set a philanthropy goal that equates philanthropy to gambling spent.  After all, in good times and bad, the bookies keep after the gambler to find hope.  But in bad times, fundraisers back off of hope.  We make excuses about why people don’t give.

Yet in this time of financial difficulty, our company counsels with food banks that are knocking home runs in fundraising; think tanks that are raising the highest goals ever; museums that are setting limits to the amount donors can give; hospitals that are setting records; and universities that are paying bonuses to fundraisers and faculty because fundraising goals are being exceeded.

It isn’t the economy, stupid.  It is the fundraiser.

Let’s all challenge the status quo, because it’s clearly not good enough.  Let’s stand up for improvement in fundraising education and preparation.

Am I bold enough to think we can actually affect the amount of philanthropy that takes place annually?

You bet.