More than $2 trillion designated for charitable purposes is sitting in foundations and donor-advised funds. Why isn’t more of it reaching the communities that need it now?

In this episode of All About Capital Campaigns, Amy Eisenstein speaks with Glen Galaich, CEO of the Stupski Foundation and author of Control: Why Big Giving Falls Short.

Drawing on more than 25 years of experience with major donors, foundations, and community leaders, Glen examines how donor control shapes modern philanthropy and prevents charitable resources from achieving their full potential.

Glen once helped donors develop highly strategic approaches to philanthropy. Over time, he began questioning an assumption at the center of that work: that people who accumulated great wealth were inherently best equipped to decide how social problems should be solved. He explains how this donor-centered model can overlook the knowledge, priorities, and solutions already present within communities.

Amy and Glen explore why private foundations often prioritize protecting and growing their portfolios. Board members may feel more comfortable discussing investments, perpetuity, and family legacy than examining the immediate needs of nonprofits. That preference can turn the preservation of the foundation into a higher priority than the charitable purpose the money was intended to serve.

Glen also challenges the idea that foundation assets remain private money. Once donors place money in a charitable foundation and receive a significant tax benefit, he argues, they assume an obligation to act as public stewards of those resources. The central question shifts from what feels comfortable for the donor to what will benefit the public.

For nonprofit leaders and fundraisers, this creates a difficult power dynamic. Asking a funder for what an organization truly needs can feel risky. Yet asking only for what the funder appears willing to provide reinforces chronic underfunding. Glen encourages organizations to communicate the real cost of their work, the urgency of community needs, and the consequences of leaving charitable assets invested rather than putting them to use.

The conversation also examines community-led philanthropy, donor-advised funds, foundation payout rates, trust-based grantmaking, and the difference between spending out and spending down. Glen shares lessons from the Stupski Foundation, which expects to distribute approximately $650 million over ten years and conclude most of its grantmaking operations in 2027.

Spending down does not have to mean closing a foundation. Glen describes how foundations can release a meaningful portion of their assets during periods of urgent need and then continue operating with a smaller endowment. Even a modest shift away from perpetuity could direct billions of additional dollars to nonprofits and communities.

This episode offers nonprofit executives, development professionals, board members, major donors, and foundation leaders a candid look at who controls charitable money, whose expertise shapes funding decisions, and what could happen if philanthropy placed greater trust in the people closest to the challenges.

In this episode:

• 00:00 Why foundations and major donors can frustrate nonprofits
• 00:52 Introducing Glen Galaich and Control
• 03:52 Glen’s path into philanthropy
• 06:46 The rise of donor-centered strategic philanthropy
• 09:19 Why Glen began questioning the traditional model
• 12:26 The $2 trillion charitable bottleneck
• 16:54 How fundraisers can challenge donor control
• 19:40 Asking funders for what nonprofits truly need
• 23:05 Why communities should shape funding decisions
• 26:38 The Stupski Foundation’s $650 million spend-down
• 30:56 Starting difficult conversations with funders
• 32:18 Glen’s challenge to fundraisers and donors

Learn more about Control: Why Big Giving Falls Short: https://stupski.org/control/

Purchase the book from Wiley: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Control-p-9781394352425

Preparing to hire a high-level fundraiser or campaign manager for your capital campaign? The person you actually need may have a very different job description. In this episode of All About Capital Campaigns, Amy Eisenstein and Andrea Kihlstedt challenge a common assumption about capital campaign staffing and explain how nonprofits can expand their capacity without necessarily adding another senior development professional.

The conversation begins with the story of Jersey Community Hospital, a small organization serving a community of approximately 25,000 people. When the organization first approached Capital Campaign Pro, it was considering a $2 million campaign. It ultimately raised more than $5 million while adding just one part-time staff member.

That does not mean nonprofits should attempt a campaign without sufficient staff. Instead, Amy and Andrea argue that organizations should think carefully about which responsibilities require senior-level expertise and which can be handled by a capable administrative or development support professional.

Capital campaigns require two distinct kinds of help. The first is campaign-specific expertise: strategy, planning, guidance, training, and support from someone who has worked through many campaigns. The second is execution on the ground, including scheduling donor meetings, entering data, preparing reports, managing follow-up, sending acknowledgments, and keeping countless campaign details organized.

