CAP wants more of my money

[Eclipse]

The UQ was sold as being important to opening the doors to donors who require such things.

Why don't we just dip into those funds?

[MisterCD]

Charity begins at home, if NHQ is serious about raising money than do it from external sources, stop trying to take money from the local units where the work gets done.  Maybe cut costs like mailing solicitations to members and cut paid staff.  95 - 98 percent of all staff for the American Red Cross are volunteers, they are a lot bigger and work far larger incidents then we do on a day to day basis.

I don't think the paid staff could be cut any more.  As it is, they barely keep their head above water.

Much of that is the fact that the paid staff refuse help from volunteers.

I'm sorry, but spending a good three to four hours practically every night answering forwarded emailed from NHQ regarding CAP history or managing the Congressional Gold Medal database, this comment of paid staff "refusing helping from volunteers" is rather obtuse.

[NIN]

I thought Wing Banker was going to solve CAP's financial woes by giving the corporation an unqualified audit opinion.

Now NHQ wants to be in my will.

Well, thats like saying "I have oranges.  And a Saturn V." 

An unqualified audit relates to an organization's ability to seek donations from donors who require that (as Eclipse said). 

That does not automagically mean that those donors just "unleash the money."

There is a multi-tiered, multi-level approach to development.

Yes, a donor (especially at the multi-five- or multi-six-figure levels) wants to know that your organization is financially "together" enough that it gets an unqualified audit.  Thats just one check box.  They want to be assured that the money they donate either locally or nationally won't "leak out on the floor" so to speak. 

Beyond that, however, big ticket donors are looking for overhead rates, national or regional impact, the level of "skin in the game" that the membership has, etc. 

Then things like the demographical (I think thats not a word.. I just made it up, and Chrome's spell checker is not happy about it.. LOL) make up of an organization comes into play, too, when speaking to certain donors.   Not every donor says "Here's $10M. Have a ball. We don't care if you spend it on pizza or buildings or flying time for old white guys who don't need it."  Many foundations or other grantors have boards that they have to answer to, that want to see their philanthropic money spent in a particular and positive way.   

No, in the development world, often, money contributed by a donor has strings attached to it. Lots of strings:

"I, the great-grandson of Carl Spaatz, do hereby bequeath my entire fortune and that of the Spaatz family to the Civil Air Patrol for the following purposes:

Flight Scholarships in Grandpa Tooey's name. To be used for minority cadets who want to learn how to fly, who are in the 9th percentile in family income, living in Rust Belt cities above the 38th parallel, within 3 miles of an airfield with runways 3000 ft or longer, and will only be awarded in even numbered years that are divisible by 9.

Squadron Buildings. For cadet squadrons located on airports more than 350 nautical miles from the nearest active USAF base.  A condition for taking a building funded under this codicil is that the squadron must be renamed the 'Carl Spaatz is Awesome Cadet Squadron' in perpetuity. Otherwise the building's lease reverts to the Boys and Girls Club.

Etc, etc""

Then you have in-kind grantors and donors (ie. Cessna, Aeroshell, etc). And you do a membership appeal.  And you do an "audience" appeal, etc.

I think I'm with Fred on this: Opting out of your own organizations needs/attempts to fundraise for programs is like saying "I only want to do the cool things. If it looks like work, have a cadet someone else do it."

[Eclipse]

I'm sorry, but spending a good three to four hours practically every night answering forwarded emailed from NHQ regarding CAP history or managing the Congressional Gold Medal database, this comment of paid staff "refusing helping from volunteers" is rather obtuse.

You should have more staff.

[SunDog]

Hi Nin - no outrage here just because they ask; understand they aren't mind readers. We can just "pass", no harm done.  How's the response been? Is it about average, per development efforts? Better? Worse?

If average or better, great! If worse, anyone figuring out why? That answer would be worth some $$$ to pursue.  My intuition is it's worse, but I am often wrong. . .

Shouldn't be too tough to convince potential donors we have skin in the game - membership count at $60 per annum, and some numbers on DA support hours, flying hours, cadet accomplisments, etc., should help.

My knee-jerk is my limited contributions are better directed locally - not seeing a compelling reason to move it up to NHQ, then hope it comes back down.  What's NHQ gonna do with it that my sqdn couldn't, other than minor influence to a big $$$ donor that we do have skin in the game?

[Simplex]

My letter came a few days ago about the same time I got the flyer for the upcoming Regional Staff College. The cost to attend, plus housing (base housing is unavailable) travel expenses, etc., all boils down to something someone told me early on in my CAP experience. That is CAP = Come And Pay!

[MisterCD]

I'm sorry, but spending a good three to four hours practically every night answering forwarded emailed from NHQ regarding CAP history or managing the Congressional Gold Medal database, this comment of paid staff "refusing helping from volunteers" is rather obtuse.

You should have more staff.

Which is why I revised the history staff to have nine positions plus additional assistants. Some things cannot involve too many staffers for PII concerns, nor can I have someone to handle my correspondence except myself.

[Eclipse]

What in the historian's realm could have PII concerns?

If you have an issue with commingling personal and CAP business, use your CAP email for CAP business and nothing else.

[Ed Bos]

I think I'm with Fred on this: Opting out of your own organizations needs/attempts to fundraise for programs is like saying "I only want to do the cool things. If it looks like work, have a cadet someone else do it."

Concur. I raise funds as a major component of my job, and there's nothing wrong with asking the folks that benefit from their affiliation with an organization to give if they choose to.

[LSThiker]

What in the historian's realm could have PII concerns?

If you have an issue with commingling personal and CAP business, use your CAP email for CAP business and nothing else.

Well, personal/personnel records, financial records, corporate records.  It is possible for a historian to come into PII. 

[NIN]

What in the historian's realm could have PII concerns?

If you have an issue with commingling personal and CAP business, use your CAP email for CAP business and nothing else.

Well, personal/personnel records, financial records, corporate records.  It is possible for a historian to come into PII.

Yeah, I have old CAP Personnel Authorizations in my personal records that have un-redacted SSNs on them.  Thats PII enough...

[NIN]

Hi Nin - no outrage here just because they ask; understand they aren't mind readers. We can just "pass", no harm done.  How's the response been? Is it about average, per development efforts? Better? Worse?

If average or better, great! If worse, anyone figuring out why? That answer would be worth some $$$ to pursue.  My intuition is it's worse, but I am often wrong. . .

Shouldn't be too tough to convince potential donors we have skin in the game - membership count at $60 per annum, and some numbers on DA support hours, flying hours, cadet accomplisments, etc., should help.

My knee-jerk is my limited contributions are better directed locally - not seeing a compelling reason to move it up to NHQ, then hope it comes back down.  What's NHQ gonna do with it that my sqdn couldn't, other than minor influence to a big $$$ donor that we do have skin in the game?

Essentially, I don't think you're wrong.

(Mind you: I am not a development expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once.  My knowledge of development comes from 4 years working in IT in higher ed, having developed a pretty good relationship with the Institutional Advancement people at the college, and having lots of interesting discussions about fundraising with them, usually with an eyeball toward how I could learn and apply that to CAP)

Development is one of those things that, like flying a plane, requires constant monitoring of the instruments, adjustments to the approach, and sometimes deviations to the flight path based on conditions.

You don't shotgun out letters, sit back and wait for the dollars to start rolling in, and never change a thing.    You fine tune, adjust the message, etc.   There is no "one approach" but rather multiple approaches, multiple campaigns, etc.   (In a lot of ways, it is like recruiting!)

Membership appeals are just one aspect of a multi-pronged program if you're doing it right. Of course, those of us who have been around for awhile remember a prior "Chief Advancement Officer" that pretty much was a one-trick pony. I think we know how well that worked out.

(and I have to assume that Dr. Dotherow knows what he's doing, even if he's relatively new to CAP, Inc. Down here where the rubber meets the road, it may not be obvious exactly how broad and deep his development efforts are. All we see are the appeals to the membership.  There may be hundreds of letters going out to foundations, corporate donors, etc.   Its usually only when those efforts pay off that you actually hear about them.  I don't know the percentages in non-profit development, but I would not be surprised if you told me that for every corporate donation we get, there are probably 20 donation requests that get turned down)

[Alaric]

I think I'm with Fred on this: Opting out of your own organizations needs/attempts to fundraise for programs is like saying "I only want to do the cool things. If it looks like work, have a cadet someone else do it."

Concur. I raise funds as a major component of my job, and there's nothing wrong with asking the folks that benefit from their affiliation with an organization to give if they choose to.

I disagree, I donate money and time locally, where the work gets done, if NHQ wants money, let them get it from outside sources rather than diverting from the local units

[jimmydeanno]

I think I'm with Fred on this: Opting out of your own organizations needs/attempts to fundraise for programs is like saying "I only want to do the cool things. If it looks like work, have a cadet someone else do it."

Concur. I raise funds as a major component of my job, and there's nothing wrong with asking the folks that benefit from their affiliation with an organization to give if they choose to.

I disagree, I donate money and time locally, where the work gets done, if NHQ wants money, let them get it from outside sources rather than diverting from the local units

They haven't diverted anything.  Either you gave your money to the local unit or you didn't.  If you didn't, then you sending NHQ a check didn't take anything away from your local unit.  If your local unit isn't asking its members for contributions to scholarship funds, etc., then there isn't anything to contribute to that NHQ is "diverting" money from.

[abdsp51]

Got the same letter and it promptly went into the trash.

[Ed Bos]

I disagree, I donate money and time locally, where the work gets done, if NHQ wants money, let them get it from outside sources rather than diverting from the local units

I reject your premise that we're discussing a "zero sum game." If you're tapped out after giving at the local level, that's great, and thank you for your financial contribution in addition to your commitment of time and talent.

Not everyone is without means to give to their local unit as well as support a program of national scope, like the scholarship and endowment outlined in the letter.

[PA Guy]

^^^^^^^^
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[TSEEKER]

Well with a full timer in that position, surely they would be looking for 5 to 8 times his salary for money coming in.  If you are in development and you aren't doing that than you won't be in development.  I think most members locally in squadrons are supporting their respective units and likely will continue.  Perhaps it doesn't hurt to try something on a national scale, BUT realistically it should be external to the organization.  Getting "in kind" donations versus monetary can also help.   Likely those Aerospace grants were written by the aerospace section and not the development person, but I could be wrong.
JH 

[Eclipse]

"Ways to Better Protect Your Kids"

That's the subject of the message I received today.  NHQ is now in the estate planning and advice business.

[JeffDG]

"Ways to Better Protect Your Kids"

That's the subject of the message I received today.  NHQ is now in the estate planning and advice business.

And the best way to "protect your kids" is to make a bequest to CAP I bet...