Posted on

Capital campaign achieves more than monetary goal

For Good Shepherd Home of Fostoria, OH, the word “groundbreaking” refers not only to an upcoming event for a state-of-the-art therapy facility; it also describes the journey the continuing care retirement community has been on over the last three years—a journey to build a development program from square one.

Already Good Shepherd Home (GSH) has exceeded its campaign goal, though it won’t enter the public phase of its “Therapy for All” campaign until the groundbreaking ceremony planned for April. This is the first capital campaign undertaken by the home in over 40 years and the first of its kind for CEO Chris Widman, who came to Fostoria 14 years ago.

In the past, Widman explains, projects have been financed largely through tax-exempt bonds or operational revenue. But those projects have also yielded positive Pro Forma statements, a financial document used to demonstrate a projected return on investment. “As we evaluated the [current] project,” he allows, “we identified that, for as much good as it would do, it would not enhance our revenue.”

So leaders asked themselves, how can we fund a project that won’t pay for itself? Obviously, a capital campaign was one alternative. But GSH had no official development program in place and no staff person devoted to development. Widman points to some individual donations, and an occasional will, but says such gifts were sporadic. “If you will, they happened by chance.”

Once the home decided to pursue a capital campaign, Widman talked to Rick Stiffney, director of Mennonite Health Services Alliance, with which GSH is affiliated. “I asked Rick who he knew that offered consulting services,” Widman recalls. Stiffney pointed him in the direction of Advancement Associates (AAI).

AAI Associate Becky Drumm began working with Good Shepherd in early 2011. After a feasibility study, the board settled on a campaign goal of $650,000 and Widman began assembling a campaign cabinet, a group that proved valuable in generating a list of prospective donors for this organization that currently had no such database.

The result has been positive. “I’m very pleased with the generosity of the people we’ve approached,” says Widman, who has been involved in the majority of donor visits. In fact, as of last month, GSH has raised over $750,000 in gifts and pledges.

Widman believes this may be due to several things. First, many donors have had family members directly served by the organization. Second, donors are eager to partner with an organization that is committed to its mission and does it well. And third, both Good Shepherd and its individual staff members are very involved, and therefore well-known, within the community.

His own community involvement has also opened the door for several grants. Widman serves on the board of one local foundation and is acquainted with members on advisory boards of some others. That is not to say these gifts have come without effort: “Even though we just recently got the grant, I’ve been talking to one foundation rep for two years about what we wanted to do and how we should approach them.”

The success of the campaign thus far means that GSH can enhance its original building plans to offer the community even more. “We’re including lots of things that are not typically included in a long-term care facility. This new facility will set us apart from other long-term care providers in the region.”

Once completed, the new therapy center will offer a therapy gym; an aquatic center; a designated area for occupational therapy with a training kitchen, bedroom and bathroom; a speech therapy office; treatment areas; and driving and car transfer simulation devices.

Therapy services will be available not only to the 200 on-campus residents, but also on an outpatient basis to persons from the broader community.

That expanded service is one opportunity Widman sees the current capital campaign offering Good Shepherd in the future. “When people need us, they know that they’ll get great service and that we’ll have great facilities.” He also values the way the campaign promises to enhance people’s awareness that GSH is a non-profit that can benefit from gifts.

Sharing Good Shepherd’s story during donor visits has stretched the CEO, who says the experience has been “interesting,” and one with which he is growing comfortable. “On a personal level, I’ve learned that it’s OK to ask for support, and to share how we are important to the community.”

For other organizations considering their first major capital campaign, Widman emphasizes the importance of conducting a feasibility study. “I had participated in one prior capital campaign, but that was for my church so everyone involved understood what the funds would be used for and who they would come from.” In Good Shepherd’s case, the amount originally tested in the study seemed to not have adequate stakeholder support and an endowment component for a chaplaincy program was removed from the campaign.

And he recommends hiring a professional to guide the process. “Becky has been fantastic!” And Drumm is quick to commend Widman for his larger vision. “For Chris, this wasn’t just about raising money for the project at hand. He saw the campaign as an opportunity to identify invested stakeholders, and now he wants to maintain them as part of an ongoing development effort.”

Though undertaking such a large fundraising effort with no development systems in place certainly hasn’t been easy, Widman is happy with how the campaign has progressed and believes the positive experience will bolster the retirement community’s confidence in the future. “When we want to do another campaign, we’ll look back and say, ‘See? We did it before; we can do it again.’”

