I often get asked what does it take to become a fundraising consultant. Patrick Ryan shared with me what he feels are the skills and traits that distinguish great fundraising consultants. They are:

1. Technical skills…experience with campaign direction…strategic planning…knowledge of fundraising practises.

2. Personal skills…working effectively with otheres…empathy…personable…outgoing.

3. Being a good planner…well organized…documenting…problem solver.

4. self-starter…display initiative…entrepreneurial spirit…independence.

5. Maturity…satisfaction in honouring others…sharing the credit…an ego in check.

6.Management…skill in directing and supporting volunteers and staff…ability to multi-task.

7. Results oriented…focus on measurable performance…perserverance.

8. Leadership…self-confidence…servent-leader mode…inspiring others to act…ability to direct others.

9. Creativity…strong analytical skills…expertise…insight.

10. Stable lifestyle…able to travel…in control…emotionally and physically health.

There always has been, and always will be, many things that neither the private sector nor the government can provide, says former U.S. president Bill Clinton. But today’s problems are so big that the need for non-governmental organizations to fill that gap has never been more acute.

That’s the message he delivered at the Community Foundations of Canada conference I attended in Vancouver last week. Clinton is a friend of Frank Giustra, the Vancouver-based mining magnate who donated $100 million to create the Clinton-Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative. And Giustra is a friend of the host city’s Vancouver Foundation.

So what are these big problems that the man who once held the most powerful office on earth now seeks volunteer help to solve?

The first, he said, is inequality.

“Half the world’s population still live on less than $2 a day. A billion people go to bed hungry every night. A billion people have no access to clean water. Two and a half billion people have no access to sanitation.

“And even in some of the wealthiest countries, access to mental health services, support for the developmentally disabled and the crisis of homelessness -these are persistent problems.

“In the United States from World War II to 1980, the bottom 90 per cent of our working people consistently claimed 65 per cent of the nation’s income. The top 10 per cent [got] 35 per cent, the top one per cent nine per cent.

“That was enough inequality to spur people to be creative, to create businesses, to succeed. And enough equality to enable us to build an enormous middle class and rise to first in the world in the percentage of our young people with four-year college degrees.

Since 1980, “The bottom 90 per cent’s share of income has gone from 65 per cent to 52 per cent. The top 10 per cent from 35 per cent to 48 per cent. And the top one per cent has gone from nine to 22 per cent.”

The second big issue, he said, is instability. Not just terrorism -though that’s part of it -but also diseases like SARS that can spread globally in very little time, or the financial crisis that spilled across borders.

“The trick is to have enough play in the system to have creativity, but not so much instability that people like you [in non-profit organizations] are overwhelmed by people who are coping with problems they can’t possibly deal with.”

The last big problem he singled out is the unsustainability of how we produce and consume energy.

Climate change is real, he said. And it has the potential to sorely damage even the world’s well-functioning economies.

The non-profit sector is, in some ways, better positioned than either business or government to deal with aspects of these challenges.

“Unlike the private sector, we don’t have to turn a profit in a short amount of time.” And if things go wrong, “unlike the government, we don’t have to be quite as worried about a bad story in the newspapers.”

He also commented that Canada was not as impacted as the US and other countries during the economic crisis because our Banks have “systems” in place to prevent such a thing from happening here. He added that developing nations need “systems” if they are to move forward economically.

The text of a speech allegedly given by Bill Gates in which he sets out 11 rules for life kids won’t learn in school.

BILL GATES’ SPEECH TO MT. WHITNEY HIGH SCHOOL in Visalia, California.

Love him or hate him, he sure hits the nail on the head with this!

Rule 1: Life is not fair — get used to it!

Rule 2: The world won’t care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.

Rule 3: You will NOT make $60,000 a year right out of high school. You won’t be a vice-president with a car phone until you earn both.

Rule 4: If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss.

Rule 5: Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your Grandparents had a different word for burger flipping — they called it opportunity.

Rule 6: If you mess up, it’s not your parents’ fault, so don’t whine about your mistakes, learn from them.

Rule 7: Before you were born, your parents weren’t as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you thought you are. So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent’s generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.

Rule 8: Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life HAS NOT. In some schools they have abolished failing grades and they’ll give you as MANY TIMES as you want to get the right answer. This doesn’t bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.

