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.
Monday, June 18, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)