After all the “Leave a Legacy” promotion in the past 20 years—the focus on planned gifts, and research on who gives them—the needle on realized gifts has barely budged. Perhaps it’s too early to judge this, but many of you know I have long been a critic of the planned giving profession’s focus on “gizmos” rather than simple bequest solicitations.  The Hartsook Chair, Adrian Sargeant agrees and published a long and exhaustive look at bequest giving in late 2008.

Bequest giving isn’t just a side order of fries.  Think about this: if we could move the realized bequest number to 8% or 9% of total philanthropy, we would add $6-$10 billion more.  And you know I am all about growing this number.

I titled this entry “Yes, No or Maybe.”  I will get off my high horse and back to the street.  Recently a client Vice President for Development, Robin Rowland of the Humane Society of Greater Kansas City, shared with me a survey she did of her 600 most loyal donors last January.

By the way for those who are reading this and believe that Nobody is giving money away, this organization increased their annual support from $300,000 in four years ago to one million this past year.  But I digress . . .

In the survey Robin developed that asked about opinions on animal welfare, their relationship to the agency, some demographics about marriage and child status, was a question that asked “Have you included the HSGKC in your estate plan or would you be interested? “  Respondents had three choices: “Yes,” “No,” or “Maybe.”  The returned surveys revealed that some already had designated an estate gift.

But interestingly enough out of the 200 who responded, 60 said “Maybe.”

Maybe?

Yes, “maybe” they would.  Let me tell you that again, out of 200 responses, 60 said that maybe they would include HSGKC in their estate plan.  We aren’t talking about an organization with a million donors or even 20,000.  We aren’t talking about an organization that has had an effective fundraising program for decades.

So the answer is, “perhaps.”  “I would consider it.”  “Maybe.”  Now the Humane Society just needs enough time to follow up.

Of course, you know every story always has to come back to me.  You knew I would manage to make that happen.

In the late 70’s with no data base other than punch cards, I sent out a survey similar to Robin’s to Washburn University’s 300 oldest alumni.  I asked similar questions relevant to a University.  Of the 300, one hundred replied and 30 or so of those said they had included Washburn in an estate plan.  I was a one man fundraising shop, so for an hour a day, I would pick up those 30 cards from the corner of my desk and call each of them to thank them and ask if they would value it.  Before the year was over, we had virtually all the 30 thanked, valued and verified.  Millions of dollars have flowed in as a result of that exercise.  One Vice President of Washburn even called me once to thank me for doing this.

I wonder what would have happened if I had left an option for them to say, “Maybe.”  How much money did I leave on the table for Washburn?  Sorry, Washburn, I was young and inexperienced.

Hartsook is applying Sargeant’s bequest research with five institutions that have agreed to serve as beta sites for testing his assertions.  In his new text, Fundraising Principles and Practices, you will find there are two separate chapters for what has traditionally been lumped together: one for Planned Giving; another for Bequest Giving.

The tide is changing.  “Maybe” you should think about all the money that’s being left on the table.

In the last few days, Adrian Sargeant, the Robert F. Hartsook Chair in Fundraising at Indiana University and the Center on Philanthropy was named to the NonProfit Times “Top 50 Power and Influence in the NonProfit World.” He is the only academic and one of very few dedicated to fundraising in their profession.

And, of course, he is the only Hartsook-related person on the list, which probably doesn’t matter to most of you.  But it matters to me.  This isn’t a pride issue.

Okay, you got me . . . It is a pride issue.  But it is much more.

You know Hartsook Companies is dedicated to fundraising education and changing it to increase philanthropy.  This acknowledgment by NonProfit Times gives Adrian a new platform to talk about this important change that needs to happen in our field.  Our Hartsook Institutes masters degree in fundraising that was founded on the research Adrian and others have been pushing forward begins this fall at Avila University (Watch the Avila University TV spot).

This is exciting stuff!  Our field is changing.  Our own Karin Cox the author of a chapter in the new text on fundraising and the creator of what is being called the Cox Grid on Special Events.  Our COO, Matt Beem wrote the chapter on planned giving and my chapter is on major giving.  We each recorded support materials for these chapters for the new AFP/IU Diploma Program which will begin in 2011, the first academically credited diploma for a special credential.  And we already rewrote the American Humanics guidelines for fundraising undergraduate acknowledgment; the UK Professional Standards written by Adrian are approved.

So in the past four years Adrian and the Hartsook Institutes have begun the transformation of fundraising education in the world.

Many people ask why Hartsook has invested $5 million in advancing fundraising education in the past four years.

We did it because we know that the key to raising more philanthropic dollars is better qualified fundraisers.

Don’t misread this.  I’m not blaming fundraisers—I’m helping them!  Believe me, I’ve had employees who didn’t get it.  They no longer work for me.  They thought raising money the old fashioned way was good enough and that telling personal stories about what they thought would work was just fine.

It’s not hard to see that simply following the old rules and doing the same thing over and over will result in the same outcomes.  If you’re raising money with the “I’ve always done it this way” approach, I’m sorry to tell you, but you’re leaving money on the table.  A lot of money.  It’s sad, because the people who rely on you to fulfill your mission deserve more.

Are you interested in increasing philanthropy?

We are.  We are reaching out to organizations that have tread on that fundraising hamster wheel of experiential, anecdotal stories and misguided intuition.  It’s time for creativity and growth.  It’s time to use the research, not just read it.  A lot of people talk about the Bank of America study, Google study or the Sargeant Bequest Pledging study, but few apply it.  We do.  Why?  Because we must, if we are serious about growing philanthropy.

I have a small story of a recent young leader in fundraising we have been working with who is going to sweep people off their feet.  Nick took a $1,000 donor and moved her to $100,000 because he believed, then to $750,000 where she is going to join the leaders of this organization.  She will make a $6 million dollar gift in her estate.  Nick is interested in growing philanthropy.  He’s got it.

In 20 years we are going to have a cadre of fundraisers—Nick included—who have been trained and educated by various tools that the Hartsook Chair, Adrian Sargeant, developed.  This is the beginning of a partnership that is growing philanthropy.

Now, we add this recognition to the Top 50 Power and Influence in the nonprofit field to the long list of honors Adrian has earned.  I know Adrian.  He is humbled by the honors, but he will tell you, “It’s not about me.  I’m interested in increasing philanthropy.”

Congratulations, Adrian on this new recognition.   You are changing fundraising thought and challenging the status quo.  You are changing the world.  I am glad you let me jump on for the ride.

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 a Hartsook Consultant guest blogger

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?