“If You’re Going Through Hell, Keep Going.”

The above quote from Sir Winston Churchill is great advice for our time as we strive to cope with:

• Persistent inflation,
• Current or looming recession,
• Stock Market in Bear Market territory,
• Lingering global pandemic,
• Tight labor market,
• Tension over returning to the office,
• War, current and potential,
• Political uncertainty,
• Natural disasters,
• And other challenges.

Now, I’m teaming up with highly-regarded fundraising consultants Skystone Partners to provide insights into the current philanthropic environment, helpful tips for nonprofit organization, and answers to your questions. Join host Elizabeth Kohler Knuppel, Skystone CEO; Bill Mulvihill, of Counsel at Skystone; and me on Tuesday, Oct. 11, 2022, at noon (EDT) for a lively conversation.

You can ask your questions during the during the live webcast or pose them as a comment below.

During a time of economic uncertainty — and even decline — what can nonprofits do to impactfully fulfill their missions? How should organizations react and adjust to the shifting landscape of in-person and remote-work, largely brought upon by the pandemic? How do these changes affect fundraising strategy and activities? What are the opportunities?

For in-depth discussion around these important questions and others that seem to be at play all at once, I invite you to register for this FREE program now by clicking here.

Read more: “If You’re Going Through Hell, Keep Going.”

­­­­In a March 2022 post, I announced that I was returning to the blogging and webinar scene after a lengthy series of complications due to my ongoing struggle with cancer. At that time, I celebrated my return by inviting you to my Spring webcast with Skystone Partners. Unfortunately, shortly after that program, my health once again took a turn for the worse. Now, my professional life is limited, and I choose projects carefully. It’s why I haven’t been blogging lately. However, when Liz invited me to join her this month, I couldn’t say no. The subject is too important, and I know when Liz, Bill, and I put our heads together, you’ll get something of real value.

If you missed my previous program for the Skystone “On Giving” series or you want to watch other programs, including our October discussion, I encourage you to visit Skystone’s YouTube Channel by clicking here.

Just so you know, my blogging in the coming months will continue to be limited as I continue to march through my own hell. As I’ve written before, I’ve been living with an exceedingly rare aand life-threatening cancer since 2014. I have Pseudomyxoma Peritonei. If you’re interested in reading about journey, you can search the term on this blog site. Anyway, I’ve been receiving excellent care in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Unfortunately, I’ve been dealing with a series of complications related to my cancer, in the past serveral months especially. I’m still dealing with serious issues and will be for the foreseeable future. So, you won’t be seeing as much of me as in the past.

If you’re one of the many people who have contacted me or continued to hold me in your thoughts and prayers over the past several months, I thank you as I continue to move forward buoyed by your support.

That’s what Michael Rosen says… What do you say?

Does High Inflation Make You Fear for Your Fundraising Efforts?

There’s no doubt. Nonprofit organizations face fundraising challenges that they have not seen for decades. Nevertheless, opportunities remain even as the latest economic news has not been good:

Consumer Sentiment: The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index for March 2022 reveals that consumer confidence has plummeted 25.5 percentage points compared with March 2021. At 59.4 percent, the consumer sentiment index now stands at the lowest point in two decades. This is not surprising given economic conditions. Unfortunately, it means people will now be especially careful with their personal finances.

Uncomfortable Inflation: Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen predicts another year of “very uncomfortably high” inflation. In March 2022, the annualized inflation rate stands at 7.9 percent, a 40-year high. What’s even more troubling is that by calculating the Consumer Price Index now, using the same formula used in 1980, the inflation rate would stand at over 15 percent! The following chart from Shadow Stats illustrates this point:

Consumers Face Increased Expenses: The average American household is facing nearly $300 in higher monthly expenses due to inflation, according to Moody Analytics. Households in rural areas may face even greater monthly costs as fuel prices rise. This will likely negatively affect current philanthropic giving. While individual charitable giving usually comes in around two percent of disposable income, according to Giving USA, we’re now seeing the erosion of household disposable income.

Inflation May Not be Our Only Problem: Inflation is not our only reason for economic concern. Former US Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers has not just expressed concern about inflation, he’s worried that US Federal Reserve policies dealing with inflation could lead the economy into a recession.

Despite all of the bad economic news lately, we’re fortunate that not all of the news is bad:

Get Two FREE Offers to Mark My Return

I’m back!

