Posts tagged ‘charity’

July 16, 2018

Jerold Panas (1928-2018), He Will Be Missed

When I opened my email inbox this morning, a profoundly heartbreaking news item jumped out at me. Legendary fundraising professional Jerold Panas died over the weekend. The email from Jerry Linzy, Executive Partner at Jerold Panas, Linzy & Partners reads:

It is with sadness, Jerold Panas, Linzy & Partners announce that Jerry Panas, Founder of Jerold Panas, Linzy & Partners and long time Chief Executive Partner died quietly in his sleep, Saturday, July 14, 2018.

Jerold Panas (1928-2018)

A private, family service is planned. A Memorial Service to celebrate the life of Jerry Panas will be scheduled in the future. Condolences may be sent to Felicity Panas in care of:

Jerold Panas, Linzy & Partners

500 North Michigan Avenue, S-1035

Chicago, IL 60611

Jerry Linzy, Executive Partner, Emeritus will serve as Interim Chief Executive. Business will continue as usual. All questions should be directed to Jerry Linzy, jerrylinzy@panaslinzy.com., or by calling 312.961.3221.

Felicity and the family want to express their appreciation for all who have been a Friend of Jerry. A complete biography of Jerry Panas’ life and his vast contribution to the world of philanthropy will be forthcoming.

All of us at Jerold Panas, Linzy & Partners share the loss of our leader, Jerry Panas. He was a colleague, friend, mentor, and innovative, philanthropic icon.  He will forever be, to use Ernest Hemingway’s salute:

‘The winner and undisputed champion.’”

Since Panas started it in 1968, his consulting firm has served over 3,800 clients around the world. Panas wrote 20 books including such classics as ASKING, Mega Gifts, and Born to Raise. He also shared his knowledge in countless professional presentations. By directly helping charities to raise more money and by educating fundraising professionals, Panas has touched the lives, both directly and indirectly, of countless people around the globe. His impact on the nonprofit sector and on the lives of people in general has been profound.

read more »

Advertisements
July 13, 2018

How to Take the Guesswork Out of Fundraising

Many nonprofit professionals think that fundraising is an art. They rely upon conventional wisdom, best practices, what feels right, what they themselves like, what their boss likes. They often guess about how they can be more effective.

Yes, fundraising is an art. However, thinking of it only as an art will limit your success. Guessing about what might work, and relying on trial and error to find what will work, can be costly.

While fundraising is an art, it is also very much a science. Because fundraising is also a science, there’s plenty of solid research that can guide our efforts. In other words, you don’t need to rely on your gut to figure out the best fundraising approach.

As the winner of the Association of Fundraising Professionals-Skystone Partners Prize for Research in Philanthropy and Fundraising for my bestselling book Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing, I’m admittedly biased regarding the value of scientific inquiry for the nonprofit sector. Nevertheless, I recognize that it’s not always easy to find valid research reports on a given subject. Furthermore, busy fundraising professionals seldom have enough time to read all of the terrific studies that are now available.

Well, I have some great news for you! The folks at the University of Plymouth Hartsook Centre for Sustainable Philanthropy have prepared a literature review, commissioned by Legacy Voice. Authored by Dr. Claire Routley, Prof. Adrian Sargeant, and Harriet Day, the report will help you take the guesswork out of planned giving. Everything Research Can Tell Us about Legacy Giving in 2018 “is [an] in-depth report, compiled from more than 150 papers across fundraising, marketing, sociology, psychology and behavioural economics, available to anyone working in the not-for-profit sector free of charge,” writes Ashley Rowthorn, Managing Director of Legacy Voice.

In the Foreword of the report, Prof. Russell James III, JD, PhD, CFP® says:

It is wonderfully encouraging to read this review of research on legacy giving, and to know that it will be available for so many who can benefit from the work. Such a work is timely, significant, and much needed. Fundamentally, two things we know about legacy giving are that it is important, and it is different…. [The] possibility of dramatic expansion [in planned giving] starts with learning how legacy giving and legacy fundraising works. That starts with this excellent summary of what we know.”

Here are just seven tidbits from the report:

read more »

July 6, 2018

One of the Most Important Questions You Should Ask

Two recent mainstream news items, and one tweet about a charity, remind me of a powerful lesson I once learned from my father-in-law, Malcolm Rosenfeld. He taught me to ask myself the following important question before opening my mouth or taking action:

What is my objective?”

