Getting Real about Research Gaps and Capturing Data

This week on Let’s Get Real, Ed and Lisa are thrilled to welcome back Marla Smith, CFRE, from the Pathstone Foundation! Marla brings her perspective to a discussion about the gap between publicly and privately funded research in the philanthropic sector. 

Later in the episode, the conversation about research continues as the hosts discuss data. How are we capturing data? And are these methods able to keep up with the recent shifts in how people engage with charities? This episode dives into those questions and more.

Interested in learning more about planned giving? PGgrowth's new membership space, PGcommons, is the place for you. Go to pggrowth.com/podcasts and click on the PGcommons button to access your 30-day free trial, or sign up for our free membership.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:09

Here we are. Ma'am, we are ready to have a conversation today. You're with the Let's Get Real Canadian Perspectives on Fundraising podcast. Ed Sluga is here, myself, Lisa McDonald, and special guest in the third chair is Marla Smith. Welcome back, Marla. It's awesome to have you join us.

SPEAKER_01 0:29

Thank you. It's great to be here with you guys, especially coming off the heels of your great experience at the CAGP conference.

SPEAKER_00 0:37

Well, that was the problem, Marla. You weren't there. Ed and I were. So we we had lots of time to chat with each other, with others, but your name came up more than once, and it inspired both of us to say she needs to be part of this conversation this week. So we're so happy that you can join us. Um, I think both Ed and I had some burning things we wanted to bring forward this week, and um, we're really happy to have you weigh in on them because um we know you are like, what is it, boots on the ground, tires on the road, you you have all of that. Ear to the cross.

SPEAKER_02 1:18

More than that, though. Marla is uh um, you know, she she's able and happy to provide a very intelligent, well thought through argument and opinion. And uh that's a good thing. That's a good thing. And I can tell you all about that in a minute, but that's a good thing, Marla. I'm always excited when you're with us.

SPEAKER_01 1:39

Okay, you guys are making me feel great on Monday. What is this like motivational Monday?

SPEAKER_00 1:44

I don't know, and he got all serious on me. He's in he's he's uh in the fields. All right, let's just dig right in here. I don't even think we need to take a break today because we're gonna keep this snappy. Um so Ed and I are coming at things a little bit differently, but here's what I want to talk about. Um, my question is this uh why is there so little research being done in philanthropy in Canada? That is my question. Now, my follow-up is that I'm gonna share with you some research that was released this week. Um, Daniel Golgut from Epilogue wrote an article for Hillborn Charity e News that was published last Thursday. And he talks about some of the latest data that is talking about gifts and wills. So I'm gonna get to that in a minute. And I want to share four um key findings from that research with you guys and then and then get your thoughts on that. But my leading question was I was really struck at the conference this week um how many times Russell James was referenced across many, many sessions. And my dispute is not with Russell, I think he has done great work. I've met him, I've sat in on some of his sessions, and he has really added kind of a perspective to uh legacy giving in particular, uh fundraising in general from the work that he has done. But I was struck that there was no other points of reference that were called upon in these sessions. And I and I was racking my brains trying to think of other researchers, other perspectives. And you know, it's a very short list. So before I dive in and do share some of what's just been released in the new legacy landscape, which is about plan giving in Canada, I don't know. Do you have any thoughts on that, Ed or Marla, just about what's happening with our data and the impact that perhaps a lack of that is having on us as a sector?

SPEAKER_01 3:52

Yeah, I I definitely do have a couple of opinions on that. And I think the first one really comes from when we see robust data that comes out in the world, it usually comes from formal institutions, universities, colleges. When we see it come from private industry, we always wonder: is there a bias? What is the what is the rationale for why that's taking place? Are they trying to pursue an agenda? So we really are looking at that. But when research comes from an institution, we really don't look at it the same way with bias. Yes, the researcher usually comes with some form of bias, which is why they're interested in that topic. But the real issue seems to be the lack of institutional knowledge centers in Canada. For example, Carleton University came out with the um masters in nonprofit and philanthropy about 10 years ago. Uh, somebody can correct me on the actual uh length of time, but it has not been that long, which tells us that there are not many institutions in Canada that are promoting what's happening in the nonprofit sector, which leaves a gap. And unfortunately or fortunately, for-profit industry fills that gap with research and information on topics that interest their sector or their niche network, thus creating the narrative across the sector.

