News, Articles
& Trends

Modern Vertical Menu

Join Our Community

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Inspired by #GivingTuesday Stories, Campbell & Company Gives Back

  
  
  

“What we spend, we lose. What we keep will be left for others. What we give away will be ours forever,” stated David McGee, pastor, author, musician.

These are the words that come to mind as we enter the holiday season. It was in this spirit that not long ago we asked you to share your story of #GivingTuesday: a day that celebrates and encourages charitable activities that support nonprofit organizations. In celebration of #GivingTuesday, Campbell & Company requested submissions from people, asking to share how they contributed on the first official day of giving in the history of the United States.

Campbell & Company pledged to donate 25 dollars to three charities representing three diverse missions.

We were delighted to hear so many caring stories come our way from all corners of the nation. Your stories varied from supporting animal life in Rwanda and helping local Salvation Army efforts to backing social causes and promoting philanthropy by hosting events.

Whether it was a donation to the Mountain Gorilla Veterinary Project made by Sally Zelonis, Barbara Linek’s time dedicated to plan a retreat for a group of Christians, or gift cards from Six Degrees so all of Susan McLaughlin’s family members could donate to their charity of choice, we applaud and thank you for your time and generosity.

Campbell & Company donated $25 to each of the following organizations:

BarbLinek2011

 

Barbara Linek

SusanMcLaughlin

Susan McLaughlin

 • Family Bridges

Huntingdon County Humane Society

Mountain Gorilla Veterinary Project

photoSally

Sally Zelonis

   

About Campbell & Company

Campbell & Company is a national consulting firm offering advancement planning, fundraising, marketing communications and executive search services to nonprofit organizations in nearly every sector.

Through thirty-six years and more than a thousand engagements, we have helped our clients anticipate and manage the challenges of the philanthropic marketplace. Our offices are located in Chicago, Boston, Portland, Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area and Washington, DC. For more information, please call toll-free (877) 957-0000, email info@campbellcompany.com or visit www.campbellcompany.com.

The Two Year Itch: Questions about CDO Tenure

  
  
  

In the past decade, according to the Association of Fundraising Professionals, the average tenure of nonprofit Chief Development Officers (CDOs) has shortened to about two to three years. Nonprofit human resources and executive search professionals have grown increasingly curious about why this has been happening. Some have suggested that this presents organizations with problems; however, we could be seeing a trend that will require nonprofits to evolve.   

My colleagues in Executive Search and I are undertaking a focused project to explore this question, including a broad-based survey of nonprofit CEOs and CDOs and an extensive review of corporate models for optimal tenures of C-Suite executives. Along the way, we welcome insights from our friends in the development world. Please feel free to leave your comments and ideas down below.

An Organizational Challenge?

Many development professionals spend two to three years in a position before moving on to assume progressively greater fundraising responsibilities. The CDO position has often been construed as the highest-level development role; however, as this table from the Chronicle of Philanthropy shows, CDOs assume significant strategic responsibilities beyond fundraising. 

Chronicle of Philanthropy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some see the CDO position as too large of a step from prior development roles, and cite a variety of potential issues with this model, including unreasonable expectations, inadequate support from leaders and Boards, and insufficient recognition 

If this is the case, then the question becomes how to better “care and feed” for CDOs to ensure that they can remain with organizations for longer periods of time.

An Emergent Trend?

But perhaps we should not assume that this is a problem. Nonprofit development professionals may be telling us two to three years is ideal for CDOs. If so, we need to determine how to maximize CDOs’ time in the position and to ensure that nonprofits are prepared for quicker turnover.

We hope that our research will help illuminate these questions.  We will be continuing this conversation through:

2013 AFP International Conference
Campbell & Company Webinar
Published articles following the conference and webinar

If you have questions concerning this topic, please contact me at marian.deberry@campbellcompany.com.

--------

Marian Alexander DeBerry is the Director of Executive Search at Campbell & Company and has more than 14 years of search experience in the nonprofit and corporate sectors.

The Future of the Arts: Sustainability and Resiliency

  
  
  

Future of the artsIn the world of memes, mashups, popups and flash mobs, is there still a place for the traditional cultural arts? A panel convened to discuss that for Campbell & Company’s recent webinar, The Future of the Arts: Strategies for Sustainability. Joining the discussion were Robert Alpaugh, Senior Consultant at Campbell & Company; Carroll Joynes, Co-Founder and Director of the Cultural Policy Center, Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago; and Ben Cameron, Program Director of the Arts at the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation.