Many organizations assume they should hire a campaign manager or major gift officer to take over the most important donor relationships. But those relationships usually belong to people who are already part of the organization. The executive director, development director, board chair, founder, and other organizational leaders know the donors, understand the community, and have the credibility required to secure the campaign’s largest gifts.

That matters because capital campaign fundraising is highly concentrated. Successful campaigns are often made or broken by approximately 20 leadership gifts. Securing those gifts is not a broad-based fundraising exercise. Each prospective donor requires an individual strategy involving identification, cultivation, engagement, solicitation, and follow-up.

The right administrative support can free an organization’s existing leaders to spend more time with those donors. Other responsibilities, such as grant writing, event planning, or elements of the annual fund, may also be delegated, streamlined, or outsourced during the campaign.

Amy and Andrea also address the anxiety many executive directors and development professionals feel about personally leading major gift conversations. Most nonprofit leaders have never raised money at the level their campaign will require. That is where an experienced capital campaign consultant can provide strategy, training, coaching, and the perspective gained from working through many different campaign situations.

Listen to learn how to evaluate your existing team, identify the gaps that could interfere with campaign execution, and hire strategically so that your most experienced leaders can concentrate on the donor work that will determine whether your campaign succeeds.

Need help determining whether your nonprofit is prepared to staff and launch a capital campaign? Schedule a free introductory call: https://capitalcampaignpro.com/start/

Find more episodes of All About Capital Campaigns:

https://capitalcampaignpro.com/category/podcast/

Subscribe to @CapitalCampaignPro for practical capital campaign guidance, fundraising strategies, and major gift advice.

#Fundraising #Nonprofit #MajorGifts #CapitalCampaign

A board filled with wealthy, well-connected fundraisers may sound ideal, but it is not a requirement for a successful capital campaign.

In this episode of All About Capital Campaigns, Amy Eisenstein and Andrea Kihlstedt address a concern shared by many nonprofit leaders: Can an organization conduct a capital campaign when its board members care deeply about the mission but do not have access to wealthy networks and do not see themselves as fundraisers?

The short answer is yes. Amy and Andrea explain why most nonprofit boards are not assembled primarily for their fundraising connections. Board members may be chosen for their professional knowledge, community perspective, lived experience, or connection to the people the organization serves. Expecting every member of a 12-, 15-, or 20-person board to bring substantial wealth and an extensive donor network is usually unrealistic.

That does not leave the board without meaningful campaign responsibilities. Amy and Andrea distinguish between the role of the board as a governing body and the responsibilities of individual board members. Collectively, the board establishes the organization’s vision, approves its campaign plans, safeguards its financial health, and makes sure the campaign has an adequate budget, qualified staff, and outside expertise when needed.

Individual board members have a different role. Each member should understand why the campaign matters, support its goals, make a personally meaningful campaign gift above their regular annual giving, and speak positively about the campaign in the community. The amount will differ from one person to another. What matters is that every board member makes a thoughtful commitment they are proud of.

Amy and Andrea also caution against treating a capital campaign as a solution to serious financial instability. An organization operating at a deficit or struggling to maintain its annual fundraising may need to strengthen its financial foundation and donor relationships before launching a campaign. Capital campaigns require investments in staff, planning, training, and fundraising expertise.

So who leads the fundraising when board members cannot open doors to the largest prospective donors? In many campaigns, that work is carried out through a broader volunteer structure that extends well beyond the board. Campaign chairs, steering committees, core leadership groups, donors, community leaders, and short-term volunteers can all help introduce prospects, offer advice, solicit gifts, and move the campaign forward.

A major campaign can become an opportunity to engage people who care about the organization but do not want to serve on its board. Some of the organization’s most generous donors and influential supporters may prefer a focused campaign assignment, an advisory role, or a place on a campaign committee. Their participation can help the organization build philanthropic relationships that remain strong long after the campaign ends.

Most important, organizations should not assume that all their largest gifts will come from strangers who are waiting somewhere outside their existing community. Campaign planning begins with the donors, families, volunteers, and supporters who are already involved and invested in the mission.

Learn more about A Board Member’s Guide to Capital Campaign Fundraising: https://capitalcampaignpro.com/books/board-members-guide-book/

What happens when a small rural hospital foundation that typically raises $200,000 to $300,000 per year is asked to launch a $2 million capital campaign and ultimately raises more than $5 million?

