Thursday, May 17, 2012
CFRE is it worth it?
There's a lot of talk about at the moment about the value of a qualification in fundraising such as the CFRE (certified fundraising executive). It's a hard qualification to gain, you have to be doing practical fundraising and it only lasts for a limited period. I managed to gain the CFRE myself but only because I was working with a client who actually asked to me help with their fundraising. Normally I would only advise people on how to go about fundraising rather than actually doing it for them.
The sad thing is that CFRE is hardly recognised in job adverts, and I've certainly not seen any fundraisers rewarded by their employers for gaining the qualification.
But like a lot of things in life, it's over to you to promote the value of the qualification. I certainly highlight it at every opportunity. I mention it in media releases, in client proposals, in presentations and at workshops.
Not everyone of course will aspire to this level of commitment. There's a cost to it, and not everyone is motivated by the challenge of a four hour exam. But if you want some international recognition for your professional development, then this is it!
There is little else on the market. Of course there are no specific tertiary qualifications and no plans for any NZQA accredited courses.
FINZ is working with FIA to develop some trans Tasman courses. There is the Principles and Techniques of Fund Raising Course from the Centre on Philanthropy at Indiana University, brought to you in New Zealand by the Fundraising Institute. There are also privately run courses on various introductory and specialised topics, run by private providers like Foresee Communications.
So you can go so far with your professional development until you need a qualification, then it's over to CFRE.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Not everyone appreciates what we do!
Media Management and crisis communications are jobs usually reserved for the comms manager rather than the fundraising manager but it's certainly something we all need to be aware of. A very minimum requirement is that the organisation should have a risk management plan that includes fundraising issues.
Recently in Australia, as was reported in a recent issue of Fundraising New Zealand, a news media reporter registered and attended the annual fundraising conference. Surely this would be a good thing? At long last the public would hear of our good planning, our donor stewardship, our love of people, our great success at our chosen profession and all the good we are doing for the community. Oh no, from the public point of view we were presented as cold, calculating and money hungry! How could this be?
The worst headlines came from a session on bequests. A few unfortunate jokes (you can imagine what they might be!) cracked by a presenter were used to demonstrate how callous our fundraising strategies might be.
So we need to think carefully about how we present ourselves at all times. Ditch the jokes, however internally they may be intended! Remember at all times that our donors are amongst us. Remember the higher calling of our profession and that what we do is a wonderful thing.
Our own Fundraising Institute, along with the FIA, is looking at media management. Currently there is little budget for media work. But our professional reputation is important so we should be supporting our professional body to represent us. We need to let Council know that this is an important issue and that we support budget going towards media management.
In your own organisations make sure you are prepared for media crises. Identify the potential issues, how things may be interpreted, the questions the media may ask. Prepare answers and decide who will represent you to the media. Make sure everyone knows who has the media speaking rights. Only one person should speak for all. Make sure they are trained. Yes, its expensive but it's an investment for your brand. Perhaps your corporate partners will help you with this. You may be able to attend media training courses for their staff at no additional cost. Finally ensure you have contact details for all important stakeholders so you can alert them to any upcoming headlines.
Let's hope its something you don't ever need but better to be ready, than lost!
Recently in Australia, as was reported in a recent issue of Fundraising New Zealand, a news media reporter registered and attended the annual fundraising conference. Surely this would be a good thing? At long last the public would hear of our good planning, our donor stewardship, our love of people, our great success at our chosen profession and all the good we are doing for the community. Oh no, from the public point of view we were presented as cold, calculating and money hungry! How could this be?
The worst headlines came from a session on bequests. A few unfortunate jokes (you can imagine what they might be!) cracked by a presenter were used to demonstrate how callous our fundraising strategies might be.
So we need to think carefully about how we present ourselves at all times. Ditch the jokes, however internally they may be intended! Remember at all times that our donors are amongst us. Remember the higher calling of our profession and that what we do is a wonderful thing.
Our own Fundraising Institute, along with the FIA, is looking at media management. Currently there is little budget for media work. But our professional reputation is important so we should be supporting our professional body to represent us. We need to let Council know that this is an important issue and that we support budget going towards media management.
In your own organisations make sure you are prepared for media crises. Identify the potential issues, how things may be interpreted, the questions the media may ask. Prepare answers and decide who will represent you to the media. Make sure everyone knows who has the media speaking rights. Only one person should speak for all. Make sure they are trained. Yes, its expensive but it's an investment for your brand. Perhaps your corporate partners will help you with this. You may be able to attend media training courses for their staff at no additional cost. Finally ensure you have contact details for all important stakeholders so you can alert them to any upcoming headlines.