Examining the financial situation of arts organizations is not a recent phenomenon, and the question of stability in the arts is something that we’ve been dealing with for decades. In the 1980s the National Arts Stabilization Fund originated, encouraging arts organizations to look beyond their missions and start examining their balance sheets. And more recently the Hauser Center at Harvard University launched a three-year initiative, SustainArts, to collect data on the resources being funneled in and out of the arts.

Yet lately a number of factors have been converging on the arts. “The economic downturn had a significant impact on discretionary income and charitable giving,” said Robert Alpaugh. But we’ve also been relying on an aging population to support our dance troupes, theater companies and symphonies. That isn’t to say that there is a pervasive disinterest in arts and culture. Just the opposite. We are seeing a renaissance of sorts in art. However, that art is taking a different form, one that might not be recognized as art by those of us used to thinking that culture is something that has to take place in a formal venue like an auditorium or a museum. 

Renewed interest in the arts. As Ben Cameron pointed out, higher education institutions are experiencing record number of new art student applications, young people from all types of backgrounds who wish to pursue the arts as a career. “Even though attendance may be going down [in traditional venues], arts participation – people writing their own poetry, composing their own songs or singing in choirs, writing their own plays, making their own movies – is exploding in exponential rates.”

Then what’s the problem? Perhaps we are failing to connect our historical views of art with this new, explosive demand. These new artists aren’t presenting their creations in traditional venues. They’ve figured out that social media generates greater exposure, and immediate feedback. Poetry on blogs, photography on Instagram, popup art installations on street corners, highly choreographed flash mob dances on YouTube. This is the world of art for a new generation of patrons, who fund arts initiatives through crowdsourced investment sites like Kickstarter. As Carroll Joynes added, “We need to understand their taste and preference much better than we do now. How do people go about selecting what to do, what to view, what to participate in? Alternative ways of accessing culture is forcing arts institutions to change.”

Mission adjustment. Institutions that take a serious look at their missions, and perhaps adjust those missions, will have a better chance at succeeding in this changing environment. “I question whether a mission to produce the plays of Shakespeare is enough of a hold on a community’s attention,” added Ben Cameron. “Thoughtful organizations will have mission statements that place the audience at the center of the mission rather than as an afterthought. There is a children’s theater group, whose original mission was to produce children’s plays that changed their mission to ‘bring joy into children’s lives’. The second they made that switch in their mission orientation, it transformed their connection with the community and the community’s response to help it.”

Of course, maybe it also means that some organizations have run their course and should quietly exit the stage. If a mission is no longer needed, if an organization is no longer financially viable, should it keep limping along? “It makes me wonder why we treat arts organizations differently than other organizations,” said Carroll Joynes. “People may be distressed that a hospital or school is closing, but they close for a reason, and others come in to fill that gap. But there is something about an arts organization that makes people think of baby harp seals. They just simply cannot stand the idea that it will go out of business. Yet, if nobody can offer up a persuasive answer about lack of demand, maybe it is time to close down in an orderly fashion.”

Endowments vs. reserves. Does having a large endowment ensure stability for arts organizations? As Robert Alpaugh pointed out, “We’ve seen many arts organizations that have drained their endowments because they needed cash. Much to the displeasure of their donors.” To that end, Robert believes organizations should have several layers of financial reserves. “Reserves can avert a crisis. These are accessible funds to be drawn against in the event of unsuccessful exhibits or an economic downturn,” he said. “I advise my clients to have three to six months of cash totally liquid.”

Despite the hardships that many organizations have experienced during the past several years, all of the panel members were optimistic about the future, even if that future looks different from the past. And as Ben Cameron pointed out, interest in the arts in America has weathered cycles over time. “People do value the arts very deeply. In fact people are connected to the arts now more than ever. The question isn’t whether the ballet can flourish in the community. It’s whether the ballet organization can flourish within its current format.”

Be flexible and willing to take risks. “One way to assure the future of the arts is to make sure that organizations are flexible and are willing to take risks,” Robert Alpaugh said. Carroll Joynes referred listeners to an article in the November 8, 2012 Washington Post, Naxos’s 25 years of reinventing itself,” about a record label that has succeeded in a rapidly changing industry. “Organizations should be market sensitive, seek diverse audiences and be honest with their outreach and community engagement,” he said. Ben Cameron envisions an art world that is consciously evolving, supporting a range of activities and diverse shareholders. He added,” How we connect what we have historically done as a producing entity with the new kind of explosive demand is a whole new terrain and would be an interesting future discussion.”