In this episode of All About Capital Campaigns, Andrea Kihlstedt speaks with Charity Roth, Executive Director of the Jersey Community Hospital Foundation, about the remarkable campaign that transformed her organization’s fundraising capacity and brought an entire Illinois community together.

When hospital leaders first asked Charity to raise $2 million toward a $20 million expansion project, the goal felt enormous. The foundation’s fundraising had centered primarily on its resale shop, special events, and smaller projects. Charity was the foundation’s only full-time employee, and she had never led a capital campaign.

Yet the foundation went on to raise $5.27 million, more than twice its original campaign goal.

Charity explains how a guided feasibility study changed the direction of the campaign. Through candid conversations with donors and community members, the foundation discovered that local support was far stronger than it had anticipated. The study did more than test the campaign goal. It gave Charity an opportunity to understand why residents valued their local hospital, what they wanted for its future, and how they hoped to participate.

Those conversations gave the foundation the confidence to increase its goal from $2 million to $5 million.

The campaign received an early boost from a $1 million lead gift made by the family of a beloved longtime physician. Near the end of the campaign, the same family stepped forward again with another gift and a matching challenge that helped carry the campaign across the finish line.

Charity and Andrea also discuss how donor recognition can reflect the character of a community. One of the campaign’s most memorable gifts came from 19 members of a local farming family who pooled their contributions to secure a naming opportunity. Their gift showed that meaningful recognition does not have to be reserved for a community’s wealthiest residents. It can celebrate families, shared history, and collective generosity.

This campaign was not without complications. The hospital experienced a CEO transition, the campaign temporarily lost momentum, and Charity initially approached the work as an “army of one.” She shares how part-time staff support, two committed volunteer co-chairs, board participation, and community business leaders helped make the larger campaign possible.

For nonprofit leaders considering a capital campaign, Charity offers a simple but compelling lesson: dream beyond what your organization has raised in the past. A successful capital campaign is grounded in relationships, a willingness to listen, strong volunteer leadership, and honest conversations about what donors care about.

Andrea closes with one of the episode’s most useful fundraising principles: find out what your donors want to accomplish, then encourage them to do it. When fundraisers understand a donor’s connection to the mission, they can invite that donor to give from a place of meaning rather than obligation.

To ensure your campaign ends in a celebration, download our free Capital Campaign Step-by-Step Guide & Checklist. This intuitive guide breaks down each step of your campaign, and the timeline allows you to visualize your whole campaign, from start to finish!

How much should your board give to a capital campaign? The answer is not a universal percentage, but there is a practical way to arrive at a goal your board understands and supports.

In this episode of All About Capital Campaigns, Amy Eisenstein and Andrea Kihlstedt explain how nonprofit leaders can establish a realistic collective board giving goal, prepare board members for the conversation, and build early financial commitment from the people closest to the organization.

Capital campaigns are built from the top down and the inside out. That makes the board of directors one of the first groups an organization should engage and solicit.

Amy and Andrea explain why there is no standard answer. A board made up largely of people with significant giving capacity may account for a substantial portion of the campaign goal. A board that reflects the community an organization serves may contribute a smaller percentage while still demonstrating meaningful commitment. The right target depends on the composition, capacity, and culture of the board.

Every board member should make a gift that is meaningful and significant for them, but those gifts will not be equal. A few may make very large commitments, several may give in the middle, and others may make gifts that represent a real stretch.

Andrea introduces a helpful way to picture this distribution. While a campaign gift chart typically resembles a pyramid, board gifts often form a diamond: a few large gifts at the top, a few smaller gifts at the bottom, and most commitments clustered in the middle. By estimating a reasonable high and low range for each board member, a small group can calculate a defensible range for the board’s collective goal before bringing the question to the full board.

Amy and Andrea also recommend speaking privately with influential board members and informally confirming likely leadership gifts before the full discussion. This gives the board evidence that the proposed goal is achievable and helps prevent one vocal skeptic from derailing the process.

You will also learn a confidential index-card exercise that invites every board member to estimate their giving range without making a pledge. The cards are totaled and compared with the committee’s advance estimate. This turns an abstract number into something tangible and creates room to discuss pledges, gifts from assets, and stretching over time.

These conversations can feel uncomfortable. Thoughtful preparation, confidentiality, and experienced guidance can make the process productive.

The episode closes with a firm warning: entering a capital campaign with financial commitments from only a small fraction of the board is a serious problem. Full board participation, at personally meaningful levels, signals belief in the project and strengthens the case presented to other major donors.