It’s been several months since I’ve written a blog post. I’ve been tending to some health issues during that time. I’ll explain more in a moment. First, I want to mark the occasion of my return to blogging with two special, FREE offers for you:

“On Giving” – Skystone Partners Webcast:

I invite you to join me for my conversation with Elizabeth Kohler Knuppel, CEO of Skystone Partners, as part of her FREE “On Giving” webcast series. We’ll discuss planned giving trends as well as what’s changed and what’s stayed the same over time, particularly in this pandemic era. We’ll also discuss the vital but often overlooked role that people of color and women play in successful planned giving. During the live program, you’ll have an opportunity to ask questions.

Join us on Tuesday, March 8, 2022, at 12:00 pm (EST). For more information and to register for FREE, click here now.

If you can’t attend the live webcast, don’t worry. You’ll still be able to watch the program on the Skystone Partners YouTube Channel along with other past episodes.

You can find my award-winning book, Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing, in paperback or Kindle by visiting Amazon.

Philanthropic Trends for 2022 that Nonprofits Should Know:

Recently, I had a conversation with Mary Jane Bobyock, CFA, Managing Director, Nonprofit Advisory Team, Institutional Group at SEI. We looked at the likely philanthropic trends that nonprofits will see in 2022. You can read the full article for FREE by clicking here.

We looked at several questions including:

Suggested Gift Annuity Maximum Rates Announced by ACGA

The American Council on Gift Annuities has announced suggested maximum rates for Charitable Gift Annuities. The ACGA Board approved the new rate tables at its meeting on April 26, 2021. The new rates remain unchanged from the existing rates. ACGA issued the following statement:

As part of a continuous monitoring process, the ACGA Board held a meeting on April 26, 2021, and reviewed the current assumptions inherent in our gift annuity suggested maximum rate schedules. While interest rates have moved slightly higher so far this year, they have not moved enough to warrant an upward revision to the ACGA’s return assumption, and therefore, the Board decided to not change the suggested maximum payout rates. The Board continues to monitor market and economic conditions and will make changes as conditions warrant.

Generally speaking, the ACGA’s suggested maximum rates are designed to produce a target gift for charity at the conclusion of the contract equal to 50% of the funds contributed for the annuity. The rates are further predicated on the following:

• An annuitant mortality assumption equal to a 50/50 blended of male and female mortality under the 2012 Individual Annuity Reserving Table (the 2012 IAR)
• A gross investment return expectation of 3.75% (which is down from the previous return assumption of 4.25%) per year on the charity’s gift annuity funds
• An expense assumption of 1% per year.

The rate schedule published on the website became effective on July 1, 2020. For more detailed information about gift annuity rates and the assumptions that underlie them, a revised copy of the full paper on the ACGA rates effective July 1, 2020, is now available in an electronic format free of charge to logged-in ACGA members here.”

As LACGP Conference Nears, Enter to Win FREE Virtual Access

It’s almost here! From May 25 to 27, you have an opportunity to learn about planned giving from a diverse group of leading experts. Even better, I’m giving you the chance to become one of three lucky people to win FREE virtual access to:

Los Angeles Council of Gift Planners — Western Regional Planned Giving Conference

“Meeting the Moment: Philanthropy’s Role in Healing”

May 25-27, 2021 (Pacific Time)

Presenting Sponsor: The Stelter Company

Click here to see the list of expert presenters.

Click here to see the conference schedule.

Click here to register ($375 for members, $425 for non-members).

To enter for a chance to win FREE online access to the conference, simply comment below or subscribe to my blog site. (Note: Residents of California are not eligible.) I will notify winners by email by the close of Wednesday, May 19.

I’m honored to be among the conference speakers. Here is information about my session:

Get ready to celebrate. You could win FREE conference access.

PLANNED GIFT DONORS ARE NOT WHO YOU THINK THEY ARE

Thursday, May 27, 2021, 9:15 – 10:30 AM (PDT)

DESCRIPTION: If you look at a typical nonprofit website, flip through a charity newsletter, or read newspaper reports, you might come away thinking that it is wealthy white men who make planned gifts. You would not be wrong, but you would be missing the full picture. So, who does engage in planned giving? Researchers have begun to address the question. Together, we will explore the true diversity that exists among planned gift donors. We will also review the images and words that inspire people to make planned gift commitments. Following this session, you will have a better understanding of who gives as well as immediately actionable, easy to implement, low-cost steps you can take to enhance the results of your planned giving program.

I hope you will join me and my fellow presenters for what will be a meaningful conference to help nonprofit organizations secure the resources they need now more than ever. As LACGP says:

It’s a Terrible Sign When More Nonprofit Employees Join Labor Unions

Are labor unions really necessary today? A growing number of nonprofit employees think they are. That should serve as a wake-alarm for the nonprofit sector. It’s a terrible sign that should concern everyone involved in the charity sector.

