Have Enough?

By Laurence A. Pagnoni, MPA

When the economic outlook is hard to get a handle on, fundraisers get nervous. “Do we have enough?, is often the question.  However, in fundraising there are things that change in the nonprofit sector as a result of cyclical changes in the society at large and things that do not change. Donor’s intent on achieving tax-efficiency will still look to planned gifts, for example, both in times of economic up- and downturn. Similarly, the giving patterns of individuals of high net worth are usually not affected. These individuals give not only to be charitable, but also to receive something of value in return—i.e., tax efficiency. They still need tax efficiency whether the market is up or down.

The fact is that fundraising fundamentals do not change with the rise and fall of the economy, but apply irrespective of the prevailing phase of the business cycle. This point tends to be overlooked during booms and recessions alike. That is why I am keeping a sharp lookout on my mailbox. Within a few weeks, I expect to see a leading journal of the nonprofit sector run yet another article asking, “When Money is Tight, Should We Cut Fundraising Because We Can’t Afford It?” The underlying assumption of these perennial “think pieces” is that the nonprofit’s executive office can handle the fundraising function at a tough time.

The sad irony is that fundraising fundamentals—and the specialized knowledge to put them into effect—are more pertinent when the market is in the doldrums. Invariably, those organizations that effectively ask for more money, stay in touch with donors, and produce real change for those they serve (as documented by program outcomes) attract more money.

The fundraising function of a nonprofit allows your entrepreneurial ideas to come to fruition. Without money, those ideas are just ramblings. So cutting back that function at a time when you need more stability is just not smart.

On the contrary, a better business decision would be to respond to lagging economic indicators by establishing more cash reserves. Why? Cash reserves, like a home or building, are collateral that can be borrowed against, and with interest rates so low this is a good time for nonprofits to take on “good debt” (mortgages), should a new brick-and-mortar project be required. Also, cash reserves can be used to make-up unexpected shortfalls, as long as a plan is in place for replenishing the reserves.

We welcome your comments about this post on the LAPA blog.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Related Posts

Has Donor Trust in Charities Changed?

In this age of “fake news”, “alternative facts” “hyper partisanship” and what seems to be a general erosion of trust, why should we even care?  And if we care what can we fundraisers do about it?

Of course, every fundraiser should care because trust is the lynchpin of a solid and sustainable relationship with a donor.  And because there are ways to measure trust, taking steps to increase the level of trust, and by doing so increase donor value and an organization’s net revenue.

Read More »

MacKenzie Strikes Again

You probably won’t recognize most of the names on the list of the top 50 mega-philanthropists.

MacKenzie Scott’s name, though, immediately rings a bell and puts a smile on the face of those of us serving in the non-profit sector.

Ironically, she is not on that list, unlike her ex-husband.

Yet we love her for the special sensitivity she shows us, and her latest “strike,” an announcement to give away $250 million in funding to small nonprofits, is no exception.

Read More »

The CEO as Chief Fundraiser: A Role That Should Never Be Delegated

Our recent posts have lasered in on fundraising perennials–retention of fundraising staff, annual funds, and why donors give.  Another perennial stacks up as equally worthy of thoughtful commentary, and that’s the role of the chief executive officer in fundraising.  

A short definition of a CEO is he or she who makes decisions.  Nowadays, we recognize the value of consensus decision-making, and that’s fine.  But the kinds of decisions I’m referring to are the big ones, decisions such as those made by the captain of a ship.

Read More »