For more board engagement tips, be sure to download our free Board Member’s Guide to Capital Campaign Fundraising - https://capitalcampaignpro.com/board-members-guide. It answers the questions board members most frequently ask, or wish they could ask.

A capital campaign may be the largest fundraising effort your nonprofit ever undertakes, but is hiring a campaign consultant really worth the investment?

In this episode of All About Capital Campaigns, Amy Eisenstein and Andrea Kihlstedt explain why experienced capital campaign counsel can make such a significant difference when the goals are high, donor relationships are at stake, and your staff and board are entering unfamiliar territory.

Most nonprofits conduct a capital campaign only once every 15 or 20 years. Even seasoned development professionals may have participated in only one campaign or handled a small piece of the process. Campaign consultants develop a different level of expertise by guiding organization after organization through feasibility studies, campaign planning, quiet phases, major gift solicitations, public launches, and the inevitable challenges that arise along the way.

Amy and Andrea discuss the difference between a consultant and an additional staff member. A consultant should not be hired simply to take campaign tasks off your team’s plate. Staff members and volunteers still bring the relationships, institutional knowledge, and day-to-day implementation a campaign requires. A strong consultant supplies the strategy, structure, training, sequencing, accountability, and judgment that keep everyone moving in the right direction.

You’ll also hear why an outside consultant can often address sensitive issues and work across organizational levels more effectively than someone on staff. Consultants can speak with board members, executives, development professionals, campaign volunteers, and support staff without becoming caught in internal politics. Their experience also helps them recognize problems quickly, recommend the right next step, and prevent organizations from losing months or years to avoidable mistakes.

The conversation also takes on a timely question: Can AI take the place of a capital campaign consultant? Amy and Andrea are enthusiastic users of AI, but they explain why a generated campaign plan cannot replace the judgment, relationships, accountability, and in-the-room guidance of an experienced advisor. AI may help your team generate ideas or complete tasks. It cannot read a campaign committee meeting, recognize when a donor strategy is going off course, or draw on firsthand experience from dozens of campaigns.

Finally, Amy and Andrea share questions every nonprofit should ask before selecting a campaign consultant. How many campaigns has the person led from beginning to end? Were those campaigns successful? Can the consultant provide references from organizations they guided through the full process? Your capital campaign is too consequential to become someone else’s training ground.

This episode will help nonprofit executives, development directors, board members, and campaign leaders decide whether they need outside counsel, understand what a consultant should contribute, and identify the experience that matters most.

To see how many nonprofits hire a consultant to help with their capital campaign, as well as many other benchmarks with which you can compare your organization to, be sure to download our annual Capital Campaign Benchmark Report.

What can a nonprofit with just 650 active donors—and a median gift of only $100—teach us about raising millions through a capital campaign?

In this episode of All About Capital Campaigns, Andrea Kihlstedt speaks with Sister Marilyn Lacey, founder and executive director of Mercy Beyond Borders, about how her small international nonprofit raised more than 75% of its $8.5 million campaign goal in less than 11 months.

Mercy Beyond Borders works in some of the world’s most challenging environments, including South Sudan, Haiti, Malawi, and refugee camps in Uganda and Kenya. Its mission is to help women and girls living in extreme poverty learn, connect, and lead. After 18 years of demonstrating that its model works, the organization launched an ambitious growth campaign to reach more girls and expand the long-term impact of its programs.

The campaign began with an unexpected $1.5 million anonymous gift, followed by a remarkable $3 million pledge from a donor whose first contribution—made roughly 20 years earlier—was just $125. Sister Marilyn explains how that relationship developed gradually through conversations, storytelling, coffee, ball games, and genuine friendship. Her experience is a powerful reminder that today’s modest donor may become tomorrow’s transformational campaign supporter.

But this episode is not simply a story about securing large gifts. It is a practical and inspiring conversation about donor relationships, capital campaign planning, feasibility studies, storytelling, and the mindset nonprofit leaders bring to fundraising.

Sister Marilyn shares why she prefers to frame fundraising asks as invitations rather than requests for money. Instead of emphasizing organizational need or approaching supporters from a place of anxiety, she invites donors to participate in work that is hopeful, effective, and transformational. Her guiding advice is refreshingly simple: exude joy and confidence. As she puts it, no one wants to join a sinking ship.

You’ll also hear how Mercy Beyond Borders uses a monthly email newsletter to deepen donor engagement without constantly asking for gifts. Each edition centers the story of one woman or girl and shows supporters what their generosity is accomplishing. Combined with personalized thank-you letters and thoughtful individual touches, this consistent stewardship has helped the organization achieve an impressive 59% donor-retention rate.

Sister Marilyn also discusses the value of bringing structure to an ambitious campaign. Although she was confident in her ability to connect with donors, Capital Campaign Pro’s feasibility study process, campaign framework, templates, and weekly advising sessions helped Mercy Beyond Borders test its plans, engage prospective donors, and move forward with greater confidence.

This episode offers valuable capital campaign guidance for small nonprofits, international organizations, founders, executive directors, development professionals, and anyone wondering whether their donor base is large or wealthy enough to support a major fundraising initiative. Mercy Beyond Borders proves that a relatively small organization can pursue a bold campaign goal when it has a compelling mission, loyal supporters, authentic leadership, strong donor stewardship, and the courage to invite people into something meaningful.

To ensure your campaign ends in a celebration, download our free Capital Campaign Step-by-Step Guide & Checklist - https://capitalcampaignpro.com/checklist/ - This intuitive guide breaks down each step of your campaign, and the timeline allows you to visualize your whole campaign, from start to finish!

Capital campaign terminology can be surprisingly confusing—and choosing the wrong campaign structure could make it harder for your board, donors, and staff to understand exactly what you are raising money for.

In this episode of All About Capital Campaigns, hosts Amy Eisenstein and Andrea Kihlstedt untangle the differences among capital campaigns, capacity campaigns, combined campaigns, comprehensive campaigns, building campaigns, and endowment campaigns. They explain what these commonly used fundraising terms actually mean—and why the distinction matters when your nonprofit begins planning a transformational fundraising initiative.

At its broadest, “capital campaign” is an umbrella term describing a specific kind of fundraising: a concentrated, top-heavy effort in which a significant portion of the campaign goal is raised through leadership gifts from a relatively small group of donors. Although capital campaigns are often associated with new buildings or major renovations, a campaign can fund much more than construction. It may also include new equipment, program expansion, additional staff, endowment funding, maintenance reserves, and other investments that increase an organization’s long-term capacity.

Amy and Andrea explain how these components can be combined into a single campaign goal—and why “capacity campaign” may sometimes be the most accurate description, even if it is not the term most organizations use.

The conversation then turns to one of the most important decisions nonprofit leaders must make: Should annual fundraising be counted as part of the campaign goal?

Universities and other large institutions often conduct comprehensive campaigns that count nearly every dollar raised during a defined period. A multiyear university campaign might include annual giving, facilities, scholarships, faculty positions, programs, and endowment contributions in one enormous fundraising goal.

For most community-based nonprofits, however, that approach may create more confusion than clarity. A food pantry, theater, human services organization, or environmental nonprofit typically has an ongoing annual fund that supports day-to-day operations. At the same time, it may be raising special campaign gifts for a major expansion or another one-time investment. Keeping those goals separate helps donors understand that the organization needs both their continued annual support and an additional, above-and-beyond campaign commitment.

Amy offers a useful household analogy: If your home needs a new roof, you cannot stop buying groceries or paying the electric bill to fund it. The roof is a special capital expense, while groceries and utilities remain essential ongoing costs. Your nonprofit’s annual fund and campaign goal work much the same way.

The hosts also address a common fear: Will a capital campaign cannibalize annual giving? Their experience suggests the opposite. During a well-run campaign, nonprofits communicate more frequently, strengthen donor relationships, generate excitement, and become more visible in their communities. As a result, annual giving can increase—even while many of the same donors make substantially larger campaign commitments.

The essential distinction is not whether you discuss annual and campaign giving with the same donors. You can, should, and often must ask for both. The question is whether annual fundraising is included in the official campaign goal or tracked separately.

This episode will help nonprofit executives, development directors, board members, and campaign leaders establish a shared vocabulary, select the right campaign structure, and communicate their funding needs clearly and confidently.

For more free capital campaign resources, visit https://capitalcampaignpro.com/campaign-resources.

A capital campaign is too large, too complex, and too consequential for one staff member to carry alone. In this episode of All About Capital Campaigns, Amy Eisenstein and Andrea Kihlstedt explain why engaging more people in your campaign can lead to larger gifts, stronger decisions, and a far less lonely experience for the person responsible for fundraising.

For many development directors, involving volunteers can feel like creating more work. Volunteers may miss meetings, arrive unprepared, dominate conversations, or fail to follow through. Faced with these possibilities, nonprofit leaders may decide it would be faster and easier to manage the campaign themselves.

Amy and Andrea make the case that this instinct can limit a campaign’s success. Drawing on decades of capital campaign experience, Andrea shares that volunteers frequently account for 60% to 70% of the people who ultimately give to a campaign. When people participate in shaping a campaign, they become more connected to its purpose. That engagement often makes them more likely to contribute and more willing to make a significant gift.

The solution is not to recruit one large campaign committee and ask every member to serve for several years. Instead, Amy and Andrea recommend creating a series of short-term, phase-specific committees, task forces, or working groups.

One group might help develop the case for support during pre-campaign planning. Another might participate in the feasibility study. Later groups can assist with campaign planning, leadership gifts, the public kickoff, or a campaign celebration. Each assignment has a defined purpose and a limited duration.

This structure makes it easier for busy people to say yes. A prospective volunteer may hesitate to accept a three-year commitment but gladly agree to attend three meetings or work on one defined project over two months. It also gives campaign leaders a natural way to identify their most effective volunteers. People who contribute useful ideas, complete assignments, and work well with others can be invited into future phases. Those who are unreliable or disruptive can be thanked and released when the short-term group concludes.

Volunteer engagement offers another benefit that goes beyond fundraising. Staff members, no matter how experienced, see the organization and its campaign from a limited perspective. Volunteers can challenge assumptions, sharpen the case for support, share lessons from other campaigns, and contribute expertise the staff may not possess.

For example, a volunteer with real estate experience may help an organization evaluate property or identify potential sites. Someone who has served on another campaign committee can explain how they approached donor conversations. A longtime community leader may know how different audiences will respond to the proposed project. These perspectives can produce a stronger campaign plan and a more compelling case.

The central lesson is simple: campaign volunteers are not merely extra hands. They can become donors, advocates, problem-solvers, connectors, and future campaign leaders. With clear assignments and thoughtful committee structures, involving more people does not have to create chaos. It can distribute responsibility, strengthen the campaign, and help your organization raise more money.

For more free capital campaign resources, visit https://capitalcampaignpro.com/campaign-resources.

What if asking for a major gift didn't feel uncomfortable at all? The best fundraising conversations aren't about persuading donors—they're about helping them discover how they want to make a difference.

In this Best of All About Capital Campaigns summer re-run, Andrea Kihlstedt is joined by Capital Campaign Pro Senior Advisor Kent Stroman, author of Asking About Asking: Mastering the Art of Conversational Fundraising. Together, they explore a refreshingly different philosophy of major gift fundraising—one built on listening, curiosity, and authentic relationships rather than pressure or persuasion.

Many nonprofit leaders dread solicitation meetings because they assume fundraising means convincing someone to give. Kent challenges that assumption by introducing the concept of conversational fundraising, where success isn't measured by simply securing a gift, but by helping donors make thoughtful, well-informed decisions that align with their passions and values.

Throughout the conversation, Andrea and Kent explain why traditional fundraising techniques often create unnecessary resistance and how changing your approach can transform both the donor experience and your own confidence as a fundraiser.

You'll learn why asking thoughtful questions is far more powerful than delivering polished presentations, why listening is the fundraiser's most valuable skill, and how genuine curiosity can uncover a donor's deepest motivations for giving.

They also compare Kent's "10-Step Staircase" framework with Andrea's "Arc of the Ask," highlighting the shared principles behind both models: preparation, patience, intentional listening, and allowing donors to become active participants in the conversation.

Along the way, they discuss why fundraisers should stop trying to overcome objections, how to ask questions that reveal a donor's purpose, and why rushing the solicitation process often undermines long-term relationships.

Whether you're preparing for your first major gift conversation or looking to refine your solicitation skills before your next capital campaign, this episode offers practical techniques that can immediately improve the quality of your donor conversations.

Perhaps most importantly, Andrea and Kent remind us that fundraising isn't about convincing people to give. It's about discovering what matters most to them—and helping them invest in something they genuinely care about.

For more free capital campaign resources, visit https://capitalcampaignpro.com/campaign-resources.