Rule 9: Life is not divided into semesters. You don’t get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you FIND YOURSELF. Do that on your own time.

Rule 10: Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.

Rule 11: Be nice to nerds. Chances are you’ll end up working for one.

Words of wisdom we can all use from former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger from a speech he gave Wednesday January 26 in Toronto:

1. Trust yourself.

2. Have a clear vision of what you want.

3. Be willing to break the rules.

4. Never listen to the naysayers.

5. Don’t be afraid to fail; it is ok to fail. The bigger the risk, the bigger the reward.

6. Work like hell! The more you work on things, the better they are. Don’t look for shortcuts! WE all have 24 hours each day; you only need to sleep; that leaves 18 hours for doing other things. You have no excuse!

7. Every day is an opportunity for learning.

8. Be yourself – your own person. Don’t change who you are to conform to other’s vision of what you should be.

The Goldie Company in association with Collis & Reed Research developed and administered a survey to query nonprofit and charitable organizations from across Canada on donor recognition and stewardship practices. The main objective of this project was to construct a profile of how these organizations go about thanking and stewarding their donors. 

Specifically we looked at:

• The most common stewardship and donor recognition practices that are used.
• Strategies that are perceived to be the most successful.
• Practices that have not been successful.
• The challenges recognition programs face.
• The extent to which organizations with strongly developed stewardship programs have been impacted by the current economic situation.

A brief overview of the survey sample:
The survey was administered as an online questionnaire that could be accessed from March 1st to May 31st. Participants were informed about the survey via an e-mail that included a link that could be clicked on to directly access the survey.

A total of 207 nonprofit and charitable organizations from across Canada took part in the survey. Sixty percent of participants were from organizations that were headquartered in Central Canada while 25% were located in Western Canada. The remaining 5% were from Eastern Canada.

Organizations taking part in the survey categorized themselves according to the sector they serve. The two largest sectors were health care and education.

Slightly less than half of the organizations taking part in the survey employed less than 10 staff:

The sample was evenly split between organizations requiring $1,000,000 or under in annual revenue, organizations requiring between $1,00,000,000 – $5,000,000 and organizations requiring over $5,000,000 in annual revenue.

Over half of the respondents reported an increase in revenue during 2009 compared to 2008.

An overview of the survey results:

• 70% of organizations have different programs in place to thank donors depending on their level of contribution.
• 81% of organizations have a program in place to thank and steward major donors.
• Major donors are defined as donors of $5,000 or more (median value).
• Donors are most frequently thanked through mass distribution approaches such as thank-you letters, reports and newsletters. Major donors are acknowledged through more personalized techniques such as arranging one-on-one meetings with organization representatives, invitations to special events and telephone calls from high-profile people within the organization.  These three techniques used to interact with major donors are also viewed as having the most impact, though not all organizations have experienced success using these strategies and some have discontinued these practices due to a lack of results. In addition, organizations indicated that they used a larger number of techniques to thank their major donors compared to their annual campaign donors. Further, there is greater variability in the number of stewardship techniques used by stewardship programs compared to donors.
• The majority of organizations contact their major donors 3 to 5 times a year. Defining a well-established stewardship program as one that contacts their major donors 3 or more times a year, 59% of these organizations experienced an increase in dollars donated in the tough economic climate of 2009 compared to 2008, whereas those organizations that contact their major donors 1 to 2 times a year, only 43% report an increase in gifts during 2009.
• Five years (median) is the length of time that organizations have had a dedicated program in place to thank and steward major donors.
• The median number of Full Time Equivalent (F.T.E.) staff working on stewardship initiatives is one (1).
• Communications and resource issues are the two most frequently reported challenges faced by stewardship programs.
• 62% of organizations have changed their marketing strategy over the past two years.
• 70% percent of organizations seek out new information about fundraising on an ongoing basis. The most common sources of information reported were conferences, memberships in associations, networking with other fundraising professionals and attending workshops.
• Respondents rated their agreement as to whether their organization had:
  • A strong and realistic Case for Support.
  • A fundraising team that is seen as champions for their cause.
  • An effective strategy in place to cultivate donors for future gifts.
  • An up-to-date and well-managed database.
  • A system in place to inform and engage major donors.
  • A well-run donor recognition program in place.
  • A coordinated and active media communication strategy in place.
• Overall, on a seven-point scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) respondents on average rated these characteristics on the border between neutral to somewhat agree (4.65).
• A strong and realistic case for support received the highest average rating of 4.97 (somewhat agree) while a well-run donor recognition program is in place received the lowest average rating of 4.39 (neutral).
• Respondents attribute low ratings to ineffective strategy development, lack of resources and organizational commitment.
• Demographic differences were explored for the following variables: geographic location, increase/decrease in revenue between 2009 and 2008, type of program, staff size and the amount of annual revenue required. The most prevalent differences observed throughout the survey results were among organizations that require annual revenue of under $1 million dollars, compared to organizations requiring greater sums of annual revenue.

Concluding Remarks:

• Given that this was a voluntary survey, it can be assumed that participants who have an existing stewardship program in place, or are in the process of creating such a program, would be more inclined to take part in this survey. Therefore, it is likely that the 81% of organizations reporting a separate program in place to thank and cultivate major donors is an inflated statistic. Two unique findings in the data might be explained by this assumption of self-selection of survey participants. First, unlike other recent surveys of the charitable and nonprofit sectors, a majority of our respondents report that revenue increased during 2009 compared with 2008. This may suggest that stewardship programs play a role in cushioning the impact on organizations during challenging economic times. On a related note, despite the majority of these organizations not being impacted by economic tough times as other organizations, most respondents provided lower than expected ratings on the organizational characteristic scale questions. This may be an indication that these respondents are particularly aware of the importance of these characteristics and as a result tend to have a much higher criterion of successful implementation of these characteristics.  They are, in a sense, more self-critical of their efforts.
• The results of this survey presents an interesting picture of how stewardship is evolving in the nonprofit industry. Developing a program to thank and steward donors is a relatively young fundraising practice in Canada. Respondents report a median age of 5 years of operating organized donor recognition and stewardship. In contrast to how organizations thank their annual donors, where there are a small number of techniques that are known to be effective and are used by most organizations, the survey results indicate there is no prescribed way that thanking major donors is carried out. Methodologies appear to vary from organization to organization. How effectively these strategies are executed also appears to vary and it is highly dependent on the size and resources available to these organizations.

Beyond the fact that formal stewardship programs are relatively new compared to standard donor recognition (e.g., donor walls and annual reports), it is also a far more complex process as well.  Stewardship involves the interaction of many operations including:

• Assessing and acting upon the key motivating factors that will help turn a donor into a major donor:

There has been considerable research into motivational factors associated with giving behaviour (for example, the works of Penelope Burk and Kay Sprinkle Grace that specifically relate motivational factors to donor behaviour) and a wide assortment of social psychological research that looks at motivation in more general terms. Motivational factors associated with stewardship include a mix of internal factors such as emotional ties to a cause (e.g., emotions associated by being an alumni of a university, a patient/family member in a hospital) and ego, the recognition a donor receives for making a substantial donation. External factors include social impact (how the donation is going to make a difference) and personal benefit (how the donation might help the donor’s status in the community). A stewardship approach would require organizations to look at the potential internal and external motivating factors related to their cause, and the audience most likely to respond, then build a message and communication strategy that touches on key internal and external factors in order to increase the probability of success.

• Building a real bond between the organization and the donor:

While the message is important, it can be lost if not delivered by a person that lends credibility to that message. People involved in stewarding donors must be “champions to the cause.” This might be high-profile individuals in the community who are connected to the cause, or directors or organization leaders who have a long-term commitment to the cause.

• Sustaining the bond:

By definition stewardship is a long-term process. Successful stewardship usually requires multiple interactions with major donors to build a relationship. It is necessary to insure a bond is developed and sustained over an extended period of time.

• An organized and well-executed implementation:

The message, the bond, and sustaining the bond is dependent on an organized and well-executed implementation. There are many factors related to an organized approach. These include developing, maintaining and using a database where information about donors can be stored and retrieved in order to personalize interactions; the ability to deliver a well- executed fundraising campaign with “champions to the cause” interacting with donors and the community in an organized, consistent manner over time; and delivering a message that is in line with the organization’s key message developed through analysis of motivational factors that would most likely lead to major gifts.
These four factors interact together and play a significant role toward successful stewardship. Given that organizations are likely not to be equally strong in all of these areas leads to variability of stewardship success. This variability is evident in the survey data. For example, while some organizations report success implementing special events as a key part of their stewardship strategy, others report that such a strategy has been discontinued due to lack of interest.
It is also clear that a serious implementation of the four stewardship factors requires a significant investment in resources (in terms of both personnel and capital). Further, because stewardship by definition is a long-term approach used to grow the number of major donors, there is a considerable lag between implementation and a return on investment. As expected, the study results show that most organizations with larger budgets (for example over $5 million annually) have more extensive stewardship programs in place. The majority of small- and medium-sized organizations that participated in the survey report having smaller scale stewardship programs in place. The survey results indicate that these smaller organizations might benefit from the development of best practices geared to accomplishing similar stewardship outcomes using fewer resources.

Acknowledgements

For some time, Gina Eisler and I had been expressing our concern about stewardship programs in Canada, wondering how organizations were practising stewardship and how these stewardship programs were faring. Our sense was that stewardship was largely misunderstood. Our hope was to acquire some statistical data that would give us some insight, a current snapshot of stewardship in Canada. So I wish to thank Gina first and foremost for her shared interest in this topic and her enthusiastic participation throughout the process. To Ron Collis, an immense thank-you for designing the survey, conducting it and compiling the findings. To Neil Hannam for reviewing the results and the report, your feedback and recommendations were invaluable. To Susan Taylor-Simpson, my grateful appreciation for all of your assistance, and to Jim Hilborn, I heartily thank you for your encouragement.

Nine Leading Practice Principles of Community Engagement

Community engagement refers to the process by which community benefit organizations and individuals build ongoing, permanent relationships for the purpose of applying a collective vision for the benefit of a community.

In today’s world, more and more organizations are undertaking community engagement. Increasingly, the ability to know your audience, target your donors and to predict future behaviours is a determinant factor in the success or failure of any fundraising campaign. This is especially true in this tough economic environment. Susan Taylor Simpson spoke at an AFP session and brought to my attention the nine leading practice principles of community engagement. They are as follows:

1. Clarity of Purpose

• Understanding clearly why the engagement is occurring and it’s context
• Ensure that the choice of engagement techniques is suitable
• Be clear about who should be engaged
• Implication – Be clear about the “ask”; ask the right people in the right way.

2. Commitment

• Allocate sufficient time and resources to the process
• Provide and encourage ongoing feedback throughout the process
• Properly record and document the process and feedback
• Implication – Commit to being open and transparent with donors.

3. Communication

• Communication is multi-faceted: it includes information gathering and sharing, collaborative discussion and decision-making
• Communication is ongoing throughout the process
• Implication – Communicate with donors repeatedly and continuously.

4. Evidence

• Use latest research
• Provide quality information to the participants at all stages of the process
• Ensure accuracy and consistency of information throughout the process
• Implication – Provide donors with accurate and up-to-date information about the organization and its work.

5. Flexibility and Responsiveness

• Be flexible at both the planning and implementation stages
• Select range of techniques that enable different communities or sectors to participate effectively
• Implication – Be flexible and responsive in your fund-raising techniques

6. Timeliness

• Be clear about the time you have for the task
• Ensure participants receive information in enough time to make effective contributions
• Inform participants as to when they can expect feedback on their contributions
• Make sure that feedback is given to participants on time
• Implication – Be realistic about timing; provide feedback in a timely manner.

7. Inclusiveness

• Get to know and understand the communities you want to engage
• Acknowledge and respect their diversity
• Avoid jargon and technical language
• Aim for accessibility throughout the process
• Implication – Know your donors; reach out to and include all potential donors.

8. Collaboration

• Adjust for scales of involvement
• Seek community input at the planning stage
• Work with other agencies operating in the area to avoid repetitive consultations
• Implication – Consider the involvement of donors and partners when planning a fund-raising campaign.

9. Continuous Learning

• Monitor and evaluate as you go
• Encourage community feedback on the process itself as well as the subject of the engagement
• Report back within your organization to ensure the organization learns from the process
• Measurable outcomes
• Implication – Evaluate for donor engagement; measure engagement and donations received.

Over the last few years, time and time again, I find myself asking my clients to reconsider the information that is displayed on their websites. I have realized that all it takes is one click on your website for a potential donor to decide if they actually want to give to your organization. Times are changing and with the accessibility of the Internet, so is the fundrasing industry.  Prospective donors no longer have to directly get in contact with the non-profit organizations to decide if they want to make a donation or not. All they have to do is visit their website.

Recently, I came across an article in the Advancing Philanthropy publication, written by Gail Perry, which both highlights and supports my belief regarding the importance of my client’s websites. The Internet allows potential donors to have all the information they need at their fingertips; therefore, it is very important for all non-profit organizations to ask themselves the following questions.

1. Does your website represent you well? Does it tell a compelling, moving story (i.e., photos of people helped by your organization)?
2. When visitors come to your site, can they easily find out what they want? The navigation needs to be intuitive and easy for anyone.
3. What’s the call to action on your site? What do you want your visitors to do? Too many sites beat around the bush and do not come right out and ask for involvement and funds. Be sure your site has a clear call to action that captures your readers’ attention.
4. Does your site convey legitimacy and credibility? Do you post information on your website that proves your non-profit status? Do you post the names of your board members – the members of your community who stand behind your organization? Does it say who is accountable for this organization?
5. Is the donation process easy to walk through? Some studies show that most donors who visit the donation page of a site never complete the process because it is to0 cumbersome. Be sure you make it really easy to give.
6. Is there also a way to download a form that donors can mail in or fax to you if they do not want to contribute online?
7. Are you offering people the ability to have a dialog with you? Is there some sort of interaction, such as a survey or a place to post comments? Donors want the ability to comment, to discuss and to participate with you.
8. Do you have a physical address and phone number prominently displayed for easy access?
9. Does your website share how past donations have been used? This is where you can share your good news, terrific stories of what you have done with your funding and information about your organization’s impact in the world.
10. Are you telling visitors how they can volunteer? You certainly do not want to give the impression that you do not want volunteers! However, this topic is sometimes completely missing from a website. (Perry, 2010, 33)

Paul Dunn, an associate professor in the faculty of business at Brock University, wrote an interesting story in The Globe and Mail about how the BP Sea Otter Habitat has just opened – and faces an ethical dilemma…

BP’s reputation has been severely damaged as a result of the oil disaster and its inability to curtail the growing environmental damage.

Meanwhile, at the Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach, Calif., the remodelled BP Sea Otter Habitat opened last week. Should a sea otter habitat be associated with a polluter that is causing enormous harm to the aquatic wildlife in the Gulf of Mexico?

This is not an unusual dilemma. Charities, hospitals, universities and other non-profits occasionally face the ethical challenge of what to do when one of their donors becomes tainted.

One option is to return the donation and delete the honour bestowed on the benefactor. The day after David Radler pleaded guilty to committing fraud in the Hollinger case, Queen’s University in Kingston announced that it would be returning his $1-million gift and deleting his name from a hallway in the business school. Israel’s University of Haifa also returned a $75,000 donation that Mr. Radler had made to its business school.

Another strategy is to do nothing. The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto continues to honour Conrad Black and his family for their donation. A hallway in the hospital still bears the “Black Wing” name.

BP has been a generous supporter of cultural activities in the Los Angeles area. It has supported the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Walt Disney Concert Hall and a local public television station. Should these institutions return the donations and delete BP’s name, or should they do nothing?

In its press release at the time, Queen’s University said, “Ethics and corporate social responsibility are a cornerstone of good business practice, and we take them very seriously at Queen’s.” Clear enough. But an environmental disaster – awful as it is – may not necessarily be incompatible with the goals of an art gallery or concert hall. They may legitimately opt to do nothing.

But, what about the Aquarium? On the surface, oil pollution that is killing the aquatic wildlife along the coast of Louisiana is inconsistent with a sea otter habitat designed to protect a threatened species. According to the Aquarium, “California’s sea otters are concentrated in a relatively small area, and a major oil spill off the central coast could wipe out the entire population.” Furthermore, BP has a history of accidents, from an oil refinery explosion in Texas in 2005, to an Alaskan crude oil leak in 2006 in its Prudhoe Bay pipeline.

So, should the Aquarium delete BP’s name?

The difference between the Radler donations and the BP donations is that David Radler admitted he intentionally committed a fraud that cheated the shareholders of Hollinger. From all the evidence currently available, it appears the BP disaster is a horrendous accident. BP did not intentionally set out to pollute the Gulf of Mexico. As such, the Aquarium has no ethical obligation to return the donation and delete BP’s name from the sea otter habitat, even though they may now be under severe pressure to do so.

What, then, are the lessons that can be learned from this incident?

First, non-profits should carefully screen their donors. Mother Teresa apparently accepted donations from anyone, no matter how unsavoury the donor. Her contention was that the money went to a good cause, helping the poor and destitute in the slums of Calcutta. But few non-profits have the moral stature of a Mother Teresa. They need to thoroughly examine the background of their donors before accepting gifts.

Second, accidents and scandals occur. Non-profits should protect themselves by having formal agreements with large donors that specify what happens in the event that one is embroiled in a scandal.

Finally, non-profits should seize whatever opportunities present themselves. If you have broken eggs, make an omelette. The Aquarium of the Pacific can use the oil disaster and its association with BP to launch an educational program that discusses the benefits and risks of offshore drilling, especially the potential problems to the environment and the associated damage to aquatic wildlife.

Tainted donors certainly present ethical problems. But they also create significant opportunities for those non-profits that can see beyond the surface of problems.

An interesting article by Michael Valpy in The Globe and Mail caught my attention today…

The Anglican Church of Canada is inviting corporate sponsorship of its national convention this year, selling space for brand logos on delegate documents, advertising signs in its meeting spaces and a private lunch for executives with the church’s senior archbishop.

It’s the first time in its 117-year history that the Canadian church made its governing synod available for a mess of pottage – to use the language of the Bible’s Old Testament allusion to Esau selling his birthright for a lentil stew. For that matter, no other Canadian church is known to have sold advertising at its formal gatherings and access to its leaders.

The synod will be held June 3-11 at St. Mary’s University in Halifax.

Asked about the genesis of the sponsorship idea, Vianney Carrière, the Anglicans’ national director of communications and information resources, said: “The genesis is the need for money.” In particular, he said, the church must find private money to pay the $10,000 cost of live-streaming the nine-day gathering, Synod on Demand, or cancel the webcast.

By most indices the Anglican Church is struggling – declining faster than any other Christian denomination in Canada, according to a recent report from its Diocese of British Columbia, closing decades-old parishes for want of money and “moved to the far margins of public life.”

Sponsors will be grouped into three categories: visionary (for a $30,000 price-tag), supporter ($7,500) and friend ($2,500).

Mr. Carrière said that, ideally, the church is looking for commercial sponsorships from firms with which it does business, such as insurance companies. In general, he said, good-taste criteria would govern what sponsorships are accepted. Casino advertisements, for example, would be ruled out.

The church’s corporate sponsorship announcement provides potential advertisers not only with a demographic description of synod delegates and webcast viewers, but a rundown of what will be discussed and the estimated size of the viewing audience.

“Members are predominantly over 40,” the announcement says, “and while many are retired, they are quite frequently found to be not-for-profit leaders and tireless community volunteers.”

The synod agenda is described as “timely, relevant and important and includes debates, resolutions and presentations on major global issues such as poverty, human sexuality, the rights of indigenous peoples and the care of the environment.”

One visionary-level sponsorship will be available, giving the purchaser a private lunch with the church’s national primate, Archbishop Fred Hiltz, and it will include the right to put company logo flags on every delegate dining table, logo displays and commercials on the webcast screen, a one-page company information spread in the synod directory distributed to all 500 delegates, a showcase booth, prominent advertisements at the convention site and a “passport” to the synod (meals included) for two company executives.

The three supporter-level sponsors will get a half-page advertisement in the synod directory, signage throughout the convention space, web-cast commercials and a “passport” for one executive.

The unspecified number of friend-level sponsors will get their company name printed in Acts of Faith, the church’s gift guide.

The idea was conceived by the church’s national headquarters staff.

“We hope that inviting the support of corporate sponsors for general synod will have a positive impact on the church’s ability to ensure the sustainability of this gathering for years to come,” Archbishop Hiltz said in a statement. “It also presents a new avenue for Canadian Anglicans, particularly those who own their own businesses, to support this event.”