If you spend enough time on their website, I know you’ll find something you can use.  If you don’t, keep digging. We’re proud to be associated with Blackbaud as our national partner.  Like us, they can’t do everything.  But they are pushing the envelope and share our mission to grow philanthropy.

Unfortunately, as I see it, yes.

I asked my friends at Blackbaud if anyone had compared the rate of decrease of discretionary buying by the American public from 2008 to, say, 2010 (let’s keep this most recent financial picture out of it) and compare it to the Giving USA report of decrease in giving?

The answer was, not that they were aware.

Well, I did.

We all have read that Giving USA has revised their numbers.  They added in estates, which meant that ’08 really didn’t lose money and we adjusted for IRS studies . . . you get it.

But what it says in dollars is that the loss went from $309 billion to $290 billion in that three-year period.

That was a three-year loss of 6%. Which isn’t much, considering the national media claimed that the world of nonprofits was practically coming to an end!

Wouldn’t you consider giving to be a discretionary “buying” decision?

Want to guess how much discretionary buying has gone down from September, 2008 to September, 2010 according to the Gallup report of October 11, 2010?

Oh, Bob, you say . . . It is probably the same.  Though it could be a bit more . . . giving to my Church matters so I continue to give. . .

Well, I could bore you with hundred more of those trite comments I have heard.

Discretionary buying went down 40% over this same three year period, September 2008 to September 2010.

That’s six times — or 600% — more than giving.
If you were one of the smart nonprofits that ignored the wails and whines and “the world is coming to an end” prophesies of the nonprofit media, you raised a lot of money in the last three years.

If not, you were too busy shrinking and cutting back to notice donors shopping elsewhere.

Let’s see.  What other excuses can we come up with for not raising money?

Or better yet, I have an idea.  Wouldn’t it be a lot more productive to come up with reasons to raise money?  If we did, our donors just might buy them.

Since 1998, NPT and its editor-in-chief Paul Clolery announce their view of the 50 individuals who contributed the most to advancing the nonprofit community in the previous 12 months in their list, NPT Power & Influence Top 50.

I follow the list religiously and respect the editor as a fair and objective journalist.  Just so we get this out of the way, the Hartsook Chair, Adrian Sargeant — who was on the list last year — didn’t make it this year.  I will kid Paul about it and he will ignore me like he always does, but there is something more important than Adrian not making the list.

The list has a glaring absence of the academic community.

I did my own count and could only identify two individuals who were academically based. I am not naive about the fact that others do research and certainly the list cites many who, from one perspective or another, are advancing fundraising through research. Bill McGinly at AHP comes to mind.  But the fact remains, with Adrian’s absence, no one from the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University made the list.  No one from one of their largest projects, Giving USA, made the list. Please don’t hear criticism of NPT or the Center or Giving USA.  Rather, this is a concern you have heard from repeatedly from me about the lack of serious work being done in the academic world.

The proliferation of academically-based nonprofit management and philanthropy programs, including the Hartsook Institutes fundraising masters degree at Avila University in KC, are all over the scene.  By last count there were over 150 such programs.

But here is my criticism . . . (you knew it was going to come, didn’t you?)

There is a place for anecdotal experience and stories.  You know I am not bashful about telling them.  But with all due respect to those with good stories and successful experiences (I count myself in that group), it is time we start building a body of knowledge on which to base our teaching.

Unfortunately, AHP has to develop their own.  In fairness, maybe they are using academic support.  Clearly AFP doesn’t meet the needs of their members and university fundraisers are building their body of knowledge within CASE.  All of this is good, but as a practitioner who has personally worked with over 500 nonprofits, I find there is an advantage in having a broad base of knowledge and then honing those skills based on it for the discipline you are serving instead of the reverse.

How many doctors are taught first how to do a heart transplant before learning to take temperature? How many lawyers are first taught how to bring a class action suit before understanding the common law?  Even as a teacher, you need to understand the basis and history of education.  But in fundraising, nonprofit management, or philanthropy, we glide over that quickly and move on to the practical.

Nonprofit programs frequently celebrate that they are taught by practitioners rather than academics.  We all get the point.  Non-profits are a unique kind of animal. “Gee, we wouldn’t want to have some basis theory influence the behavior of future nonprofit managers.”  This behavior is particularly egregious in the field of fundraising.  “Let’s get practitioners.”

Even worse: out of the 150 nonprofit or philanthropy programs, two thirds don’t require a course in fundraising.  Can you believe that?  We are putting out master degree graduates who are believed to be good managers and they don’t even have a philosophy course in fundraising!  (Oh, you didn’t know there was a philosophy to fundraising?)

A client in Iowa gave me a brochure about a master degree in nonprofits and philanthropy at one of their state universities.  They offer one course in fundraising: Grantsmanship.  Get ready . . .You aren’t going to believe this.  Guess which department is teaching the course in Getting Grants? (See my blog on the difference between Grants and Gifts).

If you guessed the English department, you were right.  Certainly our educational system has failed us in building a literate body (I used to have a senior employee of mine who could not put together a grammatically correct sentence. He is no longer with us), but if fundraising or nonprofit management students need improved English skills, then this should be a remedial upgrade.  Maybe I’m speaking out of line.  Perhaps they have a great English professor who knows grants.  By the way, if you read my blog you know there is no difference between a grant and gift.  I’ll bet the English prof doesn’t know that.

I hear you, I hear you.  Bob, wrap this up.

You all know my interest in growing philanthropy and if you trust NPT, it ain’t growing because of innovation at the academic level.

This year, they recognized 15 trade associations, 14 Foundations, four Philanthropy Advocacy groups, two educational institutions, one government, and 14 direct service organizations.  The editor makes it clear they were trying to highlight tech-oriented groups.  He accomplished his task.

Congratulations to NonProfit Times’ 50 most powerful and influential people in the nonprofit tech-oriented arena.  Thanks to NPT for taking time to assemble the list and bringing it to our attention.

This haunting question has perplexed the major scholars in the field of philanthropic giving for years.

Well, the answer is this: at its core, “Nothing.”

Did you hear me?  Nothing.

But for some reason many naive institutions want grants rather than gifts.  I have come up with the answer.  From now on by order of Hartsook, all gifts shall now be called “grants.”  Put into effect on this day in the year 2011, all fundraisers and nonprofits may boast they have received grants from this person or that person, or that company or that foundation.

And philanthropists, you now get to call your gifts “grants.” (Frankly, you get to call them whatever you want.  After all, it is your money).

Oh, perhaps that disturbing statement gives rise to even more questions and issues.  Can the gifts made by anyone be directed and called whatever they want?  Shouldn’t society decide where the money might be best used?  After all, donors just don’t know how best their money can be used.  We should leave it up to the nonprofit leadership or maybe government to determine that; after all, they are unbiased.

Anybody following what is going on in Washington recently or for that matter in many state capitals?  You are picking sides and declaring what is the best use of tax money.  Oh, but that isideway, because that is your money paid in taxes (or at least 50% of us.)  Let’s put the burden of picking winners and losers at their door step.

No, this is simple and it has been since I asked for my first gift 40 years ago.

You have money.  My organization needs money.  It is up to me/my organization to explain to you why you should give it to me.

“It is a tax write off.” See how far you get with that.

“We do good work.” This has been the message of so many organizations, and has been surprisingly successful.  But that is changing, and quickly.

“You care about my cause.” So? I care about a lot of things.  Am I supposed to carry the entire burden?

“You ought to do it. It is the right thing to do. ” Another whopper.

“Well, it is better to go to an objective donor, a Foundation.”  Yep.  Sure.  Have you noticed it is becoming clear that more than half the assets of Foundations are being held in family foundations or community foundations?  Guess who makes those decisions? You guessed it: those self-centered, self-directed, and ill-informed PEOPLE.

Wow, you can’t get away from them, can you?

“So let’s go to corporations, sure they have selfish interests, but maybe we can hook up with Ford Motor Company.  Their logo has blue in and our color is blue.  A marriage made in heaven.  Let’s do it.”

Or, how about . . .

I can’t keep going on this, listing the absurd connections well-meaning institutions and volunteers come up with to avoid doing the one thing they must do:

PROVING THEIR WORTH TO SOMEONE WHO CARES.

So is it a grant or a gift?    Hell, I might as well give up.  Tell me what you want it to be and call it what you like.  You will anyway.

Just do it right.

Well, I am glad that is settled.  Let’s move on to the difference between a philanthropist and a donor.  That ought to be fun.

Robert F. Hartsook, JD, EdD

I can’t even sit back on a Sunday morning at Wrightsville Beach and enjoy the Sunday paper.  Being consumed by thoughts of fundraising is a curse I’m certain I don’t share with many people.

A recent article in the Star-News on non-profit giving in the Cape Fear region was quite timely.  However, unfortunately, it missed the reality and focused on a few smaller agencies that in any time have a challenge to raise the money necessary for their mission.

As the way to raise money, the special event is unsuccessful many more times than not, generally because of a lack of focus on the objective. My colleague, Karin Cox of Wilmington, is the author of a chapter on special event fundraising in a college fundraising textbook by Adrian Sargeant, the Hartsook Chair at Indiana University.  This chapter focuses on the purpose of the special event, mot how to do one.  A dimension of the chapter, the Cox Grid, is gaining wide acceptance as a way to evaluate special events.  It invites the agency to state clearly its goal in measurable terms of raising money, educating donors, building a donor base, and appreciating donors.

Karin Cox, Matt Beem, President and CEO of Hartsook Companies, Inc and I just returned from the first American Summit on Growing Philanthropy in DC sponsored by our company, our chair at Indiana and our Blackbaud, the largest data base management program for nonprofits.  By invitation, 25 leaders from all the sectors of the nonprofit and philanthropic fundraising, education, and management attended.

Among the early conclusions of the Summit:
1.  Giving for the last few years has gone down only 3% when consumer purchases have dipped in double digits.
2.  Current fundraising best practices exist for an increase in giving by 10 - 30%.
3.  Preparation of those professionals is sorely lacking.

I would say that special events might not be the way small nonprofit organizations should go to raise money in Wilmington.  But don’t be discouraged. With the university, hospital foundation and many others, the giving climate is robust and available.