Haas CultureofPhilanthropy F1 0

B EYO ND FUNDRA ISING:
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BUILD A CULTURE OF PHILANTHROPY?
By Cynthia M. Gibson
TA BL E OF CO N T E NTS
3 Foreword
4 Introduction
7 What’s Driving The Shift To A Culture Of Philanthropy?
9 What Is A Culture Of Philanthropy? Four Core Components
19 Pride Foundation Case Study
22 Getting Started
26 Conclusion
27 Appendix: What Does A Culture Of Philanthropy Look Like?
AB O U T THIS R E P O R T
This paper is one of three reports commissioned by the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund to address
chronic fundraising challenges highlighted in the 2013 UnderDeveloped report. That report, produced in
partnership with CompassPoint, gave voice to widespread frustration and raised the question, what now?
In response, the Haas, Jr. Fund engaged a group of creative and respected experts to help us explore
potential solutions. The Resetting Development work group looked at the issues from different angles:
· W
hat can we learn about the “culture of philanthropy” as a way of breaking the vicious cycle
of underdevelopment?
· What can we learn from organizations that are beating the odds?
· What are the contours of the national landscape of training for development staff?
Author Cynthia Gibson is a writer and consultant to a wide range of foundations and major nonprofits
on strategic planning, program development, evaluation, and communications. She was a development
director herself in a previous job. You can find Cynthia on Twitter @Cingib.
FOR E WO RD
Three years ago, the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund joined with CompassPoint Nonprofit Services
to produce a study that sounded an alarm about the state of nonprofit fundraising. Our report on the
study, UnderDeveloped, identified an array of challenges facing nonprofits when it comes to raising the
resources they need to succeed.
These challenges include high levels of turnover and lengthy vacancies in development director positions,
as well as deeper organizational issues, including the absence of basic fundraising systems and a lack of
shared responsibility for fund development among key board and staff leaders at many organizations.
The report included a number of recommendations aimed at breaking this vicious cycle. One
recommendation was that nonprofit leaders work to foster and develop a “culture of philanthropy” in
their organizations.
Even as we made this recommendation, however, we acknowledged that the term “culture of
philanthropy” was not yet well understood across the sector. Although it was (and still is) widely used by
experts, there was uncertainty about exactly what it meant, what such a culture looked like in practice,
and how organizations can go about building one.
In 2015, the Haas, Jr. Fund launched a new effort to “learn out loud” about how to break out of the
sector’s chronic fundraising challenges. As part of this effort, we asked Cynthia Gibson to look into exactly
what the field means when we talk about a culture of philanthropy. In this paper, Cynthia synthesizes her
conversations with diverse experts across the field, offers a framework for understanding what a culture
of philanthropy might look like, and suggests a path forward for organizations as they explore how to
build such a culture.
Cynthia’s paper suggests that, without a deeper shift in how organizations hold the work of fund
development, simply adopting new tools and techniques may not be enough. In other words, it may be
more about changing the operating system for fundraising than it is about downloading a new app.
Many thanks to Cynthia and all of the people she spoke with. It is our hope that this paper will help spark
more conversation about what a culture of philanthropy looks like and its potential to help nonprofits
raise the resources they so desperately need.
Sincerely,
Linda Wood
Senior Director, Haas Leadership Initiatives
Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund
3 BEYOND FUNDRAISING: What Does It Mean to Build a Culture of Philanthropy?

INTRO D UC T I O N
Times have changed. Ten years ago, it might have seemed strangely out of character for a development
director to say that fundraising is “everyone’s job” or to insist on sharing credit for bringing in large gifts.
Similarly, if a fundraiser demanded to be part of key organizational planning meetings or sought to break
down the walls between development and communications or volunteer outreach, that person might
have been viewed as a maverick.
Now, what was once seen as radical is emerging front and center as nonprofits search for new and
effective ways to secure resources for their work at a time when fundraising is rapidly changing. One
potential shift that’s been attracting attention is developing a “culture of philanthropy.”
What’s that? Generally, a culture of philanthropy is one in which everyone—board, staff and executive
director—has a part to play in raising resources for the organization. It’s about relationships, not just
money. It’s as much about keeping donors as acquiring new ones and seeing them as having more than
just money to bring to the table. And it’s a culture in which fund development is a valued and mission-
aligned component of everything the organization does.
In the 2013 report, UnderDeveloped, authors Jeanne Bell and Marla Cornelius of CompassPoint wrote that
building a culture of philanthropy can help break what they referred to as the “vicious cycle” in nonprofit
fund development. Instead of placing all the blame for fundraising challenges on lengthy vacancies
and instability in development director positions, the report suggested that nonprofits should pay more
attention to the deeper issues of building the capacity, systems and culture to support fundraising success.
Peter Drucker famously wrote that “culture eats strategy for breakfast.” Drucker wasn’t saying that
strategy is irrelevant. Rather, he meant that the strategy a company employs will only be successful if
supported by appropriate cultural attributes. Recognizing this, nonprofits with a culture of philanthropy
see fundraising less as a transactional tactic and more as a way of operating—one that reflects the
definition of philanthropy: A love of humankind and a voluntary joining of resources and action for the
public good.

“ STAN DA R D IZIN G THE CONCEPT”
Proponents say a culture of philanthropy can help increase giving levels and donor retention; strengthen
trust, cooperation and engagement among board and staff members; and align mission and program
goals more seamlessly with revenue generation. And, by sharing this philosophy with the larger
community, it can help “lift all nonprofit boats in the community,” says Paul Lagasse in a special issue of
Advancing Philanthropy.i
Peter Wilderotter, president of the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation and a former development
director, says building a culture of philanthropy is important even for organizations that may believe
they are doing fine when it comes to fundraising. “The reality,” says Wilderotter, “is that much of their
fundraising success stems from the current leader’s charisma or the assumption that their donors will
stay interested in their organization ad infinitum. Unfortunately, leaders come and go. And donors
can be fickle. That’s why it’s important to start embedding a culture of philanthropy deeper into
the organization—now, rather than later—because it will help mitigate the potentially disastrous
consequences of these kinds of changes.”
Not everyone is convinced, pointing to organizations that are generating revenue without this culture in
place. And, there’s not a lot of hard evidence showing its added value to an organization. Others say it’s
“touchy feely” or too time consuming when organizations need funds now. Still others have problems
with the word “philanthropy” itself because of its association with traditional philanthropic institutions.
Whatever one believes, it’s clear that the concept of a

culture of philanthropy is sparking conversation and
attention; in fact, when Googled, this phrase pops
“This holistic cultural approach
up nearly half a million times. Yet, it’s still not yet to advancing philanthropy (and
well understood: while there is general agreement, as a byproduct, revenue) works.
there are subtle but important differences in how the
concept is defined, practiced and assessed.
I know because it’s consistently
delivered double-digit growth
Nailing down what a culture of philanthropy is will for organizations I have worked
be essential if nonprofits are to make a significant
shift in how they think about and approach the work
for, including a total culture
of fund development. What’s especially needed are transformation and a $1 million
indicators that can help standardize this concept, gift for one of my clients.” ii
give organizations a sense of whether they have

– Kimberley MacKenzie
this kind of culture (or are moving in that direction),
(Haas, Jr. Fund blog commenter)
and support the field to evaluate whether it’s really
necessary for successful resource acquisition.

A B O U T THIS PA P E R
This paper attempts to double down on these issues by synthesizing the rich and deep well of existing
information about what it means to build a “culture of philanthropy.” The goal is to offer the field an initial
framework for assessing the value of promoting and building this kind of culture and its potential to help
social-sector organizations, especially small and mid-sized groups, meet ever-growing financial challenges.
The following pages are based on a comprehensive research scan of hundreds of documents, websites,
blogs, articles and other materials, as well as in-depth conversations with 15 nonprofit and fundraising
experts with deep experience in resource development. The paper seeks to help answer the following
core questions:
• What is driving the shift to a culture of philanthropy? The paper explores some of the
forces that are causing nonprofits and the social sector to reconsider traditional approaches to
fundraising—from new modes of communication and engagement to growing competition for
resources brought on by the sector’s growth.
• What does a culture of philanthropy look like? The paper identifies and describes four core
components of a culture of philanthropy: shared responsibility for development; integration and
alignment with mission; a focus on fundraising as engagement; and strong donor relationships. It
also offers key indicators to know if an organization has created such a culture.
• How can an organization get started building a culture of philanthropy? The paper
offers a series of questions to help organizations and their board and staff leaders as they set out to
move toward a culture of philanthropy.
“Culture of Philanthropy”: Is This the Right Term?

