The text consists of 15 chapters, with the 14 following the introductory chapter organized into three parts: (a) the practice; (b) the principles; and (c) the process, programs, and publics. To read chapter one in its entirety, click here.

  • Part I: The Practice
  • Part II: The Principles
  • Part III: The Process, Programs, and Publics

    Part I: The Practice:
    Parameters, Practitioners, and Professionalism

    Continuing the alliterative device of titles starting with the letter P, Part I explores the parameters, practitioners, and professionalism of fund raising. Chapter 2, the Parameters, lays out the boundaries in which contemporary fund raising is practiced. It starts by looking at the tradition of philanthropy enjoyed by U.S. charitable organizations -- a tradition that is the envy of other industrialized nations. Students are provided with a generational perspective of this tradition, as well as the American perspective of wealth, beginning with Andrew Carnegie's (1889/1983) admonition that to die rich is to die disgraced. The discussion concludes that -- fundamentally -- individual, corporate, and foundation donors make gifts because giving is a customary, admired, and expected behavior in our society and, therefore, fund raising does not affect whether donors give, but to which charitable organizations they give, the amount of their gifts, and the purposes for which their gifts are made.

    This stage-setting chapter then turns to donor motivations, or the reasons beyond tradition for giving away money. The discussion resolves the two opposing viewpoints -- donors give money as an act of altruism and donors make gifts to advance their self-interests -- by adopting the mixed-motive model of giving. This model assumes that donors hold interest both in self and in a common good when making a gift. It further assumes that charitable organizations also have dual interests when obtaining gifts (i.e., their behavior is nether solely altruistic nor solely self-interested).

    Those organizations and the larger nonprofit sector of which they are a part are the focus of the second half of chapter 2. Students are guided through a description of the sector, which one scholar called a "sprawling and unruly collection of animals" (Simon, 1987, p. 69) and another referred to as "a kind of Victorian attic of the unrelated and irrelevant castoffs of a profit-oriented civilization" (Lohmann, 1992b, p. 3). They are helped through this maze with a recent theory provided by philanthropyscholar Roger Lohmann (1992a, 1992b): the commons and its derivative concept of common goods. Based on shared values and interests, commons -- or nonprofits -- form to produce goods with external benefits, which are goods that benefit more than just the purchaser. Differentiating among the three sectors of business, government, and nonprofit, Lohmann (1992a) explained, "Markets produce private goods, states produce public goods, and commons produce common goods" (p. 320). Lohmann's distinction is important in that goods are desirable ends within the commons, but not necessarily beyond. Whereas widely used terms such as public good and public interest imply that any gift contributes to the good of an abstract "public," Lohmann's theory allows us to understand that a gift to one organization as opposed to another (e.g., pro-life vs. pro-choice) does not contribute to the public good, but rather to a good in which the donor and the recipient organization have common interests. As Lohmann (1992a) said, "Outside a reference group, any common good may be a matter of indifference or may even be considered a `bad'" (p. 320). In short, philanthropy is not voluntary action for the public good (Payton, 1988a), but for particular common goods that, collectively, undergird our pluralistic democracy.

    Finally, special care is taken to identify those nonprofits likely to have a fund-raising function because a list of such organizations does not exist and previous work has not found it necessary to deal with this distinction. Stereotypes and misconceptions about charitable organizations are discussed, and statistics are recalculated to describe the dimensions of the approximately 150,000 organizations on which this book concentrates.

    Chapter 3 examines practitioners, or the people who are paid to raise money for these organizations. There are about 80,000 fund raisers in the United States, although only one third of them belong to the three major associations of AHP, CASE, and NSFRE. Under an array of job titles that hampers their identification, fund raisers work for organizations with diverse missions; however, an analysis of association membership reveals that the largest number of practitioners are employed by educational and health organizations.

    Fund raising is an occupation for which there is high demand and which requires little experience. There is no prescribed program of education or specific personality traits that qualify one to be a fund raiser. Yet the occupation pays well, with a typical salary in 1995 of $54,650 for those belonging to CASE and top salaries of more than $140,000 (Mongon, 1996; R. L. Williams, 1996). Practitioners in fund raising earn more than those in public relations, with differences ranging from 20% to 50% more.

    Fund raisers traditionally acquired their skills through an apprentice system that was supplemented by professional development offerings of the fund-raising associations. As the demand for fund raisers increased during the 1980s, a new venue for training emerged at colleges and universities. Fund raisers generally have high job satisfaction and a turnover rate comparable to members of other occupations, which is contradictory to common charges of "job hopping" by staff practitioners. Chapter 3 explores those charges and provides scientific evidence refuting them. It then turns to the feminization of fund raising, which it examines in depth.

    During the 1980s, women moved from minority representation to the majority of practitioners. Fund raising offers career advantages for women, particularly those seeking to change careers or reenter the workforce. As is true in many occupations,however, women face widespread discrimination. Female practitioners are paid less than men and improvements have been slow and uneven. Women are victims of a backlash against their majority status, which has frozen gender proportions for the last 5 years. A two-tier hierarchy segregates female fund raisers into lower paying, lower status titles and positions.

    Chapter 3 draws from findings of membership surveys by the three associations to document the gender gap in salaries and the differences in titles and positions between men and women in fund raising. Male members of NSFRE, for example, make $10,800, or 26%, more per year than female members (Mongon, 1992). Most women are clustered in fund-raising positions, such as annual giving, that have lower salaries and status than the positions most men occupy, such as major gifts. A hierarchy of positions is presented to help future practitioners understand workplace dynamics and plan successful careers. Other ways by which women can reduce the effects of gender discrimination are given.

    Chapter 4 focuses on the issue of professionalism. Students are introduced to important elements and entities of the practice, including associations, research centers, and publications dealing with fund raising and the larger concepts of philanthropy and nonprofit management. The status of fund raising as a profession is analyzed using five common criteria: (a) body of knowledge, (b) program of formal education, (c) professional associations, (d) codes of ethics, and (e) professional autonomy and allegiance.

    Given the state of research and theory described earlier, it is not surprising that fund raising lacks a body of knowledge. Chapter 4 identifies two primary reasons for the absence of this critical criterion of a profession: neglect by philanthropy scholars and substandard work by practitioner students. Analyses of master's theses and doctoral dissertations show the vast majority of that work emanates from departments of education, although few education faculty are scholars on fund raising. Regarding a program of formal education, fund raising is at the beginning of the second of three stages of progression to professionalism. Practitioners still largely control training; fund raising has no full-time faculty who exclusively teach and conduct research on it.

