As a fundraiser, part of the deal is showing up.  My clients know that on New Year’s Eve, I call each of them.  If I get them, I offer them my best holiday wishes and cheer.  If I don’t reach them, they get THE LECTURE.

Believe me, you don’t want THE LECTURE.

Here is the nice version.

As an eager young fundraiser working for Washburn University, I didn’t know that I wasn’t supposed to work on December 31.  So I was there.

A law graduate of the University, John Shamberg, had told me all year long that he was going to gift some land to his synagogue, his private K-12 School and Washburn Law School.  I didn’t think much about it other than I remembered his promise.

On December 31, John called me.  He told me a story that has made millions of dollars for institutions all over the world.  Typical of lawyers, he had put off his gift of land until the very last minute.  His 40 acres was on the outskirts of Kansas City - 119th and Blackbaud Road – and it was worth $450,000.  His intention was for each institution to get $150,000.

Guess what?  When he called the synagogue, no one answered.  When he called the K-12 School, again no one answered.  When he called Washburn, Bob answered.  John, who has since passed away, said, “Bob, you just won the jackpot!”

Washburn got the land.  Not that we didn’t have to work for it.  I had to go to John’s office; there was paperwork that had to be filed.  It was New Year’s Eve and the Register of Deeds had closed, so we couldn’t file the transfer.  Those of you close to the law will understand - we had to go to the property and claim it.  Our Dean, Carl Monk, came to Kansas City from Topeka and he, John and I went to this then remote location.

John and Carl went to the center of the property, where John said, in his loudest voice, “I declare that this property has been given by me, John Shamberg, to Washburn University Law School and its Dean, Carl Monk.”

Carl then moved to the center of the space and announced to no one, “I, Carl Monk, Dean of the Washburn Law School accept and receive this land on behalf of the School.”

We then all had a glass of wine and celebrated.

Well, Washburn kept that land for many years and sold it for nearly $4 million a couple of years ago. Not a bad gift, John.

When I was a fundraising staff person, that story kept me by the phone at the end of the year for my entire career.  Bob, who owned a manhole company, called and gave $47,000 in closely held stock.  Frank and Patsy made a million dollar payment on their pledge.  Sylvia finally decided it was time to endow that opera scholarship and wrote a check for $100,000.

Every year, something happened and it still does.

Well, you don’t know when, you don’t know how, you don’t know why.  But if you are my client, I will be calling to see if you nonprofits are open and ready to accept an end of the year gift.

Trust me, it might be worthwhile to be in.  There’s a good chance your John Shamberg will call.

Dan Moore, a great friend of Hartsook and former senior executive with Guidestar and now the owner of his own consulting practice–cleverly called Dan Moore Consulting—was the most recent visiting lecturer for the Hartsook Institutes Masters in Fundraising Management class at Avila University in Kansas City.

Dan is the “go to” resource for an understanding of government regulation of both the fundraiser and the fundraising professional in America. I first met Dan at a Blackbaud joint-sponsored program in DC last year.  After the first of the year, I need to write a blog on Dan’s view of regulation and how nonprofits need to manage it.  Like they have so often, our students at Avila get to talk to the prominent people of our profession. Dan is one of them.

Usually, by the second paragraph I’ve gotten to my point.  Let’s get to Dan’s point.

The charitable deduction is at risk.  Readers here know that while we are obviously against such a move, we are at least talking about it, unlike so many that put their collective heads in the sand.

Dan told a story that is an old fable, but is pertinent in this context.  If you think about breakfast (I am on Weight Watchers, so I think about breakfast all the time) there are two major players in your eggs and bacon: the chicken and the pig.  The chicken is involved; but the pig is committed.  That is literally “skin in the game.”

Well, for the charitable deduction, we as fundraisers have skin in the game.  Thank you, Center on Philanthropy and others who have done analysis of the impact of the President’s tax increase on wealthy people by changing the tax deduction.

They report that about one billion will be lost in the first year and a couple or more in subsequent years.  That has been characterized in the nonprofit media as modest.  Where were those headlines when giving went down in 2008 and 2009?  You would have thought the world was coming to an end when giving went down the same percentages.

My point isn’t to take sides here.  No, wait . . . I am taking sides.  We allow our political leaders on both sides to begin to erode the charitable deduction, and it is a slippery slope to reduced philanthropy in America.

And more important it is naive to be giving up on the deduction loss so early in the debate.  One writer with the Nonprofit Quarterly commented, “Since the loss is so modest, is it worth the fight?”  As a former lobbyist, I submit that in these early days of a serious debate, that position is a strange one for us to take.