Not everyone embraces the term “culture of philanthropy.” Some Marla Cornelius, senior project director at CompassPoint Services
associate the word “philanthropy” with the charitable activities for Nonprofits, adds that “philanthropy” is “too powerful a
of foundations or wealthy donors. Others think the term is too word to limit it to individual or institutional contributions.” She
confusing and suggest using another. continues, “When it’s used in the context of its original meaning,
it describes exactly what social change organizations do and
“The phrase ‘culture of philanthropy,’” Penelope Burk, how they do it.”
development expert and president of Cygnus Applied Research,
says, “can sometimes get in the way of seeing what’s behind it, Karla A. Williams, president of the Williams Group and a
which is a set of practices and values that are shaping the way fundraising scholar, agrees: “If people don’t use the word
fundraising is going to be done in the future.” accurately, it’s our own fault because we’re not out there
educating the field about what it means. It’s a good word. Why
But proponents of the term think it’s time for the social sector not make it our own?”
to take back the word “philanthropy” and own it, based on its
original definition: “a love of mankind and voluntary action for
the common good.” According to Simone Joyaux, founder and
director of Joyaux Associates and a columnist for the Nonprofit
Quarterly, the emphasis on action is especially important
because “philanthropy becomes about respecting anyone who
gives something for the common good, not just money.”
WHAT ’ S D RI V I N G T H E S H I F T TO A
C ULT URE OF P HI L A N T H R O PY ?
A rapidly evolving digital landscape is transforming the ways we communicate, work, socialize, and,
yes, fundraise. These changes, says Gene Tempel, former fundraiser and president emeritus of Indiana
University’s Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, are forcing nonprofits to question the traditional wisdom
about resource development that may no longer be as applicable to ensuring long-term sustainability.
Among the changes that are driving the interest in new models—and a new mindset—for fund
development are:
Rise in people power. Today, interactivity, transparency, crowdsourcing, collaboration, and co-
creation are giving people access to systems and institutions that were once controlled by experts and
other gatekeepers. In the social sector, people are using everything from email and text messaging to
YouTube and Snapchat to connect, communicate, and engage in collective action and collaboration in
ways that were previously unimaginable.
These changes are also transforming philanthropy. In addition to crowdfunding and other online
giving platforms that are making it easy for “everyone to be a philanthropist,” there is a growing push
to democratize traditional philanthropic institutions. Foundations are experimenting with encouraging
beneficiary feedback and grantseeker participation in identifying priorities, creating guidelines and
making funding decisions.
Given the intense competition for financial resources, organizations have to be ready to capitalize on
these and other ways people—not just donors—are getting involved in social sector issues and activities.
That requires understanding there’s no longer a bright line between individual donors and non-donors
such as volunteers and activists.
Organizations are changing. The speed and multiple venues through which change now occurs
have prompted organizations to adapt structurally. This includes moving from hierarchical systems and
rigid department and job assignments (managerial models) to streamlined structures that allow for
collaboration, openness, and horizontal decision-making (ecosystem thinking). Some are forgoing physical
structures altogether and morphing into virtual entities or networks that can be more cost efficient and
nimble. Organizations that continue to operate in traditional, tightly controlled, top-down environments,
rather than adapt to more fluid systems and approaches, risk having their relevance and funding dry up.
New generations. Social change work is being reshaped by the attitudes and capacities of young
people who’ve grown up with the Internet and embrace its efficiency, transparency, bottom-up action,
and co-creation ethos. Young people are challenging conventional notions of hierarchical leadership,
preferring collaboration and horizontal arrangements in which “everyone’s a leader.” They are also less
interested in joining traditional issue-focused membership organizations because they view them as

bureaucratic and static. Some argue that millennials, in particular, may be less enamored with larger
social movements and more likely to get involved in specific issues, causes or events.iii As a consequence,
some nonprofits are struggling to recruit and sustain a membership base to replenish one that is aging.
Personalized and meaningful communication. Traditionally, organizations crafted and broadcast

messages to “educate people.” Today, that top-down approach has been upended, with message content
being co-created with constituents and the public. This is positioning organizations as distributors of this
content rather than gatekeepers of what gets communicated. As a result, organizations have to change
the way they engage with their constituents—by seeing them as active partners, rather than just foot
soldiers or check writers.
It also means that organizations need to spend more time spreading their fundraising and messaging efforts
across more outlets, e.g., Facebook, Twitter, magazines, telemarketing, radio, TV, YouTube, etc. Because
these and other platforms allow for more input and feedback from the public, organizations have to accept
that they won’t be able to control their message or brand as much as they used to. Young people especially
want more personalized contact with organizations. Nonprofits have to find meaningful ways to involve and
“allow young people to co-create experiences with you,” says Kari Saratovsky, chief engagement officer of
Third Plateau Social Impact Strategies, “because if you don’t, they’re likely to walk away.” iv
Fierce competition for resources. The growing number of nonprofits has triggered more
competition for resources, and the resources that are available are being outstripped by demand. The
panoply of new media tools and technologies is increasing the competition for “mind-share,” which is
leading to “cause fatigue” among people who are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information and
requests they get from organizations.
These trends no doubt contribute to the downward slide in donor retention rates across the sector.
According to data generated by Network for Good, at the average U.S. nonprofit, the percentage of first-
timers who come back to give again the next year is just 27%.v That matters, given research showing that
retaining and motivating existing donors costs less than acquiring new ones. A recent study from the
Association of Fundraising Professionals and the Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy at the Urban
Institute found that for most nonprofits, reducing donor and dollar losses is the least expensive strategy
for increasing net funding gainsvi, especially for nonprofits that are sustaining losses or achieving only
modest net gains in gifts. Retaining donors, therefore, will be critical if nonprofits, especially smaller and
mid-sized organizations, are to survive and thrive.

WHAT I S A C ULT U R E O F P H I L ANT H R O PY?
FOU R CORE COM P O NE NTS
While there are subtle differences in how people define, practice and assess a culture of philanthropy, the
research for this paper turned up four core components that are explored in the following pages:
Shared Integration
Responsibility and Alignment
for Development with Mission
A Focus on
Strong Donor
Fundraising as
Relationships
Engagement
Who Has a Culture of Philanthropy?

UnderDeveloped, a 2013 survey and report by CompassPoint According to UnderDeveloped, 41 percent of organizations
and the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, defined a culture of presented with this definition reported having “no culture of
philanthropy as having the following elements: philanthropy,” with larger organizations less likely to say they
have it than smaller groups. Also, executive directors were
• Most people in the organization (across positions) act as
more likely than their development directors to think they had a
ambassadors and engage in relationship-building. Everyone
strong culture of philanthropy (20% vs. 12%, respectively).
promotes philanthropy and can articulate a case for giving.
Fund development is viewed and valued as a mission-
aligned program of the organization. Organizational systems
are established to support donors. The executive director is
committed and personally involved in fundraising.
#1 S HA R E D R E SP O N SIB ILI TY FOR DEVELOPMENT
In organizations with a culture of philanthropy, fundraising isn’t just one person’s job or the
job of one department or board committee. Everyone—staff, executive director, constituents,
board and volunteers—shares responsibility for fund development.
A culture of philanthropy doesn’t mean that everyone has to solicit funds, but they’re expected to act
as ambassadors and build relationships. Everyone also promotes philanthropy, can articulate a case
for giving, and plays a role in helping to acquire all the resources needed (not just money) to do the
organization’s work. That can take the form of networking, making connections, building relationships,
holding briefings, working on press events, and fostering relationships with constituencies.
As Karen Osborne says, “It’s not about creating an organization of solicitors. It’s about nurturing a group of
people who believe in the power of philanthropy and the organization’s mission and who embrace their
role in that work . In the end, staff, boards, volunteers and constituents of your organization need not take
on the role of fundraiser. But fundraising works infinitely better with their involvement and buy-in.”vii
Adding resource development to everyone’s job and volunteer responsibilities may sound like a tall
order, but it’s essential to an organization’s sustainability and success. Instead of assuming there’s not
enough time to develop a culture of philanthropy, everyone in the organization could reframe this as a
chance to share the responsibility, time and energy that’s already abundant in helping development staff
move the organization in this new direction.
Prue Precourt suggests organizations build in as many opportunities as possible for the leadership, board
and staff to come together and learn about how creating a culture of philanthropy could bring positive
results for them and the organization.viii
There are mixed views on whether the size of an organization affects its ability to successfully integrate
a culture of philanthropy in which all staff feel vested in fundraising. Some think smaller organizations
have an easier time because they’re more nimble, have less complex structures and fewer firewalls that
prevent people from communicating and collaborating across departments and job responsibilities.
Others, however, argue that more established organizations—such as hospitals and universities—are
better able to instill a culture of philanthropy because there are more staff to help facilitate that process