    Based on the analysis of the five criteria, fund raising resides at the low end of the professional continuum. It is unlikely the occupation can improve its status in the near future without identifying an academic home that will provide it with a theoretical and educational foundation. Yet professionalization promises to improve the practice, making it more effective. Given current threats of increased regulation and loss of charitable privileges, discussed in chapter 7, the time necessary to advance fund raising without affiliating with an established discipline may not be available.

    Public relations also is not a profession, but____unlike fund raising____it has the infrastructure in place to become one. It has a body of knowledge based on theory and research. Its 70-year-old program of education, which is grounded in the arts and sciences, provides a close match to fund-raising needs identified by studies and experts. Furthermore, the discipline claims fund raising as part of its domain, and public relations faculty teach courses, conduct research, and publish articles on the subject. The idea of affiliation is not as radical as it first may seem. Numerous past and current fund raisers started their careers as journalists and public relations practitioners (e.g.,Maurice Gurin and Thomas Broce). Chapter 4 explores long-standing linkages between the two occupations and suggests future studies on the topic.

    Part II: The Principles:
    Historical, Organizational, Legal, Ethical, and Theoretical

    Part II consists of five chapters, all of which cover subjects rarely presented in the fund-raising literature but essential for academic study. Chapter 5 leads off by analyzing the historical context of fund-raising practice in the United States. Contemporary fund raising cannot be understood without first understanding the context in which the function evolved. Attorney Norman Fink (1993), who specializes in nonprofit and fund-raising law, added: "One must look to the past to forecast the future. The trends for the future do indeed have their seeds in the past" (p. 389).

    A major thrust of chapter 5 is the newness of fund raising as a function systematically carried out by specialists, which dates back only to 1917. Furthermore, fund raising as an internal organizational function is less than 50 years old. Of particular significance is the recent evolution of the practice from an external consulting function to a predominantly staff function within charitable organizations. Whereas the end of World War I marked the beginnings of for-profit fund-raising firms, internal fund raisers employed continuously by organizations were a phenomenon that appeared only after the end of World War II. Consultant Robert Sharpe, Jr. (1989) explained, "Until the early 1950's, very few charities had professional staff members running fund-raising operations" (p. 40).

    This evolution generally is ignored in the existing literature, and chapter 5 rectifies the knowledge gap by tracing fund raising through four distinct eras: (a) the era of nonspecialists from 1900 to 1917, (b) the era of fund-raising consultants from 1919 to 1941, (c) the era of transition from 1946 to the mid-1960s, and (d) the era of staff fund raisers from 1965 to the present. In so doing, it examines a critical difference in the function as practiced by external and internal practitioners, namely that consultants do not solicit gifts, whereas staff fund raisers do. This difference has gone largely unrecognized, which has resulted in much erroneous information about fund raising.

    The second half of chapter 5 turns from chronological eras to stages through which fund-raising practice has passed. Four historical stages are documented, which represent four models, or different ways fund raising was practiced in the past. Unlike the eras, the models did not supersede each other, but rather the emergence of a new model added to the different ways of practicing fund raising. In other words, they describe how fund raising still is practiced today. They also describe the presuppositions held by organizations about fund raising. The four models are: (a) press agentry, (b) public information, (c) two-way asymmetrical, and (d) two-way symmetrical. Conceptualized and tested through an 8-year program of research, the theory of fund-raising models explains that the first three models are related to asymmetrical presuppositions and their practice is based on principles of persuasion, manipulation, and control. Only the newest model, two-way symmetrical, offers an ethical and socially responsible approach to fund raising. Its practice is based on principles of collaborative negotiation and conflict resolution. Whereas all four models constitute a descriptive theory, thetwo-way symmetrical model represents a normative theory of how fund raising should be practiced.

    Chapter 6, on the organizational context of fund raising, documents continued use of the three older models. Results of two research studies are reported. The first, which empirically tested the models in a national survey, showed that the four models do describe the typical ways fund raising presently is practiced and provided supportive evidence as to their reliability, validity, and accuracy. It also found that press agentry____the oldest and least ethical model____is the one predominantly practiced by all types of charitable organizations. Details on the methodology and statistical analysis of the study are given to enhance understanding and to encourage similar research by students.

    The second study explored why charitable organizations practice the models they do. Theories from organizational behavior and public relations suggested that presuppositions about fund raising held by members of the dominant coalition -- the powerful group of people who control the organization -- determine the model practiced and whether the model is asymmetrical or symmetrical. The study showed that dominant coalitions support those fund-raising departments practicing press agentry and give less support to those practicing the two-way symmetrical model. Furthermore, dominant coalitions significantly influence the practice of the three asymmetrical models, but have little and nonsignificant influence on the two-way symmetrical model. In short, findings suggest that charitable organizations predominantly practice the press agentry model of fund raising because that is the model their dominant coalitions want them to practice. Yet the explanatory study also found that those organizations practicing the two-way symmetrical model in their major gifts program raise more total dollars in private support in a given year than those practicing the three other models.

    Chapter 6 then turns to an examination of roles, or the daily behavior patterns of individual practitioners as they carry out their job responsibilities. Four fund-raising roles are conceptualized: (a) liaison, (b) expert prescriber, (c) technician, and (d) problem-solving process facilitator. Examples of the roles are identified through an analysis of the fund-raising literature. The theory helps explain variations in the behavior of practitioners, particularly the difference between the nonsolicitation role enacted and advocated by consultants (i.e., liaison) and other roles that include soliciting gifts. Following similar work in public relations, the four roles are collapsed into two major roles: manager and technician. Managers participate in strategic planning and decision making, utilize research, and direct programs, whereas technicians are limited to providing technical services to carry out plans and decisions made by others. The technician role is related to the practice of press agentry and public information, whereas the manager role is related to the more sophisticated two-way models.

    Chapter 6 uses the line-staff management model to discuss structure and reporting lines. Unlike marketing, fund raising is a staff function, positioned high in the organization to advise and direct the behavior of top officials in building and maintaining relationships with donors. When the function is not integrated with other organizational components and key actors such as trustees and the CEO are not involved, the fund-raising process is ineffective. The chapter concludes by looking at variations from the management model presented, specifically, federations and affiliated foundations in which fund raising is a line function, and complex organizations, such as hospitals and research universities, in which the function is decentralized. Chapter 7 moves to the legal context of fund raising. Although the practice largely is defined by laws and regulations, practitioners generally are uninformed, disinterested, and fragmented when it comes to legal issues. Regarding statues now in 47 states and the District of Columbia, Hopkins (1990) said fund raisers "are either unaware of such laws or blatantly ignore them" (p. 218). Similar indifference is found at the federal level where warnings are given, no improvement follows, and this is followed by more laws enacted. In 1987, for example, the IRS warned fund raisers to inform donors that only the amount of gifts in excess of the value of any goods or services returned to the donor is tax deductible, a rule that had existed since 1967. As defined by the IRS and the courts, a gift is "a voluntary transfer of money or property without receipt of or expectation of commensurate substantial financial benefit" (Ruge & Speizman, 1993, p. 609). Therefore, a payment of $100 for which the donor receives a dinner valued at $25 represents a tax-deductible gift of only $75. Congress threatened to enact legislation unless charitable organizations policed themselves more, and the IRS mailed about 400,000 pamphlets explaining the 20-year-old ruling. Writing in 1990, Hopkins said there was little leadership for improving compliance and predicted that a new law on disclosure of the nondeductibility of payments would be enacted. It was, in 1993.

    This destructive cycle warrants special attention, and chapter 7 describes in detail the legal issues facing fund raisers and the organizations they serve. It examines the privileged status granted to 501(c)(3) organizations, including exemption from taxes and the right to receive gifts that can be deducted from taxable income and estates. It looks at questions raised about such economic privileges in relation to the behavior of the organizations that enjoy them, and concludes that all could be lost if changes are not made. Representative of threats, the Oversight Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee held a series of hearings in 1993 and 1994, during which the IRS and state regulators urged Congress to introduce legislation to help them fight charity abuses. Chair of the subcommittee at the time, former Representative J. J. "Jake" Pickle (cited in Goss, 1993a) promised to introduce such a bill, saying, "Change is needed and is long overdue" (p. 39). The overriding issue, then, is whether changes will result from external regulation or self-regulation.

    To facilitate self-determined change, students are introduced to key concepts and actors in the regulatory environment. Emphasis is given to the dual concepts of autonomy and accountability. To maintain freedom from government control, charitable organizations must increase their accountability, or continually reinforce public confidence in their performance. As N. S. Fink (1993) argued, at the root of privileges sanctioned by law is the question of whether 501(c)(3) organizations are providing and performing in society's highest interests. He concluded, "The answer is not all that clear" (p. 393).

    Financial measures of accountability are particularly important. As decreed by law, "these entities must affirmatively engage in exempt functions" and their net earnings "may not inure to private individuals" (Hopkins, 1990, p. 209). It is expected, therefore, that organizations will spend most of their money on the program services for which they were granted charitable status. They demonstrate fulfillment of this basic criterion through such measures as low fund-raising cost ratios.

    Chapter 7 provides a primer on accounting basics because accounting principles overlap with those of the law. They also are essential for understanding the three forcesdriving increased regulation: (a) abuses, (b) government's need for revenue, and (c) low accountability by those who control charitable organizations. Issues related to these three forces are presented. For example, excessive salaries, excessive endowments, and unfair competition with for-profit businesses are related to charges of low accountability.

    Spurred by scandals involving private inurement (i.e., personal benefit), the charitable subsector has become the subject of scrutiny and criticism. Organizations that previously were ignored by the media and protected by a halo of their collective "good works" now find themselves defending the very reason for their existence. Elizabeth Dole (cited in G. Williams, 1992a), president of the American Red Cross, explained that for years organizations such as hers largely have been "free of public scrutiny, free to pursue our purposes, our own sense of what the public should want, and free to spend their money according to our own rules, standards, and priorities" (p. 8; italics added). She continued, "Those who survive in this new, more-public world are those who are willing to listen and live up to the expectations of the people who foot the bill" (p. 8).

    A basic requirement for effective fund-raising management is compliance with IRS regulations. An overview of requirements is presented with an emphasis on tax laws introduced in 1994 (e.g., substantiation and quid pro quo rules). Regulations concerning noncash gifts, or gifts of property, and gifts that are not deductible, such as donated services and money spent to buy items at auctions, also are covered.

    Chapter 8 examines the ethical context of fund raising, which has a causal relationship with the legal context. Stated another way, unethical behavior by charitable organizations results in increased regulation. The chapter describes the crisis of credibility currently faced by the subsector and places much of the blame on those organizations that seek financial support without investment -- those looking to get something for nothing. The two means they employ are hiring paid solicitors and entering into joint ventures with for-profit businesses.

    Paid solicitors, or solicitation firms, are defined and differentiated from fund-raising consultants and staff. Using the case of the United Cancer Council (UCC), the argument is made that charitable status does not carry an unequivocal right to survive and that hiring solicitation firms -- which keep the majority of the money raised -- in order to do so is reprehensible and socially irresponsible. The firm hired by UCC, Watson and Hughey, kept as much as 96% of the money given annually for 5 years, amounting to tens of millions of dollars. Research on recent reports by state regulators shows that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the clients of such firms are not new and small organizations with controversial missions, but organizations representing popular causes, many of which are well-known.

    Chapter 8 follows efforts by state regulators to prosecute the Watson and Hughey firm (now renamed Direct Response Consulting Services) for alleged fraud and deception, including the use of sweepstakes mailings. Other solicitation firms, which have proliferated in the last decade, also are discussed, as well as "look-alike" charities that are closely associated with such firms and trade off the names and reputations of established organizations. The unethical and often illegal behavior of solicitation firms and their clients is the target of most efforts to regulate fund raising. Yet, until now, the practice has remained silent, refusing to condemn or disassociate these elements from legitimate fund raising. It can no longer afford to ignore this pressing issue. The chapter then turns to joint ventures, or marketing agreements with for-profit companies, and discusses the four primary types: (a) cause-related marketing; (b) corporate sponsorships; (c) collection canisters, honor boxes, and vending machines; and (d) gambling. The dual purpose of joint ventures is to generate low- or no-cost income for 501(c)(3) organizations and to provide marketing advantages for companies. In exchange for income, charitable organizations authorize the use of their name, mission, logo, and sometimes programs and publics for selling a company's products or services. They also, it is argued, sell their integrity.

    Joint marketing promotions are misleading. The amount of money received by the charitable organization, as compared to what the company gets, often is so little it amounts to deception. For example, such well-known organizations as the American Heart Association and the March of Dimes allow their names to be put on vending machines selling candy or gum. Consumers generally believe they are giving money to the organizations when making a purchase; however, the machines are owned by companies that give the organizations a few pennies of each dollar generated and keep the rest.

    Organizations participating in joint ventures rarely inform consumers that a purchase made in the organization's name is not a gift. Money given through charitable gambling, for example, is not deductible from taxable income as a gift (although gambling losses can be deducted). In 1995, Americans wagered more than $7.6 billion on such games as pull-tabs and bingo, but only $780 million (10%) went to the sponsoring organizations (National Association of Fundraising Ticket Manufacturers, 1996). Government increasingly is interested in regulating these activities and in collecting taxes on the money gained through commercial ventures.

    Paid solicitors and joint ventures have nothing to do with managing relationships with donor publics. Their use promotes unethical practice. N. S. Fink (1993), as have others, called for leadership "to develop a consensus on what is right and what is wrong in the sector" (p. 398). He warned:

    To avoid onerous regulation by government, bad apples need to be routed out of the barrel and exposed before they become national scandals. . . . The commercialism that has seduced many nonprofits into cause-related marketing, agressive direct-mail solicitations, commission fund raising, and inappropriate leveraging of tax-exempt funds has made it difficult to argue for legal incentives to giving or to defend against more regulation. (pp. 398-399)
    In other words, only by adopting a critical voice and standards of ethical practice can fund raising hope to avoid its own undoing through punitive legislation.

    Chapter 8 concludes by examining the predominant use of the press agentry model by the United Way of America (UWA) and its 2,000 local federations. Centralized under the UWA umbrella since 1970, the United Way system has dominated federated workplace fund raising until recently. The organizations constituting the system use emotion, competition, and coercion to propagandize the cause of "giving the United Way." Their press agentry practice has provoked three major charges: (a) manipulation, (b) mainstream beneficiaries, and (c) monopoly. The charges are supported and related to the 1992 UWA scandal when then President William Aramony was forced to resign and later was convicted of fraud. Based on systems theory, the conclusion is reached that unless the United Ways change, they will not long survive. Systems theory is the foundation for the conceptual framework of fund raising presented in chapter 9. Charitable organizations do not exist in isolation, but are part of larger social, economic, and political systems____referred to as environments. Fund raisers serve in a boundary role between their organization and the environment in which the organization succeeds and survives. Included in the environment are those critical constituencies, or stakeholders, that can positively or negatively influence the organization's goals, including individual, corporate, and foundation donors. Fund raising contributes to organizational effectiveness by strategically managing environmental relationships with donors, helping the organization anticipate, adjust, and adapt to changes and opportunities.

    Chapter 9 constructs the theoretical framework of fund raising by meticulously adding conceptual blocks to the foundation of systems theory. To do so, it borrows from such disciplines as management, sociology, psychology, and communication. It links the borrowed theories to time-tested principles of practitioners, thereby demonstrating validity in each step of the construction. By bonding scholarly knowledge with practitioner wisdom, concepts specific to fund raising emerge and are presented for the first time (e.g., the hierarchy of fund-raising effects). The end result of chapter 9 is a unified theory of donor relations that explains fund raising from the techniques it uses to the impact it has on society. The theory of donor relations incorporates fund-raising theories presented in earlier chapters, such as the models and roles, although they are not repeated in chapter 9.

    Illustrating the chapter's method, a principle commonly espoused by practitioners is:

    The larger the expected gift, the more personal the solicitation.
    Theories drawn from communication differentiate techniques by levels of personalization and relate the levels to audience size. Theory predicts that as desired effects increase in difficulty, the probability of obtaining them increases by moving from mass to interpersonal communication. Chapter 9 presents a figure and description of the fund-raising techniques used to raise major and annual gifts, differentiated by three levels of communication: (a) interpersonal, which is direct communication between people; (b) controlled media, which is mediated communication through channels controlled by the organization; and (c) mass media, which is mediated communication through such uncontrolled channels as newspapers, television, and radio. The three levels descend in effectiveness.

    Ideally, fund raisers would use only interpersonal techniques, such as face-to-face conversations and small group meetings; the ideal, however, would require almost unlimited financial and human resources. Practitioners, therefore, reserve interpersonal communication for the relatively small number of major donor prospects and rely on controlled communication techniques, such as direct mail and special events, to communicate with the larger number of prospects for annual gifts. Techniques based on mass communication, such as story placements and public service announcements (PSAs), are the least effective and are best utilized for such purposes as disaster relief. The conceptualization advances our understanding of fund raising by explaining why different techniques are used to raise gifts of different amounts, which previously was missing from the literature. Chapter 9 pays special attention to factors related to donor behavior. It utilizes, for example, coorientation theory, which traces its beginnings to psychological studies about the mutual orientation of two individuals to some object. Public relations scholars have adapted the theory to corporations and publics, and chapter 9 further adapts it to charitable organizations and donor publics. The result is a model that defines giving behavior in the context of an environmental relationship and as a product of donors' views about a fund-raising opportunity and their estimates of the charitable organization's views about the same opportunity.

    A principle handed down from veteran fund raisers is:

    Belief in mission is the strongest reason for giving.
    The societal problem the organization was formed to address, as described in its mission statement (e.g., promoting the arts in a community or helping homeless people), is paramount in fund-raising efforts. Paraphrasing Marshall McLuhan's (cited in Cutlip et al., 1994) famous declaration, the mission is the message. If real estate is dependent on the three factors of location, location, and location, then fund raising is dependent on mission, mission, and mission.

    In addition to belief or interest in the organization's mission, practitioners rely on two other factors to identify donors: closeness or the degree to which prospects are connected to the organization and its work, and ability or capacity to give. The three factors correspond to the three predictor variables in J. E. Grunig's (e.g., Grunig & Repper, 1992) situational theory of publics: (a) problem recognition, (b) level of involvement, and (c) constraint recognition. Based on extensive research, the variables successfully segment stakeholders into four types of publics by the extent to which the members actively or passively communicate about an opportunity and the extent to which they behave in a way that supports or hampers an organization's pursuit of its goals.

    Grunig's theory helps fund raisers identify those prospects with the highest probability of giving. Equally important, it reinforces practitioners' assertions that people who are not involved with the organization, do not care about its mission and program services, and do not have discretionary income or assets to give away, are of no concern to fund-raising efforts (i.e., they constitute a nonpublic).

    The chapter concludes by discussing integrated relationship management, or consolidation of all functions that manage an organization's environmental relationships. Theories from business and management are applied to demonstrate the soundness of consolidation. Quite simply, a charitable organization succeeds and survives depending on how well it manages interdependencies with multiple stakeholders, not just donors. One department is needed, headed by a staff manager who is knowledgeable about and educated in both fund raising and public relations. Currently, the functions are either organized in separate departments or public relations is managed by fund raisers who are ill prepared. The second situation is termed fund-raising encroachment, which is examined in light of three studies on the subject.

    Chapter 9 is the most important chapter in the text; it also is the longest. Without theory, fund raising is relegated to an occupation without scientific explanation, predictable outcomes, or any claim to professionalism. Students tempted to approachthe chapter's subject with disdain are reminded of social psychologist Kurt Lewin's (1951/1975) adage: "There is nothing so practical as a good theory" (p. 169).

    Part III: The Process, Programs, and Publics

    Part III consists of six chapters, one each on the fund-raising process and donor publics, and four on the traditional programs of fund raising: annual giving, major gifts, planned giving, and capital campaigns. The final part of the book starts with chapter 10 on the process of raising gifts. Contrary to conventional wisdom, fund raising is not merely concerned with solicitation; it involves a multistep process that must continually be organized and managed, which requires the full-time attention of specialists. Chapter 10 presents a new conceptualization of the fund-raising process, a step-by-step description grounded in theory. Drawing from and expanding a public relations model, the process of fund raising is identified as ROPES.

    ROPES is the acronym for the five consecutive steps of Research, Objectives, Programming, Evaluation, and Stewardship. Fund raisers first conduct research in three areas: (a) the organization for which they work, (b) the opportunity presented for raising gifts, and (c) the donor publics related to the organization and the opportunity. The last area commonly is referred to as prospect research. Practitioners employ both scientific and unscientific methods to gather essential information before they proceed to the next step of setting objectives that are specific and measurable. The objectives they set -- many of which do not deal with dollars -- flow from the charitable organization's self-determined goals and are shaped by research findings. Programming, the third step, consists of planning and implementing activities that will bring about the outcomes specified in the set objectives. Programming activities are broken down by cultivation and solicitation of donor prospects. The fourth step is evaluation, which includes both process and program evaluation. Stewardship, the fifth step, completes the process and also provides a loop back to its beginning (i.e., fund raising is cyclical due to the tendency of donors to make repeated gifts).

    The fund-raising process is dependent on strategic planning by the organization, an ongoing process in which fund raisers must participate. Basically, fund-raising effectiveness is measured by how well the function helps an organization achieve its overall goals; therefore, organizational goals and strategies must first be in place before the fund-raising department can formulate its own goals and objectives. A principal component of strategic planning is SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats), whereby the organization assesses its internal strengths and weaknesses in juxtaposition to opportunities and threats in the external environment. This management technique is used not only to establish the organization's strategic direction, but also serves at the departmental level for analyzing fund-raising opportunities.

    Chapter 10 guides students through each of the steps in ROPES, pointing out differences in operationalization between the two primary programs of annual giving and major gifts. For example, because annual giving involves a large number of donor prospects, research on the publics requires group analysis, whereas the smaller number of prospects for major gifts allows individual attention. Similarly, fund-raising techniques selected in the programming step differ for the two programs. Care is taken to instruct students on research procedures, formulating output and impact objectives,such planning tools as a decimal system for outlining activities and tasks, evaluation by objectives, and elements of stewardship that must be fulfilled.

    Focusing on the last two steps, chapter 10 presents the case for evaluating fund-raising effectiveness by more than dollar goals. How the function should be evaluated is the third most important issue facing fund raising, following the need to define who is a fund raiser and to reduce misunderstanding about philanthropy. The purpose of fund raising is not to raise indiscriminate dollars, but to contribute to organizational effectiveness. It does so by meeting the objectives it formulated to support the organization's goals. A discussion of gift utility, delay factors in raising major gifts, and three levels of measuring effectiveness -- drawn from the management literature -- clarify the issue. Unfortunately, fund raisers and dominant coalition members currently do not take their stewardship responsibilities seriously, thereby undermining trust in America's charitable organizations. Illustrating, Independent Sector's (IS, 1994) biennial survey of giving and volunteering in the United States found that only 72% of the respondents agree that their gifts to charitable organizations are put to an appropriate use. In 1990, 80% agreed, representing an 8% decline in donor confidence during the early 1990s. Yet, as IS stressed, "Over the survey years, the belief that donations are used appropriately has [had] the highest association with increased rates of giving and volunteering" (p. 58). H. W. Smith (1993) warned, "`Stewardship' is not an empty concept; the recipients of charitable funds are in effect the stewards of those funds and are expected to use them in ways that accord with the goals of those who provide them" (p. 227). The ROPES process ensures that fund raising is carried out effectively; it also promotes ethical behavior.

    Chapters 11 through 14 deal with the four programs traditionally used to raise gifts. The programs are categorized by the size of the gifts they generate: lower level or major. Dollar amounts defining the two gift types differ among organizations. Whereas such organizations as universities and hospitals typically use $100,000 as the criterion, this book -- in order to be inclusive -- defines major gifts as those of $10,000 or more and lower level gifts as all gifts below $10,000. Regardless of dollar amount, lower level gifts are raised through the annual giving program, and major gifts are raised through the major gifts program. Major gifts also are raised through planned giving, and both lower level and major gifts are raised through capital campaigns, withan emphasis on the second type. Planned giving and capital campaigns actually are strategies for raising major gifts.

    Chapter 11 is on annual giving, often described as the bread-and-butter program of fund raising because it generates annual income that helps pay the organization's operational expenses. Annual gifts are synonymous with lower level gifts; they usually are unrestricted in purpose, meaning they can be used where most needed as determined by the organization's managers after receipt. In contrast, major gifts almost always are restricted and must be used for the specific purposes for which they were given, determined in advance of receipt. Annual gifts usually are made from donors' income, whereas outright major gifts are made from donors' income and assets, and planned major gifts typically come only from donors' assets. As operational expenses are reoccurring, the annual giving program is repeated each year, unlike the major gifts program and planned giving, which are ongoing, and capital campaigns, which are sporadic.