Campbell & Company has worked with hundreds of arts organizations, helping them to achieve their fundraising and talent management goals. To learn more about Campbell & Company's services, please Robert Alpaugh at robert.alpaugh@campbellcompany.com.

 

The Two Year Itch: Questions about CDO Tenure

  
  
  

In the past decade, according to the Association of Fundraising Professionals, the average tenure of nonprofit Chief Development Officers (CDOs) has shortened to about two to three years. Nonprofit human resources and executive search professionals have grown increasingly curious about why this has been happening. Some have suggested that this presents organizations with problems; however, we could be seeing a trend that will require nonprofits to evolve.   

My colleagues in Executive Search and I are undertaking a focused project to explore this question, including a broad-based survey of nonprofit CEOs and CDOs and an extensive review of corporate models for optimal tenures of C-Suite executives. Along the way, we welcome insights from our friends in the development world. Please feel free to leave your comments and ideas down below.

An Organizational Challenge?

Many development professionals spend two to three years in a position before moving on to assume progressively greater fundraising responsibilities. The CDO position has often been construed as the highest-level development role; however, as this table from the Chronicle of Philanthropy shows, CDOs assume significant strategic responsibilities beyond fundraising. 

Chronicle of Philanthropy

Some see the CDO position as too large of a step from prior development roles, and cite a variety of potential issues with this model, including unreasonable expectations, inadequate support from leaders and Boards, and insufficient recognition 

If this is the case, then the question becomes how to better “care and feed” for CDOs to ensure that they can remain with organizations for longer periods of time.

An Emergent Trend?

But perhaps we should not assume that this is a problem. Nonprofit development professionals may be telling us two to three years is ideal for CDOs. If so, we need to determine how to maximize CDOs’ time in the position and to ensure that nonprofits are prepared for quicker turnover.

We hope that our research will help illuminate these questions.  We will be continuing this conversation through:

2013 AFP International Conference
Campbell & Company Webinar
Published articles following the conference and webinar

If you have questions concerning this topic, please contact me at marian.deberry@campbellcompany.com.

 

--------

Marian Alexander DeBerry is the Director of Executive Search at Campbell & Company and has more than 14 years of search experience in the nonprofit and corporate sectors.

Campbell & Company Helps “Get Out the Give” As Part of #GivingTuesday

  
  
  

It is giving season and for the first time in the history of U.S. philanthropy, Tuesday, November 27 is announced as the day to volunteer and give!GivingTuesday

Campbell & Company is part of the inaugural #GivingTuesday, a nationwide movement that harnesses the power of a unique blend of partners—charities, families, businesses and individuals—to transform how people think about, talk about and participate in the giving season.

“As we approach the holiday season, our firm is grateful for the many client organizations, donors and volunteers with whom we work,” says Peter Fissinger, President and CEO at Campbell & Company. “#GivingTuesday is a great opportunity for us to express our gratitude by supporting the organizations with which we are involved.”

#GivingTuesday has already inspired over 1,400 organizations and people in all 50 U.S. states and around the world to take collaborative action. Each aims to improve their local communities and give back in better, smarter ways to the charities and causes they support and help create a better world.

Scheduled for November 27, 2012 – the Tuesday after Thanksgiving – and the day after the famed “Black Friday and “Cyber Monday” shopping days, #GivingTuesday will leverage the power of social media to create an opening day for giving.

From pilots to teachers, parents to celebrities, #GivingTuesday inspires and unites to give.

“Imagine if #GivingTuesday was celebrated every Tuesday, and not just a single day in November!” says Dirk Sellers, Vice President at Campbell & Company.  “Think of all the challenges we might finally solve if charitable giving and volunteerism became routine.”

“As we are bombarded with the annual frenzy of calls to buy more and more stuff, #GivingTuesday provides us with both a reminder and an opportunity to embrace the season with the spirit of joyful giving and gratitude that the end-of-year holidays are meant to represent,” states Jeff Wilklow, Vice President, Campbell & Company.

Members of Campbell & Company have made their commitment for the giving season.

