|
|
|
LINKS: | Feasibility Studies . . . Table of Contents Understanding the Feasibility Study
(Click
here for a Print-Friendly Version)
Understanding the Feasibility Study . . .
The feasibility study is one
of the most important and misunderstood of the tested ways to
successful fund
raising. We
hope this writing will help clear the
way for
sound decision making
for you,
should you need this service. Having
correct expectations is a real
key to making the study work
for you.
The study is first intended to test the various publics of an organization, regarding perceptions of the organization, and to determine willingness to support a specific campaign and at what levels. To accomplish this, a process has evolved over the past half century and more. The methodology has been developed to obtain the most candid and (where possible) objective data, which is one reason such studies must be conducted confidentially by impartial, outside counsel and not by staff or Board (the other issues obviously being experience and competency). When properly conducted, these studies are seldom wrong in conclusions drawn.
The second
agenda in
such a study is to persuade (where possible)
for the
case and
to secure leadership
pledges in an informal fashion. This
is yet another reason that such
interviews are conducted by outside counsel rather than by staff and/or
Board.
The third and perhaps
primary function of the feasibility study is to guard voluntarism
and to protect
the board and the
institution from conspicuous public failure
resulting from
well-intended but ill-founded endeavors.
This means that every feasibility study should include a component to
test the abilities of an institution to even wage in a campaign.
It is usual for counsel to conduct about 5O face-to-face interviews. This number has proven over the years to amount to "critical mass". It is also usual to interview only best prospects. We depart from the norm in this latter aspect in that we believe the opinions of detractors (if any exist) can also be valuable to a serious-minded organization. There are two basic methods of questioning: One method calls for the exact same questions to be asked of each individual, most questions being closed-ended (answers being yes, no or a quantity). This method is effective in basic opinion research polls, but not in feasibility studies.
The tested and true method is
more flexible, calling for basic required information to be
sought, but without the
limiting exactitude of simple polling. We
hold to this because the entire process is
only partly objective,
and relies heavily on the quality of the interviews,
the position
and relationship of those
interviewed, the personality/ability of the interviewer, etc. In the "opinion poll"
method, there
are usually many raw statistics reported which are, more often than not,
misleading to anyone
not present at the interviews. We
believe only statistics which are necessary,
and which bear on the interpretation of the report should be offered. The feasibility process is in three basic phases:
The first phase relies heavily on your Board and staff, assisted by counsel. An area of frequent confusion pertains to prospect lists. List development cannot come from counsel. There are several logical reasons for this. First, no consultant, no matter how experienced, talented and/or informed, can possibly know everyone who will give to every cause in every community, in every state. Perhaps more important is the fact that there is a rather universal ethical prohibition (very understandably) against lists leaving the charity via any fund raising professional. Counsel can sometimes assist in some very limited areas, usually connected with foundations and/or corporations. The most important reason is that the feasibility study is, in large part, designed to test the ability of the organization's officers and volunteers to correctly target gifts. "Do they really know their constituents?" Lists should be developed by you, with target amounts for each prospect – very important! Case Development is also a most misunderstood facet of fund raising. While a Case Statement (The Case for Support) can be and often is written by one person, the best way is to have sufficiently diverse participation (including Board, staff, volunteers, donors, etc.) to ensure that each participant is "imprinted" with ownership of the Case. This should be a most convincing, living document about an organization and its endeavors. This is the internal and external road map for the organization. This, too, is an internal responsibility of the officers, staff and Board. It is of the greatest importance to successful campaigning. The second phase is the work of counsel. Counsel conducts personal, confidential interviews with about 5O of your constituents. These interviews are the key to unfolding the riddle of success/failure for your campaign. This is where the objectivity, professionalism, training, and experience of the consultant are key.
The third phase of the study
is completed by counsel, with limited Board and staff input - input
which would not change the findings or recommendations of the study.
First, notes from the interviews
are complied,
opinions evaluated and weighed,
and findings
are measured against
the collective experience of the profession.
A full, candid written report is submitted,
including strategic recommendations (where they emerge) and
findings regarding the feasibility
of the campaign as illustrated in the Case Statement.