Posted on

Positioning your organization for campaign success

Much about a fundraising campaign cannot be predicted or controlled. Will a life-changing event change the anticipated gift of your major donor? Will the actual cost of your new building exceed earlier projections? Will an unexpected, unrestricted estate gift become available? Will a newspaper article about a disgruntled employee give your organization unfavorable publicity in the local community? Surprises such as these–some positive and others concerning–affect most every campaign.

There are some elements of the campaign that remain firmly under your control, however. Using these “best practices” as building blocks will pay dividends, whatever surprises may occur.

Pick the right campaign chair. Doing your homework and then inviting the right person to chair the campaign is a key decision. While a current board or staff member might fit this role, Advancement Associates strongly recommends choosing a volunteer–a friend who is a willing advocate for your organization, mission and program. As the “face” of the campaign, a volunteer chair is in the strongest position to encourage other stakeholders to support the project at hand.

An effective campaign chair:

  • believes in the mission of your organization and has supported it over many years;
  • is well known and highly respected within the community;
  • can effectively lead and inspire others;
  • is a skilled communicator;
  • has the potential to make a sizable campaign gift; and
  • is highly regarded by your key stakeholders.

A beginning list of potential campaign chairs can first be identified during the campaign feasibility study. As the campaign begins, then, board members, senior executives, major donors, and other friends can help qualify these names.

Create a campaign organizational chart. Campaigns require extraordinary efforts from an organization’s board members, executive staff, and volunteers. Each of these groups have other daily demands on their time, and campaign efforts often represent “over and above” duties and activities. The right organizational chart and accompanying job descriptions will help ensure coordination and cohesion among campaign leaders.

Here is an example of a campaign organizational chart:

 As mentioned, a specific list of campaign roles and responsibilities should be created for each person and group that appears on the organizational chart.

Build a realistic gift table. No table can precisely model all of the gifts needed for campaign success. But, it is also true that campaigns often resemble others of similar size–whatever the specific project at hand might be. This happens because most campaigns reflect the Pareto Principle, known as the the “law of the vital few:” While all gifts are valued and needed, most of money you raise will be given by a relatively small number of donors.

Just as a realistic gift table can help test potential support for a campaign during the feasibility study, it can also guide individual gift solicitation visits, measure progress being made once the actual campaign commences, and provide a means to evaluate campaign success.

Unless your own records and data suggest otherwise, here are some assumptions your campaign gift table should include:

  • A lead (top) gift that represents 20 percent of the total campaign goal;
  • Large gifts from 10 – 20 percent of the donors that equal 90 – 80  percent of your campaign goal;
  • Small gifts from the hundreds of remaining donors that will bring your campaign to a successful conclusion.

Freshen the case summary. In a typical feasibility study, representative stakeholders respond to the organization’s plans for a campaign as described in a brief, well-written case summary.

The case summary continues to play an important role once the campaign has begun–but first it should be revised to reflect important learning from the feasibility study. For example, perhaps the statement should reference the extensive planning process that produced campaign priorities. Or, it may be important to point out that estate gifts, as well as cash gifts, are acceptable.

Once these edits have been made, the case summary will help keep campaign messages consistent; guide individual gift solicitation visits; and provide an on-going reminder to all of the primary purpose of your campaign: to strengthen mission.

An apt metaphor for a fundraising campaign is a roller coaster ride, complete with ups and downs, thrills and chills. But these four “best practices” will help keep your campaign on track, all the way to the end!

Posted on

Going inside a feasibility study interview

Weldon Fruth doesn’t remember exactly how or why she was invited to participate in a recent feasibility study for Good Shepherd Home (Fostoria, OH). What she does remember is that the interviewer “let me sit in ‘my’ chair. As long as I can have my chair, it’s fine!”

Completion of a feasibility study is typically an important first step in any anticipated fundraising campaign. While many of our clients realize the value of this activity for measuring potential constituent interest in a project, they may be less familiar with the approach Advancement Associates (AAI) takes in conducting such studies.

It goes without saying that the success of a feasibility study depends on the quality of the interviews conducted. Unlike fundraising consultants who use mail-out surveys or other impersonal approaches to gather information, AAI’s method acknowledges the centrality of direct, personal interaction between consultant, client and constituent.

