University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Time for a change: a critical analysis of the fundraising industry

(USC Thesis Other)

Time for a change: a critical analysis of the fundraising industry

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Time for a Change:
A Critical Analysis of the Fundraising Industry

by

Jacob Blodgett

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE
SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the
Degree MASTER OF
ARTS
(STRATEGIC PUBLIC RELATIONS)

May 2018

Copyright 2018 Jacob Blodgett

Acknowledgements

First, I would like to thank my thesis committee for generously giving up their time to oversee
my work, providing me with excellent feedback, and most importantly making sure that I never
fell too far behind.

I would first like to acknowledge Kathleen S. Kelly Ph.D.; whose work inspired this project. I
hope that I was able to do some justice to her analysis. I would also like to thank Christopher
Wilson, Ph.D., who, along with Professor Kelly, gave me guidance early on about resources to
consult for my work.

I certainly owe a debt of gratitude to the interviewees who participated in this process and to my
family for helping me work through my thought process while putting this all together.

To Robert Garcia, thank you for answering my technical research questions so that I could stay
calm. But, most importantly thank you to Joshua Throckmorton who taught me how to write.

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
RESEARCH.................................................................................................................................................................. 2
PRIMARY RESEARCH .................................................................................................................................................. 2
SECONDARY RESEARCH ............................................................................................................................................. 2
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ......................................................................................................................... 3
EVOLUTION OF FUNDRAISING .................................................................................................................................... 4
FUNDRAISING DEFINITION ......................................................................................................................................... 7
TYPES OF DONATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 10
ETHICAL ISSUES IN THE NONPROFIT SECTOR ........................................................................................... 11
INSTITUTIONAL AUTONOMY .................................................................................................................................... 17
EFFECTIVE USE OF RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................... 20
Mission Statement .............................................................................................................................................. 20
The Limits of the Mission Statement ................................................................................................................. 22
Intended Impact and Theory of Change ............................................................................................................. 22
GIFT UTILITY .......................................................................................................................................................... 25
ORIGIN ..................................................................................................................................................................... 25
REJECTING A DONATION .......................................................................................................................................... 26
EXPANDED VIEW OF GIFT UTILITY .......................................................................................................................... 27
THE ART OF SAYING “NO” ....................................................................................................................................... 30
DONOR-CENTRIC FUNDRAISING............................................................................................................................... 31
CHECKS AND BALANCES .......................................................................................................................................... 33
TENSIONS BETWEEN FUNDRAISERS AND FACULTY ................................................................................. 35
INTEGRATING FUNDRAISERS INTO AN ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................ 36
NEED FOR FUNDRAISING EDUCATION........................................................................................................... 41
PAST PERSPECTIVE ................................................................................................................................................... 41
CURRENT STATUS .................................................................................................................................................... 42
RAMPANT TURNOVER ......................................................................................................................................... 45
PAST PERSPECTIVE ................................................................................................................................................... 45
STIGMA OF FUNDRAISING ........................................................................................................................................ 51
ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF HIGH TURNOVER .......................................................................................................... 52
TOWARDS A SOLUTION TO TURNOVER..................................................................................................................... 55
JOB DESCRIPTION ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................ 59
FUNCTION ................................................................................................................................................................ 60
PORTFOLIO ............................................................................................................................................................... 62
ASSIGNED DUTIES .................................................................................................................................................... 64
Planned Giving ................................................................................................................................................... 65
TAKEAWAYS............................................................................................................................................................ 67
INSTITUTIONAL AUTONOMY AND GIFT UTILITY ...................................................................................................... 67
SHOULD YOUR ORGANIZATION EXIST? ................................................................................................................... 67
STRATEGY ................................................................................................................................................................ 68
EDUCATING EMPLOYEES ABOUT FUNDRAISING ...................................................................................................... 68
INCORPORATE FUNDRAISERS INTO THE ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNITY ................................................................ 69
SET REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 70
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................... 72

INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED ................................................................................................................................. 75
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................................ 76
APPENDIX A – JOB DESCRIPTION CODEBOOK ......................................................................................................... 76
APPENDIX B – INTERVIEW WITH ANONYMOUS, VICE PRESIDENT OF DEVELOPMENT, ANIMAL RIGHTS
ORGANIZATION. ....................................................................................................................................................... 79
APPENDIX C – INTERVIEW WITH JOE KOMSKY, CFRE, ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT, CLINICAL MAJOR GIFTS AT
CITY OF HOPE .......................................................................................................................................................... 82
APPENDIX D – INTERVIEW WITH ANONYMOUS, DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL PROJECTS, HUMAN SERVICES
ORGANIZATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 86
APPENDIX E – INTERVIEW WITH SHELBY RADCLIFFE, VICE PRESIDENT FOR ADVANCEMENT, WILLAMETTE
UNIVERSITY ............................................................................................................................................................. 90
APPENDIX F – INTERVIEW WITH JOHN CROWE, PRINCIPAL, CROWE STRATEGIES................................................... 96
APPENDIX G – INTERVIEW WITH SHIRLEY PEPPERS, DIRECTOR OF PRINCIPLE GIFTS, HARVARD UNIVERSITY .... 100
APPENDIX H – INTERVIEW WITH MITCHEL SPEARMAN, DIRECTOR OF PRINCIPAL GIFTS, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT
AUSTIN ................................................................................................................................................................... 106
1

Introduction
In 2016, individual donors accounted for $281.86 billion of the $390.05 billion given to
charitable organizations in the US.
1
Despite the substantial amount of money that exchanges hands
in the name of charity and philanthropy, the amount of scholarly work done on the subject of
fundraising is scarce. Colleges and universities have recognized the importance of the nonprofit
sector and have accordingly created degree programs in nonprofit management, but most
investigation on the subject of fundraising focuses on donor motivation or practical applications
to increase donation amounts. The search for a critical analysis of the fundraising industry led the
author to Kathleen Kelly, Ph.D.’s 1991 book, Fund Raising and Public Relations: A Critical
Analysis. Kelly’s work provides a thorough review of the landscape of the fundraising profession
to create a framework to discuss fundraising as a subsection of public relations that she dubbed
“donor relations.”
Initially, this analysis sought to evaluate Kelly’s ideas regarding placing fundraising within
public relations. While these ideas deserve further study, the truly intriguing aspect of Kelly’s
work is that many of the problems she discovered over two decades ago still plague the fundraising
industry to this day. The following analysis will review Kelly’s concerns and examine the progress
made in rectifying these issues since that time. Before discussing whether fundraising should sit
under the banner of public relations, the profession must recognize and address these inadequacies.
In situations where progress has stagnated, the author will provide recommendations for
appropriate steps for the industry to take.

1
Giving USA. "Giving USA 2017 Infographic | Giving USA." See the numbers – Giving USA 2017 Infographic |
Giving USA. June 12, 2017. Accessed February 12, 2018. https://givingusa.org/see-the-numbers-giving-usa-2017-
infographic/.

2

Research

Primary Research
The author chose in-depth interviews as the methodology for this analysis because of the
breadth of issues explored. Interviewees were asked a set of questions that varied based on their
particular expertise. These interviews will not serve as quantitative data, but as a deeper dive into
the issues explored for this analysis.
The interviewee sample was one of convenience. While the sample may seem too targeted
or biased in its approach, those selected for this study are highly respected members of the
nonprofit community, several of whom have appeared as expert voices in The Chronicle of
Philanthropy and articles for the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education, (CASE).
Subjects were selected based on recommendations given to the author or based on previous
working relationships with the author. Only individuals who had previous experience with major
gifts fundraising or who had a unique connection to major gifts fundraising were interviewed.
Secondary Research
This analysis examined job descriptions for major gifts officers in an attempt to understand
the qualities nonprofit organizations value in these positions as well as the standard activities
associated with the profession and metrics used to evaluate major gift officers. In total, 31 job
descriptions were coded for a variety of factors including the presence of a mission statement,
mention of ethical standards, adjectives describing an ideal candidate and explanation of job
responsibilities. A copy of the codebook can be found in Appendix A. The author obtained these
descriptions from two sources: the job board on The Chronicle of Philanthropy website and from
the records of an executive search firm specializing in the nonprofit sector. For a position to be
3

considered relevant to this analysis, a significant portion of the job responsibilities had to deal with
the solicitation of major gifts from individual donors.
Statement of the Problem
“Increasingly, [fundraisers] are hired by charitable organizations, including institutions of higher
education, and charged with raising greater amounts of private dollars. These practitioners, guided by current fund-
raising principles, raise gifts to meet dollar goals with little understanding of the impact their activities have on
organizational autonomy; yet, their role in soliciting and accepting private gifts places them in a critical; position for
determining the degree of autonomy lost or gained.”
2
– Kathleen S. Kelly, Ph.D.

Any fundraising role ultimately boils down to bringing resources into an organization to
allow that organization to function. More often than not, this entails soliciting and accepting
monetary donations. Thus, trying to evaluate a fundraiser without a financial goal would cause a
variety of problems. The author would equate the situation to trying to decide who won a baseball
game without looking at how many runs each team scored. We can assess all sorts of statistics:
hits, strikeouts, errors, walks, etc., but at the end of the day the outcome depends on the runs of
one team versus the other.
The issue with judging a fundraiser’s performance comes not from providing a monetary
goal, though setting unobtainable goals does encourage questionable behavior like accepting
dubious gifts, but rather in not aligning that goal to the strategic priorities of the organization.
Historically, fundraisers have not cultivated the best image for their profession. The solicitation
and acceptance of gifts that harm the ability of organizations to pursue their missions has only
made this worse. This investigation will explore the issues that keep fundraisers from raising
money for organizational priorities: organizational resource dependence, misinterpretation of the
fundraising function, isolation from other departments, rampant turnover, and inefficient metrics
for judging performance.

2
Kelly, Kathleen S. Fund Raising and Public Relations: A Critical Analysis. (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 1991), 38.
4

Evolution of Fundraising
Examining the history of nonprofit organizations, specifically institutions of higher
education, shows how fundraising responsibilities have moved from those setting the priorities for
organizations to the purview of administrators. This shift provides the potential for misaligned
goals between organizational leadership and fundraisers. At America’s first colleges – institutions
such as Harvard, William & Mary, and Yale – “there was no clear demarcation between public
and private realms. All corporations, to the extent that they were permitted to exist, were
considered to be public agencies.”
3
Universities operated using civic grants and were governed by
clergymen, considered public actors because of their position as officials of government-supported
churches. Even though these institutions had clear differences from modern nonprofits, they did
share many characteristics. “They were self-governing, with decisions made by members who
often delegated power to governing boards. More important, they had no owners or stockholders.
As public bodies they were exempt from taxation. And, like modern nonprofits, they could accept
donations and bequests for charitable purposes, such as supporting education and relief for the
poor.”
4

These early donations were the precursors to both annual and capital gifts. Reinforcing the
idea that early educational institutions were reliant upon their community, Pray wrote that annual
funds came from “subscriptions from church members, community residents, or organized
friends.”
5
Much in the same way that community members were asked to pitch in to build public
meeting places, maintain roads or serve in militias, Harvard encouraged community support by

3
Hall, Peter Dobkin. "Historical Perspectives on Nonprofit Organizations in the United States." In The Jossey-Bass
handbook of nonprofit leadership and management, by David O. Renz and Robert D. Herman, 3-42. (John Wiley &
Sons, Incorporated, 2016), 5.
4
Ibid.
5
Kelly, Fund Raising and Public Relations: A Critical Analysis, 40.
5

asking residents, “to make an annual voluntary donation of one-quarter bushel of grain or its
equivalent in money to the college.”
6

Pray also noted that, “Capital gifts from a relatively few wealthy benefactors were sought
assiduously by presidents and occasionally by a supportive trustee, sometimes sparked by the sale
of the college name.”
7
However, the most important characteristic of early fundraising was not the
types of gifts solicited, but rather who solicited them. The majority of fundraising activity was
conducted by college presidents because, “So important was philanthropy to the existence of
colonial colleges that its solicitation was usually entrusted to high officers in the institution.”
8

Following the Civil War, a drastic shift in the operation of colleges and universities took
place. The country began to view education as the answer for many of its issues. In 1869, Harvard’s
President, Charles W. Eliot said, “The American people are fighting the wilderness, physical and
moral, on the one hand, and on the other are struggling to work out the awful problem of self-
government. For this fight they must be trained and armed,”
9
with the knowledge that only
America’s colleges could provide. Enrollments increased rapidly, and universities became
departmentalized. Professors began to specialize in specific fields and became recognized as
authorities in these academic areas. Institutions offered advanced training through new graduate
departments and professional schools. With the increasing complexity of institutions and a new-
found respect for professors as experts in their fields, faculty gained far greater control over
academic affairs. Kelly explained that, “The practical result of growing size and complexity
necessitated delegation of policymaking and managerial responsibilities from boards to the

6
Kelly, Fund Raising and Public Relations: A Critical Analysis., 41.
7
Ibid., 40.
8
Ibid., 41.
9
Hall, "Historical Perspectives on Nonprofit Organizations in the United States." 10.
6

president.”
10
With this added responsibility of policymaking, presidents could no longer act as the
primary fundraisers for their institutions, which led to trustees assuming the majority of solicitation
duties. Evidence of this trustee involvement was seen when, “Darius Mills established a
professorship of intellectual and moral philosophy [at the University of California] ‘at the
suggestion of a friend on the Board of Regents.’”
11
Similarly, Phoebe Hearst’s philanthropic nature
began in 1891 when encouraged by a regent.
12

“As the needs of hospitals, universities, and other organized charities grew, fundraising
became professionalized. Firms such as John Price Jones & Company combined sophisticated
business methods with aggressive marketing techniques in raising funds for the World War I loan
drives and, later, for Harvard and other universities,”
13
explained Hall. Due to regulations these
firms generally only provided guidance to organizational staff and volunteers on how to best solicit
donations. According to Blintzer, “Counsel will not solicit gifts but will use all his knowledge and
powers of persuasion to equip the client’s staff with and volunteers with the skills they need to
seek gifts successfully.”
14
Between World War I and World War II a great deal of fundraising
activity was guided by these firms with volunteers, including presidents and trustees, carrying out
the strategies created for them.
The “ever-increasing competition for the philanthropic dollar… has forced the creation of
the skilled, professional, full-time, in-house university staff to cope with these challenges.”
15
After
World War II, organizations began incorporating the use of full-time fundraising professionals in
a similar to fashion to what we see today. This shift completed the transition of the fundraising

10
Kelly, Fund Raising and Public Relations: A Critical Analysis, 42.
11
Ibid., 42.
12
Ibid.
13
Hall, "Historical Perspectives on Nonprofit Organizations in the United States." 16.
14
Ibid., 46.
15
Ibid.
7

function from college and university presidents in the colonial period, to trustees following the
Civil War, external fundraisers advising volunteers between WWI and WWII, and finally to a
wholly administrative function.
“A serious implication of this evolution – is that [fundraising] has moved out of the hands
of senior policymakers and the managers of overall financial resources (i.e. presidents and
governing boards) and into the hands of specialized practitioners,” said Kelly, who cites this as a
key issue for the fundraising industry that is often ignored by scholars. She cites Etzioni’s
explanation to illustrate the effect of the rise of the professional fundraiser “The strain created by
lay administrators in professional organizations leads to goal displacement. When the hierarchy of
authority is in inverse relation to the hierarchy of goals and means, there is considerable danger
that the goals will be subverted.”
16

This idea that fundraisers are so removed from the establishment of the goals of an
organization that they have neither the knowledge or an incentive to solicit gifts that advance the
mission of their employer is a key issue for the fundraising industry. Understanding that as
nonprofits have evolved the fundraising function has moved out the purview of those guiding
organizations allows us to find solutions to align the objectives of fundraisers with the objectives
of their employers.
Background
Fundraising Definition
To provide a working lexicon for readers Kelly noted, “There is no consensus on any one
definition of [fundraising]. For the purposes of this book, [fundraising] is defined as the purposive
process of soliciting and accepting monetary gifts from individuals, corporations, and foundations

16
Kelly, Fund Raising and Public Relations: A Critical Analysis, 47.
8

by a charitable organization, especially as managed for the organization by [fundraising]
specialists.”
17
Kelly found that various scholars had formulated definitions for the fundraising
function, “Carbone (1986) defined [fundraising] as ‘a codeword for a much larger set of concepts,
programs and activities associated with…translating private resources into the public good.”
18

Another scholar, “Panas (1984) defined fundraising as the magnificent business of helping others
undertake consequential acts of kindness and generosity. ”
19
In 1986, the National Society of Fund
Raising Executives defined fundraising as, “The seeking of gifts from various sources conducted
by 501(c)(3) organizations.”
20

Given the different tactics used in fundraising, it is not difficult to see why it has such
vague and wide-ranging definitions. If we evaluate the most common forms of fundraising, we
will see that a singular definition escapes us unless we rely on ambiguity and breadth.
Many people encounter annual giving fundraising efforts on a regular basis. Certified Fund
Raising Executive International (CFRE) defines annual giving as, “Annually repeating gift
programs; seeking funds on an annual or recurring basis from the same constituency; income is
generally used for operating budget support.”
21
This type of fundraising mainly occurs through
direct marketing solicitations: mail, email, text message, social media posts or phone calls. In most
cases these dollars are unrestricted, meaning that organizations can use them at their discretion. In
some situations, donors can make a designated gift which stipulates that the funds get utilized by
a specific part of an organization. For example, an annual giving solicitation letter from a

17
Kelly, Fund Raising and Public Relations: A Critical Analysis, 79-80.
18
Ibid., 80.
19
Ibid.
20
Ibid., 81-82.
21
"Glossary of Fundraising Terms." Cfre.org. September 19, 2013. http://www.cfre.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/05/bgloss.pdf, 46.
9

university may offer donors a few different options to contribute to, such as athletics, an academic
department, a scholarship fund or allowing the university to decide where the gift dollars will go.
Another highly visible form of solicitation is events fundraising. Events like the American
Cancer Society Relay for Life, the Avon Walk for Breast Cancer, and Swim with Mike raise
donations by turning participants into fundraisers – encouraging them to ask friends, family and
acquaintances to support them. Participants may ask for a set donation or for sponsors to pledge a
certain dollar amount per mile walked or laps swum, etc. Gala dinners, benefit concerts and certain
sporting events require a donation to participate. In many ways, the funds generated from these
activities resemble those of annual giving solicitations, but the skills needed, and tactics used to
coordinate these events differ considerably from those of annual giving professionals.
Not all fundraising involves soliciting individuals. Foundation relations often requires
writing grant proposals detailing an organization’s projects and aspirations in the hopes of earning
a grant from a foundation. This manner of solicitation entails a more formal and technical writing
style than what might be used to raise annual gifts.
Because the responsibilities, tactics, metrics and professional concerns vary for each area
of fundraising, this analysis will focus primarily on individual giving, particularly at the major gift
level. Individual gift fundraising involves building a relationship with a potential donor in the
hopes of the organization receiving a donation from her. A major gift is simply a gift of substantial
size; however, the major giving level varies from organization to organization. A smaller
organization may consider $5,000 a major gift while a well-established research university may
not qualify anything below $1 million as a major gift.
10

Types of Donations
Kelly defined charitable contributions on two dimensions: purpose and level. Some gifts
are given without restrictions, as mentioned above, but others, known as restricted gifts, carry
certain stipulations set forth by the donor,
“Unrestricted gifts are generally lower level gifts in terms of monetary value, whereas restricted gifts are
generally of greater value. In addition, unrestricted gifts are usually generated through ‘annual giving
programs’ from a broad base of donors and are, therefore, frequently used synonymously with annual gifts.
Restricted gifts are usually generated through ‘major gifts programs’ from a small, selective group of donors
and are frequently used synonymously with major gifts.”
22

The dimensions of purpose and level create a two-way typology of gifts: unrestricted lower
level gifts, restricted lower level gifts; unrestricted major gifts and restricted major gifts. In general,
most gifts fall into either the unrestricted lower level gifts or restricted major gifts categories. This
pattern has an underlying logic to it. Most organizations will not navigate stipulations for a lower
level gift because the resources needed to comply with the constraints will outweigh the monetary
value of the gift. Most donors of major gifts make a sizable donation because they have a passion
for the cause or particular project. They see their donation as an investment and want to see it put
to its intended use, not used merely for budgetary relief.
Each gift solicited by a major gift fundraiser has the potential to affect the direction and/or
success of their organization significantly. These individuals must find a delicate balance between
funding the strategic priorities of the organization and satisfying a donor population that is
presented with an exorbitant number of organizations to which they can donate. The difficulty of
this task is the reason this analysis will focus on individual giving. Annual giving provides vital
resources to organizations, but it does not have the potential to alter the course of an organization
the way individual giving can. Events fundraising can raise comparable funds to a major gifts

22
Kelly, Fund Raising and Public Relations: A Critical Analysis, 84.
11

program, but the organization generally predetermines whether event dollars will go toward
budgetary items or a capital project. Foundation relations is similar to major gifts fundraising in
that an organization has to choose whether to pursue a grant the same way it would decide to accept
a restricted major gift. The reason foundation relations will not be a focus of this project is that the
tactics differ too much from individual gifts fundraising to draw conclusions for both. The
discussion will have applications for more than just individual gifts fundraisers, but the author felt
it was important to narrow the scope of the analysis for the sake of clarity.
Ethical Issues in the Nonprofit Sector
In 2015, the Wounded Warrior Project (WWP) raised $372 million. The organization that
began in 2003 as a group of concerned individuals working out of a basement to distribute
backpacks of necessities to injured veterans had grown to one of the largest veteran’s charities in
the US.
23
In January of 2016, CBS News released findings from an investigation into how WWP
was misusing the enormous amounts of gifts it received. Charity Navigator, an independent charity
watchdog organization, claimed that only 60 percent of WWP’s budget went toward helping
veterans.
24
This number shocked many people, especially when compared to other veteran-focused
charities. At the time, Disabled American Veterans Charitable Service Trust dedicated 96 percent
of its budget to veterans and Fisher House was spending 91 percent.
25

Former Wounded Warrior Project employees described a company culture of wasteful
spending. After CEO Steven Nardizzi took over WWP in 2009, spending on conferences and

23
Philipps, Dave. "Wounded Warrior Project Spends Lavishly on Itself, Insiders Say." The New York Times.
January 27, 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/us/wounded-warrior-project-spends-lavishly-on-itself-ex-
employees-say.html.
24
Reid, Chip, and Jennifer Janisch. "Wounded Warrior Project accused of wasting donation money." CBS News.
January 26, 2016. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wounded-warrior-project-accused-of-wasting-donation-money/.
25
Reid, Chip, and Jennifer Janisch. "CBS News investigates Wounded Warrior Project." CBS News. January 29,
2016. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-investigates-wounded-warrior-project-spending/.
12

meetings increased rapidly, rising from $1.7 million in 2009 to over $26 million in 2014. Many
pointed to the $3 million spent on the organization’s 2014 annual meeting held at a resort in
Colorado Springs as the most prominent example of frivolous spending.
As word spread of the improperly allocated funds, WWP lost the trust of even some of its
most loyal donors. Fred and Dianne Kane had organized golf events to benefit WWP through their
charity Tee-off for a Cause since 2009. The parents of two sons serving in Iraq, the Kane’s had
raised $325,000 for WWP. After hearing about the extravagance their donation dollars were paying
for, the Kane’s canceled the 2016 golfing tournament. Fred Kane felt a sense of duty to get Steven
Nardizzi dismissed as CEO: “I don’t understand how an organization that has many veterans who
value honor and service and chain of command can be led by a guy like that” he said.
26

In March 2016, the Wounded Warrior Project Board of Directors fired both Nardizzi and
Chief Operating Officer Al Giordano. The organization had to begin the process of regaining the
trust of its stakeholders, particularly its donor base.
One cannot assume that all practitioners of any profession will act rationally and
responsibly all the time, and nonprofit employees are no exception. A virtuous mission and
programs that help society do not make nonprofit organizations immune to wrongdoing, nor does
working for a nonprofit make a fundraiser insusceptible to moral short-comings or the same
temptations as for-profit employees. In a 2007 survey by the Ethics Resource Center, 55 percent
of nonprofit employees witnessed one or more acts of misconduct in the previous year, and 24
percent observed co-workers putting their needs above those of the organization.
27

26
Reid, Chip, and Jennifer Janisch. "CBS News investigates Wounded Warrior Project." CBS News. January 29,
2016. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-investigates-wounded-warrior-project-spending/.
27
Panepento, Peter. "Ethical Standards Erode at Nonprofit Groups, Study Finds." Philanthropy.com. March 27,
2008. https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Ethical-Standards-Erode-at/163179.
13

Fundraisers may not have the pressure of generating profits for shareholders, but that does
not mean they do not have stressors in their professional lives. Former president of the Council for
Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) Jonathan Lippincott explained, “In fact, given
the pressures we face to help ensure the economic vitality [or even viability] of our institutions,
ethical principles are in danger of being not only passively overlooked but actively
compromised.”
28

Any standard would find the actions of the Wounded Warrior Project leadership unethical
and unacceptable, but understanding that fundraising personnel can act unethically raises questions
about more ambiguous ethical dilemmas. What if a donor wants to make a gift that strays from an
organization’s mission? What if someone with an unsavory reputation wants to make a gift?
Employers need to encourage behavior that benefits the organization and upholds the ethical
standards of the fundraising profession. The next section will demonstrate the circumstances that
force certain organizations to accept gifts that others would shun as wasteful or unethical.
Resource Dependence
An organization cannot survive in isolation. Whether it needs suppliers to create its
products or a customer base to purchase its goods, every organization has entities that it relies
upon. These outside entities comprise the environment in which an organization exists.
Organizational survival depends on the ability to navigate the interdependencies of this
environment in order to accomplish its goals.
This idea of environmental interdependencies makes intuitive sense when discussing for-
profit companies. A shoe manufacturer needs suppliers of leather, fabric, rubber, etc., to create its
product. It then relies on retailers to purchase its shoes to sell to consumers. Even a company like

28
Lippincott, John. "President's Perspective: Ethics and Economics." Case.org. January 2012.

14

Starbucks that controls its supply chain from growing and roasting coffee beans all the way to
preparing and serving drinks in its stores still has to cater to consumers’ tastes in order to make a
profit.
It takes some extrapolation and critical thought to place nonprofits within this framework
but doing so drastically changes how one views a donor’s power and a fundraiser’s role. If we
view the impact of the nonprofit organization as its product, the constituencies it serves as its
customers, and donors as the providers of resources then we can examine their efforts to survive
using the same theories put forth concerning for-profit entities.
In 1913, a group of good Samaritans started the Jewish Consumptive Relief Association
(JRCA) to provide a free, non-sectarian tuberculosis sanatorium. The group used money donated
from several fundraisers to purchase 10 acres of land in Duarte, California to create the Los
Angeles Sanatorium. By the mid-1940s the widespread use of antibiotics like penicillin had
radically reduced the cases of tuberculosis in the United States and all but eliminated the need for
a tuberculosis sanatorium. The JRCA, or City of Hope as it had come to be known, had completed
its mission. Like a business that lost its customer base, City of Hope had the choice of shuttering
its windows or adapting its product. Choosing the latter, City of Hope turned its attention to
researching and treating cancer and later diabetes and HIV/AIDS. Because of its willingness to
serve a different set of “customers,” City of Hope is now designated as a comprehensive cancer
center, the highest recognition granted by the National Cancer Institute
29
.
If organizations could operate in a vacuum, the need to adjust behavior would be minimal,
if it existed at all. Unfortunately, this type of independence does not exist, and any entity that
wishes to prosper needs to manage its interdependencies within its environment. Pfeffer and

29
"The City of Hope Story." Cityofhope.org. https://www.cityofhope.org/about-city-of-hope/who-we-are/our-
history.
15

Salancik wrote, “Our position is that organizations survive to the extent that they are effective.
Their effectiveness derives from the management of demands, particularly the demands of interest
groups upon which the organizations depend for resources and support.”
30

The language surrounding fundraising creates the illusion that when a donor provides a
nonprofit organization with money, they have purely magnanimous intentions. The words ‘gift’
and ‘donation’ suggest something that one gives freely and without the expectation of
reciprocation. This may hold true for certain donations. A donor who gives $25 to an annual fund
would likely expect nothing more than a thank you note. As the monetary value of the donation
increases and the donor begins to place restrictions upon its use, does it still qualify as a gift? When
a nonprofit relies on donations for its survival, the acquisition of gifts should be viewed as a
transfer of resources between two organizations.
Organizations exist only as long as society allows them to exist; “In other words, since
organizations [consume] society’s resources, society [evaluates] the usefulness and legitimacy of
the organization’s activities.”
31
If they serve no purpose like the tuberculosis sanatoriums of City
of Hope, the organization must find a new purpose to serve society, like curing cancer, or it will
not endure. Resource dependence makes organizations vulnerable to outside control. “Those
coalition participants who provide behaviors, resources, and capabilities that are most needed or
desired by other organizational participants come to have more influence and control over the
organization,” Pfeffer and Salancik argue, “for one of the inducements received for contributing
the most critical resources is the ability to control and direct organizational action.”
32
These
exchange relationships constitute “quasi-markets, in which influence and control are negotiated

30
Pfeffer, Jeffrey, and Gerald R. Salancik. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence
Perspective. (Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press, 2009), 2.
31
Ibid., 24.
32
Ibid., 27.
16

and allocated according to which organizational participants are most critical to the organization’s
continued survival and success.”
33

The cost of operating an organization in an open environment is clear, “Because
organizations are not self-contained or self-sufficient, the environment must be relied upon for
support. For continuing to provide what the organization needs, the external groups or
organizations may demand certain actions from the organization in return.”
34
Organizational
leadership must determine to what extent it will meet the demands of its environment.
When deciding to comply with the demands of an individual or an interest group, an
organization factors in its dependence on this group versus others and the extent to which this
group’s demands differ from the demands of others. Dependence is determined by three factors:
first, there is the importance of the resource, the extent to which the organization requires it for
continued operation and survival; second is the extent to which the interest group has discretion
over the resource allocation and use; third is the degree to which there are few alternatives, or put
another way, the amount of control over the resource by the individual or interest group.
35
We can
examine donation dollars by each of these criteria to show how much the demands of a donor can
impact a nonprofit.
Considering its use to pay staff, purchase equipment, plan programming, etc., it is difficult
to think of a more critical resource for any organization than money. If donations serve as the main
source of funds coming into a nonprofit, then those providing those donations can wield a
tremendous amount of power within that organization. This leads into the second category of
discretion over the resource. Donors have a plethora of choices when it comes to donating to

33
Pfeffer, and Salancik. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective, 36.
34
Ibid., 43.
35
Ibid., 45.
17

nonprofits. If one organization will not use their money as they see fit, donors can simply turn to
another. If the organization has an expansive pool of donors the decision to let one give somewhere
else will not drastically affect the organization, but if the organization relies on a few donors for
the majority of its funding, letting one go is extremely difficult.
To limit reliance on one form of funding, nonprofits attempt to diversify revenue streams.
If an organization receives some funding from major giving, annual giving, foundation grants,
events, etc., it will have greater control over its survival. Hospitals, universities and other
institutions that produce revenue through the sale of a service further decrease their dependence
on donors.
Due to the control that donors can exert on an organization, Kelly posits that fundraisers
should not be viewed as gatherers of resources, but rather as those who protect the autonomy of
an organization by managing communications between the donor publics and the charitable
organization. Charitable organizations face a double-edged sword, “In order to enhance their
autonomy, they must seek external funding to support their institutional goals, but in so doing,
they risk losing autonomy by accepting gifts that may limit their power to determine goals and the
means of pursuing them.”
36
The demands of donors whom an organization depends on for
resources need to be evaluated in terms of how much they limit the autonomy of the organization.
Institutional Autonomy
Institutional autonomy has two main components: substantive autonomy and procedural
autonomy. Substantive autonomy refers to the power of an organization to determine its own goals
and programs. Procedural autonomy is the ability of an organization to determine how it pursues
these goals and programs. If a donor restricts a gift in such a way that it effects institutional

36
Kelly, Fund Raising and Public Relations: A Critical Analysis, 174.
18

autonomy, either substantively or procedurally, organizational leadership must decide whether the
benefit of the donation outweighs the loss of control.
Loss of autonomy does not always have negative effects. Kelly cites the example of the
Rosenwald Foundation’s Race Relation Fund which created a grants program in the 1940s that
subsidized the salaries of black faculty members hired by white colleges and universities as an
example of loss of autonomy that promoted social change. The institutions that chose to participate
in the program voluntarily relinquished some control over their hiring process in exchange for
qualified faculty members provided at a lower cost. In cases of injustice, such as the fact that only
two black professors were faculty members of white colleges in 1942, the loss of autonomy to
promote change surely must be considered a positive.
Neglecting to factor institutional autonomy into the equation when deciding whether to
accept a donation can have serious repercussions for an organization. Soliciting and accepting gifts
is an implicit conversation with an organization’s stakeholders. Brittingham and Pezzullo said,
“Each request for support for a particular purpose is a statement about what the institution would
like to become (or remain) and that each request is a statement about how the institution would see
itself and the world.”
37
When an organization asks for funding to expand a certain program it sends
a message that it values that program. Similarly, “Each accepted gift, with all of its stipulations
and restrictions, is a statement about what the institution is willing to become, how it is willing to
see itself and the world.”
38
Accepting a gift with stipulations sends the signal that an organization
will surrender some autonomy for a price.

37
Brittingham, Barbara E., and Thomas R. Pezzullo. The campus green: fund raising in higher education
(Washington, D.C.: George Washington University, 1990), 57.
38
Ibid.
19

Resource dependence theory suggests that conditions exist where an organization would
have to accept a gift that severely limited its autonomy. Shirley Peppers, Director of Principle Gifts
at Harvard University explains that smaller organizations without a strong pool of donors cannot
be as discerning about gifts, “If I'm running a small drug rehab center, it's much harder for me to
turn down a $100,000 gift if the person has some terms on it that I don't like, or I think are not in
our best interest long-term, if we're not going to be able to pay the rent if we don't take the gift.”
On the other hand, well established and prestigious organizations can be much more judicious in
the acceptance of gifts. “I think it’s easier for UCLA to say ‘You want to give us $250,000, but
you want us to spend $100,000 of it on a fountain that we don't want, don't need, don't have a place
for, and we're in a drought? We're going to have to turn this gift down unless you take that
restriction off,’" Peppers said.
Peppers’ insight provides anecdotal evidence to support Pfeffer and Salancik’s claims that
the availability of a resource effects its importance, “When the supply of a resource is stable and
ample, there is no problem for the organization. Organizational vulnerability derives from the
possibility of an environment’s changing so that the resource is no longer assured. Forms of
organization which require scarcer resources, for which acquisition is more uncertain, would be
less likely to survive than those that require resources in more stable and ample supply.”
39

Mitchell Spearman, Director of Development, Principal Gifts at the University of Texas at
Austin describes taking gifts that limit institutional autonomy as a treacherous path for any
nonprofit organization, “Here's the danger. If you're creating a priority outside of the institutional
mission, and this is the mission that the nonprofit board supports, this is the mission that the staff
supports ... when you do it once, how do you stop from doing it again? And again, and again, and

39
Pfeffer, and Salancik. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective, 47.
20

again?” A nonprofit organization that cannot maintain the resources to accomplish its mission
should not exist. In a perfect world, every effort by concerned citizens like the JRCA would
succeed. Unfortunately, just because someone sees an injustice and wants to fix it does not mean
they will achieve that goal. If every donation means having to concede some autonomy the mission
will never come to fruition because the organization will be working to serve its donors instead of
its constituencies.
Effective Use of Resources
Organizational strategy can mitigate the effects of resource dependence by more effectively
allocating resources. With concrete principles to guide their decisions employees can act in the
best interest of the organization. Three key components make up this strategy: mission statement,
intended impact, and theory of change. Each of these pieces builds off the proceeding element to
lead the organization toward its goals.
Mission Statement
As simple as it sounds to create an effective mission statement, many organizations have a
difficult time with the exercise. Peter Drucker, a pioneer of management consultancy, explained
that he constantly observed hospitals that had the mission statement, “Our Mission is health
care.”
40
Drucker points out that hospitals do not deal with health care, they deal with illness. People
address health care through their diet, exercise habits and lifestyle choices. When health care
breaks down, the hospital steps in. “A mission statement has to be operational,” Drucker explains,
“otherwise it’s just good intentions.”
41
After reading the mission statement, employees need to be
able to look at their responsibilities and say, “This my contribution to the goal.”
42

40
Drucker, Peter Ferdinand, and Frances Hesselbein. Managing the Nonprofit Organization: Practices and
Principles. (New York, NY: Harper, 2010), 4.
41
Ibid.
42
Ibid.
21

A broad, overarching mission only works with an abundance of resources. One special
projects manager interviewed for this analysis explained that her organization had government
funding for facilities, utilities and its core programs. In this case the organization laid out an
expansive mission statement with an attitude of trying to find reasons to approve programs rather
than to turn them down, “If we have the numbers, we have the interest, we have the funding, why
not at least try it? Let's pilot it and see if it works.” This is a noble attitude, but one that can have
detrimental effects on an organization with limited resources.
“One of our most common mistakes is to make the mission into a kind of hero sandwich
of good intentions. It has to be simple and clear.”
43
Organizations need to focus on what they do
well and the needs of their constituents, “The belief that every institution can do everything is just
not true.”
44
An expansive mission gives employees the freedom to put organizational resources to
use in inefficient ways. A quality mission statement answers the question, “Where can we, with
the limited resources we have – and I don’t just mean people and money, but also competence –
really make a difference, really set a new standard?”
45

“The next thing to look at is what we really believe in. A mission is not, in that sense,
impersonal. I have never seen anything being done well unless people were committed.”
46
No
matter how advanced or impressive a product or service, if the organization does not believe in it,
it will not succeed. The Edsel was the most innovative and extensively researched car that Ford
ever produced, “There was only one thing wrong with it: nobody in the Ford Motor Company
believed in it. It was contrived. It was designed on the basis of research and not on the basis of

43
Drucker and Hesselbein. Managing the Nonprofit Organization: Practices and Principles, 5.
44
Ibid., 7.
45
Ibid.
46
Ibid.
22

commitment.”
47
If employees do not truly believe in the mission statement will they have any
incentive to pursue it?
The Limits of the Mission Statement
“Getting critical resource decisions right – allocating time, talent, and dollars to the
activities that have the greatest impact – is what “strategy is all about.”
48
A mission statement
alone cannot properly guide an organization to pursuing the most successful path toward
completing its goals. The mission statement provides the fundamental reason for the existence of
the organization, but its grand ambitions and stirring rhetoric do not provide a great deal of
practical value in terms of making programmatic decisions. Employees can review the mission
statement and determine if their work is moving the organization closer to completing the mission,
but how does a nonprofit manager allocate funding amongst multiple activities, all of which fit the
mission? How can nonprofits use their resources to do the most good possible?
Intended Impact and Theory of Change
The Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ), formerly the Rheedlen Centers for Children and
Families, experienced substantial growth in the 1990s, expanding its annual budget to $10 million
to serve over 6,000 children. It sponsored 16 different programs including a senior center, a
homeless prevention program, and its Beacon Schools which provided educational, recreational,
and youth development services during afternoons and evenings. “Among its most prominent
activities was the ‘Harlem Children’s Zone,’ an initiative launched in 1997, which included seven
programs ranging from ‘baby college’ classes for new parents to a neighborhood revitalization
effort – all located in a 24-block ‘zone’ of central Harlem.”

47
Drucker and Hesselbein. Managing the Nonprofit Organization: Practices and Principles, 7.
48
Colby, Susan, Nan Stone, and Paul Carttar. "Zeroing in on Impact." Stanford Social Innovation Review. Fall
2004. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/zeroing_in_on_impact., 2.
23

To a degree all of these programs fit within Rheedlen’s mission, “to improve the lives of
poor children in America’s most devastated communities,”
49
but the varied nature of these
activities put extensive pressure on the resources of the organization. “We wanted to grow,” said
executive director Geoffrey Canada, “We planned to grow. But we had reached the end of our
ability to manage growth. I didn’t want the limit on our future to be the fact that we weren’t able
to think strategically.”
50
The organization decided to supplement its mission statement by looking
at intended impact and theory of change.
According to Colby, Stone and Carttar, “Intended impact is a statement or series of
statements about what the organization is trying to achieve and will hold itself accountable for
within some manageable period of time.”
51
Narrowing down intended impact involves identifying
the benefits and beneficiaries of the organization. For HCZ this meant defining how it would
improve the lives of children and which children it would serve. The organization created the
intended impact statement:
Over the next decade, Harlem Children’s Zone’s primary focus will be on children aged 0-18 living in the
Harlem Children’s Zone project, a 24-block area of central Harlem. … Harlem Children’s Zone’s objective
will be to equip the greatest possible number of children in the HCZ project to make a successful transition
to an independent, healthy adulthood, reflected in demographic and achievement profiles consistent with
those in an average middle-class community.”
52

“Theory of change explains how the organization’s intended impact will actually happen, the cause
and-effect logic by which organizational and financial resources will be converted into the desired
social results.”
53
This moves beyond the mission statement to provide a roadmap of how the
organization will operate. HCZ built its theory of change on two principles:

49
Colby, Susan, Nan Stone, and Paul Carttar. "Zeroing in on Impact." Stanford Social Innovation Review. Fall
2004, 5.
50
Ibid., 6.
51
Ibid., 3.
52
Ibid., 7.
53
Ibid., 3.
24

“First, critical mass: Success in raising healthy children entails rebuilding the institutions and functions of
a normal, healthy community, something that has been undermined in central Harlem by years of neglect,
disinvestments, and demographic upheaval. Building such a community requires the participation of a
critical mass of parents and children in common undertakings, including both effective child rearing and
community building. Second, early and progressive intervention: Effective early intervention pays long-term
benefits by making later interventions less necessary for many young people, and by making those
interventions more likely to succeed when they are needed.”
54

By strategically clarifying how to approach its mission, HCZ could evaluate and prioritize
its programs based on which provided the most mission-critical activities. The organization
decided to transfer its senior center and dropout prevention programs to other organizations, and
to eliminate its homelessness prevention program. Canada said, “The biggest surprise was to
discover just how much money was going into programs that didn’t meet our core mission – that
was a big epiphany.”
55
In cases where funds and human capital are scarce resources, organizations
need to be willing to make the difficult decision to scale back programming, “The local senior
center that was very dear to a lot of people here just didn’t correlate to helping poor kids. We made
the decision to find another appropriate nonprofit organization to run it. It was tough, but doing so
has made resources available to other mission-related programs.”
56

If an organization takes the time to conduct these sorts of discussions before spreading its
resources too thin over a range of programs, it can save time, funds and ill feelings. If HCZ had
these discussions before creating its senior center it would not have had to deal with the emotion
of parting ways with the program, “Decisions to terminate existing programs that aren’t well-
aligned with the intended impact and theory of change can be hard for emotional reasons, since
these programs inevitably do some good, and may be legacies from the organization’s past, or
staffed by loyal employees and volunteers.” Just as managers must firmly stand against accepting

54
Colby, Susan, Nan Stone, and Paul Carttar. "Zeroing in on Impact." Stanford Social Innovation Review. Fall
2004, 7.
55
Ibid., 9.
56
Ibid.
25

donations that pull the organization away from its mission they must also place limits on who the
organization will and will not serve. By refocusing on its 24-block area, HCZ limited the reach of
its impact but strengthened the impact it had on those it could afford to serve. The resources of the
organization were placed where they could do the most good and the burden of funding extraneous
elements was removed.
Gift Utility
Origin
Joel Smith, a fundraising consultant and former Vice President of Development and
Secretary of the Board of Trustees at Stanford University, was an early proponent of the concept
of “gift utility.” This idea suggests that two gifts of equal monetary value do not necessarily
provide the same benefit to an organization. If one donor makes a $10,000 gift to a department
that already has ample funding, and another makes a $10,000 donation to a department that
desperately needs funding, the latter donation has more value to the organization. Smith saw the
increasing frequency and size of capital campaigns amongst academic institutions, and felt this
trend was “shortsighted and superficial; it ignores the entire subject of utility.”
57
Smith believed
that fundraising was being driven purely by the bottom line of dollars raised rather than how that
money was being used. He urged institutions to think critically about fundraising, “How regrettable
it is, then, that so many [fundraisers] and the institutional leaders who employ them are
preoccupied by big numbers instead of promoting an understanding of which gifts are the most
useful.”
58

57
Kelly, Fund Raising and Public Relations: A Critical Analysis, 419.
58
Ibid., 441.
26

Fundraisers have an awareness of this gift value hierarchy. Unrestricted gifts provide the
most value because they can be used entirely at the discretion of the organization’s leadership.
Budget relief gifts have the second highest utility among donations. Essentially, these gifts act as
unrestricted money, because they are designated for a budget item. Absent a specific funding
source an organization must allocate unrestricted monies to fund its programs. If a donor gives to
program scheduled to receive unrestricted funds, the organization then has the freedom use these
unrestricted funds in other areas. “Money is fungible,” Joe Komsky, Associate Vice President of
Clinical Major Gifts at City of Hope explains, “If I’ve got $10 million designated toward research
and you come in and give me $10 million for research, I can apply that toward research and I can
take the other $10 million that is coming from unrestricted funds and put them somewhere else.”
After unrestricted gifts and budget relief gifts, “The utility of giving for other restricted purposes
is a direct function of the priority of the specific purposes and the availability of alternative
methods for financing them.”
59

Rejecting a Donation
Certain situations require the outright refusal of a gift. Some donations serve no
organizational purpose. Komsky describes it in retail terms, “If you walk into the Gap and say to
them 'I've got $120,000 dollars here, I want a Tesla,' what's the Gap going to do? The Gap doesn't
sell cars. They are not going to say to you, ‘Sure, we'll take the $120,000 and we'll get you a Tesla.’
That takes them away from what their mission is.”
The source of the money might lead an organization to refuse a gift. The source of a
donation can impact gift utility because of the public relations implications involved. Shirley
Peppers explains, “There are issues if somebody is an unsavory character. You don't really want

59
Kelly, Fund Raising and Public Relations: A Critical Analysis, 442.
27

to take money from a drug lord. You don't want to take money from somebody who has a super
questionable reputation, because it might besmirch your own reputation.”
Worse than a gift with low utility is one that actually costs the organization money or other
resources to accept. On the extreme end, Kelly noted the example of Vanderbilt University’s
persistent solicitation of politician and member of the famed philanthropic family Winthrop
Rockefeller, who finally donated a herd of rare cattle to the institution that ate more food under
Vanderbilt’s care than it was eventually sold for.
According to Smith, “Sometimes a donor’s preferences and purposes simply do not match
ours. And then the honorable thing to do is say no.”
60
To avoid this, he suggests charitable
organizations take a long-term approach to fundraising that focuses on gift utility rather than
overall dollars raised. Dollar goals, he argues, cause fundraisers to misguidedly “pursue additional
and often cosmetic objectives, rather than basic institutional needs.”
61

Expanded View of Gift Utility
Depending on one’s view of the purpose of a nonprofit organization, gift utility can
incorporate a donation’s value to society. Interviewees for this analysis provided a range of
answers from, “To serve the community”; to “I think it ought to be to deal with some issue that is
in the public good that isn't being properly addressed by other individuals or by the government”;
and “Ideally each nonprofit organization has a mission statement that really makes that very, very
clear.” If one leans toward the idea that the nonprofit has a responsibility to help society then an
element of gift utility would derive from a donation’s impact on society.
Henry E. Riggs believed in factoring in societal benefit when measuring gift utility. To
justify his position, he used the example of Harvard University offering full-tuition scholarships

60
Kelly, Fund Raising and Public Relations: A Critical Analysis, 443.
61
Ibid., 418.
28

to all admitted students whose families had annual incomes below $100,000. This policy, funded
through donations, received a great deal of praise because of the perceived opportunity to increase
the diversity of Harvard’s student body and allow the university to have a greater chance of
attracting the best students regardless of socio-economic status. Riggs questioned whether this
optimally used donation dollars. This money could have expanded Harvard’s enrollment so that
more people would have access to a Harvard education. Or, donors could have chosen to give to
colleges and universities that need help providing financial aid to those most in need. Riggs said,
Not all charitable gifts are created equal. Many help the institution to which they are directed but do little
for society as a whole. Some pay for programs that benefit society but extract too high a price from the
charitable institution. A few help the donor so much that calling them “gifts” is questionable. Yet the most
valuable gifts—those with the greatest utility, to borrow the economist’s term—help both the nonprofit and
the society in which the nonprofit is embedded.
62

While the plethora of multi-million-dollar donations to nonprofits may make it seem
otherwise, philanthropic dollars are not an unlimited resource. A donation given to one cause
means less funding going toward another. For this reason, donors want to believe their gifts provide
maximum benefit to both the nonprofit institution and society at large. Riggs felt that certain gifts
– such as lavish donations to intercollegiate athletic programs like “stadiums with sky boxes or
indoor practice facilities even in temperate climates,”
63
– were too myopic to serve any sort of
societal benefit. “Do these have any redeeming social benefit, and if not, why are they accorded
tax deductibility?”
64
he asked.
But, this was not just an indictment against athletics. Riggs also cited the Getty Center and
Walt Disney Concert Hall as projects that enhanced civic pride but did not address any social
welfare issues or expand the audiences for art or music. Nor was Riggs trying to say that myopic

62
Riggs, Henry E. "The Mouths of Gift Horses." Stanford Social Innovation Review, Summer 2010, 21-23.
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_mouths_of_gift_horses, 21.
63
Ibid., 22.
64
Ibid.
29

gifts should not be allowed. His goals were to have the government consider whether or not gifts
that did not directly relate to availing society of an issue or advance knowledge should be
incentivized through tax deductions, and to urge nonprofit institutions to think about the societal
value of the gifts they solicit and accept, “Greater attention to gift utility can leverage the impact
of those transfers and thereby enhance the satisfaction of donors, the benefits to fundraising
institutions, and the payoff for the larger society.
65

Some fundraisers, most assuredly those who have a passion for intercollegiate athletics
and the arts, might find Riggs’ ideas about gift utility misguided. Some would contend that
philanthropic support for athletics could raise the prestige of a university by translating athletic
success into philanthropic support for academic endeavors. Patrons of the arts could justify
creating extravagant buildings to house works of art to inspire young artists. The most important
thing to glean from Riggs’ discussion of gift utility is that soliciting and accepting gifts should be
done with careful thought. If a gift will harm the institution, either by wasting resources to manage
its intended purpose or because its intended purpose is outside the scope of the organization, it
should not be accepted. If a gift purely benefits an institution and not society, fundraisers must ask
themselves if there is a way to get the donor to reconsider the stipulations of the gift.
What is most beneficial to society is a very subjective question. Which disease should
receive the most research funding? What academic areas deserve the most endowed chairs? What
environmental issues are the most pressing for the planet? Whether because of personal, political,
moral or some other differences in opinion, the answers to these questions will vary widely. But,
if fundraisers and the organizational leadership of nonprofits act in what they feel is the best

65
Riggs, Henry E. "The Mouths of Gift Horses." Stanford Social Innovation Review, Summer 2010, 21-23.
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_mouths_of_gift_horses, 22.
30

balance between their organizational needs and the needs of society the gifts that donors make will
have a greater impact.
The Art of Saying “No”
As with the majority of concepts the practice of telling a donor that you will not accept
their gift is much easier in theory than in practice. Even in situations where an organization has
the financial and moral leverage to decline a gift, it must do so carefully to ensure that the
relationship with the donor can continue for future solicitations. Amidst all of the discussion of
dollar figures, foundations and corporations we can forget that fundraising requires a lot of
interpersonal communication between actual people. Fundraisers have to balance the logical
reasoning of what will best serve their employer and the emotional connection they have with
prospective donors. One interviewee from an animal rights organization explained how on a
professional level she was able to turn down gifts, but it hurt on a personal level, “It can be
extremely difficult, you can really hurt someone’s feelings.”
Ideally if a donor cares about an organization they will restructure their gift to provide the
maximum benefit to the cause. Before turning down a gift other options should be explored.
Mitchell Spearman has his own personal strategy for speaking with donors who want to make a
gift that runs counter to the organizational mission, “I have tried to get to the ‘why’ of the gift.”
Once he understands the motivation behind a donor’s generosity he can structure a gift that satisfies
both sides, “that's where there's faculty, that's where there's program managers, there's program
leaders of a nonprofit that really come into play. Because it's through their voice, through their
successes, through their results, they can often help take a donor, from, let's call it a bad idea or a
not as helpful idea to being a transformative idea.” Spearman likens this process to acting as a
Sherpa, “A Sherpa climbs the mountain with you. A Sherpa knows the destination, sometimes
31

knows how you get all the way there, other times has to pull back and say, ‘You know, we can't
go all the way.’”
If a donor will not budge on an idea the fundraiser and the organization must decline the
gift clearly and resolutely, “There are moments you just have to walk away. Understanding that
you may be tarnishing the relationship forever,” said Spearman. John Crowe, Principal of Crowe
Strategies, explains that accepting gift for the sake of the bottom line or to continue a relationship
with a donor likely will create more problems than it solves, “If it's going to create issues for the
organization going forward they're only going to haunt you. The donor is going to get upset, the
organization is going to get upset, everybody's going to get ticked off at some point down the road
when you take in a gift where the outcomes are not deliberately described and agreed to.”
Donor-Centric Fundraising
Even with the intense competition for donation dollars, some of those interviewed for this
analysis expressed a willingness to connect a donor with another organization if they cannot meet
that donor’s philanthropic goals. More importantly, these fundraisers felt supported by the leaders
of their organizations in making these decisions. “I would have no trouble saying to a dean or
director, ‘This is not our donor.’ They will continue to support us at the $2,500 level because they
believe in the value of the education they received. But their true passion is cancer research,” said
Mitchell Spearman, “And the best thing we can do, since we have asked them to identify their
passion, and they've been so candid with what matters most to them, the best thing we can do is
help guide them. Because even in this handoff they will see us as a resource.”
Shirley Peppers points out that focusing on a donor’s wishes has a practical benefit for her
relationship with that donor, “If [a gift] wasn't in line with what my organization did, I would try
32

to steer [the donor] someplace else. I also think that in the long run, with most honorable donors,
not somebody who's just trying to manipulate you, but with most honorable donors, that will pay
off in the long term, both for the organization and for your personal relationship with that donor.”
By focusing on the donor’s intent rather than just pushing toward a gift, fundraisers deepen
their relationship with that donor, “I think there's a sense of community that you're demonstrating
that is so important and so beautiful that it further creates a joyful moment for the donor,” said
Spearman. By making the connection to a more appropriate organization rather than just turning
the gift down, the fundraiser gets to take part in that donor’s happiness, “So it's not like they're
looking over their shoulder saying, ‘Gosh, I'm so sad we weren't able to give money to Occidental,’
or ‘we weren't able to give money to [the University of Texas].’ Instead they're saying, ‘Oh my
goodness. We just made a transformative difference.’” Ideally, if the majority of organizations are
willing to magnanimously connect a donor to another nonprofit it will create a more efficient
allocation of philanthropic resources. “Charities and nonprofits, higher education, we all need to
work together. We all need to be supportive of each other. That's why having this one size fits all
organization, it doesn't work, it never works. We need to recognize who does things well and who
doesn't. And if you're doing that, then everybody's winning,” said Spearman.
Joe Komsky echoed this need for nonprofits to accept their limitations, “Sometimes people
want to fund research that we just don't have the manpower to do. So, we'll try to turn it into
something more general, but if not, an organization needs to say sometimes, look this is not part
of our mission.” In these instances, Komsky says that nonprofits need to acknowledge, “We're
focused on ‘X,’ and we need to remain focused on ‘X’ and we're very good at ‘X.’ You have to
admit we're not so good at ‘Y’ and ‘Z.’” If the organization can identify its strengths and
weaknesses, then connecting a donor with another organization that can more appropriately fulfill
33

that donor’s philanthropic goals becomes easier. “That's an ideal situation. That's when society is
all working together hand in hand on this stuff,” said Komsky.
Checks and Balances
“In relation to the concept of gift utility, we can conclude that gifts with high degrees of
usefulness for a charitable organization will enhance autonomy (e.g., they will help an organization
pursue its self-determined goals),”
66
Kelly explains. Gifts with low utility, on the other hand, limit
autonomy, “because organizational goals will be displaced and/or internal resources will be
reallocated to purposes other than those determined by the organization.”
67
In such situations
fundraisers increase organizational effectiveness by declining to accept gifts, thereby protecting
institutional autonomy.
Kelly’s implication seems to be that fundraisers should be the guardians of institutional
autonomy. The issue has been and continues to be that fundraisers are evaluated on the dollars they
bring in to their organizations. This creates a genuine disincentive for fundraisers to act judiciously
when accepting a donation. The industry has made some progress in diversifying the metrics used
to judge fundraisers. Organizations now measure prospect identification, prospect visits, repeat
donations and various other factors, but ultimately a fundraiser has to bring in money to be
considered effective.
Many organizations have solved this conflict of interest by taking the unilateral power to
accept donations out the hands of fundraisers. Shelby Radcliffe, Vice President for Advancement
at Willamette University said, “We have a gift acceptance committee for just this reason, at every
organization I've been in, so that when a donor wants to make a gift that isn't one of the things that
we have as a stated fundraising priority, we gather a group of people and say do we want to accept

66
Kelly, Fund Raising and Public Relations: A Critical Analysis, 447.
67
Ibid.
34

this gift?” By taking the decision out of the fundraisers’ hands, the organization creates an
incentive for fundraisers to solicit gifts that increase institutional autonomy. “It's really the
institution's responsibility to only accept gifts that serve the institution,” Radcliffe said. This takes
a shift in the thinking of organizational leadership in terms of how they evaluate fundraising staff.
If a fundraiser builds a relationship with a donor and explains the needs of the organization, but
the donor still wants to make a gift that does not advance the organizations mission then leadership
cannot admonish the fundraiser. “I think it's really about supporting the fundraisers in those
moments and helping them to know that they're going to be supported in their conversations with
that donor. That nobody's going to say, ‘Well why did you lose that five and a half million dollars?’
No one's going to punish them for doing the right thing,” said Radcliffe.
The process of requiring a committee or executive review a gift before its acceptance is not
a universally accepted practice across the nonprofit sector. Unfortunately, one of the big factors in
establishing a gift acceptance process is the availability of resources. “By and large, the smaller
the shop, the less checks and balances, because there are fewer people to check and balance,” said
Mitchell Spearman, “You know, big fundraising shops like Chapel Hill, like Michigan, like Texas,
like UCLA, like Washington, University of Washington, they have so many people that these
processes are all in place. But for that small two-person nonprofit in rural Georgia, they just may
not have those checks and balances.”
The metrics used to judge fundraising do not necessarily need to be changed. Shifting the
decision of gift acceptance to those in charge of fulfilling the mission of the organization will
ensure that only gifts with a high level of utility will be accepted. Not allowing fundraisers to
accept gifts in order to reach monetary goals will motivate them to solicit gifts that are on mission.
35

Tensions Between Fundraisers and Faculty
A major concern with the rise of the fundraising profession within higher education was
whether fundraisers could successfully assimilate themselves into the culture of colleges and
universities. Johnson said, “The more development officers can be like a member of the faculty
and have empathy, sensitivity, and understanding to establish a strong rapport with deans and other
academic offices, the more likely it is that he or she will function effectively.”
68
One solution
offered to help fundraisers understand the plight of faculty members was to hold them to the
academic standards of professors. Pray explained, “One way, of course, is to continue education,
become knowledgeable in some field of scholarship at a level of competence equal at least to the
minimum expected of an instructor… and be able to discuss intelligently with faculty the problems
of the institution in a manner demonstrating a real grasp of the complexities and problems of
education.”
69

It is difficult to believe that someone who obtained the level of knowledge of a professor
and an advanced understanding of the higher education system would not succeed as a fundraiser,
at least in terms of soliciting and accepting appropriate gifts. But would placing someone capable
of teaching students or performing research at a professorial level be an efficient use of a college
or university’s human capital? Assuming a person had the capacity to perform equally as well as
a fundraiser or a professor the opportunity cost of having this person work as a fundraiser would
be high. “When economists refer to the ‘opportunity cost’ of a resource, they mean the value of
the next-highest-valued alternative use of that resource.”
70
In this situation the opportunity cost

68
Kelly, Fund Raising and Public Relations: A Critical Analysis, 311.
69
Ibid.
70
Henderson, David Hende. "Opportunity Cost." Opportunity Cost: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics |
Library of Economics and Liberty. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/OpportunityCost.html.

36

would be the students that the professor could have taught or the research they could have produced
had they not had fundraising responsibilities.
This is not to say that someone with the intelligence and passion to fulfill the requirements
of a professor should not become a fundraiser, or that fundraisers should not have a deep
understanding of the organization that employs them. However, expanding this concept across the
nonprofit sector further shows the high opportunity cost of placing those capable of fulfilling the
mission of the organization in a pure fundraising role. It would neither be efficient nor prudent to
ask a fundraiser at a hospital specializing in neurosurgery to obtain the knowledge and skill of a
neurosurgeon. If a fundraiser did obtain the ability to perform brain surgery, it would no longer be
optimal to ask them to continue working as a fundraiser. Time that doctors spend away from their
patients can cost lives. The more knowledge and skill required to perform the work of an
organization the higher the opportunity cost rises to place professionals capable of this work into
a fundraising position.
Specialization of the fundraising function created issues for the nonprofit sector, but that
does not mean that it was not the correct decision. Allowing trustees, presidents, professors,
doctors, scientists etc. to focus their efforts on accomplishing the mission of an organization
optimizes the use of intellectual resources. This does not excuse fundraisers from gaining a high
level of knowledge of the organization that employs them. Both fundraisers and organizations must
make it a priority to incorporate fundraisers into every facet of the organization.
Integrating Fundraisers into an Organization
The specialization of fundraising has created tension between those performing the work
of the organization, such as university professors, doctors and researchers at a hospital, counselors
at a rehabilitation center, etc. As just discussed, one of the key components of this unharmonious
37

relationship has been an inability of fundraisers and faculty to relate to one another. The problem
is further exacerbated by an ignorance of the work of fundraisers. To some it seems as if currency
just appears, “Many faculty members seem to think that the president and vice president for
development sit astride a set of pipes through which money flows,” Ross Webber, who was a
professor as well as the vice president for development at the University of Pennsylvania,
explained in a 1987 article.
71

Part of this mystery could simply relate to the adage, “Out of sight, out of mind.” As John
Crowe, describes, “Too many fundraising offices are off site, they're not part of where the other
executives are or where the services are being delivered. Then the fundraiser is given goals to go
out and scare up this money.” As an administrative function it makes sense for fundraisers to be
placed in an office setting with the other administrators. However, a successful fundraiser needs
to have firsthand experience of the work an organization to properly solicit donors. This separation
leads not only to a misunderstanding of fundraising, but the work of the organization being
misunderstood by fundraisers. “Our development people were going out and fishing for money
without a good understanding of the academic side of the university,”
72
noted David Lundberg,
Associate Dean for Faculty Development at Tufts University.
The interviews conducted for this analysis made it quite clear that little progress has been
made in helping other departments truly understand the work of fundraisers. When asked whether
he believed that departments outside of development understood the role of a fundraiser, Joe
Komsky left no room for misinterpretation saying: “Nope. Shortest answer I will give you: nope.”
He described a situation with a previous employer in which he was turned into a glorified bill
collector. “Their event people would have events, and somebody wouldn’t pay the $500

71
Kelly, Fund Raising and Public Relations: A Critical Analysis, 39
72
Ibid.
38

registration fee, and they would say, ‘You need to follow up on this.’ I would say, ‘No, I don’t. I
need to be working on $25,000 gifts, not 500 bucks.’…In smaller shops I don’t think a lot of the
organizational leadership fully understands what philanthropy can do. I think they see it as an
ATM.” This answer echoes the sentiment of Ross Webber’s comment about the pipelines of
money.
Unfortunately, this friction between fundraisers and constituencies persists despite efforts
on both sides to understand each other. Komsky spoke about the mutually beneficial results of
fundraisers and doctors work synergistically:
“The more fundraisers understand where the money is going and what it is being used for the better we can
communicate that to our donors. Then that money will go toward the mission because we are communicating
the appropriate mission. Researchers can come have lunch with the donor and get a gift that would be similar
in size to a foundation grant that they have to spend 2 months writing. They would also see from a time
perspective how much better it is to work with philanthropy. I love taking doctors with me on donor visits
because then they can see how I work. That I don’t put pressure on people to just write a check. That I do get
them to try to see what the research is and what we’re doing. Better understanding on both sides would be
huge.”

Further strain on the relationship of fundraisers, particularly major gifts officers, with
others in the organization results from a misconception about the day-to-day responsibilities of
these professionals. Mitchell Spearman, understands that his job appears glamorous and can cause
resentment, “When I turn in receipts from a fancy dinner in the Silicon Valley or having had some
fancy meal in New York City, it's easy for somebody in the accounting office to say, ‘What is
this?’ You know, ‘Mitchell's had a three-day trip to New York City and what ... all he's done is eat
fancy ...What a job. What an easy job.’” Much like Komsky, Spearman feels that the best way to
alleviate this tension is through education, whether through a presentation on what goes into
building a relationship with a donor or through inviting a faculty member into a strategy session,
saying, “When they see the art and science of what’s going on into what’s actually moving the
relationship forward, there’s some professional respect.”
39

The burden of strengthening the working relationship between development and other areas
of the organization seems to have fallen to fundraisers. As Komsky described, fundraisers need to
understand the work of the organization to successfully solicit donors. On the other hand, while it
may be beneficial for a doctor to be involved with fundraising it would not necessarily improve
her job performance. Therefore, fundraisers need to take it upon themselves to find ways to get
involved with practitioners and prove their worth within the organization. Fundraisers cannot sit
back and hope to be included, “Our success depends on connecting with everyone else. In my
experience there has never been a situation where someone is there to say it would be great if you
would come over here and do this with us. Normally, it’s something where we say, oh that seems
like a great opportunity for us, can we join in,” said another development officer who asked to
remain anonymous.
Organizational leadership needs to make it not only possible, but easy for fundraisers to
build relationships and gain knowledge about the organization. Komsky explains that good
fundraisers do not need to be told to seek out opportunities to get involved; they intuitively
understand that they need that knowledge and experience to function within their role. He
cautioned against incentivizing things like attending lectures, visiting clean-up sites, or meeting
with doctors because it may unintentionally develop poor behavior. “You don’t need to incentivize
a good fundraiser. The question is, are you masking people who aren’t good fundraisers because
there is an incentive. That might be a great way to judge if you have a good fundraiser or a bad
fundraiser, are they seeking out those opportunities on their own.”
Choosing not to provide an incentive does not mean that management should refrain from
encouraging fundraising staff to get involved, “Good management is going to see that a professor
on a college campus is giving a lecture and is willing to say to the fundraisers who are working in
40

that department, ‘Hey you should go see this lecture,’ or ‘I want you to see that.’” Actions like this
send a strong signal to fundraisers that they should care about the mission of the organization, “If
someone says I want to go attend this lecture, and you say I really need you here because we are
having a budget meeting, what you're telling that employee is that the budget is more important
than them learning more about the organization,” said Komsky.
The temptation for fundraisers to hit the ground running and immediately bring in resources
is high. Jay Berger, partner at Morris & Berger executive search firm, finds that organizational
leaders focus too heavily on the bottom line of fundraising on a year-to-year basis, which makes
them unwilling to sacrifice short term gains for long term benefits, “In Berger's experience, many
development officers don't, or can't, spend time on relationship building that isn't tied directly to a
specific solicitation strategy.”
73
Fundraisers build the most beneficial relationships with donors
when they can passionately explain the work of the organization on a first-hand basis. Berger
attributes the knowledge of his university and the relationships he built on campus with helping
him close his first major gift as a fundraiser, “The prospect was an alumnus of two different
academic units, undergrad and grad. I planned to ask him for a gift to his graduate program, but it
turned out he hated grad school.”
74
But, knowing that the donor was a fan of athletics and campus
landscaping, combined with the time Berger spent learning about campus programs resulted in a
gift to the donor’s undergrad program, athletics and campus improvement.
Immersing fundraisers in the work of the organization should not be difficult. Mitchell
Spearman, believes learning about the organization should be a part of the onboarding process:
“When a fundraiser joins a team, or a fundraiser has a new role, the nonprofit should make sure that the
fundraiser goes through a boot camp. For example, if it's a college or university the fundraiser should spend
the first two, three, four weeks of the job learning everything possible. Sitting down with the magical

73
Warwick, Jennifer. "Beyond Metrics." Case.org. March 1, 2006.
https://www.case.org/Publications_and_Products/2006/March_2006/Beyond_Metrics.html.
74
Ibid.

41

professors that inspire. Understanding the true geniuses.”

Building relationships with faculty and program staff early on in a fundraiser’s tenure will
increase the quality of gifts that they solicit and accept. Spearman explains that being out in the
field, “builds a bridge because one of the, most important questions a fundraiser can ask is ‘Tell
me what you do and tell me how I can help you.’"
Awareness of the tension between fundraisers and other organizational functions is high,
and the solution of allowing fundraisers to build relationships with those other departments has
had success. That so little progress has been made points to an acceptance of the status quo.
Organizational leaders need to make it a priority to facilitate the building of these relationships.
Need for Fundraising Education
Past Perspective
“Economists, sociologists, political scientists, and historians, among others have begun to
define a domain of philanthropy; however the growing literature on philanthropy has virtually
ignored the [fundraising] behavior of organizations.”
75
As of the publishing of Kelly’s 1991
analysis, only one comprehensive account of the history of American fundraising existed, Scott
M. Cutlip’s book Fundraising in the United States: Its Role in America’s Philanthropy. A 1987
publication, Philanthropy and Voluntarism: An Annotated Bibliography, listed references for
1,614 publications “of which only 9 books and 11 articles – or slightly more than 1% – deal with
[fundraising].”
76

According to the author of this first comprehensive bibliography on philanthropy and
voluntarism, D. N. Layton, “While there is enormous practical literature on [fundraising], there is
almost nothing which examines the phenomenon of ‘getting’ with the same depth and

75
Kelly, Fund Raising and Public Relations: A Critical Analysis, 107.
76
Ibid., 108.
42

comprehension that the phenomenon of giving has received.”
77
Analyses focused on things such
as organizing a development office or structuring a campaign, with very little theoretical research
concentrating on fundraising. Scholars called for studies on the effects of fundraising behavior on
institutions, but their pleas did little to affect the direction of research.
Current Status
In 2016, Kelly along with Catherine E. Mack of Cross International and Christopher
Wilson of Brigham Young University had a study published in the International Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing entitled Finding an academic home for fundraising: a
multidisciplinary study of scholars’ perspectives. The study sought to find an academic home for
fundraising. The need for such research confirms that academia has made minimal progress in the
last few decades regarding fundraising scholarship. The reticence of scholars to take ownership of
this critical function within nonprofits puts fundraising noticeably short of the two most important
criteria of a profession – a body of knowledge based on theory and research, and a program of
formal education
78
.
The current state of fundraising within higher education is much the same as it was in the
1980s when “The need for a scientific knowledge base was the major topic of discussion at the
Council for Advancement and Support of Education’s 1985 Colloquium on Professionalism.”
79

Scholarship focuses on spreading practical knowledge as opposed to examining the theory behind
fundraising. Adjunct faculty, generally current or former fundraising practitioners, teach the
majority of courses on the subject. “Because practitioners assume most of the fundraising teaching
load at colleges and universities, current education still resembles vocational training more so than

77
Kelly, Fund Raising and Public Relations: A Critical Analysis, 109.
78
Grunig, James E., and Todd Hunt. Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1984.
79
Kelly, Kathleen S. "The State of Fund-raising Theory and Research." 39-55. Westport, CT: American Council on
Education and Praeger, 2002.
43

academic preparation. Learning from those who are practicing in the field may provide students
with practical knowledge, but it leaves the study of fundraising in academic limbo.”
80

Colleges and universities have started to see the importance of education in nonprofit
issues, but rarely provide extensive instruction in fundraising. In 2015, Haggerty concluded that
“While degree programs in nonprofit studies are expanding, they typically offer just a class on
fundraising within the program, and consequently it is challenging for someone seeking a career
in fundraising to find formal educational opportunities to prepare them for the profession.”
81
The
Indiana University Lily Family School of Philanthropy established the first endowed chair in
fundraising in 2007, but other universities have not followed suit. Bob Harstook, the benefactor of
the chair, explained his rationale by saying, “I’ve got a lot of respect for the fundraising profession,
but frankly there is a lot of crap out there…I am a lawyer by training, and my profession is built
on solid research. Fundraising is based on anecdotal stories.”
82

The most disconcerting finding from this attempt to find an academic home for fundraising
was “at least one-fourth of the interviewees [all of whom had previously published scholarly work
on fundraising] mentioned that he or she had never considered the need for an academic home for
fundraising.”
83
Nevertheless, these authors appeared hopeful that they had identified the main
impediments to finding a permanent place for the study of fundraising within academia.

80
Mack, Catherine E., Kathleen S. Kelly, and Christopher Wilson. "Finding an academic home for fundraising: a
multidisciplinary study of scholars perspectives." International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Marketing 21, no. 3 (2016): 180-94. doi:10.1002/nvsm.1554, 181.
81
Haggerty AL. 2015. Turnover intentions of nonprofit fundraising professionals: the roles of perceived fit,
exchange relationships, and job satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Virginia Commonwealth University,
Richmond, 106.
82
Hall, Holly. "New Professorship Created to Bolster Fund-Raising Research." Philanthropy.com. Accessed
February 22, 2007. https://www.philanthropy.com/article/New-Professorship-Created-to/178267.
83
Mack, Kelly and Wilson. “Finding an academic home for fundraising: a multidisciplinary study of scholar’s
perspectives," 191.
44

“First, scholars need to come to an agreement about the definition of fundraising.”
84

Depending on the description of the fundraising function an argument can be made for any of the
disciplines considered in the study – public relations, marketing, nonprofit management or higher
education management – as the academic home for fundraising. Agreeing on one comprehensive
definition of the activity would help narrow this down to one field of study. “Second, scholars
need to address the appropriate theoretical frameworks for fundraising research and education.
Surprisingly, about one-third of the scholars interviewed for this study were caught off guard by
the idea of a theoretical basis for fundraising, suggesting they had given little thought to the
matter.”
85
There is not nearly the dearth of practical education of fundraising as there is in
theoretical education. “Third, scholars should consider whether or not current fundraising
education is too practical or too theoretical. In the authors’ view, fundraising education seems to
be taught more from a practical perspective than a theoretical one. However, both the practical and
theoretical approaches to fundraising education need to be improved.”
86

This author would add one more recommendation to the above list. Fundraising
encompasses an incredibly broad array of activities including: individual giving, direct marketing
solicitation, peer to peer fundraising, event planning and foundational giving. Any discussion
regarding the future academic home of fundraising needs to take this into account. A distinct
possibility exists that different aspects of fundraising will need to be studied in separate areas.
Direct marketing solicitation has more in common with marketing principles than individual
fundraising. Individual fundraising, especially that concerning major and planned gifts, fits more
appropriately in the study of public relations than peer-to-peer fundraising. Foundation giving

84
Mack, Kelly and Wilson. “Finding an academic home for fundraising: a multidisciplinary study of scholar’s
perspectives," 191.
85
Ibid.
86
Ibid.
45

would fit well in public policy while fundraising events would be out of place in this discipline.
Unless fundraising earns its own discipline within an academic field – the way literature, history
and philosophy fall under the banner of humanities while maintaining a sense of independence –
Academia should not force different aspects of fundraising into academic areas of study in which
they will not receive the quality of research they deserve.
Rampant Turnover
Past Perspective
Capital campaigns first developed in the late 1800s from the fundraising techniques used
by the YMCA. The YMCA campaign method was characterized by “a short-time period, an army
of volunteers, a competitive atmosphere, gimmicks – such as a clock – to apply time and money
pressures on the volunteers and the prospective donors, and a great deal of emotion.”
87
Donors
responded to what Charles Sumner Ward, one of the architects of this strategy, dubbed the
“intensive method” as “the Y [fundraisers] increased the YMCA’s assets in Washington from $35
million – which had been accumulated over a 55-year history – to $60 million, or 271% increase
in one-fifth the time.”
88
The success of this approach led hospitals, colleges, churches and other
organizations to adopt the similar tactics. Institutions ran these brief and intense fund drives
periodically to raise the resources necessary for capital projects such as new buildings. As the
fundraising profession began to take shape, these campaigns evolved “into intensive, highly
structured fund-raising efforts to raise private money for operations, endowment, and capital
projects over periods of 5 years or more. They no longer are undertaken periodically, but rather as
part of overall fund-raising strategy.”
89

87
Kelly, Fund Raising and Public Relations: A Critical Analysis, 394.
88
Ibid.
89
Ibid., 60.
46

During the 1980s the frequency and size of capital campaigns amongst higher education
institutions rose substantially. Stanford University launched a $1.1 billion capital campaign in
1986. Not to be outdone, Columbia University announced a $1.15 billion campaign in 1990,
despite having completed a $602 million campaign in 1987.
90
Kelly used a study completed by
Coldren to determine that, “116 colleges and universities conducted capital campaigns between
1974 and 1979, with an aggregate goal of $8.5 billion, as compared to at least 145 institutions
trying to raise between $18 and $28 billion [in 1988].”
91
The prevalence of capital campaigns
created a high demand for fundraisers and thus an intense competition between institutions for
these professionals.
The leadership of colleges and universities worked under extreme pressure to keep pace
financially with rival institutions. John Miltner, Vice Chancellor for University Advancement at
the University of California at Irvine was quoted in a 1986 article saying, “The stakes are very,
very high. You can’t have someone heading your development operation who may or may not
come through with the millions.”
92

The supply of fundraisers rose to meet the demand, with the National Society of
Fundraising Executives (NSFRE) increasing its membership from 2,000 in 1979 to 10,000 in
1989.
93
Unfortunately, the quality of fundraisers did not grow at the same rate. Many young and
inexperienced people joined the fundraising field because of the volume of job openings. The need
to hold on to qualified, experienced and competent fundraising professionals resulted in, for want
of a better term, an arms race for the top fundraising talent. Salaries for fundraisers increased
rapidly, “A 1988 survey by the [NSFRE] (1988) stated, ‘What we have found in the last 36 months

90
Kelly, Fund Raising and Public Relations: A Critical Analysis, 60-61.
91
Ibid., 61.
92
Ibid., 69.
93
Ibid., 68.
47

is an inflation of salaries which has exceeded the national average, particularly at the upper income
levels.”
94

Capital campaigns require substantial amounts of labor, and this fueled the turnover rates
in fundraising positions. In 1987, the chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley said,
“Colleges staff up before capital campaigns, and there is this movable work force – sort of high-
level migrant workers-who run from campaign to campaign. They are ready to produce rapidly,
but they have more allegiance to doing their job than to their university of the moment.”
95
In a
study examining volatility in 32 job categories at US colleges and universities, researchers found
that the director of planned or annual giving had a turnover rate of 58%, providing further evidence
of the difficulties to retain fundraisers.
96
Another article stated, “Advertised job vacancies have
soared. Jobs are turning over at a record rate…Salaries and perquisites for chief [fundraisers] are
skyrocketing.”
97
The issue of turnover did not only apply to institutions of higher education. In
1990, fundraising consultant Douglass Alexander said, “Currently, the average length of stay for
chief development officers of [all] nonprofit organizations is approximately two to two-and-one-
half years.”
98

Fundraisers gained a reputation for being young, inexperienced, disloyal and highly paid.
This transient behavior created a rift between fundraisers and the academic community they
supported. According to Trachtman, “As a result they are widely thought of as an itinerant fringe
of the academic community, with greater loyalty to their profession than to the values of the
institution.”
99
Organizations did little to try to reverse that stigma, “In general, organizations tend

94
Kelly, Fund Raising and Public Relations: A Critical Analysis, 68.
95
Ibid., 69.
96
Ibid.
97
Ibid.
98
Ibid, 70.
99
Ibid.
48

to have unrealistic expectations of their development professionals; tend to see them as [isolates]
who should do their work without commitment from and integration with the rest of the
organization.”
100

Turnover Today
Neither the problem of rapid turnover nor the solution of trying to lure away top talent
through higher salaries has changed much in the last 20 years. In 2013, CompassPoint surveyed
2,700 nonprofit executive directors and development directors to get a deeper understanding of
turnover within the fundraising industry. For this study, “Development Director” referred to the
staff person in the highest-ranking position within an organization. The specific functions
performed by these development directors can vary from: individual fundraising, annual giving,
coordinating events, writing grants, etc. While the study does not deal directly with individual
giving it provides an overview of the fundraising industry which allows its findings to be
extrapolated to the individual giving function. The analysis showed a shortage of qualified
professionals compared to the number of development director positions available, “Executive
directors at organizations where the development director position was vacant reported a median
vacancy length of 6 months, with 46% reporting vacancies even longer than that.”
101
The median
vacancy time doubles to 12 months for organizations with operating budgets of $1 million or less.
Aggravating this vacancy issue is the reluctance of development directors to make long-
term commitments to their current organizations. The survey found that 50% of development
directors anticipated leaving their current position within two years or less, strikingly similar to
the two and one-half year approximation reported in 1990. A sizable number of respondents were

100
Kelly, Fund Raising and Public Relations: A Critical Analysis, 70.
101
Bell, Jeanne and Marla Cornelius, UnderDeveloped: A National Study of Challenges Facing Nonprofit
Fundraising (San Francisco, CA: CompassPoint Nonprofit Services and the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund,
2013), 5.
49

not even sure that they would continue in the fundraising field, with 40% stating that “fund
development is my current field of work, but I am not sure if I will stay in it for my entire career.”
102

Lengthy vacancies and high turnover both in organizations and in the fundraising field have
led to the development director position earning a moniker of a revolving door. Without a
consistent presence at the helm of the development department, the effectiveness of organizations
suffers. Kim Klein, cited in the CompassPoint study, wrote “The purpose of fundraising is not to
raise money, but to raise donors. You don’t want gifts, you want givers.”
103
Building a relationship
with a donor, particularly one at the major gift level, can take multiple years. When a development
director leaves an organization, all of the connections that she built for the organization suffer.
Joe Komsky says, “It takes roughly 2-3 years, and probably closer to three years to build
up a portfolio [of potential donors]. You’ve got a portfolio of people you are just going back to.
They are repeat customers, to put it in business terms. But, most fundraisers do not stay more than
24 months anywhere. So how do you even build up a portfolio?” In some situations, the first gift
a donor makes may be the last time they are solicited. If someone donates at their highest capacity,
they may never get asked for another donation. In other situations, a donor may only give a fraction
of their capacity with their first gift and further relationship building is necessary to solicit a larger
donation. “You're doing all this work; you're doing all this investment up front to get someone to
make a gift. Say they give a $25,000 gift, but they have the capacity to give you half-a-million
dollars. If you get the $25,000 gift and then you leave, and a new fundraiser comes in they
essentially have to start over building that relationship.”
When asked why many major gifts fundraisers only tend to stay with an organization for
about two years Komsky said, “Within two years either you’re good, and you’ve shown yourself

102
Bell and Cornelius, UnderDeveloped: A National Study of Challenges Facing Nonprofit Fundraising, 6.
103
Ibid., 7.
50

to be good, and somebody [from another organization] comes in to hire you away. Or, you're not
good, and you can't fake it beyond about two years.” He continued, “I can fake for 18 months, 24
months or so. Yeah, I'm cultivating. Yeah, I'm building toward this. By about 24 months if I haven't
brought in money, and I am always cultivating, I'm a crappy fundraiser. Then they move either
voluntarily or involuntarily. On the more positive side, if you're good people come after you all
the time.”
CompassPoint’s findings confirm that turnover among development directors is not always
voluntary. Executive directors reported 25% of their previous development directors were fired.
“The most frequent reasons cited for termination were poor performance in fund development
(31%), poor performance generally (31%), and misfit with organizational culture (22%).”
104
The
high termination rate reflects a lack of competency, similar to Komsky’s analysis of the major
giving landscape, amongst those filling development director positions. Nearly one in four (24%)
executive directors claim their development directors have no experience or are novice at current
and prospective donor research. More importantly, 26% of executive directors said that their
development directors have no experience or are novice at securing gifts. Even with these clear
deficiencies terminating a development director is a big risk, not only because of the potential for
a lengthy vacancy, but also because of the shortage of qualified individuals seeking development
director positions, “More than half (53%) of executives reported that their most recent
development director hiring process attracted an insufficient number of candidates with the right
mix of skills and experience.”
105

104
Bell and Cornelius, UnderDeveloped: A National Study of Challenges Facing Nonprofit Fundraising, 8.
105
Ibid.
51

Stigma of Fundraising
“I also think there's a stigma associated with fundraising that is hard to overcome. The story
that I often tell is when I go to a cocktail party and someone asks me what I do and I say, ‘I'm
fundraiser,’ they say, ‘Ew.’ Literally they say, ‘Oh, that's disgusting, I could never do that,’” said
Shelby Radcliffe. She sees fundraising in a very different light. When faced with a negative
comment about her profession she explains, “Actually it's an amazing job. I get to be part of the
most generous act of a person's life."
This analysis has discussed the issues of other nonprofit employees not understanding the
role of fundraisers, but that unfamiliarity extends to those who are solicited for donations.
“Fundraising has this really negative connotation because much of the fundraising that happens is
arm twisting and transactional and pressure,” Radcliffe said, “But that's not what major gift
fundraising is. And it's not what good annual fund fundraising is either. But we're our own worst
enemy sometimes in the way we talk about ourselves.”
Certain metrics, particularly in higher education, perpetuate the practice of pressuring
prospects for gifts. “Alumni participation is the worst thing in the entire world for the industry,”
Radcliffe said, “Tons of research has shown it is not actually a meaningful representation of
people's feelings about their alma mater.” Colleges and universities give credence to alumni
participation because it factors into a school’s U.S. News & World Report ranking, “The percentage
of alumni giving serves as a proxy for how satisfied students are with the school.”
106
The average
alumni giving rate, which accounts for 5 percent of a school’s ranking score, is determined by,
“dividing the number of alumni donors during a given academic year by the number of alumni of

106
Morse, Robert, and Eric Brooks. "Best Colleges Ranking Criteria and Weights." Usnews.com. September 11,
2017. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/ranking-criteria-and-weights.
52

record for that same year. The two most recent years of alumni giving rates that are available are
averaged and used in the rankings.”
107

Radcliffe believes that providing so much weight to this particular fundraising
measurement, “encourages fundraising programs to make transactional fundraising a priority,
because they're trying to get gifts of any size just to fill that bucket.” Transactional in this sense
meaning that the organization is focused solely on bringing in dollars as opposed to cultivating a
relationship with a donor. This results in schools creating fundraising gimmicks like days of giving
or counting part of the ticket sale for an alumni event as an annual fund donation. These tactics
further the idea that fundraising is just another form of sales instead of highlighting the relationship
building activities involved in individual giving, “They raise less money, they're less satisfying for
the donor, and they focus on acquisition as opposed to retention.”
Given that someone who feels satisfied with the education they received is more likely to
make a donation to their alma mater, and the feasibility issues the U.S. News & World Report staff
would face in conducting comprehensive surveys to determine alumni satisfaction with every
eligible school in the country it makes sense to use some form of fundraising metric as a proxy for
alumni satisfaction. That said, other measurements might be able to measure satisfaction without
encouraging transactional fundraising.
Ethical Implications of High Turnover
“We don’t need this money. What we need [are] some damn principles,”
108
read the petition
created by University of Southern California (USC) student Tiana Lowe created on Change.org.

107
Morse, Robert, and Eric Brooks. "Best Colleges Ranking Criteria and Weights." Usnews.com. September 11,
2017. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/ranking-criteria-and-weights.
108
Jang, Meena. "USC Rejects Harvey Weinstein's $5M Women's Program Donation." The Hollywood Reporter.
October 10, 2017. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/usc-rejects-harvey-weinsteins-5m-womens-program-
donation-1047487.
53

Lowe was referring to a $5 million pledge to the university made by film producer Harvey
Weinstein. Amidst a flurry of allegations of sexual abuse leveled at Weinstein, Lowe demanded
that USC reject the $5 million endowment Weinstein had pledged to provide scholarships to
women directors at USC’s film school. To Lowe and many at the university, the good this money
could do was far outweighed by the harm Weinstein caused his accusers. “As a woman at USC,
the prospect that my university might sell an indulgence to ease Harvey Weinstein’s non-existent
guilt saddens me. The prospect that, given their pattern of atrocious tolerance to violence against
women, they almost certainly will disgusts me,”
109
she wrote.
Shortly after the petition was posted online, the USC School of Cinematic Arts issued a
statement that formally rejected Mr. Weinstein’s pledge. This is the type of resounding “No!” to a
donation that shows a commitment to one’s mission and underlying values. However, once you
look deeper into the circumstances, this was hardly a difficult decision for USC. First and foremost,
the optics of accepting money from a man facing criminal sexual assault charges to fund
scholarships for female directors would be egregiously poor. As referenced in earlier sections,
turning down donations that clearly contradict their purpose is a fairly universal rule in fundraising.
As Bok noted, “No University would accept a Hitler Collection of Judaica…or a Capone Institute
of Criminology.”
110

More important than the public relations benefit of declining Weinstein’s gift, one could
speculate that the best reason for turning down this substantial gift is that USC just did not need it.
Since the 2011 launch of the university’s $6 billion Campaign for USC, otherwise known as “Fas
Regna Trojae” (“The Destined Reign of Troy” in Latin), USC has established itself as one of the

109
Jang, Meena. "USC Rejects Harvey Weinstein's $5M Women's Program Donation." The Hollywood Reporter.
October 10, 2017.
110
Kelly, Fund Raising and Public Relations: A Critical Analysis, 70.
54

elite fundraising institutions in the country. Reaching the lofty $6 billion goal in early 2017, 18
months ahead of schedule, USC had raised more money in six and a half years than it had in the
previous six and a half decades. In 2013, for the first time in its history, USC moved into a spot
among the nation’s top three universities in terms of annual giving and has remained there since.
111

USC attributes much of its success to an investment in fundraising. Before the campaign
USC employed a fundraising staff of approximately 230, and now that number is roughly 470.
Senior Vice President of University Advancement Albert Checcio described a culture of
fundraising growth within the advancement department, “I’ve seen so many universities make the
mistake of ramping up for a campaign, and when they come near the end of it, they sort of de-
emphasize advancement…We weren’t going to let that happen here. We created the USC
Fundraising Institute, internally where we do training. If, say someone’s in planned giving, but is
interested in learning about corporate and foundation relations, we train within our own teams. So,
people can have career paths within USC.”
112

The issue with USC turning down Weinstein’s gift and relying on donations generated
from its capital campaign is that one of the key managers of the campaign, Vice President of
Advancement and Health Sciences Development David M. Carrera, also was accused of sexual
harassment on multiple occasions. According to an October 2017 Los Angeles Times investigation,
Carrera had at least five complaints made against him in 2017 alone. Carrera left USC on
September 9, 2017, but the LA Times confirmed that Carrera’s superiors were made aware of
complaints at least as early as March of 2017. Checcio, Carrera’s boss, did not refer complaints
made against Carrera to the university’s Office of Equity and Diversity, despite the office’s

111
Lipinski, Lynn. "The Campaign for USC Hits $6 Billion and Keeps on Going." Trojan Family Magazine.
October 16, 2017. https://tfm.usc.edu/the-campaign-for-usc-hits-6-billion-and-keeps-on-going/.
112
Joslyn, Heather. "How USC Raised $6 Billion and Is Now Seeking More." Philanthropy.com. March 15, 2017.
https://www.philanthropy.com/article/How-USC-Raised-6-Billion-and/239490.
55

instructions, “Should a complaint of harassment or discrimination be brought to your attention,
contact our office immediately. In order to assure that all complaints are addressed quickly and
appropriately, departments may not proceed in any way to investigate allegations of this sort on
their own.”
113
A USC spokesman reported that Checcio reprimanded Carrera but did not feel the
complaints warranted a referral to the OED.
We cannot say for certain that the university would have dismissed Carrera or taken more
serious action upon initial complaints had replacements for high-level fundraising executives been
readily available. Whether someone should be replaced, especially in serious situations such as
this, should not depend on if a suitable replacement can be found. This raises questions as to what
organizations will tolerate in order to retain high-quality fundraisers.
Towards a Solution to Turnover
When asked about solving the turnover issue in the industry Shirley Peppers joked, “If I
could answer that question, I'd be really rich. Everybody would want to pay me huge consulting
fees to answer that question.” If a perfect and actionable answer to reverse the trend of turnover
within the fundraising industry was available this problem would not have plagued nonprofit
organizations for decades. Clearly, compensation is a factor, but it cannot be the only factor
considered when looking for a solution. If you were the CEO of a nonprofit and you successfully
poached a major gifts officer from another organization through the promise of an increased salary
you would have to understand that you have not purchased loyalty, but instead have just hired
someone you know can be lured away from you for a price. It is time that the nonprofit sector
implements new techniques to try to retain employees.

113
Ryan, Harriet. "USC fundraising executive leaves post amid sexual harassment investigation." Los Angeles
Times. October 11, 2017. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-usc-fundraising-harassment-20171011-story.html.
56

In her dissertation, Abbi Leinwand Haggerty used the data collected by Bell and Cornelius
for the CompassPoint study referenced here to provide an answer to why so many fundraisers
intend to leave their current position or the field entirely. “Through multiple regression analysis,
the results of this study reveal that perceived person-job fit (P-J fit), perceived person-organization
fit (P-O fit), job satisfaction, and age are the variables that answer this question for fundraisers at
501(c)(3) public charities in the United States.”
114

Haggerty found that low levels of perceived person-job fit, the extent to which an employee
feels that their abilities are a good match for their position, was a predictor of individuals leaving
the fundraising field, not just their current job. Fundraisers, particularly in smaller nonprofits with
limited development staff, have to take on multiple responsibilities that may or may not align with
their strengths or preferences. The CompassPoint survey showed that fundraisers have a variety of
duties apart from soliciting donations: “relationship building (92.4%), securing the gift (91.5%),
management of the organization (89.1%), current and prospective donor research (84.4%),
accountability efforts (82.1%); and volunteer involvement (59.5%).”
115
Additionally, “For those
who are responsible for securing gifts, the most popular methods to do so include: foundation
proposals (92.6%), direct mail (87.3%), special events (87.0%), online giving (85.4%), and board
giving (85.1%).”
116

These numbers confirm that organizations raise funds in many different ways.
Organizations addressing highly visible issues like disaster relief may choose to generate funds
through online giving and direct mail. An institution focused on a rare genetic disease might write

114
Haggerty AL. 2015. Turnover intentions of nonprofit fundraising professionals: the roles of perceived fit,
exchange relationships, and job satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Virginia Commonwealth University,
Richmond, 103.
115
Ibid., 129.
116
Ibid.
57

more foundation proposals. Being pressured by an employer to proficiently use all of these tactics
is enough to make someone question whether they fit within the fundraising industry. As stated
repeatedly during this analysis the skills involved in one form of fundraising do not necessarily
correlate to any other method of fundraising. If a person joins an organization based on her strong
grant writing skills, but the organization raises the majority of its money through large events this
might not be the right fit. To combat this issue, Haggerty encourages “nonprofit leaders to take
more notice of exactly how fundraisers are tasked with raising money and what other
responsibilities they may have on their plate in addition to fundraising. A review of the fundraising
role in the nonprofit organizations, and across the nonprofit sector needs to be reconsidered in
regard to reasonable job expectations.”
Perceived Person-Organization Fit, the extent to which an employee feels passionate about
the mission of their organization and feels the organizational culture is a good match, is a predictor
of how long a fundraiser plans to stay in their current position as well as a predictor of their intent
to give notice to their current employer. “Fundraisers are often ‘compartmentalized’ in their
organization, their job is not well understood; and their role is seen as just to raise money for the
organization.”
117
Fundraisers believe they perform more effectively when immersed within the
organization, “If fundraisers are not incorporated into the larger team of employees in the
organization, then this isolation may be what results in fundraisers not perceiving a high level of
fit between organizational culture and their own values.”
118

Misconceptions about the nature of nonprofits can lead to a poor fit between a fundraiser
and an organization. First, we must note that a mission statement does not necessarily reflect

117
Haggerty AL. 2015. Turnover intentions of nonprofit fundraising professionals: the roles of perceived fit,
exchange relationships, and job satisfaction, 131.
118
Ibid.
58

organizational culture, “So, while an employee might be passionate about a certain mission, or
field work, they may find that an organization, other than their own, with a similar mission and
purpose, has a better organizational culture for them.”
119
Second, there is a tendency to believe
that nonprofit organizations, “value equity and fairness; transparency and accountability; citizen
inclusion and participation; and innovation and flexibility.”
120
Assuming an organization embodies
these values because it is a nonprofit can result in disillusionment for a new employee if these
standards are not present. Haggerty suggests that, “fundraisers may need to make more of an effort
to learn about an organizational culture before accepting a position, and organizations may need
to put forth more effort during the interview process to educate applicants about their
organizational culture.”
121

The author would be remiss not to provide information about Haggerty’s caution about
relying too heavily on hiring based on cultural fit. Judging applicants too stringently on cultural fit
can result in discriminatory hiring practices: “One study showed that employees involved in hiring
decisions do take cultural fit into consideration during interviews, finding that immigrant job
seekers were perceived as having lower cultural fit than non-immigrant job seekers.”
122
Those in
a position to hire fundraisers should remember these potential biases so that they do not perpetuate
them. Further, lacking a strong commitment to employing a diverse group of employees can result
in a weaker pool of potential job candidates, as one study by Schwartz, Weiber, Hagenbuch &
Scott showed, “16% of those surveyed had withdrawn their application or declined a job offer
because of a lack of commitment to diversity, with 35% of people of color having done so.”
123

119
Haggerty AL. 2015. Turnover intentions of nonprofit fundraising professionals: the roles of perceived fit,
exchange relationships, and job satisfaction, 132.
120
Ibid.
121
Ibid.
122
Ibid., 133.
123
Ibid., 134.
59

Job satisfaction, unsurprisingly, was shown to be a predictor of turnover. Perceived
organization and perceived job fit along with a variety of other factors could contribute to one’s
overall satisfaction with their job. The question that Haggerty analyzed from the CompassPoint
survey to judge job satisfaction was, “which of the following statements best describes your level
of satisfaction in your current fund-development position?”
124
How a person judged her/his overall
job satisfaction was subjective. To that end, Haggerty recommends that employers be very clear
and upfront about what a fundraising position entails and what resources the organization will
provide to support the position. “They may also need to do an audit of their job description(s) for
their fundraiser(s) to see if it is reasonable to expect to find the skills they seek in one person.”
125

Job Description Analysis
Based on Haggerty’s findings, a content analysis was conducted on job descriptions of
major gifts officers from various institutions to determine if organizations were taking the best
steps to educate and recruit potential employees through job postings. Overall, 31 job descriptions
from various nonprofits across the US were coded based on multiple criteria. To qualify for this
analysis, a significant portion of the job had to revolve around the securing of major gifts from
donors.
Before delving into the findings from these descriptions the author would like to
acknowledge that 31 job descriptions do not constitute a significant sample from which to draw
meaningful quantitative data. The findings from coding these descriptions will serve as a first look
into how organizations have attempted to recruit major gift officers or similar positions and will
seek to build on existing research.

124
Haggerty AL. 2015. Turnover intentions of nonprofit fundraising professionals: the roles of perceived fit,
exchange relationships, and job satisfaction, 167.
125
Ibid., 145.
60

Format
We can see clear differences between the job descriptions before even examining the
content. The documents ranged from as short as a single page to as long as nine pages. Some relied
heavily on bullets to provide information while others used a prose format. Many documents
separated various sections with bold headings; others wove all information into one section. The
author had hoped to examine these documents for tone, believing that organizations might use
them to inspire individuals to join their organization or evoke emotion about the cause at the root
of the organizational mission. However, the lack of consistency between one description and
another thwarted this idea. These variations serve as a precursor to more inconsistencies in critical
areas.
Function
A theme about the accepted duties of major gifts officers develops when looking at the
required tasks in these descriptions. The position revolves around five major components:
identification, qualification, cultivation, solicitation and stewardship. How employees complete
these tasks varies from organization to organization, but the underlying principles remain the same.
Identification and qualification allow major gifts officers to find prospective donors.
Identification consists of research and analysis to determine a candidate’s capacity to give to the
organization. Capacity is estimated by “Common Wealth Factors” such as: “income (actual,
estimated or demographic), real estate holdings, insider public stock holdings, private company
ownership, private or family foundation, luxury items (art collections, yachts, planes), [and] known
philanthropy and political campaign contributions.”
126
Qualifying a prospect determines an
individual’s inclination to give to the organization. Not every prospect who can give wants to give.

126
Crabtree, Elizabeth, and Joyce Newton. "Approaches for Estimating Gift Capacity and Developing Rating
Systems." Apragny.org. October 5, 2007.
http://www.apragny.org/calendar/events_0708/docs/071106_apravs_bw3.pdf.
61

Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Elon Musk have the means to donate to any organization they choose,
but that does not mean they will make a good candidate as a major gift prospect for every
organization. Qualification involves looking for a donor’s affinity toward the organization. For
example, a university alum who has the capacity to give would be identified as a potential prospect,
but if that alum prefers to donate exclusively to environmental nonprofits, they would be
disqualified as a major gifts prospect for the university. Komsky said, “We believe that
disqualifying a prospect who's not interested is equally valuable,” because then resources do not
get wasted on disinterested prospects.
Cultivation is the strategic building of a relationship with a major gifts prospect to prepare
them for solicitation. Whether it occurs through face to face meetings, strategic mail/e-mail
correspondence, phone call, event attendance, etc., cultivation places an emphasis on high-value
interactions with prospects. This focus on personal relationship building differentiates the skills of
major gift officers from that of an annual giving specialist or a foundation relations officer. While
the latter does involve some level of relationship building, it relies more heavily on understanding
organizational culture. Building personal rapport and interpreting donor interests and needs is a
primary skill of a successful major gift officer and integral to getting a gift. As part of the overall
strategy to inquire about a gift, major gifts officers track both their visits with prospects as well as
if they are moving them closer to the point of solicitation. This process is often referred to as
“moves management.” The cultivation process can take several years before a prospect receives a
solicitation for a gift. Solicitations, sometimes referred to as “asks,” generally involve a proposal
tailored to the donor’s interest, and if the donor agrees to make a donation, an agreement is written
outlining any stipulations regarding the use of these funds. A central piece of the solicitation can
be matching the right solicitor to the donor. The major gift officer may not be the appropriate
62

person to ask. It may be a board member or another donor who is close to the prospect. It falls to
the major gift officer to choose the right partner for the solicitation.
Once a gift has been received, the major gift officer is responsible for stewarding the donor
and the gift. Stewardship starts with initial expressions of gratitude from the organization and any
appropriate executive staff or board members. It can include ensuring contracts are executed,
reports are written and delivered, and any agreed upon recognition is properly produced, such as
the naming of buildings, press releases, special unveiling events, etc. From there stewardship
becomes as tailored as cultivation. The major gift officer is responsible for providing whatever
level of ongoing gratitude and interaction the donor requires.
Ideally, the cycle repeats itself with each donor. Stewardship leads to identification of new
opportunities for a donor and revised qualifying of their capability and affinity. In other words,
major gift officers should be stewarding a donor right into their next cultivation. Major gift officers
are often evaluated on their donor retention rate, the rationale being that keeping a donor is easier
and cheaper than acquiring a new one.
Portfolio
The fundraising industry has not reached a consensus on the optimal number of prospects
to have in a major gift officer’s portfolio. Most descriptions in the sample did not specify a
portfolio size, but the ones that did range from a low of 50-100 prospects to a high of 200-250
prospects. Arbitrarily setting a portfolio size for a fundraiser can harm an organization. If the
fundraiser has too many prospects, she will not have the capacity to give each one the attention
needed. If she has too few, she may be able to build stronger relationships with her portfolio, but
the organization will miss out on cultivating additional prospects.
63

From a turnover perspective, a fundraiser given too many prospects could feel
overwhelmed and want to move to another organization. Conversely, if a fundraiser has too few
prospects, she may not think that she is being challenged or trusted with enough responsibility.
Based on the importance of robust relationships in soliciting a gift it would seem sensible for
organizations to err on the side of assigning fewer prospects to a fundraiser’s portfolio.
In a 2014 study, The Education Advisory Board (EAB) found that over half of major gifts
officers (53%) had more than 100 individuals in their portfolios with 22% of those having over
150. “When we interviewed [Chief Advancement Officers] about portfolio sizes, the concept of
‘Dunbar’s Number’ was invoked to justify portfolio sizes containing a large number of
prospects,”
127
the study said. Robin Dunbar, an Oxford anthropologist, determined that the average
human brain can maintain stable social relationships with approximately 150 people. “Dunbar’s
number is often cited as the reason why portfolios typically consist of 125 to 150 prospects,”
128

but this rationale has a fundamental flaw – it omits the possibility of a major gifts officer having
relationships other than their portfolio of prospects. The EAB approximates that individuals have
between 50-100 relationships in their personal lives, leaving room for roughly 50-100 significant
relationships in one’s work life. If we take into account the relationships a major gift officer would
need to build with others in the organization; fundraising colleagues, faculty and staff the EAB
believes “It is unrealistic to expect that [major gifts officers] can maintain meaningful relationships
with more than 50 to 75 prospects.”
129

“The whole concept of assignment seems to be flawed and strangely skewed towards
having a large list of names assigned to you, versus, ‘these are the 30 people that I’m planning to

127
Education Advisory Board. Making Meaning of Metrics: Leveraging Accountability and Analytics to Enhance
Fundraiser Productivity. Washington, D.C.: The Advisory Board Company, 2015, 30.
128
Ibid.
129
Ibid., 30.
64

solicit over the next 24 to 36 months,”
130
said David Lively, Associate Vice President of Alumni
Relations at Northwestern University. Lively, believes organizations do not choose portfolio size
based on best practices, “Shops have portfolios of 120-150 because some fundraising consultant
20 years ago told them to and they never second guessed it.”
131

Northwestern administrators performed an analysis of its major gift officers’ portfolios and
found that only 35% of prospects had received visits in the past fiscal year, an average of 40
prospects per portfolio, suggesting that current portfolios contained far too many people. The
university reduced its portfolios from 125 to a maximum of 50 prospects with a preference of
limiting them to between 30-40 prospects (not including those currently in the stewardship
process). To reach these numbers only prospects that have an ask date, ask amount, expected gift
close date and gift design get added to portfolios. These changes have led to a 170% increase in
solicitations, 211% increase in the number of gifts and a 595% increase in dollars raised over a
two-year period.
132

Assigned Duties
A majority of the sample agreed on the function of a major gifts officer – identify,
qualify, cultivate, solicit, and steward donors – but 17 of 31 organizations listed requirements
outside of the primary relationship building tactics for major gifts officers. These additional tasks
included: corporate giving, direct marketing, event planning, foundation relations and planned
giving. We have previously discussed aspects of direct marketing, event planning and foundation
relations and have seen that while they may not be unrelated to individual giving they require a
different set of skills than typically asked for in major gifts officers. Corporate giving is, “A

130
Education Advisory Board. Making Meaning of Metrics: Leveraging Accountability and Analytics to Enhance
Fundraiser Productivity. Washington, D.C.: The Advisory Board Company, 2015, 31.
131
Ibid.
132
Ibid., 32.
65

grantmaking program established and controlled by a profit-making corporation or company.”
133

This type of fundraising would be most similar to foundation relations and would require similar
competencies related to writing grant proposals. Because of its similarities to individual
fundraising, planned giving would seem to fit well within the responsibilities of a major gifts
officer, but if we examine this type of fundraising in more detail we can see how combining
these two functions could contribute to turnover.
Planned Giving
“Once called deferred giving, ‘planned giving’ or ‘planned gift’ refers to any charitable
gift that requires more thought and planning to execute than the average donation,”
134
explains
Katherine Swank, J.D., Senior Consultant for Target Analytics. The term has come to define gifts
that an individual creates during her lifetime, but that will not take effect until after her passing.
Some examples of planned gifts include – “simple bequests in a will or trust or within an estate
plan, charitable gift annuities, charitable remainder trusts, charitable lead trusts, non-cash assets
and assets transferred using pay-on-death or transfer-on-death documents.” The process of
soliciting planned gifts does not differ greatly from any other form of individual giving solicitation,
“Most conversations about planned gifts don’t start with technical questions; rather, they center on
the donor’s wishes to have an impact on the organization’s needs.”
135
However, once technical
questions begin to arise donors will want to speak with someone who has intricate knowledge of
different planned giving vehicles and how to properly include an organization into a will or estate

133
"Glossary of Fundraising Terms." Cfre.org. September 19, 2013. http://www.cfre.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/05/bgloss.pdf., 468.
134
Swank, Katherine. “24 Planned Giving Terms You Should Know: A Glossary of Common Terms.”
Blackbaud.com,
www.blackbaud.com/files/resources/downloads/WhitePaper_23PlannedGivingTermsYouShouldKnow.pdf., 1.
135
Ibid.

66

plan. The legal and financial intricacies of constructing a planned gift require a fundraiser to
acquire a very specific knowledge of things such as annuities, securities, transfer of real estate and
bequests.
Some organizations comprehend that major gifts officers should not be required to
understand the minutiae of planned giving but should have the ability to work with those in the
planned giving department to solicit these gifts. One healthcare centered organization listed a
responsibility for major gifts officer to, “Solicit estate and planned gifts in partnership with the
Assistant Vice President and the planned giving team.” A human services organization required,
“An understanding of planned giving and planned giving instruments.” Asking someone to be a
part of a planned giving discussion is much different than putting them in charge of a planned
giving program as part of their major gifts officer role. One international aid organization set the
requirement of, “assisting donors with stock gifts, donor-advised fund gifts, planned giving, and
estate planning programs.” Those tasks constitute a full-time job that would be difficult to balance
while maintaining relationships with a portfolio of donor prospects.
In a smaller nonprofit, a fundraiser may have to wear many hats and assist with a variety
of projects, but finding an individual who can competently plan events, and write grants to
corporate and private foundations all while cultivating relationships with prospective donors is
unlikely. If such a person existed, the time demands of these various activities would be enormous
and with so many open fundraising positions that person could quickly move to another
organization where she could focus on the area of fundraising that most aligned with her passions
and skills.
67

Takeaways
Institutional Autonomy and Gift Utility
In an Instapoll the author distributed to fundraising professionals through LinkedIn, only
nine of forty respondents reported familiarity with the concept of institutional autonomy, with only
four reporting familiarity with gift utility.
136
How can fundraisers protect institutional autonomy if
they do not understand its meaning? Adding institutional autonomy to the working vocabulary of
every fundraiser would provide common ground to speak about the pros and cons of accepting a
donation. The same can be said of gift utility. Even if fundraisers have sense of a hierarchy of
donations with unrestricted gifts at the top and highly restricted gifts at the bottom, the ability to
explain that hierarchy in terms of a donation’s usefulness to the organization would provide
fundraisers a logical way to explain whether a gift should be accepted.
Should Your Organization Exist?
No one should be discouraged from pursuing the creation of a nonprofit, but at the same
time those who take up this challenge need to ask themselves whether they are ultimately helping
or hurting the cause. If a nonprofit cannot secure adequate funding from a variety sources, then it
will have a difficult time keeping its doors open. If a small group of donors provide the majority
of funding for an organization then that group wields a tremendous amount of power. To some
degree every nonprofit works for its donors whether those are individuals, foundations or the
government. If those providing money do not agree with the operation of the nonprofit, then they
can cease their funding. But, in situations where every request for a grant or donation involves a
major concession of the nonprofits autonomy then it cannot pursue its mission the way its

136
Note: As with the job description sample, it is important to remember that this poll does not provide a
representative sample of the fundraising industry. It does, however, provide a first glance at the knowledge of those
in the profession.
68

leadership intended. If the mission cannot be pursued, should the organization exist? It’s a difficult
question, but it needs to be asked to avoid fundraisers being pressured to take unhelpful donations.
Strategy
As we saw in the case of Harlem Children’s Zone, even a successful endeavor can cause
issues. HCZ had many prospering programs and was growing rapidly, but this growth was pulling
the organization in too many different directions. By taking a step back to examine its mission and
create its statements of intended impact and theory of change it realized that many of its programs,
while helpful and beloved by many, diverted resources away from activities that had more to do
with its mission of providing assistance to needy children.
A mission statement, statement of intended impact, and theory of change serve as a
reference for all employees to look to when making decisions. The mission statement provides the
overarching reason the organization exists. The intended impact describes the short-term
objectives the organization has committed itself to in pursuit of its mission. The theory of change
explains how the organization will go about accomplishing these objectives. If a fundraiser can
judge a potential major gift within the context of this framework then evaluating a gift’s utility
becomes less of an ambiguous exercise. If every member of the nonprofit knows what direction
the organization needs to go then it will be much simpler to help guide it there. Establishing a
strategic roadmap for the organization will allow employees to definitively state how their role
aids the organization.
Educating Employees About Fundraising
Tension exists between fundraisers and other employees because of a misinterpretation of
the fundraising function. As Mitchell Spearman pointed out, the frequent travel and dinner
meetings with donors can make a major gifts officer’s job seem glamorous and stress-free.
69

Educating employees about the steps involved in identifying, qualifying, cultivating, soliciting and
stewarding a donor can help alleviate that tension. Educating employees about their colleagues’
work need not only apply to fundraisers. If everyone knows the day-to-day responsibilities of those
working in marketing, accounting, facilities management, etc., a mutual respect for the work of
others will evolve.
Joe Komsky, Associate Vice President of Clinical Major Gifts at City of Hope reported
success in earning respect from faculty and staff by bringing them along to donor visits. When a
doctor or researcher sees that he does not strong arm prospective donors for gifts, but rather
educates them about the impact of City of Hope’s research or the care patients receive at its
facilities they can see the art in the solicitation process. More importantly, when program staff
work in conjunction with fundraisers then gifts with high utility can be solicited more efficiently.
Rather than always relying on grants to fund their work, researchers can supplement this time-
consuming process by utilizing the relationships built by major gifts officers to receive private
funding.
Incorporate Fundraisers into the Organizational Community
Fundraisers both need and want to be a part of the work their employer does. Understanding
the mission and having a passion for advancing a cause does not necessarily translate to persuasive
fundraising solicitation. Those in leadership positions need to make learning the details of the
organization easy and convenient for fundraising staff. This requires a major shift in the early
expectations of fundraising staff. The onboarding process for these positions needs to include
several weeks of education preferably through face-to-face meetings with faculty and program
staff. If opportunities arise to attend lectures, visit clean-up sites, sit in on a class, etc., then
fundraisers need to take advantage of these opportunities and others in the organization need to
70

view this activity as essential research for the fundraiser’s work – not an excuse to get out of the
office.
Safeguards
The fundraising industry should not stop looking for new metrics to more accurately judge
a fundraiser’s performance, but until such time that this benchmark exists the monetary value of
the resources a fundraiser brings in will continue to serve as the most important judge of
performance. This creates an incentive for fundraisers to accept any and all gifts offered to the
organization. To align the goals of the fundraiser and the organization a system of checks and
balances needs to be implemented when considering the acceptance of a major gift. The best way
to do this is by creating a gift committee that will have the ultimate decision to accept or reject a
gift. If the fundraising staff knows that gifts are subject to review and that they will not get credit
for rejected gifts, then this oversight creates an incentive to solicit gifts with high utility.
Set Realistic Expectations
Placing one person in charge of major gifts fundraising, foundation relations, event
planning and planned giving will not work in the long run. This analysis has spoken at length about
the practical knowledge and expertise needed to perform just one of these functions, and the
unrealistic expectations of one person to possess the competencies to handle several of these
functions at once. This may mean that the organization can no longer put on fundraising events or
actively solicit planned gifts. Or, it may require the hiring of additional fundraising staff. The
added cost of multiple specialized fundraisers may seem like a waste of much needed funds to
many inside an organization, including the governing board. This cost can be justified by
explaining that a job that does not fit the skills of the employee contributes to the problem of
turnover within the fundraising industry. With the lengthy vacancies reported by nonprofits when
71

trying to hire development directors it would seem more cost effective to keep existing employees
content in their roles by providing an adequate staff to perform them rather than spending months
without anyone performing fundraising duties.
A reduction in a major gifts officer’s portfolio can also help set realistic expectations.
Arbitrarily assigning someone a portfolio of 125-150 prospects makes little strategic sense. The
case of Northwestern University shows that reducing the number of prospects of a portfolio can
build stronger relationships with those prospects and lead to increased asks and donation dollars.
A portfolio and donation goals should challenge a major gifts officer to reach their potential, but
they should not be cumbersome just for the sake of being cumbersome.
By adopting these strategies, the author believes that any nonprofit – large or small – can
thrive in today’s competitive fundraising environment. More importantly, fundraisers could gain
much-deserved credibility for their tireless efforts, and perhaps we could even stem the turnover
tide among development officers. And finally, we can create a fundraising climate based on
measurable, appropriate objectives and solid ethical principles whereby no reputable fundraiser
ever has to endure shame or confusion about her/his chosen profession.

72

References

Bell, Jeanne and Marla Cornelius, UnderDeveloped: A National Study of Challenges Facing
Nonprofit Fundraising (San Francisco, CA: CompassPoint Nonprofit Services and the Evelyn
and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, 2013).

Crabtree, Elizabeth, and Joyce Newton. "Approaches for Estimating Gift Capacity and
Developing Rating Systems." Apragny.org. October 5, 2007.
http://www.apragny.org/calendar/events_0708/docs/071106_apravs_bw3.pdf.

Colby, Susan, Nan Stone, and Paul Carttar. "Zeroing in on Impact." Stanford Social Innovation
Review. Fall 2004. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/zeroing_in_on_impact.

Education Advisory Board. Making Meaning of Metrics: Leveraging Accountability and
Analytics to Enhance Fundraiser Productivity. Washington, D.C.: The Advisory Board
Company, 2015,

Giving USA. "Giving USA 2017 Infographic | Giving USA." See the numbers – Giving USA
2017 Infographic | Giving USA. June 12, 2017. Accessed February 12, 2018.
https://givingusa.org/see-the-numbers-giving-usa-2017-infographic/.

"Glossary of Fundraising Terms." Cfre.org. September 19, 2013. http://www.cfre.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/05/bgloss.pdf.

Grunig, James E., and Todd Hunt. Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1984.

Haggerty AL. 2015. Turnover intentions of nonprofit fundraising professionals: the roles of
perceived fit, exchange relationships, and job satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

Hall, Holly. "New Professorship Created to Bolster Fund-Raising Research." Philanthropy.com.
Accessed February 22, 2007. https://www.philanthropy.com/article/New-Professorship-Created-
to/178267.

Hall, Peter Dobkin. "Historical Perspectives on Nonprofit Organizations in the United States." In
The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management, by David O. Renz and
Robert D. Herman, 3-42. (John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2016),

73

Henderson, David Hende. "Opportunity Cost." Opportunity Cost: The Concise Encyclopedia of
Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/OpportunityCost.html.

Jang, Meena. "USC Rejects Harvey Weinstein's $5M Women's Program Donation." The
Hollywood Reporter. October 10, 2017. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/usc-rejects-
harvey-weinsteins-5m-womens-program-donation-1047487.

Joslyn, Heather. "How USC Raised $6 Billion and Is Now Seeking More." Philanthropy.com.
March 15, 2017. https://www.philanthropy.com/article/How-USC-Raised-6-Billion-and/239490.

Kelly, Kathleen S. Fund Raising and Public Relations: A Critical Analysis. (Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1991).

Kelly, Kathleen S. "The State of Fund-raising Theory and Research." 39-55. Westport, CT:
American Council on Education and Praeger, 2002.

Lipinski, Lynn. "The Campaign for USC Hits $6 Billion and Keeps on Going." Trojan Family
Magazine. October 16, 2017. https://tfm.usc.edu/the-campaign-for-usc-hits-6-billion-and-keeps-
on-going/.

Lippincott, John. "President's Perspective: Ethics and Economics." Case.org. January 2012.

Mack, Catherine E., Kathleen S. Kelly, and Christopher Wilson. "Finding an academic home for
fundraising: a multidisciplinary study of scholars perspectives." International Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 21, no. 3 (2016): 180-94. doi:10.1002/nvsm.1554.

Panepento, Peter. "Ethical Standards Erode at Nonprofit Groups, Study Finds."
Philanthropy.com. March 27, 2008. https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Ethical-Standards-
Erode-at/163179.

Philipps, Dave. "Wounded Warrior Project Spends Lavishly on Itself, Insiders Say." The New
York Times. January 27, 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/us/wounded-warrior-
project-spends-lavishly-on-itself-ex-employees-say.html.

Reid, Chip, and Jennifer Janisch. "CBS News investigates Wounded Warrior Project." CBS
News. January 29, 2016. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-investigates-wounded-
warrior-project-spending/.

74

Reid, Chip, and Jennifer Janisch. "Wounded Warrior Project accused of wasting donation
money." CBS News. January 26, 2016. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wounded-warrior-
project-accused-of-wasting-donation-money/.

Riggs, Henry E. "The Mouths of Gift Horses." Stanford Social Innovation Review, Summer
2010, 21-23. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_mouths_of_gift_horses.

Ryan, Harriet. "USC fundraising executive leaves post amid sexual harassment investigation."
Los Angeles Times. October 11, 2017. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-usc-fundraising-
harassment-20171011-story.html.

Swank, Katherine. “24 Planned Giving Terms You Should Know: A Glossary of Common
Terms.” Blackbaud.com,
www.blackbaud.com/files/resources/downloads/WhitePaper_23PlannedGivingTermsYouShould
Know.pdf., 1.

Warwick, Jennifer. "Beyond Metrics." Case.org. March 1, 2006.
https://www.case.org/Publications_and_Products/2006/March_2006/Beyond_Metrics.html

75

Interviews Conducted

Anonymous, Vice President of Development, Animal Protection Organization – Conducted via
telephone, 11/21/17

Joe Komsky, Associate Vice President, Clinical Major Gifts, City of Hope – Conducted via
telephone, 12/1/17

Anonymous, Director of Special Projects, Human Services Organization – Conducted via
telephone, 12/1/17

Shelby Radcliffe, Vice President for Advancement, Willamette University – Conducted via
telephone, 12/5/17

John Crowe, Principal, Crowe Strategies – Conducted via telephone, 12/7/17

Shirley Peppers, Director of Principle Gifts, Harvard University – Conducted via telephone,
12/19/17

Mitchell Spearman, Director of Principle Gifts, University of Texas at Austin – Conducted via
telephone, 12/30/17
76

Appendices
Appendix A – Job Description Codebook
77

78

79

Appendix B – Interview with Anonymous, Vice President of Development, Animal Rights
Organization.

Note: Certain Answers had to be altered to protect the interviewees request for anonymity.

Jacob Blodgett: In general, what should the purpose of a nonprofit organization be?

Interviewee: To serve the community.

JB: Describe the role of a fundraiser within a nonprofit organization.

Interviewee: To help provide the means and funding for the nonprofit to serve its community and its mission.

JB: What role should the fundraising department play in deciding the strategic goals of an organization?

Interviewee: Traditionally, I feel like the role has been to kind of work through the strategic process with the
organization as requested and provide any sort of guidance as to whether some of those strategic plans can be funded.
For instance, if they say like, we would like to build a whole new building next year, you would say it takes some time
to launch a capital campaign. So, funding guidance.

JB: How do organizations teach their fundraisers about the organization mission and the work being done to
accomplish this mission?

80

Interviewee: In my experience, it has really been up to the head of the fundraising department to seek out that
information as much as possible. There has also been a bit of a disconnect there in that it has relied on fundraisers to
line-up meetings and have those discussions.

JB: How do organizations incorporate the fundraising staff into the overall community?

Interviewee: Sadly, in my experience I would say it has been up to me and other fundraising staff to seek that out. I
think we are often overlooked. Our success depends on connecting with everyone else. In my experience there has
never been a situation where someone is there to say it would be great if you would come over here and do this with
us. Normally, it’s something where we say, oh that seems like a great opportunity for us, can we join in?

JB: What is your main priority when soliciting a gift, or instructing someone to solicit a gift?

Interviewee: I would say to listen to the donor, definitely. I think the donor’s interests and the donor is most important.
You can have a goal based on what you think that donor’s interest is, but if you go in with a financial goal that’s not
based on anything having to do with the donor’s interests that’s not a good fit.

JB: How do nonprofit organizations teach their fundraising staff about institutional autonomy, either explicitly or
implicitly?

Interviewee: I haven’t received a lot of guidance specific to this topic (worked for 4 organizations).

JB: In what situations would it be appropriate to accept a gift that limited institutional autonomy? For example, a gift
that required the creation of a program outside the organization’s list of strategic priorities.

Interviewee: I would not accept it, unless it is something that I brought to the President/CEO and Board and they
thought it was a good priority to shift to, but if not’s mission related or part of the strategic plan we would not accept
it. We did receive a donation from a donor that was not part of our current strategic program, but it was part of future
plans, and was mission related. So, we were able to propel quicker into that project, but it was mission related.

JB: How difficult is it to turn down a donation?

Interviewee: It can be extremely difficult, you can really hurt someone’s feelings.

JB: What strategies are fundraisers taught to negotiate with a donor to give to a strategic priority as opposed to a
personal project?

Interviewee: I think the biggest strategy we are taught is to listen to the donor and hear what they are saying. I think
that’s always key to listen, and we are given that advice a lot. In terms of specific tactics, I have not received a lot
training.

JB: How do fundraisers utilize the concept of gift utility either consciously or subconsciously?

Interviewee: In my case we are very lucky in that we have a lot of donors who understand the importance of
unrestricted giving.

JB: Do you stress unrestricted giving?

Interviewee: We have a giving society that stresses unrestricted giving. We also share that information whenever it is
appropriate. We speak from our heart and passionately about unrestricted giving and the importance of it for the
organization. If the person has a definite preference and after we’ve talked through everything they still have a definite
preference we will steer them toward a specific restricted giving opportunity, but we are always working toward
unrestricted giving. Work through a funnel of unrestricted, then the restricted options currently available. I have
noticed that we have received more restricted gifts during our recent organizational change which could be the result
of not having built trust with new leadership yet.

81

JB: What metrics are you currently judged on in your position? How about in past positions?

Interviewee: Personally, we have metrics for fundraisers in out department based on donor visits and meaningful
contact with donors. In my position I am 100% judged by dollars brought into the organization. With other
organizations, there is a definite emphasis on contact with donors and bringing in new donors.

JB: How long does it take to cultivate a donor from initial contact to the ask?

Interviewee: Depends, on average a couple years.

JB: Do you think that judging fundraisers across a longer time period would be helpful?

Interviewee: It would be interesting, especially in organizations with a lot of turnover. I couldn’t imagine it really
happening because CEOs are constantly looking at the bottom line and budget.

JB: What effect would it have on the industry if a measure of gift utility was incorporated into the evaluation of
fundraisers?

Interviewee: If everyone was looking at that it would help the organization to meet their mission more effectively.

JB: Does organizational leadership care more about total dollars raised or where those dollars are going?

Interviewee: I would say both.

JB: Turnover has been a problem in the fundraising industry for decades. Why do fundraisers have less attachment to
organizations than other staff?

Interviewee: The studies I’ve seen a lot, and my experience has been, that we understand our position, but leadership
often doesn’t. So, it’s simply sometimes difficult to do the job when other positions in nonprofits are maybe a little
more understood than fundraisers. I often find that people think we just do a lot of events. So, I think it’s our
responsibility to educate people on what we’re doing, but it’s often difficult to have that opportunity.

JB: What can employers do, besides increasing salary and benefits, to retain quality fundraisers?

Interviewee: I think having a good management style for whoever is managing that department is really important
because I think they can help to decrease that turnover if they are doing things to retain those employees. But, I think
that in terms of the head of the department I think the organization could really listen and help provide the resources
they need to be successful. Because there are usually a lot of road blocks. We often think that if we could only do this,
we could do a lot more as an organization.

JB: Can you describe a situation during your career in which an organization ignored performance shortcomings in
certain areas because someone was adept at bringing in donations?

Interviewee: Yes, I’ve definitely entered an organization after a situation like this. Where coming into an organization
no one has been thanked for years. I have been asked to accept unhelpful gifts but fought against.

JB: Would you ever consider making strategic partnerships with other organizations to better serve donors? Would
your employer consider such a partnership?

Interviewee: Interviewee confirmed referring to donors to other organizations and organizations referring donor’s to
their organization. Confirmed that organizational leadership was open to this practice if the donor was not the right fit
for the organization (answer contained specific details about the interviewee’s employer that needed to be excluded).
82

Appendix C – Interview with Joe Komsky, CFRE, Associate Vice President, Clinical Major
Gifts at City of Hope

Jacob Blodgett: In general, what do you believe the purpose of a nonprofit should be?

Joe Komsky: That's an interesting question. I think that in general nonprofits aim to serve constituencies that aren't
being served by the government or really even a for-profit business. It's sort of the people who fall through the cracks.
There are gaps there. For example, in medical funding, just as an example because that's what I'm most familiar with.
The government funds certain kinds of projects. They fund stuff that has incremental gains. Sort of a continuation of
existing research. Whereas what philanthropy can do is provide money to the people who are doing things that are
maybe a little more radical and maybe have bigger, bolder potential. So, because of that, they aren't getting money
from the safer money areas. That's one. Homeless people, the government can only do so much whether that is the
federal government, state government or local government, so the nonprofits exist to sort of fill those holes.

JB: Describe the role of a fundraiser in a nonprofit organization.

JK: To me, the ideal fundraiser is an educator. The reputation of fundraisers in the past has been someone who is
going to get into your house, sit down at your table and not leave until you write a check. That's not how I view it. I
view myself as an educator. If you are interested in helping and changing the world through what our organization
does, then my job is to educate you about how you can do that. Both what areas of the organization you can support
that will help achieve your goals and how you can arrange a gift in an amount you are comfortable with. It's not my
job to get you to give more money. It's my job to get you to give the money you want to give in a way that's most
meaningful to you. In doing that you will continue to want to invest in that organization, and on your own will want
to give more money.

JB: What role should the fundraising department play in deciding the strategic goals of the organization.

JK: To some extent, you've got the people who are in charge setting the priorities of the organization, so fundraising
exists to support that. You sometimes get organizations where a big funder is coming in and giving a gift that is larger
than anything they have seen before and asking the organization to do something that they haven't done before: create
a new program, a new division, a new service line - whatever that may be. I think that's a dangerous place to be. A lot
of times organizations, especially smaller organizations that are desperate for funding, will start a new program
because a donor wants them to. Then after three, four, five, six years that donor goes away and they have a service
they provide and they have to find money to continue to provide that service. That can be a dangerous place to be
because you might not have enough other funders to keep that going. Organizations need to be true to what their
mission is. I think that needs to be set by the upper management. Then fundraising needs to fill those needs.

JB: Are fundraisers taught about institutional autonomy?

JK: I think it's something you learn on the job, and it depends on the organization. I've worked for organizations where
they have looked at gifts that have nothing to do with the mission, and we've had discussions about it. If you walk into
the Gap and say to them 'I've got $120,000 here, I want a Tesla.' What's the Gap going to do, the Gap doesn't sell cars.
They're not going to say to you, sure, we'll take the 120,000, and we'll get you a Tesla. That takes them away from
what their mission is. I think nonprofit organizations need to be the same way. I've seen organizations that have taken
gifts like that, started programs and basically every year hoped that that donor is going to keep funding that program,
so they can keep that program going. That's not a way that you want to live, and that's not a way that you can be
sustainable. I think nonprofits get really deep into some of that stuff. If you're a research organization, we need to take
money for cancer research at City of Hope. If someone comes along with a ton of money and wants us to research
Lou Gehrig's disease, if that's not fitting with what we are doing, then that's not really to our advantage to take the
money.

JB: How difficult is it to turn down a donation?

83

JK: You're never trying to turn down a donation, you are trying to turn it into something. Sometimes the donor is just
super insistent. Ideally, you can turn it into something you are doing. Let's stick with the Lou Gherig's example for a
second. We've probably got people here who are working on neurological disorders. Whether it has to do with cancer
or other things in the brain, you try to turn it towards that. To be honest with you, everybody's got their price. For
enough money, an organization will do it, but for enough money, you can afford to do it and keep the research going.
It sometimes happens with our pediatric department. We don't have a huge department here at City of Hope. We don't
do a ton of research [on that]. So sometimes people want to fund research that we just don't have the manpower to do.
So, we'll try to turn it into something more general, but if not an organization needs to say sometimes, look this is not
part of our mission. We're focused on 'X,' and we need to remain focused on 'X' and we're very good at 'X.' You have
to admit we're not so good at 'Y' and 'Z.' That can be difficult. In my mind, you have to do it. To me really, a good
philanthropic organization would say to a donor like that, here's another organization that might be more open to
taking your donation because they focus on what you want, or they more closely focus on what you want to fund here.
That's an ideal situation. That's when society is all working together hand in hand on this stuff.

JB: How open is organizational leadership to connecting someone to a different organization to maximize societal
benefit?

JK: I don't have any statistics obviously, but I would think very few would. It's a constant push for money. Nonprofits
are so desperate to hit their budgets. To me what an organization should do is raise money one year and then spend it
the next year. So, you know exactly what you have to spend, and you are always in your budget. What ends up
happening is it makes you less reliant on the money if you can do that. You obviously, don't want to cut programs if
you raise less money this year. You don't want to cut programs the next year. What ends up happening is that
organizations budget for what they want to do or what they think they can do then they turn that budget over to
philanthropy and say here is what we need you to raise. So, it becomes this huge pressure to raise that money. They're
not really living within a reasonable budget. They are living within the budget they want to have and hoping they can
raise the money. That's difficult. Even large organizations do that, where it's like - well we'll let philanthropy make up
the rest. That puts you in a position where it's really, really hard to turn down money. Which means it’s hard to say no
to any donation or send someone to a different organization that maybe handles that mission better because you're
desperate to meet the bottom line. I think that a lot of charities, in general, can get themselves into those kinds of
difficulties for that reason.

JB: In general, is the budget for the organization set by organizational leadership?

JK: It's hard to say in general, but in my experience, yeah, that's been it. The board sets their budgets. What I generally
saw happen was, let's say the budget was $30 million one year. So, the next year they all sit down - the head of research
sits down and the board and the other leadership and the head of patient care and the head of chapter services and
everything. They all submit their budgets. Let's say it's 10% higher, so now you have to raise $33 million. There's not
a lot of conversation, in my experience, with the head of philanthropy to say, can you raise 10% more money. What
do our portfolios look like? Is that money there? It's just sort of like, hey we need it. So, let's kind of figure it out.
Your strategy ends up being, let's hope, or work harder. That's a difficult thing to maintain. What it does is put you in
a position where you can't be as objective about potential donors. We need that money. What does an organization do
if today, Matt Lauer, comes to them and says I will give you $20 million? Do you take it? Everybody has their price,
so some people would. Can you afford to turn down $20 million as an organization because it's coming from Matt
Lauer and all the baggage that entails right now? A month ago, you would take it for sure. You would be thrilled. It
forces you into some of those situations, where the money may be more important than where it is coming from, and
where the money is more important than really having a conversation of, is what you're giving the money for
something we want our organization to be doing?

JB: Does organizational leadership care more about total dollars raised or where those dollars are going?

JK: I think it depends on how enlightened they are. If they are smart, they are looking at where those dollars are going,
in my mind. Money is fungible. If I've got $10 million designated toward research and you come in and give me $10
million for research, I can apply that toward research and I can take the other $10 million that maybe is coming from
unrestricted funds and put them somewhere else. To that extent, that's how you can get around the designation of
money. Undesignated funds versus designated funds. To that extent, they are only concerned with what is coming in.
84

To me though. I think they need to be looking where it's coming from. That also helps inform where the organization's
focus should be.

JB: What's your main priority when soliciting a gift?

JK: If I've done my job correctly, they already understand, and we are already talking about things that are within the
mission of the organization. That's where a fundraiser can really help. If you're cultivating a donor over time, you're
filling her or him with information on the organization's mission. Then giving them opportunities to fund things that
fit within that mission. Every once in a while, you get a donor who comes in and says that I want to do this and it’s a
tangent to what we're really doing. But, really if I'm building the relationship correctly, I'm already building all that
mission-driven stuff into it. To me, to be honest with you, by the time I'm coming to solicit money I want it to be
meaningful to the person. A lot of donations are transactional, and that's fine, but first of all, it's going to be a lot less,
it's going to be a smaller donation than what it could. And two with every donation you have to start over. If I have
somebody, that I can make it meaningful for them, I have a couple of seven-figure donors I have done this with, then
they feel like a partner with the organization. Then I can go back to them, and we can build on what they have done
in the past. Their donation can either be research that they have been funding, and that's a pretty easy sell. It's also that
what they have given in the past is like the base. It's the floor of the next ask. You gave $3 million, and we were able
to accomplish this. If you gave a $5 million gift here's how far we can go, here's what else we can do with that. It
doesn't have to be meaningful for the donor, but I want it to be meaningful for the donor.

JB: What metrics are you currently judged on in your position?

JK: We do have a dollar goal, but I am also being judged on face to face visits. Getting out and meeting with somebody
is the best way to build that relationship and get large gifts. I am judged on qualifications - new donors that come
down the pike, whether they are patients or non-patients. Am I able to take someone we don't have a relationship with
and qualify them as a donor and start the relationship with them? We judge that by qualification steps in the plan in
our database because we also believe that disqualifying a prospect who's not interested is equally valuable. You don't
want to waste time on somebody who is not going to make a gift. Solicitation steps, how many solicitations we're
making. Those are cold numbers, that's the science of it. The more people I meet, the more asks I can make, the more
gifts I can close, the more gifts I can close, the more money I can bring in. The other thing that is really important to
us is data. When we meet with somebody, we are supposed to put our information into the database, so we have a
record of what our moves are with somebody, what we've accomplished. Whether that's for us to go back and review
in a strategy session or if I were to leave and somebody were to come in, they could pick up where I left off. The
longer you wait to put your contact reports in, the less information you retain. We actually have a metric of putting in
your contact report within four days of the meeting, which is still a long time. I know people in the for-profit world
where sales people have 24-hours to put information into a database after meeting with a customer. There is an art and
a science to fundraising. The data forms the basis of the science part of fundraising. The art is taking that and getting
out in the field and having conversations with people.

JB: What if any metrics do you feel should be added or subtracted from the evaluation of fundraisers?

JK: This is a difficult question because the problem is that fundraisers don't stay at organizations very long. It takes
probably 2-3 years, three years probably to build up a portfolio. You've got a portfolio of people; you're just going
back to them. They are repeat customers, to put it in business terms. But, most fundraisers don't stay more than 24
months anywhere. So how do you even build up a portfolio? To me, if I am building up a team that's going to be here
for a long time. I would want to see how many repeat donors they are getting. That to me is a sign of the relationships
they are building. You're doing all this work; you're doing all this investment up front to get someone to make a gift.
Say they give a $25,000 gift, but they have the capacity to give your half-a-million dollars. If you get the $25,000 gift,
and then you leave, and a new fundraiser comes in they essentially have to start over building that relationship. To
me, I want fundraisers who will stay long enough, and I would want to track whether you could take that $25,000
donor and see if you could get them to make a $50,000 gift or $100,000 gift or whatever it might be as you build
toward that capacity. I think that's best for relationship building. That shows me the fundraisers who are building those
good relationships and making the gifts meaningful.

JB: Why do you think turnover has been such an issue in the fundraising industry?

85

JK: Honestly, and I've said this as a joke before, but I think within two years either you're good, and you've shown
yourself to be good, and somebody comes in to hire you away, or you're not good, and you can't fake beyond about
two years. I can fake for 18 months, 24 months or so. Yeah, I'm cultivating. Yeah, I'm building toward this. By about
24 months if I haven't brought in money, and I am always cultivating, I'm a crappy fundraiser. Then they move either
voluntarily or involuntarily. That to me is part of it. On the more positive side, if you're good people come after you
all the time.

JB: What can employers do to retain quality fundraisers?

JK: I think part of it is the work atmosphere and the management. You need to have managers that show they value
their employees. That can happen in a lot of ways. That can happen from bonuses, salary increases or promotions.
But, sometimes it's just saying - hey, great job. Or, giving someone credit or opportunity. I had a boss who, when we
were working similar portfolios or people in similar service lines would take all of the great prospects, the highest-
level prospects, and leave me all the lower-level prospects. That does not tell me I'm valued. That does not make me
feel good. That just tells me I'm allowed to get his crumbs. So, to me when I'm in that position now, when people
below me are sharing and talking about similar names, and we are dividing them up between each other I make sure
to give them good prospects, not the bad prospects. If you feel discouraged, if you say I'm working hard and closing
these gifts, but I'm never given an opportunity to do anything big I think that's part of it. Giving people seats at the
table. Leadership opportunities, even if they don't have the title, come in and sit in on these meetings - we value your
opinion. There are a lot of ways that people can feel valued that aren't just financial. I feel valued here, and I love the
mission. At the end of the day if someone is going to offer someone an extra 50-grand that's hard for them to turn
down. I think that if they feel valued, they won't even look as much. There will be less looking on their part.

JB: How do organizations incorporate fundraising staff into the overall community?

JK: I think it's vital for organizations to do. I don't think a lot of organizations do it really well. That onboarding
process is something that is important, and it often happens way too quickly and should happen over a longer period
of time. What we try to do at City of Hope, we want our fundraisers to meet the physicians; we want our fundraisers
to meet leadership and nurses and all the people in the philanthropy office and all the people in marketing. That's a
very important point. I think it gets short shrift by a lot of organizations. Just because again they have a big
commitment to start raising money and you have to learn on the go.

JB: Do you think other departments understand what philanthropy does?

JK: Nope. The shortest answer I'll give you. Nope. I don't think they have a clue. Some of them will learn. Marketing
will learn by being a little more integrated with philanthropy, so they see what's being done a little bit more, but no. It
takes a lot of education from the philanthropy department to help people understand what we do and don't do. I worked
for an organization where I was in charge of philanthropy, and I was like look, you want me to focus on major gifts,
that's all I should focus on. You’ve got to let me build relationships. They basically turned me into a bill collector.
Their event people would have events, and somebody wouldn't pay the $500 registration fee, and they would say you
need to follow up on this. I would say, no I don't. I need to be working on $25,000 gifts, not $500 bucks, you call
them. I don't think most other departments within an organization understand. In smaller shops, I don't think a lot of
the organizational leadership at the top fully understand what philanthropy can do. I think they see it as an ATM.

JB: Do you think that a better relationship between philanthropy and other departments would lead to gifts that better
help the organization?

JK: Absolutely, the more fundraisers understand where the money is going and what it is being used for, the better we
can communicate that to our donors. Then that money will go toward the mission because we are communicating the
appropriate mission. I think the gifts will be larger. City of Hope is sometimes a unique situation. Researchers can
come have lunch with the donor and get a gift that would be similar in size to a foundation grant that they have to
spend two months writing. They would also see from a time perspective how much better it is to work with
philanthropy. They can see more of how we work and what we do. I love taking doctors with me on donor visits.
Because then they can see how I work. That I don't put pressure on people to just write a check. That I do get them to
try to see what the research is and what we're doing. Better understanding on both sides would be huge.

86

JB: How can organizations build those relationships with philanthropy and different departments?

JK: I think it has to start from the top. The head of the organization needs to understand philanthropy enough, so they
can explain to people the importance of participating in it. We talk about organizations having a culture of
philanthropy. Every person in an organization in the sense that they represent the organization and can educate donors
about the organization are fundraisers. If everybody understands that, then you really have a culture of philanthropy.
In City of Hope's case whether you are a janitor, a nurse, a scheduler, whatever it is you can help City of Hope raise
money by being sincere in your job, doing it with a smile, doing it wonderfully and maybe keeping an ear open for
people who say things like, ‘This is a great place I would love to help somehow.’ We have doctors who have patients
who say how can I help, and the doctors say, no that's ok this is my job to take care of you. I appreciate their humility,
at the same time if they would introduce them to me, maybe we would get a gift out of it. All that has to be integrated
in.

JB: Can organizations incentivize fundraisers to participate in organizational activities to deepen the relationship
between the fundraisers and the organization?

JK: It's an interesting question. Certainly, having them participate will deepen the relationship and a good fundraiser
is gonna do it anyway. You don't need to incentivize a good fundraiser. The question is, are you masking people who
aren't good fundraisers because there is an incentive? That might be a great way to judge if you have good fundraiser
or a bad fundraiser: are they seeking out those opportunities on their own? Good fundraisers will do that because they
know we need to have that information when we go out and talk to donors.

JB: Does organizational leadership understand why allowing fundraisers to involve themselves in activities outside of
their job description is important?

JK: I would hope that organizational leadership would understand that and encourage it. That's good management.
Good management is going to see that a professor on a college campus is giving a lecture and is going to say to the
fundraisers who are working in that department, hey you should go see this lecture, or I want you to see that. So,
management does have to be able to encourage that and say, hey it's ok for you to take an hour and listen to this and
see this talk. I think that's important. For a good fundraiser, I'm going to feel valued if someone is giving me those
opportunities to educate myself. That goes back to your question of how you retain people. Giving them those
opportunities, showing them, you support those opportunities. If someone says I want to go attend this lecture, and
you say I really need you here because we are going to have a budget meeting, what you're telling that employee is
that the budget is more important than them learning more about the organization.