SPEAKER_00 5:28

I like that. And before I go to you, Ed, I actually one of the conversations I had at the conference to further your point, Marla, is that Canada does not offer a PhD program in philanthropy at present. So the person I was talking to was actually pursuing a PhD program based in the UK because there is nothing offered here. And research that she wants to do, you know, has to have a certain framework because of that. And she's trying to figure out how to leverage it. So again, this is one of these conversations that that really kind of stuck out to me about yes, higher education, our lack of programs and the impact on research. Ed.

SPEAKER_02 6:12

Yeah, well, thanks. And Marla, uh, and well, I think it's a great topic, Lisa. And and Marla, I I love what you're saying about it. I do think there's another situation here, right? Um one is that we want within our sector, and we can talk a little bit about the charitable sector itself, is what kind of data do we want?

SPEAKER_01 6:34

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 6:35

And a lot of what Russell James talks about, and the uh, you know, Richard Radcliffe was someone that was another person we would uh often have speak in Canada. Again, not Canadians. And by the way, our colleague at PG Growth, uh Ken Ramsey, um, paid for research that Russell James did, and and Jim Hillborn, Hillborn e News, paid for Richard Radcliffe to do some research, right? So, and put out the 2014 legacy um uh report, um, co-sponsored by PG Growth. See, we're we're happy to fund this sort of stuff, but what Canadian fundraising professionals want to find is donor attitude stuff, yeah, right? And you know, what is what do donors think? We know what donors think, you know. At this point, we know what they think. Um, and because I do think that there's a dearth of the other type of of data everywhere, right? What are charities doing? There's not a lot of that. I think that's in the UK, in the US as well. What are we doing to take advantage of those donor attitudes? Um, so uh and and you know, I do think that there's a there's we have, and this is why let's get real started. We kind of live an unexamined life in the charitable sector, and we could we kind of like it that way. And uh when I start talking about, I'm gonna say, you know, there's a wake-up call about unexamined lives, you know, and um, and the fact of the matter is that we have to start thinking like a business. And I've been in so many meetings where people will say, and I think Marla, you and I have both said this at the AFP Fundamentals course recently, we gave stats about how big and meaningful the not-for-profit charitable sector is. Uh, but all of those other sectors are busy researching themselves, and we are not. Um, and actually, there are some worrying signs. Not only do we not have a PhD program here, but some of the formalized educational programs are starting to lose ground. Yeah, the biggest one being Humber College's course, which was the foundational course gone for lots of different reasons. So um, you know, it's an it's an interesting profession that we're in, one that's unexamined. And I'll just end with this. Denny Young, who was the director of that course of that program for many years, said fundraising is one of those few places that you that deal with a lot of money that you can get hired to work in with no credentials whatsoever. It's just you got through the the hiring process, and the next day you could be dealing and working with money and significant amounts of money, or donors who want to give you significant amounts of money. So I do think that there's a problem, Lisa, as you rightly say, uh in some ways it's of our own making.

SPEAKER_01 9:43

You know, it makes me think back to, oh, sorry, Lisa. No, go ahead. It makes me think back to a previous conversation that Ed said. And uh Ed was talking about how the nonprofit sector is largely unregulated. And, you know, that that comment has sat with me for the last several months since since Ed said it, because it reminded me of how vulnerable our sector is and how important ethics in our sector is. Because, you know, like Ed said, people can be hired for these roles without having a real great understanding. And that's no fault of their own. But where do they get that information? And of course, without having guide rails for our nonprofit sector, how do we ensure that the way we're treating and stewarding donors is ethically responsible, transparent? And those are complicated questions because you know, I wouldn't have been able to answer that question in my first, second, or third year working in the nonprofit sector. Because honestly, I was looking at things from a uh tactical manner to be able to achieve objectives. Looking at the bigger picture didn't come till years later.

SPEAKER_00 11:03

That's uh that's a really valid point, Marla. And I and I do have to acknowledge that um I've been around a few minutes and been to a lot of conferences. So my framing when I go into sometimes the conference sessions um are different than I would expect a lot of the participants who are in there because I did meet many who are in their first, second, third year of doing this work, being in their jobs and yes, looking for practical strategies, tips, tactics, how to how-to things. Um, and that's valid. And and that certainly was present, you know, across the board. But I guess when I'm thinking, because this is what we also talk about, about the those words we're using, guide rails for our sector, the frameworks that we're working within, the you know, the arguments being made to support certain movements or changes. And I and I just don't hear the the kind of research current backing it up or even underway to help really make informed leadership decisions. I get concerned and I and I, you know, I'm still not over the fact that Humber closed. So there are things like that that um that, yes, obviously I find very concerning and I think prompted me to kind of zero in on that question in particular. Um, and Russell, if you're listening to this, don't stop what you're doing, keep up the good work. But you know, there needs to be more voices at the table that are are talking about this kind of thing, I think. So let's just talk about. Oh, go ahead, Marla.

SPEAKER_01 12:49

I was gonna say it's also interesting because sometimes, like, because like my role is I'm a practitioner, I work um in nonprofit space, I work and I'm running a foundation um in the Niagara region. And sometimes people will say, like, what's the latest trends on this? What are the best practices? And I find myself saying, and like I love to read, I love to read articles, I love to read books, but I find myself saying, one of the stats that I can ground myself in is one from a while ago, where this stat, I'm pretty sure it's from 2010. Uh, but it reminds me that we don't have current information. And so to rely on stats from 2010 isn't an accurate representation of what's happening in the world. It might be, but it likely isn't, especially with geopolitical issues, the environment, all of the things that take place. And so, in absence of that, we can't, as practitioners, rely on best practices or data to inform decisions if the data isn't available to us.

SPEAKER_00 14:01

Yes, and I think Ed, um, when we get to your segment, what you're going to point out is that one of the sources of data that we tend to use, partly because it's updated annually, is from the CRA. And but the CRA also has a very specific and rigid framework in the way that they interpret their data. So to take that data and try to apply that to a donor journey or a donor framework or a giving, you know, process is can also be very flawed. Um, and I don't want to give away your topic, Ed. Before I move on to uh just some of the key findings from this legacy report that was published, um, Ed, any final thoughts just about this whole question around, you know, I think we're gonna get into it a little bit in the second um section of this.

SPEAKER_02 14:52

So I'll leave it till then.

SPEAKER_00 14:53

Okay. So um as you pointed out very wisely, Marla, you know, when there is a gap in research being done by sector-related institutions, then definitely some of our for-profit friends, collaborators, and partners step in to help fill that void. And we're lucky that that happens because otherwise we could be in a much you know more difficult situation. Um one of those reports uh around uh making wills and plan giving. Um, you may have heard about State of the Legacy Nation. That's a report that's been put out over the years um by the team at Goodworks. But this year they teamed with Epilogue to create a new report, which was looking at um, yes, still plan giving in Canada, but uh honing in on kind of what the market data is saying about will writing and will making. So I pulled out a few key takeaways that were uh that Daniel Golgut uh referred to in his article. First of all, more Canadians are making wills, and that's across every generation millennials, gen X, boomers, and Civics, that um they've all increased their will making in recent years. Number two, that there is significant wealth already in play. So this is really talking about the scale of giving that's happening through will making and legacy gifts. And the number that they are putting out is that over a million Canadians have already included charitable gifts in their wills, which is a very significant pool of future support. So that is being kind of uh presented as a good news story in terms of legacy gifts. Uh third, they do talk about online will making and that it's growing, but traditional kind of methodology still is the prominent way that wills are made. Um, and I think the message to charities in this case is that you know, donor behavior is expanding. So some donors will traditionally go through a lawyer uh that they have, others will go online, and some may even move between the two. So what you know charities want to do is to try to show up, I guess, across that full journey that their donor is having in terms of making those types of decisions. And then finally, it is pointed out that um that charity involvement can make a real difference. So again, if um a donor is prompted by a charity to create a will, um, that they're more than four times as likely to make a charitable gift. So that it's it's a meaningful difference, um, and it doesn't have to be a really complex strategy to start to have some of those conversations. And that's certainly something that I've heard, you know, uh for quite a while in terms of messaging out to charities that that your legacy giving program can start small, it can start with a conversation, an invitation, a prompt. Um, and so this kind of dive into wills and charitable bequests would seem to support that. Those are the four key findings. Any any thoughts that that inspires for either one of you?

SPEAKER_02 18:28

Ed, I'll let you kind of Well, you ask, are you asking me if I'm inspired by by Daniel's numbers? And by the way, I have lots of respect for Daniel and and uh his team at Epilogue. Um, I'm not particularly inspired by them. I think that a lot of the information that uh you've just talked about is well known, and um it's great to um to have it reinforced uh on an ongoing basis. I am I am um aware that at the CAGP conference a couple of years ago, I was asked by somebody operating one of Canada's largest plan giving programs about what the millennial strategy should be. And I said, Why are you focusing on the millennials? Uh how is that a business rationale to focus on millennials? And then hope some of them pass away um you know well before they should. The focus is on people who are older, who write their wills traditionally, who have all that money that has been uh that's been indicated um in the will. And and frankly, it's more I think it's probably more than a million people who have a gift in their will, because a million out of 440 million um is about 2.5 percent, right? So it's not enough. It's we know that 5% of Canadians who pass away every year or more give a gift in their will. So the numbers are a little off. It is, I think, an indicator of how difficult it is to get information like this. This is really tough. And if you do things in a in a non-scientific way, which I would suggest that Daniel and the people at Goodworks would agree, this was not statistically driven. It was, I don't know how they got it, I don't know their methodology. Methodology is important, um, is that you get some numbers that are interesting, they're they're they're they're help to motivate you. I think the findings are things that we've been saying, I've been saying for 30 years, every organization can have a planned giving program. Uh, Ed Pierce said in his in his book, uh, released in 1997. If you have a hundred loyal donors and you ask them all for a gift, 10 would probably say yes. Um, that's anecdotal. But by the way, Dr. Pierce had a PhD in planned giving. Do you know where he got it though? No, he got a PhD in stewardship from an Anglican seminary in Canada. Stewardship in Canada in the Anglican sphere means fundraising. So you can, in fact, get a PhD in fundraising in Canada. You just have to go to a seminary or theological college to do it. Okay, but that's a whole other thing. Um text matters.

SPEAKER_01 21:28

We context matters.

SPEAKER_02 21:31

You go to you go to a university and and uh you know, through the social sciences, become a PhD in some sort of fundraising. You can't do that in Canada. That's true. So I I I don't want to downplay this. I think any research coming in uh is important, but yes, grain of salt stuff. Who's who's providing it? Um but it does leave us a moment to pause, and I think it leaves us a moment for what I'm gonna talk about in the second part of our conversation today. As well. Who should be doing this data for us? Who should be doing this research? And I'm I've got, as you both know, usually I have a lot to say about stuff. I have a lot to say about this as well.

SPEAKER_00 22:13

Before we take a break and get to the next segment, Marla, I just want to give you a chance also to just uh weigh in on some of those highlights that I shared.

SPEAKER_01 22:24

I think one of the things, you know, especially from a practitioner's standpoint, to recognize is that um still too often in in practice, planned giving is um siloed away from traditional fundraising, where efforts could be a lot more utilized when it's integrated as part of giving. So, for example, having conversations with donors where the conversation is about, you know, an ask as well as you know, consideration for being included in estate plans. And I do think that the data would support, you know, closer to that 10% number that Ed was talking about earlier in an integrated plan giving program. And so I think that's that's some of it, but um, without knowing all the context.

SPEAKER_00 23:21

Well, we can uh we can include a link in the um liners for this uh podcast so that any listeners who want to do a bit more of a dive and and look at the source and the research methodologies can do so. And and I would invite any listeners to to do that. Okay, thank you. That was um that was a bit cathartic for me. I really wanted to uh ask some of those questions and have that answer. So let's take a little break and then uh we're gonna come back and uh Ed will take us into the next segment, which is still talking a little bit about um data and our regulation and who where where are we getting our our uh frameworks from, our underpinnings for the work that we're doing. We'll get to that in just a moment. Ed, when I asked what your topic was going to be today, you said the crisis in the charitable sector, who's commenting and what that means. What are we talking about here, Ed?

SPEAKER_02 24:54

Well, I wanted to go over some uh ground we've you know already walked across. But I do think, and Lisa, you know this, and Marla, even from your previous time on here, and probably in future pre times that you join us, we're gonna go back to some basic things over and over again. And one of the ones that I've had um, you know, kind of top of mind is some of the commentary that originally came from a few reports uh around giving trends in Canada. And those two commentaries were, you know, you know, did start to spark a little bit of fear in our sector. But I wanted to call these to um to attention once again and then talk about some solutions. This was brought up because I'm starting to see people outside of the charitable sector or charitable sector adjacent picking this up. And I won't mention any names of people that I saw posting, but they're public policy people who've begun to post. What they said essentially was that uh Mark Carney, our prime minister, is calling for more to be done for the you know the social good in Canada, right? Policy needs to be uh you know drawn out into our sector. Charities need to take that call up, but they are you know suffering from a crisis of lessening donor engagement, fewer donors. And what this policy individual was saying is that charities need to get themselves going, which frankly it's always nice when people pay attention to us, don't normally pay attention to us, but stick to your lane sometimes, everyone. But that's what got me going around this. You know, the reality is that initial data was faulty. It was faulty because that one measure, and that measure was people who use their tax receipts in their tax filings. Okay, important, but lots of people make contributions to charity without doing that. They make a contribution by going to a golf tournament or buying a raffle ticket. They they make contributions, believe it or not, where they don't actually use the tax receipt. They just make a gift, you know. And when we're using only one measure, which by the way is transactional, and who are the biggest transactional donors out there? Major donors are. We know that. Marla, you and I know that, teaching the AFP fundamentals. That doesn't mean we don't need them. Of course we need them, hugely important in everything we do, but we're basing it all on the transactional nature. I'm making a gift, I want that tax receipt to apply against income. And what we're doing is deciding that all other contributions, you know, sponsoring the soccer uh team in your neighborhood, helping to pay for the the um the playground re renovation at your kids' school, all of these things are charitable. So I don't, you know, what bothers me about this is, and you've heard me say this, 100% of Canadian adults, and I really mean that, make a gift to a charity every year, but that's not the narrative. And what's concerning to me is that we're starting now to move into public policy spheres. And one of the things that my colleague Ken Ramsey and I, and Lisa, you know, founder with us of Let's Get Real, would say is if we don't uh regulate ourselves, others will come in to the sector and do it for us. And I guess finally, is that that kind of transactional activity takes into account gifts that are technically charitable, that are not going to an actual charity, but a tax receipt is given. So I'm just aware that you know Albert Einstein once said, not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted. And we're we're entering into a space now where others who do not know how we raise money, do not, frankly, particularly care how we raise money, are starting to say you need to do better at raising money. So, what's this mean for me? I think, and I'm calling on some of the organizations that are out there, like the CAGP. We didn't mention the CAGP when we were talking in the first section about research. When was the last research that the CAGP funded? I don't know. I really don't know. Maybe somebody, maybe Ruth McKenzie or someone, Malcolm Burroughs, can tell me. When was the last time they funded research? By the way, not willpower research that falls into I have a product I want to sell and I'm gonna bring some data around it. Perfectly fine. Lori Fox and the folks, great. But that's not real research. AFPs out there and Marla, you know, you and I have a you know a really warm spot for AFPs.

SPEAKER_01 30:05

Yep.

SPEAKER_02 30:05

What research are they funding in Canada? My guess is the answer is nothing. I was talking to someone who had been involved for a long time with the CCAE, which is the in the uh advancement professionals. What are they funding? How about the AHP in Canada? What are they funding at the convene in May in Calgary? What research will they be bringing? I don't know. Probably none. So I think it's time for the professional organizations to step up, take ownership, do the deep dive research that we know needs to be done. Do not succond this to Americans or UK folks who are great and well-meaning and they provide lots of great information, but they don't know our context. Do not allow it to fall into the hands of businesses, think tanks, public policy people, because frankly, yeah, you serve on a board, wonderful. Uh, you don't really know how to raise money. We do. Our sector needs to get together. And my call to action is we need one of those or some other group that represents some aspect of the charitable giving world to step up and start doing some of this research and get in front of this. Because if we don't, we will be lagging behind and we will be regulated as opposed to bringing in our own regulation. That's my thought about that. And this for me is starting to become a little more of an important priority as we go forward.

SPEAKER_00 31:39

Marla, you want to? Yeah, there's a lot to unpack there. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 31:44

I didn't bring anything small into a bar. Uh if you ever have never seen the movie Harvey, you should see the movie Harvey, uh uh James Stewart, great film. And he says, Nobody ever brings anything small into a bar. I'm not bringing anything small, it's big things, anyway.

SPEAKER_01 32:00

It's true, there's a lot to unpack there, but you know, a lot of what I hear is this is a shift in how people are choosing to engage with causes and how they identify themselves with a cause. And so we've learned over the years with donor behavior that the younger generation wants to identify themselves with a cause. So uh 10 years ago when the ice buck ice buck ice bucket challenge came out, people really wanted to identify themselves with the ice bucket challenge. Um, they may or may not have known where that money was going um or cared, but they wanted to identify with that. And what we're finding is that fewer people are also giving through traditional channels of giving. And a lot of what Ed's talking about is you know, capturing data through traditional ways of capturing uh donor data when that might be done differently now. And have we evolved along with that? Because if we haven't evolved along with that, our information may not be accurate. And what Ed, I'm sure, is implying is that our data isn't accurate because we're no longer keeping up with it. And the real concern that I hear in Ed's voice is who's going to keep up with it? And how do we keep pursuing excellence and driving our industry forward when we don't have benchmarks and measurable impact to really tell us what the route is? You know, we think of businesses and they use data to make informed decisions on a regular basis, they're not going to make a decision without that. And yet, in the nonprofit space, because the data is so limited or isn't telling us the information that we need to say, there's so much gaps in it. We're not optimizing our outputs.

SPEAKER_00 34:12

I uh I love that summary, Marla. I think you did uh a great job of taking Ed's premise and his discussion and and moving it forward the next step. Um I think these are the questions that we're struggling with. And I think that that two of the things that contributes to the challenge of getting through these questions, what I would add is that the the um prevalence still of our scarcity mindset within the sector, and it's so it's a lack of willingness to to devote resources to anything that can't be you know directly assigned to delivery of service or charitable mission, um, both so within organizations, but then again, even those governing bodies like our associations, everyone is trying to justify their existence. And so where do they put their scarce resource dollars? So I think again, we're struggling at a base level still with a scarcity mindset across the sector that affects so many things. One of which continues to be, you know, how we keep up with the evolution of change that's happening within the sector as it's happening. And then the second thing that I would add that is a challenge is that when we do pick something to try to track, we we suffer a little bit from kind of that shiny object syndrome. So we're not necessarily going back and tackling some of the foundational questions around um, you know, donor giving and and how they want to give. We assume that we have most of the answers there. So we'll just go with that. But you know, maybe we need to look talk about AI instead because AI is is the newest kind of hottest evolution in technology. So we're we're gonna focus our conversation at that, but but then we're still missing like how how AI can feed in and help to kind of address some of these issues that we're continuing to have and some of these understandings. So again, we're just a little bit disjointed and and need kind of uh a more, I think, concerted kind of effort across the board and more communication and more partnership and collaboration to to make some of these things happen. Ed.

SPEAKER_02 36:42

I just I just want to one more thing because I know we're out of time, but the one thing that I wanted to say is at issue here. And I was talking to the lead on one of Canada's biggest plan giving programs at the CAGP. Is there was lots of questions going around in this person's mind, and we had a very good, very frank, really deep conversation about it. In the end, this person said, but I guess only consultants like you, Ed, can drive this forward because the charities can't, because ultimately we're going to perhaps be criticizing or butting up against potential funders. And that is not necessarily a positive thing uh when you're in the fundraising role. So I do I do think there's that's one additional moment there, Lisa, or one additional factor that's keeping some of us from or some of these uh folks from from taking that step.

SPEAKER_00 37:43

Marla, any other final thoughts as we kind of I mean, again, this is sometimes what we do. We we kind of open open the bag on on a on a big bag of topics, and we only can kind of tease out a couple of points, but but what what's sitting with you right now, Marla? Like what are you thinking?

SPEAKER_01 38:04

Yeah, like I I listened to what Ed said, but I also think about, you know, as a practitioner, a frontline fundraiser, is it my place to be driving research for the sector? And would my organization think that that was a great use of my time? And so not only is it, do I have the capacity or or the ability to do this, but it's also is this within the scope of what I'm supposed to be doing? And so I think that's why a lot of times consultants or people that are in a space that has more flexibility for them can take this on.

SPEAKER_00 38:48

And that's what we see happening. So it goes back to the previous episode. In the absence, in the gap, others are stepping in to fill it to the best of their abilities, which while being appreciative, we also see that that there is some inherent kind of concerns or potential downsides of that. So awareness, communication, good conversation. I mean, at least it gives us a chance to kind of examine um where we're at. So maybe our first step is to move away from being the unexamined sector and move to being an examined sector that still doesn't necessarily have all the answers. No. Okay, let's take one final break and then we're gonna come back with our let's be charitable. So we're gonna come back, each of us, just with um uh attaboy, a hand clap, a thumbs up for something, someone, something that's happened, come across our radar in the last week that we want to give a positive shout out to right after this. So mine uh is kind of a quick hit, and again, I am leveraging off of the conversations that I was part of last week at the Canadian Association of Gift Planning National Conference. Did you know that May is Leave a Legacy Month? So I'm gonna give a shout out for all of those um small to mid-sized charities who are still trying to find their way with legacy giving and reminding them that if nothing else, maybe the month of May gives you an opening or an opportunity to start the conversation with one of your donors. Maybe it's one conversation, one donor. I have a puppy who just woke up and is playing with his squeaky toy. So that's okay.

SPEAKER_02 41:08

Um, I want to I'll go next, and I want to I want to shout out uh um something around the Canadian Association of Gift Planners as well. And I want to shout out one individual uh named Christopher Richardson. Now, if you don't know Christopher Richardson, uh he is a former fundraiser from British Columbia, lots of different jobs, he's no longer in fundraising, uh, has done multiple other things, but every year Chris Richardson comes back to the CAGP, even though he's not working in fundraising anymore. And he brings an enthusiasm and excitement and stories. Um, and I think um, you know, I was talking to him about being at the 1996 conference when I was there uh in Winnipeg. So that's 30 years of conferences. I think he beat me by two years or one year, and uh, but the point is he comes back. Um, and you know, uh it's you often don't see enthusiasm like that when we think about fundraising and the world that we reside in. And I just want to shout out to Chris Richardson for still bringing, he's already planning to be there in Toronto next year, and so it's a wonderful, wonderful thing.

SPEAKER_01 42:22

Amazing, Marla. That's so cool and uh very inspiring. Um, I'm obviously having some serious FOMO that you guys were at CAGP. Um, but I am headed to AFP icon um this week, uh later this week, uh to also get fill my cup up. But it also reminds me, too, of how expensive uh conferences can be, especially for small shop fundraisers. And, you know, with my other hat on, the AFP hat, I'm on the AFP Foundation of Canada's board. And one of our mandates is really to raise funds for scholarships, bursaries, and of course the research that we've been talking about earlier in the segment. And without those dollars that come in through other fundraisers, and that's really where the money comes from. It's other fundraisers who say, Hey, I get it. Um, we understand that attending conferences, getting the professional development that you need can sometimes be outside the scope of budgets that are already on a shoestring, as it is. And we know professional development is the first thing that always gets cut when budgets need to get cut. And so these scholarships are really important. And so I think about how many times I've benefited, and I will say many times. The first CAGP conference I ever went to was on scholarships. That's how I got to go there. Um, you know, the first time I went to Congress was on a scholarship, and these types. Types of things really that they matter and they've you know contributed to to my career. They've contributed to the organizations of the missions I work for. So I'm just sort of being very reflectful and thoughtful of the responsibility when you go to these conferences and um and how much you can learn and and be grateful for the support of others.

SPEAKER_00 44:24

I love that. What a great way to end up. Thank you for listening to Let's Get Real Canadian Perspectives on Fundraising. We will be back again in another week with some more hot topics. Thank you, Marla. Thank you, Ed. You guys make this fun. And uh until next time.