State of the Arts

Care And Feeding of Development Directors

by

Hat tip to Rosetta Thurman for linking to a valuable article about the care and feeding of Development Directors on the Chronicle of Philanthropy. Carol Weisman wrote “5 Ways to Lose Your Development Director in 2 Years or Less,” decrying the poor treatment and lack of support development staff receives.

An excerpt of her list:

1. Pay a ridiculous salary. A friend recently pointed out an ad on Craigslist for a development director. The position requires an MBA and five years’ experience or a Certified Fund Raising Certificate. There is a list of 15 responsibilities, including manage all aspects of individual giving, manage Web site, lead $3-million capital campaign, design and write the newsletter, recruit and manage volunteers, represent the agency at community events, and the list goes on. Salary: $40,000. I mean, really.

2. Reward great performance with unrealistic expectations. A friend of mine works at a university. The department she works in raised $350,000 in 2011. She raised $1.2-million in fiscal 2012. The goal she was given for fiscal 2013, $2.5-million. The additional staff support, financial support for meetings and training: zero. After a highly successful year, she is reading the want ads.

3. Provide absolutely no board support.

4. Don’t provide funds or the time for developing additional streams of revenue.

5. Avoid recognizing the work of your development professional.

Weisman expounds upon points 3-5 in the article. I didn’t want to get into reproducing the whole thing here.

As you might imagine, this is a sore subject with fund raisers. There were many comments on the article. One of the first, by a person using the sobriquet “helpfor501c3s,” related the following:

“When I have interviewed for Director of Development positions, I do my homework and read the organizations’ 990s prior to the meetings, anticipating the question about salary expectations. I have found that seeing the previous years’ compensation paid to CEOs and VPs is a helpful guide to preparing for a realistic response. Quite often when a CEO asks me for salary requirements, I am met with a response “That’s almost what I make!”

CEOs and Executive Directors have to get over the notion that they are the only employees that should make a high salary. When the Director of Development is the one responsible to raise the support to pay the CEO, a bit more consideration should be given to amply compensating an experienced and skilled Director of Development.”

I quote “helpfor501c3s” first to advocate for using 990 filings as a pre-interview preparation tool or for pre-application research if you are uncertain if an organization can meet your salary needs. I also cite “helpfor501c3s” for making the point that the development office is frequently responsible for raising the funds that pay the CEO and should therefore be highly valued by those in the C suites.

More than just a pleas to be nicer to Development Directors, both the article and the commenters talk about the importance of including fundraising in board training and education. There was a sense of letting the development office help the board get better at helping them rather than a declaration of “give, get, or go.”

As I read the article there seemed to be this feeling that development offices were expected to go out and raise money without depending on anyone else in the organization. Almost as if the marketing and promotions people were expected to gather information about a play or musical piece and all the artists without asking the artistic staff.

If you don’t think that is an apt comparison of the conditions in development offices, read some of the examples given in the article and the comments. It will probably be difficult to avoid seeing at least some similarities to your organization.

Every department in an arts organization suffers some injustices that need to be corrected, that is no surprise. You may not think about what they might be in relation to your development people that often.

Fleeing The Tiger Is No Time To Get Creative

by

There was a recent series of posts about creativity and children on the Creativity Post website that have made some concepts gel for me.

In September Dr. Peter Gray made a post about declining creativity scores in school aged children. In part he blames an education system which increasingly focuses on the concept that solutions are either right or wrong rather than providing free time to experiment and play. Given the research he cites, parents that over schedule their kids’ time also share some of the blame.

As much as we in the arts tout the benefits of creativity, you may be surprised to learn how important it is to success in life and how significant the decline is:

According to Kim’s analyses, the scores on these tests [Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT)] at all grade levels began to decline somewhere between 1984 and 1990 and have continued to decline ever since. The drops in scores are highly significant statistically and in some cases very large….

…but the biggest decline is in the measure called Creative Elaboration, which assesses the ability to take a particular idea and expand on it in an interesting and novel way. Between 1984 and 2008, the average Elaboration score on the TTCT, for every age group from kindergarten through 12th grade, fell by more than 1 standard deviation. Stated differently, this means that more than 85% of children in 2008 scored lower on this measure than did the average child in 1984. Yikes.

[…]

Indeed, the TTCT seems to be the best predictor of lifetime achievement that has yet been invented. It is a better predictor than IQ, high-school grades, or peer judgments of who will achieve the most.