A verbal review usually follows. If planning and case development are part of the first step toward a campaign, the feasibility study is the first step in a campaign. A proper feasibility study should help Board and staff answer at least the following questions:
Interviews must be scheduled with the three basic constituent groups: individuals, corporations, and foundations, with individuals usually representing the lion's share. It is worth repeating that, other than some possible suggestions from counsel regarding corporations and/or foundations, the list of prospects is your responsibility. Your prepared Case Statement (and perhaps other materials) will accompany letters of appointment-request to the prospects. Quickly following the letters, etc., a member of your staff or a volunteer will call to set the interview appointments. Dates will, of course, be agreed upon in advance. It is usual to schedule an average of at least four interviews per scheduled day (more if possible). Interviews usually range from about fifteen minutes to over two hours - both cases being exceptional - with average meetings running thirty to forty-five minutes. All interviews should be face to face if at all possible. In addition to supplying prospect names with appropriate gift range targets, you should be prepared to assist counsel by suggesting topics you wish to test in the study. If a feasibility study is to indicate that a campaign should be waged, ready prospects with appropriate gift targets should be confirmed by counsel for a major portion of the goal (from 3O% to over 5O%). Further, strategies for approaching some specific donors and/or appropriate timing of same should result.
If the percentage of
interview refusals for a popular and publicly
known cause
is high, counsel
should become alarmed and inform the client.
Consequently, if at any time a conclusion
regarding the campaign can be drawn, options as to how to proceed should be
offered.
COMMON PRACTICES TO BEWARE OF - There are some pricing irregularities which abound in our industry, and which must be explained. One frequent and, in our estimation, reprehensible practice is for a firm to offer an extremely low price for the feasibility study, in the hope of making the client dependent on them for the management of the campaign, which is a much more lucrative type of work. A second arrangement which makes no sense and saves no money for the client is that of pricing the study according to the size of the goal. The process is at least as demanding for the small campaign as for the very large. In fact, it is often vastly more difficult to study for a smaller campaign. Usually, larger donors and the most influential leaders are attracted to large goals. Organizations with large goals normally have the most sophisticated lists already stratified and tested, large development departments, solid Case Statements in place, and great exposure, which make the study process easier. We believe the goal, be it small or large, is of the same importance to any organization seeking to raise it . . . in fact the small organization's goal may well be more important to it than the larger goal is to the giant charity. Lastly, no client wants a "trainee" doing their study, just to save a little money while risking a lot. In any event, the amount of work done by counsel is exactly the same, or should be. In the feasibility study process there is another pitfall, related to money. Frequently, counsel will discuss, and/or contract for the management of a campaign at the same time a contract is considered for a feasibility study. While there is some obvious continuity value in this, it also provides the temptation for counsel to compromise unrealistically in favor of the feasibility of the campaign (offering what the client wants to hear rather than what they need to hear). We have seen this reach the septic pits of morality with a firm urging in favor of a multi-million dollar campaign in a small community with no fund raising history, for an institution with no donor list and no development staff! This contemptible practice is aimed at securing income for the fund raising firm from the longer-term, and profitable campaign assignment. Campaign Management is where most firms make money and cover large overhead. You should not contract for any campaign work prior to the successful and satisfactory conclusion of the feasibility study. We won't even discuss campaign work until a study is complete.
Last, there are some firms that own subsidiary firms and lead the client
to them for campaign materials and creative work, without divulging the
relationship and without competitive bids.
The profit margin here is often unfair to the client, as is the
deception.
Fees for
feasibility studies run from nothing (always worth the price), to
over $100,000 (occasionally
worth the price), plus
expenses. We believe a sound study
can be done for under $40,000 in
most
cases. It is usual to pay one third of the applicable fee
in advance (upon contract signing), one
third in mid-study, and the balance
(including expenses) upon receipt
of the first report draft. Expenses
should consist of normal meal
and other out-of-pocket
costs incurred in the process of conducting the interviews, plus travel. The fee should
include a reasonable number of copies of the report.
A study
may take from a rare minimum of six weeks to perhaps three
months (or
more, depending on availability of necessary information, appointments,
etc.).
If you need a formal working agreement it should include: a termination
provision, a designated-consultant approval/rejection
provision, costs for extra interviews and/or report copies, expense approvals
and time limitations.
The smart firms also have clauses prohibiting your organization from
hiring away
their professional staff. We
provide assurance to our clients that, should there be solid evidence in mid
study, either for or against a campaign, we will terminate the study at a lower
fee. We do not require
contracts from our clients. We
only work for people we fully believe in and trust. A feasibility study is a must in properly preparing for a major campaign. Studies are best done by outside counsel, experienced in this specialty. Your organization will benefit from the conclusions drawn and can base the plan for successful fund raising on the findings of the study. Clearly, you can benefit most if you are prepared by knowing how a study works, what to expect, and what difficulties lurk for the unsuspecting.
The hallmark of good work is candor.
Along with objectivity and experience,
we believe these are all
that can be offered by any consultant.
We believe it is the job of counsel to tell a client what they need
to hear rather than what they seem to want
to hear. Be sure you're really ready for this.
|
|
The Getz Development Group 6198 Centerline Road - Newaygo, Michigan 49337-9052 - (231) 652-6203 Copyright © 2004 The Getz Development Group and its Licensors. All Rights Reserved. |