and more outlets for donors and non-donors to
get involved in the institution’s activities. Says
“Attending a class several years
Gail Perry, fundraising trainer and “Fired Up
Fundraising” blogger, “when it comes down to ago, the professor asked each of us
it, it doesn’t matter what size an organization how many fundraisers were in our
is because stonewalling attitudes can exist in
respective nonprofit organizations.
any place.”
I was a one-person shop at [my
Shifting the sense of responsibility for organization] at that time so I
fundraising across the entire board and staff
answered ‘one.’ Answers varied from
of the organization can make development
jobs less stressful and allay fundraisers’ high one to ten as we went around the
burnout rate. Stephanie Roth believes that room. The professor then said that
while it may not be absolutely necessary to
the correct answer to the number
have a culture of philanthropy, the reality is
that if organizations are “depending on one of fundraisers in the organization
person to bring in the money—whether it’s the was actually the total number of
executive or development director—it’s not
employees who worked there.” xi
going to be sustainable over the long term.”
– Danielle Irving
In addition, when the primary responsibility of
development staff is not to raise money but to
build a philanthropic culture, they’re less likely
to be seen as technicians and more as equal and valued partners with other facets of the organization
and its work. Development staff can also then serve as facilitators, catalysts, advocates, stewards and the
conscience of a philanthropic culture—a set of skills and roles that development professionals usually
find more fulfilling and meaningful than just counting checks.ix
Debating Pay and Incentives for Development Staff

Building a culture of philanthropy can be a key factor in Pay-for-performance systems are predicated on the belief
attracting and retaining skilled development staff. But some that it’s primarily the development person’s job to raise the
say the most powerful incentive is paying them for their money, and that donors are going to continue to come to
performance, i.e., providing raises and promotions based on the organization through direct channels facilitated by the
metrics connected to fundraising targets or the number of fundraiser(s). But some feel that this focus on “getting the big
x
prospect visits staff make. gift” limits the organization’s ability to connect with a broader
set of potential donors and build the relationships that growing
Few would dispute that pay is important, says Kim Klein, a evidence shows are crucial to long-term sustainability.
social justice fundraising expert and trainer, but “performance
expectations defined in financial terms alone deny the reality of
what it takes to get givers, not just gifts.”

#2 I N T E GR ATIO N A N D A LI GNMENT WI TH MI SSI ON
In organizations with a culture of philanthropy, fund development is a valued and mission-

aligned component of the organization’s overall work, rather than a standalone function.
Organizations with a culture of philanthropy see fund development as more than just raising money or
a management function; they see it as baked into everything they do, including their overall missions.
As Simone Joyaux notes: “Organizations that operate with a culture of philanthropy understand three
things: the value of organizational culture, the importance of philanthropy, and the inextricable link
between philanthropy and fund development.”
According to UnderDeveloped, this is a marked shift from the approach to development the social sector
has traditionally relied on. Now, creating the conditions for success at both the organizational and field
levels will require everyone in the sector “to adopt a profoundly different stance towards fundraising—
one that moves from a passive apologetic and/or siloed model to an integrative one that deeply values
donors and constituents and puts them right at the center of organizations and movements.”
When this happens, says Marla Cornelius, the question moves from “how can we raise more funds” to
“how can we galvanize all our resources—including, but not limited to money—and people to be what we
need to be to drive change?”
Put another way, building a culture of philanthropy means viewing fundraising as a tactic for achieving
larger programmatic goals and mission, rather than an end unto itself. As Terry Axelrod, founder and CEO
of Benevon, notes, “Fundraising alone is never going to bring about a culture shift. If donors are properly
engaged from the start, then culture change may begin with fundraising; it’s a means to a greater end.”
This shift in how people and organizations view fundraising is driven in part by broader structural changes
such as the advent of flatter, non-hierarchical organizations; these changes have made it easier to align
fundraising with other organizational activities and priorities. Unlike traditional structures, where the
development staff can be islands unto themselves, organizations with a culture of philanthropy eschew
rigid lines between departments and job responsibilities. Instead, development and program activities
are seen as equally important and overlapping, with all staff communicating and working collaboratively
toward shared goals.

In fact, a hallmark of a culture of philanthropy is having less complex structures and firewalls among
departments and/or staff responsibilities, which leads to “having more role empathy because you can
see what others are doing and be more willing to help out,” says Marla Cornelius. When staff members
have the opportunity to communicate and collaborate across traditional department lines, it can also
help build trust and cooperation.
Working in this way has other benefits beyond enabling the organization to fundraise more successfully.
Perhaps the most important contribution a culture of philanthropy can make to an organization beyond
fundraising is a healthy and supportive work environment. As Pamela Grow notes, “Sure, there are
organizations that are quite successful in raising funds without this culture in place. But I wouldn’t want
to work for one. Would you?”
“In our organization, program staff are all involved in fundraising

activities to some extent—whether it’s helping produce a film for a
fundraising event or raising money themselves for a volunteer-led
fundraiser. Also, fundraising isn’t walled off from what program staff
are doing. When I need to write a donor a thank-you note and need
inspiration, I’ll ask the students participating in our programs what they
like best about them. When we have big events, we involve the students
as speakers and emcees. When we host site visits, we pull in students
from our programs to be part of those conversations.” xii
– Kristin Barrali

#3 A FO C US O N F UN D R AI SI NG AS ENGAGEMENT
In organizations with a culture of philanthropy, fund development is no longer separated

from engagement. This reflects the fact that people today are connecting with nonprofits via
multiple channels (e.g., social media, volunteering, blogs, meet ups, petitions) and engaging
with them in multiple ways (e.g., as donors, volunteers, board members, constituents).
Increasingly, an organization’s stakeholders and supporters want some kind of engagement with
the organization and its mission that may not start with a financial contribution but, over time, may
lead to that. As Pamela Grow and Sarah Mansberger observe, “that means organizations need to
create environments where their entire community—donors, clients, staff and partners—have ample
opportunities to engage with the mission in authentic and meaningful ways.”xiii
New generations are embracing these changes, saying they want to see philanthropy be more
transparent, democratized and relational. They want organizations to move away from rigid hierarchical
structures towards ecosystem models with more collaborative and fluid structures.
According to Farra Trompeter, vice president of Big Duck, a nonprofit communications firm, “Organizations
need to realize that the change they question or fear has already happened. Nonprofits’ supporters—
young and old—are communicating through multiple channels, and organizations that don’t embrace
some kind of fusion will slowly disappear.” If you’re not sure where to start, Trompeter suggests beginning
by asking supporters what channels they use for their own news-gathering and activism via a survey or
simple conversations at your next event. Then try one small experiment and see what happens. Build on
what works and keep pushing to communicate online and in-person. What may feel awkward at first will
become a habit and, eventually, you will find the new norm that so many other groups are adopting.
Organizations that understand the need to combine fundraising and engagement tend to operate
differently. Some nonprofits, for example, are tearing down the walls between the fundraising,
communications, marketing and program departments to make them collaborative and complementary,
not siloed. In addition, rather than having a firewall between their donor and volunteer or activist lists,
some organizations now have one list that includes everyone and is segmented and tagged based on
their type and level of engagement.

These changes reflect an understanding that
donors give to organizations not just because of
their work; donors give because they aspire to the “In a culture of philanthropy, you
same goals and are looking for an organization to don’t start by ‘doing a gala’ or
engage with and give through so they can achieve
those aspirations. Millennials, for example, are
‘getting a grant.’ You start by talking
more interested in supporting causes rather than with and engaging people. You say,
organizations or institutions. Organizations with a ‘We don’t want you to give money
culture of philanthropy, therefore, help donors fulfill
their desires to create a specific impact in the world.
until you’re engaged and you know
us. When that happens, we know
A 2015 study by Edge Research for Abila supports you’ll be more likely to give us more
this hypothesis.xiv The study was based on a survey
of 206 nonprofit officials involved in engaging
and do more for the organization
donors and 1,250 adults who give to charities. It than give money.’”
found that while donors feel most engaged with – Terry Axelrod
charities through the act of giving money (with
millennials putting volunteering slightly ahead
of financial support), there are several other
ways they like to be engaged. Among these are receiving regular and personalized updates about
accomplishments, volunteering, hearing personal stories, advocating for an issue, participating in fun
events, and getting thank yous and other recognition. Donors felt less engaged around activities such as
social functions, networking events, direct mail, websites and social media.
Engaging donors as partners in the work doesn’t mean donors are driving the bus; instead, they’re engaged
actors working with the organization to achieve its goals, rather than being passive “givers.” In fact, some say
that in a true culture of philanthropy, organizations would point prospective donors in other directions if
they felt that their organization wasn’t the right fit for their philanthropic aspirations. Simone Joyaux begins
by asking donors about their philanthropic story. “If that doesn’t fit with what my organization is doing, I’ll
tell them that and then suggest some other organizations that do fit with what they’re seeking.”
Social Justice Groups Fuse Activism, Fundraising

An example of how some social justice organizations are fusing That doesn’t mean it’s easy. While most organizations agree
fundraising and engagement is integrating online activism with that both online and offline strategies are important, no one has
on-the-ground action. Using the internet and other digital tools, figured out the perfect formula for melding the two to ensure
these groups are connecting with and engaging their core maximum fundraising success. Some older organizations that
base of supporters to encourage their participation in real- are more comfortable with traditional organizing, in particular,
world action such as events, rallies, meetings with legislators, may find it more challenging to shift to this model. On the one
fundraising house-parties, volunteering, canvassing, and more. hand, their existing constituent base is more comfortable with
Sophisticated nonprofits are also using those in-person events traditional organizing, but on the other, they recognize that a
as an opportunity to capture names and information for building new generation of would-be supporters will want opportunities
online connections. to engage in this way.

#4 ST R O N G DO N O R R E LATI ONSHI PS
In organizations with a culture of philanthropy, donors are seen as authentic partners in the
work, not simply as targets or dollar signs. These organizations establish systems to build
strong relationships and support donors’ connection to the work.
Building strong relationships with donors breaks the field’s obsession with transactions and mechanics
to focus on people’s interests and values, says Simone Joyaux. Donors, as well as potential donors and
others involved with the organization, are seen as partners who share its goals and aspirations and
participate in achieving them. That means relationships, not money, are what matters most.
This is important, says Karen Osborne, president of the Osborne Group, “because donors have more to
give than just money. They have other capital—time, skills, networks and talent—to bring to the table.”xv
In short, says Stephanie Roth, a development trainer and consultant for social justice organizations,
“donors are people too, not just ATMs.”
High-performing organizations also understand the importance of relationship building in ensuring donor
retention—something with which social sector organizations continue to struggle. Every year, nonprofits lose
about seven out of ten new donors. It’s also seven times more expensive to replace a donor than to keep one.xvi
It’s, therefore, time to “de-think” traditional approaches, Jay Goulart, founder and chief data artist
at NewSci writes, and start realizing that “the answer to dropping retention rates lives with a keen
understanding of your donors’ desires and aspirations.”xvii That will only come when organizations—and
everyone in them—is intentional about having personal and meaningful relationships with donors.
Focusing on relationships doesn’t relieve nonprofits of the need to provide donors with data-based
evidence of organizational impact. Penelope Burk says that when someone hasn’t yet given to an
organization, it usually takes some kind of marketing message to interest them—not necessarily a
spreadsheet of effectiveness data. It’s only after donors’ first gift that they pay more attention to results
because they want to see what happens with their contribution. That’s where evidence about impact comes
in, and it’s why broad-based appeals aren’t particularly effective after someone gives their first gift. “You may
get them to open the envelope using that strategy the first time, but 65 percent are going to drop off later
because fundraisers don’t understand that once donors give, they’re looking for different things—including
personalized attention and more information about how their investment made a difference,” Burk says.

Of particular importance is being authentic. Cookie-
cutter notes, tote bags or “fake emergencies,” “Another way is to think of this as
Mark Rovner, CEO of Sea Change Strategies, says,
won’t work. What will is “deeply understanding a culture of customer service. Or of
why the donor supports you and delivering on relationship building. Your donor only
her (or his) expectations.” It also goes beyond
knows one organization. They don’t
seeing a gift as a one-off business transaction to
a step in a relationship, Marc Pitman, founder of care about your internal organization
FundraisingCoach.com, notes. “This forces us to chart. If they speak to the receptionist
create systems to deepen relationships with people
that are fans of what we do, rather than just treating
and are treated rudely, that impacts
them as ‘the public’ or ‘our constituents.’” xviii their desire to invest with you. So if you
Put another way, it’s not about “selling” donors on
have siloed departments, it works to
your organization; it’s about supporting donors in your disadvantage.” xxii
developing their philanthropy. – Claire Axelrad
Increasing evidence points to the payoff from

thinking about donors in this way. In 2014,
Penelope Burk surveyed 23,000 donors in the Debating “Donor Centrism”
U.S. and Canada and found that personalized Some take issue with a culture of philanthropy’s overemphasis
thank you letters lead to more donations than on donor centrism.xx While it makes sense to meet donors’
standard gift acknowledgements.xix Specifically, needs and fulfill their philanthropic aspirations, says Vu Le,
executive director of Rainier Valley Corps and blogger, it can also
45 percent of donors said thank you letters with
“widen the dichotomy between donors and nonprofits, further
a warm, personal tone that made them feel as if distancing one from the other.” He adds: “Donors alone cannot
they were “written just for me” inspired them to be the heroes … and we nonprofits alone can’t be the heroes.
give again. Twenty-three percent said they gave None of us are heroes without all of us.” xxi Le suggests taking the
best elements of the donor-centric model and evolving it into a
more generously because of the quality of the
community-centric model in which donors and organizations are
acknowledgement they received. equal partners working toward a common vision of community
“that extends beyond our own organizations and their survival.”
This is part of what Burk calls donor-centered
fundraising, which, like a culture of philanthropy, Others say that in a culture of philanthropy the larger
community not only matters, it’s the only thing that matters if
sees relationship building as key to long-term
the goal is social change. As Stephanie Roth says, “The field
sustainability. A culture of philanthropy, therefore, has become so professionalized, we forget that an important
requires the long view. “If organizations are patient part of development is involving the larger community in our
and keep donors moving up the relationship social justice work. And involving the community is about all
the ways people participate in causes: giving money, getting
ladder, they’ll see the value of those gifts go up,”
active as volunteers and activists, and having a say about what
says Burk. Unlike institutional giving, individual organizations they’re part of should be doing.”
donors “can last a lifetime and beyond in bequests.
The ability of individuals to give has no ceiling.”
Relationship building doesn’t stop with individuals; it extends to the larger community. In a culture of
philanthropy, fund development is the means to the end of community change because it melds the
interests of the organization, donors and the larger community. A culture of philanthropy, says Marla
Cornelius, moves the organization “toward stewardship in ways that have impact on the world beyond
the institution. The latter is the vehicle through which to achieve the former.”

In A Fundraising Culture… In A Culture of Philanthropy…
Philanthropy = grants by institutions or gifts Philanthropy = love of mankind.
from wealthy individuals.
Development staff is responsible for revenue Everyone in the organization shares some responsibility for
generation. revenue generation by serving as ambassadors and building
relationships with potential donors and constituents.
It’s all about the money. It’s all about the relationships.
Donors = money. Donors = skills, talents, time and money.
Donors are contacted only when money is Donors are contacted regularly with invitations to
needed. participate in activities, progress updates, and information
about how their contributions are helping.
Fundraising and engagement are siloed and There is one list for every person who’s affiliated with the
have different contact lists. organization in some way (e.g., volunteering, donating,
organizing, etc.).
Fundraising is seen as a one-off or add-on. Fundraising is incorporated into and across every staff
position and activity in the organization.
Culture is seen as “touchy feely.” Culture is the most important factor in determining an
organization’s effectiveness.
The board relegates fundraising to the The board development committee directs the participation
development committee. of the entire board in fundraising.
It’s about acquiring donors. It’s about keeping donors.
Mission, program goals and operations are Mission, program goals and operations are aligned with
separate from revenue generation. revenue generation.
The focus is on short-term tactics like appeals The focus is on the longer-term strategy behind the tactics.
and events.
The organization functions with a scarcity The organization functions with a mindset of abundance.
mindset.
The organization’s leaders make decisions The organization’s leaders make decision based on what
based on what’s available. the community needs and a shared vision of how to meet
that need.
The community isn’t engaged. The community is intentionally engaged and participates as
a partner with the organization.
Development staff/directors are relegated to Development staff/directors are part of the leadership team
secondary status. and equal partners with other senior staff; they participate in
all planning, strategy, financial and organizational meetings.
Development goals aren’t part of everyone’s job Development goals are part of everyone’s job description.
description.
Board and staff have sporadic contact. Board and staff have regular opportunities to engage and
interact.
The focus is on big gifts. All gifts are important.
Donations come first. Donations come after we engage people in our work.
We will win over every donor for our We will listen and refer donors to other organizations that
organization. align more closely with their aspirations.
Money is dirty. Money is what we need to do our work.
There are rigid lines between organizations’ Job responsibilities and departments are more fluid; more
departments, including development. collaboration to meet goals.
CASE STUDY:
P R I D E F O UN DATIO N B UILDS A CULTURE OF PHI LANTHROPY
U ND E R N E W E X E C UTIVE DI RECTOR
When Kris Hermanns became executive director of the Pride Foundation—a community foundation
supporting LGBTQ issues in the Northwest—one of her first priorities was partnering with her
director of community giving to transform the organization’s approach to development.
Having been a development director for an LGBTQ advocacy organization, Hermanns
had definite ideas about what she wanted to do in her new role.
At the top of her list as she started the new job in 2012 was creating a culture in
which everyone—board, staff and volunteers—played a role in fundraising. “I’d never
bought into the philosophy that development is ‘dirty work’ that no one else wants to do
and that development people are solely responsible for raising all the money and saving the
organization,” Hermanns recalls.
Immediately upon joining the Pride Foundation, Hermanns