In a post this month, Gray continues on this theme discussing how important it is to allow a child to create in a non-judgmental environment. He cites some interesting research on the impact of judgement in home environments on the creative development of children.

My ah-ha! moment came after Gray discusses how people will generate a more creative product if they don’t know their work will be evaluated. People tend to edit themselves in order to please the evaluator and out of fear and anxiety about being judged. (my emphasis)

“If a tiger is chasing you, your best bet is to use well-learned or habitual ways of escaping from the tiger, not to dream up new creative ways of doing so. Creative ways always run the risk of failure, so we are biologically constructed to cut creativity off when failure has serious consequences.”

Many in the arts, myself included, have written about how important it is for arts organizations to embrace the risk of possible failure by experimenting with new approaches to the creation of art, audience/visitor experience, marketing, pricing, etc.

In the context of Gray’s observation, it isn’t that arts organizations are simply risk averse about new experience the way kids are worried about the first day of school or audiences are anxious about attending their first classical music concert.

Rather the fear engendered by financial consequences evokes a hard wired primal fight/flight reaction that actually shuts down our ability to think creativity.

The idea that this situation is biological was as illuminating to me as Neill Archer Roan’s observation a few years ago that emotional satisfaction engendered a diminished sense of responsibility for self-/professional development in arts professionals.

I think it is helpful for arts organizations to be aware the fear of experimentation in the face of perceived threats is not only probably irrational, but also a genuinely visceral reaction. Knowing this, they can endeavor to create a decision making environment where the influence and presence of these threats are diminished.

Likewise, it is important for arts organizations to know these things when providing and advocating for arts education. Creativity is cultivated by arts instruction that provides opportunity for wholly free expression alongside direction and evaluation.

Expecting Donors To Inspect More

by

So I recently read a rather thought-provoking guest post by Anna McKeon, on Daniela Papi’s Lessons I Learned blog. In the post, McKeon basically says non-profits are making it too easy to donate and volunteer.

Now she is mostly speaking in relation to programs that non-governmental organizations run internationally, but I read with interest thinking that what she said might be applicable across the board with non-profit organizations. McKeon talks about how easy it is to text or click a button on a website to donate without ensuring the money will be used responsibly.

She cites an interesting news report about the negative impacts of voluntourism where people are bussed in to small village where they help build an orphange, feel like they have bonded and made an impact with the local population only to be replaced by another bus load of people doing the same thing the next afternoon.

We shouldn’t make it easy. We’re doing a disservice to ourselves. We’re encouraging each other not to think, not to explore, not to discover. We’re not challenging ourselves, our commitment, our perceptions, or our opinions. We’re promoting a life of ease where a sense of goodwill can be bought and not earned.

So let’s leave some things to be difficult. Difficulty helps us learn. It helps us discover more about the very thing we are trying to achieve. It can also mean that it feels even sweeter when we do succeed in our aims. And you know what? Even though “difficult” might be a harder sell, I still know enough people out there who are up for the challenge.

She makes a semi-valid point that many organizations accept the help of volunteers whose skills are so poor they wouldn’t consider actually hiring them but involve them in the work because it is free labor. I am sure readers can think of a few volunteers they have encountered who fit that bill.

The stakes aren’t as high for ushers at a performance as they are when it comes to providing clean water to a village. But an arts organization could be utilizing volunteers to do far more advance their programs if there was a greater expectation of investment from the volunteer and a corresponding higher level of commitment to volunteer training by the organization.

The one big question that really popped into my mind was–is it really the place of a non-profit organization to demand that donors and volunteers do more due diligence before becoming involved with the non-profit? Being supported by a highly engaged and educated constituency is certainly something I would crave, but I am not sure it is realistic.

But do people care about engaging in research if they are emotionally moved by an experience? Is it our place and in our best interest to expect them to? I think it is pretty clear you can easily garner more money via $25-$100 donations if you make it easy for people to satisfy an impulse to give they feel after seeing a show.

Yes, it is superficial giving and you may never get another donation from them again–but if you hadn’t gotten that impulse donation, you may have absolutely no basis to explore their willingness to give again. If they bought a ticket at the door and left without donating because there was too much work involved, you have no donation and no contact information for them. It is a missed opportunity for further interactions of any kind.