Whenever possible, AAI conducts interviews face to face in a setting chosen by the interviewee; as in Fruth’s case, this is often in a private home. And a detail as small as the seating arrangement can foster the goodwill that will yield valuable and valid information.

Most often the consultant is interviewing someone whom he/she has never met and will likely never see again. In such circumstances, the interviewer faces a daunting task: to earn the participant’s confidence and learn his/her opinions about several different topics—some of them personal—in a relatively short amount of time. A typical interview lasts about 45 minutes.

Creating a casual conversational manner is important to build rapport and trust. Some participants will be reserved, others flamboyant. A skilled interviewer will find a personal style that is most effective, while remaining adaptive to the style of the respondent.

At the same time, consistency in interview technique from respondent to respondent and between various researchers is important. Bias can be introduced if the questions are not asked consistently. Furthermore, it is important that the questions be asked in every interview and that the consultant does not create data after the interview based on personal impressions of what the respondent said or what the consultant thinks he/she would have said.

AAI prepares interview questions based on information provided in a case summary, a brief description of the project under consideration and the fundraising campaign that would underwrite it. Along with a short introduction to the AAI consultant conducting the interview, these details are included in a letter mailed to feasibility study participants about one week in advance.

The interview format combines Likert scales (i.e. scales that allow respondents to rate their responses from “strongly agree to “disagree”) with questions that explore attitudes, motivations, and possible behaviors, yielding both quantitative and qualitative data.

“In conducting feasibility interviews,” says AAI Principal Rich Gerig, “I tell participants there are no wrong answers and that spouses don’t have to agree with each other. This sometimes creates some interesting conversations that continue after I’ve gone out the door!”

During the interview, the consultant is to be an informed, but objective, outside listener who has no vested interest in the project or campaign under consideration. As such, he/she is able to listen carefully and without bias, looking for recurrent themes and important ideas. And interviewees must be assured their responses will be kept in confidence.

Gerig has been surprised many times at how transparent people are willing to be with a near stranger. “It is inspiring and a privilege to hear major donors and other key stakeholders describe how they decide to support special projects and campaigns. Often, gifts made reflect donors’ confidence in the organization, belief in its mission, and understandings of stewardship.”

Past participants describe the feasibility study interview as, at worst, “harmless” and, at best, “enjoyable.” More importantly, participation gives stakeholders the chance to speak into and take ownership in an organization’s planning, rather than just being asked to finance it.

Posted on

Transformation through teamwork

Throughout its history, Mennonite Home Communities of Ohio (MHCO) has demonstrated an ability to adapt to change, to anticipate elder’s needs, and to implement innovative programs that enhance its mission. Now, as the largest senior living provider in Allen County, this Bluffton continuing care retirement community is transforming its skilled nursing care with the Green House® model of care.

Since being introduced in 2003, the Green House model has spread to over 40 campuses in 29 states. MHCO’s long-term goal is to build six Green House homes on its newest campus, Willow Ridge; they will be the first such homes in Ohio.

MHCO’s capital campaign for the Green House Project has seen more than its share of challenges. But with patience, hard work and excellent leadership, MHCO is anticipating the completion of its first two homes, for which a ground blessing was held in October.

As Advancement Associates’ communications associate, I (Sherilyn Ortman) recently asked CEO Laura Voth and Doug Luginbill, development officer, to reflect on getting to this point. As they shared their journey, I was struck by the spirit of teamwork that pervades their interaction and guides their efforts. So that you, the reader, can see it too, allow me to step out of the interview at this point. Aside from occasional comments to provide context (in italics), I invite you to simply “listen in” as Laura and Doug share their story from the beginning.

LV: In 2004 we were working with an architect and drawing up a whole new building based on “neighborhood” living. We had had a very positive experience with nine- and ten-person dementia units based on that concept. Our CEO at the time was also hearing about this new “Green House” style of care. In April 2004 a group of us went to Tupelo, Mississippi, where the first Green House homes had just been built. We returned home convinced that this was a better model of care and the house itself was a necessary tool. By Oct. 2004 the board of directors had signed on.

We made two trips (once in 2005 and again in 2007) to the Ohio Department of Health because we knew they had to be on board to proceed. Initially, their response was “proceed with caution.” By now, the Ohio Department of Health and the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare are familiar with the Green House model of care and are strong supporters. We still had to obtain a “Certificate of Need,” which was a very extensive process that took about six months to complete.

