Recently I met with a friend of mind who I have not talked with for a few years--of course, we met via zoom. She also has her own resource development business and as we got to talking we compared notes on our own experiences.
Everything in a development office needs to hum and zing. Every day. The development office needs to be focused and driven. The mission is critical and development is a time sensitive issue.
Overwhelmingly, we agreed, many times smaller organizations hire consultants because they know they are not raising as much money as they could be raising and they don't know why. Perhaps they are even staring down diminishing revenues that signal a worrisome outcome for the development staff and the organization. Universally, they know they want to fix the situation, but they don't know how. Yes. Definitely a key reason to employ a consultant.
These organizations shared many of the following characteristics:
Some organizations did not have a director of development in place, but relied instead on multiple people in various departments who pooled their efforts. No one was really in charge.
Some organizations employed a director of development who often didn't have the breadth of experience needed and had not shown sufficient success in other positions that they had held. This is often difficult for an organization to evaluate, but it is clearly detrimental to miss on this recruitment. But when someone can't move the needle, he/she is the wrong person for the job.
Donor data may not be readily available and many times the donors records are not robust and not kept up to date. Sometimes research was simply not adequate or not available. This meant that communication just wasn't what it should be.
Slow moving processes were unfortunately the norm--when something needed to be sent out this was a common issue amongst the organizations. Little access to what has happened before, uneven communication between the development office and the executive director of the organization. Actions were not timely.
Board that had little productive input into development processes and outcomes; they might not have been as aware that things might be going south--but the investment and finance committees should have brought this to light.
Relationships with the past and current donors had been transactional rather than donor centric...as a result many of the past donors did not renew because they had not established a relationship with the organization. This is a very poor reflection on the organization and becomes very difficult to "fix."
Events seemed to proliferate throughout the year, many without a healthy return. Increasing the number of those events was often seen as a solution to the problem. (Events usually drain an organization's resources, so they must be planned so they add to the resources.}
Assuming the mission was a critical one, we agreed that finding a way to correct this type of trajectory was the key benefit that a consultant could bring. It was quite apparent that these organizations were leaving money on the table and not fulfilling their missions as robustly as they could.
So what do these organizations typically need to do?
The organizations need to reach higher at every juncture, realizing much more of their potential. And they need to do that explicitly.
Not only do most organizations need to maximize the current donor base, but they also need to expand the donor base using major steps.
The development teams need to connect with the donors and prospects and unite to create a culture of philanthropy, a donor centric culture.
In many cases, the employees and the development team--and usually the board--need to think more boldly about what the organization can do and achieve and think about how valuable the organization is to the communities they serve, asking prospects for large enough gifts and making a thorough case.
The organizations need to examine whether or not they have the proper number of staff members and whether each of those have the proper credentials.
Organizations need to focus on fundraising before planning an event--if an event is going to be held, what impact is it going to make on the bottom line? If not significant, no reason to have one (no one needs another way to lose money).
Of course, there are many other things that go into this equation, but these issues were common issues faced by such organizations. And the fixes that the organizations were implementing were often not going to make much of an impact. Organizations were not facing the facts. They couldn't get enough distance from what was happening.
For a smaller organization, both my friend and I agreed that hiring a consultant for long periods of time was not an effective fix. However, engaging a consultant to show the organization how to do it, how to correct their mistakes, how to address particular questions, how to evaluate their prospects and plan campaigns was a valuable solution for many organizations. Modeling good fundraising solicitations for the staff was also a very good approach and many times a very helpful "fix" to some corners of the issues.
I told my friend about the time when my consulting contributions were extraordinarily helpful. I had been asked by a former colleague to evaluate their development office, which was located at a major university in southern US. Based on his experience, he felt that they were not raising what was possible. Good instincts. I spent two days there and on the second day there was time left and I asked to review their top ten donors/prospects. One alum really stood out--a very successful man who ran a company that produced products that sustained the environment. His successes since graduation were legendary to the staff and the dean of the school.
The chief development officer, who was not particularly experienced, told me they were going to ask this prospect for $45,000 for a project that was important to them. I used a red magic marker and wrote down the 12 steps they needed to do to reach a much larger gift. On the 11th notation I emphasized that they needed to think big with their initiatives and develop a transformational opportunity for the school and the prospect. On the 12th notation, my suggestion was that the dean go with the chancellor of the school and ask the gentleman for $100 million. A bold plan but my instincts told me they needed to take this type of action and that this prospect would be open to it.
Six months later they called me. They had gone through all of the steps and, while they didn't get $100 million, this gentleman committed $50 million with a handshake. The dean and the chancellor had met with him on Sunday for dinner and he gave them $50 million in cash by Wednesday...he apologized for the fact that it took him so long. Amazing. That was 15 years ago; I sometimes muse about what that $50 million would be worth today and what impact it had on the school. They closed the university's capital campaign with that gift and from then on had a new and willing friend and major prospect to the university and the school.
So this last example took place at a major academic center, it isn't something that happens every day--not at this level. But it could happen in a relative manner at many organizations--and it has. When a culture of philanthropy has been developed, donors frequently don't wait to be solicited--they spot an opportunity where they can make a difference and they simply rise to the occasion--it is one of the actions that is inspirational to every organization and certainly to the development officer.
That's why it is important to simply get the development effort at each organization to function in the most productive way. It can make all the difference in the world to your mission and constituency.
Every organization has a reservoir of great potential--we must learn to draw upon that potential and dream a little at the same time.