Things are happening so fast right now, I want to break my “series” on our family governance meetings last week in order to report on some other matters that have come up in the very recent past.

This past week we received final word on the results of a fundraising program we were able to spearhead in behalf of Mission India. The results themselves are very exciting to us, and I’d like to direct your attention to a fellow blogger’s post on the subject, 7682 Women in India can learn to read!

But I would like to use that event as a jump off point for talking about the entire subject of strategic giving. How can we maximize the impact of our gifts in philanthropic and charitable endeavors?

I would like to point toward what I am becoming more and more convinced is a good path . . . by means of my wife’s and my personal journey.

• As mentioned elsewhere (search for the word “tithe”; see also), I was taught to tithe from a young age . . . and I did that. Sarita and I have tithed from the beginning of our marriage.
• We have been interested in supporting cross-cultural ministries and some other “para-church” ministries from early in our marriage. And we have done so.
• Over the years, we began to receive more and more appeals from various worthy charities. After a while, we could not keep up with all the letters, so we began to toss them, . . . first, unopened, into the trash, and then, eventually, as our abilities to give increased, into a banker’s box . . . to be dealt with at the end of the year, when we would have a clearer idea of exactly what our real income would be for the year . . . and, therefore, what kind of money we might be able to pull from corporate profits for distribution to the charities we decided to give to.
• Over the years, and especially after our company began to produce significant profits, the size of our gifts increased. Indeed, it is rather astonishing to me to consider how at one time, in the late 1980s, a gift of $10 or some small multiple thereof was a truly sacrificial offering and, really, all we could afford. But one day, by the early ’90s, we found ourselves able to give $100 . . . and then multiples of $100. . . . Then, a few years later, $1000 . . . and multiples. Then $10,000 . . . and multiples. And, eventually, in the last few years, $100,000 or more! Talk about “thirty-, sixty-, or a hundred-fold” returns (Matthew 13:23)!
• Eventually, in late 1998 or early 1999–about at the point when we were shifting from $1,000 gifts to multiple-$1,000s, we decided the end-of-year giving crush was becoming too much. It was too difficult to choose the ministries and causes that were really worth that kind of giving. And we were having difficulties writing tens of thousands of dollars worth of $1,000 to, say, $3,000 or $4,000 checks all in the space of a week. So, upon the good counsel of our CPA and attorney, we formed a family foundation. That enabled us to give what we wanted within the taxable year in which we earned the income, but to disburse the funds to the actual, final recipients at a later date–after we had time, properly to evaluate the opportunities.
• I don’t know when this happened, finally; I would guess it was about 2002 or 2003: Sarita one day said, “John, I can’t stand these two bankers’ boxes filled with appeal letters! I think it’s wasteful of the charities’ resources–I mean, we send them a few dollars, and then they spend it all on trying to get us to give again!–and it is wasteful of our time as well. I don’t have time to go through all these letters! Do you?”

  And I had to admit I didn’t. And I didn’t like the idea of wasting these charities’ resources any more than she did.

  But what could we do?

  So Sarita recommended a solution: “Let’s select four or five key charities, decide we will support only them, and then write to all the others and tell them, much as we think they are doing fine work, we have decided to narrow our focus and, we’re sorry, but they are not on our list. So please, ‘Save your money and remove us from your mailing list.’”

  And so that is what we did.

  Together, we came up with a list of four or five agencies we wanted to support (agencies that met our decision to support ministry to the THUMB–Tribals, Hindus, Unreached and/or Unreligious Chinese, Muslims, and Buddhists–the five main mega-groups that remain largely beyond the reach of the Gospel. (See also What’s your charitable niche?))

  And, having come up with our list, Sarita then wrote to the 30 or 40 other agencies that had had our names on their mailing list.

• As soon as we narrowed our focus, we found several benefits:
  • Our interest in the material we continued to receive from “the few” agencies went up.
  • We actually became more involved with “the few” . . . and they became more involved with us.
  • Partially because we were able to focus, but partially, too, because our giving capacity was increasing rapidly at that same time (the focus itself meant we could immediately consider $10,000 and multiples-of-$10,000 gifts; but our profits were rising rapidly as well, so that bumped our capacity even more), and so . . .
  • Our gifts to “the few” suddenly got noticed by agency presidents and “significant donor” personnel . . . and, therefore,
  • We began to get a better, semi-”inside” view on what the agencies were up to.

  Now, what I have just said may sound a bit self-serving or self-seeking: “Oooh! You’re hot stuff!”

  No. That wasn’t it at all.

  We really didn’t need nor want any “strokes” for our gifts. And the people who called on us seemed sensitive enough to our interests in the area, that they never “larded it on.” (Indeed, I think they realized, if they had attempted any such thing, we would have probably rebelled and “gone elsewhere” with our gifts.)

  But we soon discovered–happily–that, because the agencies we had chosen were as high quality as they are, these “higher-ups” treated us with respect and honor. So they spoke to us openly about strengths and weaknesses, victories and potential (or very real) defeats.

  Moreover, they took a real interest in where we believed God was leading us in our giving . . . so they didn’t merely ply us with their latest “opportunity du jour.”

  As I am discovering: there is a growing theme in “high net worth donation” circles. The representatives of the four agencies who called (and call) on us seem, genuinely, to be concerned to “disciple us” in stewardship, to help ensure that we are able to fulfill what we believe is God’s call in our lives and not merely (or at all) fulfill their corporate interests. (“If [our agency] is not where you are supposed to give, then . . . yes, we will be sad to see you go, but . . . we want to make sure you are doing and supporting what you believe God wants you to do and to support.”)

  It’s a very honoring and encouraging approach.

  Mission India has been the leader in this discipleship approach. As I have noted elsewhere, they were the ones who gave me Alan Gotthardt’s The Eternity Portfolio. They were the ones who gave me Ron Blue’s Splitting Heirs. And they have been most consistently “in touch” with us through the years.

  But it was Frontiers who first pushed us to “the next level” in our strategic thinking about giving.

• A few years ago, “our” representative from Frontiers suggested something I had never thought of before.

  I think we had sent the agency a donation check somewhere in the neighborhood of $50,000. And our representative called us up.

  “John,” he said. “I am wondering if you would consider a proposal.”

  “Uhhh . . . sure!”

  “I would like to propose that we send you your check back and you make your gift contingent upon us raising a similar amount out in the ‘open market,’ as it were. We have to match it, or you don’t give it.”

  ???!!!??? –I was caught completely off guard. “I don’t understand. That doesn’t make sense to me,” I said. “I mean, we want to give you the money! We’ve already given you the money. And if you were to return the check to us, as far as we are concerned, we are already committed to giving you the money. . . . So what’s the point?”

  “The point is, if you are willing to work with me on this, you will help us raise an additional $50,000 from brand new donors.

  “You see, your promise of $50,000 if we raise a similar amount is actually very helpful to me when I approach others. People like to give to matching grant campaigns. And your promise can actually help us widen our donor base and raise more money. . . .”

  He had to say a lot more than that in order to encourage and explain it all to me. Indeed, I said to him, “Look, just keep the check. Take it. You know we want to give it to you.”

  “Yes. But that wouldn’t be honest,” he said. “I cannot take your check–or any portion of it–unless and until I have raised the same amount of funds from new donors.”

  And so that’s what we did.

  A lightbulb moment for me.

  So I began to think in terms of matching funds grants.

  And Sarita and I have arranged these kinds of campaigns with three of our four chosen agencies.

  Well . . . that leads very close to the campaign with which this post began.

• Our Frontiers representative has asked us if we are willing to donate to help them raise more money from other donors . . . or to acquire new donors.

  Oh! That has not been something we have been excited about at all. Give money so an agency can ask other people for money?

  Yuck!

  No!

  Sorry, but no!

  . . . But then . . .

• Somehow, last fall, I was talking with our Mission India rep when the idea came to me that maybe Sarita and I could appeal to our Sonlight Curriculum customers and/or their kids in behalf of Mission India. (I had heard about the Rice Bag Project idea often enough. It seemed to make perfect sense.) But what might such an appeal look like? How could we make it work so it was a real win-win-win all the way around?

  And it was out of that discussion that the Sonlight Rice Bag Project–the project that inspired this post–eventually grew.

I should probably say a few things about the Rice Bag Project. I have a semi-”insider’s” view on it because of my working relationship with the agency.

Going into the project, I had no idea how significant this cooperation between Sonlight (Sarita and me) and Mission India really would be.

But here’s what I have discovered so far. I hope to learn more as we move into the future.

1. Mission India had never done a direct mail/online campaign even remotely similar to this before.
2. Though they have done many “Rice Bag Projects” in Christian schools and churches over the years, as far as I am aware, they had never had another company make an appeal in their behalf.
3. Their normal response rate to direct mail appeals–even appeals to well-qualified lists–usually very close to 0.5% (yes, one-half of one percent). At best, they might see a 1% response rate. At best. Maybe.

   They were completely blown away by the Sonlight families’ approximate 5.5% response rate to Sonlight’s (Sarita’s and my) appeal in their behalf.

4. They had never used their website as they did . . . to present progressive “lessons” and “content” and interactive opportunities with participants in their Rice Bag Projects before.
5. They had never linked to an online forum community as we were able to create for them on the Sonlighters Club Forums website.
6. They had, therefore, never received such intense and personal feedback and interaction on one of their projects or appeals before . . . as they did with the Sonlight project.
7. They had never been able to establish direct relationships with any of their previous Rice Bag Project donors. But they did with the Sonlight group!
8. They had never been able to send multiple (appropriate) follow-up/reminder emails to participants in one of their projects before.
9. I cannot be sure, but I have gotten the strong impression,
   • They have never had such a large flow of funds come in as a result of a Rice Bag Project
   • They have never had a single project of any type increase their donor base as much. (Their total list of donors increased by 30% as a result of “our” project.)

I’m sure there are more aspects of this campaign that were or are “unique.”

But my point is neither to brag nor to gloat nor, really, even to highlight all the amazing and wonderful aspects of this campaign that we had the privilege of helping to make happen.

Rather, my point–and what I want to draw your attention to–is this: None of this would have happened if we had not begun, several years ago, on a path of strategic giving. No more fatigue from all the helter-skelter appeals to every last possible good cause under the sun. No more sense of guilt because you’re “ignoring” all their appeals. No more frustration because you know a significant proportion of various donations you’ve made are “simply” being chewed up in repeated attempts to get you to donate again. . . .

Yes. No more of all that “bad” stuff. But better: with a strategic and focused target, and a willing commitment to maximize your contribution, not just financially, but strategically, in the use of your other gifts–whatever they may be (access, even, to a mailing list?)–you may find yourself getting involved in some truly strategic breakthroughs!

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

 |  Email This Post  |  Print This Post  |  Subscribe to It!
This entry was posted on Saturday, December 6th, 2008 at 4:06 pm and is filed under charity, philanthropy. 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.