Now, before I illustrate the value of that question by reflecting on some news stories, I must warn you that the following examples include vulgar language. If you want to bypass the examples, you can skip down to the next boldfaced sentence several paragraphs below.

At The 72nd Annual Tony Awards (2018), actor Robert De Niro walked out on the stage after being introduced. He then said, “I’m gonna say one thing. Fuck Trump. It’s no longer ‘Down with Trump.’ It’s ‘Fuck Trump.’”

What was De Niro’s objective? If he wanted the approval and praise of the Tony audience, he succeeded when his remarks received a standing ovation. However, if he wanted to convince some Trump supporters or independent voters to support the political positions of the Democratic Party rather than President Donald Trump, I doubt he moved anyone. To the contrary; he may have actually strengthened their resolve.

Comedian Michelle Wolf voiced her displeasure with Ivanka Trump in a recent episode of Wolf’s Netflix series The Break. She said, “If you see Ivanka on the street, first call her Tiffany. This will devastate her. Then talk to her in terms she’ll understand. Say, ‘Ivanka, you’re like vaginal mesh. You were supposed to support women but now you have blood all over you and you’re the center of a thousand lawsuits.’”

What was Wolf’s objective? If she wanted to solidify her base of liberal viewers, I suspect she might have succeeded. With the publicity she received for her comment, she may have even attracted some new viewers who share her liberal views. However, if she wants to use her humor to change the political policies of the Trump Administration or to drive independent voters to support Democratic Party candidates and positions, she probably failed.

Whether you’re pro-Trump or anti-Trump is not the issue. What the two examples above demonstrate is the importance of defining objectives. If De Niro and Wolf wanted to diminish Trump’s political support – and I recognize that might not have been their objective — they flopped even as their fans cheered and laughed.

Let me explain. In 2016, I participated in a focus group involving independent voters. It was clear that personal attacks on Trump led many participants to be more likely to support him. By contrast, discussion of specific issues led people to thoughtfully consider which candidate better aligned with their own thinking. Based on my experience with the focus group, I wasn’t surprised when I looked at recent poll numbers.

Despite recent harsh comments by De Niro, Wolf, and countless others in recent weeks, the RealClear Politics polling average shows that Trump’s approval rating continues to oscillate above 50 percent, where it has been consistently since March 15, 2017.

While celebrities leave me wondering about their objectives, many nonprofit organizations also have me scratching my head. I recently read one puzzling example from The Whiny Donor (self-named) on Twitter:

read more »

June 15, 2018

Raise More Money by Understanding Generational Differences

When you understand the behaviors and motivations of different generations, you’ll be in a better position to build stronger relationships and, ultimately, raise more money. That’s the belief behind the Blackbaud Institute’s new report, The Next Generation of American Giving. Catherine LaCour, Chief Marketing Officer at Blackbaud and Senior Advisor to the Blackbaud Institute, writes:

[T]hese insights serve the core purpose of helping you—the social changemakers—build bridges to those who care most about your causes. Use this information to inform your outreach, but know that the relationships you cultivate are still the key. With this deeper understanding of your supporters and the tools they use, there is no limit to the positive change you can achieve.”

The report identifies eight key findings:

  1. Fewer Americans are Giving. Blackbaud is not alone in uncovering this disturbing trend. Among every generational cohort, with the exception of Baby Boomers, there is a decline since 2013 in the percentage of cohort members who say they give to charity. During the same period, total giving has nevertheless increased because those contributing are donating more.

 

  1. The Greatest Generation is in Its Sunset Years. Those born prior to 1946 are declining in number. That’s why they are no longer the dominate philanthropic group that they were in 2010. However, they remain a vitally important philanthropic cohort. These individuals give to more charities and give more money than any other generational group.

 

  1. Baby Boomers Remains the Most Generous Generation. Boomers donated 41 percent of all money contributed last year. By contrast, Gen X accounted for 23 percent, Matures 20 percent, Millennials 14 percent, and Gen Z 2 percent.

 

  1. Generation X is On Deck (and there are way more Gen-Xers than you think). While there are far fewer Gen-Xers than Boomers (65.6 million v. 74.1 million), their population is almost as large as the Millennial generation (67 million). Furthermore, Gen-Xers are approaching the life stage known to be the prime giving years. Given the population size of this cohort and their approaching life stage, they will likely continue to be a growing philanthropic force.

read more »

June 8, 2018

Ouch! How to Take the Sting Out of Rejection.

Rejection stings. When a donor refuses our warm invitation to meet, it bothers us. When a prospect refuses to donate in response to our carefully crafted appeal, it frustrates us.