Appendix D – Interview with Anonymous, Director of Special Projects, Human Services
Organization
Jacob Blodgett: In general, what do you think the purpose of a nonprofit organization should be?
Interviewee: I think that the purpose of a nonprofit is multifold. Because nonprofits take many forms. I think
nonprofits, at their heart, are there to serve and are there to help in some capacity. Some do that through direct people-
helping, some do that through technology development, some do it through providing items and helping people get
what they need. But their main purpose is to help and serve.
JB: Can you describe the role of a fundraiser within a nonprofit organization.
Interviewee: The ideal role of a fundraiser is that we wouldn't have to fundraise. Is that we would have the funds to
do exactly what we wanted. But the role of a fundraiser is to raise any needed money and to run the programs that are
so crucial at whatever nonprofit they work for.
Some are stronger than others, in how they have to fund. Our organization is unique in how we fundraise. And so,
because our programs are paid for, because we don't pay for the lights, we don't pay for the building, we don't have
rent to pay, we don't have that day to day, it means that our fundraising gets to be almost primarily for our clients.
87

Which makes fundraising easy for us. It makes it an easy sell, even if you're not a fundraiser. We need money to help
pay for X, Y, and Z that goes directly to our clients.
JB: What role should the fundraising department play in deciding the strategic goals of the organization?
Interviewee: I think they should definitely be at the table. In terms of strategic goals, at least for us, our strategic goals
are almost always about expansion. Trying new things and trying innovative programming. And so, without
fundraising at the table, you don't know if you can do those things. We may have a contract to run mental health
services or health services, but those fundraisers are key when we want to try something different. Or when we know
something could work and we just need the funds to start it.
I also think if you are a multifaceted fundraiser, that you can anticipate what those needs are and where we're going
to understand program development. And so, they definitely need to be at the table to participate with other program
director staff or clinical staff who are doing more of the ground work.
JB: How do organizations teach their fundraisers about the organization's mission and the work being done to
accomplish that mission?
When you're in development and communication, part of your job is to learn about the organization. How does the
clinician do X? How does a case manager do Y? Part of their job is to distill that information into more manageable
bite-size pieces to be able to sell the program, and to be able to communicate effectively with anyone, regardless of
their background.
JB: Do you think that other departments understand the role of fundraising and what fundraisers do?
Interviewee: No. I think that that happens a lot, especially in these kinds of nonprofits. And I've worked at a couple
different service-driven crisis kind of agencies, and fundraisers are always cast as a different breed. They're a different
person. It's a very us versus them kind of thing sometimes. I think people don't realize everything that needs to be
done in order to be a fundraiser. You're not simply going out to lunches and shaking hands or small-talking. There's a
lot of work that goes in to the back-end to keep the agency running so that they don't have to worry about money, they
can just focus on what do our clients need? And then it's our job to make sure that we can do exactly what we need.
JB: How do organizations incorporate the fundraising staff into the overall organizational community, getting them to
work with other departments or getting them out in the field to see what work is being done?
Interviewee: Well, I think every organization's different, so I'll just speak from my experience. One of the reasons
why I've been here for the time that I have, that I just love, is everyone does everything here. So, my primary role here
is not a fundraiser. That's not why I was hired. That's not what my passion is. It's kind of something that's happened
in tandem with everything that we do.
So, our development staff, and it’s been this way for quite some time now, are involved in what we do. They are
involved. They oversee client parties, when we have say a holiday even. Like we have a Halloween party, or the
holiday party that we have at the end of the year. You're getting that direct client interaction to make sure that you're
involved in what we're doing.
Many times, our development staff have been called up to our clinic when we have emergency cases to help the case
managers. They're not case managers and they're not billing, that's not what their background is in, but as a matter of
we all do whatever we need to do, and if you're the only one in the office, you're going to do whatever we need to do
to get that family help.
When you start directly interacting with clients and you don't keep this barrier of, "Well I do this. You work with
clients," it integrates better into the community of our workplace. And my philosophy on admin staff in general, so
like HR, facilities people, finance, operating people, is that there's always going to be that kind of disconnect – the
88

disconnect between clinicians or line staff working in the field versus that kind of admin side – but our admin people
are here to best support the people working directly with the clients. So even if we aren't being case managers for the
day, or we aren't going to meet with families or run workshops, our job is to make sure that they have everything they
need so we can be seen as a resource. So that if they have a cool idea, if we have somebody who wants to run an
innovative group, but it will cost two-grand to get it off the ground we can ask what we are doing to make sure that
this great idea that they have can be implemented?
JB: What is the process of deciding whether or not to go forward if someone has an idea for a new program? Who
decides whether or not it's feasible and if it is something that relates to the organization's mission?
Interviewee: Well, here, I'm a director of special projects. That's one of my main responsibilities here. I oversee all of
our new program development. So, they generally come through me in some facet. [Our founder] set this really great
feeling for the org that we say yes until we have to say no. So, if someone has a great idea, we then go into, "What are
we doing? How can we make this work? How are we going to effect it?"
If we want to run a peer group for LGBTQ youth, let's make sure we have enough clients to run that kind of group.
Okay, how many of our clients are queer-identified? Okay, currently in our system, we have 40 people who are queer-
identified who are 15 and up. Okay, why don't we ask them? Then let's talk to the clinician that they see. Would they
be interested in doing something like that? Let's gauge interest. Because it might be something that's helpful, but if no
one shows up, it's not going to be helpful.
Okay, let's look at that. Let's look at cost. Is there anyone that can underwrite this? Is this something that we can do?
Is there any research that backs this up? Do we need to talk to any outside org?
We really just go all forward to see if all those things line up. If we have the numbers, we have the interest, we have
the funding, why not at least try it? Let's pilot it and see if it works.
And there's been times too, where we might not have the funding, but we underwrite it on our own. We incorporate it
into someone else's role. So, I started a college sexual assault program when I was here. And we didn't have the
funding for the first few months. We had written some grants and we hadn't heard back. So, it was something I was
doing when I had down time at my other job. So, when I was working my regular 40 hours, I would try to carve out
an hour or two a day, get everything done quickly, so I could work on the program and see what I could do. Because
it was something that could be helpful, but we didn't have all the pieces. But why not try it? And I think this
organization has instilled this amazing spirit in me. Why say no? Why say no if we can figure out a way to say yes?
JB: Would you pursue a program outside of your normal scope of work if you had the staff and funding to do so?
Interviewee: Yeah. We have done that several times. I am currently running an internship program for high school
interns to learn more about the mental health field. And that's out of scope for us. Our mission is pretty broad, so a lot
of stuff can be fit within it.
And because we are also known for building innovative programs with foster youth, we have four high school interns
right now, and two of them are former foster youth. So, they could have been our clients. They're not our clients, but
what can we do to help build them up? So, it's really adjacent. It's adjacent to what we're doing. But we were
approached by a grant maker to run this project, and we said yes. It's been really successful. I don't think it's going to
be a sustainable program. If this grant maker said, "I will give you salaries for you to have three interns on staff
throughout the year," I would do that. But it's a matter of having the buy-in on the back end for that.
JB: Do you think that having that kind of very broad mission statement allows you to do more than a nonprofit with a
narrowly focused objective?
Interviewee: Oh, yeah. We definitely get to do more. It means that we are a lot more busy. It means a lot more work
on the weekends, a lot of late nights here, but it's all in the good pursuit. Like these internships, for example, I know
89

they've been super successful. We've had a lot of impact on these kids' lives. They now have someone that they can
have written letters of rec for them. They could be the first in their family to go to college. We've had some of them
stay on later, because they just wanted to learn. We have one who's a teen mom and so she gets to use some of the
resources we have for clients because she works late and gets that experience. In the end it's all helping, and it's all
going toward the bigger thing.
And I would feel more frustrated, I would feel very limited if our mission was more specific. If we were a nonprofit
who teaches girls eight through 14 how to code. If that's all we did, what are we going to do when one of those girls
came in and had a history of abuse and needed more support? Or what if they were queer and they were homeless and
they came in to learn how to code, but what are you going to do to make sure that they have those kind of basic needs
and how are they being taken care of?
Here, we know when people walk in the door, we have a lot that we can do for them. And that's a great feeling, to
know that we have something that we believe in so much. And that's why I can fundraise and be part of the fundraising
team. To kind of tie this back in. Because I know what we do, and I get to see it firsthand in the work that I do. So,
me asking you for money is an easy thing. Because I know exactly how it's used.
JB: Are there ever any problems that come up with being so open to rapid expansion and different programs? Are
there every any concerns about spreading yourself too thin as an organization?
Interviewee: As an organization, I don't think so. Down here in our mental health center, we have 125 employees, and
we have another 125 at the clinic. There's only a few staff that really go to work on these kind of program initiatives.
So, like myself, yes, I think I am spread too thin a good part of the year. But it doesn't fall on everyone. If one of
clinicians has an idea, maybe they spend an extra five hours a week on something. But as an org, we're very sustainable.
We keep that program expansion small, and then if it becomes adopted, it becomes adopted.
So, when I first started here we had an issue with our youth. Because we had a huge number of high, high-risk youth.
We're talking commercially sexually exploited children, we're talking lots of drug use, working on the streets,
homeless, high suicidality. It was like we had this group of kids, essentially, who were just super high-risk. We
approached the county, and we said, "We need a program that just does high-risk youth." They don't need just a
therapist. They need a therapist, and a case manager, and a peer partner, and a rehab specialist. And this was in my
first six months here, so maybe two years ago? Two and a half years ago? And the county said, "Okay, we'll fund you
on a pilot basis." We hired four staff. And now that program boasts about 12 staff. We grow rapidly. When that need
is there, we demonstrated that need with those four staff, we go all in. And because we have those partnerships with
the county, then when things work we move. Which means nobody's spread too thin because we have people to help
do it.
JB: Would you ever consider making strategic partnerships with other organizations to better serve society in general?
For example, if you didn't have the capacity to launch one of these programs, would you try and send someone to an
organization that maybe already had that sort of program? Or try and work with another organization to start a different
program?
Interviewee: Yeah. We're doing that a lot right now. We have a new building that opened in September. And the aim
of the building is to better serve teens and transitioning youth. And we wanted more supportive services. But we don't
want to be the people who always do everything ourselves, which is kind of how we've run. We're like, "Oh, that's a
need. We can do that. And then we raise money and then we hire someone and they we do it."
Our goal with this new building is we've signed a few different agreements already with some other partners to do
stuff that we don't do. But we have the space, whereas they don't have as much space. So, we're scheduling them to
come in to help provide those services to our clients.
We have a partnership with somebody to do GED finishing. We're going to have a GRYD representative, GRYD is
Gang and Youth Reduction Development which is a program we don't have here. We're looking to do outside partners
to run cooking classes. In the past, and in that model I described to you, we do a lot in-house. And now, for those
90

things that we know we don't have a specialty in we're going to try to outsource and better build those strategic
partnerships.
JB: Do you get a lot of referrals from other organizations? People sending you kids that could be better served by your
organization as opposed to theirs?
Interviewee: We don't get too many of those. The main time that we get those are for clients who have Fetal Alcohol
Spectrum Disorders, because we do have the one of the largest FASD clinic in the nation, and some of the top FASD
mental health clinicians. But we generally get referrals from the schools, from DCFS, and from personal referral.
JB: Do you have any thoughts as to why people tend to move from nonprofit organization to nonprofit organization
after not spending too much time there?
Interviewee: I haven't quite figured that out. We've noticed it here, and I know, as you probably know, if you go on
Idealist, you know that nonprofit site, it's like 60% are development staff. It's like if you're a fundraiser, there's always
another job. I wonder if part of that has to do with compensation, just because you might be bringing in a lot of money,
but fundraisers don't always make that much money. Obviously, there are exceptions to that. I'm not making this
argument here that anyone's underpaid, but when you look at if you're a director of development, making 75 may not
be enough, given the stress that comes with the job, the responsibility that is.
I've known a lot of people who are in development at places where if they don't get a particular grant, they might not
be open the next month. So, there's a lot of stress and pressure, and it probably causes high levels of burnout I would
think. I wouldn't do well in that scenario. Again, my background's in program. I like working with our clients, I like
being creative. I’m pushed in my job to make sure that we function, and you're working late hours, long nights. I don't
know. Maybe that just burns people out and they keep trying new things. But I'm not quite sure why that happens. But
I've definitely seen that pattern.
JB: In terms of grants does your staff look at what grants are available and then try and tailor programs to those grants?
Or do you have an idea for a program and then try and find the right grant to satisfy it?
Interviewee: We do both. We have some things that need constant funding like our mentoring and tutoring program,
and our indigent care. We serve a lot of undocumented clients or clients who don't qualify for MediCal, so we have to
raise money to make sure those services are paid for.
For those, those are kinds of programs we have a list of ongoing needs. Or ongoing program ideas. So, when we get
emails that are like, "Hi, this new foundation's doing this," it's like, "Great. Oh my gosh. This is amazing. This will go
for this program that we're always looking for funding for." And sometimes we get those same emails or tips about
projects that maybe aren't quite in our scope, or maybe aren't things that we have, but could be. And then we try to
tailor a little bit to see does this fit? Is this something that we could do?
Some of our programs like FASD are a very controversial thing. Because we don't get funding from DMH for it. They
don't see it as a mental health concern. And so, we always try to liken it to autism, because it's both a physical and
mental health issue. Obviously, the alcohol caused the issue that's now leading to those health and mental health
problems, but most people see it only as a physical diagnosis, which is why they don't support mental health. So
sometimes we try to mold that program into fitting into grants that maybe it doesn't quite fit, but we do our best to see,
"How can we tailor this?" Or, "How can we convince people that this is a similar issue?"

Appendix E – Interview with Shelby Radcliffe, Vice President for Advancement, Willamette
University
Note: Some names of institutions and specifics of donor interactions have been redacted or modified at the request of
the interviewee.
91

Jacob Blodgett: In general, what do you believe the purpose of a nonprofit organization should be?
Shelby Radcliffe: Well that is a very big question. I mean ideally each nonprofit organization has a mission statement
that really makes that very, very clear. I think one of the challenges about mission statements is they can either be too
broad, and so one could argue that almost anything, within reason, could meet the mission of the organization. Or
could serve the mission. Or the mission statement is actually sort of, not contradicts itself, but that it isn't clear, right?
So usually what a fundraiser's looking to is less the mission statement and more the strategic plan of an organization
to guide them when they're talking with donors.
JB: Describe the role of a fundraiser within a nonprofit organization?
SR: Well we talk about facilitating philanthropy as our role here. And ideally the job of the gift officer is to find the
intersection between a potential donor's passion and in our case the university's needs. The place where we can get the
best gift for the university dollar wise, the most amount of money, but for something that the institution really, really
wants.
Ideally, it's finding that intersection, and then it's facilitating the gift. So, asking for the gift, closing the gift, and
stewarding the gift. Helping the donor feel great about the gift and helping the university use the gift appropriately
and wisely and well. In hopes that that first gift becomes other gifts down the road.
JB: What role should the fundraising department play in deciding the strategic goals of an organization?
SR: Very little. I talk about myself as the vice president as being curricularly agnostic, meaning that the institution
establishes its goals and strategic plan, and then it funds those initiatives through a variety of ways. So, it can fund
new initiatives by eliminating old programs and starting new ones, basically moving budget money from one area of
an institution to another. It can fund new initiatives by increasing revenue through the initiative itself, generating
revenue or increasing revenue from other sources.
It can fund new initiatives through money it sets aside, this is something that I have seen where an organization sets
aside resources for innovation. It can fund new initiatives through loans, which colleges and universities frequently
do to deal with new dorms or dorm renovations. And then it can also fund new initiatives through fundraising. So,
fundraising isn't the only tool that institutions have to support the strategic plan, it's one of many. Once the strategic
plan is developed, then what happens is ideally we serve as advisors to the institution about what we think is possible
to raise for different initiatives in the strategic plan.
For example, If the strategic plan said we wanted to expand our athletics program and we wanted to add four teams,
two mens teams and two womens teams, in these particular sports, that doesn't have to be funded by fundraising but
we would certainly want to look at the people we know who care about the institution and might be capable of giving.
And give the institution some advice on, "Oh, well we think we could raise $3 million for this, or $10 million for this,
or we don't think we could raise anything for this because nobody cares about it." So that might impact the university's
decisions about how much money they'll have to do certain things, but it shouldn't impact what are actually the goals
set out in the plan.
JB: Would it be fair to say that fundraisers would be more effective in their job if they were brought in earlier to talk
about the feasibility of projects?
SR: Yes. Absolutely. It's not that we want to influence. We're not trying to say you should or shouldn't do something.
But often what happens is a project will be identified as a priority by someone, a dean or a program, and a budget will
be developed for that project, and then way at the end of the conversation someone says, "Okay, so now we have to
raise money for it." And there's an assumption that just because we need $20 million, that means we can raise $20
million for this particular thing. So yeah, the sooner the fundraiser, either the vice president or other fundraisers are
92

brought in, the more we can provide perspective and do our own research and say, well, we think we could contribute
in this way.
A good example I had from past experience at a previous institution was there was an interest in building an art
building. The art building that they had was over a creek, like literally, and there were all kinds of problems as you
can imagine. So people wanted to build a new art building. The cost of the building far exceeded the dollars that we
thought we could raise from individuals, so that was problem number one. And problem number two was the
institution. What we knew about the donors who were interested in the arts is some of them felt very strongly about
having an art gallery in the art building where the classes were being taught. And other people actually felt very
strongly that the art gallery should not be in the classroom building, it should be in the student center where more
students would be exposed to it.
So again, this was a way we could advise, not that we were saying what the institution should do but we were just
saying, you need to understand that among this donor community there's a vast difference of opinion about these two
things, and so however you move forward, that's going to impact which donors might engage. And you might want to
talk to some of these people to get their input before you make any public announcements about what the plan is,
because then they'll feel at least like they were consulted, regardless of what you decide.
It's that kind of thing where we want to try to, again, we're not trying to influence the outcome so much as we're just
trying to make sure that the planning process includes the information that we can provide on the potential donors for
a project.
JB: Do you think that other departments understand what fundraisers do?
SR: No. No, not really. I think the general public, and this applies to my colleagues in higher education as well,
generally, especially in higher education, they misunderstand how we run our operation and they think of us as larger
versions of a small nonprofit that might have a charity auction, or a national nonprofit that might ... There's a disaster
and the Red Cross says text 52278 to give $10 to the Red Cross.
And major gift fundraising is very different from those things. Major gift fundraising is a personal conversation, one
on one, with a small number of people. And if you don't take the donor's interests in mind, you're not going to get the
gift. But good fundraisers and good fundraising organizations don't let donors determine what institutions do.
JB: How are fundraisers taught to negotiate with a donor to move them towards a priority, like you did with giving to
math as opposed to physics?
SR: There's an organization called Advancement Resources, which does a lot of training for major gift fundraisers in
the industry. And they have a tool they call the donor development chart, and it sort of talks about questions you can
ask and things you can do with donors to move them from the early stages of the relationship to the point where you'd
be able to close a gift. So, to get them closer and closer to the institution. And a lot of it is just getting them to know
the institution.
So first you find out about them, and you find out about their passions and interests, and then you start to introduce
them to things at your institution that seem to be a good match for what they're interested in. The best thing is to be
able to get donors to come to campus. Because when you get them to come to campus they can meet with students
and faculty and hear about the programs on campus that might be of interest, and that's usually the best way to sell an
idea. If you can't get the donor to campus, you might bring campus to the donor. You might actually bring a faculty
member with you, or a faculty member and a student with you to tell the story.
So, it's all about deepening the knowledge and connection to the institution. So those are all tools that fundraisers
have. And I mean fundamentally, one of the things that sometimes fundraisers need to rely on is just kicking it up the
food chain. So sometimes I'm the person who comes in and they say, I know you're really interested in that hockey
rink, but I want to bring my vice president along, or my president along, to talk to you about athletics, and what we're
doing, and how excited we are about our new lacrosse team or whatever.
93

Sometimes they just need to hear it from someone who's more senior in the organization. And so, I have to be willing
to be that person for my team so that they can try to keep the donor happy even when you're not doing what they want.
JB: What's your main priority when soliciting a gift or instructing someone to solicit a gift?
SR: My main priority is that the gift is not transactional. That it's truly an act of philanthropy and that it feels joyful
to the donor and meaningful and useful to the institution. So, it checks all of those boxes. We don't want it to be "If
you give this, then you get that." That's not my philosophy, that's not effective, that's not good for long term
relationships. It's really not in the end satisfying to the donor, especially at the major gift level. We really want it to
check all those boxes at once. We want it to feel great to the donor, be meaningful and useful to the institution, and
then of course be as big as it possibly can be.
JB: What metrics are you currently judged on in your position?
SR: Well at the very highest level, the number of dollars we raise in commitments per year. Commitments is defined
as new gifts and new pledges. So that's a combination of if I ask you, to give me $1000 and you hand me $1000, that
would count as a commitment. If I asked you to give me $1000 and you say yes but I'll give it to you next year, that's
also a commitment. If I ask you to give me $1000 and you say yes but I'm going to put it in my will and you won't get
it until I die, if you're old enough we would count that as a commitment. So that total, and this is pretty standard in
the industry, but that total we set goals for, and I'm expected to meet and exceed those goals. So that's one of the big
things.
Another big thing is whether we raise enough annual fund support. So, a subset of those commitments that we raise is
a gift to the annual fund. And you know this, the annual fund is primarily unrestricted. And so, we also have a dollar
goal for the annual fund every year that we set based on our analysis, and we're expected to meet or exceed that dollar
goal.
So those are two big ones. And then underneath that there's a ton of things that we pay attention to. We look at number
of visits, we look at, we call them moves, whether we're moving people from one stage of cultivation to the next. We
look at the number of volunteers recruited. We look at engagement activity on the alumni relations and parent relations
side. We look at the average gift size for the annual fund. We look at the velocity of gift sizes, so what percentage of
our donors have giving patterns that are going down, giving patterns that are flat, and giving patterns that are going
up. There's tons of things that we look at. But truthfully, my performance is evaluated on many things, but as far as
measurable things, the thing that people really care about is the annual fund and the overall commitments number.
JB: What if any metrics do you feel should be added or subtracted from the evaluation of fundraisers?
SR: Alumni participation is the worst thing in the entire world for the industry. Tons of research has shown it is not
actually a meaningful representation of people’s feelings about their alma mater. That's what it's supposed to be, right?
US News & World Report years ago used that as an indicator of alumni satisfaction, and yet then much, much, much,
much, much research has been done to prove that you can have 70% of your alumni that are highly satisfied with their
educational experience and you have a 12% giving rating. It's not actually a reflection of alumni satisfaction.
It is true that people who are satisfied are more likely to give, but that's not the same thing. It's an impossible metric
to maintain, because universities keep growing and so the number of people you have in your alumni community
keeps getting bigger and so in order to keep your participation flat you actually have to secure gifts from more people.
But most importantly, what that metric does is it encourages fundraising programs to make transactional fundraising
a priority, because they're trying to get gifts of any size just to fill that bucket. It diverts energy from meaningful
stewardship and fundraising activity towards this very transactional kind of fundraising. You need days of giving and
things that you see.
They raise less money, they're less satisfying for the donor, and they focus on acquisition as opposed to retention. The
easiest person to get another gift from is someone who's already given. But they divert that energy and attention
because there's this constant race for getting more alumni to give. And with the exception of a very small number of
94

colleges and universities who have just had a culture of annual fund support for literally 60, 70 or 80 years, it's very
hard with the national trends. There's so much competition for those dollars. People are graduating with loans like
they never have. It's very, very hard to achieve success, and inevitably if you do, you're achieving it at the expense of
raising more dollars to support the institution.
You can tell I feel pretty strongly about that one.
JB: Do you think that there would be a way to establish gift utility as a metric, or how fundraisers are judged? Say if
someone got X number of restricted dollars, X number of strategic priority, X number of close to strategic priority?
SR: It's a really interesting question. I think you could come up with a way to do that, as long as the institution was ...
So the institution would have to be very clear about its priorities, so that you could label gifts. And you would also
have to make sure ... Well so let's start there.
I could see that being an interesting tool to sort of see what was happening in your fundraising program. It would be
really important though to not then ... This is true with all metrics and fundraising. These are humans that we're
measuring, not the fundraiser but the donors. So, you have two fundraisers with different portfolios of people, and
fundraiser A raises 80% useful gifts, high utility gifts. And fundraiser B raises 40% high utility gifts. You wouldn't
want to assume that fundraiser B was worse at raising high utility gifts, it might just have to do with who is in their
portfolio. So that would be my caution.
And the other thing that I would say is the people who are guilty of breaking the utility issue are usually deans and
presidents. It's common to be pressured, this is not the case with my president here which I'm very, very grateful for,
but it is common to be pressured by the president or a dean or a trustee, to accept a gift that the fundraiser might know
isn't ideal for the institution.
It's actually usually less about the designation for the gift and it's more about that the gift isn't sufficient to do what
the donor wants to do. So, we'll go back to the hockey rink example. The $5 million donor who wants to build a
hockey rink and the fundraiser might say, but we don't have enough other donors to get us the rest of the way, we don't
have 15 million more in other donors. But it's really enticing to accept that gift because it's a $5 million gift and that
seems like a lot of money. But most fundraisers I've worked with and who have worked for me, the majority of them
really understand that that gift isn't going to satisfy the donor or be good for the institution. But when the president
says you have to take it, you have to take it.
JB: So in general, fundraisers aren't making the final call on whether or not you can accept a major gift?
SR: No, unless it's for something that's just in one of the boxes that's been predefined. So, when you have a fundraising
campaign and the campaign says we're going to raise 100 million for scholarships, we're going to raise $50 million
for a new science building, we're going to raise $20 million for athletics, and we're going to raise $10 million for, I
don't know, a new foreign language institution. I'm making this up, but whatever that is. Then that's what the
fundraisers are focused on.
And when they have a donor who wants to do something else, they're going to come to their boss and say, "Hey, I
have a donor who wants to fund a chair in Japanese studies, do we want to chair in Japanese studies?" And in my case,
I would take that to the dean of the college and say, "Do you want a chair in Japanese studies?" And if the dean says
If the dean says no then we go back to the drawing board with the donor and we talk to them about other options. And
that's where we try to get creative. Like, "We don't need a chair in that Japanese studies, but we'd love an endowed
fund to help students study abroad in Japan." So, you come up with things that the institution does want that might
satisfy the donor in a different way.
And there's committees, there's gift acceptance committees that are comprised usually of someone from the finance
office, someone from the president's office, and someone from the advancement office. And then someone from the
academy, a dean or a provost or something that has to approve the acceptance of a gift that's way out of leftfield.
95

It's rare that fundraisers are going off the rails. It's more common that ... And it's the bigger the dollars, the harder it is
to turn away from. So it's easy for a president to refuse $100,000 for something the institution doesn't want, but when
a donor comes and says I want to give you $25 million to do this thing, that can be hard to turn away from. And the
ideal scenario is that, again, like I said, you sort of work creatively to guide them towards what you really need. It just
depends on the leader and the institution.
JB: Are major gift officers evaluated on an annual basis?
SR: Yes, they're evaluated annually, but you're typically looking at their performance over multiple years. Because
unlike the annual fund where you ask for the gift and you get the gift in the same year, the major gift officer typically
it's going to be an 18 to 36-month timeline from their first conversation to the yes or the signing of the document.
I've always asked for fundraisers to have a three-year plan. And obviously the next 12 months is more detailed than
the second 12 months, which is more detailed than the third 12 months. But every year they update that plan and go
out another year, so there's always three years in their plan. And so when you're evaluating them, you're sort of looking
at, okay, how have you moved the people in your portfolio. If you have 120 people in your portfolio, where were they
at the beginning of the year, where are they now, what did you say you planned to ask for and what did you ask for?
Of the things you asked for, what closed and what didn't close?
You look at all the data, and if they exceeded their goals, usually you're thrilled. If they didn't exceed their goals, then
you sort of go to the next level of data. Did you have enough visits, are you talking to the right people? Are you not
going to all the cities in your portfolio? And every organization has sort of different levels that they anticipate activity,
but it's pretty constant. It's not that different from one organization to the next.
But you can't just use the data, because like I said, these are humans. And if someone missed their goal because they
were really anticipating a gift of $2 million to come in and that gift didn't come in, and they could've done all the right
things and that person went through a divorce, or their company folded, or ... I mean there's just... 2008, the economy.
There's so many factors out of your control.
So, you start with the data but then the director of development has a really important job. That's the person that the
major gift officers report to. And it's his or her job to know the data and watch the data but also to dig into the
conversations and understand the narrative and make sure that they're supporting their effective fundraisers. And that
they're coaching their less effective fundraisers, and if coaching doesn't help them then they need to move on.
JB: Why do you think that fundraisers have less attachment to an organization compared to other staffs?
SR: Because the market will pay them dramatically more to leave. I mean there's very few places in higher education
where the market value of that job has just gone up and up and up. The labor shortage of fundraiser is acute. When I
get together in a room of other vice presidents, one of the big things we talk about is how to retain good people. How
to attract and retain good people in those roles.
JB: What can be done to try and get more qualified individuals interested in fundraising?
SR: It's a perennial issue. It's an excellent question. I think some institutions are having a lot of success with growing
their own. So higher education, you identify telefund students that we recruit to work for us as annual fund fundraisers.
And if you're a big enough organization, you can give someone a career path. It used to be, when I started in this field
20 years ago, no one who was working in the field, virtually no one who was working the field, started right after
college. They did something else for 10, 15, 20, sometimes 30 years before they came into fundraising work.
More and more people are learning about it. They're learning about it through student philanthropy groups, they're
learning about it through telefund programs. They're learning about it through working in an alumni office or working
as a student employee. So that's good.
96

I also think there's a stigma associated with fundraising that is hard to overcome. The story that I often tell is when I
go to a cocktail party and someone asks me what I do and I say, "I'm a fundraiser," they say, "Ew." Like literally. They
say, "Oh that's disgusting, I could never do that." We're not very good at branding our field. And what I say to them
in that conversation is, "Actually it's an amazing job. I get to be a part of the most generous act of a person's life." And
usually that takes them aback quite a bit, because it's about the donor, not about the fundraiser. But we just don't brand
ourselves well.
Fundraising has this really negative connotation because much of the fundraising that happens is arm twisting and
transactional and pressure. But that's not what major gift fundraising is. And it's not what good annual fund fundraising
is either. But we're our own worst enemy sometimes in the way we talk about ourselves.
But it is, it's a really tough issue. Because certainly the fact that the salaries are good is not enough or we would have
more people doing the work.
The other thing that I think we don't do as in industry is we don't train people well. So we hire someone who's never
done it before, and we give them the job, and we don't put them through like a year-long coaching and training
program. And one of the things that I am finding, and I don't know if there's research to support this yet, but I am
finding that sending them to a conference for major gifts is a waste of time. What you need to do is have someone be
coached routinely. So, meeting often with a coach from outside the organization.
I think a lot of people start in this business and decide that they don't like it and they go away. And if we invested a
little bit, we could help them to be more successful and help them like the work better.

Appendix F – Interview with John Crowe, Principal, Crowe Strategies
Jacob Blodgett: In general, what do you think the purpose of a nonprofit organization should be?
John Crowe: Well, I think it's to do some good for society, so broadly interpreted but if they have identified a societal
need I think that they’re often trying to do some good, make a better world, so simple as that.
JB: Describe the role of a fundraiser within a nonprofit.
JC: Well, I think a key position, a key staff position, that they're staffing the executive, staffing the board, providing
some direction over maybe staff, and their whole job is to fulfill the mission by bringing resources that allow the
mission to continue. So probably self-centered view of it from myself but I think it's a critical function that these
organizations obviously rely on philanthropic support and can't exist without it so, a critical staff function.
JB: What role should the fundraising department play in deciding the strategic roles of an organization?
JC: Well I think they have to be part of the table, that they have to calibrate that within the marketplace if you will,
are these directions that are supportable by philanthropy, so it begins to ... if an organization is considering new
ventures I think those have to be assessed as to their viability in the donor community. So again, they need to be at the
table.
JB: In general, do you think that fundraisers do get a seat at the table for those discussions?
JC: I think it varies widely, I think the more sophisticated and better run places obviously do that but there are others
who say this is what we need, go get it. Those are organizations that in my view don't do as well in the long-term
because they're creating sometimes unrealistic goals and the assumption that those people can be hired, staff can be
hired, and staff will accomplish that. To me this is again, a management function that involves the executive, it
involves the board, it involves the executive team, and it's a team sport not just hiring a lone ranger to come in and
achieve the needs of the organization.
97

JB: Do other departments understand the role of a fundraiser or what they do?
JC: Well I've worked in various places that did and various places that didn't. I think to me the best alliance that has
to take place is with the fundraiser and the chief financial officer. If the chief financial officer understands philanthropy
I think you're in a much better environment for that organization to succeed. So, I've worked in some, where the
financial officer is better than others but also worked in several, which where the financial really is good and they
understand the need for philanthropy, they support it, I think to support the function. At the same time understand that
critical point that not every need the organization has or wish they have is going to be achievable by philanthropy.
JB: What is your main priority when soliciting a gift or instructing someone to solicit a gift?
JC: Well I think it's mission alignment. Talking to the prospective donor, to help them understand the mission, help
them build allegiance with that mission and if they just ... if they don't believe in the education of young people well
there's not too much you can do about that, it's finding people who are predisposed to believe in your mission and
overlap their values with the values of the organization. Then I think going from there, showing them how they can
achieve the mission of the organization, which is aligned with their personal passions and to get that overlap in place.
JB: Are there situation where it would be appropriate to accept a gift that pulled an organization away from its mission
slightly?
JC: Well I would think not, at least that shouldn't be done, especially without full review by the executive and by the
board, but I mean there are gifts like that. I've seen an organization that takes a gift that will actually cost them money,
so they may take a million-dollar gift to do something, but the project is a five million-dollar project, so that has
changed their priorities maybe within the broader mission but changed their priorities going forward, now that they're
raising dollars for a specific project. So, I think one always has to be careful of that. I think the other piece is somebody
told me once upon a time – never take a gift unless you can figure out the report you're going to write in a year later.
So, has the achievable, a major gift I'm talking about but have the objectives been set in place so that both sides
understand what's going to be accomplished?
I think those are the two pitfalls, is taking a gift that the donor and the fundraiser or the organization are vague on the
outcomes of that gift and then the other part of that is taking a gift that pulls the organization in a different direction.
Usually those are subtle but they're still pulling them in and it's not like if your goal in life is to feed the homeless and
somebody gives you a gift to open a hospital, it's more like they're going to give you a gift to say ... I'm going to make
a gift to you and I want you to establish a new kitchen over in a different city and that indeed ends up costing much
more than the gift is providing and therefore you've got the fundraising team sort of spread thin raising on a different
priority basis.
JB: How difficult is it to turn down a donation?
JC: I don't think it's very hard, I mean I guess it is. The people, especially sometimes the executive or the board see
the dollar signs and want to brag about a big gift, but I think it's very easy to turn down. Again, if it's going to create
issues for the organization going forward they're only going to haunt you, the donor is going to get upset, the
organization is going to get upset, everybody's going to get ticked off at some point down the road when you take in
a gift where the outcomes are not deliberately described and agreed to.
JB: In general, who has the final say on whether or not to accept a major gift, is it someone in philanthropy or is it
usually the CEO, President, or the board?
JC: Well depending on the size of the gift and the nature of where that's taking us, I would say the board. I think the
board has legally the responsibility to accept all gifts, whether that's pro-forma or not is one thing but I think an astute
fundraising executive, or a CEO should be covering themselves with board involvement on this, especially if they're
looking like the potential for some pickle-ish nature down the road. It's one thing to accept an unrestricted gift and
everybody loves that but most gifts at a certain level begin to come with certain strings or conditions or expectations.
98

I think boards need to be aware of that and if I'm an executive at an organization I want everybody to know what I'm
doing just so it doesn't blow back on me 18-months from now.
JB: What strategies are fundraisers taught to negotiate with the donor to give to strategic priorities as opposed to
personal projects?
JC: Well that's a good question. I don't know who is taught but I think the first step is making sure the fundraisers
really are enmeshed in the organizations philosophies, goals, as well as priorities so that they kind of understand what's
going on there, sometimes they don't and that's a problem when the fundraiser is sort of well I'm working for this
organization so my job is to raise money and kind of this hired gun again. I think the good fundraisers are deeply
ingrained and passionate about the organizations they're working for and absorb a lot, I mean they're out talking to the
people who are delivering service and they have a good feel for where the organization is headed and the subtleties of
that. So, I think that allows them to simply say this is what we're good at, this is not what we're good at. To consider
expansion at this point in time is maybe not a good idea, we're still building our own program.
JB: How do organizations get people to be passionate about their mission?
JC: Well I think most of fundraising is communications and not asking for money, I think it's through all the various
media and involvement we can pull together you know, whether it's through enlightened communications, targeted
communications, personalized communications, visits, phone calls, obviously the desirable thing is always to get the
donor out seeing the delivery of service, whether that's a college or soup kitchen or whatever. So that they can see
first-hand, maybe even talk to the recipients of that service, but I think it is a total program and those need to be
planned, those need to be… you know you probably heard about the various steps in fundraising and moves
management and all of that and I think that sort of determination through a variety of moves brings people and educates
them so that the passion is aligning with the checkbook at that point and they're ready to make a gift.
JB: What metrics are major gift officers usually judged on?
JC: Well they're usually judged on the amount that's brought in the last quarter, which is probably unfair and there
needs to be a broader set of metrics that really measures activity and not just dollars in the door in the last three-
months. Many organization are, and it’s true of for-profit business too, are too short-term focused, so a broader set of
metrics that look at activity prospects, identified the various moves that are taking place, bringing people along,
attendance at events, all those types of broader spectrum of metrics. That is what supervisors and boards should be
looking at. As I always tell people this is development, it's not fundraising, development is development of
relationships, fundraising is putting on the raffle or the dinner or whatever but here we're developing relationships
long-term and so those are not going to be seen every quarter in the gift totals, it's going to go up and down.
JB: Can you describe the pros and cons of providing bonuses to fundraisers based on reaching a monetary goal?
JC: I've never worked in one of those situations, so it was always viewed as ... I guess the word is unprofessional, I
don't know, it was viewed as ... it wasn't viewed as favorably. I know those are becoming more common ... so I don't
know much about them but if I had a view and somebody was going to put those on I'd be sure they were ... whoever
was doing these bonuses was smart enough to really assess the right things that are happening for the long-term success
of the program. I think bonuses require a long-term view of the organization if one is going to use them. I guess I'm
not a big advocate of them.
JB: Turnover has been a big problem in fundraising for decades, why do you think that fundraisers have less attachment
to organizations than other staff?
JC: Well some of this, I always hear that from executives and I throw it back at them and I say what's the turnover
like of executives? I mean most fundraisers are hired really as part of the personal staff of the executive, whether it's
the president or whatever, so oftentimes you will see changing in executives as well. That's the first step and so here
comes so and so, brings in their new staff, two years later that person has left, well guess what, the staff is going to
start moving too. The other part is really I think a two-way street of aligning the expectations and being clear on both
99

sides, what the expectations are. I see too many organizations hire people who really are bad fits and the converse of
that, I've seen too many fundraisers who apparently aren't smart enough to figure out what organization they can help
and be successful in.
Sometimes they don't know that aspect of the charitable work and sometimes the charity is on the skids already and
it's going to be hard to turn it around. So, I think it's those two factors, the churn in management is one and then the
people are not hired smartly. Too many people take jobs without being too smart about that either, so you know, 18-
months later there's a parting of company. The third part is, I don't know if that's happening as much anymore, but
people who are willing to move to new places for a pittance raise but the sort of assumption was they were going to
be happier at the next place. So, I think those are some of the factors that get involved in this turnover.
Again, the turnover is skewed and if you've got a lot of people changing a lot of time and a lot of people who are there
for a long time, so on average ... I mean the case information years ago was on average people changed jobs every 18-
months but what they also built into that was that people change jobs within an organization, so they got promoted or
they got moved to another part, so I think that's a misleading statistic but at the same time there still isn't enough
loyalty as there should be to organizations.
JB: Okay, what can organizations do to build more loyalty, besides increasing pay or benefits?
JC: There’s usually these pro-forma legalistic job descriptions but they really never describe what the job is all about,
and so I think having much smarter hiring practices, describing what they want, and really trying to find people who
have an alignment to their mission would be the first step. Then I think the second step is to bring people into the
organization. Too many fundraising offices are off site, they're not part of where the other executives are or where the
services are being delivered. Then the fundraisers given goals to you know, go out and scare up this money. I think
the successful people, successful organizations are going to do a better job of hiring …finding the right people, and
then a better job of retaining them once they're there instead of putting them in an offsite facility and sending over the
new goals each month.
JB: In terms of besides just physically moving them away from these outside facilities, what can organizations do to
incorporate fundraisers more into the organization community?
JC: Some of that's encouraging the management, either the executive encouraging the chief fundraiser and the chief
fundraiser encouraging his staff, but to be out there walking the campus, walking the hospital floors, visiting with
people, I think the people who are good are people who are out there on the floor and not locked up in their office and
I think that behavior needs to be encouraged.
I said something about retention before. I think the executives really need to be looking at how they retain fundraisers
and how they get them excited about the organization, that it's not all salary and you know, salaries are all about the
same when you get down to it. So, it's how do they retain their fundraisers, keep them passionate about the
organization.
JB: How do you get faculty and other staff to buy into having a good relationship with philanthropy and talking to
major donors?
JC: Right, right. Well you don't need many, you don't need everyone, first of all I think some people try to figure out
where they're going to get 100 percent buy in. I need about 10 percent buy in and the right people in that 10 percent.
There are in every organization people who are passionate and verbal and want to talk about what they do and I think
it's about finding those folks, whether they are doctors or academics or service deliverers and bringing them into your
confidence and your team and utilizing them. I think it's finding those passionate people who can speak about the
organization in that organization. I think it fires us up as fundraisers but also taking them out strategically to meet with
potential donors is wonderful, often better than the CEO or other people. In every organization I've been in I try to
find those people.
100

At a university you'd try to find some of those well regarded, respected professors who are still keeping contact
information on their students and staying in touch and sort of running their own personal alumni program and trying
to get within their good graces and utilizing them as an advocate and these are people who have a long term career
commitment to the organization and so I think they welcome a fundraiser who's willing to spend time on those key
pieces
JB: Do you think that fundraisers intuitively understand the concept of gift utility or are they taught about it?
JC: They don't intuitively understand that, I think that that's a concept that's not understood by fundraisers or the
executives, or even sometimes the financial people, much less the board. It's a concept I've tried to bring home to
people in even my consulting, be careful what you raise money for. So, there's one side that says well we want all of
our gifts unrestricted. Well, that isn't going to happen so the next side is to make sure that those restrictions are aligned
with budget relief and are not costing any additional dollars like we talked about before, that somebody will make a
significant gift, but it ends up costing money. Like I said it's not a bad idea, it just costs you money, so there are lots
of stories of people wandering into these things and I hope people are getting smarter but can't really say that.
JB: Is there a way to quantify gift utility and make it a part of the evaluation process for major gifts fundraisers?
JC: Probably in some manner. I mean that's moving to the financial side, I think that's having a good relationship with
the financial people and hopefully the financial people are smart enough, but indeed if somebody is making a gift in
aligned areas to really cost that out. I think there is usually the rush to count the gift and you know, worry about the
details tomorrow but the details can hurt you significantly. I mean sure there should be if somebody is taking off in a
new program direction, there should be some way to do a financial pro-forma on what that's going to cost over five
years and to figure out how that's going to be paid for.
JB: How can fundraisers, or anyone, start to explain the need to think strategically about which gifts need to be taken,
which gifts need to be turned down?
JC: Well I think part of that is that the organization can better describe it's operating budget and what's entailed in that
and then I think the fundraisers working with the financial people to break out somewhat restricted elements of that,
so if the delivery is specific service, its specific function, and then for the fundraisers to really talk to the donors about
the critical need of that. If not unrestricted, which I think unrestricted always sounds like a slush account someplace
and so I think donors want to see where their dollars are going, at the same time most donors want their gifts to have
a direct impact on the current organization, they're not all bent on changing it. I think working to define gift
opportunities that relieve the operating budget is the first priority and that gets to your benefit ration and then I think
if there's gifts that come in that are off of those described current priorities, they need to be considered not by the
fundraiser but by the executive and probably the board depending on the size or the impact. I think the first priority
again is to define gifts that relieve pressure on the operation budget.

Appendix G – Interview with Shirley Peppers, Director of Principle Gifts, Harvard University
Jacob Blodgett: In general, what is the purpose of a nonprofit organization?
Shirley Peppers: That's a really broad question. The purpose I think, and this is off the top of my head because I've
never thought about it in such broad terms, I think it ought to be to deal with some issue that is in the public good that
isn't being properly addressed by other individuals or by the government.
That doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed by the government. I think a lot of things that we're being asked to
contribute now, like things for veterans, veterans should not have to go begging. I just think that's terrible, that we
have to figure out ways for nonprofits to help veterans, for instance, get mental healthcare after going to fight for us
in wars. Whether you agree with the war or not, and most of the wars we've been in recently I do not agree with, but
people go and fight in them. They come back. The country should take care of them. They should not have to rely on
the whim of individuals, but that's a whole other discussion.
101

JB: Describe the role of a fundraiser within a nonprofit organization.
SP: I think there are different roles depending on the organization. The ones that I have worked for full-time, which
are all universities and really only three, Harvard, Stanford, and UCLA, the role of a fundraiser is twofold, or threefold
really. One is to build the relationship between the donor or the prospective donor and the organization for the long
term. The second one is to help the donor decide on making gifts to the institution that are in the best interests of the
institution.
The third one is to be a responsible solicitor towards the donor. For instance, I've had some experience in things like
gift planning. I have on occasion turned down gifts when somebody has been overly enthusiastic, or maybe getting a
little bit old and the relationship with the fundraiser or with the institution was so important to them personally that
they might be making decisions that were not in their own best interest. I think the fundraiser has a responsibility to
donors as well as to the institution not to take or encourage gifts that are not in the best interest of the donor.
It's building relationships, raising money – money for short-term interests and for long-term interests. The relationship
really is for the long-term interest of the institution. You don't want to push somebody towards a $10,000 gift in a way
that would alienate them from possibly considering a $1 million gift a year or two down the road.
JB: Does organizational leadership understand when you do turn down gifts, either because it's not in the donor's best
interest or in the institution's best interest?
SP: I think that probably varies from organization to organization, and I think it's different depending on how big and
how solid the organization is. I think that if you are a small, local food bank or homeless shelter, and you don't have
a lot of big donors, and you are living hand to mouth, it's very difficult to turn down a gift even if it isn't exactly what
you want. A lot of very small organizations have one or two main donors who support them, and the rest they're really
dependent on very small gifts. That's really very labor-intensive.
I think it makes a difference what kind of organization you are. If I'm running a small drug rehab center or something,
it's much harder for me to turn down a $100,000 gift if the person has some terms on it that I don't like, or I think are
not in our best interest long-term, but we're going to not be able to pay the rent if we don't take this gift, that's a much
more difficult situation than if somebody wants to give Harvard $100,000, say, for scholarship support. Everybody
actually would have to turn this gift down, if it was only for people of a particular ethnic group or something. You'd
have to turn that down, but if they were, I don't know, requiring some elaborate contest that people had to go through
to qualify for the money, so that your staff ends up spending all their time administering this gift rather than doing the
fundamental work of the organization. I don't know if that makes any sense.
I think it's easier for UCLA to say, "You want to give us $250,000, but you want us to spend $100,000 of it on a
fountain that we don't want, don't need, don't have a place for, and we're in a drought? We're going to have to turn this
gift down unless you take that restriction off." If I have a little halfway house that I'm funding and somebody says, "I
want you to put in," I don't know what, "a fountain, and I'll give you $150,000, and 50,000 of it has to be spent on the
fountain," that's a complete waste of time and money for them, but they're probably going to have to take it anyway.
JB: What strategies are fundraisers taught to move donors toward giving to organizational priorities? So instead of the
fountain, getting them to donate directly toward a program that needs funding.
SP: I think part of it is simply getting to know them and getting them involved in the organization in a straightforward
way. Again, this depends on the size of the organization, letting them see the work that you're doing, giving them
some understanding of how gifts are used, being pretty clear early on when things first start to come up, the kinds of
things that you need to do and the kinds of things that you don't need to do. I think the biggest part of that is building
a clear and honest relationship with the donor.
JB: Do fundraisers usually have a final say in accepting a gift, or is that a committee, or someone such as the CEO or
president?
102

SP: I think that really again ... I don't mean to be waffling, but it really I think varies based on the organization. If a
gift gets all the way to the point where lots of people are involved in stuff, at Harvard, we have a gift review committee.
They look at any big gifts that are designated to see whether we can take them or not. Obviously, we don't take
anything that's illegal. We don't take anything that we think is going to detract from our fundamental goals.
I can, early on in a discussion, if somebody wants to do something that is in clear violation of what we're trying to do,
I can say, "No, we don't do that," but there's a lot of stuff that's in a gray area. We have a gift review policy. I think in
smaller organizations, it's probably the CEO or the executive director that makes those decisions. If you're a small
nonprofit, you are not going to have a committee for this, and a committee for that, and a group for this, and a director
of that. You're going to have an executive director, and if you're lucky, you've got one full-time fundraiser working
on big gifts, and somebody else doing membership and the annual fund, if you're a small organization, so it just really
varies.
JB: What can smaller organizations do to institute a checks and balance process to make sure that gifts are keeping
them moving toward their mission?
SP: I think making clear what the mission is and making clear what the money is going to be used for. Any money
that comes in, and that the whole staff, because in really small organizations, I think a lot of people play the role of
fundraiser, whether they're a fundraiser or not, that everybody really understands what kind of money you'll take and
what kind of money you will not take, and that everybody's clear from the first interactions with a potential donor. It's
less damaging to the relationship if the conversation can be pulled back on track very early on, for somebody's made
a big commitment or gone out on a limb wanting to do something. I think just having the whole staff, and the voluntary
committees too, have them really understand what the purposes are, what you will do and what you will not do, and
what you're trying to accomplish. The other thing is, have a clear path for if something comes up that seems really
ambiguous to you, who do you go to, to talk about it?
JB: How do organizations teach their fundraisers about the mission and the work being done to accomplish that
mission?
SP: Part of it is just in the mission statement and how the organization is set up. During the hiring process, assuming
people are being hired and fundraising is part of their responsibility or their whole responsibility, that's got to be clear,
big organizations usually have training programs. They bring in people to talk about different aspects of the career
and of the organization, making sure that the fundraisers themselves have a clear understanding and a commitment to
the organization.
Fundraising, unlike some jobs ... I helped put myself through college doing retail, which I really liked. Whenever I
get really annoyed with my work or something, I think, "I was a very good shoe salesman," but I don't have a moral
commitment to shoes. I can sell shoes because I like shoes and it's fun, but for fundraisers, I think in order to be
particularly good at your job, and to keep clear what you're trying to aim for, you need to have a commitment to the
cause and to the institution.
It’s different now, because people really move around so much more. It's a little bit more difficult, I think, for
fundraisers to commit to one place and stay there. I think if you have that kind of commitment, then part of what that
goes along with is believing in the cause. That's going to help a lot with your training. It's going to be something you're
interested in. It's something you're committed to.
That's very difficult for really small organizations. A place like USC, or Stanford, or Loyola, or Harvard, those places
you can build a career there, because you don't have to be in the same job all the time. A very small local nonprofit,
unless you have somebody in your family has had this particular problem or something and you're totally committed
to it, there's not much place to go in terms of career advancement, whereas if you're at a big university, there are a lot
of different kinds of jobs. You can move up, and you can do different things.
JB: What can nonprofits do to ensure that they're hiring people who are committed to the cause and also the
organization?
103

SP: Part of it, obviously, is if you could find somebody who's really committed to the cause, but that's difficult to
know up front, because everybody's going to say they're committed, and they may even feel committed. You could be
committed to the cause, but the organization is not a good fit for you, or the boss is crazy, or you just work for
somebody and go, "Oh my God, I've got to get out of here." It's a big question.
JB: Once somebody is hired in an organization, what can the organization do to keep them satisfied within their job?
SP: I think there's a few things. Continuing training is important, both about being a fundraiser and, for a small
organization, you might not be able to do internal training. Even at Harvard, we have a full training staff internally,
but we also send people to conferences, and sponsor them to take courses, and things like that so that they are
continuing to learn, both because it's good for them but also because it's good for Harvard.
Secondly, if it's a big enough organization, part of what you want to do is make sure that you're clear with people that
there are paths for progress, personal advancement, learning new skills, getting promoted, maybe working on some
other kinds of things. If the organization is one that is providing a particular kind of service that might be interesting
... I don't know. If it's a drug rehab thing, it may not apply as much, but if it's an arts organization or something, there
are benefits that you can give people there. You get to meet artists. You get to see what the curators do. You get to
see art restoration, all these different kinds of things. You involve those people in the work of the organization.
One of the things that can happen sometimes is that particularly people just starting out, you can get a little bit of
disdain directed at you from other members of the organization, like, "Oh, you're just a fundraiser." It can be a little
bit demoralizing if you aren't really self-confident about what you do. I think it's important that the organization make
the fundraiser feel like a full partner in achieving the goals of the organization. I think that is one of the really
fundamental things so that people can feel really valued and feel like what they're doing is central to the success of
the place.
JB: Do you think that other departments understand the role of fundraisers?
SP: Again, it varies. I wouldn't say it's departments. It's probably people. There are people that I have worked with for
25 years at Harvard. They understand my role, I understand their role, and they appreciate the work that we do as
fundraisers. Some faculty members don't. Some faculty really look down on fundraisers as just a necessary evil, and
that the fundraising they do is a necessary thing they have to do. They don't want to do it, that kind of thing. I think it
varies from person to person. The more somebody understands it and is involved to a certain degree, then the more
they appreciate it. They sometimes look down on the fundraisers, but they never look down on the money. I think that
they don't always understand the importance of the function.
JB: Are fundraisers encouraged to try and get out into the field, meet with professors, attend lectures, sit in on classes,
so that they understand what's going on within the organization?
SP: Yes. When I lived in Boston and worked for Harvard, I was also a freshman advisor, and that's a useful thing, get
involved in a house, or sit in on classes. I think that's a good thing to do and that people are encouraged to do it. It's
hard to fit it in. You have so much stuff going on, but the involvement with students in particular was especially
gratifying.
JB: What metrics are you judged on in your position?
SP: My position is unusual. When you've been around so long, I'm really judged on what my donors do. For instance,
I'm no longer in the thing where I have to have this many visits a month or things like that. I'm beyond that because
I'm just working with a few very big donors.
Normally, the kinds of things that you judge people or the metrics you have to meet are certain numbers of visits, not
necessarily amounts of money raised but you've got to show some progress towards that. I think since 1984, I haven't
been focused on anything below $100,000, and the last 10 or 12 years haven't been focused on anything below $10
104

million. Some of those gifts take a long time to bring in. Generally, for fundraisers you've got to see a certain number
of people per month or per year. You need to get a certain number of asks out. You need to maybe partner with some
colleagues and that kind of thing.
My cynical answer, and it's actually not that cynical, but my real answer is, if you raise enough money, and that varies
from place to place, if you raise enough money that is really focused on what the organization is trying to do, nobody
cares about any of the other metrics. If you have one visit a year but it's a $100 million visit, you're fine. That's not
happening, but you know?
JB: What if any metrics do you feel should be added or subtracted to the evaluation of major gifts fundraisers?
SP: I think again it really varies from organization to organization. If you are at a small organization and your title is
basically external relations, and you're running the events, and you're running fundraising, and you're a one-person
show, then you've got one set of metrics which is basically money raised, and how many people attended your gala,
and those kinds of things. That could be defined as major gifts. Major gifts are defined all sorts of ways, depending
on what kind of organization you're in. If you're at a university, it's a different set.
JB: Can you describe the pros and cons of providing bonuses to fundraisers based on reaching a monetary goal?
SP: I think it's a very bad thing. I don't have any pros for that. The major con is that it can compromise somebody's
moral approach if they're getting paid based on how much money they bring in. That's a bad thing for them. It's a bad
thing for the organization. For the organization, it's really bad because it encourages people to sacrifice long-term
goals for short-term goals.
It's a very complicated moral set of decisions you have to make about particular kinds of gifts. We were talking before
about gifts that are not directly related to the core goal of the organization. If you're getting paid based on how much
money you're going to bring in, you're going to be a lot less picky about that than you would be if you just had a
straight salary. I don't really have too much against somebody getting a general small bonus for really good behavior
or good whatever, but that shouldn't be tied to how much money you raise. It should be an organization where people
all over the organization could get bonuses for various things, but none of it should be tied to how much you raise, I
don't think. I do want to emphasize that the main detriment to the organization is you get people going for short-term
benefits at the expense of long-term stability and viability.
JB: What kind of oversight could be put in place to make sure that major gifts officers are going for that long-term
relationship as opposed to pressuring a donor maybe to give now?
SP: I think that's a training issue, and from two sides. The goals have to be set in a reasonable, realistic way so that
you're not asking people to do things that really are not possible without bending the rules or whatever, and you have
to really train people so that they understand how you want them to behave as fundraisers. I don't know what the
specifics would be. Part of it is what your manager is coaching you to do, and you should be being coached. One thing
we haven't talked about is ongoing coaching and mentoring is really important. It's also, however, easier in bigger
organizations.
It's almost two different sets of criteria for things if you're a really small organization, because you just don't have the
resources for some of the things that I'm recommending, because you've got three people trying to do the whole thing,
and it just is too hard, too unpredictable. I think training, clear guidelines laid out, somebody new partnering with
somebody who's been around for a little while, if they have the resources to do that in the organization. I think those
are useful things. Doing some things like going to conferences and talking in a very open way about some of the
ethical questions.
JB: What kind of pressure is someone who's just starting out under to hit a monetary goal?
105

SP: I think that again really varies. Say it's a small organization, they need you to raise $100,000, and they can't make
their budgets without that, but they don't have ... Part of the difficulty with some of these really small things is they
don't have a built-in constituency. If you're working for a university or a hospital, there are people, either grateful
patients or former students, who you have a group to go to. If it's some relatively new nonprofit, then you've got to
create a constituency or at least figure out who they are. It depends on where you are in that process whether it's even
reasonable to expect somebody to raise a significant amount of money.
How lenient some organization is going to be about that really depends. If you're the only fundraiser and you don't
make your goals, particularly if you don't do it two years in a row and you're not showing significant, like if you
reached 25% the first year and 80% the next year, then they might say, "Okay, we're on the right path." If they can
even stay open. That's the other thing. If it's a really small place, they have to have that money.
There could be a lot of reasons you don't make it. As you mentioned, it could not be your fault at all. How lenient? If
we hire a new class officer at Harvard and they don't do so well their first year, it's not catastrophic, but if I'm a small
little neighborhood food bank or something, it could be. Usually they don't have a separate fundraiser. The executive
director or somebody else is doing the fundraising. How lenient they should be and how lenient they can be depends
on their situation, depends on whether you just didn't do your job and that's why you didn't raise the money, or you
did everything you should have done, and you did it reasonably, and you're a reasonable person, and the money's not
coming in. Then there's a bunch of other questions, only some of which relate to the efficacy of the fundraiser. You
may be working on something that's a real problem but it's not that important to anybody else, so maybe people just
aren't going to support you because they've got other things they want to spend their money on.
If you're working for someplace that is somewhat established, then people are going to be lenient in relation to whether
it looks like you have the basic talent and you just need a little more time, whether the prospects are there, whether
you've done your job, you've actually done everything that you're supposed to be doing, that kind of thing. It really is
going to vary.
JB: What are some of the ethical dilemmas that arise for fundraisers in terms of soliciting and accepting gifts?
SP: One of them is who is giving the money. There are issues if somebody is an unsavory character. You don't really
want to take money from a drug lord. You don't want to take money from somebody who has a super questionable
reputation, because it might besmirch your own reputation. People do take money from convicted felons. Look at
Michael Milton and people like that, somebody who has paid their debt to society, and they're trying to make amends
by doing well. Whether I feel how I feel about somebody personally and what they're doing, I wouldn't turn down a
gift probably from somebody like that, but my cynical part of me is like, "They're just trying to rehabilitate their
reputation. They don't really care," but that's not really for me to judge. There are certain kinds of people who have
done certain kinds of things. You would not want to take money from a pedophile, even if they'd gone to jail, and
they'd served their time, and they'd gone through therapy and everything. You still wouldn't want that name associated
with your organization, I don't think. On some of those, you start to get into a murky area where different people have
different feelings.
JB: If a major gifts officer was approached with a gift that they felt was unethical or didn't further the organization's
mission, and they dismissed it out of hand, would organizational leadership support that decision?
SP: Unless somebody was proposing something that was flat-out illegal, I would always run it back up the channels
really to cover yourself. You don't want to turn down a $1 million gift because it feels a little fishy to you, but you
don't have anything. If you have something really concrete, and even then if you say, "I turned this down. So and so
called me, and they wanted to do this and blah blah blah, and I turned it down. This is exactly what they proposed." I
would do it all in writing. Depending on the organization, I might say to the donor, "I'm not sure we can do that. Let
me double check and get back to you."
This I don't think is limited to fundraising or anything else. If you're lower down in the organization, or even near the
top but not the top, if you're going to do anything that you think might be controversial, and I'm not an especially
cautious person, but that kind of thing I would make sure that I had crossed all my t’s and dotted all my i’s in the
106

process. If you call me up and you were somebody whose company was being sued for something, and you wanted to
make a gift, say, to the business school that, I don't know, might be in the area where you were being sued, if I'm the
fundraiser, I'd say, "I'm not sure we can do that right now, but let me check and get back to you." Then I would go and
say, "So and so, this is what they want to do, and my inclination is to say no, but I want to verify that with you." I
would do that in writing.
Again, as I say, that's really partially to protect the fundraiser, too, because whenever money's involved, as you know,
people can get very funny.
JB: Do you ever help steer donors toward a different organization to better meet their philanthropic goals, and does
leadership understand when someone would connect someone with another organization?
SP: Yeah. I'm trying to think of an example when I've actually done that, but again, it varies from the organization. If
somebody wanted to do something that was just slightly off mission but that would help us indirectly, and I was
running a small nonprofit or part of it might help and part of it wouldn't, then I might have a different response.
On the other hand, if you can help the donor find a better way to use that money, and I'd say this especially if it's one
of your regular donors. If somebody comes to you and says, "I really want to do this thing, which isn't exactly what
you do, but I really want to give you guys my money," then you can say, "This isn't what we do, and it's not enough
to fully fund the activity anyway, so it would in fact take away from what we do, but here's a group that's really doing
what you want to do. We want you to stay with us, and there's some other things that you might be interested in that
this money could be used for." You go back and forth. "If you really want to do this and you need to do it, this is a
place that is a good place to do it." I would definitely do that, and I think some fundraisers would do it.
Some places would try to contort themselves into doing it with the hope that then the donor would give them other
money. That almost never works. What happens is they got you to do that, and then they think, "Well, maybe they can
do this," as opposed to focusing on what the organization does. If it really wasn't in line with what my organization
did, I would try to steer them someplace else. I also think that in the long run, with most honorable donors, not
somebody who's just trying to manipulate you, but with most honorable donors, that will pay off in the long term, both
for the organization and for your personal relationship with that donor.

