X-twitter Facebook Linkedin
logotest
rise header

October 1, 2024

arthur web

From the desk of
Arthur C. Criscillis, Ed.D. ¦ Managing Partner

Making the Case

In seeking philanthropic support, we present to our prospects specific funding objectives. It could be a building project of some sort. The funding objective could be programmatic or something in support of people. The specific objectives are legion. That having been said, they are united in that they require a well-stated, compelling case that states why this objective is needed and why it is needed now.

In making the case for support, we really need to answer one basic question: “So what?” We need a new building? So what? We need support for a specific program? So what? In answering that question, we will be telling the prospect why what we are asking that prospect to support matters in human terms. How does this help to make lives better? How does this save and change lives? In short, what is the impact?

In presenting the impact, we need to distinguish between the impact on people vis a vis the impact on the institution. The former is the end. It’s what we are about. It entails our mission. The latter (impact on the institution) is a means to an end—the end being to impact people. In short, our institutions are not ends—they are means; they are instruments in making positive changes in people’s lives. That is not to suggest that discussing how a gift can make our institutions stronger or even more competitive is unwarranted. When we do so, we need to make explicit how that enables us to discharge our mission (helping people in some way or ways) even better, because at the end of the day that is what donors want to know—that they are having an impact on people.

When we present our priorities, they almost always fall into one of three baskets. The first is when we ask them, in making their gift, to help us to do more of something that we are already doing well and that has an impact. The second is when we ask them to enable us to do even better something that we are currently doing so that it can have a greater impact. The third is asking them to enable us to do something new that will have an impact on people in ways that we have not been able to date. More, better, new—our funding objectives typically fall into one of the three and knowing which can help us to more clearly make our case.

A Snapshot of State Independent Schools

We’ve got new data in from some Independent School State Associations. Let’s see what the Palmetto Association of Independent Schools (SC) participating schools report raising in philanthropic funds for data entry year 2023-2024. 

School Count   12
 

Advancement Median Funds Received for ’23 $1,227,090
Median Number of Donors 747
  

Median Percent Participation by
Constituency & Hard Credit Funds Received		 
Median % Participation by Parents/Guardians of Current Students 53.9%  $347,172
Median % Participation by Alumni/ae 8.3%  $106,963
Median % Participation by Grandparents of Current Students 15.4%  $120,931
Median % Participation by Parents & Grandparents of Alumni/ae 12.9%  $148,851
Median % Participation by Employees 97.2%  $20,279

 


Trustees		 
Median Number of Trustees 15
Median Hard Credit Funds Received by Trustees $77,135
Median Soft Credit Funds Received by Trustees $39,414
  

Funds Received by Purpose (’23)		 
Median Funds Received for Current Operations: Unrestricted $585,742
Median Funds Received for Current Operations: Restricted  $120,000
Median Funds Received for Endowment $121,850
Median Funds Received for Other Capital Purposes $320,119
Median Funds Received for Irrevocable Deferred Gifts at Face Value           $0


Data from NAIS Facts at a Glance.

Spontaneous Donors Analyzed

Young donors are more likely than their older peers to donate spontaneously, and nonprofits can still retain these donors through regular detailed updates, according to new research from Blackbaud Institute. More than one thousand spontaneous donors were surveyed in June to see what led them to give and what would inspire them to give to the same cause again. The report defined spontaneous gifts as “unplanned, first-time donations to a nonprofit.”

Key Findings

  • The top three causes supported by spontaneous donors are children’s charities, animal welfare, and health. Emergency and disaster relief came in fifth on the list.
  • 12% of all donors give spontaneously, but the share is a little higher among Gen Z (16%) and millennials (15%).
  • 72% of spontaneous donors had previously heard of the charity before giving.
  • A quarter of spontaneous Gen Z donors learned of the giving opportunity from social media. This suggests it’s important for nonprofits to maintain lots of touchpoints, including social media.
  • People who made spontaneous gifts most often gave to one charity (50%) or to somewhere between two and four charities (38%).
  • The average annual amount given spontaneously was $160 — out of $684 total given during that period.
  • When boomers and older donors gave spontaneously, the amount they contributed was higher, an average of $181 compared to $128 for Gen Z.
  • When asked what would make them want to give again, donors pointed to five key points: 
    • They trust that the organization will do the right thing (74%)
    • The organization has a good reputation (72%)
    • It’s easy to donate (69%)
    • The organization uses its money wisely (69%)
    • Support will help those in need right now (66%)
  • Of those who intend to become regular donors, 44% say they want regular updates, 32% say they just want to hear the big news, and 9% prefer few updates.


“First Impressions: Spontaneous Giving Insights” can be found here.

Foundation Investments Rebound

A report from the Council on Foundations and the Commonfund Institute says that private foundations reported an average 12.6% increase in asset values compared with a 12% decrease in 2022, while community foundations reported a 14.1% increase compared with a 13.3% decrease the previous year.

Other Key Findings

The 10-year average annual return remained relatively unchanged with private foundations reporting an average 7.1% return, compared with 7.3% in 2022, and community foundations reported 6.2%, compared with 6.4%.

Giving to community foundations retreated for the second consecutive year, with 51% reporting that giving had decreased in 2023 compared to 63% in 2022, while 36% reported an increase compared to 29% the previous year.

The share of foundations reporting environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria was broadly unchanged in 2023—27% of private foundations and 26% of community foundations, compared with 28% and 26% in 2022. Only 7% of private foundations and 16% of community foundations anticipate adding ESG criteria to their investment policies in the coming year.

The report can be found here. PND, 9-4

We Know Independent Schools
For more than 35 years, Alexander Haas has been a fixture in the nonprofit community. We are honored to have worked with so many remarkable independent schools, both secular and non-secular, across the country that help mold today’s adolescents into tomorrow’s leaders. Take a look at our list of independent school clients, past and present.

A Fresh Approach to Fundraising
Our services aren’t cookie cutter. We don’t operate with a boilerplate, merely changing names and locations. We craft each and every service we provide to match your organization’s unique needs, wants and abilities. We work hard and expect you to do the same. Together we can help you transform your institution, your fundraising, and the community you serve.

Whether your need is in Capital Campaign, Annual Fund Campaign, Major Gifts, Leadership Annual Giving, Planned Giving or all of the above, we take a fresh approach to nonprofit fundraising.