How can we construct a "Hub" to support donor centered giving? Do we need a new profession, as part of this, a life coach? What about materials? Ownership? Marketing? Here are thoughts toward a business plan. With thanks to Jeff Weissglass of More than Money, Jean Russell (a professional financial writer), financial advisor Drake Zimmerman, and philanthropy consultant Lisa Tracy, all of whom have contributed to this conversation.
"Life Coaching" for Gift Plans?
The whole idea of a "coach" comes up because most advisors are not well suited by temperament or education to the task of eliciting the deeper values that must guide the donor/client's estate, financial, and charitable plans. I am talking about the $250-$450 an hour JDs, the Trust Officers from Private Banks, the CPA from a big four firm, and the top financial people who are highly competent and decent human beings. Still, on average these "best of breed professionals" are narrow and deep, like surgeons. They do one thing well, and do it very well. That leads one to ask, "Who should do the values piece?" Some at the Open Space Giving Meeting mentioned life coaches. Good idea, but here are some road blocks.
Life Coaches may be considered lightweights in professional circles. They may not have the credibility to deal with major donors whose team include top advisors. Their's is an emerging profession. I have never seen one on a planning team for a big estate planning case. We could try to jump-start that profession within the trusts and estates planning field, but it could be a long way around to the goal of helping donors and causes in 2005. (I realize that life coaching is big in middle income comprehensive planning, but this is not the sweet spot of the planned giving market. The sweet spot is someone age 55+ with +5 mil of net worth, and possibly a closely held business, or an inheritance guarded by a phalanx of advisors.)
Life Coaches either do or do not segue into the initial "money talk." Either way there are issues. If the Coach does not know how to answer even rudimentary money questions, he or she may lose credibility and the client may drift off to the pure money types prematurely. On the other hand if the Life Coach knows enough about finance to be dangerous, he is a hazard to himself and to the client. Advisors will form a defensive perimeter around the client to protect him or her from what will be perceived a "pied piper," a well-meaning , unconscious incompetent who has wound himself into the client's heartstrings by playing on "values."
Life Coaches need to be paid. If they have no financial background and yet are the front end of a financial process, will their work be considered "financial planning" under state and federal law? Will it be considered charitable solicitation, under state law? If they are financial planners and the work comes under their "Registered Investment Advisor" are they then in competition with the other members of the team? (I am more concerned about the first group who talk values, drive sales to advisors, or gifts to charity, and claim that they are under no federal or state financial or charitable regulation. )
Clients are often not willing to pay to be generous. Generally, they think if they are donating millions to help the world, that someone - life coach, JD, or financial professional, ought to donate a few hours to helping them.
So, whether or not there is a life coach on the team is, I think, an open issue. The values role could be played in other ways: Some few advisors, like Drake and Lisa Tracy do values elicitation well, and have life coaching training. Scott Fithian would say his trainees do good work around values as well as money. Some organizations like Nautilus, Wells Fargo, Merrill, CITI, and Goldman have salaried staff positions in charitable planning who do play this role on company time, working with clients that are brought in from local offices. Certain people in the nonprofit sector, like Tracy Gary, certainly do the inspirational conversation well.
Materials and Delivery System
The donor/client/human has one non-delegatable responsibility: To set the vision. A "Coach" might help. But so might a seminar, a circle of friends meeting together (as at More than Money), a set of readings, or a Journal like More than Money Journal. What we may need is a book with worksheets, case studies, and success stories. Maybe tied to a website with links and updated info. That book might be supported with a seminar taught by a team including advisors, representatives of the cause, and donors who have gone through the process. (And maybe a Coach.)
Ownership
If as a collaborative effort we create any books, worksheets, website or whatever else, I hope such materials will be launched under something akin to a Creative Commons license, into the public domain, subject to terms of use. Not owned by New York Life, Phil Cubeta, Drake Zimmerman, Tracy Gary, Jeff Weissglass, Lenore Ealy, Sagamore Institute, More than Money, Lisa Tracy, Jean Russell or anyone else. Cornering the market on philanthropy is not the goal, nor in the best interest of the country. We want to create templates that can be modified, copied, and distributed without copyright issues. We want it to proliferate. Various people could print the materials and sell the bound copies, but only if they release the "source code" back to the hub so we can all learn from it. I will donate my effort to this cause, if others will. We can all find our own ways to make a buck, but none of us may reserve the right to enclose the commons. (There is a model for this approach in the life insurance industry, Life Insurance Management and Research Association. All the life companies chip in research, ideas, and educational materials. And all who do can draw, under attractive terms, what they want from that pot. They will let a life company take a LIMRA word processing document, say a life insurance training module, and customize it. But New York Life cannot then prevent Mass Mutual from taking the same core text and customizing it for themselves. We used to say that LIMRA owned the chassis and that we owned the New York Life "bodywork" when we customized it. Another example would be the Leave a Legacy Program that was started years ago by a chapter of the National Committee on Planned Giving. Subsequently, the materials were ceded to the national center, who perfected them and now makes them available to all chapters in every community, subject to certain terms of use that prevent the materials from being exploited for just one cause or company. A choice of Creative Commons copyrights can be found here. http://creativecommons.org/. ) Of course, I recognize several members of our group have stuff in progress that will bear their copyright. I am talking about stuff I create or that we create together out of our joint efforts, and mutual experimentation. The "source code," should be res publica, like a park or patrimony. We can all enjoy it and use it, but we can't privatize it or restrict others from using it. Otherwise, very soon, we will all be keeping secrets and calling them "trade secrets." We will be fighting over who has dibs on what idea. We might, however, want to restrict use of our common-pool materials to those who are in some sense "members of," and "contributors to" the Hub. That might provide a dues-paying billing point as well as quality control. Different dues for different kinds of member: advisor, funder, nonprofit, or for profit firm. Different dues, too, maybe, for those who contribute their share in in-kind materials or resources. We may need something other than the Creative Commons licenses per se, but I think we do need terms of use that create a commons and establish it for the public good.
