Bill Littlejohn: The philanthropic component of the Sharp HealthCare’s Five-Year Operating, Cash and Capital Plan is a nationally recognized best practice.  The plan is relied upon by Sharp’s outside rating agencies, Moody’s Investors Service and Standard & Poor’s, in their evaluation of Sharp’s financial strength and growth over each five-year horizon. 

The rolling 5-year (add a year/take off a year) strategic and financial planning process involves all the entities, including the Foundations.  The 5-year capital and operating financial plan is updated first, where the system projects:

• Net income from operations
• Borrowing
• Cash distributions from the Foundations for capital and operating projects and initiatives

The total amount available (the capital constraint) from the 5-year financial plan is then allocated to priority projects that are in the current strategic plan.  The Foundations’ cash distributions are identified for priority capital and operating projects by entity (we know about them years in advance from the planning process).  There is a cash distribution goal for every five-year period (current plan is $125 million in cash distributions over five years).

David Flood: In our health system, we have made it a point to closely align our Foundation’s messaging and outreach with the health system (as opposed to trying to raise for things we think we can raise money for, which is not maximizing mission potential). A few ways we have hard-wired this practice:

• Each development officer works with their respective hospital leader annually to define approved needs that we believe to be attractive for philanthropy.
• This same local CEO also shares a fundraising goal with their gift officer as part of their evaluation.
• As CDO, I also serve on the system’s Executive Leadership Team, so I am at the table where developing interests of the system are being discussed, while also sharing in the capital request committee. This creates a lot of alignment, while bringing the voice of the donor to the table.

Susan Doliner: We continuously monitor the strategic priorities of each service line. We determine funding needs at all levels from $10,000 to over $1 million.  As we track those strategic priorities, we keep the senior leadership team at the hospital informed.  Any initiative of significant funding value would need to flow through a vetting process with the finance and leadership team of the hospital.  Until project capital or operation is approved, philanthropic dollars cannot be directed. This assures that philanthropy doesn’t drive decision making and hospital leadership has full responsibility for aligning and prioritizing strategic priorities.  One-time expenses at lower levels can be approved at the service line level, as long as it doesn’t impact ongoing operational cost – which philanthropy cannot and will not own going forward.  The vision statements for each service line are the most helpful documents we have.

Randy Varju: The first step is to align with strategic priorities that the system is committed to.  Health Equity and Environmental Sustainability are two examples.  The capital allocation process is also a key resource for us.  This brings the bigger projects seeking funding at the system level through a vetting process that aligns projects with the direction of the system.  In many cases, the larger building projects will incorporate a component of philanthropy in the proposal.  For those projects that don’t meet the capital threshold, we look to the presidents in each of our regions or program and service line leaders to determine fundable initiatives at the 1, 3, and 5 year timeframe.

Susan Doliner: We have brief training sessions, 15 to 20 minutes in length, with small groups of physicians within their service line area several times a year.  We also host grateful patient communication, education and other such sessions.  The most impactful and inspiring tactic is to share testimonials from other physicians who have built relationships with grateful patients. This demonstrates the high ethical standards of that relationship and the impact and healing powers of giving as related to gratitude. 

David Flood:

• Clinician engagement is a national best practice, but needs to be introduced carefully in order to avoid beginning with misconceptions around appropriateness and errant perceptions around clinicians asking for money at the bedside slowing or stopping progress before you start. Do the prep work. And educate first.
• After gaining support from your top medical officer, it begins with small group training to provide context and some groundswell. There are some consultants that can come in and do some of this training around referral, and outline the therapeutic value to patients who may express a willingness to be involved philanthropically.
• Expressing to clinicians that you are willing to assist them in raising dollars for their areas, or their research, but that they will need to be active participants/identifiers, places an attractive element of ‘what’s in it for me’ for the clinician, while helping to build clinician morale.
• Very rare circumstances aside, generally, you simply do not want your clinicians directly asking for money.

Randy Varju: We started with securing the support of the Chief Medical Officer in endorsing presentations throughout the system and at regional meetings.  We followed up with individual meetings with key physician leaders and then identified the top physicians in specialty areas of priority by funding need.  We also rounded with messages of purpose and gratitude during COVID and were able to provide funding for wellness and resiliency efforts.  We also meet with priority physicians and go with a prepared listing of HIPAA compliant patients that have been screened through Wealth Engine.  They provide a few details on a few of these names and it typically starts them thinking of others.  We also have invited small groups of those identified for tours or service line updates.

Bill Littlejohn: We have several strategic and tactical goals for physician engagement.

• 50% of Core MDs engaged in philanthropy:
  • Give
  • Refer (we have implemented the grateful patient order set in Cerner for referrals.
  • Champion
• 1/3 of Foundation Board Directors are MDs.
• MDs involved in all major Foundation clinical initiatives.
• MDs ask MDs.
• Annual meeting/briefings with Medical Executive Committees

MD Recognition for Philanthropy Engagement

David Flood:

• Certainly, it begins with every single board member giving an annual sacrificial gift commensurate to their means. A given, and it excludes event attendance, which is generally expected for major foundation events.
• Many put dollar goals on board members. We ask for 3 personalized introductions with individuals or organizations who are believed to have the capacity to help our mission, and primarily, who have the capacity to consider a major gift, if inspired.
• We ask to independently, or to partner in hosting a gathering annually.
• We suggest declaring an estate provision for the mission.

Bill Littlejohn:

PHILANTHROPY EXPECTATIONS:

The expectation of a Foundation board director is making Sharp HealthCare a philanthropic priority, which would include a combination of the following: 

Join:                   Our family of donors through our Giving Societies:

• Become a Partner in Health through an annual contribution of $1,000 or more.
• Endeavor to be a Pillar of Philanthropy through major and lifetime gifts of $25,000 or more; specifically, for major campaigns and initiatives.
• Consider joining the Legacy Circle and provide for the future of Sharp and our community through an estate or planned gift.

Participate:     In at least one of several Foundation annual fundraising events through sponsorship, underwriting, individual participation or outright contributions.

Engage:             Lead or participate in two philanthropy engagement activities annually with prospective donors, such as special events, tours, educational forums or presentations, or individual meetings.

Champion:       Lead, participate in or provide referrals for our major philanthropy initiatives and campaigns.

Steward:           Acknowledge and recognize those who have contributed to Sharp HealthCare.

Collaborate:    With Sharp and Foundation leadership to help identify and cultivate philanthropy relationships.

Randy Varju: I have my CFRE, an MBA, and the FAHP.  I think the CFRE is helpful and provides a roadmap for the skills necessary to advance in this career.  I do pull from my MBA experience on a regular basis.  I think that builds a level of stamina that’s needed to lead effectively.  I’m still learning, reading, and exploring because of the habits that pursuing an MBA instills.  I also feel the FAHP is a valuable designation for health philanthropy.  It assures not just the skillset or knowledge, but the application of each in a manner that preserves health philanthropy’s relevance in a challenging and changing climate.

Susan Doliner: I’m a big proponent of the AHP fellows certification because the work to prepare for the exam and the experience validates the Skillset required to be a philanthropy leader.  It’s also very helpful to have a planned giving officer with financial credentials, and/or a legal degree.

Bill Littlejohn: I only have a BA in Economics, no graduate degree or certifications.  I don’t have an opinion one way or another regarding certification, as I mentioned I believe the most important characteristics for philanthropy professionals are people skills, work ethic and attention to detail.  And growing competency as a professional through experience.

David Flood: I found great value in taking graduate courses and earned a certificate in Fundraising Management from NYU, in addition to other graduate classes. This exchange and diversity of perspective/ideas has been invaluable.  I also have a Masters in corporate and public communications, which has been good for me, and is required within some sectors for top jobs (Healthcare, Higher Ed,). So, I think balancing contemporary communications, some business/finance acumen, and exposure to technology with all that is happening up ahead would serve you well.

Bill Littlejohn: I prefer Office of Philanthropy.  We have an office of Business Development, which is not related to philanthropy or fundraising. 

Susan Doliner: I feel that development is the act of fundraising at basic levels from appeals to events, and is much more transactional than the philanthropic initiatives that occur in a robust philanthropy office. There, major gifts, estate planning campaigns and long-term strategic priorities, are set and acted upon.   In the academic world, the term advancement would replace philanthropy for consistency across the sector.

David Flood: Development, Philanthropy, Advancement- there are pros and cons for each, and I don’t think it gains or costs a dollar for the mission. If pushed, I would say that I have taken a shine in recent years to Philanthropy, because I think more people know what it means today than they did 10 years ago, and it sounds nice. I get that ‘Development’ can mean a lot of things, which is why some like the flexibility of it.

Randy Varju: Office of Philanthropy helps avoid confusion with business development or others.  You might get a meeting quicker with the development title, but if you get the meeting with philanthropy in your title, you’re likely to find the content of the meeting more productive.  If they know your role and are willing to meet, they are more likely interested in supporting the initiatives you’re coming to discuss.

Bill Littlejohn: The risk of AI, digital and virtual fundraising poses the danger of losing the personal connection with donors over an extended period of time.  The donor can become an email address or text number.  It is wonderful to have so many platforms for connection and they can be an advantage, but there are limits to attention and connection.  We all get excited about an open rate for an email but realize that very few actually linked through to a story or message, it is a significant disconnect. 

Randy Varju: I tend to think it will help more than hurt.  We’ve done wealth screening for years.  But if we can layer in other measures of affinity or develop donor profiles based on previous patterns, the data sifting could yield better results than we currently have access to.

Susan Doliner: Yes, we apply HML performance process with our teams. We measure and track timely visits, proposals submitted, identification of new donors, potential donors, and dollars secured.

Randy Varju: We do. This is an HR process that we have used to calibrate the team.  It can be time consuming but is valuable in getting cross-functional feedback on team members.  It also identifies high performers for growth and retention.

Randy Varju: Skill development through an individualized growth plan.  This needs to include both identified aspirational areas as well as key skill development needs.  It sends the right message when you can map out the next two years and illustrate how you’re partnering to advance their skill and career.

David Flood: First of all, emulate what you are suggesting is the standard for increased professionalism. Second, don’t chase trends. If you are a leader, rather than being led by what the world tells you is proper today, share what you want. What do you expect? By example, I expect people to dress well in the office, and to be formal when with external stakeholders (I don’t call it casual. Just look nice and professional. If you don’t know what that means, lean towards being overdressed). Be articulate. Be knowledgeable. Always return calls and follow-through promptly. Be concise. Be kind. Be proactive. Help the team. Always look to grow your role, so if we had to replace you, we would be hiring at a whole new level than when you arrived. Discretion is invited, as we all have different styles, and most show great discretion, especially if you ask for the framework.

Bill Littlejohn: Most philanthropy and fundraising programs are relatively small – the philanthropy team at Sharp is less than 40 out of a workforce of 19,000.  So, it can take time to get promoted if there are few roles to be promoted to.  People leave for promotion or advancement.  For years, most fundraising professionals were generalists, gaining knowledge and experience in all types of fundraising and development, over a number of years.  Now there are more specialized roles and therefore less people qualified for those roles due to less experience or time in a generalist role.  It has become increasingly difficult to create and guide people along a true professional pathway to leadership in philanthropy.  I spent my first nine years in fundraising development at the American Cancer Society working in every manner of fundraising, few people today want to take on that kind of work over that long a period of time in order to advance.  

The other big issue is misaligned expectations for development officers, and tenure ends up being short when those expectations aren’t met.

Bill Littlejohn: Certainly, if you remained “siloed” in a role or position and not expand experience in other areas, you can end up in the same role for years.  And that might be a good thing.  Experienced and high-performing major gift officers may not be the best candidates for the chief development officer and provide more value to the institution in their role. 

Bill Littlejohn: Absolutely, I am a facilitator of philanthropy and represent the institution first and my fundraising role second.  I also realize I am a better fundraising professional when I practice it with others.

David Flood: A good question, and all leaders have things to be working on. In my case, front of mind, I am trying to navigate the realities of generational and COVID-borne workstyle preferences, trying to balance high performance with flexibility and work-life balance for the team. This is difficult, because I view my work as a vocation – as part of my life in a good way, and I am invested at that level.  I need to balance my view or expectation that others would want or be expected to be invested themselves at that level, with whatever a more reasoned and contemporary standard may dictate, but without compromising trajectory. I will continue to work on balancing that pendulum. Not there yet. 

Randy Varju: I’d say the ongoing challenge of broadening what we consider success.  Is success only hitting the number?  Or instead, is success being able to say a gift to us is the best gift experience every donor has ever made?  They feel the impact and see how the gift changed the lives of others.  What does that look like or what would we need to do differently to claim it?

Susan Doliner: We are working hard to transition our culture of philanthropy to a culture of gratitude which further engages Frontline staff, especially physicians across the organization. This will require a great deal of one-on-one education with our clinical colleagues.  On a personal level, I’m taking more risk with transformational donors and making contact as rapidly as possible instead of talking about strategies for months, while other organizations find their way into the living rooms of leadership donors sooner.

Bill Littlejohn: The overwhelming majority of planned gifts are still bequests or estate gifts which are often simple to prepare.  A message of leaving a legacy or helping envision the future through a will or trust is a powerful message.  The philanthropy program can help donors become philanthropists and achieve a dream or legacy.  Keeping it simple. 

“The power of philanthropy is where people of vision and generosity, make possible the achievement of dreams of people of skill and dedication, for the betterment of all.”

Bill Littlejohn: Allies for us are the executives, leaders, Board Directors, physicians and staff across Sharp HealthCare.  We have 25,000 staff, MDs and volunteers in the organization.  One third of our Foundation Board Directors are MDs.  Sharp is the engine of philanthropy and allies have great influence on our donors, most of whom have been patients or have a relationship with Sharp.  Of course, all our allies are donor prospects as well.