In 2005, MHCO hired Advancement Associates (AAI) to conduct a feasibility study for the construction of two Green House homes. That study showed sufficient stakeholder support for the proposed $2 million project. A capital campaign was launched later that year but soon encountered some unforeseen obstacles, which slowed its progress for the next several months.

LV: Part of problem was that we didn’t have a final plan when we started the campaign. There were things we didn’t have in place . . . like a strategic expansion plan. We originally had a plan for 10 new houses and then, for a long time, six. But we were thinking in terms of our current campus (actually two campuses about one mile apart from each other). We realized that if we really wanted to replace all 92 beds of skilled nursing care, we didn’t want to do a few here and a few there and maintain that divided campus. In 2007 we bought 15 acres of land across from our Maple Crest campus. That completely changed the picture.

The campaign worked through eight or nine financial pro formas. Though stakeholder support was strong, we had to consider how much debt the organization was willing to take on for additional homes. In hindsight we see that we needed that financial picture and strategic plan in place earlier. And in the midst of figuring all that out, 2008 happened and the economy tanked. Our CEO also resigned that year to follow a different career path. People were getting nervous because, by then, we’d already been talking about our plans for awhile. The board hired an interim CEO with the directive, “No matter what else you do, advance this Green House project.”

But the campaign continued to lose steam amidst multiple transitions; among other factors, MHCO’s contract with AAI also ended in 2008. About one year ago, MHCO received a large trust, which it eventually designated for the campaign. Leadership settled on a revised goal of $2.1 million—the additional $100,000 will be used to renovate several existing rooms into a new rehabilitation unit—and entered a new contract with AAI. Clarifying the scope of the campaign was a crucial turning point that allowed it to regain momentum, according to Doug, who was new to the job.

LV: You know how I got Doug’s name? When I became CEO in February 2009, we had one person doing both marketing and fund development. I was looking to divide the responsibilities. A former fund developer for Bluffton University was on our campaign committee. I asked his advice. That conversation turned to criteria for a good development officer and he commented, “What you really need is a pastoral type.” As he left, he turned around in the doorway and said, “You know, Doug Luginbill is coming back.” I knew Doug from when he had been [pastor] at First Mennonite Church here in Bluffton. So I called him.

DL: I had concluded a pastorate in Wichita, Kansas and moved back to Bluffton for a one-year interim position at Salem Mennonite Church. I happened to be visiting a member of the congregation at another nursing home when Laura left a message on my cell phone. I didn’t know what the conversation would be about. I figured maybe the chaplain was leaving.

Though he had no idea that fund development was on the horizon when he left Kansas, Doug had some experience with nonprofit fundraising, having served six years as executive director of a church-related camp. He met with Laura and assumed his current role with MHCO in January 2010.

DL: Pastoral ministry was a wonderful training ground for this position. You use a lot of the same skills in both kinds of work, particularly one-on-one contact. It’s very natural for me to go into the place people call home and have conversations.

I will say that coming into this position during a campaign was kind of scary. At the same time, I’ve been in a lot of nursing homes visiting people over the years, and I knew there had to be a better way to do skilled nursing care. Laura talked so passionately about the Green House homes that I kind of picked up her passion as well. And I could tell that most of the leadership staff was committed to the project.

LV: But I would say that some staff were getting discouraged. They had been dreaming a long time already and kind of had the attitude, “I’ll believe it when I see it.” As far as the community goes, by the time Doug arrived, we were finishing some of the first pledges and still nothing had happened. Some donors were saying “What’s taking so long?” One even asked [our former director of fund development], “Well, if you don’t do it, am I going to get my money back?” There was a general sense of whether or not we were ever going to pull it off.

DL: To follow someone, I need to believe in their integrity and capabilities. Laura demonstrated that through her long history here.

LV: I’ve been here 29 years. I began as a social worker for Mennonite Memorial Home [a predecessor to the organization], then moved to admissions and then became administrator of the nursing home in 2001.

DL: So she knows this organization inside and out. Her vision and commitment to seeing the project through came through over and over again. When I started here Laura was still in her first year as CEO, having worked as a peer with many of those staff. It can take time for peers to become fully supportive, but, from what I gather, the staff has appreciated Laura’s more collaborative style. If I were to walk in doors now, I believe I would see a much more cohesive team.

LV: When I first talked with Doug, I really pushed hard on the development side of the job. But when our conversation was over, I realized we had just advanced our church relationships a hundred fold by having him as part of our team.

