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.