While there continues to be some headline drama about 2009 Giving, the reality is, it was a good year . . . if you focused on individuals, if you had diversified your funding base, if you were persistent and tenacious, if you worked hard, if you could articulate your mission and present accountability for what you did with the resources you were in trusted with.

To bore you once again with Bob folklore, go back more than 35 years to when I started in fundraising as a fulltime part of my job. Those who know me know that ego has never been a problem for me, so I took the fundraising job on like I knew what I was doing.  I did what virtually every fundraiser does who starts with a general portfolio, I solicited corporations and foundation.  In fact, I submitted 50 requests and confidently waited for the money to roll in. What rolled in was a rejection, and another rejection.  In 6 months we had accounted for one gift and 49 rejections. In case you didn’t know it, I don’t do well with rejection.

But on that day, the Giving USA Report was on top of my mail, with a bold colorful chart of who gives money away.

Individuals 79%
Foundations 9%
Corporate  5%
Bequests  7%

As we say in the South, “Mama didn’t raise no fool.”

As a lawyer, I knew that individuals had to be the donors in bequests. So 86% of all giving was being away during life or at death by individuals.  And I had been toiling away on 14% of the marketplace.

On that day I changed my view of giving and who gives.  Now decades later, thousands of successful clients, and a “boat load” of stories, and nonprofits doing their best to meet the needs of their mission, IT IS THE INDIVIDUAL WHO MADE ALL THIS HAPPEN.  (By the way I soon learned who ran foundations and corporations.  You got it: INDIVIDUALS.)

Now the number is 88% giving from Individuals and individual-influenced funds (family foundations and donor advised funds).  How could this be more vivid?  Yet many of my friends at the media of record in nonprofits write headlines that mislead the average fundraiser who is looking for guidance.  Instead of headlines that call for nonprofits to diversify, focus on individual donors, and realize that giving has only been slightly affected during the Great Recession, they use words like “plunge,” “dive,” and “sink.”  All are unnecessary and overly dramatic reflections on what happened and what is happening.

All account, regardless of the 2009 study report, for an upswing in giving in 2010.  I am glad there are naysayers. I am glad there are fundraisers who want to believe this doom and gloom stuff.  It just leaves more for my clients and the nonprofits we serve.

Sorry to be greedy, but they are the ones leaving money on the table.  Someone will pick it up—it might as well be our clients.
——
Oh, by the way, I just learned that the President has in his 2011 budget the reduction of charitable deductions for higher income individuals.  This proposal to beat up on the rich has been around for a year.  The Center on Philanthropy did a study that indicated this would cost philanthropy over $4 billion dollars.

If you want to get mad—this is something to get mad about.  Many nonprofits are having trouble, so let’s cut through tax policy $4 billion more.

Does this make any sense?

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.

This was not the headline of the Chronicle of Philanthropy or the news release issued by the group announcing the study.  Their headline was along the lines of, “Two thirds of Americans to give less or the same in 2010.”  If you read their articles, they say that 53% of Americans were going to give the same, and 11% were going to give less.  Therefore, 36% were going to give more.
Did you hear that? 36% WERE GOING TO GIVE MORE IN 2010!

Which nonprofit anticipated 36% of their donor base was going to give more this year?

I say again, “Huh?”  The real headline is the one I started with.  (By the way, I’ll give credit where it’s due: Philanthropy Journal’s headline was closer to the report.)

I’m certain every one of the over three hundred clients we represent like to hear that 89% of their donors would give the same or more.  That would be some pretty good news!

I had not heard of Fenton Communications prior to this survey release.  I have contacted them to talk about this survey, but they have not returned my call.  I have gone to their website and they look like a reputable company, but they clearly don’t understand the fundraising and philanthropy sector.  If they had reported that 89% of the American public either support President Obama or will support him more, it would be incredible.

One of the other conclusions of this study was that older Americans are more conservative about giving.  Really?  It has always been that way.  It would have been news if they weren’t more conservative.