DL: My position is Director of Resource Development and Church Relations. I enjoy visiting with and encouraging pastors. The position gives me opportunities to be in churches, to share our vision at Mennonite Home Communities and even to preach on occasion.

LV: We are so much more connected to our churches now than we were two years ago. Becky [Drumm of Advancement Associates] keeps talking about how the success of this will depend on long-term relationship building; that’s what Doug has brought to our team.

DL: For me, one of the most gratifying parts of the campaign has been developing relationships with people in the community. When pastoring, I knew my own congregation well, but I was pretty narrowly-focused to the Mennonite Church. This has helped me broaden my understanding of the Bluffton community as a whole, and get to know people that I wouldn’t normally have any other reason to connect with. I’ve also been reminded that this work is a marathon, not a sprint!

LV: One thing I have observed about this campaign is that it’s a process of whittling away. We have a $2.1 million goal and we’re at $1.7. That’s incredible! Aside from a large trust, we haven’t gotten more than one $100,000 gift. But many people each doing a little makes a lot. That’s the way it is with volunteer hours, with money, with so many things. With hard work, it will come if you’re patient.

Posted on

Resuming a capital campaign

Some organizations were in the middle of a campaign when recession hit and wonder, now what? How does one know if it’s time to re-engage and, if so, how does we one go about it?

Restarting a campaign in a good way assumes that an organization has done its homework—i.e. maintained open communication and strengthened relationships with current and prospective donors and volunteers—in the interim.

Even then, resuming the process isn’t simply a matter of picking up where one left off. Consider “patience” and “diligence” virtues. At the same time, assuming your case was strong at the outset, your needs cannot be put on hold indefinitely without, in some regard, compromising the service you’re able to offer.

Here are several steps we recommend:

1. Re-engage with those who have already contributed. Let them know the campaign is back on track. Invite and answer their questions. Use these visits to check the pulse of the constituency. Are your stakeholders still committed to the project?

2. Study the original campaign plan in the light of several important questions: Is the case still strong and accurate? Is the original campaign goal still realistic? Do we need an updated feasibility study? How many of our major gift prospects are dependent on the economy? Has there been turnover in key staff or board positions? If so, allow sufficient time to bring new members up to speed and gain their support.

3. Reassemble the campaign cabinet. Begin with the volunteers that were already in place, but respect that, in the meantime, other commitments will most likely have taken priority for some original members. Additional recruitment and training may be necessary; these steps will take time.

4. Adjust the process as necessary. Be creative in the types of gifts you allow donors to consider and respect their timeframe. Longer pledge periods may be helpful for some. Others may need to wait longer than desired before making an initial gift to allow assets that have depleted in value to recover.

Posted on

Growing benevolent funds becomes primary concern for CCRCs

The Samaritan Fund. The Sharing Fund. The Promise Partners Fund. The Future Care Fund. The Golden Cross Fund. The Home Endowment Fund. The Care Assurance Fund.

These are some of the names continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs) are using to describe their benevolent care funds. Whatever the name, finding a way to enlarge these funds has become high priority for virtually every retirement organization.

Through their benevolent care programs, retirement communities support residents who have exhausted their financial resources and, through no fault of their own, are unable to pay the full cost of required services. Doing everything possible to provide for such residents directly reflects the missions of many CCRCs, particularly those that are faith-based.

A number of CCRCs established benevolent funds a number of years ago, often with large unsolicited and unanticipated charitable gifts. However, rapidly growing needs of residents have exhausted available resources in many instances. Multiple factors have created this difficult circumstance, including increased life expectancy, fixed or limited incomes, increasing healthcare costs, and inadequate Medicaid funding.

Although one can never precisely predict with certainty, it’s clear that CCRC leaders assume even more need for benevolent care resources in the near future. For example, a recent survey of CCRC financial officers produced these startling facts:

• Eighty-four percent of the retirement communities that participated in a survey had already created a benevolent fund.

• Eighty-seven percent indicated that growing their benevolent funds was a priority.

• Most significantly, 42 percent of the financial officers noted that their benevolent funds must at least double from current values in order to meet financial needs of residents in the anticipated future.

Source: Ziegler financial services, May 2009

CCRCs often establish endowments to provide benevolent care resources for qualified residents. In such arrangements, only the annual interest earned from invested principal is used for recipients of benevolent care monies, thereby preserving the fund for the future. Other types of special funds designated for benevolent care permit use of both principal and interest. This approach offers more flexibility in meeting current needs, but without careful management may soon be depleted.

A variety of income sources underwrite benevolent funds. If available, operational revenue is often tapped. A portion of residents’ entrance fee refunds may be designated. Life insurance benefits of residents qualifying for assistance are sometimes assigned to the benevolent fund. The bulk of the necessary money, however, must come from charitable gifts.

A quick on-line review suggests how CCRCs solicit charitable support for their benevolent funds. One approach is special fundraising events, such as golf outings and benefit dinners. Memorial gifts are often designated. Churches affiliated with nearby retirement communities may collect an annual offering. One CCRC places ornaments on a special, visible Christmas tree to symbolize benevolent fund gifts received during the holiday season.

Eclipsing all of these fundraising activities are gifts from individuals who understand the importance of benevolent care funds and are moved to support them with substantial contributions. For many CCRCs, successfully soliciting more such gifts is the key to building benevolent fund programs for the anticipated future. Advancement Associates, Inc. has helped continuing care retirement communities address this priority and shares these beginning ideas for success.

1. Review previous large gifts made for your benevolent fund. What were the circumstances of such gifts? What motivated donors to support the fund? What do these stories suggest for fundraising strategies?

2. Make a list of the key stakeholder groups most likely to be interested in your benevolent care fund. Among those that come to mind are current residents, families of current and former residents, board and staff members, and members of supporting churches. How are you informing these groups of your benevolent fund and future needs?

3. Create a “case for support” for your benevolent fund. Such a statement presents the purpose for the fund; notes how it reflects the organization’s mission and values; and suggests three or four reasons why constituents should offer their support. These reasons should be repeated in all fundraising activities for the fund.

4. Along with other types of contributions, invite planned gifts and estate gifts for your benevolent fund. Because they reflect financial resources produced over a lifetime, such gifts are particularly appropriate for supporting an endowment. Create criteria for identifying prospects for planned gifts; cultivate positive relationships with them; and invite their support at the right time with personal, individual approaches.

Posted on

Congregational fundraising

When working with a congregation, AAI first provides an overview of the capital campaign and introduces key campaign principles in the context of fundraising as ministry. Next, we assess the congregation’s readiness for such a highly organized fundraising effort. Based on this assessment, AAI can enter the process at one of several points, described below.

Visioning. Often, AAI’s first official role is to engage leaders of the congregation in visioning. This kind of exercise typically takes place during a weekend retreat and asks participants to reflect on the following questions:

  1. In light of our mission, what are the opportunities and challenges presented by our surrounding environment?
  2. In light of our mission, opportunities and challenges
    • What program priorities should we establish and pursue at this time?
    • What priorities should we establish for our facilities?
    • What financial resources are required to meet our priorities for program and facilities?

Campaign feasibility study. A feasibility study helps determine the level of support for the goals identified during the visioning process and, therefore, the probability of success for a proposed capital campaign and building program. The feasibility study includes a series of both personal and mail interviews conducted by AAI staff; interviewees are shown a case summary of the project at hand and a gift table. AAI compiles results into a report and makes a recommendation regarding the campaign goal to congregational leaders and/or the congregation as a whole. A feasibility study takes approximately two months to complete.

Campaign. Congregations can also enlist AAI’s help with the campaign itself. Campaigns are typically completed within four months, during which campaign leaders receive regular consultation and unlimited access to the consultant(s). Depending on the needs and desires of the congregation, AAI’s involvement can also include:

  • creating an action plan that lists specific responsibilities for the various persons involved in campaign leadership; outlines how these persons report to and interact with one another; and sets a timeline for implementation of various campaign steps
  • developing any necessary communications materials
  • training of key personnel
  • attendance and leadership at campaign meetings

While many professional firms offer campaign services similar to the four just mentioned, AAI encourages five additional practices that distinguish our approach from others’:

  1. Our philosophy of “fundraising as ministry” seeks to incorporate the capital campaign into the life and worship of congregation.
  2. We provide actual templates of the communication materials the congregation will use during the campaign.
  3. We emphasize personal solicitation and direct requests for campaign commitments.
  4. We utilize mail and telephone solicitation for distant members and friends.
  5. Three-year pledge commitments give donors the flexibility they may need to make the most faithful gift possible.