“As we contemplate our role in the larger society, every one of us who has the capacity to give, should give,” says Robert Alpaugh, Senior Consultant at Campbell & Company. “I am personally committed to hunger relief, AIDS/HIV education and awareness and the arts. I serve on an arts Board and find that very rewarding. Giving of my time and my money is a fulfilling and necessary endeavor,” shares Alpaugh. “I encourage everyone who can, do make a personal commitment to give and give generously. It will give you joy.”

Although selfless giving has been rooted in the Thanksgiving tradition, generosity has a boomerang effect. “We think that giving is for the receiver; it is as much for the giver,” says Marian Deberry, Director, Executive Search at Campbell & Company.

How are you giving back this #GivingTuesday? Share with us how you are giving back and your charity of choice will be eligible to receive $25 donation from Campbell & Company! Click here to submit. 

About #GivingTuesday

#GivingTuesday is a movement to celebrate and provide incentives to give. It will culminate with a national day of giving on November 27, 2012. This first-of-its-kind effort harnesses the collective power of a unique blend of partners— charities, families, businesses and individuals—to transform how people think about, talk about and participate in the giving season.  #GivingTuesday will inspire people to take collaborative action to improve their local communities, give back in better, smarter ways to the charities and causes they celebrate and help create a better world. #GivingTuesday will harness the power of social media to create a national moment around the holidays that is dedicated to giving, similar to how Black Friday and Cyber Monday have become days that are synonymous with holiday shopping.

A team of recognized experts and influencers, initially convened by leaders of 92nd Street Y and supported by a core group of founding partners, are spearheading this effort. Founding partners include United Nations Foundation, DonorsChoose.org, Mashable, Blackbaud, charity: water, GlobalGiving, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), Kiva, Darden Restaurant Group, Groupon, Unilever, United Way, The Case Foundation and VentureThree Capital. Leaders in philanthropy, social media, innovative giving, grassroots organizing, marketing and communications are providing counsel and resources to help build this movement.

To learn more about #GivingTuesday participants and activities or to join the celebration of giving, please visit:

Website: www.givingtuesday.org
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/GivingTuesday
Twitter:
twitter.com/GivingTues

About Campbell & Company

Campbell & Company is a national consulting firm offering advancement planning, fundraising, marketing communications and executive search services to nonprofit organizations in nearly every sector.

Through thirty-six years and more than a thousand engagements, we have helped our clients anticipate and manage the challenges of the philanthropic marketplace. Our offices are located in Chicago, Boston, Portland, Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area and Washington, DC. For more information, please call toll-free (877) 957-0000, email info@campbellcompany.com or visit www.campbellcompany.com.

"Fundraising" vs. "Development": A Useful Distinction?

  
  
  

Those of us in higher education and many of us in the business of philanthropy frequently use the terms "fundraising" and "development" interchangeably; as if their meaning and connotation were identical.  For sure, these terms are interrelated in important ways, but there are also significant differences and distinctions that it is both proper and helpful to observe.

Fundraising = TransactionalHigher Education Fundraising Development Distinction

"Fundraising," describes an activity that is "transactional" in nature.       The focus is on solicitation. An organization with a specific and short-term financial goal asks for a one-time, usually modest gift from a donor, usually for a specific cause or project. 

Development = Relational

"Development," on the other hand, encourages us to think about our work in "relational" terms–the building, over time, of a continuous, powerful and life-long connection between a donor / philanthropist and the organization or cause we represent. When we approach our work as "development," the process includes extended cultivation, thorough education, and attentive stewardship -- as well as appropriate solicitation!

Unlike fundraising, the development timetable is defined by the donor, the responses sought are multiple, and the goal is expansive -- ultimately, a "lifetime" gift that permanently bonds the donor and our college or university. Such gifts are life-changing, for our cause, and for the donor!

"Fundraising" and "Development," of course, also work together. Every fundraising transaction is a signal to the perceptive development director, and it is, in many cases, the first step in building for the future.  And, importantly, fundraising activity is essential as we seek to meet our annual fundraising goals and budget pressures.

What do you think? Do you agree? We'd like to hear from you. Leave us a comment!

Edith Falk Quoted in Crain’s Chicago on Board Diversity

  
  
  

Diversity, or rather the lack of, on nonprofit boards has been and remains a serious issue.  Too many nonprofits are represented by predominantly white male professionals.