was presented with an opportunity to build the culture she
envisioned as Washington state became a focal point in
the nationwide debate on marriage equality—one of Pride
Foundation’s top policy priorities. First, Washington Governor Christine Gregoire announced her support
for marriage equality on the day after Hermanns took the job. Next, the issue was the subject of a
statewide referendum in November 2012. This prompted a group of national funders to approach the
Pride Foundation with an offer: they would give Pride Foundation $1 million to mount a public education
campaign on the issue, as long as the foundation raised another $500,000.
Not one to balk at a challenge, Hermanns saw this as an opportunity for institutional change. She
used the occasion of Pride Foundation’s 30th anniversary and her appointment as executive director
as an opening to bring in consultants charged with recommending improvements in the Foundation
development and donor engagement work. As Hermanns says, “Don’t get me wrong: I don’t have all
the answers and I know 50 percent of fundraising is experimenting until you find what works. So I just
wanted Pride Foundation to be bold and try new things until we found what works for us as we and the
landscape around us continuously evolves.”
B R OAD E N IN G R E SP O N SI BI LI TY FOR DEVELOPMENT

Hermanns was particularly interested in changing how the development function had been structured.
Historically, Pride Foundation’s director of community giving had primary responsibility for fundraising,
meaning that only one person had nearly all relationships with donors. In Hermanns’ view, this was
too much for one person and had kept Pride Foundation from fully capitalizing on the networks and
relationships that other staff and board members could bring to the table.

Distributing the responsibility for development required a shift in the way Pride Foundation viewed and
related to its donors, volunteers and others in the community. According to Hermanns, Pride Foundation
had “been looking at how we communicated with people, rather than how we engaged them more
broadly or what their interests were. The consultant’s audit made clear that we needed to be more
intentional about finding out who our donors and potential donors were, how they came to us and how
they wanted to invest in us.”
Most important, Hermanns felt Pride Foundation needed to reinvent—if not rebrand—the development
director position altogether, starting with changing the title to director of community engagement. This
title change wasn’t just symbolic; it underscored Hermanns’ resolve to make development something
that emphasized long-term relationships, rather than transactions. “I wanted to reconceptualize the
position so this person was seen as a member of the leadership team, able to talk about any part of
the organization and to represent our vision and values in the larger community,” Hermanns wrote in a
Chronicle of Philanthropy article.
Hermanns also made other changes, in partnership with her director of community engagement,
such as developing an annual fundraising plan focused more on donor engagement activities than on
contribution goals. The plan is segmented by donor and potential donor audiences, and it includes
detailed information about donors’ histories, profiles and interests. Pride Foundation’s new “constituent
platform” stipulates primary “touch points” for all donors, while identifying who communicates and
develops ongoing relationships with them.
A R AN GE O F E N G AGE MENT STRATEGI ES

Pride Foundation engages donors and potential donors in its work via a range of strategies. For example,
since Pride Foundation started inviting community members to review scholarship and grant proposals,
more than 300 volunteers have signed up annually. Some of these volunteers are already donors, and
others—such as past grantees and scholarship alumni—want to engage with the Foundation’s work in a
more in-depth way. Pride Foundation also brings together people who want to be connected with others
who share their values and commitment to LGBTQ issues. “As people get more walled off by social media,”
Hermanns explains, “they’re hungry for the chance to come together in person and participate in things
like issue briefings and informal events that provide a sense of community among people who have
shared aspirations. It connects them and reduces their isolation, especially in our geographic region.”
This kind of engagement is crucial to achieving the organization’s development goals, Hermanns says,
because 80 percent of Pride Foundation’s donors have come to the organization via relationships with
existing donors and their networks. “We realized that we had to start providing supporters with tools and
guidance they could use to attract others to our work because their efforts can go way beyond what I or
my staff or board could do by ourselves,” she says.
Pride Foundation helps board, staff and local advisory councils sharpen their ability to tell stories
about why they got engaged with the Foundation and the impact of their investments in its work. The
Foundation also organizes trainings with community members to encourage them to think about a

moment that inspired them and to craft a story that’s compelling to potential donors and constituents.
Last but not least, Pride Foundation provides stakeholders with sample social media messages and
offers periodic briefings to keep constituents up to date on the organization’s advocacy and policy efforts.
In short, Hermanns notes, “It’s not all about the money; it’s about engaging people in our education
and policy work.” Still, she acknowledges that ultimately Pride Foundation wants to see people become
donors. “We always ask people to consider an investment, but we usually have multiple touch points
before we ask for a bigger gift,” she says. People who come to the Foundation’s community events, for
example, get the foundation’s newsletters, updates and invitations to other activities on a regular basis.
“AL L GIF TS MATTE R ”

At the end of the day, Hermanns says that the most important thing is that people make a gift—no matter
what its size. “We have a strong philosophy that all gifts matter—whether it’s $2 from a person who’s on a
limited income or someone who gives us $100,000.” At the same time, Pride Foundation, like many other
social justice funders, is realizing it needs to ramp up its major donor program. To that end, Hermanns’ team,
based on the recommendations and guidance of the consultant, is culling Pride Foundation’s database to
identify potential major givers and communicating with them in more personalized, meaningful ways.
Hermanns’ board culture is also changing. Both she and her board chair are being more direct about
saying what they need from each member, as well as modeling the kind of development practice they
want to see embedded in the board’s way of working. They’re also asking board members to give
annually, invite people to Pride Foundation’s events, review donor lists, make calls and visits, and, above
all, “serve as Pride Foundation’s ambassadors in the larger community.” In addition, board members
are asked to share their stories with donors and other constituents to underscore their passion and
commitment to the organization’s work.
These efforts are paying off. Pride Foundation’s unrestricted individual donor gifts have increased, and
lapsed donors are coming back, due to the organization’s increased capacity and thanks to the personal
outreach the organization has done to reconnect with them.
W H AT IT TA K E S
For others wanting to implement a culture of philanthropy in their organizations, Hermanns suggests
thinking about development as more than money. “It’s about the organization’s overall mission and
mobilizing donors and resources for the change it wants to make. That means organizations need to
move away from talking about money to talking about engagement and investments they want to see
and emphasizing that without resources, those changes won’t occur.”
Hermanns cautions that there’s no “cookbook” for this process, and it takes patience, especially on
behalf of the board. “It’s going to be trial and error as you learn and adapt, but it’s important to take
time to consider each dimension of this process as it relates to your organization’s culture, as well as the
landscape and context within which you’re working.” It is not always easy, Hermanns says, “but in the end,
the benefits the organization will get from its supporters—donors and potential donors—are countless.”

G ETT I N G STA RT E D
How can organizations that want to incorporate a culture of philanthropy get started?
The most important thing is not to get overwhelmed, says Marla Cornelius. “When you start talking about
implementing a culture of philanthropy, it’s tough to get your arms around that especially because it
affects so many parts of the organization.”
Indeed, perhaps the most common pushback is that developing a culture of philanthropy just takes too
much time, period. Like any culture change process, it’s incremental. In fact, one of the biggest reasons
why efforts at culture change fail is because it’s hard to sustain the kind of commitment needed for it to
take hold. The extent to which organizations move forward in the process, Robert Fogal, founder and
principal of Fogal Associates, says, “will depend on the people who are leading it to maintain that culture.
It doesn’t just happen.” xxiii
Cornelius begins by assuring people that there are many avenues for getting into the process. The one an
organization chooses depends on where it is. “Some organizations, for example, may start out by working
with their boards to bring them along in this process while others may start involving their development
staff in budget and program meetings. There’s no right or wrong way to start.”
Karla A. Williams says that it’s sometimes good to forgo using the term “culture of philanthropy” because
it can get in the way of people embracing these kinds of changes. What’s more important than the
phraseology (and taking time to explain it) is “getting people to understand that their organization’s
approach to fundraising isn’t working, how it needs to change and how a donor-centered model is key to
that. That’s what’s going to persuade people in the organization to embrace change.”
Richard Perry and Jeff Schreifels add that building a culture of philanthropy requires “patience and
persistence, just like cultivating your donors.” They continue, “A million-dollar gift doesn’t happen
overnight, and neither does changing an organization’s understanding of the role of philanthropy.” xxiv

S O M E GUID IN G Q UE STIONS
For organizations seeking to start down the road to building a culture of philanthropy, here are some
questions to help guide the process:
• Do we have staff leadership that believes in a culture of philanthropy? Monona Yin,

a program consultant who leads the Capacity Building Initiative at the Four Freedoms Fund, has
observed that the most important factor in ensuring success in building a culture of philanthropy
is having “some kind of leader or person with power in the organization who ‘gets it.’ You can’t
just train people in this stuff; you have to make sure they have ongoing support. It’s a leadership
issue.” It’s especially important that the executive director is committed to this process because it’s
impossible to build a strong culture without the executive leading it. According to UnderDeveloped,
the director has to be “an instigator, a champion, and a role model to bring fundraising into the
heart of the organization and keep it there.” Gail Perry agrees: “If it doesn’t come from the top, it
may not be successful.”
• How can we get the board to become champions of a culture of philanthropy? Boards
need to take responsibility for leading and modeling a culture of philanthropy in the organizations
they govern. As Terry Axelrod notes, “You can have great development staff but if the board doesn’t
care about developing this kind of philanthropic culture, it will become staff-driven and, ultimately,
not be as successful.” Ask board members what their philanthropic story is. Carve out part of every
board meeting to talk about fundraising. Bring in people to help train board members in all aspects
of development. Give board members the opportunity to interact with program staff and clients.
• Beyond our board and staff leaders, do we have other champions in our organization
who can model and monitor our progress in developing a culture of philanthropy?
Who are the influential people in the organization who are eager to move a culture of
philanthropy—including staff, volunteers and donors? They can help bring others along because
“people will start believing in it when they actually see the new behavior at work and working.”
• Is our mission clear and easy to communicate? While it’s good to have a clear mission that
reflects shared values, it’s just as important that everyone in the organization can communicate it
compellingly to potential donors and others involved in your work.
• Does everyone in the organization understand philanthropy’s role in advancing

the organization’s mission and values and have opportunities to participate in
development activities? Staff need to be able to see how fundraising “fits” with the organization
and how fundraising is essential and noble work. The more staff understand that development
enables the organization to sustain and strengthen its service of others, the more cooperation and
ownership will result. It also helps to provide staff and volunteers with a limited number of clear and
simple things each can do to help the development staff take the organization in this new direction.
The more hands-on experience people have with these activities, the more they will see how
important their participation is in helping the organization get the resources it needs.

• Do we have a vision of what the organization would look like with a culture of
philanthropy that everyone can get behind? Because change is personal, the change
vision has to address people’s natural desire to see what’s in it for them and how it will enhance the
organization’s work. Use the mission and vision to remind people of where the organization is headed
in its path toward a culture of philanthropy when interest or commitment seem to be lagging. Explore
how everyone in the organization, together, would describe the current culture and its personality
and how it feels to work there, as well as how it affects people’s enthusiasm, commitment, behaviors
and interactions. How would people describe a culture that motivates its employees and volunteers,
stimulates creativity and respect, and generates enthusiasm and collegiality?
• How would we nurture and sustain this culture over time? Culture transformation
takes a long time so it’s important that organizations designate and assess their progress at
regular intervals. What kind of process would help your organization evaluate its organizational
culture, define desired changes and make those changes? One core indicator, for example, is that
fundraising efforts are donor-centric and focused on building deep relationships over time, not just
asking for money when it’s needed. How could this be operationalized in your organization?
• Can we develop policies, procedures and measurable goals for making the plan
concrete? Codifying things in writing conveys that the organization is serious and intentional
about changing and provides a more formal blueprint for staff and the board. Put philanthropy on
the institutional dashboard and include it in performance measures. Make it a stated part of the
values statement. Reward and celebrate progress. And establish clear and measurable goals. For
example, if none of the senior program staff give, a goal might be to achieve 100 percent giving by
a specific date. Next, create the strategies and tactics you’ll use to achieve those goals. Use the
indicators in the appendix to assess how your organization is progressing. Invite everyone—staff,
donors, board, volunteers—to participate in this process and make it the focus of a regularly
scheduled meeting.

B U I L D IN G A C ULTUR E O F PHI LANTHROPY
xxv
Roles for Development Staff
• Integrate development into every staff and board meeting.
• Ask program staff members for their advice on development materials such as appeal letters, social media
strategies, etc.
• Spend one-on-one time with board members, donors and others involved in the organization’s work. Get to
know them individually. Find out their stories—why did they get involved?
• Share “mission moments.” At every staff and board meeting share a recent story about a client, donor or
community member and how they are impacted or inspired by the organization’s work. Encourage staff
members to share their stories.
• Shadow a program staff member in their work, and invite them on your donor visits.
• Invite donors into your organization, not just for the usual guided tours but also to attend board or
staff meetings.
• Include donors on your board and invite them to share their perspective.
• Create regular opportunities for program staff to share with development staff their experiences with
clients or constituents “in the field.”
• Celebrate success. When you reach 100% board participation or a board or staff member has brought in
new donors, recognize and celebrate it.
• Keep donors, staff, board, and other constituents updated on the organization’s work, progress, challenges
and accomplishments, including its development efforts.
• Share stories of donors, the individuals whose lives have been changed by the donors’ gifts, and staff and
volunteers who do the work.
• Use donor communications more effectively. When planning pitches and other communications, look
beyond how much donors give and personalize the contact with them as much as possible by considering
each person’s giving history, aspirations and preferences.
Roles for Funders

• Provide and support opportunities to bring grantees’ leadership together to engage in peer-to-peer
learning about building cultures of philanthropy in their organizations.
• Provide financial resources for organizations to have room to explore and implement a culture of philanthropy.
• Support data-based and more rigorous research that assesses the benefits, challenges and value of a
culture of philanthropy. Specific research questions might include:
o o nonprofits need a culture of philanthropy for successful fund development (and how is
D
“successful” defined)?
o What’s the value proposition for a culture of philanthropy in an organization?
o What evidence is there that a culture of philanthropy has value to an organization?
• Support the infrastructure needed to adopt a culture of philanthropy, e.g., technology tools, regular
trainings, etc.
• Commission case studies that that describe how organizations have moved toward a culture of philanthropy,
whether it’s helped them raise funds, and other benefits or drawbacks it’s presented to their work.
• Sponsor opportunities for the field to come together and build more consensus on the definition and
indicators of a culture of philanthropy.

CONC LUSI ON
The research for this paper surfaced a lot of different ideas and some debate about what a culture
of philanthropy looks like and how organizations can get started down the path to building one. But
there also is notable consensus around the fact that increasing fundraising success will take more than
technical fixes; organizations also are being called upon to make deeper changes in how they think about
and approach the work of fund development.
The four components of a culture of philanthropy identified in this paper may not sound revolutionary or
controversial to some people; indeed, there are many who have been calling for these kinds of changes
for years. But taken as a whole, these ideas represent a huge shift in how people are thinking about the
work of fund development for nonprofits.
These ideas also can serve as a call to action: At a time when organizations often focus on finding quick
fixes or a miracle-working development director to finally turn things around, it may be time to step back
and reconsider the core principles and assumptions that drive their fundraising efforts. And, it may be time
for the field to dig deeper into the questions of what a culture of philanthropy looks like, how it can help
nonprofits achieve sustainable fundraising success, and how to support organizations to make it a reality.
Just as organizational culture is co-created by the staff, board and other stakeholders of an organization,
the sector’s response to the entrenched fundraising challenges nonprofits face has to be a collective
effort. Hopefully, this paper will help to start a field-wide conversation about what’s next.