The fact that only 11% are going to decrease giving is the story.  The robust love of  America has been highlighted by this study and the expression of this love is philanthropy.

I apologize if I seem to be beating up on the Fenton Group.  I am not.  I am glad that there is more research.  The Chronicle released a study that 50 large charities saw an increase in giving of 31%.  While a decline in individual giving in 2009 was seen by The Center for Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College, it now projects that will be erased, with more giving in 2010.

Last year, millions of dollars were lost by fundraisers in America because they bought this crap about nobody giving.

They believed the glass was 89% empty.  We didn’t.

In about six weeks, we’ll see the release of the 2009 Giving USA Report, researched by The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, which is the site of some of the most meaningful work in the field.

Giving USA has been the barometer of philanthropy in the America since 1956.  While at times I challenge the results, their extended history and established practices and procedures are valuable when looking at trends in philanthropy.  Having served on the Board of Visitors of the Center on Philanthropy, I have been afforded an up close look at methods and procedures.  I am pleased that experts with values of accuracy and rules ensure they are being applied to the research.

I have never claimed to be a researcher and I can’t judge appropriately all the processes.  Like everyone else who reads this report, I rely on the consistency of application. That is, the measures remain the same year after year, and so I assume we are comparing apples to apples.

Therefore, my assumption is that if this report is wrong, it has at least been consistently wrong for more than a half century.

This year, I am going to be more curious than ever about their assessment of giving.  How will they account for the extremely “SILENT” giving that went on in 2009 more than ever before?

You know 2009 was the year that it was embarrassing to be successful.  Your neighbor talked about how his or her stock went down, and these losses were acceptable dinner party conversation.  But if your stock or assets didn’t go down—yes, estimates as much as 35% were not significantly affected—you didn’t talk about it.  It would have been tasteless.  If your business was booming—and yes, many businesses were booming—you might acknowledge that you weren’t as hurt as others but you wouldn’t dream of declaring yourself the sole winner in this economic crash.

The same unwritten “hush, hush” rule goes for philanthropy.

Hartsook was one of the lucky ones.  Our business did well (notice even now I can’t use the word booming) in 2009, growing to 282 clients worldwide and we expect to surpass 2010 goals with 323 clients already.  We don’t want to rub in anyone’s hard times; at the same time, we are proud.  We “keep our ear to the ground,” and we hear a lot.  There was a lot of contraction in the fundraising consulting business; our research indicates that only a few of the large firms maintained their employment while some were cut in half.  We believe that this places us at the top of fundraising counsel with 65 employees and staff and over 300 clients.

Because I gave away $2 million last year, including a $1.2 million gift to Avila University’s Hartsook Institute for Fundraising, people of wealth frequently confide in me as a peer.  I’ve confided in them about a major pledge I have not announced because it would seem over the top.  (Yeah, I can hear some of you snickering . . . Bob Hartsook would never want to go over the top).

How will Giving USA address this anomaly?  This recession was heralded as the worst since the Great Depression and Giving USA had not started at that time, so how do they account for this success silence and quiet giving?  Of course we all know not everyone lost money this year; not everyone had all their money tied up in stocks and real estate, don’t we?

Let me illustrate.  Obviously, I can’t use names.  A major part of the reason the people involved in the following stories didn’t allow their gifts to be acknowledged is because they didn’t want to give all this money away in public.  But be assured that I know them personally.  These are not stories from nonprofits to Hartsook consultants, passed on to me.  Each one of these stories is a personal conversation and personal relationship.

A Southern Family gave away $80 million to create a trust/ foundation in support of five causes—three local and two national and international.  It would have been the 12th highest gift made in America according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy’s Top 50 2009 gifts.  The individual owns a privately held company that shares ownership with an ESOP and the company had a tough year; people had been laid off and salaries frozen.  He and his family didn’t think it was the right time to announce the 12th largest gift in the 2009.  How does Giving USA handle this gift?

