Don’t Let Development Directors Become Prima Donnas

To the Editor:

Although it is given only brief mention, one can easily imagine the difficulties that accompanied the short tenure of Yosef I. Abramowitz’s development director (“Rediscovering the Fun in Fund Raising,” July 25). And although it is terribly prevalent in our field, I still wince when I hear of yet another emerging group that expects its development director to serve as a frontline fund raiser.

In addition to what Mr. Abramowitz learned — donors don’t like to give to staff fund raisers — there are other problems. Another one occurs when good fund raisers burn out and leave because board and staff assume that the development director is the person who gets the money for the organization.

Under this illusion, to use Mr. Abramowitz’s term, everyone else is free to focus on mission and programs — the pure and lofty stuff. This artificial separation between, on the one hand, an organization’s highest aspirations and the good work it does and, on the other hand, the dollars it takes to achieve these things does no one in or outside of the organization any good.

While it was Mr. Abramowitz’s board that suggested using its first development director in this way, this isn’t only a leadership problem. Who among us hasn’t heard stories of development directors who struggle with grant reports and donor relations when program staff significantly alters the direction of a project without notice, or provides scanty outcome information?

The other problem — and this is less talked about — are development directors who trade in the power of money. Their perks are the envy of other staff. They mystify their work in order to give the impression that they raise funds through secret techniques that no one else can master.

The solution to either problem is the same: Call me old-fashioned, but I believe that most development directors primarily belong in the workroom. They should research prospects, draft prospect profiles, and keep up the clip files. They should be good communicators who write compelling case statements and proposals by translating between and finding commonalities among donor interests and program goals. They should be coaches who help prepare board members, CEOs, and other organizational leaders to cultivate, solicit, and steward donors.

Instead, too many organizations hire a development director with a sense of relief, thinking, “Whew, now we don’t have to raise money anymore.” The inevitable turnover that results when burned-out or overinflated development directors leave is one of the biggest challenges to building donor relations as well as institutional memory.

A few qualifiers to this approach: There will be occasions when a development director’s presence is needed for a donor visit. Development directors should serve on boards themselves to further build their knowledge of frontline fund raising. And of course, as an organization achieves a track record and higher profile, a senior fund raiser probably will play a role in face-to-face donor relations. However, newer, smaller groups that are fortunate enough to be able to afford a development director should use this individual as a valued, behind-the-scenes strategist and supporter.

Jill Swan Baldwin
Chicago