    Chapter 11 begins by discussing three subjects of relevance to all programs: (a) the role of volunteers, (b) the principle of proportionate giving, and (c) different forms of gifts. Briefly, there has been confusion over the role of volunteers in fund raising because consultants -- who do not solicit or handle gifts and, therefore, depend on others to do so -- inappropriately refer to paid employees such as the CEO as volunteers. Furthermore, numerous volunteers who help the organization deliver its program services are essential to the charitable subsector, but fund raising relies on only a small number of volunteers, such as trustees. The principle of proportionate giving, based on our society's unequal distribution of wealth, holds that the majority of money will come from a minority of donors -- both among programs and within. For any given organization, the major gifts program will account for the vast majority of dollars raised and only a relatively few gifts will account for most of that money. The principle has been affirmed through decades of practitioners' experience, and fund raisers abide by it when planning programming to meet solicitation objectives. Different forms of gifts are explained, including procedures for handling them. Gifts are grouped into cash, pledges, securities, real property, and personal property.

    Chapter 11 continues by examining elements of the annual giving program, such as gift clubs, challenge grants, and corporate matching gifts. Also common are special projects, whereby donors are asked for restricted gifts. Practitioners acknowledge that people are more likely to give and to give higher amounts when the requested gift is for a specific purpose rather than for general operating needs. By breaking down operational expenses into fund-raising opportunities, both restricted and unrestricted options can be offered to donors -- a move that will better meet their needs and still provide the necessary financial support for the organization.

    The techniques used most heavily in annual giving are discussed, specifically, direct mail and special events. To communicate with the 10% of prospective donors who will provide 60% or more of the dollars raised through annual giving, the combination of a personal letter and a follow-up telephone call is recommended and described in detail. Chapter 11 ends by touching on the growing impact of new technologies, a subject raised in other chapters as well. The Internet promises to make communication with donors more two-way, and fund raisers must be prepared for the dialogue that will result. The major gifts program is directed at the small portion of individuals, corporations, and foundations that own most of the wealth in the United States -- prospects with the capacity to give $10,000 or more. As explained by theory, however, capacity, or the absence of financial constraints, is only part of the equation when identifying viable prospects. Virtually every major donor has a long-standing, carefully nurtured relationship with the recipient organization and the people who represent it. In almost all cases, major donors have made previous gifts to the organization. Students are advised against following the example of Beloit College in Wisconsin, which -- in 1982 -- ran advertisements in The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times asking for a benefactor willing to invest $1 million in the college (Bergan, 1992). According to its president, inquiries were received from five possible donors; regardless, no gift ever was announced.

    Chapter 12 presents a sample of the largest gifts made, emphasizing the relationship between donor and organizational recipient and the fact that mission largely determines gift size. Colleges, universities, and hospitals attract the largest gifts, followed by arts, culture, and humanities organizations, and independent schools. Whereas annual gifts directly increase the organization's spendable income, major gifts generally increase its assets: physical plant, equipment, reserves, and endowment. Endowments consist of multiple, separate funds established in perpetuity. Cash from gifts is invested to generate annual income, not all of which is spent; a portion is returned to the principal as a hedge against inflation. Because major gifts most often are made for endowed purposes, chapter 12 carefully explains the somewhat complicated financing such gifts entail (e.g., income is not available until 1 year after the gift is made).

    Because major gifts usually are restricted, often with multiple conditions, negotiation is an inherent part of raising such gifts. Yet negotiation rarely is mentioned in the literature and only occasionally taught in professional development offerings. Chapter 12 rectifies the problem by introducing students to the principles of effective negotiation, drawn from the work of business educators and professional negotiators. Negotiation can be narrowed to two schools of thought: positional bargaining, in which each side takes a position, argues for it, and in a back-and-forth fashion works toward a compromise, and principled negotiation, in which the two parties look beyond position and concentrate on each other's interests, invent options for mutual gain, and strive to preserve the relationship (R. Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 1991). If the parties are involved in a one-time relationship that is not likely to be repeated (e.g., bargaining with a street vendor), positional bargaining is quick, efficient, and appropriate. If, however, the relationship is valued by the parties, the extra effort of principled negotiation is required. Principled negotiation allows fund raisers to think in symmetrical terms, adopting win-win strategies from the inception of the problem-solving process to its conclusion.

    Personal attention in cultivating and soliciting prospects is critical in the major gifts program. A working model of moves management, a system refined by Cornell University, is described. Moves management focuses on planning and implementing regular interactions with prospects (i.e., it concentrates on cultivation). A scenario of an in-person solicitation is presented step by step to familiarize students with the techniques, actors, and dynamics involved. Chapter 12 concludes by discussing yet another subject rarely mentioned in the literature: sexual harassment. To effectively manage the organization's relationships with prospects for major gifts, fund raisers must develop their own professional relationship with the gift source. This relationship sometimes is misinterpreted or exploited, particularly when the prospect is a man and the fund raiser is a younger woman. Sexual harassment can interfere with work performance and impair productivity. Above all, it is illegal. Fund raising is not a form of prostitution; no gift is worth anyone being harassed.

    The discussion of major gifts continues in chapters 13 and 14, which examine planned giving and capital campaigns, respectively. Although both are strategies to raise major gifts, they represent diametrically different approaches. Planned giving is based on symmetrical presuppositions and two-way communication; it presents an unprecedented opportunity for growth. Capital campaigns, on the other hand, evolved from the press agentry model of practice with asymmetrical presuppositions; their continued use is questionable.

    Planned giving is the managed effort by charitable organizations to generate gifts of assets from individuals through the use of estate and financial planning vehicles. Whereas other fund-raising programs are directed at all three donor publics, planned giving is concerned solely with individual donors. It previously was called deferred giving because financial benefits for the recipient organization usually are postponed until years after the donor makes the gift, typically after he or she dies.

    Chapter 13 describes the largest transfer of wealth in the nation's history now underway. A staggering $10 trillion is expected to pass from one generation to the next during the coming 50 years (E. Greene, S. G. Greene, & Moore, 1993). Although people rightfully allocate most of their estates to family members, many --particularly those without surviving relatives -- give some of their assets to charitable organizations. Planned gifts are sure to increase in the years ahead, and future fund raisers are advised to learn about this alternative to outright giving.

    All practitioners are capable of raising planned gifts, contrary to much of the literature that extols the strategy as a highly complex area reserved for specialists trained in tax laws and finance. Three arguments are presented to refute the conventional wisdom. First, skills in relationship management, not in taxes and finance, are the necessary qualifications. Practitioner Michael Luck (1990) agreed: "If you are interested in leadership gifts, do not hire directors of deferred or planned gifts -- hire directors of major gifts. You are asking potential givers to do great things, whether it be now, later or both. A major gift is a major gift regardless of its immediacy" (p. 31). Second, the estate and financial planning vehicle most commonly used also is the easiest one to understand, the charitable bequest. Consultant Fisher Howe (1991) affirmed, "Because a bequest is the simplest form of planned giving, an organization can begin without delay to encourage selected members of the support constituency to make provision for the organization in their wills" (p. 70). Third, lawyers, accountants, and financial planners -- not fund raisers -- handle and execute the technicalities of complex vehicles. Experts representing the organization's interests and those representing the donor's interests are active and advocated participants.

    All planned giving vehicles are grouped into just three categories: (a) charitable bequests, (b) life income agreements, and (c) other vehicles. Life income agree-ments____as their name indicates____provide donors with income, usually until they die, from assets earlier transferred to a charitable organization that benefits from the remainder of the gift. Life income agreements consist of three primary vehicles: (a) the charitable remainder trust, (b) charitable gift annuity, and (c) pooled income fund. Other vehicles, which do not fit in the first two categories, include the charitable lead trust, remainder interest in a home or farm, and life insurance. Chapter 13 explains each vehicle in detail.

    A critical issue in understanding planned gifts is the difference between face value and charitable remainder value. For example, because gifts made through life income agreements are encumbered for the term of the agreement in order to produce income for the donor and/or other individuals named income beneficiaries, funds are not available for use by the recipient organization until years after the gift is made. The charitable remainder, or the portion actually benefiting the organization, is substantially less than the value of the original gift, its face value. The difference, experts claim, usually is 50% (Moran, 1991). Fund raisers traditionally and wrongly have reported nonbequest gifts at their face value, knowing full well that their organizations actually will receive much less.

    Reform recently was introduced by CASE (1994) as part of its new management and reporting standards for capital campaigns, which then became the basis for new reporting standards beyond campaigns (CASE, 1996). The standards dealing with planned giving require adoption of present value discounting, which promises to dramatically decrease reported fund-raising results. Counting the face value of planned gifts enables trustees, senior managers, and fund raisers to unethically inflate dollar totals, which also is a weakness of capital campaigns, the subject of chapter 14.

    Capital campaigns are a strategy sporadically employed by charitable organizations to raise more money than usual in a fixed period of time. They were "invented" in 1902 by Charles Sumner Ward and Lyman Pierce, founders of the YMCA school of fund raisers and the leading historical figures of the press agentry model. Capital campaigns originally were used to raise gifts for physical capital needs, such as buildings. By the 1950s, financial capital, or endowment, needs had been added to their purpose. Starting in the 1970s, campaigns expanded to include all purposes for which gifts are made, thereby encompassing annual giving, major gifts, and planned giving programs. Dollar goals increased as purposes and programs were added. Today, campaigns termed comprehensive rather than capital have the largest goals. Because they count every dollar raised during the campaign period, only about 25% of their goals represents new money; 75% would have been raised through the other programs without a campaign.

    The evolution of capital campaigns is closely tied to the evolution of fund raising. The campaign strategy, with definitive beginning and end dates, was formed by the needs of consultants, the first fund raisers, whose primary service until the 1970s was providing full-time resident managers for a campaign's duration -- after which they would move on to another organization's campaign. As increasing numbers of staff practitioners were employed, consultants changed their services from primarily full-time resident management to part-time campaign consulting. Their livelihood, however, remains dependent on campaigns, and they market them in favor of continuous programming. Based on evidence presented, chapter 14 concludes that capital cam-paigns are an artifact of fund raising's earlier eras and are no longer necessary or desirable.

    Chapter 14 scrutinizes characteristics of campaigns, including feasibility studies, usage of volunteers, and committee reporting meetings. Feasibility studies, for example, are conducted by consultants to determine the likelihood that a proposed campaign can be successfully completed and a dollar goal reached. The fund-raising literature is adamant that the research be done by consultants because of their objectivity. Howe (1991) illustrated: "To be valid, a feasibility study must be made by an outsider. Survey respondents will speak candidly, if at all, only to a professional outsider who establishes confidence and guarantees confidentiality" (p. 61). Paradoxically, the literature is silent about the self-interests of consultants, who in most cases are retained as part-time counsel for the campaigns they recommend. Furthermore, supposedly confidential information sometimes is used to formulate plans for soliciting specific prospects.

    Contrary to popular belief, campaigns are not very effective. Their fundamental purpose is to maximize income, not manage interdependent relationships with donors. Focusing solely on income, campaigns rely on smoke-and-mirror accounting for their success. Only a small portion of their goals represents new, or unique, money. Many campaigns fail, and even organizations that reach dollar goals often find themselves facing a deficit or unable to fund announced needs, termed featured objectives. As Luck (1990) asserted, "Few capital campaigns have achieved both the monetary and need targets. . . . Everyone brags about philanthropic achievement in terms of money raised but rarely do they mention that they missed the mark for funding several defined programmatic needs" (p. 32). Planned gifts, which will not benefit the organization for an average of 20 years, account for much of the money raised, often as great as half the campaign total. The problem is compounded by the traditional practice of reporting nonbequest gifts at their face value, or about 50% more than their worth to the organization. Campaigns commonly include government, or public, funds in their private support totals, distort the value of art and real estate, and count gifts twice by reporting pledges in one campaign and again as cash gifts in the next. Totals also are artificially inflated by extending the length of campaigns to 9 or even 20 years!

    Chapter 14 assesses current practice in light of CASE's (1994) new management and reporting standards, which -- among other reforms -- instructs fund raisers to separate planned gifts from outright gifts and report the former at both face and discounted present values in reports to CASE and to trustees. The impact of the standards will be to deflate campaign goals and announced results. Although the standards apply only to educational organizations and adherence is not a requirement of CASE membership, it is predicted that the dissemination of valid statistics -- which CASE started at the end of 1996 -- will alert donors and other stakeholders to deceptive practices and document the ineffectiveness of campaigns. Chapter 14 recommends the continuing major gifts program as an alternative to the historical model. Luck (1990) concurred: "Established long-range development programs make better sense than a series or `string' of three- to five-year campaigns which rarely achieve all the goals set at the beginning of the campaign" (p. 32).

    Chapter 15, the final chapter of the book, examines the three sources of gifts, or donor publics: individuals, corporations, and foundations. There are approximately37,600 active U.S. foundations, which collectively account for 8% of all gift dollars (Renz, Lawrence, & Treiber, 1995). They consist of four types: (a) independent, (b) corporate, (c) community, and (d) operating. Independent foundations are by far the largest group, accounting for 88% of the total number, 86% of the assets, and 78% of the annual dollars. Chapter 15 describes independent, corporate, and community foundations in detail, excluding operating foundations because they are not viable prospects for fund raising (i.e., they operate their own program services). The historical development of each type is traced, and operational differences are pointed out. For example, independent and corporate foundations are required by law to give away an amount equal to 5% of their assets each year, whereas community foundations are exempted from this requirement. Community foundations raise gifts as well as make grants. Unlike the other types, therefore, they employ fund raisers. A commonality among all three types is that a small number account for the majority of grant dollars. Illustrating, only about 1% of all independent foundations, or roughly the top 400, give 55% of the dollars.

    Foundations, as is true of all major donors, are basically conservative in their giving. Education traditionally receives the largest share of grant dollars. Close to one third of both grants and dollars represent renewed gifts, and almost 90% of all dollars are restricted in purpose. Relationships with foundations, as with corporations and individuals, can best be understood as environmental interdependencies. Whereas the dependency of charitable organizations on donors is widely and often inaccurately portrayed in the literature, much less is said about the dependency of donors on charitable organizations. Foundations, for example, would cease to exist without charitable organizations (i.e., there would be no reason to grant them tax-exempt status or gift deductibility for their donors). As with all donor publics, foundations do not give for the sake of giving; rather mixed motives direct their grants to specific interests that may or may not coincide with those of an organization. Fund raisers manage foundation relations effectively when they identify overlapping interests and needs. Greenfield (1991) explained, "The best time to ask any foundations or corporations for money is when a special project is planned that is matched to their current priorities" (p. 123).

    A widespread misunderstanding about corporations is that their giving -- moreso than giving by foundations or individuals -- is motivated by self-interest. Chapter 15 eradicates this fallacy by conceptualizing a continuum of motivation to explain the mixed motives of corporate philanthropy. Points along the continuum are encompassed under the rubric of enlightened self-interest, although the term generally refers to a balanced, or center, position. The benefits corporate donors seek from their relationships with charitable organizations are grouped into five categories: (a) marketing, (b) tax savings, (c) social currency, (d) public relations, and (e) social responsibility. Emphasis on the benefits they expect shifts their position along the continuum, with apparent differences over time and among specific companies.

    Although some businesses currently emphasize short-term marketing benefits, recent research shows that major corporate donors still seek benefits from all five categories, but -- in contrast to the past -- they demand measurable results from their giving, quantified and documented by recipients. Chapter 15 traces the evolution of corporate philanthropy from a passive, scattergun activity to strategically managedprograms with set objectives. Today, contributions must generate outcomes that support the corporation's objectives -- requirements similar to those imposed by foundations. According to H. W. Smith (1993), the modern approach to corporate philanthropy "begins with the view that corporations exist primarily for the purpose of making money for their shareholders and that any money given to charity must bear some relationship to the interests of a company and its shareholders" (p. 220). A greater degree of accountability is called for; specifically, fund raisers must pay more attention to stewardship. Corporate donors complain that they do not receive enough appreciation and recognition for their gifts, and reporting on what gifts accomplished is less than acceptable. In short, unsatisfactory performance on the part of charitable organizations has contributed to charges that corporate giving is motivated by self-interest.

    Chapter 15 points out further commonalities between corporations and the other two donor publics. Only a few, or less than 0.01% of all 6 million U.S. companies, contribute most of the dollars (Doty, 1994; U.S. Small Business Administration, 1995). Corporations are conservative in their giving, and education is the favored recipient. Corporations are dependent on charitable organizations. At the society level, companies depend on gifts to protect our capitalistic system and avoid big government. On the community level, nonprofits are critical partners in building local economies in terms of employment, services, and quality of life.

    Regarding the last and most important of the three donor publics, individuals account for almost 90% of all gift dollars (American Association of Fund-Raising Counsel Trust for Philanthropy, 1997b), and there are about 170 million adults in the United States with diverse interests in charitable organizations. Just 400 of the wealthiest Americans have combined assets greater than all U.S. foundations. As with the other sources, a minority of individuals provide the majority of gift dollars. Only about one fourth of all U.S. households itemize deductions on their federal income tax returns and deduct charitable contributions, yet they give two thirds of all dollars from living individuals (IS, 1994).

    Unlike foundations and corporations, the favored recipient of individuals is religion. However, religious organizations receive the biggest share of their gifts from individuals who make less than $40,000 per year, whereas wealthy individuals tend to give to other types of organizations, such as education. Individuals who are major donors are conservative in their giving, perpetuating the status quo from which they obtained their wealth.

    Chapter 15 dissects patterns of individual giving to demonstrate that individuals give for altruistic reasons and also seek benefits in return. Members of religious congregations, for example, make gifts to their churches or temples partly for the direct benefits they receive as members (e.g., the employed services of a minister and a building in which to worship). Individuals, then, are dependent on charitable organizations. Due to the interdependency of all three donor publics, fund raisers have no need to apologize for requesting gifts from well-researched prospects. Philanthropy provides donors with a way to put their beliefs into action, beyond what they can express through the ballot box and the marketplace.

    As do their counterparts, individuals have objectives they wish to accomplish with their giving. And increasingly they demand greater accountability. J. Michael Cook(cited in Dundjerski, 1995), CEO of the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche and head of UWA's strategic planning committee, declared, "People these days don't just give you money and say, `Here it is and go do some good.' There is an increasing expectation of impact, of accountability, measurement, and demonstrated results" (p. 28).

    Chapter 15 ends with a discussion about the growing concentration of wealth in our country and concludes that fund raisers must make special efforts to ensure that their organization's donors are inclusive of people from across the economic spectrum. Widespread support is necessary to protect the well-being of the charitable subsector, which -- in turn -- promotes the pluralism undergirding our democratic society. Effective fund-raising management, students are urged to remember, goes beyond raising dollars.