Susan Doliner:

You are correct; naming rights are popular with buildings, programs, and legacy giving for endowments. They are popular for good reason, in that they both publicly (if that’s what the donor wishes) recognize the donor at a level which they are most appreciative and proud of, and it raises the bar for an entire community who sees such recognition as a sign of confidence from others whom they respect your organizations are worth supporting. That said, I am a great believer in finding a balance with recognition signage and often refer to it as “elegant and somewhat invisible”. What I mean by that is not in your face, but when a donor comes to visit, they’re proud they have been recognized and what their plaque name on the side of the building looks like.  What is important to look out for these days, is the sad reality that sometimes you may run into a situation where your organization may not want to be publicly associated with the donor after some kind of personal, family, or business occurrence which in turn would jeopardize your organization’s reputation.  Many organizations are now putting clauses in their letters of intent, indicating that the organization always has the right to withdraw such recognition should such circumstances arise.  Here at Maine Medical Center, we do name buildings and units and departments, rooms and endowed chairs, as well as scholarship funds and research labs. Naming links not only the donor but their family to our organization which creates generational giving which we find to be very strong and a future resource.

David Flood:

‘Relationships over apparatus’. Yes, you will need some engagement and acquisition tools to feed your donor pipeline with entry gifts (annual fund type vehicles), but I would put much of my gunpowder in individual mid and major gifts (whatever level is appropriate to your evolution and culture) through board or committee engagement with individuals. These opportunities can be efficiently cultivated through home or parlor events where a small nucleus of truly dedicated stakeholders can bring personal meaning to their social orbit and create a runway for follow-up. These have been particularly helpful post-COVID as people wanted to get together, made members feel productive, gave us real prospects in a setting that was not intimidating. As with all we do, meaningful follow-up is where it wins or loses. Stay away from paid events and give people a simple and enjoyable forum to be with you, to hear your message, and to enjoy.

Bill Littlejohn: 

First is have the conversation with leadership that philanthropy should be viewed as a strategic opportunity – and priority. And that means we treat it as an investment strategy.  Discuss the long-term vision of the organization and the resources required to get there.  Philanthropy can be one of the resource elements, yet it takes both leadership commitment and investment in the philanthropy program to make it happen.  Donors don’t just give, they make an investment in the future of their community; they help achieve a vision vs. just funding a need.  Strategic philanthropy ultimately creates a culture of philanthropy – and culture eats strategy for breakfast.

David Flood:

To help frame: Prior to my arrival at Intermountain, we had 16 disparate foundations representing 22 hospitals. In anticipation of our growth, we wanted to build a more synergistic, focused, efficient and effective “plug and play” model. So, yes, efficiency was an issue, but was only part of the future formula.

So here’s what we did:

1. We asked each Foundation Board to vote to dissolve and come into one umbrella foundation – the ‘Intermountian Foundation’, governed a small volunteer fiduciary Board, with each locale then serving as a registered DBA. With that, each local entity could continue to ‘do business as’ whatever they were already called, so in the eyes of the public, this was a non-issue. In fact, despite the local entities going from fiduciary to advisory, we continue to refer to them “Boards”.
2. At the same time, we were building centralized administrative services to create program expertise, to pool as many administrative functions from the locales as possible (database, events, prospect research, annual fund, etc.), so our local teams could then be centered on relationships and people (including the stewardship of these local boards). So, ‘less apparatus, more focus on relationships’.
3. We also pooled all of our investments dollars into the larger system Investment Committee, so those dollars would have the advantage of more robust investment vehicles, while still maintaining individualized accounts for each locale, so the local boards didn’t lose contact and oversight, and could ask questions, but no more debating investment strategies in a Foundation meeting where most members had no idea what people were talking about…and it never helped a sick person in a bed anywhere in our system.

