Global Perspectives on Major Donor Fundraising

Event Global Perspectives on Major Donor Fundraising
Date 6-7 November
Venue London, UK
Organizers Institute of Philanthropy/Association of Fundraising Professionals

‘Fundraisers represent the demand side,’ said Paul Schervish, Director of the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College, USA. ‘They need to understand the supply side.’ What he calls the ‘new physics of philanthropy’ offers 12 ‘vectors’ which together provide a framework for understanding donors. As editor of a philanthropy magazine, I worry about donors having too much power. Going to a fundraisers’ conference can only add to that worry.

In the past, said Schervish, NGOs looked at donors as a means for them to do good. Now it’s the other way round, and the NGO is the tool. With a greater emphasis on lifetime giving, donors see charitable activity as a path to self-fulfilment. They want effectiveness and significance for themselves and their beneficiaries, with NGOs as intermediaries.

The new physics of philanthropy means a new physics of fundraising, said Schervish. Fundraisers will need, above all, people skills, the ability to have ‘biographical conversations’ with donors. They need to ask themselves, ‘What can I add to the life of the donor?’

Other panellists in a session looking at the qualities needed to be a successful major donor fundraiser agreed with Schervish. Ellen Sullivan (Harvard University) put fundraising experience only tenth in a list of desirable qualities, her top five being ‘being proactive; excellent judgement/intuition; commitment to/knowledge of institution; knowledge of constituency; and strong ethical integrity’. Klaus Sienenhaar (Jewish Museum, Berlin) emphasized ‘interest and empathy with potential donors’ and the ability to build relationships.

There was also widespread agreement that people’s giving is closely connected to their own lives. Schervish gave the example of an American woman who had lost a child adopting a child in Guatemala, ‘which enabled her to have a daughter though she had no family of her own’. Sienenhaar saw donors as motivated by passion and identification – a ‘very emotional approach’.

But not everyone agreed. A delegate who had donated money to the SMILE Train, which performs operations on children with cleft palates in poor countries, simply wasn’t having it that she ‘sees these children as hers’. ‘I see it a gift to an effective organization,’ she insisted.
 
This emphasis on effectiveness was more in tune with what Daniela Barone Soares (Impetus Trust) had to say about venture philanthropy. In her view, what donors want is impact; they want to know their money will make a difference. What donors like about Impetus, she explained, is the rigour with which they select charities, and the leverage given by the pro bono expertise (£5 to £1). ‘They also love the fact of working in partnership.’

Alexander Hoare (C Hoare & Co) also stressed the importance of impact and potential for sustainablity. Some charities want to keep donors at arm’s length, he said. But self-made entrepreneurs have skills as well as money. Donors are people too, he reminded delegates.

Effects of the financial crisis

Inevitably, the effect of the financial crisis came up for discussion but most people were not too pessimistic. The sky is not falling, and history shows that philanthropy is resilient. One speaker referred to research carried out on 26 major gift campaigns in the US in the early 2000s: one fell short of target, one hit target, and 24 exceeded target by an average of 15 per cent. But charities do need to stay connected with major donors during the downturn – nurturing key relationships, increasing stewardship calls, increasing communication with their entire donor base. On a more optimistic note, delegates were reminded that ‘a lot of people are going to make a lot of money out of equities, which are artificially low at the moment’.

Adapting models across countries

An international conference always gives rise to the question of how transferable ideas and practices are from one country to another. A presentation by Robin Rosenblath (Columbia University Medical Center) on cultivating boards to ‘give and get’ highlighted a major difference between the US and the UK: in the UK, board members are not expected to be donors. This also makes it easier for board members in the US to fundraise: it’s easier to ask if you are a donor yourself.

As another session specifically entitled ‘Adapting the US model to Europe’, which focused on higher education funding, made clear, in the UK asking for a major gift is embarrassing, and in the US it isn’t. In addition, in Europe private funding for higher education is seen as undermining public funding, while in the US it’s seen as leveraging it. Differences apart, delegates seemed to learn a lot from these exchanges. One concrete suggestion that arose for Europe was setting up a separate fundraising committee.

Another interesting reflection came from keynote speaker Mayan Quebral of the Philippines-based Venture for Fundraising. ‘I don't think Asian non-profits are ready for major donor fundraising,’ she said. ‘Non-profits first need to develop the discipline to handle money from different donors.’ At present, she feels, there is a danger of donors abusing NGOs and vice versa. Both the philanthropy sector and the NGO sector need to mature.

Caroline Hartnell is editor of Alliance. Email caroline@alliancemagazine.org

For more information
For audio recordings and PowerPoint presentations from the conference, visit www.institute-of-fundraising.org.uk/mediastore