October 18, 2001 | Read Time: 4 minutes
By Debra E. Blum
Two new studies outlined at a conference of charity fund raisers shed light on two aspects of planned giving:
- A growing number of fund raisers who specialize in planned gifts — donations that provide significant tax and other financial benefits to contributors — come from outside the nonprofit world.
- Putting advisers to donors together on a committee to help a charity with fund raising, a practice that more and more groups have been experimenting with, is not working as well as many fund-raising consultants had expected.
The results of both studies were presented at the annual meeting here of the National Committee on Planned Giving, which represents fund raisers, consultants, and legal and financial professionals.
In the study on advisory committees, most fund-raising consultants identified such committees as a vital part of successful planned-giving programs, but fewer than half of the charity fund raisers who responded to a separate written survey said that having such a committee helped their programs.
The study was conducted last year by William J. Brown, director of planned giving at the Asbury Foundation, in Gaithersburg, Md., which raises money for Asbury Services, a group of nonprofit facilities for elderly people. Mr. Brown interviewed 16 fund-raising consultants and mailed questionnaires to 4,600 charity fund raisers who are members of the National Committee on Planned Giving. He received responses from 2,351 fund raisers, nearly half of whom worked at charities that sponsored planned-giving committees.
Such committees, Mr. Brown says, are typically made up of 15 to 20 lawyers, accountants, and other professionals who advise donors. Charities create the panels, he says, to educate advisers and donors about ways to support the group through planned gifts.
But 57 percent of the 1,096 charity officials who said their organizations sponsored planned-giving committees reported that professional advisers were “not helpful in making a planned-giving program successful.”
Not Enough Personal Contact
One reason for the low ratings, says Mr. Brown, may be that charities have too little in-person contact with the advisers. According to the survey, the most popular form of communication with committee members was through a newsletter. Forty-three percent of the groups send such newsletters. Twenty-four percent held quarterly meetings for their advisers, 22 percent invite committee members to estate-planning seminars, while the remaining 11 percent may contact advisers on the telephone or through e-mail, fax, or videoconferences.
Still, the survey found, many charities are creating new planned-giving committees. More than 40 percent of the charities with such panels said the committee was started within the previous two years.
Most of the fund-raising consultants Mr. Brown interviewed for the study said that panels of advisers can be useful if they have “good leadership and a sound budget.” The panels should also be controlled by the charity’s staff members, not the advisers themselves, the consultants said.
Fund Raisers’ Experience
In a separate study, researchers found that more and more people with financial and legal backgrounds are entering the planned-giving field.
Before taking jobs as fund raisers, about 20 percent of the survey respondents had careers in law, banking, or accounting. Another 13 percent had worked in sales, marketing, or public relations. In the past, the report says, a larger proportion of planned-giving officers came from the ranks of fund raisers or had other jobs in the nonprofit world.
The survey was conducted by officials at three organizations in Portland, Ore.: the Institute for Nonprofit Management at Portland State University, the Oregon Health & Science University Foundation, and the Providence Portland Medical Foundation. The results were based on data that 143 planned-giving officers, all of whom had been at their jobs for less than five years, provided on a written questionnaire.
Nine out of 10 respondents were 30 to 59 years old. Nearly half were earning $50,000 to $69,999 annually. And nearly half had continued their education beyond a bachelor’s degree, including 16 percent who completed law school.
The two reasons most commonly cited by respondents for taking a planned-giving post were to help organizations they support and to make a difference to society. Third on the list, cited by 31 percent of the respondents, was to sharpen their own financial-planning skills.
Nearly all of the respondents said that they found working with donors to be among the most appealing parts of their jobs. Completing reports was most commonly cited as the least appealing aspect of their positions. Among the changes respondents desired: a higher salary and a bigger planned-giving budget.
Copies of the report on the survey are available for a $2 copying and postage fee from Sharon Heth, associate director of planned giving, Oregon Health & Science University Foundation, 1121 S.W. Salmon Street, Suite 200, Portland, Ore. 97205; (800) 462-6608; heths@ohsu.edu.
For a free copy of Mr. Brown’s report on planned-giving committees, contact him at the Asbury Foundation, 201 Russell Avenue, Gaithersburg, Md. 20877; (301) 216-4053; bbrown@asbury.org.
