| Special Web Edition of Give & Take
Part III Tim Sharpe's interviews with David Dunlop that appeared in Give & Take sparked such a positive reaction with our readers that we wanted to bring you even more! Here is the rest of our conversation with Mr. Dunlop, whose nearly 40 years of development experience has led to wisdom and insights that can benefit all fundraisers. Sharpe: Looking back over your career during the 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, what have you observed personally about the giving habits or philanthropic spirit in America? How have the generations been different in their giving behavior? How have they been the same? Dunlop: I have seen the waves of change in our society affect the giving habits and philanthropic spirit. When I was in college, Sputnik went up and there was a fervor in our nation to become competitive with the Russians, which included an emphasis on education. Our country experienced increased concern for educating our youth so that the Russians would not surpass us in science and technology. This increased appreciation of education had a great impact on giving and fund raising to our colleges and universities. There are moments in society, like that one, where we pull together for each other's good. But there are other moments that pull us apart. One of those was at the end of the 1960s and beginning of the 1970s. There was a wrenching effect between the generations evidenced by increasing rebellion on college campuses. Generations who had the wealth to give were thinking twice about giving it to causes such as colleges that they felt were fostering this kind of rebellious attitude. Sharpe: So, do you think that whole generations are more or less charitable as a result of circumstances they witness as a group? Dunlop: I am convinced that there are periods of ups and downs in giving from time to time. For example, the World War II years shaped the mindset of whole generations of people. But as with any generality, the exceptions are very great. I'm not upset by these waves of people being more generous or less generous because the opportunities come one by one. With each individual friend whom we address there are possibilities. Sharpe: Speaking of working with individuals very personally, how do you handle the challenge of being appreciative and respectful of friends' ideas even though you may not be able to take their advice? Dunlop: Sy Seymour had a good answer for that particular question. He said don't reject a volunteer's suggestion out-of-hand at the moment it is offered. At a minimum, even if the idea seems ludicrous, say to the friend, "That is an interesting idea that I had not thought of before. I would like to reflect on it. I'd like to consult some of my colleagues about it. Could I get back to you?" And then hope and pray that you can find some merit in the idea. Whether you do or not, you're obligated to get back to the friend and explain your honest thoughts on the idea. Sometimes he or she will have a better idea than we have, only we don't know it. And the extra time and effort that it requires to be thoughtful and responsive is well worth investing. I often think of how many times we have chilled relationships with our friends by glossing over their ideas and ignoring them. I am an absolute believer that one of the challenges we face as charitable institutions is to relate to the intellectual gifts, the ideas that our friends provide us. Many ideas will not have as much value as we wish they had, but without dealing with them in the right way, we kill off all the other gifts--the moral, political, social, and financial. People feel it when their ideas are ignored or disregarded. It is one of the silent losses. The process that leads people to making the really large gifts of a lifetime does indeed involve giving them opportunities for involvement and also opening up the venues in which they can give all kinds of expressions, not just financial expressions. I can remember a time when one of our benefactors offered to build an Athletic Hall of Fame for Cornell. This friend had done many generous things for us, but we could think of many other ways we would prefer to use that money other than to build an Athletic Hall of Fame. But he was really interested in doing this, so we acquiesced. The room that he gave us has been the site for so many good things. We just didn't have the wisdom to know how valuable that would be. Sharpe: Can you elaborate on some of the changes you have seen in the area of capital campaigns? Dunlop: Over these decades I've witnessed significant changes in the way in which fund-raising campaigns are conducted. In the late 1950s and early 1960s major fund-raising campaigns rarely had a public phase that lasted more than three years. They counted only gifts for the specific objectives for which the campaigns were launched. Consequently, they were somewhat smaller than the campaigns that followed, the very largest being between $50-85 million until Stanford's PACE Campaign broke the $100 million mark. In the next generation of campaigns, we saw both their length and scope expanded. More and more campaigns were conducted for a five-year public phase. More campaigns shifted their focus from counting only gifts for announced objectives to counting all gifts to the institution given within the campaign time frame. With these changes came larger goals and larger amounts given. A very few institutions announced "campaigns" with 10-year goals. Some of us viewed such efforts as a contradiction of terms. No doubt, there have been some institutions that expanded the scope and extended the length of their campaigns as a way to achieve goals that were larger than their peer institutions. But there were also real and urgent needs upon which other institutions expanded the scope and size of their campaigns. These institutions had, among their constituents, alumni and friends with the capacity that enabled these larger objectives to be achieved. Most of these pace-setting campaigns met and exceeded their goals with a 12 to 24 month quiet phase followed by a five-year public phase. Stanford, Penn, Cornell, and now Harvard have set a succession of new records for giving to five-year campaigns. Their success and the success of other institutions has demonstrated that the expanded vision of what these institutions can do for society and the expanded goals that reflect that vision have not out-stripped the giving capacity of their alumni and other friends. Without that expanded vision and the larger goals associated with it, education would have missed the opportunity to inspire some of the largest gifts. Sharpe: There are movements in Congress to go to the flat tax, with or without the charitable deduction. In your experience, are tax incentives large motivators in charitable giving? Dunlop: I think people's core motivation is a desire to do good, with or without a tax deduction. But there's just no question that the tax code has supported and encouraged giving. It has put out a message. Our society believes in individuals doing the public good through their private resources. Without the charitable tax deduction, I think we would see some losses in giving, but giving would continue. More importantly, you would see a change in how people view philanthropy's role in society, and I think that would be as tragic as the financial losses with which we would have to cope. In those parts of the world where more needs were covered by the government, governmental resources are being cut back, and now they are trying to emulate what America has enjoyed for a long time--a culture that fosters giving. When I was meeting with the Association of Development and Alumni Professionals for Education in Australia, one of their great concerns was how they could change the culture of their society as well as the governmental arrangement that actually discouraged philanthropy. They were looking toward America as an example. Sharpe: I heard you tell a story once about borrowing something from a good donor prospect before actually asking for a very large gift. Tell us more about this idea. Dunlop: Norma Regan, the past volunteer chairman of Cornell's Annual Fund, taught me the value of borrowing. When her work with the annual fund began, Norma looked at the list of givers and how much they were giving. She was shocked that they weren't giving more because she knew firsthand of their capacity. She decided to hold a dinner to kick-off Cornell's annual fund in Hartford, Connecticut. For the occasion she borrowed the home of an alumnus who was a prominent attorney in Hartford. She didn't stop with borrowing the home. She also enlisted others who had been significantly successful and from whom she hoped to encourage more thoughtful, proportionate giving by asking them to be sponsors to help pay for the dinner. The price of a sponsorship was more than most of them had given to the annual fund the previous two years. And being a sponsor was not to take the place of their annual fund gift! Needless to say, the kick-off dinner was a marvelous success. By the time the next year rolled around we had three or four volunteers offering their homes and others that would join them in being sponsors. Since then I have borrowed art and coin collections for display on campus, and boats--even planes--to help transport friends to and from our campus. Borrowing can be a very good thing, but you have to do it very carefully and thoughtfully. When someone has an extraordinary asset that can be put to a worthwhile charitable use, it leaves a nice feeling with everybody involved. Sharpe: Do you have any guidelines about how development people can begin to work more closely with the program staff in developing relationships with the institution's friends? Dunlop: The process of giving really isn't that different from the actions that take place in our personal friendships. When you care about a person or an organization, the relationship is enhanced when it has many elements to it. I found that the people who were great benefactors to my institution didn't know only the president, or the vice president, or the director of development, or some other person whose job it was to seek gifts. They had a network, a matrix of relationships with faculty, students, administrators, staff, trustees, and others. The really great gifts most often came out of complex matrices of association. Sharpe: Are there instances where you have worked and been actively involved in gifts that may have benefited another organization as well? Dunlop: The person who gave us the Athletic Hall of Fame provides one example. There was a college in his hometown that he also cared about. When he wanted to establish a fund, he gave assets that Cornell administered and the beneficiaries were both Cornell and this college. That has happened many times. When our friends make great gifts to other institutions, I feel there is only one disposition we can have and that is to applaud the good that they do wherever it happens, even if it is not at our own institution. I think that is true for any charitable institution. Sharpe: Have you ever found yourself in a conflict between representing what was best for your employer, Cornell, and the best interests of your friend, the donor? How did you handle these conflicts? Dunlop: Those conflicts are rare. Sometimes you'll have a friend who wants to make a gift that is outside what is in the best interests of our university. Sometimes a friend will ask for other favors that are outside the bounds of what's right, for example getting a son or daughter admitted. That's not something we can do and still preserve the integrity of our admissions process. In those cases I took pains to show that I was paying full attention, listened hard, and tried to understand the request. But that didn't mean I had to compromise by doing something that was not right for our institution. Paying attention and being responsive is often the solution when you must deliver a disappointing answer. Sharpe: Thanks, Dave, for all the time you have given us and the insights you have shared. We wish you all the best in your future endeavors. CLICK HERE to go to Part I of the Dunlop interview as it appeared in the January, 1998, issue of Give & Take. CLICK HERE to go to Part II of the Dunlop interview as it appeared in the February, 1998, issue of Give & Take. |
Back to Give & Take 1998 Index Page
www.rfsco.com · info@rfsco.com
© 2000 Robert F. Sharpe & Company, Inc.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED