Institutions should have a more structured professional passage of learning, training,
and preparation fort their fund raisers.

By: L. Keith Todd

As a practitioner in higher education fund raising for the past 15 years, I have often been surprised at the many anecdotal “learning” experiences shared among colleagues in development—stories told with the utmost conviction but with little or no factual basis. There is very little opportunity to engage fund raisers to study empirical information on philanthropy and the practice of fundraising. Professional fund raisers come from all over: bankers, stock brokers, attorneys, event planners, etc. We have no common thread weaving us all together. Professions such as law or medicine share a common core of learning and practice before they hang a shingle. Individuals interview, impress a Dean or Director, have a skill set that looks transferable and when hired – bang – are fund raisers!

A COMMON AND QUESTIONABLE ANECDOTE

A common story suggests that the institution can never ask a prospective donor for too much in the way of soliciting a gift. Should one request far too much, then reportedly the donor prospect will be “honored” that the officer, and his or her corresponding institution, thinks so highly of the prospective donor and his or her financial ability. I have participated in such asks and have found donor prospects do not uniformly support this concept (and have had other seasoned fund raisers relay the same). This scenario of asking for too much, like other anecdotal stories, is passed down among development officers due to a lack of a real academic foundation for their professional training and development.

In working with a leading donor couple at our institution, the wife of the couple relayed a story that illustrates the dangers of substituting anecdotal theory for thorough preparation and seasoned experience. She said that her husband, a CEO of a major company, had been asked (over the phone I might add) for a $5 million gift in support of his daughter’s private secondary school. He knew they were in a fund raising campaign and had discussed with his wife what level they should give as they really liked the school and wanted to make a gift. They had been considering a $1 million gift—what they believed would be a very substantial contribution. However, when asked for the $5 million over the phone, he decided to give only $100,000. To be sure, still a big gift, but not the impact gift the school was asking for and certainly not the substantial gift the donor had been considering. She relayed that the rationale for lowering their gift was simple – it was clear now that even if they gave $1 million, the school would be disappointed and would not consider it having the same “impact” as the donors had intended. Thus, they simply made a larger gift than an annual gift but not nearly as large as they intended or were capable of giving.

This story has the all the hallmarks of a novice solicitation. Rule number one in major gift fundraising is to solicit the prospect in person. An experienced fundraiser would have acknowledged the enormity of the request, explained the great transformational opportunity the gift represents, and outlined the impact the gift would have on the institution, and more importantly, on current and future students. Prior to the request, careful attention should have been given to determining a challenging, yet realistic request amount, identifying the prospects connection, philanthropic interests, and motivating values, and finally assembling the most effective team of solicitors for the prospect in question.

A personal solicitation and an in-person follow-up meeting would have provided critical opportunities for discussion, identifying and addressing potential obstacles or means to make a gift, a testimonial and personal appeal from a key volunteer solicitor (peer, friend, fellow board member, etc.) who might have influence. In the case above, a personal solicitation and close could have salvaged the $1,000,000 gift or even increased it. When one considers not only the impact of a $1,000,000+ gift, but the influence the gift would have had on subsequent gifts and contacts of the donor, the missed opportunity is all the more tragic. Anecdotal stories are no substitute for the skills and experience often required to effectively discuss and secure a donor commitment at the highest level possible.

THEORY OF DONOR DISEQUILIBRIUM

Institutions often take whatever is offered in the bargaining with donor prospects. The real institutional change caused by the gift is dependent on the amount offered and the amount accepted. Interestingly, the institution allows itself to be bargained by the donor and thereby can allow itself to be bargained out of actually accomplishing what was intended in the beginning. Brittingham (1990) noted that a donors’ departure from altruism to an exchange model of charitable giving might be at play in this circumstance revolving around donor-institutional bargaining. For as they receive the “naming” or product in exchange for their gifts, donors create a disequilibrium with the institution which leaves them with a need to respond by making additional gifts.

GROWING DEMAND FOR COMPETENT FUND RAISING PROFESSIONALS

Philanthropy is a 200 billion dollar business in the US, with the Council for Aid to Education reporting $23.2 billion in private contributions to educational institutions alone for fiscal year 2000, with individuals giving 52% of this $23.2 billion. At the very least, educational institutions should have a more structured professional passage of learning, training, and preparation for fund raisers.

Donor expectation and behavior, as well as trust in the relationship, are inter-related and cannot be discounted in philanthropy as in most other decision-making models in society. A thorough and well-crafted course of study complete with research assignments is appropriate and necessary as a professional guideline for representatives in the field of philanthropy. To realize the potential of strong, long-term networks of financial supporters, colleges and universities ultimately will need to apply a more grounded application to their philanthropic efforts.

1. Brittingham, Barbara E., and Pezzullo, Thomas R. (1990). “The Campus Green: Fund Raising in Higher Education. “ ERIC Document: 321705.
   
   
2. Engle-Warnick, Jim, and Slonim, Robert L. (2001). “The Fragility and Robustness of Trust.” Paper submitted to The American Economic Review, August, 2001.