news & articles

Halpin is pleased to announce the addition of Will Spinks to its team of Consulting Fellows.

A senior-level leader in higher education, Will joined the University of Manchester as Registrar, Secretary and Chief Operating Officer in June 2011. After retiring from his full-time post in September 2017, he was appointed as an Associate Vice President acting as an advisor to the Senior Leadership Team.

Will Spinks

Prior to joining Manchester, Will was the first Chief Operating Officer of Loughborough University. Here he was responsible for all the service functions and the commercial activities of the University. In addition, he chaired and served on the Board of wholly owned subsidiary companies and the Manufacturing Technology Centre.

Will said, "I am delighted to be joining the team of highly experienced Consulting Fellows at Halpin and look forward to working with colleagues in the sector to help them meet the challenges they face."

Joint CEO Susie Hills commented, “Attracting someone of Will’s calibre is exciting news for Halpin. Will’s addition to our team of Fellows will bring great benefit to our clients, and we are looking forward to working with him.”

Read Will’s full biography here.

Prospect Research is now one of the fastest growing professions in fundraising. It grew from traditional desk based research, such as profiling potential donors and their gift potential, to prospect management, the process of monitoring a fundraising pipeline, and now sophisticated data analytics and due diligence.

The profession came under public scrutiny in 2016 when the ICO fined a number of big named charities for conducting ‘wealth screenings’ without being transparent enough. This tackle was played out under the shadow of GDPR’s arrival, which served to harden the ICOs stance - appearing at one point that prospect research might be snuffed out of existence forever!

This forced the sector as a whole to reflect deeply on the value that prospect research brings. In 2017 we saw a flurry of reactionary studies commissioned by the Institute of Fundraising that aimed to rescue prospect research from the ICOs unwittingly lethal misconceptions. Thankfully the mission was successful, and the necessity and legality of research practices was publically confirmed.

A welcome by-product of this exchange was that it served to highlight anew the value research professionals themselves bring to charities. Amanda Bringans, Director of Fundraising at The British Heart Foundation, during a Plenary at the Researchers in Fundraising Conference 2017, shared how GDPR and the ICOs dealings brought to her attention the researchers in her organisation like never before as, ‘unsung heroes’.

Yet despite the recent attention, it is demonstrably true that researchers do not share the limelight that other fundraising professionals do. Research based talks rarely if ever appear at the top fundraising conferences such as CASE Europe or IOF’s Fundraising Convention. Indeed, at IOF’s Fundraising Convention 2018, a three-day conference positioned to cover all aspects of fundraising, only 1 session related to the research sector, out of 90! Further, the National Fundraising Awards have no award related to the research profession but there are for Individual Giving, Events, Digital, Legacy, Donor Experience and more. Of course, there are specialist conferences that research professionals can frequent, yet there are for all of the above too.

Not only do researchers miss out on the limelight in this way but more intriguingly research is historically not a career path that leads to becoming a Head of or Director of Fundraising. Why? Is it because the profession is seen as young and has not yet asserted itself fully? Is it because researchers do not like to be ‘front and centre’? Or is it because researchers are not actually considered fundraisers? If you were to ask a researcher why, the latter is the likely answer they will give - a frequent rejoinder they incredulously recount.

The idea of researchers becoming Directors of Fundraising may raise all kinds of interesting questions about fundraising leadership. Should you have made any kind of funding ask to be a Head or Director of Fundraising? Can one lead a ‘face-to-face’ fundraising team if their predominant background is desk based? Can one know fundraising simply through monitoring it? Put simply, can researchers make good fundraising leaders and are we missing a trick by not readily considering them?

To answer this question we might first allow ourselves to agree on three basic qualities of a fundraising leader ought, at the very least, to embody; 1), sound interpersonal skills, 2), good decision-making and 3), a comprehensive understanding of fundraising.

When considering the first, Chris Carnie, one of the original prospect researchers in the UK who founded Researchers in Fundraising SIG over 25 years ago, and Founding Director of Factary, shared, ‘With permission to generalise, there is this stereotype of the researcher being a recluse, with thick glasses and a sharpened pencil.’ The notion here was that researchers are not traditionally considered to represent the interpersonal skills required for leadership, and this can hold back their professional growth. Chris goes on, ‘However, there is no evidence for this. In fact researchers have to be incredibly socially adept. Part of their role is to monitor pipelines and ‘sell’ prospects to fundraising teams, they have to do an awful lot of negotiating and pitching.’

