Recently, I had a discussion with the Financial Resource Development (FRD) professional responsible for fundraising for an organization that provides special programing for autistic children. He was bemoaning the fact that he cannot get the directors of the centers run by the organization to provide him with a list of past and present clients so that he can solicit them for contributions.
A red light went off in my head when he told me of his frustration in dealing with the center directors. I immediately thought of several very important issues and possible dilemmas raised by this scenario. Although his request appears to be quite simple, it is actually very complicated and elicits a number of ethical and professional issues.
The first issue that comes to mind is his requesting a list of names from the centers’ directors. Each of the directors has developed a professional relationship with the parents of the children in the centers so handing over those names, even for purposes of supporting the centers, cannot be done without a thoughtful and thorough plan.
An essential part of appropriate name sharing is for the FRD professional to first meet with each center’s director in order to find out more about the parents of former and present clients. It would be skipping an important step for the FRD professional to reach out to the parents on his own without receiving more complete information about the people from the directors, who know each family personally. Only after this meeting has taken place is it appropriate for the FRD professional to receive a list of names and phone numbers of the parents.
There are a number of questions that would need to be answered prior to having any contact with the parents: Who are they? What do they do? Where do they live? What has been the nature of the contact between the center director and the parents? What was the parents’ level of satisfaction of the services they received? Have they expressed any interest in supporting the center’s activities beyond their tuition fees?
Once these questions have been answered, the FRD professional and the center director need to discuss who makes the first contact with the parents. If the center director has had a close relationship with the parents then he or she might be the one to reach out and either introduce the FRD professional and suggest a meeting or arrange for a meeting with the FRD professional, the director and the parents. The decision of who to involve in the meeting could make a big difference in its outcome.
As the main representative of the organization, it is the center director who knows how the parents have responded to the services they have received and the progress they feel has been been made with their child. This is why it is crucial that the center director, who already has a close relationship the parents, must be part of the process of furthering the relationship between the agency and the potential supporter.
No less important is the ethical issue of approaching a client for a contribution. When a client is in the process of receiving assistance from a nonprofit organization, the idea of simultaneously approaching them for financial support has to be considered seriously. That is why a number of questions must be considered before any overture is made to the parents.
If the parents have expressed an interest in making a contribution to the agency and supporting the work of the center then it is very appropriate to have the offer followed up by the FRD professional and the center director. If the desire to assist the center is coming from the client then there is no conflict of interest. However, if the interest in supporting the agency comes from the organization, and not come from the client receiving its services, the matter becomes more complicated. One important caveat when approaching parents for support is to make sure the request cannot in any way be interpreted to suggest that the child will receive better services if they contribute to the agency. Accordingly, there is a very fine line in how the approach will be received by the parents so it is best to be very cautious.
When approaching parents whose children were former clients of the center then there is no conflict of interest. In fact, it is appropriate during a final meeting with the parents when the child is leaving the center to discuss not only their feelings and thoughts about the services they received, but also to explore their interest in supporting the agency. The center director can begin the process of engaging with them and suggest that the parents meet with the FRD professional.
The FRD professional benefits from the relationship the agency has cultivated with the parents through the director and staff of the center. In this way, the process of solicitation is a coordinated effort and not a matter of simply receiving the list of names and then working independently. When the approach to someone who has received the services from the nonprofit is clearly thought out and builds upon existing relationships then there is a greater chance for success in engaging a donor.
This is why an essential element of any fundraising database is the Relationship Management aspect of it. It should be considered a DRM — Donor Relationship Management tool, similar to a CRM (customer relationship management). The ability to store notes about donors such is the type of info exchanged between the FRD and the Directors is crucial. Additionally, a timeline of activity for each donor is helpful – showing all contact/contact methods made and results.
Nothing replaces personal interaction. A list alone is meaningless. I list with the “personal touch”, so to speak brings meaning to the list and usefulness as well…
I realize the importance of increasing the donor base to offset attrition as well the constant need to raise funds. However, as a social worker and an executive director I must point at that soliciting current or former clients is considered an ethical violation, at least in our profession. Soliciting clients fails to recognized the unequal balance in the relationship between the recipient and the provider. The recipient in almost all cases feeling beholden to provider. The question is, should it be acceptable to exploit that relationship under these circumstances even if the outcome is “noble”?
In order to think outside of the box you must first have a box to start from. The history of both scientific innovation and social innovation is the history of women and men who built on the progress of the past and took bold steps, at times incremental, at times radical, but always strategically developmental. Existing ideas and processes were challenged, re-cooked, reconfigured. Almost nothing, perhaps nothing occurs de novo. Over the centuries Jewish thought and action was always based on standing on the shoulders of others and integrating the old with the insights of a new and changing world. It is an historical truism – proven time and again.
As an example, fast forward to our times and examine that model of models, the most successful entrepreneurial endeavor of the Jewish social sector of the last decade – Birthright israel.
Birthright israel from its inception was championed by a visionary few but programmatically built on the work of many, mostly Jewish Federations and establishment organizations. With essential, but relatively modest seed funding from the Bronfman Foundation and others, early 90’s pilot projects in West Palm Beach, Washington D.C. and NY upgraded and raised the visibility of teen (H.S. age) Israel experience programs. Many of the innovations of those endeavors carried over into Birthright israel – pre and post programming, mega events, a market place of vendors and trip options. These initiatives themselves stood on the shoulder of older creatively funded “Passport to Israel” programs developed in Cleveland and elsewhere. The major breakthrough innovations of Birthright israel were national branding, the shorter trip, the free price tag and the focus on an older age cohort of 18-26 year olds. Similar case histories and synergies can be uncovered in such areas as synagogue renewal, venture philanthropy, Jewish camping, teen tzedakah programs and certainly day schools.