Let's hope its something you don't ever need but better to be ready, than lost!
Monday, May 14, 2012
National Charities Beware - Gaming funds will be off the table!
At the FINZ Conference Trevor Garret of the Charities Commission reminded us to have a look at the amendments to the Fair Trading Act which include the Amy Adams proposal. This one certainly bears a look. It all started the year before last when Amy Adams proposed that charities should be challenged to notify donors about the cost of fundraising.
The second Bill we need to be aware of is the Gambling Harm Reduction Bill proposed by Te Ururoa Flavell. Again this has been around for some time but it has now passed its first reading by 83 to 7. Winston Peters is the only name of note opposing it largely because it removes racing as an authorised purpose.
So what is the purpose?
The aim of this Bill is to enable “local authorities, in consultation with their communities, to reduce the number of, or even eliminate, pokies from those suburbs and towns where they are particularly concentrated or doing particular harm”. The Bill also changes the responsibility for distributing pokie funds and “proposes to give gamblers more ability to limit and control their own gambling behaviour through player tracking and pre-commit cards
From an outside point of view this Bill be supported by a large number of charities but there are some drawbacks as I shall explain. The Bill proposes that territorial authorities will replace gaming societies as the arbiter of who gets the funds. Societies will no longer exist and each local council will instead appoint a committee of local people to make local decisions. At least eighty percent of the funds raised will go to local worthy causes.
So my question one is what happens to national applications. The Bill is only 11 pages long and I cannot find any positive explanation of how national charities could apply. So national fundraisers beware. You will have to apply to about 65 local body councils to get funds for a national project and then you will have to show how it's being spent in each council area.
For local organisations I see no particular benefit. Societies will be replaced by councils but there is nothing to say that the fund distribution committee will be anymore supportive of your group than any other. In fact if someone on this committee doesn't like your work (or you personally) there will be nowhere else to turn! At least at the moment you can find differing opinions by going to different gaming machine societies. If you don't succeed with one, you can at least try your luck (Ha!Ha!) with another. Under the proposed legislation you will be stuck with only one local funder. This actually gives amazing power to a few appointed people in your community. Too much power I would advocate! And remember if these people are appointees, they will change with every local government election. If your politics don't fit - all of you will be out!
I have to declare my personal interest here. I am an elected member of a licensing trust which has a class four gaming licence. We are established to support our local community which is a more restricted area than our local council covers. Under the proposed changes our gaming funds will be added to a pool for the entire area, thus having the opposite effect than the Flavell Bill intends. So in our case, our very local community will suffer as we're taken over by the big boys!
I'm also unsure how the local council will cope with responsibilities of owning/managing and supervising gambling in their communities. They are not going to be funded to run pokie venues. They don't have the ability to create economies of scale like the societies have done. They don't have specialist staff - they will need to recruit managers and inspectors. They will need to create mechanisms for appointing (and perhaps paying) community representatives and while this may sound like a great job, realistically would local people want to be held responsible for approving and declining funding for organisations and people that they know very well! Corruption is just as feasible in this scenario as it is with gaming societies.
So where is the good news?
This will benefit some very local charities who will have the opportunity to lobby very local representatives. Full stop! I can't really see anything else. I don't advocate that our current system is perfect but nor do I see this as a reasonable alternative.
Be aware, be very, very, very aware of all the implications and remember that it was passed on first reading 83 to 7!!!!!
The second Bill we need to be aware of is the Gambling Harm Reduction Bill proposed by Te Ururoa Flavell. Again this has been around for some time but it has now passed its first reading by 83 to 7. Winston Peters is the only name of note opposing it largely because it removes racing as an authorised purpose.
So what is the purpose?
The aim of this Bill is to enable “local authorities, in consultation with their communities, to reduce the number of, or even eliminate, pokies from those suburbs and towns where they are particularly concentrated or doing particular harm”. The Bill also changes the responsibility for distributing pokie funds and “proposes to give gamblers more ability to limit and control their own gambling behaviour through player tracking and pre-commit cards
From an outside point of view this Bill be supported by a large number of charities but there are some drawbacks as I shall explain. The Bill proposes that territorial authorities will replace gaming societies as the arbiter of who gets the funds. Societies will no longer exist and each local council will instead appoint a committee of local people to make local decisions. At least eighty percent of the funds raised will go to local worthy causes.