A new report in the Star Tribune reveals that the staff at the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits, the largest statewide nonprofit association in the country, has scheduled a vote to unionize in April. Staff at Minnesota’s Walker Art Center and Jewish Community Action have already unionized.

Dan Sassenberg, CFRE, Director of Advancement Services at Luther Seminary, shared the Star Tribune article on LinkedIn.  He identified a number of issues facing nonprofit employees, particularly fundraisers, that a union might be able to help address:

The expectation that folks work 45-60 hours every week (I have been given this expectation); non-transparent, inadequate benefits and pay; organizations refusing to cut ties with racist and sexist donors; expecting responses to emails on the weekend; sometimes extensive after-hours work engagements with no downtime during the week to compensate; folks fearing that they can’t be seen to be away from their desk unless they have a donor visit on the calendar; no professional development, etc.”

Amber Davis, a Nonprofit Services Assistant at MCN, told the Star Tribune that the unionization effort has been a “long time coming” and enjoys majority support. She says that reasons the staff seeks to unionize “include limited transparency on policy changes, dismissive behavior toward workers, and high turnover.”

While Davis and Sassenberg have identified some legitimate concerns that nonprofit employees have, it is nevertheless unfortunate that this is leading to growing interest in unionization when there is a better solution: more effective management.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should let you know that I have mixed feelings about labor unions. Historically, they have often been corrupt, racist, controlling, violent, and over-reaching. On the other hand, they have struggled successfully for a shorter workweek, better pay, and safer working conditions, among other important things.

As the labor movement has scored major successes, as government legislation has changed workplace conditions, and as companies have grown more responsive to their employees, people have been less interested in being part of a labor union. According to 2020 data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 6.3 percent of private-sector workers are members of a union, down from 16.8 percent in 1983. That would seem to indicate that the vast majority of Americans do NOT think unions are necessary to worker wellbeing.

While the overall private-sector unionization trend has been downward, the fact that the nonprofit sector is witnessing greater interest in unionizing is troubling because it indicates that something is wrong with employer-employee relationships as Davis and Sassenberg have observed.

I believe, based on personal experience, that labor unions, while they can be useful, should NOT be necessary. If employers build strong, caring relationships with employees and are responsive to their needs, employees will not see a need to unionize. Employers should seek to build healthy organizations by ensuring employee satisfaction. Let me tell you my story.

Shocking Fundraising Behavior from Nonprofits Captures Media Attention

Nonprofit hospitals across the country have made disturbing news headlines recently. Sadly, while medical staff continue to provide heroic patient care, many of the recent news stories deal with unethical fundraising behavior that puts all nonprofits at risk. Consider these two items:

• Hospitals across the country have given major donors special, early access to the COVID-19 vaccine.
• In a story unrelated to the coronavirus, one hospital fundraising office has offered medical staff bonuses for referring “Grateful Patient” prospects.

While those news items involve healthcare organizations, all charities should be concerned. Let me explain. When some nonprofits behave badly, it reflects on the entire nonprofit sector with the potential to erode public trust and, therefore, support. There is ample research, as well as anecdotal evidence, that reveals that the fundraising efforts of virtuous charities can be harmed by the unethical behavior of unrelated nonprofit organizations.

Let’s look more closely at what has occurred recently:

MAJOR DONORS GIVEN EARLY ACCESS TO VACCINE

Initial excitement over the release of COVID-19 vaccines has given way to frustration as only 18 percent of the US population has received the first dose with confusing sign-up procedures and long lines greeting many people.

“But one group has gotten a head start in receiving the coveted shots: people who’ve donated money to hospitals distributing the vaccine,” according to a report in MarketWatch.

Ethical_Decision_Making_Article.28164930 AFP statement major donor vaccinations Feb 2021 final AFP Statement Grateful Patient Fundraising March 2021 final

According to reports, hospitals across the nation have been giving favorable treatment to major donors including Storment Vail Health (Kansas), Overlake Medical Center (Washington), Hunterdon Medical Center (New Jersey), MaineGeneral Health (Maine), and Garnet Health (New York).

Authorities in New York have launched a probe into Garnet’s actions to determine if any laws were broken. While evaluating whether or not laws were broken, it is important for us to also consider whether the actions of Garnet and other hospitals are ethical or unethical.