While no one enjoys rejection, we tend not to think about it too much. After all, every fundraising professional has to cope with it, some more than others. However, ignoring rejection or simply accepting it as a fact of life does nothing to address its corrosive effect on fundraising efforts.

We can do better. We need to do better.

If rejection diminishes your mood and energy, your chance of success during your next prospect or donor contact will likewise be diminished. Another rejection would further erode your spirit and begin a downward spiral as your confidence continues to erode.

If we can short-circuit the negative effect of rejection, we’ll have a more positive attitude and be able to raise more money. We’ll have more energy and more confidence. So, what can we do to develop a healthy mindset toward rejection?

Years ago, I learned a terrific technique from sales expert Tom Hopkins. Before I share Hopkins’ approach, I want to lay out five assumptions:

 

  1. I assume you will always prepare before contacting a prospect or donor so you can do the best possible job.
  2. I assume that your intention with every contact will be to get a “yes.”
  3. I assume you know that you will not get a “yes” all of the time.
  4. I assume you recognize that, sometimes, a prospect or donor will say “no” for reasons that have nothing to do with you or your organization.
  5. I assume you can recognize what prospects or donors really mean when they say “no.” To make sure you really understand what “no” means and how to deal with each different meaning, checkout the guest post from fundraising consultant and author Bernard Ross, “Overcoming the 9 Fundraising NOs.”

With those assumptions in mind, let’s look at what you can do to take the sting out of rejection. Simply put, you need to decide in advance how to react when you don’t get a “yes.” In other words, how will you react when you don’t get the appointment, don’t close the donation, don’t secure a new volunteer, etc.?

Here is what Hopkins suggests for sales professionals that we can borrow:

read more »

May 30, 2018

Download FREE Insights about Women in Philanthropy

Women aren’t just important to philanthropy, they’re increasingly important. Let’s look at just some of the insights provided by Optimy in a new whitepaper, Women in Philanthropy.

Women are enthusiastic donors. Consider some of these statistics:

  • 64% of donations are made by women
  • 63% of donations on Giving Tuesday were made by women
  • 3.5% is the average amount of their wealth that women donate while for men it is 1.5%

While men contribute generously to nonprofit organizations, women are building and acquiring greater levels of wealth that will allow them to be larger donors. Here are just a few facts to contemplate:

  • 57% increase in female-owned firms
  • 45% of American millionaires are now women
  • 2/3 of the total American wealth will be controlled by women in 2030

Beyond traditional individual giving, women are also playing a greater role in philanthropy because of the growth in Giving Circles:

  • 46.1% of Giving Circles were launched since 2010
  • Of the 706 Giving Circles reviewed, women lead 640

When it comes to foundation giving, women have more power than ever before:

  • In 1974, 15% of foundation staff were women
  • In 2015, 77% of foundation professional staff were women

For more insights from Optimy about the role of women in philanthropy and a look at what motivates female donors, download the FREE report by clicking here.

When it comes to planned giving, there are also significant gender differences. I pointed out some of them in my post “Men v. Women: Who are the Best Planned Giving Prospects?” and in my book Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing where I cited a Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund study:

read more »

May 24, 2018

New Charitable Gift Annuity Rates Announced

The American Council on Gift Annuities has announced an increase of its suggested maximum payout rates for Charitable Gift Annuities for the first time since 2012. The rates will be rising by 0.30 to 0.50 percentage points for those ages where most annuity contracts are done. The new rates become effective on July 1, 2018.

For some sample ages, the following table compares the current single-life payout rates to the new rates:

 

Current Rate through 6/30/18 New Rate, effective 7/1/18
Age 60 4.4% 4.7%
Age 70 5.1% 5.6%
Age 80 6.8% 7.3%
Age 90 9.0% 9.5%

As the above table illustrates, a 70 year-old donor who creates a Charitable Gift Annuity in July will receive a payout rate that is 9.8 percent greater than the rate currently available. Nonprofit organizations may find that the new, higher payout rates will generate greater interest in CGAs.

You can find the complete new rate schedule by clicking here.

When marketing your CGA program, there are a few tips that philanthropy researcher Prof. Russell James, III, JD, PhD, CFP® has found that can help you achieve greater success:

1. Tax Avoidance. Because the new tax code means that most donors will not itemize when filing their taxes, you might think you shouldn’t bother discussing tax avoidance when speaking with donors. However, that’s not necessarily the case. First, many of those who can afford to make a CGA donation will be tax itemizers who will be able to take advantage of the charitable gift deduction. Second, anyone with appreciated securities can avoid capital gains tax by establishing a CGA with a gift of stock rather than cash.

read more »

May 22, 2018

New Research Proves Cash Is Not King in Fundraising

If you want to raise significantly more money for your nonprofit organization, you need to diversify the types of gifts you seek from individuals. That’s what successful charities do to raise significantly more money each passing year. Conversely, relying solely on cash contributions will likely stunt your organization’s growth.

Those are the key conclusions of a newly released study by Prof. Russell James III, JD, PhD, CFP®, philanthropy researcher at Texas Tech University. The study examined more than one million filings with the Internal Revenue Service by nonprofit organizations.

The following chart reveals that, from 2010 to 2015, nonprofits that consistently received gifts of stocks or bonds grew their contributions six times faster than those receiving only cash:

James’ study found the results are not limited to just those years. When looking at three-year rolling averages, organizations consistently receiving non-cash gifts grew much more quickly than those receiving only cash contributions. The study identified the same general growth pattern regardless of the starting size of the charity or the type of charitable organization.

James observes:

Beyond simple opinions or war stories, the previous results conclusively demonstrate that organizations raising non-cash gifts experience dramatically greater growth in total contributions, both contemporaneously and over the long term. Why? This is likely due in part to the effects of mental framing.

First, it is important to understand that wealth is not held in cash. Census bureau estimates suggest that only about 3% of household wealth is held in cash and checking accounts. When fundraisers ask for cash, they are asking from the ‘small bucket.’ This makes a psychological difference because it changes the reference point for the gift. The same gift may seem ridiculously large when compared to other checkbook purchases (elective expenditures from spendable income), but quite small when compared with total wealth (other non-cash assets). Donors who have never made a gift from assets may simply never have considered giving from wealth rather than giving from spare income. This is particularly important considering findings from experimental research demonstrating that people are much more willing to make charitable donations from irregular, unearned rewards (such as might occur with an appreciated asset) than from regular work earnings.

[Second,] gifts of appreciated assets are also cheaper than gifts of cash because the donor avoids capital gains taxes. This special benefit is particularly important under the new tax law, because it applies to all donors, even non-itemizers who can’t use charitable deductions.”

Intuitively, most fundraising professionals have already known what the James study now proves. So, if fundraisers know they should be seeking cash AND non-cash gifts, why do so many ask for only cash or merely make a feeble attempt to get non-cash donations?

James answers:

read more »

May 9, 2018

Setting the Record Straight about Jimmy LaRose

Jimmy LaRose, founder of the Inside Charity website and co-founder of the National Association of Nonprofit Organizations & Executives, continues to be a controversial figure in the nonprofit sector. However, I have refrained from addressing his statements that trouble me.

Until now.

LaRose recently copied portions of one of my recent blog posts, altered their intention, and purposely misattributed them to someone else in an article he wrote attacking the Association of Fundraising Professionals.

When I confronted him with what he had done, he admitted to and defended his actions. Furthermore, he refused to apologize or delete the article at issue. In his last email to me, despite the fact that I never mentioned NANOE in my communications to him, he wrote, “NANOE’s Board of Directors has directed our staff to forward all your communications to counsel.” Do you think he might have sent me that message in an attempt to intimidate and silence me?

Well, you deserve the truth. Therefore, I will not be silent.

I published my blog post “Are Donors the Hidden Enemies of Charities?” on April 16, 2018. On May 6, 2018, the LaRose article “Is There a Secret Reason AFP (Association of Fundraising Professionals) Is Hating On Donors?” appeared at Inside Charity.

In my post, I reported on the findings of The Harris Poll survey report conducted for AFP and The Chronicle of Philanthropy. While I recognized that most donors are good people, I did point out that some donors do bad things. The Harris survey found that 25 percent of women and 7 percent of men, who are members of AFP and who were surveyed, report having been the victim of sexual harassment. In the cases cited, 65 percent of the perpetrators were donors.

In his article, LaRose attempted to discredit the survey report though he offered no evidence of his own.

Neither AFP nor I are demonizing all donors. We are simply giving voice to the survey respondents who have said that donors sexually harassed them. This is a real problem that some of our fellow fundraising professionals have faced. It’s something that we should not ignore.

Toward that end, I suggested some actions that individual nonprofit organizations should take:

1.  Have the organization’s board adopt a sexual harassment policy. If a policy already exists, it should be reviewed with an eye toward improving it. The policy should define sexual harassment (regardless of the source), map the reporting process, and explain the consequences of harassment. The policy should also make it clear that no donation is worth mental or physical harm to staff or volunteers; people should be clearly valued more than money.

2.  The senior management team or board of the organizations should set policies regarding meetings with prospects and donors. The policy should include answers to several questions including:

  • Where is it appropriate to meet with a prospect or donor?
  • When should more than one person from the organization meet with a prospect or donor at the same time?
  • When dining out with a prospect or donor, who should pick-up the check?
  • What prospect or donor behaviors should not be tolerated?
  • How should misbehavior be treated in the moment and following an incident?

3.  Procedures should be adopted for providing feedback to prospects or donors who misbehave so that they understand that their missteps are inappropriate and unacceptable.

4.  Staff and volunteers (including board members) should be provided with the policies and trained to ensure they understand all of the provisions of the policies

5.  As part of training, make all staff and volunteers aware of the problem. For example, share the Harris Polling report with them along with a printed copy of the organization’s sexual harassment policies.

6.  Re-assure staff and volunteers that they will be fully supported, and that they will not be penalized or lose their jobs for filing a legitimate complaint.

In LaRose’s article, he lifted the questions I asked in item two above. He then mislead his readers when he introduced the questions by writing, “In response to The Chronicle of Philanthropy’s ‘poll’ AFP’s IDEA Committee (Inclusion, Diversity, Equity and Access) has just announced another set of provisions they’re going to burden you with after they determine the proper answers to the following questions.”

To the best of my knowledge, the AFP IDEA Committee has not adopted my questions to guide its discussions. The questions I posed were clearly mine and mine alone. As I stated in my post, the questions are just some that should be addressed as nonprofit organizations discuss their own policies and procedures. I did not ask AFP to impose such a requirement on nonprofit organizations. It would have been foolish to do so because AFP has no mechanism for such an imposition even if it wanted to issue such a mandate.

By twisting the intent of my words and by providing incorrect attribution, LaRose has erected a straw-man.

LaRose writes:

read more »

May 3, 2018

Who Wins as a Result of New ACGA Decision?

For the first time since 2012, the American Council on Gift Annuities has approved an increase of its suggested maximum payout rates for Charitable Gift Annuities. The rates will be rising by 0.30 to 0.50 percent for those ages where most annuity contracts are done. The ACGA will publish the final rate schedules by May 15, with the new rates becoming effective on July 1, 2018.

The rate increase will make donors the winners of the ACGA decision. Beginning in the second half of the year, CGA donors will be able to receive more income than they previously could in recent years.

A CGA is a gift mechanism that allows donors to make a gift to charity, and then receive an income for life. A CGA contract sets the rate and terms with the donor. The rate is dependent on the age and gender of the annuitant(s), and the number of annuitants.

For charities, the higher CGA payout rates will make this planned-giving instrument more attractive to donors and, therefore, could generate more gifts. So, charities are another winner.

The ACGA summarizes what conditions its board considered when setting the new rates:

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 percent 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 4.75 percent (which is up from the previous return assumption of 4.25 percent) per year on the charity’s gift annuity funds;

An expense assumption of 1 percent per year.”

If your organization has a CGA program, you’ll want to reach-out to your prospects and donors to let them know about the CGA opportunity and higher rates. The new rate schedule provides a good reason to contact people about CGAs.

When communicating with people about CGAs, remember to encourage them to think about establishing a CGA with a gift of appreciated property (e.g., stocks, bonds, real estate). This will provide the donor with the added benefit of avoiding capital gains tax. Your organization will also benefit. Nonprofits that experienced greatest growth in their CGA programs, as well as average CGA gift size, emphasized gifts of appreciated property compared to cash, according to a recent ACGA report.

If your organization does not already have a CGA program, you might want to consider starting one. While managing an in-house CGA program can be administratively burdensome, there are third-party organizations (i.e., community foundations) that can administer your program for you.

Whether you manage the program in-house or out-source it, your organization will still be legally responsible for making payments to donors. While the CGA rates are designed to allow approximately 50 percent of a gift to ultimately go to the charity, there are many instances (particularly during the Great Recession) when that was not the case and charities received less than 50 percent, nothing, or were in a negative position. CGA programs are not without risk.

When marketing your CGA program, be careful to avoid a common mistake:

Do NOT sell CGAs as investments.

There are three reasons to avoid “selling” CGAs as an investment:

read more »

%d bloggers like this: