Last year, I attended a social event that was organized through a social networking site that was also attended by a prospect research colleague at another institution. We both worked in one-person shops. The networking site asked participants to identify their "profession." I noticed that while I had identified myself as a "fundraiser," my colleague had identified herself as a "researcher." I found this thought-provoking.
Today I started reading the brand spanking new edition of Cecilia Hogan's Prospect Research: A Primer for Growing Nonprofits. Did I mention it's brand spanking new? I'm eagerly looking forward to reading Cecilia's new chapter on estimating wealth and determining philanthropic capacity, an art form at its best and a source of self-doubt and constant frustration at its worst. (My own efforts fall somewhere in the middle of that continuum). But before we get there, I want to mention a short but important discussion in the preface titled "Strike a Blow for Language Difficulties."
I happen to be someone who thinks that language matters. My favorite comedian, George Carlin, in discussing the use of nonsexist language, said "We do think in language; and so the quality of our thoughts and ideas can only be as good as the quality of our language."
Like Cecilia, I've never been comfortable with the term "suspect" when applied to a pre-qualified prospect, unless we are fundraising on an episode of CSI. And "moves management" is what I'm going to be doing at the Webster Hall dance party on Friday night.
But what we label ourselves is even more important, because it defines our field. You've probably figured out that I like the term "prospect research," since I used it in the title of this blog. The downside to calling oneself a "prospect researcher" at a cocktail party is that you will probably have to spend ten minutes or so explaining what it is you do. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. It's good PR for the field, but can be a burden if you are more in the mood to tell elephant jokes.
Within the development office, and perhaps throughout the organization as a whole, I assert that everyone involved in raising funds is a fundraiser, though our specialized roles are reflected in our job titles: prospect researcher, major gift officer, grantwriter, gift processor. Outside the office, I've started using the inelegant term "fundraising researcher," which at least clues my audience in to what I do, without having to abandon my inner researcher. [If I abandon my inner researcher, she gets back at me by blowing my monthly budget on reference books from Amazon.com].
Ultimately, in today's complex, information-centric world, few job titles accurately reflect the scope of activities involved in any professional position. But when it comes to what we call ourselves, what's in a name is worth discussing.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
The Blanket Game
First, an apology for the gap in postings. It has been a whirlwind of an autumn, with a number of surprises both welcome and unwelcome.
Those of you who went to girl's slumber parties as a kid (and I'm kind of hoping this is limited the women here...) may remember a somewhat mean-spirited initiation rite called "The Desert Game." An unsuspecting newcomer would be placed under a blanket, and then the story would begin: You're stranded in the desert. It's hot. You're thirsty. It's getting hotter. You're burning up. Etc., etc., TAKE OFF SOMETHING YOU DON'T NEED.
The object of the game was to see how many articles of clothing the poor victim would take off before realizing that THE BLANKET was the unnecessary item.
Why am I telling you this story? Well, in the past three months this blog temporarily became the something I don't need. I share this story because I know how hard most researchers work and what a balancing act we try to perform with conflicting demands at work and outside of the office. We are prize multitaskers. But I'm hoping that sometime when you are feeling buried under a hot blanket, and you're overworked and burning up and stressed out, that you'll remember this little game, stop, breathe, re-evaluate the priorities and take off something you really don't need.
That being said, back to blogging.
Those of you who went to girl's slumber parties as a kid (and I'm kind of hoping this is limited the women here...) may remember a somewhat mean-spirited initiation rite called "The Desert Game." An unsuspecting newcomer would be placed under a blanket, and then the story would begin: You're stranded in the desert. It's hot. You're thirsty. It's getting hotter. You're burning up. Etc., etc., TAKE OFF SOMETHING YOU DON'T NEED.
The object of the game was to see how many articles of clothing the poor victim would take off before realizing that THE BLANKET was the unnecessary item.
Why am I telling you this story? Well, in the past three months this blog temporarily became the something I don't need. I share this story because I know how hard most researchers work and what a balancing act we try to perform with conflicting demands at work and outside of the office. We are prize multitaskers. But I'm hoping that sometime when you are feeling buried under a hot blanket, and you're overworked and burning up and stressed out, that you'll remember this little game, stop, breathe, re-evaluate the priorities and take off something you really don't need.
That being said, back to blogging.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Importance of Capacity Research
Margaret King has an article titled "Prospect Research: What You Don't Know and How it Can Hurt You" in this month's Fundraising Success gives a great example of why capacity research is so important. While her description of research techniques is simplified for the publication, it is a good piece to forward to development staff who may not understand the value of research.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Love at First Site
For keeping up with the Real Estate Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, my favorite is Luxist.com's Sunday Real Estate Roundup. Each Sunday, blogger Deidre Woollard sums up the hot property scoops from the New York Observer, New York Post, LA Times, and others. (Now if they could just come up with an RSS Feed that pushed ONLY the real estate news...)
By the way, I use my.yahoo.com as my RSS aggregator. It is a convenient way to get weather, headlines, personal e-mail, and RSS Feeds all in one place.
By the way, I use my.yahoo.com as my RSS aggregator. It is a convenient way to get weather, headlines, personal e-mail, and RSS Feeds all in one place.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Thursday News Round-Up
OK, I know it's Friday. [Thursday is the day I pick up my organic produce from the CSA, so the day got away from me. Probably more information that anyone needs to know!]
***
New ideas of what truly motivates donor giving, from research presented at "Experimental Approaches to the Study of Charitable Giving," a conference funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and sponsored by Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
Bank of America increases giving for health, housing, and the arts.
Times were when a yacht under water spelled disaster, but that was before the luxury submarine became a billionaire trend.
Robert Frank reports on trust fund baby trends in the LA Times. Free registration required.[Researcher Musings: Does anyone actually tell the truth when asked for birthdate and income on a free registration form?]
Time Magazine’s coverage of the latest web “tools” for researching individuals underscores the need for attention to ethics and factual verification in fundraising research. [Note: This is an editorial comment, not an article summary.] As researchers, we need to be aware of what is being said on privacy issues and online ethics; we're in the thick of it.
***
Have a great weekend!
***
New ideas of what truly motivates donor giving, from research presented at "Experimental Approaches to the Study of Charitable Giving," a conference funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and sponsored by Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
Bank of America increases giving for health, housing, and the arts.
Times were when a yacht under water spelled disaster, but that was before the luxury submarine became a billionaire trend.
Robert Frank reports on trust fund baby trends in the LA Times. Free registration required.[Researcher Musings: Does anyone actually tell the truth when asked for birthdate and income on a free registration form?]
Time Magazine’s coverage of the latest web “tools” for researching individuals underscores the need for attention to ethics and factual verification in fundraising research. [Note: This is an editorial comment, not an article summary.] As researchers, we need to be aware of what is being said on privacy issues and online ethics; we're in the thick of it.
***
Have a great weekend!
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Is There a Cure for APRA Conference Syndrome?
Years ago I read an article about a malady called Jerusalem Syndrome. Symptoms, which occur during a visit to the city of Jerusalem, include the presence of religious delusions or obsessions that can last over several days.
Well, readers, I believe I may have suffered from a similar malady over the past week. Experts believe "APRA Conference Syndrome" is caused by being in a room with 1200 other advancement researchers and attending multiple prospect research workshops and panels. The Syndrome (which is exacerbated by listening to Keynote Speakers) include the following:
Well, readers, I believe I may have suffered from a similar malady over the past week. Experts believe "APRA Conference Syndrome" is caused by being in a room with 1200 other advancement researchers and attending multiple prospect research workshops and panels. The Syndrome (which is exacerbated by listening to Keynote Speakers) include the following:
- Believing that you have discovered the Holy Grail of wealth estimation formulas
- Thinking that all your coworkers back home will be as delighted to here about data modeling theories as your APRA Conference Buddies
- The delusion that you will actually have time to implement all the fantastic new ideas you picked up from experts in the field
- Experiencing visions of flawless prospect management systems
- The realization that you have stumbled on a rare Eden filled with intellectually curious, generous, down-to-earth and dedicated colleagues (this one lasts more than a few days...)
***
I will be back to more substantive posts as soon as I finish doing my laundry. A big Thank You and Best Wishes to all of you that make up this professional community.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Thursday News Round-Up
Recent News on Philanthropy and the Wealthy (some links may require subscriptions):
Pretty sure nobody missed this one, but just in case: The New York Times compares today’s wealthiest with the barons of the Gilded Age.
The Wall Street Journal’s “Wealth Report” defines a new acronym: YAWNS (“Young, Wealthy but Normal”).
CNN tracks celebrity donations to political candidates.
Donors’ multimillion pledge to go towards enhancement and expansion of school’s planned giving effort (Ohio Wesleyan).
The Senate Finance Committee scrutinizes the Robin Hood Foundation for investing it’s “nest egg” in Board Members’ hedge funds. The Wall Street Journal’s Wealth Report had a different take on the issue. Nonetheless, by the end of this week, the Robin Hood Foundation had announced that it would stop investing in its donors’ and members’ hedge funds.
Pretty sure nobody missed this one, but just in case: The New York Times compares today’s wealthiest with the barons of the Gilded Age.
The Wall Street Journal’s “Wealth Report” defines a new acronym: YAWNS (“Young, Wealthy but Normal”).
CNN tracks celebrity donations to political candidates.
Donors’ multimillion pledge to go towards enhancement and expansion of school’s planned giving effort (Ohio Wesleyan).
The Senate Finance Committee scrutinizes the Robin Hood Foundation for investing it’s “nest egg” in Board Members’ hedge funds. The Wall Street Journal’s Wealth Report had a different take on the issue. Nonetheless, by the end of this week, the Robin Hood Foundation had announced that it would stop investing in its donors’ and members’ hedge funds.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Upstairs, Downstairs - Social Class and the Prospect Researcher
As prospect researchers, we are students of wealth and the wealthy. Although it is hard to divorce a discussion of wealth from a discussion of social class, talking about social class in the U.S. is somewhat discouraged. Bringing up class issues at work is especially verboten.
The issue of social class is unavoidable in the field of fundraising, especially in prospect research. In addition to understanding issues of social class, we may find ourselves interacting on a daily basis with donors, volunteers, trustees, or colleagues whose backgrounds are very different than our own.
So I found myself intrigued by an article in the June 10th New York Times about Ruby Payne, the "Class Consciousness Raiser." Most of Payne's work has centered on how understanding social class aids teachers in helping poor students learn. (Her work has on occasion been criticized for being unscientific, insensitive or elitist).
After reading the article, I ordered a copy of "Hidden Rules of Class at Work,"by Payne and co-researcher Don L. Krabill. While the book is of the self-help genre (aimed at employees and supervisors), rather than a serious scholarly work, I found some of the ideas valuable. Payne's main argument is that folks from different social classes operate on different assumptions, and that without understanding these assumptions, one is likely to be misunderstood in communicating with a member of a different social class. Some examples:
Family structure: In poverty, tends to be matriarchal; in the middle class, tends to be patriarchal; in wealth, depends on who has the money. Obviously, in figuring out which spouse to approach for a donation, this is a critical determination.
Time: In poverty, the present is the most important. The middle class focuses on the future. The wealthy, on the other hand, are steeped in the past, with an emphasis on tradition and history. Again, determining your prospect's temporal emphasis may help guide your proposal. Is s/he more interested in keeping up school tradition, or will a vision of your school's future be more persuasive?
It's important to note that Payne does not consider one class "better" than another, but argues that the "rules" of different social classes hold sway in different environments. Public schools and corporate workplaces tend to adhere to middle class values, which may be at odds with the assumptions of some of your wealthier donors or volunteers.
It is important to note, as well, that social class is a fluid construct: a person's family background, education, and life experience - such as marrying someone from a different social class - all influence the "hidden rules" they follow. My guess is that the newer wealth of hedge funds and private equity may be more "middle class" than older, inherited wealth.
While amorphous, social class is another angle from which we can view our work. It can make us better researchers. And it can make us more comfortable in the environments in which we operate.
The issue of social class is unavoidable in the field of fundraising, especially in prospect research. In addition to understanding issues of social class, we may find ourselves interacting on a daily basis with donors, volunteers, trustees, or colleagues whose backgrounds are very different than our own.
So I found myself intrigued by an article in the June 10th New York Times about Ruby Payne, the "Class Consciousness Raiser." Most of Payne's work has centered on how understanding social class aids teachers in helping poor students learn. (Her work has on occasion been criticized for being unscientific, insensitive or elitist).
After reading the article, I ordered a copy of "Hidden Rules of Class at Work,"by Payne and co-researcher Don L. Krabill. While the book is of the self-help genre (aimed at employees and supervisors), rather than a serious scholarly work, I found some of the ideas valuable. Payne's main argument is that folks from different social classes operate on different assumptions, and that without understanding these assumptions, one is likely to be misunderstood in communicating with a member of a different social class. Some examples:
Family structure: In poverty, tends to be matriarchal; in the middle class, tends to be patriarchal; in wealth, depends on who has the money. Obviously, in figuring out which spouse to approach for a donation, this is a critical determination.
Time: In poverty, the present is the most important. The middle class focuses on the future. The wealthy, on the other hand, are steeped in the past, with an emphasis on tradition and history. Again, determining your prospect's temporal emphasis may help guide your proposal. Is s/he more interested in keeping up school tradition, or will a vision of your school's future be more persuasive?
It's important to note that Payne does not consider one class "better" than another, but argues that the "rules" of different social classes hold sway in different environments. Public schools and corporate workplaces tend to adhere to middle class values, which may be at odds with the assumptions of some of your wealthier donors or volunteers.
It is important to note, as well, that social class is a fluid construct: a person's family background, education, and life experience - such as marrying someone from a different social class - all influence the "hidden rules" they follow. My guess is that the newer wealth of hedge funds and private equity may be more "middle class" than older, inherited wealth.
While amorphous, social class is another angle from which we can view our work. It can make us better researchers. And it can make us more comfortable in the environments in which we operate.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Bookmarks and Tags: Order Out of Chaos, Part I
I can remember when the word "bookmark" meant this. And when the word "tag" meant this.
Not anymore.
Now the word "bookmark" means this. And the word "tag" means this.
***
A few weeks back, I posted to the PRSPCT-L list requesting feedback on whether listers were using online bookmarking/tagging sites. Results:
Foxmarks - 1 vote (I love Firefox, but I'm chained to Microsoft in the office).
Del.icio.us - 2 votes (First impressions: The interface may give me seizures. And no privacy!)
Backflip- 1 vote (Great logo; page layout is easy on the eyes)
Furl - 1 vote (I'm going to put in a plug here for Furl-user Aimee Fitzgerald, a veteran librarian and researcher who has been a great resource on the "El")
That's it for the free resources. Ask.com's Gary Price recommended Bookmarksync.com, along with providing a half-dozen resources and sprinkling of thoughtful opinions on bookmarking and tagging in general. (I'm still wading through that). Bookmarksync is a paid site, but the annual fees are reasonable (up to $40 for the professional edition).
In investigating further, I discovered that there are dozens of free social bookmarking tools, and more information and opinion on the best ways to organize, classify, search, share, and maintain website collections than this researcher can digest.
I'm going to make an attempt, though. It's interesting reading.
More later.
Not anymore.
Now the word "bookmark" means this. And the word "tag" means this.
***
A few weeks back, I posted to the PRSPCT-L list requesting feedback on whether listers were using online bookmarking/tagging sites. Results:
Foxmarks - 1 vote (I love Firefox, but I'm chained to Microsoft in the office).
Del.icio.us - 2 votes (First impressions: The interface may give me seizures. And no privacy!)
Backflip- 1 vote (Great logo; page layout is easy on the eyes)
Furl - 1 vote (I'm going to put in a plug here for Furl-user Aimee Fitzgerald, a veteran librarian and researcher who has been a great resource on the "El")
That's it for the free resources. Ask.com's Gary Price recommended Bookmarksync.com, along with providing a half-dozen resources and sprinkling of thoughtful opinions on bookmarking and tagging in general. (I'm still wading through that). Bookmarksync is a paid site, but the annual fees are reasonable (up to $40 for the professional edition).
In investigating further, I discovered that there are dozens of free social bookmarking tools, and more information and opinion on the best ways to organize, classify, search, share, and maintain website collections than this researcher can digest.
I'm going to make an attempt, though. It's interesting reading.
More later.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
The Merits of Debits and Credits
Back in May, a lively discussion took place on the PRSPCT-L listserve regarding the value of a master's degree. I have to admit that as a researcher sans advanced degree, I am somewhat ambivalent. What I am 100% certain of, however, is that excellence in research demands continuing education. Most researchers I've met are zealous independent learners; in fact, that is the key personality trait that defines a true researcher.
I'm lucky to possess a terrific liberal arts background and a lot of technical know-how. But back in May, realizing the edge more formal business training could bring to prospect research, I decided to take some business classes at Baruch College Continuing Education. Marianne Pelletier very helpfully suggested starting with accounting, a basic course for business majors which many liberal arts grads have never studied.
Just six weeks into the class, I already get more out of the daily business news. A bonus has been a better understanding of my organization's financial reports (not to mention the ability to have an informed conversation with our VP of Finance).
Whether instead of or in addition to a master's degree, it's always a good idea to assess the gaps in your formal knowledge and find a way to fill in the gaps, through continuing education, workshops, conferences or mentoring. Contrarian career counselor and U.S. News Contributor Marty Nemko argues that targeted self-education is a better alternative than an advanced degree. What do you think?
I'm lucky to possess a terrific liberal arts background and a lot of technical know-how. But back in May, realizing the edge more formal business training could bring to prospect research, I decided to take some business classes at Baruch College Continuing Education. Marianne Pelletier very helpfully suggested starting with accounting, a basic course for business majors which many liberal arts grads have never studied.
Just six weeks into the class, I already get more out of the daily business news. A bonus has been a better understanding of my organization's financial reports (not to mention the ability to have an informed conversation with our VP of Finance).
Whether instead of or in addition to a master's degree, it's always a good idea to assess the gaps in your formal knowledge and find a way to fill in the gaps, through continuing education, workshops, conferences or mentoring. Contrarian career counselor and U.S. News Contributor Marty Nemko argues that targeted self-education is a better alternative than an advanced degree. What do you think?
Monday, June 18, 2007
A Hike to Inspiration Point
I had the great fortune last week of attending two days of workshops, the APRA of Greater New York Spring Workshop, "Navigating the Trail to Success," and AFP's Fundraising Day in New York City, which I was able to attend due to an APRAGNY scholarship.
One of the best takeaways from workshops and conferences: Inspiration
I return to my job after a workshop all revved up about making improvements and implementing new ideas, many of which were never mentioned by the speakers. There's something about sitting in a room and being presented with new ideas, resources and perspectives that inspires creativity. In fact, it can be a challenge to keep my mind reined in and focused on the session topic; my handouts are peppered with exclamations: Newsletter! RSS Feeds! (Pay Phone Bill!)
Some of the more inspiring statements I heard last week came from Catherine Reed, National Director of Development for Hadassah. Reed referred to advancement research as not just the first step of development, but "the core of development," emphasizing that "twenty hands touch a gift." Research is what "pushes us through the process" of cultivating and soliciting gifts. She noted the particular role of research in "breaking down the silos," making sure that the approach to a particular donor is integrated. Reed acknowledged that despite the crucial role research plays in fundraising, the researcher can sometimes be the most under-appreciated person in the development office. "You have to educate us."
In her afternoon session, Cecilia Hogan echoed that statement of responsibility: "We have to be the leaders on our teams, even when we aren't the designated leaders."
Later on in the day, a colleague disagreed with this point of view, essentially arguing that s/he wasn't being paid enough, or being given the authority, to be a leader. And that it wasn't our role to educate our colleagues.
I disagree; while it's true that you can't be the manager on your team if you aren't the designated authority, anyone with vision and the ability to communicate that vision can be a leader. The power of management comes from position; the power of leadership comes from influence.
One of the best takeaways from workshops and conferences: Inspiration
I return to my job after a workshop all revved up about making improvements and implementing new ideas, many of which were never mentioned by the speakers. There's something about sitting in a room and being presented with new ideas, resources and perspectives that inspires creativity. In fact, it can be a challenge to keep my mind reined in and focused on the session topic; my handouts are peppered with exclamations: Newsletter! RSS Feeds! (Pay Phone Bill!)
Some of the more inspiring statements I heard last week came from Catherine Reed, National Director of Development for Hadassah. Reed referred to advancement research as not just the first step of development, but "the core of development," emphasizing that "twenty hands touch a gift." Research is what "pushes us through the process" of cultivating and soliciting gifts. She noted the particular role of research in "breaking down the silos," making sure that the approach to a particular donor is integrated. Reed acknowledged that despite the crucial role research plays in fundraising, the researcher can sometimes be the most under-appreciated person in the development office. "You have to educate us."
In her afternoon session, Cecilia Hogan echoed that statement of responsibility: "We have to be the leaders on our teams, even when we aren't the designated leaders."
Later on in the day, a colleague disagreed with this point of view, essentially arguing that s/he wasn't being paid enough, or being given the authority, to be a leader. And that it wasn't our role to educate our colleagues.
I disagree; while it's true that you can't be the manager on your team if you aren't the designated authority, anyone with vision and the ability to communicate that vision can be a leader. The power of management comes from position; the power of leadership comes from influence.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
These Are A Few Of My Favorite Things...Books and Manuals
...bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens...tra la la la la la...
(Ahem)
Those of us whose first prospect research job was pre-Internet are amazed at the plethora of books, articles, conferences, workshops, web sites, and other useful training materials available to today's researchers.
The Bible of prospect research books is Cecilia Hogan's Prospect Research: A Primer for Growing Nonprofits, which is coming out in a revised edition this September. An essential text for beginning researchers, Cecilia traces the history of prospect research and introduces the newbie researcher to the skills of biographical research, "research math" and prospect management that are necssary for our work. It's also a great reference tool for experienced researchers. The new edition will also include a chapter on Cecilia's take on capacity rating and advice on dermining philanthropic capacity.
Laura Solla has a pair of prospect research instruction manuals that are well worth the price. The Guide to Prospect Research & Prospect Management (newly revised for 2007) is also a great beginner's text, and the chapter prospect management in particular is useful to anyone implementing or upgrading a prospect management system (and who isn't?).
A second manual from Laura Solla, The Guide to Analyzing Wealth and Assets, is, I believe, the only text out there focusing on wealth analysis. It is a great complement to workshops and trainings on the subject, and a lifesaver for early-career researchers who haven't been able to make it to live training sessions.
Major Donors: Finding Big Gifts in Your Database and Online, by Ted Hart, James M. Greenfield, Pamela M. Gignac and Christopher Carnie, and others, an anthology of wise counsel from experienced researchers and fundraisers in the U.S., Canada and U.K. (2006), also works as a training manual for novices. I particularly appreciate the international perspective and the integration of researcher and frontline fundraiser perspectives (such as that of "relationship fundraising" guru Ken Burnett). For those of us looking to advance the profile of research within our organizations, the chapter on evaluation and results measurement is particularly noteworthy.
I'm looking forward to receiving a copy of Helen Bergan's Where the Money Is: Advancement Research for Nonprofit Organizations, a 2001 revision of a text written in the mid-1990's. Not having read it, I can't comment as yet.
Other suggestions for the Prospect Researcher's Basic Library?
(Ahem)
Those of us whose first prospect research job was pre-Internet are amazed at the plethora of books, articles, conferences, workshops, web sites, and other useful training materials available to today's researchers.
The Bible of prospect research books is Cecilia Hogan's Prospect Research: A Primer for Growing Nonprofits, which is coming out in a revised edition this September. An essential text for beginning researchers, Cecilia traces the history of prospect research and introduces the newbie researcher to the skills of biographical research, "research math" and prospect management that are necssary for our work. It's also a great reference tool for experienced researchers. The new edition will also include a chapter on Cecilia's take on capacity rating and advice on dermining philanthropic capacity.
Laura Solla has a pair of prospect research instruction manuals that are well worth the price. The Guide to Prospect Research & Prospect Management (newly revised for 2007) is also a great beginner's text, and the chapter prospect management in particular is useful to anyone implementing or upgrading a prospect management system (and who isn't?).
A second manual from Laura Solla, The Guide to Analyzing Wealth and Assets, is, I believe, the only text out there focusing on wealth analysis. It is a great complement to workshops and trainings on the subject, and a lifesaver for early-career researchers who haven't been able to make it to live training sessions.
Major Donors: Finding Big Gifts in Your Database and Online, by Ted Hart, James M. Greenfield, Pamela M. Gignac and Christopher Carnie, and others, an anthology of wise counsel from experienced researchers and fundraisers in the U.S., Canada and U.K. (2006), also works as a training manual for novices. I particularly appreciate the international perspective and the integration of researcher and frontline fundraiser perspectives (such as that of "relationship fundraising" guru Ken Burnett). For those of us looking to advance the profile of research within our organizations, the chapter on evaluation and results measurement is particularly noteworthy.
I'm looking forward to receiving a copy of Helen Bergan's Where the Money Is: Advancement Research for Nonprofit Organizations, a 2001 revision of a text written in the mid-1990's. Not having read it, I can't comment as yet.
Other suggestions for the Prospect Researcher's Basic Library?
Snoops and Snails and Fundraiser Tales
Respect is a word that comes up often in prospect research. Respect for donors. Respect for privacy. Respect for confidentiality.
And respect for The Work We Do.
Aside from the issue of pay, some of us have had to contend with articles or individuals (even colleagues) who imply that there is something sleazy about the work we do. A boss that insists that we lie to a donor who asks what our role is at our organization; being kidded about being a "snoop" or a "spy."
Hmmmmm.
The Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines "snoop" as "investigate or look around furtively in an attempt to find out something." It further defines "furtive" as "characterized by guilty or evasive secrecy; stealthy."
"Spy" is defined as "1. a person employed to collect and report secret information on an enemy or competitor. 2. a person or device that observes others secretly."
Both definitions have overtones of unsavory characters conducting work in secret. Very different from the work of prospect researchers. As anyone who has been in this field for more than thirty seconds knows, we adhere to a strong code of ethics and privacy guidelines. And these aren't just pieces of paper. Fundraising Researchers think about ethical practice all the time. (Just for fun, try suggesting a practice that would contradict APRA's Code of Ethics on the PRSPCT-L list. You'll soon receive dozens of responses from concerned researchers, nudging you back toward the Path of Righteousness).
So when we receive disrespect we don't deserve, rather than the support we do, especially from our fundraising colleagues, I have to ask myself, what is going on? I don't think the slights are intentional, but they do undermine the professionalism of our work.
Perhaps press coverage of donor privacy issues, from the ACLU case in the New York Times to numerous articles in the Chronicle of Philanthropy leads fundraisers to falsely believe that they must distance themselves from the activities of research to retain their own credibility with donors, trustees or the general public. I believe this is a mistake. Page 3 of "Major Donors" by Ted Hart et al., states that "Research is the cornerstone of any fundraising operation." Why would any professional fundraiser want to distance herself from the very foundation of fundraising?
Maybe the reluctance of frontline fundraisers to totally embrace prospect research is a kind of psychological projection. We all know fundraisers who, despite years in the field, still feel a sense of embarrassment about making the Ask. (That's why there are dozens of books on the subject). Amy Kincaid's post "Asking for Money Without Shame" is a great description of how destructive this attitude can be. Perhaps some fundraisers unwittingly project their internal discomfort with their fundraising role onto researchers.
The solution? Memorize, adhere to, and publicize our code of ethics. If you don't have one already, push for a donor privacy/confidentiality policy at your organization. Gently correct those think prospect researcher=Yenta. And seize every opportunity to educate others about the work that you do.
And respect for The Work We Do.
Aside from the issue of pay, some of us have had to contend with articles or individuals (even colleagues) who imply that there is something sleazy about the work we do. A boss that insists that we lie to a donor who asks what our role is at our organization; being kidded about being a "snoop" or a "spy."
Hmmmmm.
The Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines "snoop" as "investigate or look around furtively in an attempt to find out something." It further defines "furtive" as "characterized by guilty or evasive secrecy; stealthy."
"Spy" is defined as "1. a person employed to collect and report secret information on an enemy or competitor. 2. a person or device that observes others secretly."
Both definitions have overtones of unsavory characters conducting work in secret. Very different from the work of prospect researchers. As anyone who has been in this field for more than thirty seconds knows, we adhere to a strong code of ethics and privacy guidelines. And these aren't just pieces of paper. Fundraising Researchers think about ethical practice all the time. (Just for fun, try suggesting a practice that would contradict APRA's Code of Ethics on the PRSPCT-L list. You'll soon receive dozens of responses from concerned researchers, nudging you back toward the Path of Righteousness).
So when we receive disrespect we don't deserve, rather than the support we do, especially from our fundraising colleagues, I have to ask myself, what is going on? I don't think the slights are intentional, but they do undermine the professionalism of our work.
Perhaps press coverage of donor privacy issues, from the ACLU case in the New York Times to numerous articles in the Chronicle of Philanthropy leads fundraisers to falsely believe that they must distance themselves from the activities of research to retain their own credibility with donors, trustees or the general public. I believe this is a mistake. Page 3 of "Major Donors" by Ted Hart et al., states that "Research is the cornerstone of any fundraising operation." Why would any professional fundraiser want to distance herself from the very foundation of fundraising?
Maybe the reluctance of frontline fundraisers to totally embrace prospect research is a kind of psychological projection. We all know fundraisers who, despite years in the field, still feel a sense of embarrassment about making the Ask. (That's why there are dozens of books on the subject). Amy Kincaid's post "Asking for Money Without Shame" is a great description of how destructive this attitude can be. Perhaps some fundraisers unwittingly project their internal discomfort with their fundraising role onto researchers.
The solution? Memorize, adhere to, and publicize our code of ethics. If you don't have one already, push for a donor privacy/confidentiality policy at your organization. Gently correct those think prospect researcher=Yenta. And seize every opportunity to educate others about the work that you do.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Welcome to Adventures in Prospect Research
I cannot begin without addressing the question: why a prospect research blog? There have been a number of bloggers in our field: Steven Hupp, David Lamb and Sandra Larkin come to mind, not to mention the prspct-L listserve at Charity Channel and a large variety of books, training seminars and workshops and web sites.
My goal is to focus on two main areas:
1. How to acquire the skills and knowledge of a good researcher. (For an overview of what it takes to be a good researcher, see APRA's Skill Sets. They are invaluable guidelines).
2. How to make the most of a career in prospect research.
Both of these are questions I deal with on a regular basis; I look forward to playing with the answers in future posts.
My goal is to focus on two main areas:
1. How to acquire the skills and knowledge of a good researcher. (For an overview of what it takes to be a good researcher, see APRA's Skill Sets. They are invaluable guidelines).
2. How to make the most of a career in prospect research.
Both of these are questions I deal with on a regular basis; I look forward to playing with the answers in future posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)