Edith Falk, Chair of Campbell & Company, recently shared her view on diversity and the boardroom with Crain’s Chicago. “What happens on so many boards is that they recruit people who look like themselves—that's their circle of friends,” says Edith Falk, Chair of Campbell & Company.  With such homogenous recruiting, “you're not getting the rich conversation that you would if you had” a more diverse group, she says.

Some argue the minority, female candidates are already taken. In many instances, the same high ranking professionals serve on several boards. Crain’s Chicago Business gives the issue a close look by sitting down with a number of industry leaders. Among them is Campbell & Company’s Chair Edith Falk who warns against tokenism.

Click here to read "Why white men still dominate nonprofit boards."

About Campbell & Company

Campbell & Company is a national consulting firm offering advancement planning, fundraising, marketing communications and executive search services to nonprofit organizations in nearly every sector. Through thirty-six years and more than a thousand engagements, we have helped our clients anticipate and manage the challenges of the philanthropic marketplace. Our offices are located in Chicago, Boston, Portland, Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area and Washington, DC. For more information, please call toll-free (877) 957-0000, email info@campbellcompany.com or visit www.campbellcompany.com.

The Importance of Internal Collaboration for Higher Education Institutions

  
  
  

External collaboration is a commonly accepted strategy with expected quantifiable outcomes, such as partnering to receive grant funding or creating cooperative agreements to leverage buying power. I will explore the process by which we engage and evaluate external collaborations next month.

This month’s topic is related to the more controversial concept of internal collaboration. It is a strategy frequently utilized in the sales industry while often viewed with skepticism in academic settings. Particularly in Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), the initial attitude towards internal collaboration doubts whether “the juice is worth the squeeze.”

Internal collaboration requires stakeholders (in higher education institutions this consists of administrators, faculty, staff, and students) to make an additional effort. Each would be required to extend themselves, including their time, to those in other areas/ disciplines to exchange ideas and educate each other on facts and issues relevant to their specific enterprise. It also requires a stretch in institutional thinking regarding roles, rewards, recognition, and allocation of money. This additional effort by already stretched stakeholders begs the question “is the outcome worth the cost?”

The answer is yes, if done so strategically.higher education internal collaboration

Collaborating internally can strengthen your institution by connecting people, sharing knowledge and opportunities across enterprises, increasing internal competencies, leveraging specialization, and identifying needs and effective advocates. Perhaps even more importantly, it brings to to the table viewpoints and resources that would not normally be seen as relevant to the solution given our traditional academic silos. The complexity of the issues facing higher education in general, and HBCUs in particular, demands creativity that can only be fostered by more holistic inclusion of broader viewpoints and experience.

Immediate outcomes of internal collaboration are increased efficiency and productivity.  These are the results of streamlining processes and eliminating duplication of efforts.  For instance, the process by which you align institutional needs with institutional financial resources is generically referred to as the budgeting process. Similarly, with internal collaboration, your institution aligns its knowledge and expertise base with opportunities that support furtherance of its mission.  Long-term outcomes are solutions that effectively address issues, education that prepares students to contribute and function both inside and outside of academia, research with real-world impact, an environment of discovery and synergy, sustainable funding, and a vibrant institution that attracts the needed mix of creative and pragmatic visionaries as administrators, faculty, staff, and students.

The challenge is to institutionalize internal collaboration within the corporate culture of academia, thus formalizing the sharing of ideas, knowledge projects and resources across disciplines and enterprises towards a common goal (finding and implementing solutions to an identified issue). The notion that this exchange occurs without being strategic and intentional ignores how a corporate strategy created academic cultures that institutionalized e-mail and texting as preferred methods of communication across campuses and across the globe. 

An institution that may be marginally productive and enterprising may realize even greater returns on time invested. This requires intentional and strategic introduction of internal collaborations combined with institutional mechanisms to encourage their formation

Internal collaboration positions your institution effectively for external engagement as long as the internal process is inclusive. To be effective, it must allow for free communication of ideas, opinions, and strategies with the structure and facilitation necessary to operationalize these ideas.

Effective internal collaborations, regardless of the issue, have characteristics in common. It is critical that the goal of the collaborative effort be in alignment with the institution’s mission and with participants’ interests. The goal is communicated to stakeholders inclusively, widely across disciplines and traditional boundaries, with parameters for participation.