Appendix H – Interview with Mitchel Spearman, Director of Principal Gifts, University of
Texas at Austin
JB: What do you believe the purpose of a nonprofit organization should be?
Mitchell Spearman: To advance a set of ideals that are easily identifiable with measurable results.
JB: Describe the role of a fundraiser within a nonprofit organization.
Mitchell: A fundraiser in a nonprofit organization wears many hats. Often, they are the cheerleader, they are the
creative, and they are the revenue generator. From a cheerleading standpoint, they're out in the community. They're
knocking on doors. They're making new relationships. They're inspiring others.
They're often the creative because they're working with program directors, faculty, they're working with executive
directors who have administrative experience but may not have vast fundraising experience. So, they're carrying the
message that they're hearing from out in the community back and bottling those things up for ideas. And helping a
program director, often, take a good idea and make it marketable for the third hat that they wear, which is the revenue
generator. And whether that's through a one-on-one ask, whether that's a creative fundraising drive, whether that is
corporate partnerships, the fundraiser is constantly thinking of new ways to bring in new sources of support for that
nonprofit organization.
JB: What role should the fundraising department play in deciding the strategic goals of an organization?
107

Mitchell: You know, this is a fine line. I just experienced this myself working with three faculty at Texas. I am not an
expert in program delivery. That is not my expertise. But what I can help do with these faculty, and this is what I get,
is challenge them on how they talk about it. What the results are. Reminding them of things that may be important to
donors. Donors really love impact and success stories. That's something that really, really resonates with donors.
Especially donors that are entrepreneurs themselves. They want to see impact.
And so of course I may have an idea that I raise, but I absolutely understand that the fundraiser is not delivering
programmatic work. But it's my job in the strategic planning and the strategic visioning process to ask questions on
how we are messaging this, here are things donors have supported in the past, here are areas where I think could be
more difficult for philanthropic support. So perhaps there are other ways to fundraise for it or perhaps we raise excess
from one area to help pay for a new idea. But it is reminding them of the narrative that must be told in order to inspire
philanthropy and support.
JB: Overall, do you think that fundraisers are brought in enough on conversations like that when organizations are
deciding their priorities?
Mitchell: Not early enough. Often fundraisers get pulled in towards the end when ideas have reached the point when
they're pretty fleshed out. Where ideas may even have already created excitement on the programmatic side, especially
in higher-ed. So, the hopes and dreams of faculty, whether that was for a new capital project or for a new faculty chair,
the faculty would be so excited about it and then when fundraisers were brought in to discuss the feasibility of this
idea, the project had to be scaled back. And it's kind of like taking things off of a Christmas wish list after Christmas
has already occurred, you know? The faculty may believe that they can have ten labs when the feasibility that a
fundraiser is able to shine light on may only be five labs. So, it automatically becomes disappointment for the faculty.
I think from day one. Day one. If an idea or a plan is hatched, a fundraiser should be in the room. Now, the fundraiser
may say, "This is a fantastic idea. I want to take this and do some feasibility work just to assess if there's donor support.
Give me a month or two and I'm going to come back. That may be enough for this programmatic work on the side to
begin as well, in earnest. But at some point, the feasibility, has to mesh with the programmatic cost.
I know this is a roundabout way, a long story of saying, often times, no. The fundraisers are brought in too late and
the idea's been hatched and then they have to walk things back. Which leads to, once again, disappointment and
disillusionment. And I believe that fundraisers, just as I said early on, a fundraiser's a cheerleader both internal and
external.
A fundraiser can inspire internally and say, "Listen, we need to take this programmatic idea and expand it because
donors are itching for more of this." That is a huge pat on the back for whoever's directing that initiative or managing
that aspect of the nonprofit's work. And so, the fundraiser really can help finesse the good and expand the good to
where can become amazing. But if they're excluded until the very end, then they're fundraising for a set of ideas that
may not be backed up by reality of potential funders.
JB: How do organizations incorporate the fundraising staff into the overall organizational community, getting them to
work with other departments or to work with, in your case, professors or researchers?
Mitchell: Well it's a seat at the table. You know, access, whether it's higher education or whether it's a nonprofit,
access is the name of the game. And if in a director's meeting, let's use a small nonprofit for example. If a small
nonprofit has a meeting and every week the executive director of the nonprofit or let's say a dean of a college. The
Dean of the College of Engineering has a meeting and all of the direct reports are there and they're reporting out.
And at the very bottom and at the very end of the list is fundraising. Sometimes they get to it and sometimes they
don't. Sometimes the fundraiser gets to speak, sometimes they don't. That sends the message that everything else is
more important than fundraising. Now, feeding the elderly, helping disadvantaged youth, serving endangered animals,
whatever that may be, those are important things and I'm not saying the fundraiser trumps that.
108

But if the director or the dean says, "You know what? We didn't get to fundraising this week and we didn't get to it
last week. So, at our next meeting, we're going to spend the first half of the meeting on fundraising." That sends a
message to every program director, program manager, or associate dean or department chair in a college by saying,
"Fundraising's important, and it's not always the last thing on the list."
In the onboarding process, when a fundraiser joins a team, or a fundraiser has a new role, the nonprofit should make
sure that the fundraiser goes through a boot camp. I don't care if it's a college or university. The fundraiser should
spend the first two, three, four weeks of the job learning everything possible. Sitting down with the magical professors
that inspire. Understanding the true geniuses.
The same thing with the fundraiser at a small nonprofit. They need to be out in the field seeing how the product or the
program is delivered so they can say from day one that they've experienced and witnessed it. And that builds a bridge,
because one of the, I think, most important questions a fundraiser can ask is "Tell me what you do and tell me how I
can help you." And that's the program delivery person, that's the associate dean, or that's that hotshot young faculty
member that's getting lots of money from the National Science Foundation.
And so, the executive director, the dean, whoever the leader of the organization or school, has to provide access,
encourage access, and make it a tip-top priority for the fundraiser to begin building relationships. That's what we're
good at. That's one of the hats we wear, relationship building. We'll learn as much as we can, but we've got to be given
that access from day one. And that sets the tone for a really successful partnership between the fundraiser and those
program managers or associate deans or department chairs.
JB: Do you think other departments within an organization understand the role of fundraising?
Mitchell: I think a fundraiser has to teach a little bit. You know, it's easy for someone in HR to not get what a fundraiser
does. They go to parties, they go to balls, it's the same thing in the business office, you know?
When I turn in receipts from a fancy dinner in the Silicon Valley or having had some fancy meal in New York City,
it's easy for somebody in the accounting office to say, "What is this?" You know, "Mitchell's had a three-day trip to
New York City and what ... all he's done is eat fancy ... " you know, "What a job. What an easy job." Well, the
fundraiser needs to partner both with those program managers as well as the back-office folks.
Because whether it is one lunch and learn type situation, where the fundraiser does a back office lesson on the role of
fundraising and how long it actually takes to cultivate a relationship and the steps necessary to move someone from
that first discovery visit on to go to putting a proposal in front of them. How long that actually takes, and the steps and
the thoughts.
I think it's important sometimes to have people sit in on strategy sessions. If there's three big donors for the nonprofit
that they're going to go to for a million dollars’ worth of support in the coming year, I think sometimes it's helpful for
the director of HR or the director of the business office to sit in on the meeting with the executive director. Not because
they're going to be chiming in with ideas, but they may. They may have an idea. But more importantly, it shows the
professionalism that the fundraiser has for moving someone forward. And that there's both art and science to what we
do.
But I think that the fundraiser must understand that often, they are the person, just as I said with those three hats,
they're the one out in the community, they're the one traveling. Those other folks come to the office, they go to their
cubicle, they're in their office, you know, 8:00 to 5:00, 8:00 to 5:30. And so when somebody's jetting off to New York
City, you know, it's easy to assume that, "Wow, they've got a glamorous job." When they see the art and science of
what's going into what's actually moving the relationship forward, there's some professional respect. The same thing
for the fundraiser to learn what the other people do.
JB: What about people in charge of programs, like professors. Do they understand the role of fundraisers?
109

Mitchell: Well I mean, look, there's not a Ph.D. program in the country on the science side of the house that has a
fundraising class. Certainly, you can go get your Ph.D. in philanthropy, you can get your graduate work at Indiana
University and some other great schools around the country. But when somebody's moving up through the ranks of
academia, they may understand grant writing, but nowhere during their doctoral program at the University of Michigan
did they ever take a fundraising class.
So often they're hungry to learn too. Now, for two purposes. Number one because what they're doing is important and
they want to generate philanthropic support, but two, many of these rising stars in the faculty want to become
department chairs, associate deans, deans, and some even rise to the level of provost or college or university president.
So, they're hungry to learn.
So many faculty that I've encountered at Arkansas, at Drexel, at Occidental, and now at University of Texas have very
little fundraising experience but they're hungry to learn. They want to understand strategy they want to understand the
role they play. When they can be helpful and when they can't.
Now, they understand that their primary job is to do groundbreaking research, to teach great kids, to continue writing
and publishing. It is not their job to manage the relationship. That is my job. But my job is also to be an air traffic
controller and to put the professor in front of the right donors at the right moments along the cultivation process. So
that it adds value and the professor gets to have a say and gets to show the breadth and depth of his or her work as the
donor's beginning to make philanthropic commitments.
JB: What is your main priority when soliciting a gift or instructing someone to solicit a gift?
Mitchell: I wake up every day, no joke, thinking about some donor or donor idea. It's a very sick and twisted thing but
I absolutely recognize that I think about my donors all the time.
Donor-centric philanthropy is the most important thing any of us can do. We have to be donor-centered. If we are not
donor-centered, then we are going to leave money on the table and we will never truly inspire. Now, good things can
happen, and a donor can feel good about what they did. But until you hit the sweet spot and until you figure out and
work with the donor to deeply, deeply satisfy a passion area, you will not have true transformative philanthropy. And
that is what I work towards.
I don't even care if we're talking about a thousand-dollar annual fund gift for the first time. I think it's important for
organizations to pick up the phone. If you've had a bad day and things have been stressful and you've got a lot on your
plate, the most refreshing and reinvigorating thing you can do, pick up the phone and call a donor and say, "Thank
you." And I'm not sure nonprofits do enough of that. Where you just pick up the phone one day and say, "Listen, thank
you so much for your $10,000 annual fund gift. How did you feel when you made it? What do you care most about?"
Those are steps along the path of uncovering what they're really passionate about.
And so I think fundraisers often want to quit when ... now that's often because they have metrics like, 15 visits a month
or 20 visits a month and they have got to put 40 proposals or 30 proposals or 20 proposals, whatever it may be, in
front of a prospect throughout the year that they get so caught up in the numbers that they forget about the actual
donor. I truly believe that a strong fundraiser is constantly thinking donor-centered. And you know, even with that
annual fund gift, let's say it's a thousand dollars, you and I picked up the phone and we called Ms. Sue and said, "Ms.
Sue, thank you for your thousand-dollar gift, why did you give? What is it that you feel so close to our organization
to make this gift, because you've made it for 20 years in a row, or you just doubled gift of 500 to a thousand, why did
you do that?"
If she says, "You know, I am so passionate about African-American females." Well, now this goes in the back of your
mind. Perhaps there's a special appeal the next year because there's an initiative that you were able to raise because
you were in one of those strategy sessions or in the strategic planning or visioning session where you said, "Listen, I
actually believe there is five to ten donors that would triple their gift because of this great program we're doing with
African-American females. I think this is a gold mine for us to expand and make a difference."
110

You now have 100% evidence of, in a feasibility kind of way, it's kind of an informal feasibility study, where you get
to say, "Hey, here are these prospects, I've talked to them, this is what they care about, this is an area that I think, if
we were to ever expand, we would have donors to do it." And so once again, the more you know about your donors,
the more you're able to inform all areas of the nonprofit. Even for potential philanthropy.
JB: What metrics are you currently judged on in your position?
Mitchell: In my position it's just money raised. It is proposals generated and money raised. So there's a lot of great
minds that say that you've got to have ten to twelve visits a month, and if you hit that 120 number, if you have the
right amount of prospects and a portfolio ... my portfolio will have about 40 folks, these are all principal gift level
prospects that can make gifts of five million dollars or more to the University of Texas.
These are presidential level, meaning that the president either knows them or will know them. They are high profile
enough that he should have some presence around them. So I have to raise between two and a half and five million
dollars a year in new philanthropic support. And that is the only metric that I am currently judged on.
JB: In certain situations, fundraisers are given a bonus if they hit a monetary goal. Can you describe the pros and cons
of that?
Mitchell: Let's be clear. There are more charities, nonprofits, higher education institution fundraising jobs than there
are qualified candidates. So, it is far cheaper to keep an employee, a high-performing employee, than investing in the
onboarding, training, and hiring process of a new employee. And any month that you don't have a fundraiser means
that conversations aren't moving forward. So, I certainly understand retention issues and that is a concern.
At one point, the National Gift Planning Association, that's not it's exact abbreviation, but the gift planners estimated
that there were, at any given point, 850 jobs that were open across America. Whether that was at a church, whether
that was at an independent school, whether that was at a nonprofit or higher education institution, there were that many
fundraising jobs open and unfilled.
That was about 2014, 2015 when they came out with that estimate. And I feel like it's pretty doggone close. Because
certainly if you go on HigherEdJobs.com and look at fundraisers, there's always several hundred open from coast to
coast. So, a fundraiser has a fantastic year, an institution has to reward her or him. No different than any other
performance metric. Like if it's a business officer at a college that saves the institution money.
But, I am firm believer that tying a specific fundraising amount to a specific bonus is very dangerous. Because it
creates situations that are unfair if there are multiple fundraisers or it also creates the perception that fundraising can
be done in a 12-month period. You know, I have had gifts close in one year where I met a prospect and moved them
all the way through to an ask and a closure. But for major gift work, it can be 18-months, 24-months, 36-months,
especially for principal gifts.
And so, it's a timing issue. You can have a feast for two years in a row, and then a famine the next year because you
didn't meet your exact number. And that's no fault of anyone's. Where I think there should be more focus on the reward
and bonus structure and actually looking at the quality of the relationship that's been moved forward. Now, that's a
little harder and that's a little fuzzier, but, you know, when someone assesses me at the end of the year and they look
at the ten prospects that I started off with from a discovery standpoint, the first time they've ever been visited, and one
year later, the significant progress that I have made with eight of the ten, that shows phenomenal fundraising work.
So, you know, I am not personally in favor of tying a specific amount to fundraising. I understand for annual funds
and for some smaller nonprofits it is how they must operate, and I respect that. I am glad that my potential for
promotion is not necessarily tied to calendar year or fiscal year fundraising goals.
JB: What, if any, metrics would you add to judging major giving?
111

Mitchell: Discovery. I think that one of the most important things any fundraiser can do, and any organization can
focus on is pipeline development. You have got to know when the next gift is coming and you have got to have gifts
in the works. It's easy to focus on those about to make a gift, but are you really, really digging in and developing the
next generation of donors? So that's discovery.
And I think that every fundraiser should have a discovery goal. Whether that's 20 outreaches a year, whether that's
two to three face-to-face visits a month that are first time visits, maybe for, you know, it's the first time someone has
been visited in four years, or five years, or ever. Certainly, in the life of a donor, three to four years can be tremendously
... you know, a lot can happen. So, a fundraiser should constantly be building their portfolio, but an organization
should constantly remind all, including those in the HR office and the business office, the important work of getting
in and doing discovery and assessment on new prospects.
JB: What are your thoughts on portfolio size?
Mitchell: Well, there are two mentalities, really. There's really kind of two schools of thought on portfolios. Some
view it as a farm or a ranch in Texas in Colorado, where you have got to put all your cows in the fence, and you have
got to keep them there. Or two, it's more like a factory, where you're moving through them quickly and you're smaller,
nimbler, and more efficient. There are fundraisers that may believe 150 to 250 folks in a portfolio are absolutely
essential, because they're on an Excel spreadsheet list, they see them, they're thinking about them. But really, you're
not doing very much with probably 200 of them at any given time if you've got a portfolio the size of 250. So, they're
in that fence at that ranch in Colorado or Texas.
I think the most important thing is to have a small and efficient and nimble portfolio. I will definitely not have 50, I
may not reach 45 for another year or two because if the institution is supportive of a smaller portfolio, it means that I
am literally able to think about every one of my prospects. You know, in a meeting, I can verbalize them, I've grouped
them together, I know their priorities, I know their dreams, I know their hopes, I know, quite frankly, the challenges
that may present themselves for us to get a gift from. And so, are you a farmer or a herder and you're just tending to
this flock, or are you actually moving things forward?
So I'm a huge proponent of a smaller portfolio. You know, some say that it's kind of divided in thirds, I would argue
actually it's a little more than that. Probably, you know, 40 percent of a small portfolio, you should have a solicitation
plan for them the next 12 to 18 months, another 40 percent of folks you've got a solicitation plan for them in the next
12, 24, 36 months. And then the other 20 percent could be discovery that you haven't quite gotten into a place where
you understand their potential passion.
Or their stewardship, where they've just made a gift, you're celebrating them, they're in the celebration phase. For
some, that will be their ultimate gift, and for others it will be time to re-examine based on how well the institution
thanked them for their next gift and getting them back in a cultivation cycle. But kind of 40, 40 and 20 is what I
believe.
JB: How do you get a donor to give to a strategic priority as opposed to a personal project.
Mitchell: So sometimes I'm successful at this, and other times, you know, you get a smaller gift. But I have tried to
get to the “why” of the gift. And if they say it's because they want to help people, that's where there's faculty, that's
where there's program managers, there's program leaders of a nonprofit that really come into play. Because it's through
their voice, through their successes, through their results, they can often help take a donor, from, let's call it a bad idea
or a not as helpful idea to being a transformative idea.
And not because the faculty member says, "No, that's the stupidest thing ever." The faculty member talks about how
the concept that the donor may want is embedded in something else. Or that this is the way a department is headed, or
this is why it's important for national rankings. Or why this is important to recruit the next generation of, you know,
best faculty from the Ivy Leagues. And that's not coming from the fundraiser's voice. That is coming from a faculty
member or program director.
112

Because that, to me, it's really the ultimate role of a fundraiser, is to be a Sherpa. And that may sound corny at first,
but a guide implies that you know more than the donor. That's not necessarily true, because you're not sure what the
donor ... you're headed to a destination, but you're not exactly sure where the destination .... you know it's going to fit
under the umbrella of a strategic priority, but a Sherpa walks side by side.
A Sherpa climbs the mountain with you. A Sherpa knows the destination, sometimes knows you get all the way there,
other times has to pull back and say, "You know, we can't go all the way." And so the fundraiser, me, I could never
tell someone, "This is not what we need, but we need this." Because I'm not so sure that I'm going to know enough
about any specific academic area to truly be able to verbalize to some mechanical engineer why the type of
professorship he wants is no longer relevant. But that's for the dean. That's for the associate dean, the department chair
and other faculty members to really be able to make that case.
And that also enables me to have a little bit of distance, so I don't burn our relationship. So, you know, it's a team
effort. Now, this is where you really have to educate that faculty member, that program manager, on what to say and
what not to say. And you help them craft their narrative. But they even get it: the donor wants to help the department,
so let's make sure it's not a gift that they don't or can't fully use. Understanding that really, really creates a team
approach so the faculty member is armed when we bring the donor in, to have a more in-depth conversation about
what the department needs and what the department needs more than whatever the donor is suggesting.
JB: So in your experience, fundraisers, they'll never unilaterally just accept a gift?
Mitchell: Even the best idea, even if it's simply to cover yourself, it is good to have a second set of eyes. Look, think,
work through it. Now, it is possible, so I'm going to add an asterisk to what you just said and how I responded. Let's
say that a prospect is ... you know, I've had this sight setting conversation, I have an idea of what they can and cannot
do. The executive director or the dean may give me some parameters and say, "If they do this, this, or this, we can
accept it." Now, certainly, we know there'll need to be a gift agreement to formally codify that. But I can say, if they
do any one of these three things absolutely we can accept it, take it to the bank. But not in the moment, a fundraiser
should not just accept.
JB: Do you think that organizations have those checks and balances set in place overall within the nonprofit sector?
Mitchell: It depends on the size of the organization. And I am not disparaging small nonprofits, because there are
some small nonprofits that are so well run and so thoughtful that they put larger institutions to shame. But by and
large, the smaller the shop, the less checks and balances, because there are fewer people to check and balance. You
know, big fundraising shops like Chapel Hill, like Michigan, like Texas, like UCLA, like Washington, University of
Washington, they have so many people that these processes are all in place. But for that small two-person nonprofit
in rural Georgia, they just may not have those checks and balances.
A fundraising shop that has a consummate fundraising professional is more likely than not to have them because the
fundraiser's going to want them because the fundraiser understands the need. But no, there's not consistency across
the nonprofit world.
JB: Is there ever a situation where you would accept a gift that would limit institutional autonomy? For example, the
creation of a program outside of strategic priorities?
Mitchell: Here's the danger. If you're creating a priority outside of the institutional mission, and this is the mission that
the nonprofit board supports, this is the mission that the staff supports ... when you do it once, how do you stop from
doing it again? And again, and again, and again? This is where going back to that tight mission, the tight ideals are so
important. Because you can't be all things to all people and donors, if you let bad behavior occur once, it's hard to let
bad behavior stop with one.
JB: Right. How difficult is it to turn down a donation?
113

Mitchell: Well, I mean, my gosh, you're staring at money. You know, it's not easy at all. But at the same time, this is
where this relationship has to be so, so strong between the executive director, the dean, and the fundraiser. You've got
to have this constant communication. But there are moments you just have to walk away. Understanding that you may
be tarnishing the relationship forever.
JB: Do you think that if a fundraiser has a monetary goal that they feel they need to hit, it would cause them to push
for the organization to accept a gift outside of the mission?
Mitchell: Potentially. Potentially. I have not experienced that in my own experience.
JB: What ethical dilemmas arise for fundraisers in terms of soliciting and accepting gifts?
Mitchell: Well, you know, for me, what I have encountered more than anything has been questions of competency
and capability. From a competency standpoint, if I'm in a moment and a donor seems forgetful, or a donor doesn't
quite remember the prior conversations we've had, that's when I really clamp down and am not willing to go much
further because of the understanding that there may be mental competency issues.
Capability, can a donor really make the gift? You know? I've been on a donor visit once where the donor's credit card
got declined. And you begin to think, well, was this just a glitch? Or is the donor completely maxed out? So, are we
embarking on this long conversation about a significant gift and the donor doesn't actually have the funds to do it, and
doesn't have the heart to tell us that he or she doesn't? Those are the things that I've encountered.
JB: Why do you feel that fundraisers seem to have less attachment to organizations than other staff?
Mitchell: Oh God. I don't know if they do have less attachment. I don't know if it's the attachment. I'm not prepared
to say that they have less of an attachment, but I am prepared to say that they may have more mobility and portability.
I think there's a knowledge that your skillset is wanted somewhere else. But you're right, when you look at turnover
within an organization whether it's a small nonprofit or higher education, the highest turnover area is in fundraising. I
think that is because of the arms race that currently exists in staff salaries for fundraisers. And understanding even
within Los Angeles where your institution ranks against others. At some point you're doing the same work, but you
could be compensated so much more at a different place. Now does that mean that you care less? I don't know. I view
it as a downside of this workforce that has not quite met up with demand.
JB: What can organizations do besides increasing salary or benefits to retain quality fundraisers?
Mitchell: Well, you know, promotion is important. And it's not just because of title, but is it a new area? Can you
throw a bone to a solid fundraiser and say, "You've done a fantastic job on the east coast. Where else in the country
would you like to test your chops?" You know, giving people a chance to try new things. Is there another area of
campus that you're more passionate about? Or perhaps that you would like to add on? Or an area that you just want to
learn more about?
You know, for an organization, certainly higher education, there's so many areas. Whether it's the arts, whether it's
athletics, whether it's STEM and the science-based curriculum, can you move a fundraiser to work more with alumni
there? I think that there's so many areas for potential growth that an institution can really work with that.
You know, for a smaller nonprofit, saying things like, "You know, you've done such great work, have you ever
considered working with female philanthropists?" Or "Wow, you seem to really understand business leaders, what if
we established a business round table that you led?" Giving some programmatic management opportunities is another
fantastic way, because it's still revenue generating, but it's approaching it from a new way.
JB: You talked about the arms race for quality fundraisers. Have you ever seen a situation where an organization has
overlooked something like a lack of reporting or a stewardship, something like that, if someone was particularly adept
at bringing in donations?
114

Mitchell: Yeah, I think that if you can close significant gifts, a variety of sins may be overlooked. And if you are such
a revenue generator, and you are really, really, closing philanthropic gifts, perhaps an organization will provide
additional staff support, or provide a little more investment in stewardship knowing that this is an area that is lacking.
JB: Are there any times when organizations would overlook ethical shortcomings because someone was particularly
good at closing gifts?
Mitchell: I hope not. Because at the end of the day, it is the donors that matter and the beneficiaries of whatever the
nonprofit is doing. And donors do not support organizations that are ethically corrupt in my mind. Or they certainly
don't support them at the transformative level.
And so, if someone's willing to overlook someone that sexually harasses someone or someone's overlooking someone
that has cheated or committed fraud, then the donor may question what other things they're overlooking. And is the
organization well managed and has the executive director or dean got the moral courage to lead the organization?
So, when you've got questions of doubt and trust, or mistrust starts creeping in, you've lost a lot of battles. And so no
longer can the fundraiser say, "This is an organization you can trust," because there's a chink in the armor that's big,
that's growing, that's rusting. An organization that is willing to overlook bad behavior or worse, unethical behavior, is
sacrificing the future of that organization to keep one person and that is a terrible, terrible, terrible thing.
And you can be thoughtful in a graceful departure. You can wish someone well, thank them for their service, and be
transparent that you recognize the good with the bad. But absolutely, you should not sacrifice the organization for a
bad actor.
JB: With this idea of donor-centric fundraising, would you ever consider connecting a donor with another institution
that better fits their needs?
Mitchell: Yeah, you know, you find that a lot in higher education institutions where perhaps the engineering alum is
far more passionate about the arts and so you now connect them with the college of fine arts’ fundraiser and that
doesn't necessarily impact your engineering numbers but it's collaborative.
JB: Do you think that overall, people or fundraisers are willing to make those connections for donors?
Mitchell: The good ones are. I mean, here's what I would say. The more connected a fundraiser is to his or her
community, whether they belong to CASE, whether they belong to the Association of Fundraising Professionals, AFP,
if they are out in the community, the local Association for Gift Planners for Southern California.
If they are active in those circles and they know people, they know the good fundraisers, they know the organization,
they know who's doing things the right way, if that fundraiser, is deeply connected in the community, then absolutely
I think they're more likely to hand off and say, "I've got a good friend Jane at the American Cancer Society, I want
you to meet her." Or, "Oh my gosh we've got an amazing colleague at Children's Hospital, I want you to meet her."
That is the benefit of a fundraiser being deeply plugged in to the philanthropic community in his or her area.
JB: Is organizational leadership accepting of something like that?
Mitchell: I would have no trouble saying to a dean or director, "This is not our donor." They will continue to support
us at the $2,500 level because they believe in the value of the education they received. But their true passion is cancer
research. And the best thing we can do, since we have asked them to identify their passion and they've shared and
they've been so candid with what matters most to them, the best thing we can do is help guide them. Because even in
this hand off they will see us as a resource.
JB: What do you think the societal benefit would be if every major gift officer took that into account, of getting the
maximum utility for the donor’s dollar?
115

Mitchell: I mean, you know, with the higher education thing, you can look at UCLA and USC and say, sometimes
they can compete the same donors. You can say the same thing for some of the Ivy's, that the Ivy's compete for the
same donors that are just those truly remarkable hundred million-dollar philanthropists. But by and large, the
University of Iowa does not compete with the University of Nebraska, for prospects, right? But, I am a firm believer
that philanthropy and that fundraisers play an important role in teaching. We have to teach. So, the benefit is that the
more people that are taught best practices and the more people that say you know, "Hey, what an amazing opportunity
you have to make a difference, but if not with us ..." I mean, I think it shows altruism no different than giving money
away. You're essentially giving a donor somewhere else.
I just, I think there's a sense of community that you're demonstrating that is so important and so beautiful that it further
creates a joyful moment for the donor. So, it's not like they're looking over their shoulder saying, "Gosh, I'm so sad
we weren't able to give money to Occidental," or "we weren't able to give money to U Texas." Instead they're saying,
"Oh my goodness. We just made a transformative difference." But I think you're onto something. Charities and
nonprofits, higher education, we all need to work together. We all need to be supportive of each other. That's why
having this one size fits all organization, it doesn't work, it never works. We need to recognize who does things well
and who doesn't. And if you're doing that, then everybody's winning.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This analysis examines issues raised about the fundraising industry during the 1970s and 1980s and the progress that has been made, if any, in addressing these issues since that time. Seeking to provide recommendations to nonprofits about how best to align the goals of organizations with those of fundraising employees the subjects of institutional autonomy, gift utility, ethical misconduct, fundraising metrics and rampant turnover are discussed.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Trump and the crisis of faith: how a presidential candidate built a crisis to win a country

PDF

Public relations in the music business: how publicists continue to improve a changing industry

PDF

Creativity at work

PDF

Developing a strategy for public relations practitioners at environmental nonprofits using insights from psychology

PDF

The Digital Revolution and its impact on the beauty industry

PDF

Digital discourse in the fashion industry

PDF

Crisis communication & natural disasters: communication plan for Rome, Italy in the case of an earthquake

PDF

For the love of the game and community: evaluating professional athletes' charitable giving

PDF

Collegiate athletics in crisis: a new practical model for crisis communication/management

PDF

The share factor: implications of global digital strategy for public relations

PDF

The visual literacy explosion: a brief history, relevant cases and commonly accepted practices

PDF

The comic book superhero: his amazing journey to connect and communicate with society

PDF

Revolution for the Lulz, or, An exploration of protest in the age of new media

PDF

Are U.S. colleges being “oversold” to today’s students? A look at the realities of public relations in undergraduate higher education

PDF

Roller derby, from spectacle to sport: moving past perceptions

PDF

The impact of social media on the diabetes industry

PDF

Cultural differences in communication patterns of international B2C technology companies on Weibo and Twitter: an examination of effectiveness from a motivation perspective

PDF

60 years of magic: an in-depth look at Disneyland’s use of public relations strategies

PDF

Generating valuable content for a destination in order to reach a new generation of travelers

PDF

Musicians utilizing social media to increase brand awareness, further promote their brand and establish brand equity

Asset Metadata

Creator Blodgett, Jacob (author)

Core Title Time for a change: a critical analysis of the fundraising industry

School Annenberg School for Communication

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Strategic Public Relations

Publication Date 04/17/2018

Defense Date 03/30/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Fundraising,fundraising ethics,fundraising history,gift utility,institutional autonomy,major gifts fundraising,nonprofit management,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor LeVeque, Matthew (committee chair), Floto, Jennifer (committee member), Sherman, Michelle (committee member)

Creator Email jakeblodgett21@gmail.com,jblodget@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-492337

Unique identifier UC11265831

Identifier etd-BlodgettJa-6257.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-492337 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BlodgettJa-6257.pdf

Dmrecord 492337

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Blodgett, Jacob

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA