Gift planners have long recognized two closely-related factors as key obstacles to be overcome in broadening the donor base: despite the phenomenal growth in personal wealth over the past two decades, very few people preceive themselves as potential philanthropists and, more importantly, philanthropy is seen as separate and apart from personal financial management, rather than as a part of it. The idea that philanthropy is only for the rich was reinforced by media coverage of increased tax credit limits, and is expressed internally by charities making list of wealthy people in the community for prospect research.

Clearly, the only solution — at least, the only one likely to have a significant impact on the rate and level of donations — is to raise the awareness of the general population. And before we can hope to achieve that, we must raise awareness within the charitable sector: gift planning must become the alpha and the omega of fundraising, both the beginning and the end point.

“Modern” gift planning — offering creative solutions to would-be donors with problems to be solved — is entering its second decade in Canada, yet the first principles of fundraising have seen very little change since the 1960s. Across Canada, gift planning is typically the last program implemented, the first to be deferred for any reason, kept separate from other programs by interal firewalls, subject to the most arbitrary constraints (one example: A policy against accepting zero coupon bonds. Why? Because the board chair did not understand what they were.), has the smallest budget, and is the least aggressively pursued or marketed.

These factors give rise to…

The seven deadly sins of gift planning

1. Perceiving gift planning as the capstone rather than the cornerstone

It should be clear by now that gift planning has the capacity to facilitate and enable all other development programs, rather than standing apart from them. If you haven’t grasped this concept, you don’t really understand what the “optimum gift” principle is about. Gift planning is where the action begins, as well as where it culminates. ALL fundraising programs should be based on the optimum gift principle, and should logically, strategically, and demonstrably support and contribute to gift planning.

2. Researching to find planned giving prospects

“Make a list of wealthy people…” We tell ourselves big gifts are the result of forming relationships, but we persist in thinking we can determine who will NOT be willing to plan a gift (i.e., those whom we can exclude from a prospect list). The consistent rate of “over the transom” bequests demonstrates beyond any doubt that this strategy is self-limiting and counter-productive. By limiting gift planning opportunities to a specific list, every other Canadian is excluded!

3. The myth of being “special”

Institutions still reject or resist gift planning programs because they believe themselves unique (“That wouldn’t work here!”). Not infrequently, this is a smokescreen for the fact that the leadership simply does not grasp the philosophy of gift planning, or fears being asked to make a personal commitment. There are few, if any, charities for which gift planning is not an appropriate foundation for fundraising (see the first sin).

4. Confusing the internal and external perspectives

This is the perennial debate: planned giving vs. gift planning. The former is the internal perspective of the charity, the desired behaviours of donors as a group, the latter is what individual donors will do, with sufficient education and opportunity. To be successful, programs must be based on providing the knowledge prospective donors need to become interested, not on the outcomes desired by the charities. Gift planning is not about the charity; it is about the individual donors.

5. Preaching to the converted

Who would read a “Planned Giving Newsletter”? And why? This approach assumes every potential donor is already well-informed and is looking for ways to structure a gift. In fact, it implies that “planned giving” is a hobby! Canadian donor statistics suggest that more than 90% of the population does not yet meet these criteria, and this, in turn, would suggest the need for a more strategic approach to raising basic awareness.

6. Creating “Frankenstein” committees

While many volunteers provide invaluable support to gift planning, there is no alchemy or magic which results from bringing the allied professions into a room at regular intervals. If accountants, lawyers, insurance agents and trust officers know how to develop and manage broad-based gift planning programs, why have they not done so? If you wanted to create a faculty of Engineering at a university, you would not convene a committee of plumbers, electricians, steelworkers, stonemasons, et cetera. Gift planning relies on allied professionals (as engineering does on the skilled trades), but it is clearly more than the sum of their skills, and they should not be expected — or allowed — to take responsibility of program design or management.

7. Indulging in techno-babble

Print materials should serve one purpose only: to encourage and facilitate donor interest. They are not a substitute for a relationship, and they are not an opportunity to summarize the Income Tax Act; in fact, too much technical detail will deter, rather than encourage, donor interest. The desired action in producing print materials is for the recipient to say “Yes, I would like to know more about this.”

Overcoming these “sins” requires re-thinking the very fundamentals of fundraising. We are no longer dealing with a population of limited means, for whom a $20 gift is a significant part of the monthly budget. As we well know, million-dollar estates are commonplace today, and there are literally millions of Canadians who would find the effect of a planned gift on their after-tax income very attractive — if only they had access to basic opportunities through a non-threatening, service-oriented information sources.

If we truly want to foster the growth of philanthropy in Canada, we have to think beyond our current donor lists, and beyond “making a list of wealthy people.” we have to stop assuming we can determine who will plan a gift (or, conversely, who will not) and extend the full range of opportunities to every resident of Canada. When we bring our theory and practice into line with the current demographics of wealth, we may, possibly, approach the true potential of charitable giving.

John Webster Hochstadt, formerly director of gift planning at the University of Toronto and Mount Sinai Hospital and national chair of CAGP, formed the Webster Group, a not-for-profit consulting firm, in 1994. John has developed a program based on the primacy of gift planning in fundraising, and hopes to offer it across Canada soon. He can be reached at webster@telusplanet.net