In the previous posts, we have seen that successful fundraising demands a culture which consistently seeks and creates opportunities to further fulfill the mission through the involvement of qualified prospects. But, a culture which prizes private giving and wholeheartedly engages prospective donors are not all that is required.
The right sort of gifts are also needed.
Yes, successful fundraising obviously requires the acquisition of gifts, but gifts are not enough. Truly successful fundraising is fueled not merely by gifts but the right sort of gifts.
Raising the right sort of gifts means securing gifts that align both with the donor's heart and the institution's mission. Because securing any gift can prove challenging, the temptation for the fundraiser who consistently faces the pressure to "beat last year" is to simply accept a gift and trust the institution will "find a way to make it work" even when the purpose is not well-suited to the organization or the donor wishes to place unreasonable/unworkable restrictions on the gift. This is unwise, and organizations should commend fundraisers who demonstrate a consistent conscientiousness in this regard -- even when it means forfeiting a gift.
Gifts which are not the right sort of gifts are those which divert from the institution's mission or create financial and administrative burdens that exceed the benefit of the gift. A good example in higher education is a scholarship which comes with so many restrictions that it can seldom be used. If a donor's desire is to help students, a scholarship agreement must be written broadly enough to ensure students will consistently meet the scholarship criteria. It is the fundraiser's job to help a donor understand how to structure a gift for maximum impact. Good stewardship demands nothing less.
In other words, gifts of equal amounts do not necessarily have an equal impact, and some gifts can be impact-diluting or even impact-diverting over the long term. The conscientious fundraiser understands this and seeks gifts the organization can deploy in a way that consistently fulfills the mission and honors both God and the giver.
This does not mean gifts to fund new buildings or new initiatives should be avoided. It simply means the true costs involved should be calculated and included as a part of the overall strategy. For example, the addition of a new building comes with new recurring expenses for cleaning, power, water, climate control, information technologies, and maintenance. A new academic program often comes with new expectations for the availability of library resources. Good gifts come when good questions are asked and answered from the inception of any new initiative.
Both donors and institutions often fall prey to the ills of "chronological snobbery" wherein "newer" is simply assumed to be better. To be sure, newer can be better but only to the extent that "the newer" better deploys and extends that which is timeless -- the mission of the organization.
If the organization's mission is the right mission, and the organization has demonstrated a consistent ability to fulfill that mission, what is needed is not new, trendy, or innovative. What is needed is significantly greater support for that which is tested, tried, and true.
This means, in the case of gospel-centered institutions functioning with high-levels of financial and confessional integrity and accountability, unrestricted gifts are absolutely vital and wise because they have the greatest potential for impacting eternity over the long term. Such gifts provide an opportunity for the organization to quickly overcome unforeseen challenges and seize new opportunities in an ever-changing world to deliver the sort of Kingdom-extending impact the donor desires and God delights to give.
Raising the right sort of money is challenging primarily because it requires time and intentionality in building personal relationships predicated on trust. But, the time is worth the effort because it results in mission-focused, mission-extending gifts which make maximal impact.
Successful fundraising then means raising enough of the right money. And the right money is that which:
1) Directly supports the institution in fulfilling her mission, and
2) Does not come with unreasonable restrictions, and
3) Is large enough to deliver the anticipated outcome(s), and
4) Does not add new institutional costs without a plan to cover them.
What do you think about these criteria? What would you add?
No comments:
Post a Comment