So let us return to the black box of our existing communities and realities and suggest five arenas having long and noble traditions but each ripe for learning, change and innovation.
Philanthropy is not particularly the pursuit of the young. Chronological age and philanthropic age are often two distinct things and the concentration of disposable wealth is not always in the hands of the young (or the male). The recent great recession has taken its psychic as well as economic toll on the boomer generation. Those who have passed through this tunnel financially whole have often reevaluated their values and sense of meaning. There is a wealth of empathy, insight, talent and purpose to be mined. And the actuaries tell us they will be around for another generation plus.
In Torah, tzedakah begins with connectedness and compassion and the responsibility to uplift those who have fallen on hard, lonely and difficult times. It is also, throughout the Diaspora and in Israel, the absolute most enduring engine of Jewish charitable giving. The agenda in this arena is not mundane nor is it finished. In Israel, the growing gap between rich and poor communities and populations is an existential threat to the cohesion of the state even as the economy attains first world status. In the Diaspora, recession, geographic mobility and the weakening of large extended Jewish family networks have left all of us in situational need of what our colleagues at UJA Federation of NY call the “warm embrace” of community. Their current Connect to Care program has, in eight short months, served over 13,000(!) individuals and their families dislocated financially, emotionally and professionally by the current recession.
The Jewish life worth living exists within Jewish communities worth living in. Those communities have by necessity infrastructures of agencies, synagogues and organizations. How power is shared, how decisions are made, how the entrepreneurial spirit of foundations is merged with the public legitimacy of Federations, how synergies are created, how structures are enlarged, merged, reconfigured and sustainably funded and staffed are core challenges and opportunities that can engage the most creative minds of multiple generations.
Our young do not live in a cultural, social or political ghetto and neither should the rest of us. They, and we, are citizens of the world however rooted as we are in our values and traditions. Great social issues beg for a Jewish voice and our engagement – civility in public life, defining the boundaries of diversity and social cohesion, medical ethics, protecting the legitimacy of the Jewish state and defining what it means to be pro-Israel in an age that lacks political consensus. For over a decade we have placed these issues on the backburner often trumped by the need to protect public sector funding. We must now follow our children into the larger world and confront these old/new issues head on.
Those who, in the vernacular of Jewish life, are called “lay people” often get a bad rap. They are accused of inertia, arrogance, class bias and standing in the way of the entrepreneurial professionals and foundations who know better the task and its implementation. However the flip side is, can be, and should be that the best of our laity are financially unremunerated professionals who put their heart, soul, time and wisdom into moving mountains (and peers), listening to the collective voices of the community and ensuring that the job not only gets done but gets done right. Renewing the partnership with paid professionals, mentoring and educating a new generation of laity and linking social entrepreneurs with the lay talent they deserve is core to our future just as it was the absolute key strategic asset of our communal past.
The above five are but the tip of a glacial sized communal iceberg of what is and can be built upon. The issues themselves are neither new nor novel. Yet our times are different and therefore much can be rediscovered and reengaged.
Robert Hyfler has three decades of Jewish communal experience, currently as a philanthropic consultant. He can be reached at bobhyfler@comcast.net
This post is part of the series 28 Days, 28 Ideas. Be sure to check out yesterday’s idea from Jewcy, “Jewish identity projects are not the answer” and tomorrow’s on The Sisterhood Blog @ The Forward. You can also visit 28days28ideas.com for the full list of ideas as they progress.
What a curious comment about maleness. At least half of the philanthropic family foundations I thought of off the top of my head are run by elderly men, not women. I’m curious what the actual breakdown is.
Thank you Sarah for your observation and question. I would refer readers to the excellent recommendations in idea #25 found on the sisterhood blog that addresses the glass ceiling still too prevalent in communal life. Progress has been slow but there are nevertheless numerous examples in the foundation arena of women who have shared power and visioning with spouses or have succeeded spouses in running family foundations. As a generational transition occurs power often transfers to siblings and there too gender equality is increasingly the norm. Women’s venture philanthropy also offers successes and promise. The federation world is regrettably slower but women are not uncommon as both campaign chairs and Presidents in communities of all sizes. (Professionals at the very top are a slower go and a different story.) One idea I have often thought of is a lay institute culminating in a certificate in “volunteer management”. This might attract persons of both genders including those who have made the choice to put professional carreers on hold during their active parenting years.
[…] Robert Hyfler writes, instead of thinking “outside the box”, we need to look inward — examine our long […]
Please join Sacred Spaces, UJA Federation, and other community partners at two upcoming community awareness events of the Safeguarding Children Campaign, the first open-source online platform for Jewish youth-serving organizations partnering together to prevent child maltreatment. We invite you to an evening of learning with Dr. Shira Berkovits, Founder and CEO of Sacred Spaces, in Westchester and the Five Towns to hear more about what you can do to keep all children in our communities safe.
All orders over $50.00 ship FREE on Ejuiceplug.com within the U.S. via USPS First Class Mail (3-7 Business Days).
And all orders above $125 will ship FREE USPS Priority Shipping within the U.S. (2-3 Business Days).
*Orders placed after 12PM PST Monday - Friday will not be shipped until the next business day. We do not ship on any major U.S. holidays. Order's Placed on Saturday or Sunday will ship out on the following Monday or next business day.