1:1 with Innes van Nostrand

Over the course of 2019, Nicole Nakoneshny, KCI’s Lead, Knowledge + Insights, is going one-on-one with the members of our Philanthropic Trends Advisory Board to talk about the future of fundraising and philanthropy and explore What’s Next for Canada’s charitable sector.

KCI’S “WHAT’S NEXT?” INTERVIEW SERIES – Innes van Nostrand

In 2012, Innes van Nostrand was appointed the Principal of Appleby College. Previously, he served for 25 years at Upper Canada College and Queen’s University, from which he graduated in geological engineering. In addition to consulting or/or participating in review teams at a wide variety of universities and schools across Canada, Innes has been involved as a volunteer, presenter, author, and Board member with a variety of professional and community organizations, including Canadian Accredited Independent Schools (CAIS), The Canadian Council for the Advancement of Education (CCAE), The Association of Boarding Schools (TABS), Round Square, CASE, NAIS, G30 Schools, WLSA, Scouts Canada, Christ Church Deer Park, and Queen’s University.

Nicole: What do you feel are the biggest opportunities open to charities / the sector today when it comes to fundraising?  Biggest challenges?

Innes: There is huge money out there, and there’s an increasing focus on legacy projects tied to intergenerational shifts. I’d say there’s a lot of opportunity in that zone. But to get beyond a typical annual gift, or even a $100,000 gift, and into the multi-million dollar category requires being able to talk to donors about important personal decisions, like the legacy they want to leave in the community. It’s important to note, though, that to do that requires not only a particular skill set, but it also means you need to have a certain depth of connection with someone for them to be willing to have this kind of conversation with you.

In terms of challenges, I would say that there’s also a lot of competition and noise out there. We’re constantly being bombarded with information, and everyone’s competing to get attention. It’s a challenge to figure out how to break through that.

One other thing that I suppose could be considered both an opportunity and a challenge is the increasing globalization of the donor pool. Both within the domestic market (within Canada) and with people who have a connection to Canada but are physically overseas. There’s a lot of wealth here domestically, but there’s an almost unfathomable amount of wealth globally, so to open the door to the idea of philanthropy for these individuals is another thing we should be thinking about.

Nicole: What are some things you’ve learned about fundraising cross-culturally, both domestically and globally?

Innes: There isn’t a homogenous answer to this. Every culture is different, and within these cultures there are clusters of peer groups that have different values and beliefs. The basis and the value system relating to philanthropy are nuanced depending on different cultural pieces. This takes open-mindedness, understanding, remaining relevant, and working with these individuals on their own terms.

I’d say that about a third of our philanthropic success comes from new Canadians or donors that are overseas, so an ability to navigate these types of conversations is becoming increasingly important.

The exception to all this, however, is the personal contact. A person you know and like. This means that these human connections are increasingly more important to try and break through this noise. 

Nicole: And when you talk about “breaking through the noise”, what noise do you mean? Can you characterize that further for me?

Innes: It’s not specifically about charities, although they’re certainly a part of it.

In today’s world, we’re all constantly being bombarded with bewildering amounts of information every day. I think that our ability to sort through it, prioritize, and be more deliberate in how we spend our time and our mind-share is being compromised. No matter how important your message is, it’s competing against an ever-growing amount of other information also trying to break through. We collectively have a shorter attention span, so when something does break through, it’s quickly forgotten as people move onto the next thing. This makes it difficult to have your voice heard for anyone, whether you’re a charity or not. I think this is growing into a big societal issue.

The exception to all this, however, is the personal contact. A person you know and like. This means that these human connections are increasingly more important to try and break through this noise. 

Nicole: On top of this noisiness, I’m wondering if you think that the general public views giving to charities differently than they did in the past?

Innes: Yes, I’d agree with this. Twenty-five years ago when we started talking about what generational differences we were expecting to see, we are seeing them today. There is an obvious reduction of trust in traditional institutions that have historically played an important role in society. Fifty years ago, peoples’ participation in these institutions – many of which were charities – was how they found social meaning and purpose. And it was a given that they would support these organizations in return. This sense of social connection and purpose I think has been reduced, as people don’t participate in these types of organizations as much as before.

There is also more of an individualized, consumer mentality today. People want a la carte service that lets them choose exactly what they get rather than accepting an institution’s default offering. You can see this mindset today in schools and other charities as well. It’s also evident in the rise of crowd-funding.

Nicole: Let’s focus in now on fundraising for independent schools in Canada.  What comes to mind if I ask you to highlight the top two or three issues facing you and your sector colleagues?

Innes: Philanthropy in any part of the charitable sector usually has gradually increasing categories of development where every 5-10 years there’s a new definition of what a transformational gift looks like, what a leadership gifts looks like, etc. I think a big challenge for independent schools is how you navigate this step-up. For example, if your donors are used to a classroom recognition gift being $100,000, how can you rationalize to them that it’s now $250,000? Or that a threshold gift to a campaign is no longer $1 Million, but is now $2, $3, or even $5 Million? These increasing gift standards aren’t just a challenge unique to independent schools, but that’s how it’s presenting itself in our context.

Another issue that might be more unique to independent schools is finding a way to connect to the idea of public good. Independent schools are good at raising money among people who have benefitted from the institution (alumni), and people who are investing in it for a future return (parents of future/current students). Having a motivator go out and convince people that what we do benefits the broader community is a bit more challenging. So I think we always need to always be conscious of this. If independent schools want to be truly great, they must genuinely have a broader sense of public purpose and benefit. This will, in-turn, be helpful for philanthropy as well.

Finally, a challenge that might be more particular to independent schools is that when fundraising for major gifts, people really expect to deal with the Principal. It makes it tougher for officers and major gift officers to get in front of those donors if the principal isn’t available.

Nicole: Speaking to your point about the increasing standards of gift size benchmarks you mentioned, is case a key part of this?

Innes: I think the scope of the case is important, but the specifics within the case I don’t actually see as being key to addressing this. If your case is going to require a chart of gift standards, how do you actually translate that into a community understanding? Communicating the scale of your ambition, both the expected impact and the financial component, is critical here.

To get people on board with this when a similar ask 5 years ago might have been substantially less, it’s extremely beneficial to have your key prospects involved in the planning phase from the beginning. By this, I mean them having a genuine leadership role in the decision making process, not just doing an interview. It’s those first five gifts that set the pace for the whole campaign. And when these leadership donors are in the planning phase, you get to have conversations with them about the scale of the ambition they’d want to see. This gives them a sense of ownership over the project, which makes these individuals more likely to give leadership gifts at the scale that’s required. This then makes subsequent asks from lower level prospects easier.

I also strongly believe it’s advantageous to have a moving goal that you can keep fine-tuning and adjusting as you gain clarity on what is working well, and what may not be so reasonable. I also don’t see anything wrong with having your goal be a range.

Nicole: Speaking of the role of the Principal in fundraising, you were a fundraiser for many years before you took on the role of Principal at Appleby.  Has sitting in a different seat changed how you view fundraising? Any advice you would give to your former ‘Chief Advancement Officer self’?

Innes: Actually, my view hasn’t changed much. In both roles, I’d say that you need to be able to connect with a wide range of stakeholders. It shouldn’t just be a fundraising ask; it should be a discussion about mission, values, strategy, the kids’ experiences, the culture, and all the rest of the big-picture stuff. To be a successful fundraiser, you should be really good at articulating a school-wide view and the purpose of the institution. It’s also helpful to be able to understand and make a case for the mission from the perspective of different groups, for example; the perspective of the arts department, the math department, physical education groups, etc.

Nicole: A challenge we are increasingly hearing about is the desire for ‘more and faster’; high and, in some cases unrealistic, expectations of the fundraising enterprise whether for big leaps forward in revenue, the next mega gift, campaign envy etc.  What advice do you have for our professional fundraising colleagues on how to manage their way thru this challenge?

Innes: There’s always tension surrounding what your organization “ought” to be accomplishing, whether there’s evidence to support it or not. Some people like to say “we’re 100 years old, so we should be raising $100 Million,” but this has no basis in reality. And then sometimes leadership make predictions about what the goals should be based on what the current pipeline looks like, which could actually be completely risk averse. Sometimes staff aren’t ambitious enough, or they’re too ambitious to the point of being unrealistic. So I think you need a good blend of motivated, ambitious individuals ready for a challenge, and people who are thoughtful and understand evidence-based planning. It’s also sometimes helpful to bring in an outside perspective like a consultant who can bring evidence-based knowledge on what works and what doesn’t, and to communicate messages to volunteer leadership that can be hard for management to deliver.

I also strongly believe it’s advantageous to have a moving goal that you can keep fine-tuning and adjusting as you gain clarity on what is working well, and what may not be so reasonable. I also don’t see anything wrong with having your goal be a range. If you have a more ambitious board member who thinks your campaign should have a $70 Million goal, and then someone else who is more risk-averse who thinks that $50 Million is much more doable because of x, y, and z, who’s to say your goal can’t be $50 Million – $70 Million? Then fine-tune as you gain more clarity on what’s really feasible. Campaigns are a marketing vehicle; use them to your best advantage. Don’t let them force you into a position that’s not helpful to you, or that limits you.

Nicole: Tell me what you feel is the role of the volunteer in fundraising today? How do you engage your board and other fundraising volunteers in your work?

Innes: We use volunteers for broader based marketing, so our message isn’t always coming from staff. It’s good to have people with credibility who are beloved within the community relaying your case. As a school, sometimes popular staff members and teachers help with this too.

On the major gift front, I think it’s who can help us with individual files. There are some people who are highly influential and well-known in the community that can work with prospects whom they’ve never met. The volunteers who are the most powerful, though, are the ones who personally know the prospects in question. What I really think volunteers are best for is the tactical connection front, not on managing operations, or managing campaign mechanics.

Nicole: How would you characterize the future of philanthropy and fundraising? What do charities need to be doing today to be ready?

Innes: I think new communication tools, new technological innovations, and new ways to break through the noise are going to continue to become more important to our sector. People will always be central to our work, and this will absolutely continue. The staff marketplace continues to be really competitive and so we need to figure out how to hire and retain great people.

The same goes for volunteer leadership. I’m finding that there are fewer people who are willing to go out there and ask. This makes your succession planning for them important, especially at the board level, and part of this includes people who are willing to both give and ask. I see so many organizations that are charities but that don’t primarily define themselves as charities; universities, schools, and hospitals for example. So a lot of people involved in governance for these organizations see the fundraising piece as secondary. Thus, charities should be including people in their boards who respect that fundraising is critical to the overall mission.