So my question one is what happens to national applications. The Bill is only 11 pages long and I cannot find any positive explanation of how national charities could apply. So national fundraisers beware. You will have to apply to about 65 local body councils to get funds for a national project and then you will have to show how it's being spent in each council area.
For local organisations I see no particular benefit. Societies will be replaced by councils but there is nothing to say that the fund distribution committee will be anymore supportive of your group than any other. In fact if someone on this committee doesn't like your work (or you personally) there will be nowhere else to turn! At least at the moment you can find differing opinions by going to different gaming machine societies. If you don't succeed with one, you can at least try your luck (Ha!Ha!) with another. Under the proposed legislation you will be stuck with only one local funder. This actually gives amazing power to a few appointed people in your community. Too much power I would advocate! And remember if these people are appointees, they will change with every local government election. If your politics don't fit - all of you will be out!
I have to declare my personal interest here. I am an elected member of a licensing trust which has a class four gaming licence. We are established to support our local community which is a more restricted area than our local council covers. Under the proposed changes our gaming funds will be added to a pool for the entire area, thus having the opposite effect than the Flavell Bill intends. So in our case, our very local community will suffer as we're taken over by the big boys!
I'm also unsure how the local council will cope with responsibilities of owning/managing and supervising gambling in their communities. They are not going to be funded to run pokie venues. They don't have the ability to create economies of scale like the societies have done. They don't have specialist staff - they will need to recruit managers and inspectors. They will need to create mechanisms for appointing (and perhaps paying) community representatives and while this may sound like a great job, realistically would local people want to be held responsible for approving and declining funding for organisations and people that they know very well! Corruption is just as feasible in this scenario as it is with gaming societies.
So where is the good news?
This will benefit some very local charities who will have the opportunity to lobby very local representatives. Full stop! I can't really see anything else. I don't advocate that our current system is perfect but nor do I see this as a reasonable alternative.
Be aware, be very, very, very aware of all the implications and remember that it was passed on first reading 83 to 7!!!!!
Sunday, May 13, 2012
FINZ conference 2012
Just come back from the FINZ Conference held at Waipuna last week. Great line up of speakers, exhibitors and attendees. Over fifty percent were new attendees which shows some activity in the profession. International guests included Sandy Rees, Stephen Pidgeon and James Greenfield. Sandy invites people to register for her enewsletter. Sean Trinor, who hasn't missed a conference in years, was also (as usual) a popular speaker.
Awards were won by such diverse organisations as Rural Women and Ronald McDonald House Canterbury through to the Cancer Society for their relationship with ANZ National Bank.
Frank Claridge won the Henry A Rosso Award for his contribution to the profession. I became a Fellow for my contribution the Institute and the sector. Wow that was a special moment! I need to change my cards!
We had some good discussions on topics such as whether it was appropriate to take government money, through to what are the attributes of high performing fundraisers and whether they are a liability or an asset. I know which one I think is right!
Keith Dignan once again shared some fantastic statistical insights into telemarketing. A morning tea with James Greenfield persuaded me that we do need to take a lot of notice of financial reporting requirements. Breakfast with our good friend Trevor Garrett from the Charities Commission warned us about the update to the Fair Trading Act which would require charities to report on cost of fundraising. We will have to up the ante on our reporting if that is passed. It's already moving through the process. Remember this was the Amy Adams proposal from a few years ago. It didn't go away.
Awards were won by such diverse organisations as Rural Women and Ronald McDonald House Canterbury through to the Cancer Society for their relationship with ANZ National Bank.
Frank Claridge won the Henry A Rosso Award for his contribution to the profession. I became a Fellow for my contribution the Institute and the sector. Wow that was a special moment! I need to change my cards!
We had some good discussions on topics such as whether it was appropriate to take government money, through to what are the attributes of high performing fundraisers and whether they are a liability or an asset. I know which one I think is right!
Keith Dignan once again shared some fantastic statistical insights into telemarketing. A morning tea with James Greenfield persuaded me that we do need to take a lot of notice of financial reporting requirements. Breakfast with our good friend Trevor Garrett from the Charities Commission warned us about the update to the Fair Trading Act which would require charities to report on cost of fundraising. We will have to up the ante on our reporting if that is passed. It's already moving through the process. Remember this was the Amy Adams proposal from a few years ago. It didn't go away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)