“As we see numerous reports of line jumping and favoritism, any situation that could lead to distrust in the fairness of the vaccine allocation process needs to be proactively managed. Redeploying staff to help with vaccination is reasonable, but care should have been taken to avoid [MaineGeneral Health] fundraising staff connecting with prior donors on this,” Holly Fernandez Lynch, an ethics professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine, told the Bangor Daily News.

The Bangor Daily News added, “Medical ethicists said there were many good reasons for MaineGeneral and other hospitals to test processes before opening wider clinics, but even well-intended efforts involving philanthropy staff and donors can be seen negatively.”

Medical ethicists weren’t the only ones to weigh-in on the situation. The Association of Fundraising Professionals, the largest community of charities and fundraisers in the world, has released the following statement from President and CEO Mike Geiger, MBA, CPA:

The idea of hospital systems, or any charity, ignoring protocols, guidance or restrictions—regardless of origin—and offering certain donors and board members the opportunity to ‘skip the line’ and receive vaccinations ahead of their scheduled time is antithetical to the values of philanthropy and ethical fundraising….[emphasis added]

Offering vaccinations to major donors, and not to populations with the greatest need … destroys public trust—to say nothing of the possible impact on constituents of the charity who don’t receive the appropriate vaccinations or medical attention in time.…

AFP, and the 26,000 members in our community around the world who represent nearly every charitable cause imaginable, condemn this activity in the strongest manner possible. It is unethical and inequitable, and we call on all health systems and all providers of vaccinations to deliver this service in a manner that is fair and equitable for the people they serve and consistent with procedures developed by the Centers for Disease Control and all applicable levels of government.”

Some hospitals around the country have behaved unethically, violated the law, or both. However, even those who may have a legitimate explanation for their actions and who have done nothing wrong may still be giving the appearance of having done something unethical involving their interactions with major donors. That’s still a big problem. As the AFP Code of Ethical Standards states clearly:

Are You Annoying Your Donors Without Even Knowing It?

If you’re annoying your donors, it could be hurting your fundraising efforts. The challenge is that you might not even know you’re annoying them. Let me give you a personal example.

One of my favorite charities, for well over a decade, has been annoying me lately. I don’t remember when it started, perhaps a year or so ago. For some time, I couldn’t even articulate why I was annoyed. Then, several weeks ago, I received a letter that made me immediately understand the reason for my irritation. Even better, the letter immediately made me feel better by making me feel closer to the organization.

The charity is the Philadelphia Children’s Alliance. The organization brings justice and healing to the survivors of child sex abuse. I have the utmost respect for the staff and the volunteers, including the board. They do heroic work helping children and their families cope successfully with a heinous crime. I’ve written about them here a number of times. I’ve shared insights from the PCA staff about child sex abuse. I’ve also shared their remarkable fundraising successes.

As a former PCA board member, I have remained a passionate supporter of the organization. Because PCA’s mission is so important to me, I have continued my support even when I became mildly annoyed with them. However, if other donors felt similarly annoyed, would they continue to give and, if so, how likely would they be to increase their support? The answer from psychology researchers reveals that it could be a big problem.

Let me tell you what was bothering me and how PCA was able to quickly and easily overcome it.

I had grown accustomed to receiving generic communications from PCA. I received the same cultivation messages and appeals as everyone else was sent. So, I was surprised one day not long ago when I received a hand-addressed, monarch-sized envelope. Inside (because of course I opened it) was a handwritten letter from someone with whom I served on the board.

While the letter was sent in December, I did not receive it until well into January thanks to problems at the US Post Office. Nevertheless, I appreciated the good wishes for happy holidays. I also appreciated that the letter went on to let me know that PCA’s spring fundraising event would take place either in-person, virtually, or as a hybrid. My former colleague, now the event co-chair, mentioned the date of the upcoming fundraiser and told me that more details would be forthcoming. He went on to say that he hoped to see me at the event. However, he did not make a specific ask and, therefore, did not include a response envelope. His communication was simply a cultivation piece designed to make me feel like an insider.

Yes, I appreciated the personal touch of this particular cultivation mailing. However, what I appreciated the most about the letter was that it acknowledged that I am an alumnus of the PCA board.

Bells went off in my head! I finally understood why I had been growing annoyed with PCA. Recent communications from PCA did not acknowledge my identity. I had been addressed just like every other donor. My former board service was rarely acknowledged, which made the handwritten letter particularly special to me.

By acknowledging my identity, PCA showed me they know who I am. They respect my prior service. They appreciate my support, not just my money. They rekindled the feelings I once had as a volunteer leader.

