An important fundraising caution from Dilbert’s Scott Adams …
When it comes to all that testing and results analysis that your fundraising staff has done, what steps have been taken to create and protect your nonprofit’s institutional memory?
When Martha, your head of direct response fundraising for the last six years, leaves to get an MBA or travel the world or become a full-time mom, what will your organization know about what’s worked … and what hasn’t?
Do you have any institutional fundraising memory?
Tom
This article was posted in: accountability, direct marketing, Don't Miss these Posts, fundraising, marketing metrics, nonprofit management, nonprofits.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Holy moly! The average length of stay for a nonprofit DD, I read somewhere, is 18 months. Personally speaking, I’ve encountered situations where I’ve been the fifth development director in three years. Institutional fundraising memory is a huuuuuge problem, particularly in the small nonprofit organization. Paying fundraisers a living wage is one of the first steps towards remedying the problem.
PS: I wanted to share this post http://www.pamelagrow.com/298/nonprofits-and-employee-attrition/
Tom: Ken Burnett did a great post some months back on “the indispensable guard book.” It’s a practical step every nonprofit can take (and as Ken points out, one that agencies can take for their clients, too): http://www.kenburnett.com/BlogGuard%20book.html. Best, Lisa
Hi Tom,
I so agree about the importance of institutional memories. But, I don’t trust them. I’ve worked for one international non profit for 34 years so I’ve seen more FDs come and go than hot dinners. So you have to write it down (hence I’m grateful to Lisa Sargent for mentioning the indispensable guard book http://www.kenburnett.com/BlogGuard%20book.html). Or film it or engrave it on your walls or… Whatever, it has to be captured for posterity. Because as Pam Grow rightly says, fundraisers nowadays don’t stay in post long enough to know what they are doing. It’s the over-riding tragedy of our business. See next month’s AFP journal ‘Advancing Philanthropy’ on why this is a critical issue.
Keep up the good fight,
Ken
This is terrific! And it’s SUCH a problem! When a fundraiser leaves, there goes not only the understanding of what’s working best for the organization, but also key relationships with major donors. It all walks out the door. And then the board and CEO are surprised when fundraising takes such a dip.
Thanks Ken and Lisa for mentioning that guard book. I’m gonna pull it down and start recommending it in all my board workshops around the country.
I’ve never heard of a “guard book,” but I love the idea (and the name). Thank you for this. I’ve been harping on this topic for some time:
1. How to steal from your employer (don’t write anything down!)
http://goo.gl/VJS8V
2. Institutional memory is made of this
http://goo.gl/2SL1S
3. The Hows and Whats of documentation
http://goo.gl/ByBOQ
Institutional memory: a knowledge base is the modern solution. Goes well beyond the guard book and being intranet-based is widely accessible. Some large NFPs (with the resources) have been doing it for some time (e.g. UNICEF) but in both charities and agencies it is a struggle to get the budget because the ‘case for support’ for the KB is often weak and misunderstood.
The staff turnover issue is a huge problem for relationships with major donors and for growing major donors. You don’t have time to turn prospects into majors if you’re out the door in a couple years. And compensation has to be “grown up” compensation. I’ve heard one major donor say he no longer “had a relationship” with an organization, although he continued to give, because the new development officer was so young that they had nothing in common. While it remains true that the peer relations with board members are critical, the development officer has to be able to interact successfully with major donors.