APPENDIX: WHAT DOES A CULTURE OF
PHILANTHROPY LOOK LIKE? KEY INDICATORS
For some, a culture of philanthropy falls in the “you know it when you see it” category. As Simone Joyaux
notes, “When it’s there, every volunteer and employee feels it. Clients and donors recognize it whenever
they connect with the organization. You know it as soon as you walk in the door.”
Most people, however, are going to need more meat on the bones before they consider this an approach
worth pursuing. Currently, much of the discussion about a culture of philanthropy leans toward the
theoretical, rather than practical.
Confronted with trying to operationalize similar abstract concepts, other fields have responded by
creating indicators that translate concepts into practice. These indicators aren’t static; they can and
should change as fields test and tweak them over time. Conversation and debate about the indicators
can advance a field’s shared language and practice.
The same process can be applied to unpacking and codifying a culture of philanthropy. Troy Arnold,
director of development for the Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Association of San Francisco, says:
“We often think of culture as something ‘squishy’ or qualitative, when, in fact, it’s achieved through
highly quantitative tasks. To build and sustain a culture of philanthropy takes a lot of planning and
implementing specific policies and practices.” xxvi
Interviewees for this study, in fact, believe that developing indicators that help organizations know
whether they have (or are moving toward) this culture is a top priority. When there is general agreement
about these indicators, they can serve as framework for practicing a culture of philanthropy more broadly
across the social sector. Indicators, Karla A. Williams says, “will help move the field beyond measurement
focused on outputs like ‘how much money did we raise’ or ‘how many donors do we have’ or ‘how
many prospects became donors,’ etc. More nuanced indicators get us to something deeper and more
sustainable, which is a culture of philanthropy.”
To help kickstart this process, here is an initial attempt to capture indicators that have been collected
and synthesized for this paper from interviews with practitioners, development experts, researchers and
others who were asked how they assess a culture of philanthropy. Not everyone will agree with every
item here, but the list is offered as a way to start a conversation about what a culture of philanthropy
looks like—and how to know if you have one.

E XE C UTIVE D IR E C TO R /CEO I NDI CATORS
• The executive director leads and inspires a culture of philanthropy through his/her commitment to
and involvement in fund development.
• The executive director creates and models a shared sense of responsibility for fund development for
the staff and board.
• The executive director includes the development director as a member of the leadership team and
consults her/him in all of the organization’s major strategic decisions.
• The executive director dedicates regular time to cultivating and engaging donors throughout the year.
• The executive director is comfortable asking for contributions (of any kind).
• The executive director participates in regular fundraising trainings and educational opportunities.
• The executive director’s expectation of development staff isn’t solely to raise more money but to
help build a better understanding of the role philanthropy plays in the organization.
STAF F IN DIC ATO R S

• All staff—from the top to the bottom and regardless of position—see themselves as ambassadors
for the organization and its philanthropic goals; they value the role of philanthropy, talk about its
impact and are involved in fund development.
• Everyone in the organization has contact with donors, can articulate and inspire the case for giving,
and give examples of how philanthropy has enhanced the organization’s efforts.
• Program staff communicate and work with development staff and vice versa to “get into the other’s
shoes” and find ways to meld program, fundraising and outreach activities.
• Program staff or others with direct contact with clients and the community are expected to cultivate
relationships that will support the organization’s mission.
• Staff are encouraged to give—in whatever form—to the best of their ability.
• Every new staff person is educated on donors’ roles in the organization.
• Staff attend periodic fundraising trainings.

O R G A N IZATIO N IN DIC ATORS
• Philanthropy is embraced as a core value and/or organizational mindset that is understood and
integrated across the organization.
• There are many opportunities for staff, board, donors and others to learn and talk about
philanthropy and its impact on the organization’s mission.
• Fundraising efforts are donor-centric and focused on building relationships over time—not just
asking for money when needed.
• Everyone in the organization respects donors as individuals with unique needs, aspirations and
personalities and treats them as partners, not just funders.
• Major decisions consider the question: “What would our donors think?”
• There is more time spent on keeping donors than acquiring new ones.
• The organization regularly evaluates its progress and invests in developing a culture of philanthropy.
• Staff, volunteers, board members and donors are encouraged to extend their philanthropic values
and activities to other organizations.
• The organization recognizes that a culture of philanthropy is a component of organizational culture

overall—one that operates as a cohesive system, rather than in silos.
D E V E LO P ME N T STA F F/DEPARTMENT I NDI CATORS

• Development staff take leadership for moving the organization toward a culture of philanthropy and
assume “change management” responsibilities.
• Development staff serve as the conscience of the charitable mission and represent donors’ interests
during organizational planning discussions and meetings.
• The development director reports directly to the CEO, is a peer on the executive team, and attends
and presents at board meetings.
• Development officers serve (and are respected) as leaders in encouraging staff/board to understand
the donors’ perspective and value to the organization.
• Development offices are fluid, rather than rigidly categorized (e.g., “director of major gifts,” “special
events manager,” etc.), and include people with communications, marketing and program
expertise/skills.
• Development professionals are not only skilled in the tactics of fundraising (e.g., direct mail, events,
planned giving) but are also strategic thinkers and implementers.

• Development staff regularly communicate to the rest of the organization about how it is engaging
donors and building relationships; they encourage storytelling about both donors and beneficiaries
(recipients) to highlight the human side of philanthropy (not just the financial side).
• Development staff have opportunities to regularly expand their knowledge and hone their skills; the
organization invests in their education by budgeting funds for professional development.
• Development staff are evaluated/compensated not only for meeting their financial goals but on the
quality of their relationships with donors, board members, and other staff.
B OAR D IN DIC ATO R S

• Board members embrace the concepts of a philanthropic culture and strive to ensure its success
within and outside the organization.
• Board members can cite examples and tell stories of the financial and human impact of
philanthropy on donors and recipients.
• The board is committed to and involved in fund development; they are ambassadors, not bystanders.
• All board members are actively engaged in fund development—from donor cultivation and
solicitation to hosting events and serving as liaisons for external partners (e.g., corporations,
foundations, public offices, etc.).
• Board members can articulate the case for support and are comfortable asking for contributions (of
any kind).
• Fundraising responsibilities are discussed with prospective board members before they’re elected
to the board; personal philanthropic giving is included in the board members’ expectations and
agreement.
• Board development committees coordinate, educate and support the rest of the board in raising
funds (rather than being seen as “the fundraisers”).
• Board members are recognized publicly for their contributions.

D O N O R IN DIC ATO R S
• Donors are valued for more than their financial gifts; their ideas, thoughts, involvement and
leadership are continuously sought and welcomed.
• Donors are treated like partners in the work—rather than as “cash machines” or transactions.
• Donors’ needs and interests shape discussions about where, what and how they might make a
philanthropic investments to their organization or others.
• Donors are invited to partner in other ways that go beyond money such as contributing time
or expertise.
• Donors are asked, “What’s your philanthropic story?” and helped to find ways to express their
philanthropic identity.
• Donors aren’t “sold” on the organization; they’re supported in developing their philanthropy and
referred to other organizations if their mission is more aligned with donors’ goals.
• Donors are contacted, thanked and engaged on a regular and personalized basis to ensure they
know their value to the organization.
• Donors are encouraged to visit the organization and its program/activity sites.
• The donor “ask” is based on the shared desires of donors and the organization toward the goal of
meeting both organizational and community needs.
• The number of new, retained and upgraded donors improves each year.
• Donors and prospects are attentive, interested and engaged with the organization’s programs and
comfortable with revealing their own interests and aspirations.
• Donors are given time to ask questions, talk and engage in two-way conversations with staff
and volunteers.
CO M M UN ITY/CO N STITUENT I NDI CATORS

• Visitors are welcomed into program sites by everyone from the front desk personnel to the board chair.
• The organization is intentional about communicating with, reaching out to and involving the larger
community in mission and work.
• Alumni, parents, faculty, board and other shareholders are viewed as partners in how the
organization carries out its mission and invited to share their stories whenever possible.
• The organization champions the importance of philanthropy in the larger community.

I N F R ASTR UC TUR E /IN TE RNAL SYSTEMS
• Marketing, communications, membership, fund development, volunteer/board recruitment, and
staff engagement are collaborative and complementary, not siloed.
• Development goals are part of annual performance evaluations for all staff and board members.
• Publications, websites, social media and other forms of communications feature donor stories,
describe impact and tell how to give to the organization.
• There are several opportunities for staff, board and donors to engage together during the year to
build trust and relationships.
• The organization invests money in strengthening its development/fundraising infrastructure,

including professional development, training and technology.
• All revenue streams—whether from special events, direct mail, major donors, online giving, grants or
other—are seen as equally important and valued.
• There are opportunities for donors, clients, board and staff to “tell their stories” about their
philanthropy; these stories, in turn, become the focus of development outreach, rather than the
organization communicating what it thinks is the case for support.
• Results are measured by impact, not by arbitrary goals or deadlines.