A clear structure for operation of the collaboration is defined. Incentives for participation are identified as well as intermediate steps to be used as measureables to assess progress towards the achievement of the common goal. The discoveries and achievements are communicated among the participants across campus and beyond. These will capture the value of the collaboration; thereby further incentivizing stakeholders to maintain the connection to the process. Though internal collaboration may yield short term benefits (e.g. securing grant funding opportunities, advancing projects), the true impact of internal collaboration is not in immediate gratification but is instead realized over time as your institution evolves into one noted for responsiveness, operational excellence and innovation.

The value of the enhanced reputation of your institution yields immeasurable results, making” the juice worth the squeeze”.

Patrick Johnson is a Senior Consultant at Campbell & Company, and specializes in the Higher Education market.

Questions? Feel free to email Patrick: patrick.johnson@campbellcompany.com .

What’s All the Fuss Over Endowments?

  
  
  

Higher ed is certainly getting a lot of ink lately. But we all wish the PR was more about the top quality educational institutions we are fortunate to have in the U.S., and less about the high cost of tuition and associated student debt. Of course we accept that these are two huge issues that need to be discussed. But right now we need to stem the media frenzy that targets endowments as both the solution and the culprit. We need to take control of the conversation. Higher education endowments

On paper, endowments look like a financial windfall for many institutions, particularly large or Ivy League universities. But in reality, the overwhelming bulk of endowments (usually over 90%) are restricted funds that are off-limits to the kinds of operational expenses that tuition covers. Most major donors who give large sums for higher ed causes have a specific program in mind. Maybe it’s targeted for prostate cancer research, or campus environmental sustainability or to establish a chair in the Chinese language department. While these are all worthwhile causes and great uses of endowment funds, the media is positioning endowments as if they are some sort of slush fund that can be dipped into as needed. And that’s just not the case.

The problem isn’t with the endowments themselves, or that endowments have grown too large or that we shouldn’t encourage endowment development. The problem is that we haven’t done a good job explaining to the public what endowments are. And that we have nothing else to offer as a viable metric.

Higher ed institutions proudly publicize the size of their endowments, as if they were an indicator of the quality of their educational success. And, to be fair, endowment amount is an easy metric to publicize. It’s much easier to track the size of an endowment over time than to quantify an institution’s achievements in academic output. Oddly, it’s even easier to quantify academic input than academic output. U.S. News and World Report’s annual college rankings consider the academic performance of incoming freshmen but, beyond graduation rate, they do not consider academic success achieved while in the institution nor professional success thereafter.

For right now, though, we need to pivot the conversation away from endowments or at least help the public understand the nature of endowments. At this point we can’t turn the clock back to a time when tuition was less of a financial burden. But what we can do is present a stronger case for the value of that tuition, and eventually come up with some hard numbers to quantify that value. It will help draw in the best applicants and the country’s top faculty as well. And it will even make it easier for future endowment fundraising.

We welcome your comments. 

Patrick H. Johnson, Campbell & Company, Senior Consultant

Bruce Matthews, Campbell & Company, Vice President

Loren Anderson, Campbell & Company, Of Counsel

It Really Is a Small World After All: International Group Discusses Fundraising Challenges

  
  
  

Campbell & Company’s Washington D.C. team recently created an opportunity for D.C.-areainternational fundraising international sector executives and senior fundraisers to meet face-to-face to discuss their common challenges. The kick-off event was a mid-September breakfast attended by nearly two dozen directors and chief advancement officers from a cross section of organizations that fundraise in the U.S. and internationally to support global causes.

“We were extraordinarily pleased with the response,” said Dirk Sellers, Campbell & Company Vice President. “Many of these executives knew of the other organizations, but they had never personally met. I think they were surprised to learn that they all were experiencing similar challenges, and this forum will provide our community with an environment where we can openly discuss our challenges and the strategies we can undertake to overcome them”

Some of those challenges were well-known to all of us in the philanthropic arena, like how to empower boards to take a more active role in fundraising, or how to build a culture of philanthropy inside donor organizations. But some issues were specific to the international sector, like the legal aspects of transacting gifts from other countries and protecting U.S. assets from terrorism.

The D.C. team will take these topics to build agendas for future roundtables, with Campbell & Company serving as the facilitator to a task force of volunteers from the kickoff meeting. The task force will help identify experts and thought leaders to engage on critical topics, giving participants a chance to pose questions and generate a free flow of ideas. The next event is tentatively scheduled for November 30.

For questions concerning the international group in D.C., please contact Dirk Sellers.

All Posts