Should this matter? You might think it should not. Was I being childish or self-centered to be annoyed that PCA had not been acknowledging my identity? You might think I am. But, and I say this with full respect, your opinion doesn’t matter in this case. It’s MY feelings that determine which charities I support and how much I give them. As I learned by taking the certificate course Philanthropic Psychology, taught by the Institute for Sustainable Philanthropy, there is plenty of scientific research to back me up on this.

One reason most charitable organizations experience shamefully high donor-attrition rates is that they do not acknowledge the individual identities of donors. Let me give you a quick, simple example of what I mean.

When a donor contributes a $100 to your charity, do you thank her for her generous gift? Or, do you thank her for being a kind, caring person who made a gift. The former message describes the gift. The latter message describes the person. It’s a simple messaging shift that can have a massive effect.

In PCA’s case, an individual donor might identify as a Philadelphian, a parent, someone who cares about justice, someone who cares about children, etc. More generically, a PCA donor might identify as being kind, thoughtful, caring, concerned, angry, etc. In my case, one part of my identity as it relates to PCA is former board member. The key for you as a fundraising professional is to understand how your donors think of themselves. You can learn this through conversations with them, surveys, or their responses to appeals.

Here are four tips:

How Can You “Vaccinate” Your Nonprofit for Good Financial Health?

It’s no secret that the coronavirus pandemic has caused death and economic destruction around the world. The nonprofit sector has not been immune from the ravages of COVID-19.

While some charities have held their own when it comes to fundraising, or have even managed an uptick, others have experienced a downturn. If the economy doesn’t fully recover, and quickly, all organizations may find fundraising more difficult in the months and years ahead. With a corresponding drop in earned income, the financial health of charities is in danger.

Richard Radcliffe is the Founder of Radcliffe Consulting based in the UK. He recently wrote a passionate article explaining how charities can ensure their financial health and security in the years ahead. Because he is kind and cares deeply about the wellbeing of the third sector, Richard has given me permission to share his wisdom with you:

 

Legacies are the “vaccine” for good, long-term financial health for your nonprofit organization.

Legacies are a security blanket, a treasure trove to dip into to GROW or to protect your charity in times of emergency.

Individual giving does not build reserves.

Trusts and Foundations give for projects.

Statutory funding is project or service-based.

Corporate funds are largely restricted or for dual interest.

What is there NOT to like about legacies? The answer is simple: It is wanting money NOW – rather like a baby screaming to be fed NOW.

Mahatma Gandhi said, “The future depends on what you do today.” But legacies are not gained today or tomorrow. And bad leaders only think of today whilst in their seats of power.

Investing in legacies is like dieting: “Great idea but let’s leave it for another day.” And then a pandemic hits and all hell breaks out. Furloughed staff, redundancies, reduction in services.

Good leaders are visionaries who plan to fulfill their charity’s vision and mission AFTER their own lifetime as leaders.

What is Life’s Most Persistent and Urgent Question?

Martin Luther King, Jr. was a remarkable, historic civil rights leader whose wisdom and mission remain relevant in the 21^st century.

I am writing this post during the Martin Luther King, Jr. Day of Service, a national holiday in the United States. This occasion reminds me of when I first learned about King. I was a first-grade student when King was murdered on April 4, 1968. Until then, I had never heard of him.

When my elementary school closed for a day of mourning in King’s honor, my mother explained to me who King was, why he was important, and that he had been assassinated. Mom also had to explain to me what the word “assassination” means. Even at six-years-old, I recognized the horrific irony of killing a man who advocated non-violence, and I wept.

In 2015, the kind folks at the Association of Fundraising Professionals – Memphis Chapter invited me to speak at their conference. My hosts were gracious, and they took wonderful care of me. Knowing my interest in King, they even provided me with a ticket to visit the National Civil Rights Museum at the Lorraine Motel during my extended stay. The site is where King was killed. Stepping into King’s motel room was moving. Touring the Museum was eye-opening, even for someone knowledgeable about the civil rights movement. I encourage you to visit Memphis and the Museum.

As I’ve said, King remains relevant after more than a half-century following his death. Consider this quote from King:

Life’s most persistent and urgent question is, ‘What are you doing for others?'”

It’s a great question. It’s one that those of us working in the nonprofit sector answer every day. It’s one that every person who engages in philanthropy answers with their actions.

If you can respond to King’s question in a meaningful way, you should feel proud. It may not always feel like it, but you are making a difference. You are living a life worth living. As King said: