First Day Podcast

In this episode of The First Day from The Fund Raising School, Bill Stanczykiewicz, Ed.D., is joined by Carla Knorowski, Ph.D., a veteran fundraiser and advancement leader whose work has included institutions such as The Henry Ford, the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, and the U.S.-based foundation supporting Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris. Knorowski shares how she became involved with fundraising for Notre-Dame shortly before the devastating April 2019 fire and how the crisis transformed an effort originally focused on long-term support into an urgent global campaign to save, restore, and rebuild one of the world’s most recognizable landmarks. The experience offers fundraisers a vivid example of how powerful storytelling can connect donors to a mission, even when they may live thousands of miles away from the organization or cause.

Knorowski explains that effective storytelling begins with understanding the many different reasons people may care about an organization. For Notre-Dame, some donors were drawn by religious faith, others by history, literature, architecture, cultural heritage, or their own personal experiences visiting the cathedral. To organize those possibilities, the fundraising team developed what Knorowski describes as a “taxonomy of storytelling,” essentially a catalog of stories designed to appeal to different donor interests. She encourages nonprofits of every size to develop a similar approach, identifying stories that can speak to various motivations while weaving multiple points of connection into broader communications. Rather than relying on a single story for every audience, fundraisers can build a collection of narratives that help prospective donors recognize something personally meaningful within the mission.

Bill and Carla also discuss the importance of making the donor a central character in the story. Knorowski describes Notre-Dame itself as an initial protagonist, the fire as an antagonist, and firefighters, artisans, supporters, and donors as additional protagonists who became part of the cathedral’s recovery. That framing allowed donors at every giving level to see a tangible role for themselves. Instead of simply announcing that hundreds of millions of dollars were needed for restoration, fundraisers could invite someone to “protect the protectors” by helping restore the cathedral’s gargoyles or to “buttress a buttress” during the exterior restoration. Those smaller, vivid stories made an enormous campaign feel accessible and helped communicate that a gift of a few dollars could still be part of a much larger achievement. Donations ultimately came from all 50 states and more than 50 countries, demonstrating how storytelling can bridge geography, background, and even differing religious traditions.

The central takeaway is that data can demonstrate progress, but stories give that data emotional meaning. Knorowski emphasizes that metrics remain essential for accountability and continued donor engagement, yet “a compelling story is more powerful than compelling data” because stories help people understand why their participation matters. The restoration of Notre-Dame became a story not simply about repairing stone, timber, and architecture, but about preserving centuries of human history, responding to devastation with hope, and giving people an opportunity to contribute to something larger than themselves. For fundraisers, the lesson applies far beyond a world-famous cathedral: whether an organization helps a child learn to read, strengthens a community, preserves history, or improves someone’s quality of life, the most effective stories show donors how their philanthropy becomes part of that change. By cataloging stories, connecting them to different donor motivations, placing donors inside the narrative, and pairing emotional storytelling with meaningful evidence of impact, nonprofits can turn fundraising communications into invitations to make a lasting difference.

In this episode of The First Day from The Fund Raising School, Bill Stanczykiewicz, Ed.D., is joined by Angela Seaworth, Ph.D., MBA, ACFRE, Instructional Associate Professor at the Bush School of Government & Public Service, Texas A&M University, to explore how fundraisers can move beyond annual and major gifts toward transformational giving. Seaworth explains that a transformational gift is not defined by a particular dollar amount. While headlines may focus on gifts of $20 million, $50 million, or more; a $250,000 gift, or even a much smaller investment, can be transformational if it changes an organization’s trajectory, expands its capacity, or makes exponential impact possible. The key is for each nonprofit to define transformational giving in the context of its own mission, scale, and ambitions.

Seaworth emphasizes that transformational gifts begin with transformational ideas. Fundraisers and nonprofit leaders can sometimes limit themselves by worrying that an idea is too ambitious or an ask is too large, but donors capable of significant giving may be more inspired by bold possibilities than incremental improvements. Developing those opportunities requires an organizational culture that encourages innovation, visioning, and big-picture thinking across departments. Rather than expecting the development team to generate the next great idea alone, nonprofits can invite frontline staff, program leaders, executives, and fundraisers to imagine what greater impact could look like. Generating many ideas, including some that ultimately will not move forward, can help organizations identify the few opportunities with the greatest potential to advance the mission.

Bill and Angela also discuss the importance of trust and co-creation in developing transformational gifts. Strong donor relationships involve communication, investment, and what Seaworth describes as “mutual influence,” giving donors an opportunity to share ideas and participate meaningfully in shaping possibilities without allowing the organization to become donor-directed. One practical approach is the longstanding fundraising principle, “If you want money, ask for advice.” Instead of arriving with a finished proposal, fundraisers can bring donors into conversations about an ambitious idea, ask what excites them, and listen for connections to their experiences, passions, and hopes for the organization. Seaworth notes that donors capable of making extraordinary gifts may be seeking something they cannot simply purchase for themselves: the opportunity to advance a cause they deeply value, contribute to meaningful change, and create a lasting legacy.

The central takeaway is that transformational fundraising requires nonprofits to think bigger while remaining firmly grounded in mission, strategy, and relationships. One sign that a donor may be ready for a transformational conversation is the presence of multiple relationships across the organization, such as connections with fundraisers, program leaders, executives, or board members, which can deepen trust and demonstrate sustained engagement. Seaworth illustrates the point with an early-career example in which funding for something as unglamorous as a parking lot became transformational because it addressed a critical need and aligned with a donor’s passion for organizational sustainability. By cultivating innovative ideas, inviting donors into authentic conversations, and defining transformation according to what will genuinely move the mission forward, fundraisers can turn long-term relationships into opportunities for extraordinary impact.

In this episode of The First Day from The Fund Raising School, Bill Stanczykiewicz, Ed.D., is joined by Jeff Grandy, Vice President of Client Development at Catapult Fundraising, to discuss why every nonprofit should be thinking seriously about legacy giving, and why the best planned gift prospects may already be hiding in plain sight. Grandy explains that while surprise million-dollar bequests make headlines, they are not the typical story. More often, legacy donors are ordinary, deeply committed supporters whose long-term loyalty to an organization matters far more than the size of their annual gifts.

Grandy shares that loyalty is one of the strongest indicators of a potential legacy donor. At Catapult Fundraising, his team has found that donors with roughly 11 years of consecutive giving or 14 years of non-consecutive giving can be especially strong prospects, though organizations should adapt those benchmarks to their own donor base. A supporter giving $25 a year for more than a decade may be every bit as worthy of a legacy conversation as a major donor. The key is to look beyond wealth indicators and pay attention to sustained engagement, including donors, volunteers, alumni, grateful patients, and others who have maintained a meaningful connection to the mission.

Bill and Jeff also explore how fundraisers can begin those conversations without making planned giving feel uncomfortable or overly complicated. The starting point is curiosity, not a discussion about wills, death, or tax law. Fundraisers can simply ask longtime supporters why they continue to give, what they value about the organization, and what impact they hope to see continue in the future. Grandy emphasizes the importance of listening for those values, sharing appropriate donor stories, and allowing the relationship to develop over time. In his experience, legacy conversations may unfold across several interactions over six to 18 months, although some donors are already waiting to be asked; Catapult has found that about 25 percent of donors contacted during outreach say they have already included the organization in their plans.

The central takeaway is that legacy giving should be treated as part of a nonprofit’s overall fundraising strategy, not as a separate activity reserved for wealthy donors or large development teams. Strong annual giving systems, thoughtful donor stewardship, and long-term relationship building can all support a healthy legacy pipeline. By recognizing loyalty, approaching donors with authentic curiosity, and advocating for long-term sustainability alongside immediate fundraising needs, organizations can help supporters extend their values far into the future, and create transformational impact in the process.

Stay Connected with The Fund Raising School

🔗 Explore courses and resources: https://bit.ly/3QKSAEn

🤝 Join the The Fund Raising School – Changemakers Community on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/21740024/

📱 Follow us for more fundraising insights:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/thefundraisingschool/

• Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thefundraisingschool/

• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheFundRaisingSchool

In this episode of The First Day from The Fund Raising School, Bill Stanczykiewicz, Ed.D., is joined by Lisa Chmiola, MS, CFRE, CSPG, Director of Legacy and Gift Planning for Children’s Medical Center Foundation in Dallas, to discuss how fundraisers can make planned giving less intimidating and build support for it across an entire nonprofit organization.

Chmiola shares her own path into gift planning, which began in event-based fundraising before moving into individual giving. Her experience offers reassurance for fundraisers who may feel overwhelmed by planned giving: you do not need to become an expert in every type of charitable gift at once. Instead, she recommends starting with common approaches such as bequests, beneficiary designations, appreciated securities, qualified charitable distributions, and donor-advised fund grants. More complex gifts can be handled with support from attorneys, community foundations, financial professionals, and other experts.

Bill and Lisa also explore why planned giving should not be treated as a separate fundraising function. A strong gift planning program can strengthen long-term sustainability while supporting current fundraising goals. Loyal annual fund donors, even those giving modest amounts each year, may eventually become significant legacy donors. Conversations about non-cash assets can also reveal resources donors may never have considered using philanthropically. With less than 3 percent of wealth in the United States held in cash, fundraisers should recognize that a donor’s capacity to give often extends far beyond a checking account or paycheck.

Those conversations require fundraisers to listen carefully and feel comfortable suggesting possibilities. A donor may mention securities, retirement assets, real estate, or other property without realizing those assets could be used for charitable giving. Chmiola emphasizes that fundraisers do not need to provide legal or financial advice themselves. Their role is to recognize opportunities, remain in relationship with the donor, and connect them with the appropriate professionals when needed.

Organizations also need to be prepared for complex and non-cash gifts. Chmiola recommends that every nonprofit understand its gift acceptance policy, or create one if none exists. A strong policy defines which gifts the organization will accept, which require additional review, and which could create more cost or liability than benefit. A racehorse, for example, may appear valuable until boarding, feeding, veterinary care, and other expenses consume the proceeds from its sale. Real estate can bring its own requirements, including title reviews, inspections, and environmental assessments.

That ability to say no is part of responsible stewardship. Fundraisers are not obligated to accept every asset simply because it is offered with charitable intent. Instead, gift planning should begin with the donor’s “why”: why they care, what impact they want to make, and only then how the gift should be structured. If one asset is not a good fit, the fundraiser can help identify another path.

The central takeaway is that planned giving works best when it is integrated into the organization’s broader fundraising strategy. By building internal confidence, understanding common giving vehicles, adopting thoughtful gift acceptance policies, and keeping the donor’s goals at the center of the conversation, organizations can create meaningful opportunities for supporters to give both today and in the future.

In this episode of The First Day from The Fund Raising School, Bill Stanczykiewicz, Ed.D., is joined by Adrian Sargeant, Ph.D., co-director of the Institute for Sustainable Philanthropy and a pioneering researcher in donor relationships, stewardship, and fundraising, to explore what it really means when fundraisers say that fundraising is “all about relationships.”

Drawing on decades of research, Sargeant explains how his own thinking about fundraising has evolved. Rather than viewing fundraising simply as raising money for a good cause, he now describes the profession as being responsible for “stewarding the human capacity to love.” That shift changes how fundraisers think about donor relationships, moving beyond traditional measures such as satisfaction, trust, and commitment toward three deeper dimensions: identity, well-being, and love.

Sargeant begins with donor identity and the importance of understanding not merely why donors give, but who they believe themselves to be when they give. Simple surveys asking supporters for five words that describe themselves, and five words describing themselves as supporters of the organization, can reveal language that fundraisers can incorporate into communications. Instead of simply thanking someone for a “kind donation,” for example, an organization might thank the donor “for your kindness,” reinforcing the donor’s sense of identity and creating a warmer, more personal experience.

Bill and Adrian also explore three elements of donor well-being: connection, autonomy, and competence. Donors may want to feel connected to beneficiaries, a particular community, an organization’s mission, a faith tradition, or even a beloved institutional brand. They also benefit from feeling that they exercised meaningful choice and personally helped make something happen. Finally, donors want to feel competent in expressing their care for others. Fundraising communications that intentionally reinforce these experiences can strengthen relationships while also producing measurable financial results.

Those results can be substantial. Sargeant says that experiments incorporating identity and well-being into fundraising communications have often doubled campaign income after several rounds of testing. Even relatively simple changes in the language used to describe donors have produced increases in giving of more than 20 percent. The goal, however, is not manipulation. It is to communicate in ways that more accurately reflect who donors are, what they value, and how they want their philanthropy to feel.

For organizations with limited staff and resources, Sargeant recommends starting with simple, practical steps. A short donor survey can become part of the stewardship process while generating valuable information about identity and preferred connections. Organizations can then use those insights to improve communications and segmentation: learning which beneficiaries, causes, or aspects of the mission individual donors most want to feel connected to. The approach does not require an enormous donor relations department, but it does require curiosity, intentionality, and support from organizational leadership.

The central takeaway is that effective donor relationships begin with seeing donors as people rather than transactions. Philanthropy itself is rooted in the idea of “love for humankind,” and Sargeant’s research offers fundraisers practical, evidence-based ways to bring that idea into everyday stewardship. By understanding donor identity, strengthening well-being, and creating warmer, more personal communications, fundraisers can help supporters experience greater joy in giving while building the kind of relationships that lead to sustainable, lifelong philanthropy.

In this episode of The First Day from The Fund Raising School, Bill Stanczykiewicz, Ed.D., is joined by Vicki Pugh, CFRE, CAP, CEO of Advancement Experts and longtime faculty member with The Fund Raising School, to explore how fundraisers can begin using artificial intelligence with confidence, curiosity, and a healthy dose of caution.

Drawing on decades of fundraising experience, Pugh describes her own entry into AI as a self-described “low tech girl living in a high-tech world.” Formal training helped her move beyond simply experimenting with large language models to understanding how better prompts could produce useful results. She explains that AI can accelerate tasks such as writing, summarizing, donor research, and data analysis, while giving fundraisers more time to focus on strategy and relationships.

Bill and Vicki also emphasize an essential rule for using AI responsibly: verify the results. AI tools can hallucinate, produce inaccurate information, or present incomplete findings with confidence. Fundraisers should compare outputs across tools and continue using trusted sources such as donor research platforms, public records, organizational databases, and other established resources. AI can dramatically speed up the research process, but it should support professional judgment rather than replace it.

Pugh shares several examples of how AI-assisted data analysis can translate into practical fundraising strategy. For one organization, analyzing giving patterns revealed unusually strong retention at a longstanding $350 giving level. That insight led to a strategy for encouraging donors to move toward $500 gifts, contributing to an additional $30,000 in fundraising. In another case, AI-supported analysis helped a nonprofit respond to a board request to increase annual fundraising from $2 million to $3 million by using historical growth rates to establish more realistic goals and identify the staffing and investment that additional growth would require.

These examples demonstrate that AI is not only for large universities, hospitals, or nonprofits with sophisticated technology teams. Smaller organizations and one-person fundraising shops can use the same tools to examine retention, donor upgrades, acquisition opportunities, giving ranges, campaign goals, and other patterns that might otherwise require hours of manual analysis. Used effectively, AI can become an equalizer by helping organizations with limited staff access information and insights more quickly.

At the same time, Pugh stresses that the “human element” remains indispensable. AI can identify where donor numbers, dollars, or retention rates are improving or declining, but fundraisers must decide what those patterns mean and how to respond. The technology may generate possibilities, but people still develop the personal outreach, communications, stewardship, renewal, and upgrade strategies that turn information into stronger donor relationships. As Bill notes, one of AI’s most valuable roles may be idea generation rather than simply producing answers.

The central takeaway is simple: fundraisers do not need to become technology experts overnight, but they do need to remain curious and continue learning. Pugh encourages professionals to take courses, learn from colleagues who understand AI, experiment with multiple platforms, and gradually build their skills. AI adoption is a journey, not a competition. By combining new technology with fundraising experience, verification, and human judgment, fundraisers can save time, gain better information, and make stronger strategic decisions.

In this episode of The First Day from The Fund Raising School, Bill Stanczykiewicz, Ed.D., is joined by Amanda Sattler, PhilD, consultant and researcher with Amanda Sattler Consulting, to examine fundraiser burnout and why solving it requires more than self-care.

Drawing on more than 20 years of fundraising experience, including two significant periods of burnout in her own career, Sattler explains that fundraisers can be physically, mentally, emotionally, and relationally healthy and still struggle when their organizations fail to provide adequate resources, support, and shared leadership. Fundraisers have a responsibility to care for and advocate for themselves, but organizations and sector leaders must also recognize burnout as a systemic issue.

Sattler describes several workplace conditions that can contribute to burnout, including excessive workload, lack of fairness, conflicting values, and weak relationships. Because the causes differ, the solutions must differ as well. Reducing workload may not solve a fairness problem, just as higher compensation may not address isolation. Effective responses require diagnosing the real issue and building stronger partnerships among fundraisers, CEOs, supervisors, boards, and colleagues.

Bill and Amanda also discuss the challenge of “leading up” when fundraisers are not in the organization’s ultimate decision-making role. Sattler encourages fundraisers to raise concerns before burnout reaches a crisis and to connect those conversations to organizational outcomes. Investments in staffing, technology, training, and other resources are not simply employee benefits. They directly affect fundraising capacity and, ultimately, mission delivery.

The conversation then expands to the nonprofit sector’s long-standing scarcity mindset and the “myth of overhead.” Using the job demands-resources model, Sattler explains that burnout becomes more likely when demands consistently exceed available resources. External pressures such as the COVID-19 pandemic or losses in government funding can intensify the problem, but often reveal organizational fragility that already existed because of chronic underinvestment in people, systems, fundraising capacity, and indirect costs.

Sattler proposes a different approach: “human-centered stewardship,” where sustaining the people responsible for generating and deploying resources is treated as part of responsible nonprofit management. She also encourages fundraisers to build connections outside their organizations through professional associations, peer communities, training, and continuing education. Those relationships may not solve internal challenges, but they can provide critical support and perspective.

The central takeaway is simple: caring for fundraisers is not separate from caring for the mission. Creating sustainable conditions for the people responsible for generating resources is essential to creating sustainable impact.

In this episode of The First Day from The Fund Raising School, Bill Stanczykiewicz, Ed.D., is joined by Ted Grossnickle, CFRE, Senior Consultant and Chairman at JGA Counsel, to explore one of the nonprofit sector’s perennial challenges; meaningful board engagement. Grossnickle argues that board members often underestimate just how much influence they have on current and prospective donors, and that effective board service requires something deeper than simply attending meetings and filling a seat. He describes board membership as a “covenant” and distinguishes between mere alliance and true allegiance to the organization. When trustees approach their role with seriousness of purpose, understand the mission, and see how their service can create real impact, board work becomes not an obligation to endure but an opportunity to lead.

That deeper engagement begins with thoughtful recruitment and clear expectations. Bill and Ted caution against selecting board members simply because they have a prominent name, impressive title, or substantial financial resources. Those qualities can be valuable, but research consistently points to passion for the cause as a critical ingredient. Rather than racing to fill open seats, nonprofits should use a deliberate process of conversations and discernment to determine whether prospective trustees understand the organization, care deeply about its work, and possess the judgment needed to address both successes and difficult challenges. Bill notes that when fundraising expectations are communicated during recruitment and orientation, board members are 11 times more likely to donate and fundraise for the organization, a powerful reminder that clarity at the beginning can shape engagement for years to come.

The conversation then turns to what Grossnickle calls a board member’s “bias for action.” That does not mean trustees should swoop in and start managing staff. Role clarity matters. Board members should focus on governance, strategic direction, advice, and partnership with staff, while also recognizing the unique contribution they can make to fundraising. They do not have to become professional solicitors, but they should be willing to tell the organization’s story, introduce prospective supporters, accompany staff on donor visits, and ask, “How can I help?” Bill also emphasizes the importance of pursuing 100% board giving while avoiding mandatory minimum gifts, which can exclude passionate and valuable trustees. The goal is full participation at a personally meaningful level, allowing board members to lead by example when inviting others to invest.

Finally, Ted warns nonprofit leaders against becoming victims of “the tyranny of the urgent.” Strong boards are not built by rushing recruitment, compressing important conversations, or assuming trustees will somehow figure out their responsibilities along the way. His advice is wonderfully simple, “Measure twice and cut once.” Invest time upfront in clarifying roles, discussing expectations, providing context, and preparing board members to contribute effectively to advancement. That extra care, he argues, saves time, money, and frustration later while treating trustees with the respect their role deserves. Bill closes by reinforcing the central message: board seats are special, expectations should be intentional, and when nonprofits cultivate allegiance, clarity, and a genuine bias for action, board members can become some of the organization’s most credible and influential ambassadors.

In this episode of The First Day from The Fund Raising School, Bill Stanczykiewicz, Ed.D., tackles one of the most persistent questions in major gift fundraising: when is the right time to make the ask? Fundraisers may know the classic “six rights” of fundraising: the right person asking the right person for the right amount, for the right reason, in the right way, and at the right time. But that final “right” can be surprisingly difficult to recognize. Drawing on conversations with veteran major gift fundraisers, Bill identifies signals that suggest a donor is ready. He also shares advice from longtime fundraiser and attorney Andy Hibble: “Don’t ask for a major gift until you know for certain what the answer is going to be.” The goal is not clairvoyance, but enough relationship-building and attentive listening that the donor’s likely response is no longer a mystery.

One major indicator is growing involvement with the organization. Early fundraising relationships often focus on linkage, interest, and ability, but as relationships deepen, Bill encourages fundraisers to watch for linkage, involvement, and advocacy. Donors may attend more events, accept more meetings, introduce the organization to others, share its content, or bring spouses, children, grandchildren, or advisers into conversations. They may ask to meet senior leaders or program staff because they want a deeper understanding of the mission and its results. Another strong signal comes when a donor says they need to discuss an opportunity with a financial adviser or estate attorney. At that point, the gift may have moved from an interesting idea to something they are seriously considering.

Bill also highlights changes in the quality of a donor’s questions and comments. Someone who once needed basic information may begin arriving more prepared, speaking more confidently, and asking increasingly sophisticated questions about the organization’s mission, strategy, results, and future. Sometimes the cues are wonderfully obvious: “I think I could be donating more,” “I’m blown away by what you’re doing,” or every fundraiser’s favorite, “Do you have some specific ideas for me to consider?” Donors may also ask about planned giving, legacy opportunities, multi-year commitments, or future needs. These comments suggest they are thinking beyond a single transaction and toward a longer-term philanthropic relationship.

Finally, Bill encourages fundraisers to pay attention to body language, behavior, and the rhythm of the relationship. Donors may become more relaxed in meetings, lean forward during certain topics, or offer deeper answers when asked what they want their philanthropy to accomplish. Bill compares this to the research concept of “saturation”: eventually, meetings may begin covering the same ground with little new information emerging. When today’s conversation sounds a lot like the previous two, cultivation may have reached its natural endpoint. That can be the moment to ask, “At our next meeting, can I bring you some ideas?” Experienced fundraisers may simply describe it as “feeling the vibe,” but Bill’s takeaway is that good timing comes from recognizing a pattern of increasing involvement, knowledge, enthusiasm, and readiness that signals the relationship can move from cultivation to invitation.

In this episode of The First Day from The Fund Raising School, Bill Stanczykiewicz, Ed.D., welcomes Jeremy Wells, Senior Vice President of Philanthropic Services at the St. Paul and Minnesota Foundation, to explore one of fundraising’s largest overlooked opportunities: non-cash giving. Fundraisers often focus on a donor’s income, checking account, or other liquid resources because, as Jeremy admits, the easiest gift to request is usually the one that can come back to the office as a check. The problem is that cash represents only a small fraction of the wealth held in the United States, just over 4%, according to the data Jeremy cites. The rest may be tied up in privately held businesses, real estate, farmland, stocks, mineral rights, intellectual property, collectibles, and other assets donors may never have considered charitable resources. Jeremy’s central message is that nonprofits are “fishing from the smallest pond” when they limit fundraising conversations to cash.

Jeremy brings the opportunity to life with examples that range from the valuable to the wonderfully unexpected. One donor contributed 2,500 American Eagle silver coins purchased in 1987 and left gathering dust for nearly four decades. What the donor initially viewed as an old collection became a six-figure gift to a food service organization at a moment of significant need. Another donor contributed shares in a privately held business before a liquidity event, resulting in approximately $5.5 million for a donor-advised fund. After a positive experience, that same donor returned with another privately held business gift worth about $7.5 million. The psychological difference matters: writing a check may feel constrained by current income, while donating an appreciated asset can unlock generosity on an entirely different scale.

The conversation then turns to how fundraisers can introduce these possibilities without arriving at a donor meeting armed with an asset inventory and the subtle warmth of a tax auditor. Jeremy recommends beginning with the donor’s aspirations: what would they accomplish if they could make a truly significant difference? Once the donor is dreaming about impact, the fundraiser can explore what resources might make that vision possible. Careful listening is essential. A passing complaint about maintaining an unused family cabin, for example, may open a conversation about donating real estate. These discussions generally grow from trust with established donors, not from a first-time solicitation. Fundraisers should also recognize the ethical complexity surrounding wealth. Jeremy argues that nonprofits can acknowledge concerns about wealth concentration while still partnering with people who have already decided both to give their wealth away and to work with a charitable organization to do it.

Bill and Jeremy close with practical steps for organizational readiness. Nonprofits should review their gift acceptance policies, discuss non-cash assets with staff, executives, and board members, and determine which gifts they can manage internally. Organizations without the staff expertise, systems, or appetite for risk should identify outside partners before an unusual gift appears and sends everyone scrambling through old files asking, “What did we do last time?” Community foundations and other specialists can handle valuation, due diligence, documentation, liquidation, and donor intent, often for a small percentage of the gift. Jeremy also encourages fundraisers to learn which assets are especially common in their own regions, whether cabins in Minnesota, agricultural property in farming communities, mineral interests in Texas, or intellectual property on the coasts. The takeaway is not that every fundraiser must become an expert in every asset. They need to start the conversation, prepare the organization, know whom to call, and help donors discover a much larger capacity for the joy of giving.