A $1 million gift of an interest in real estate was made by a family who supports a faith based cause from an urban city.  “Sure,” you say, “. . .real estate?”  We all know what happened to real estate.  Now go read my blog about using the words “everyone” and “no one.”  This is real, and the donor who lives a modest Christian life didn’t want to flaunt the value of his property to others.

Finally, a Dentist who lives in a small, rural community gave $500,000 to a youth program and didn’t want it announced because of how others in this small community might react.  He didn’t want to brag because he knew times were tough for so many.  And we know, especially in small communities, you share each other’s troubles and you never, ever gloat.

Okay, I am going to stop.  I have made my point.  If this “wealth shame” phenomenon has never been encountered before by Giving USA, how are they are going to react?

The head of the Center on Philanthropy spoke at the AFP International Conference in Baltimore a couple of weeks ago.  He said many things, but one in particular that I think the world needs to hear.

The loss of $6 billion in giving in 2008 should be celebrated and not viewed as a prescription for future failure.  He said, “Only 6 billion?!?  Wow.  The resolve of our country to give is so great.”  While other parts of the economy tanked 40%, giving went down only $6 billion. I agree and said so at the time. Thanks, Patrick for expressing that sentiment.  It is right on.

There was much success in giving in 2009.  There was not a decline, but a reallocation of giving.  We had a public policy group that increased their giving by 34% and are 75% ahead of last year in the first few months of 2010.  We have food banks across America that are increasing their giving by 20% to 200% and teaching America that food distribution is multi-billion dollar business.  We have Colleges and Universities whose alumni and business partners stepped up.

I won’t go on.  But your heard it here: THE HARTSOOK VIEW IS THAT GIVING WENT UP 2% IN 2009!

That’s my story and I am sticking to it.

In just a little over a week, Hartsook Consultants will again offer their time and talent as part of our Hartsook Institutes’ Growing Philanthropy Days of Service.  Increasing philanthropy is, after all, our mission.

This time it will be in Washington, DC and Baltimore just before the 47th AFP International Conference between April 9 and 14.  We are excited to have The Community Foundation for the National Capital Region, and Loyola University at Baltimore join the Hartsook Institutes for Fundraising, Hartsook Companies, Inc., and the Hartsook Institute at Avila University as partners and hosts for second round of support of nonprofits challenged by funding issues.  These events will be held at the Charles Sumner School in DC on Friday, April 9; Loyola Timonium Campus Saturday, April 10; and on site for the AFP Conference at the Baltimore Hilton Sunday, April 11.

These events in DC and Baltimore follow our first Day of Service, which attracted nearly 50 Kansas City area nonprofits in January as a part of the first National Growing Philanthropy Conference.  The customized sessions involve pre-interviews and post-consultation follow up, and have attracted national and international attention because of the thoroughness of its approach.

All nonprofits must register in advance, agree to an interview before the event, bring at least three people including one board member, with the guidance of a professional fundraising consultant, be prepared to establish at least three actionable goals; and participate in a follow up in 60 days.

Interested nonprofits can visit our website at www.hartsookcompanies.com/DayofServiceRegistration to register.  But hurry—the time slots are filling up fast.

This is “no drive by consultation.”  The results of the first Days of Service are remarkable, as nonprofits gained skilsl in setting priorities, began to articulate their goals beyond just money, and raised the confidence of their Boards and leadership.  We are now beginning the followup with those who attended the first day and will let you know what we learn.

If we were skillful home builders, we might give back by building homes for those who needed shelter; if we were cooks, we might make meals to feed the hungry.

We are some of the best and brightest, experienced, professional fundraisers in the world.  As such, we are giving back in the way that shares our unique talent: by working with nonprofits to explore their challenges, and providing the most insightful, thoughtful advice to grow philanthropy for organizations that need it the most.  We are proud of our unique talent and the impact it can have.

If fundraisers don’t accept our role in growing philanthropy, how can we expect it happen?