Enough framing- The sum total of this activity is that:

1. Our donors no longer incur the financial burden of 16 tax returns and 16 audits for no good reason. Just totally unnecessary waste of donor dollars.
2. We’ve had far better investment returns from more sophisticated pooled investment vehicles.
3. No more variation in maintaining individualized bylaws, official minutes, and member responsibilities. All are doing the same thing, so our staff can steward their activity uniformly…and better. So, less staff time spent on board governance protocols, to do other things.
4. And perhaps the best result- Less apparatus and fiduciary noise has meant that Foundation meetings are no longer spent talking about things that don’t raise money- they talk about relationships, and the local fundraisers can also be more focused on relationships with them…as opposed to all the “stuff” that doesn’t speak to a Foundation’s main objective – building relationships.
5. People got lost in trying to proclaim “But, we’re different”. Good fundamentals shouldn’t change from place to place, but personalities do and that is accommodated within messaging. This is standardization, not sterilization, and it all rolls up under the auspices of fellow volunteer leadership. It’s just more focused on mission, it’s more efficient and it’s been effective…as we raise far more money today through the relationships we focus on.

Eddie Thompson:

There has been a disturbing trend in recent years when it comes to gift planning officers. Fewer organizations are hiring planners.  It is my experience you get what you structure and staff.  If you don’t have a gift planner, you get fewer planned gifts.  Gift planning takes time to secure the commitment and even more time for the gift to mature. The time investment leads some leaders to discount the value of gift planning.  The ROI takes too long for them, and they want cash in the door.  Large endowments aren’t built through discretionary gifts.  They grow through gifts of assets or net worth.  Larger organizations and larger systems hire a gift planner to service many offices or locations.   They fail to realize that planned gifts are local, just as discretionary gifts are local. 

Eddie Thompson:

Check out the webinar recording’s minute-marker 1:20:28.  One could answer this with one word.  Amazing! There are many reasons to believe we are entering the greatest age of gift planning.  Many Americans love the idea of making a gift and enjoying the tax benefits, while receiving income from their gift.  Others find that planned gifts may help them solve estate planning issues.  The potential is staggering IF we are engaged with our donors on planned giving benefits.  Success in this area depends on our efforts!

Susan Doliner: 

Our work with families and individuals is just that, we build donor relationships with those who have the ties to our organization, grateful for our services and driven and motivated by our mission and vision. They are the decision makers.  First and foremost, we build trusted relationships with donors which foster pride in our partnership as our organizations serve the community through our respective missions. Third-party representatives, such as brokerage firms as well as financial advisors and donor advised funds and community foundations are the tools which donors may choose to make their contributions. These vehicles, whether it be a foundation for the family, donor advised fund or charitable trust, are merely the tools for payment. Please remember the decision to give always remains with the donor or, in the case of donor funds, the recommendation on where to give and how much.

Eddie Thompson:

Educate with marketing material. Explain the benefits in person and then ask if they would like to see how gift planning may help them achieve a higher goal.

Eddie Thompson:

Your comment is correct; and yet how many major gifts of assets are we leaving on the table?  We have intentionally made these webinars strictly educational without marketing for the purpose of increasing our own business, but the subject of this question is exactly in our wheelhouse. 

We believe the best approach is to hire a consultant to help you.  At Thompson & Associates, we partner with nonprofits to provide estate planning services to their supporters. As an independent third-party that uses a confidential process, donors feel comfortable divulging financial information and family dynamics to us. We help overcome a donor’s barriers and uncertainty to actively create a gift that matches a donor’s personal purposes and interest— and is therefore more likely to be enacted and realized.

View Webinar Recording at minute-marker 1:17:07 for each panelist’s insight.

Bill Littlejohn:

We don’t raise money because we are a charity, we raise money to help achieve a mission and vision, no matter what the political winds may blow, and even in spite of them. The organization should stay true to its mission for which it was established or founded.  Go back to the Articles of Incorporation – “The purpose of this organization is….”  Many nonprofits have advocacy elements, yet they should also be aligned with mission first, and not politics.  Now if an organization finds itself involved with political dynamics that can ultimately impact the mission, then the mission may need to change – even amending the Articles of Incorporation.  Answer the question, how will philanthropy advance, elevate or sustain the mission?