I will concede that it is bad for all non-profits if a donor discovers they contributed to a corrupt organization and is disinclined ever to donate again. There has to be some proportionality to the effort, though. Larger donors certainly need to be cultivated and at certain levels and mutual due diligence is required, but is it worth it for either party to have high expectations associated with a small donation of time or money?

The blog owner, Daniela Papi, related an interesting anecdote in the comments section which actually made me worried about the possibility of what I will term the tyranny of expectations. She talks about an NGO which was concerned about documenting impact for the benefit of their donors to the detriment of their own programs.

“when I asked them why they were harming their programs by trapping themselves in their own donor promises their answer was “Well, Kiva does it. People know exactly who their money goes to on Kiva, and they make that easy. Kiva is our competition for funding, so we need to do it too.”

I am definitely for accountability, especially in the face of so many non-profit scandals where people abscond with funds. (Which can still happen accompanied by glorious impact reports.) But I suspect that the more prevalent impact documentation becomes, there is a danger donors will expect reporting out of proportion to their donation, seeking detailed information customized to their interests, the cost of assembling which exceeds their donation.

This may emerge alongside low administrative costs as another unrealistic expectation placed on non-profit organization. Low overhead ratio and documentation of impact are probably mutually exclusive. I would be highly skeptical of an organization which reports being highly successful at achieving both.

Please, Don’t Donate To Us

by

I got a little reminder about the need to shepherd your resources and occasionally refocus yourself on your core business last week when I did my semi-annual stint as an on air guest for the public radio stations.

I am really proud of them because not only have they raised enough money to erect transmitters in all but one major population center in the state, they have done so while reducing the number of days of their appeal from 10 to 8. I think they were inspired to shorten the fund drive by the fact they have generally reached their goals a day or so early the last few years.

Every time I go on, I usually bring some tickets to a show to give away as a thank you gift. I had suggested some appropriate shows when we were making the initial arrangements and was told it wasn’t necessary to offer tickets because they were de-emphasizing gifts in return for donations this year.

I know the stations has been using the message that the premium was the programming rather than the thank you gift for a number of years now. Actually, most public radio stations I have listened to take that approach. The idea is that you are giving so that you can continue to enjoy programming throughout the year, not so you can get a nifty t-shirt.

Thinking they had adopted a purist approach to the programming is the premium philosophy, I was eager to see how successful they might be. Turns out, they aren’t abandoning thank you gifts altogether, just scaling back a great degree.

I was told that because they have such a small staff to help with the gift fulfillment operations, they decided to stop soliciting gifts to give away because it requires so much tracking of where items have come from, if the stations have received the item or if there is a certificate to be exchanged for the item.

If you have ever tried to run an auction fundraiser yourself, you know what can be involved in this sort of activity.

Instead, they have elected to focus more on station branded shirts and tote bags and CD/DVDs associated with local and national radio shows. This way they had a standard group of items that could be processed in the same manner. The gifts provided by the local community tended to be a limited number of higher ticket items like celebrity chef dinners and spa weekends that required $500+ donations.

This new approach for the fund drive is a little new to everyone I guess. The on-air host during one of my segments asked me what goodies I had brought causing one of the coordinators to gesticulate madly indicating that I didn’t have anything. I covered by talking about the season brochures I had brought to help remind me about dates and times.

We often talk about how chasing grant money for programs and services outside your mission and capabilities can be detrimental to your organization. Sometimes you are also in a position where it is better to say no and refuse the gifts of well meaning people if doing so will strain your resources.

It can be very difficult to say no to a heart-felt offering. Many charities which help the poor and dispossessed would rather receive donations of cash rather than food and clothing because the latter requires items to be inspected, evaluated, sanitized and often discarded, all of which diverts staff time and energy.

Groups can be afraid of the ill-will they might generate by appearing ungrateful and refusing the donations and feel obligated to accept. However, there are some alternatives according to a Chronicle of Philanthropy article recently reprinted on Guide Star. Some of the options include redirecting people to groups who will take the donation, a move that can help bolster the creditability of your organization.

Of course, that probably won’t satisfy the ardent long time supporter that wants their gesture to benefit your organization. The Chronicle of Philanthropy article mentions that many charities have disaster plans which outline how they will deal with the out pouring of generosity that may result from a disaster. These plans include responses to donations they are not willing or able to accept.

It may be worthwhile to develop a similar plan to respond to the undesired generosity of a strong supporter so you are prepared for that situation as well.