Mission Centered Marketing through a Movement
One more point: Who is the person who should have the life-affirming conversation with an Evangelical? With a Planned Parenthood Activist? A Muslim blue collar business owner? You could make a case that it is a Yuppie life coach, or a professional advisor, but I think really the best person would be someone from within the donor's community. A "pro" can do it. I have worked with all those groups without making a mess. But the ideal person would be from the same "community of interest." That is what gets me thinking about working with orgs that are part of a "movement," like Tracy Gary with social change philanthropy, and Lenore Ealy with compassionate conservatives, or with some of my friends with Baptist Foundation of TX. So, I guess I am leaning towards this values elicitation role being held by a person who is considered wise, and a leader, or role model in those communities. Almost like Pastoral work. Otherwise the "life coach" becomes (pardon the phrase) the "Philanthropy Geisha" stroking all egos and flattering all passions. Baptists today; Feminists tomorrow. That is OK; call it Socratic, businesslike, or professional, but the best person is probably someone who loves what the donor loves, so they can kindle to one another's enthusiasm. Leads us, then, to work with orgs within a movement and to create versions of generic materials that reflect the shared values and culture of the groups.
For the past 10 years I've been trying to recruit lawyers, accountants, financial planners, etc. to launch an open space coversation dedicated to many of the ideas expressed in this Gift Hub concept and in other posts that I've read today.
To accomplish this goal I've been giving away free advise on how business, professional groups, alumni groups, etc. can launch "hubs" where they discuss bit ideas, like making this a better world for everyone, even those born in poverty.
In the group where there is expertise on planned giving, such a discussion could attract thousands of participants over an extended period of time, and could influence the giving decisions of many people, while providing a variety of "how to" tools.
However, the "where to" is the sticking point. Once someone begins to thinking of giving, they need to decide where to give.
Since I focus on non-school tutor/mentor programs, my obvious goal is that many chose organizations that provide this type of service, including the one that I lead. So, I've created a master database of tutor/mentor programs serving Chicago, and use a GIS (Geographic Information System) to show where these programs are needed in the city, and where current programs operate. I also host a library of LINKS to research and to various tutor/mentor programs around the country in an attempt to educate the consumer so they can begin to form their own opinion on which programs do better than others and which should receive their gift.
With this information, a person who has first gone to the giving hub and become convinced that he/she should bequest large sums to a charity, can now go to a web site where they can decide which of many tutor/mentor programs should get their gift.
Imagine the impact on tutor/mentor programs if the gift hub were increasing the number of donors who were searching for places to make their contributions, based on where the need is greatest and on what programs are already working in those areas to help kids. Instead of programs spending so much of their time, and a good chunk of money, looking for money, they could spend most of their time doing the work needed to help kids move out of poverty.
By connecting the gift hub with the Tutor/Mentor Conneciton Hub, and with other hubs, we create a larger network of knowledge, and give a choice path to those who enter the giving portal. Such a path could lead to any city, or to any stream of service, not just the tutor/mentor field.
At http://www.tutormentorexchange.net/Partner/CC/Presentations/TMLN/TMLN_files/frame.htm is a Power Point presentation that describes this network of hubs. Each has a different expertise. Together they create a greater benefit and a larger community of people focused on new ways of creating a better future.
This only works if the portals and hubs that lead the giving discussion create links to portals that show what charities are operating in a given area, or serve a specific cause. Without these links, most of the new giving will continue to go to traditional places like universities, hospitals, libraries, etc., and not to the other places in a community where there is a need for financial support. Without the map, it's possible that a few high profile neighborhoods will be saturated with contributions, or a few high profile programs will be well funded, but that most neighborhoods and most programs will continue to struggle to find financial consistency.
We're building this system with the help of volunteers and a fragmented flow of dollars. If there are others who feel that such a system would be a benefit to their community or cause, I encourage you to help us build this system so that we can make it available to you and others.
Posted by: Dan Bassill | August 03, 2004 at 06:34 PM
Dan, you raise so many important issues. There is no one right way to do planned giving. My thought, though, is that you and others who represent causes by "go beyond the ask" by representing the givers too. That is, get the givers to our org together, convene events, schmooze fests, lectures, listen to them, accompany them on their initial steps with their advisors as they plan to be generous. Then, stay in touch, as the gift plans form. Some will give to you, others not. But the overall giving will increase. I suspect you might find that a donor giving you $1,000 when asked might end up giving $10,000 as part a plan. But would be chagrined to find that she also gave $1,000,000 to someone else? That is the kind of difference planning can make when driven by the donors passion, goals, and ideals.
I wish it were more true that donors research giving opportunities. I think it is often more like love and marriage. Not a research project but more like courtship, with a big element of luck or chance. Engagement is probably more key than "research." The Hub idea will probably work best face to face as it in Chicago, a mixer, a schmooze fest, a friendraiser. Creating connections and social capital out of which good things come.
The key point is to think how you can serve your donors, rather than how they can serve your cause. That is how we train financial professionals in the high net worth market. Those who make the mental shift and rebuild their practice not around advocacy but around service do very well.
Obviously you want to serve donors with a heart for your cause and who also have high capacity.
Within a year I hope we will be able to prove how well this works, as charities, like Changemakers experiment with this servant leadership model. I will continue to post lessons learned. Please do the same via email, blog or comment left here. Thanks, Dan, best of luck with your tutor mentor project. A wonderful thing you are doing. May your efforts prosper.
Posted by: Phil | August 03, 2004 at 11:06 PM