Telethon Telethon

So here I am, a philanthropy professional for over twenty years, and I hate getting telephone solicitations. I even ran the telephone program at Brandeis for several years. I know, "dialing for dollars" is the most efficient way to raise funds from a house list. It has a much better response rate than direct mail, and is second only to face-to-face solicitation - even for major and campaign gifts. Yet I hate being on the receiving end of the calls. I always answer, I'm always polite, and sometimes I even engage in a bit of conversation with the caller (especially if it's a cause I like,) but I won't make a pledge over the phone. Am I being hypocritical when I tell my clients to use phoning as a tool in their fundraising program? I don't think so, since it is still effective with many, many people (just not me!)

I really think the combination of e-mail and phone might just be the best set of fundraising tools these days. Unfortunately they both have problems - answering machines/voicemail for calling, and spam filters for e-mail. Viral e-mail is probably the best way to go at the moment. Get your friends to e-mail their friends, etc. Of course viral phoning is the VERY best - get your friends to CALL their friends. Then it's not a telemarketing call! It's a personal solicitation! It starts with a relationship and builds on the relationship for the benefit of the non-profit.

As always, it's all about building relationships. If you'd like some advice about building your philanthropic relationships, e-mail or call me. I promise I'll answer!

Eleemosynary

The "word of the day" the other day was eleemosynary. It has long been one of my favorite words. It means, "of, relating to, or supported by charity." Did you know that?

A few years ago in a foundation board meeting we were reviewing a by-laws change, and the attorney had put in a phrase about the eleemosynary purposes of our work. I was surprised that several of the board members had no idea what this meant, and they were delighted that I was able to explain that it means charitable or philanthropic, that is just what they were doing as members of the board. I guess the fact that the lawyer used it shouldn't have been a surprise. It is a direct derivative of the Latin "eleemosyna", meaning, as you might have guessed, charitable.

So, what have you done today that is eleemosynary? If you need help raising more money for your favorite eleemosynary organization, give me a call!

Nonprofit? hospitals redux

So, there's another article on a nonprofit hospital system in today's Boston Globe. This time it's Caritas Christi Health Care, owned and operated by the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston. If this isn't a nonprofit system, what is?

But again, there isn't a single mention of nonprofit status in the entire article. What we read about is that, "By aggressively cutting costs and boosting revenue from medical care, the Boston-based Catholic hospital chain is on track to post operating income of $31.1 million for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, compared to a $20.4 million loss last year." ... "The chain consolidated operations at its six Eastern Massachusetts hospitals, cut jobs and froze salaries, negotiated higher reimbursement rates from insurers, and recruited more specialists to perform more complex - and profitable - procedures."

Where is the mission? Where is the care for patients? The whole article is about cutting costs and raising revenues. I don't dispute that hospitals need to operate in the black, but there was a time when they were fully understood to be nonprofit organizations, and when they were not in the black donors stepped in to make up the difference. Nonprofit hospitals were founded by like-minded communities - religious, ethnic, neighborhood, etc., to care for their own. Now it seems all they care about is their bottom line and whether they might be a good candidate for acquisition by a bigger organization.

Is there any way to get back to the basics of nonprofit healthcare? I'm afraid that the issue is colored by our difficulty figuring out how to provide basic healthcare to everyone at a reasonable cost (dare I suggest "single payer"). As long as this situation continues, and hospitals keep talking like for-profit companies, it will continue to be very difficult to make the case for support for nonprofit hospitals. If you need help making the case for your nonprofit hospital give me a call.

Nonprofit hospitals - are they?

I just read an article in today's Boston Globe about Partners Healthcare's financial results for the quarter. Apparently Partners is reporting a large deficit for the first nine months of the year, but didn't do as badly in the third quarter as it had in the prior two. If the trend continues, the article says, it will be the first annual loss in the "company's" history.

What's missing from this article? There is not a single mention of the fact that Partners Healthcare is a nonprofit organization, and the parent of two of the best hospitals in the country (along with a number of other smaller units.) How does Partners (and Brigham and Women's Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, it's two big members) raise money from the philanthropic community with this kind of news? It's part of the problem that hospitals all over the country have in making the case for philanthropic support: they are treated in the media (and sometimes behave) like for-profit companies, and the general community gets confused.

In the whole current debate about healthcare reform, I have heard only one comment - on the radio the other day - that mentioned that most hospitals in the U.S. are non-profit. And hospitals are mentioned, for the most part, in the same breath as the other "villians" in the healthcare meltdown, big pharma and the insurance companies.

This is a real shame. I have always felt that medical care is a right, and the provision of it is a mission best served by nonprofit hospitals, and that those hospitals deserve the support of the philanthropic community. But how do we best make the case for that support? If you're interested in further thoughts on this issue, e-mail me, and I'll send you a copy of an article I wrote on this subject.

Which comes first?

I just read an excerpt from an interview with Charles Bronfman, a noted Jewish philanthropist. He makes the point that while the Jewish community in the U.S. has created a wonderful program to build new leadership (Birthright Israel) by sending young people on an educational mission to Israel, when they return they tend to stay away from the Jewish Federations that are trying to create the new leadership.

Why are they staying away from the Federations? He says its because, "when Birthright participants seek to become active with the federations, “they are usually given a list of names and told to solicit, because that’s what the federations focus on - getting money.”"

I've always believed (and when I was involved with the Federation it's what they preached) that involvement comes before giving which comes before asking. If the first thing you ask someone to do when they return from an exciting mission is to solicit gifts, my guess is they'll run for the hills. But, if you provide them with a level of involvement in the activities of the federation first - serve on a committee or task force, or attend several lectures of interest - they'll be much more likely to make their own gift commitment. Once they've invested their own funds, they'll be much more interested in asking others to join them.

Someone once told me, "If you ask someone for money, you'll get advice. But if you ask them for advice, the money will follow." I have always found this to be true. If you need help figuring out how to get someone involved - to develop prospect strategies - give me a call.