Those who say we should take our share of the cuts are forgetting that the burden of our society is being passed on to the nonprofit world by the government cuts that are taking place.

Finally, this is going to go on for the election year.  I don’t see this change occurring before the election and if it did, it won’t impact until 2014.  But headlines announcing the deduction has been saved are over stated and premature.

For a couple of days, I’m going to “stick my head in the sand” and enjoy the holidays.  But I won’t stay there, and I hope you don’t either.  We have a powerful voice on this and other issues.  Let’s use it in 2012.

Holidays give me time to ponder.  I’m sure some of the Hartsook staff wish I wouldn’t think so much because I have a reputation of making more work for everyone.  But this Thanksgiving, I didn’t think of more we needed to do to grow philanthropy.  Instead, I was in a very reflective frame of mind.  I thought of three who are not merely making a difference in growing philanthropy, but who have reached “legend” status.

You know Hartsook Institutes gives the Growing Philanthropy Award to individuals and institutions that demonstrate fundraising success through innovation and creativity.  You have read their names, you have seen the announcements, and some of you have even been present when we gave the awards.

Just for a moment, I invite you to look at the back story of three of the legends who received the awards with lessons that can help us emulate them and grow philanthropy.

Most recently, Roger Lowe, retired Senior Vice President of Wichita State University, received the award.  Some of you may have thought, “CFO’s are usually pains in the neck to fundraisers, dismissing estate designations, discounting pledge values, and wanting only unrestricted money and money they can ‘book.’”  Right?

Well, Roger is different.  He does not impede the fundraiser; rather, he tries to remove obstacles so money can be raised.  Imagine!  Let’s say you have a restricted gift to do a project, but not quite enough.  Roger searches for ways to legitimately use other funds to help reach the goal.  Or what if your CEO wants you to raise money for a project that isn’t very flashy. Roger jumps in, looking at alternatives.  To him, where the money comes from isn’t as important as getting the project done. Roger is a rare breed of CFO.  He is a rare problem solver and a good fundraisers greatest ally.

Next, Harvesters, Kansas City’s Food Bank’s Karen Haren and Joanna Sebelien took an idea of creating broadly restricted targets – Initiatives – of Child Hunger, Family Feeding, Nutrition, and Senior Feeding to present their case.  Instead of whining about hunger, they demonstrated how they were going to solve a problem.  It was not a public relations stunt when they brought their CFO (another good CFO model) to the same table and worked on an Initiative Budget for the entire organization.  They presented the cost of each program from a comprehensive point of view.

As a result, they have grown annual fundraising from $2 million a year to $14 million in six years.  Their own national organization gave them an award for this, then didn’t follow their example.  While they’re having a big year in fundraising, they are laying off people because they didn’t do the budget relieving part of the strategy.   They didn’t understand that it’s not a gimmick.  It’s real, dedicated organizational change.

Finally, our own Chair in Fundraising, at Indiana University, and his colleague, Jen Shang gave us the research on bequest pledging.  Among the findings is a simple, transformative idea that everyone can make a bequest just as they can an annual fund gift.  This 2008 research is slowing catching on.  We have three bequest pledging organizations in which the numbers are fantastic all over.  In less than 10 months, Tulsa Boys Home asked each of their 44 board members to give through a bequest.  Only one turned them down and they have nearly $5 million committed in six months.

As a national organization, The Heritage Foundation has the challenge of communicating with their donors through direct response and then following up.  Asking for bequests, they have closed 221 bequests this year valued at over $20 million, almost three times the average of previous years.

Finally, the Humane Society of Greater Kansas City is in a campaign but has discovered the inclination of their membership to give has raised $5 million in bequests just from their Board of twelve.  In the Sargeant/Shang research you’ll learn that an agency is 17 times more likely to get an estate gift if they ask.

At Wichita State University, thirty million dollars was raised from 276 donors as a result of the Bequest Giving Strategy; over $75 million in fundraising growth because an organization was thinking from the donor’s point of view and established a partnership with the CFO instead of focusing on the competition.  This innovation changed the direction of a university.

Some may dismiss this as just another series of random stories and situations.  No, each of these was as a result of a strategy to grow philanthropy in America and in the world.

What is different here is that we observed, watched and recognized with the Growing Philanthropy Award, that each model of behavior can change fundraising in the world.

This past holiday, that’s what I thought about.  It was a great a Thanksgiving.

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.

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?