In terms of the second, good decision-making, researchers are trained in data-led decision making - to prioritise information over intuition. Presumably, this can’t be a bad thing. When one looks at specific examples of how data-led strategies have benefited fundraising performance one repeatedly encounters some impressive stats. For example, The University of Bristol’s regular giving program jumped from £96,000 to £380,000 in one year when a data analytics program began for the first time. The income went on to go up steadily year after year through repeated data analysis until it now brings in circa £1m annually (University of Bristol, Presentation on Analytics, CASE Europe, Brussels, 2016). One would assume therefore that a researcher in a leadership position is able to utilize their training in this area, seeking and making sound decisions upon the information available.

Lastly, a comprehensive understanding of fundraising, may unexpectedly be the researchers strongest USP. Under inspection, the researchers role is to build, feed and closely monitor fundraising pipelines - from Trust & Foundations, regular giving, major giving, legacy and more. Within this, they report on & design KPI’s whilst researching individual & organisational philanthropic inclinations in depth. They even monitor individual fundraiser portfolios and encounter again and again which ask strategies are working and which are not. They put together sophisticated analytics that predict who will give, and map professional networks across vast seas of prospects. They also know where to find critical information, from the spooky to the most technical. The researcher role therefore, affords a unique and in-depth overview of fundraising like no other role in the sector! Contrast this experience with a fundraiser who may have worked their way up to Director level via one or two channels of fundraising alone, such as corporate or major giving. Who might be better prepared to now guide and manage all the other different channels newly reporting into them?

The burning criticism, which may be levied against the ‘researcher-leader’, is obvious but potent - that one cannot learn nor replace the intuition learned over years of actual face-to-face fundraising. For example, it is easy to understand how a successful major gift fundraiser may build an intuitive knowledge of who is ready to give and who is not. They may be able to read the subtle cues of a social occasion or the odd turn of phrase in an email that only their years of on-the-ground experience can provide. If that intuition were lost to senior management, it may mean that frontline fundraisers will not receive the one on one guidance they need from their leader to excel.

Whatever we think about the power of intuition in fundraising leadership, the point here is that the leader ought to be able to give sound one-to-one advice and support. Interestingly, Josh Birkholz, a world leading fundraising analyst at BWF may have something to add here. He recently studied masses of data on successful fundraisers to see what common features they shared. He found that,

‘The top 20% of producers [frontline fundraisers] worked with prospect development [researchers] twice as often as all other officers.’ - ‘Redefining Fundraising Metrics’, Researchers in Fundraising Conference 2017

Whatever council or support these researchers were providing it was clearly benefiting the fundraisers.

To summarise, this exploration was not to do down the traditional routes to leadership positions but to provoke the idea that researchers ought to be more readily considered as viable candidates too. Perhaps it’s time to look past the need of leadership candidates to have ‘direct experience’ of bringing in substantial funds themselves but to look at their overall ‘handle’ on the ‘fundraising machine’. Given the incredible increase in fundraising success provided by researchers so far, the sector could be missing a trick by not doing so. Whatever our true feeling about this, a gentle shift is occurring as there exists a very small minority of institutions ready to embrace researchers as their next leaders. The real test will be seeing how this new breed of leaders perform!

Jason Briggs is Consulting Fellow for Halpin - management consultants for higher education fundraising, governance, strategy and marketing.

This article was first published in Civil Society in a magazine circulated to all Institute of Fundraising members.

Nothing splits a room like asking this question: should you ask for a gift from a prospective donor on the first meeting?

At one end, you have the fundraisers who feel that you should: it shows the prospect why you are there, and starts them on the giving track. It avoids embarrassment later after months of building a relationship and not asking, and allows you to talk about transformational philanthropy.

At the other, you have the fundraisers who feel that is the height of rudeness. How can you ask when you have only just met them? You need to establish a relationship of trust first before you can ask for anything.

While I understand both extremes, and there are strong aspects of the truth to both approaches, I am squarely in the first group. But what I always stress is that I don’t advocate asking for the gift in the first meeting. I.e. The one that you hope will transform the institution. The really big gift. I advocate strongly to ask for “a” gift, the starting gift, the one that allows you to start treating them like a donor so that they can see how good you are at it. They can taste your organisation and see if they like the flavour.

Asking on the first meeting also shows how well you have been listening – can you ask them for a low-level gift that is in an area they have indicated an interest in? If you can, then the answer for them should be obvious. Don’t be tempted to over-ask on that first meeting either, the amount is not the point. It’s the participation.

If you ask well, politely, with enthusiasm and genuine belief, and in an area they have indicated they are interested in, there should be no way that you can cause offence. You will have set up the meeting in the first place (I hope) by saying that you would like to talk about them, update them on your institution, and talk about their support. If so, not to ask will seem very odd to them. And if you haven’t set up the meeting that way, why are you trying to hide the fact that you would like them to support your organisation financially?

Fundraising is nothing to be ashamed of. It is crucial. It helped to start the majority of our universities. It is the life-blood of the vast majority of our greatest charities. Asking somebody to make a gift is one of the greatest opportunities you can give, and it can transform the life of the givers just as much as the receivers. If you don’t believe it’s right to ask someone on the first meeting, what is holding you back, and why?

Asking more often also gives you much more practice in developing a style you are comfortable with, and asking well. Fundraising is many things: inspirational, motivating – but it is also a numbers game – the more people you ask, the more money you will raise.

None of this precludes you from building an excellent long-term relationship with a donor. Indeed, I would say it is the best way to start, allowing you to have entirely honest and often inspiring conversations. Building long-term relationships is hard work, it needs attention, listening, patience, kindness and thoughtfulness. None of that is short-circuited by asking at your first encounter, but it does mean that you are building on an honest base.

If the idea of doing this fills you with fear then that’s good – it’s not easy, it takes skill and time to learn the approach that works best for you. You can use that fear to sharpen your senses, and use your language and body appropriately. You should be tired after such a meeting – you’re not just there for a friendly chat.

If you want to get better at making the ask, or to train your senior leadership to do so, we would love to talk to you. Asking is really important in life generally, not just in fundraising.

People do things because they are asked. Work with us and we’ll prove it to you.

Shaun Horan is Joint CEO at Halpin.

In a recent Wonkhe article, Peter Eckel of the University of Pennsylvania raises some interesting questions from American experience. He argues that, “like boards in England, American boards too often have been focused on oversight. It’s the essential stewardship role of governance. Yet, such a narrow focus that reviews reports, signs off on proposals, ensures compliance and ticks boxes is a lost opportunity. Too many boards in America… are mired in mediocrity driven by such a focus.”

He poses a quick quiz – “Which of the following apply to your governing board?

• Much, if not most, board meetings are taken up by presentations.
• Meetings tend to follow the same, expected agenda.
• The board is polite with each other, prizing congeniality over collegiality.
• The same few board members dominate most discussions; and when they stop talking, discussions tend to end.
• The most consequential of institutional issues are addressed outside the board meetings, rather than inside it”.

I suspect that too many colleagues will recognise some of these behaviours in their Councils. He goes on to argue that board time is limited and precious and to be a well-performing board it is essential to plan agendas and ensure that time is spent appropriately on the separable aspects of oversight, problem-solving and strategy.

To my mind this emphasises the increasing need for regular governance effectiveness reviews which go well beyond compliance and challenge how the board is spending its time. This is particularly important when the sector is facing unprecedented challenge and the press and Parliament are questioning how much confidence the public can have in their Universities. It does not look good to read last week from UCU research that there are still 9 universities who have not removed their Vice-Chancellor from their Remuneration Committee.

The CUC Governance Code states “Governing bodies need to adopt an approach of continuous improvement to governance in order to enhance their own effectiveness.” The CUC recommends a review every 4 years and often reviews happen because one is due under the Code. I would argue that the culture needs to change to where Councils proactively see the benefits of regularly considering their performance and seeking ways of improving their effectiveness. External review with the benefit of examining best practice in the sector and outside the sector is useful, but ensuring there is a culture of continuous improvement between these reviews is even more important. This requires adequate resourcing of the governance function and an open-minded willingness on the part of Councils but especially the Chair, Vice-Chancellor and Secretary to be self-critical and to experiment.

Peter Eckel asks some basic but useful questions to start this process:

• “What does the board do frequently that adds tremendous value to the institution?
• What does the board do frequently that adds little value to the institution?
• What does the board do infrequently that adds tremendous value? (And how can you do more of this and less of point two?)
• How much agreement exists among board members as to the answers above?

He concludes: “Boards that work well can add value. Unfortunately, the inverse is also true: poor performing boards can become institutional distractions, which few can afford”.

Frank Toop is a Consulting Fellow for Halpin – experts in higher education governance.