ENDNOTES
i. http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/afp/ap_2015winter/
ii. http://www.haasjr.org/perspectives/culture-is-changing-fundraising-needs-to-change-with-it
iii. https://www.mobilecause.com/millennial-donations/
iv. http://www.nonprofitmarketingblog.com/category/crowdfunding
v. http://www.fundraising123.org/node/950#.Vjk42GttE4k
vi. http://afpfep.org/reports/
vii. http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/afp/ap_2015winter/#/32
viii. http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/afp/ap_2015winter/#/32
ix. http://www.nonprofitpro.com/post/the-most-important-part-fundraising-a-culture-
philanthropy/2/
x. https://philanthropy.com/article/An-Answer-to-Fundraiser/231683
xi. http://www.armstrongmcguire.com/blog/does-your-organization-have-a-culture-of-
philanthropy
xii. http://www.haasjr.org/perspectives/culture-of-philanthropy
xiii. http://www.pamelagrow.com/2255/creating-a-culture-of-philanthropy-caras-motivations/
xiv. http://www.abila.com/lpgs/donorengagementstudy/
xv. http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/afp/ap_2015winter/
xvi. http://www.networkforgood.com/nonprofitblog/art-and-science-donor-relations/#.VYnEp0YYP80
xvii. http://newsci.co/de-think-your-way-to-great-donor-retention/
xviii. http://npengage.com/nonprofit-fundraising/12-donor-retention-tips-from-nonprofit-fundraising-
experts/
xix. http://www.cygresearch.com/burksblog/donor-centered-fundraising/powerful-thank-you-
letters-694/
xx. http://101fundraising.org/2012/02/climate-change-needed-for-donor-centric-fundraising/
xxi. http://nonprofitwithballs.com/2015/04/winter-is-coming-and-the-donor-centric-fundraising-
model-must-evolve/
xxii. http://leadershipsearch.com/blog/whats_a_culture_of_philanthropy_and_how_can_i_get_one
xxiii. http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/afp/ap_2015winter/#/32
xxiv. http://veritusgroup.com/dont-give-up-building-a-culture-of-philanthropy-takes-time-and-effort/
xxv. http://www.pamelagrow.com/5863/16-yes-16-ways-to-lead-your-organizations-culture-shift/
xxvi. http://leadershipsearch.com/blog/whats_a_culture_of_philanthropy_and_how_can_i_get_one

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Terry Axelrod, Benevon
Rachel Baker, Haas, Jr. Fund
Kristin Barrali, 826 Boston
Jeanne Bell, CompassPoint Nonprofit Services
Penelope Burk, Cygnus Applied Research, Inc.
Marla Cornelius, CompassPoint Nonprofit Services
Laura Cronin, The New School
Marjorie Fine, Roadmap Consulting
Pamela Grow, Pamela Grow.com
Kris Hermanns, The Pride Foundation
Simone Joyaux, Joyaux Associates
Paula Morris, Haas, Jr. Fund
Karen Osborne, The Osborne Group
Gail Perry, Fired Up Fundraising
Stephanie Roth, Klein & Roth Consulting
Mark Rovner, Sea Change Strategies
Tricia Rubacky, Center on Budget & Policy Priorities
Kari Saratovsky, Third Plateau
Christine Sherry, Sherry Consulting
Gene Tempel, Founding Dean Emeritus, Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy
James Toscano, Toscano Advisors
Farra Trompeter, Big Duck NYC
Vu Le, Nonprofit With Balls
Peter Wilderotter, Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation
Karla A. Williams, Karla-Williams.com
Linda Wood, Haas, Jr. Fund
Monona Yin, Four Freedoms Fund/Unbound Philanthropy
Editor: William H. Woodwell, Jr.

Graphic Design: Judy Lichtman, PINK TOP

Haas CultureofPhilanthropy F1 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Haas CultureofPhilanthropy F1 0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Haas CultureofPhilanthropy F1 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

B EYO ND FUNDRA ISING:

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BUILD A CULTURE OF PHILANTHROPY?

7 What’s Driving The Shift To A Culture Of Philanthropy?

9 What Is A Culture Of Philanthropy? Four Core Components

19 Pride Foundation Case Study

27 Appendix: What Does A Culture Of Philanthropy Look Like?

3 BEYOND FUNDRAISING: What Does It Mean to Build a Culture of Philanthropy?

4 BEYOND FUNDRAISING: What Does It Mean to Build a Culture of Philanthropy?

Whatever one believes, it’s clear that the concept of a

give organizations a sense of whether they have

5 BEYOND FUNDRAISING: What Does It Mean to Build a Culture of Philanthropy?

“Culture of Philanthropy”: Is This the Right Term?

7 BEYOND FUNDRAISING: What Does It Mean to Build a Culture of Philanthropy?

Personalized and meaningful communication. Traditionally, organizations crafted and broadcast

8 BEYOND FUNDRAISING: What Does It Mean to Build a Culture of Philanthropy?

Who Has a Culture of Philanthropy?

10 BEYOND FUNDRAISING: What Does It Mean to Build a Culture of Philanthropy?

Debating Pay and Incentives for Development Staff

11 BEYOND FUNDRAISING: What Does It Mean to Build a Culture of Philanthropy?

In organizations with a culture of philanthropy, fund development is a valued and mission-

12 BEYOND FUNDRAISING: What Does It Mean to Build a Culture of Philanthropy?

“In our organization, program staff are all involved in fundraising

13 BEYOND FUNDRAISING: What Does It Mean to Build a Culture of Philanthropy?

In organizations with a culture of philanthropy, fund development is no longer separated

14 BEYOND FUNDRAISING: What Does It Mean to Build a Culture of Philanthropy?

Social Justice Groups Fuse Activism, Fundraising

15 BEYOND FUNDRAISING: What Does It Mean to Build a Culture of Philanthropy?

16 BEYOND FUNDRAISING: What Does It Mean to Build a Culture of Philanthropy?

Increasing evidence points to the payoff from

17 BEYOND FUNDRAISING: What Does It Mean to Build a Culture of Philanthropy?

Donors = money. Donors = skills, talents, time and money.

It’s about acquiring donors. It’s about keeping donors.

The focus is on big gifts. All gifts are important.

Money is dirty. Money is what we need to do our work.

Immediately upon joining the Pride Foundation, Hermanns

B R OAD E N IN G R E SP O N SI BI LI TY FOR DEVELOPMENT

19 BEYOND FUNDRAISING: What Does It Mean to Build a Culture of Philanthropy?

A R AN GE O F E N G AGE MENT STRATEGI ES

20 BEYOND FUNDRAISING: What Does It Mean to Build a Culture of Philanthropy?

“AL L GIF TS MATTE R ”

21 BEYOND FUNDRAISING: What Does It Mean to Build a Culture of Philanthropy?

22 BEYOND FUNDRAISING: What Does It Mean to Build a Culture of Philanthropy?

• Do we have staff leadership that believes in a culture of philanthropy? Monona Yin,

• Does everyone in the organization understand philanthropy’s role in advancing

23 BEYOND FUNDRAISING: What Does It Mean to Build a Culture of Philanthropy?

24 BEYOND FUNDRAISING: What Does It Mean to Build a Culture of Philanthropy?

Roles for Funders

o What evidence is there that a culture of philanthropy has value to an organization?

25 BEYOND FUNDRAISING: What Does It Mean to Build a Culture of Philanthropy?

26 BEYOND FUNDRAISING: What Does It Mean to Build a Culture of Philanthropy?

27 BEYOND FUNDRAISING: What Does It Mean to Build a Culture of Philanthropy?

STAF F IN DIC ATO R S

• Every new staff person is educated on donors’ roles in the organization.

• Staff attend periodic fundraising trainings.

28 BEYOND FUNDRAISING: What Does It Mean to Build a Culture of Philanthropy?

• The organization recognizes that a culture of philanthropy is a component of organizational culture

D E V E LO P ME N T STA F F/DEPARTMENT I NDI CATORS

29 BEYOND FUNDRAISING: What Does It Mean to Build a Culture of Philanthropy?

B OAR D IN DIC ATO R S

• Board members are recognized publicly for their contributions.

7 What’s Driving The Shift To A Culture Of Philanthropy?

9 What Is A Culture Of Philanthropy? Four Core Components

27 Appendix: What Does A Culture Of Philanthropy Look Like?