ACFRE Portfolio

For Whom Was This Piece Intended?

This document was prepared for the Board of Directors and organizational leadership of Fresh Water Friends, a community-based international water access nonprofit. The primary audience was the governing board in its fiduciary and strategic oversight role; the secondary audience included organizational and volunteer leadership responsible for implementation. It was intentionally written to function both as a governance document and an operational management framework — understandable to non-fundraising board members while serving as a technical roadmap for development staff.

How Was This Piece Distributed?

The plan was presented to the board in a facilitated planning session, followed by formal adoption discussions. It was distributed digitally to board members and organizational leadership and subsequently used as the guiding operational framework for development activities.

Is This Document a Prototype?

No. This is an original planning document created for a functioning organization and adopted for operational use. I served as the sole author and architect of this plan. While input was gathered through discussions with board members and organizational leadership to ensure alignment with mission and context, all analysis, structure, strategic recommendations, and written content were independently developed by me. No external consultant or staff member contributed to the strategic content, analysis, or structure of the document.

What Was the Purpose of This Piece?

The purpose was not simply to increase revenue but to transition the organization from personality-driven fundraising to system-driven philanthropy. The planning process served four purposes:

• Establish Philanthropy as a Strategic Function — reframing development as a mission-enabling system requiring governance participation, staff structure, and evaluation discipline
• Align Fundraising Capacity with Mission Capacity — building the strategy around the organization’s theory of change and “full-cost funding” model
• Replace Episodic Giving with Predictable Philanthropy — introducing a diversified revenue structure including recurring giving, major gifts, institutional funding, and legacy commitments
• Build Organizational Leadership Around Philanthropy — designing development systems deliberately from first principles rather than incrementally repairing inherited structures

What Were the Expected and Actual Outcomes?

Expected outcomes included transition from reactive to planned fundraising, clear delineation of board and staff responsibilities, creation of measurable fundraising benchmarks, increased predictability of revenue, protection of mission sustainability through diversified funding, and the establishment of evaluation and adjustment processes. Revenue growth was considered a consequence of improved systems rather than the sole indicator of success.

Following implementation, the organization adopted structured fundraising practices including board engagement expectations, development committee oversight, and performance monitoring metrics. Early indicators included the establishment of a formal development committee with regular meeting cadence, 100% board giving participation within the first year, and the adoption of defined fundraising metrics reviewed quarterly.

What Are the Ethical Implications?

This plan intentionally addresses ethical fundraising at both the operational and philosophical level. When potential conflicts arise between revenue opportunity and mission integrity, decisions are guided by three principles aligned with the AFP Code of Ethical Standards: (1) donor intent must be honored with full transparency; (2) beneficiary welfare takes precedence over organizational growth; and (3) long-term sustainability outweighs short-term revenue gain. The “full-cost funding” model ensures donors understand the real cost of maintaining functional water systems rather than funding symbolic outputs. Evaluation triggers were included to prevent organizational overreach — the plan intentionally defines conditions under which expansion should pause.

Why Did You Select This Piece?

I selected this piece because it represents a transition in my professional practice from managing development programs to designing philanthropic systems. This engagement provided a rare opportunity to build a comprehensive development strategy from inception with an organization willing to examine its assumptions about growth, efficiency, and sustainability. The planning process required balancing ambition with capacity, often prioritizing sustainable growth over faster but riskier expansion. This document demonstrates advanced competencies in integrating fundraising strategy with mission ethics, structuring governance accountability, designing capacity-aligned growth, and framing development as long-term stewardship rather than revenue acquisition. It reflects my broader professional philosophy that fundraising leadership is not the act of raising money, but the discipline of building trustworthy institutions capable of sustaining impact.

For Whom Was This Piece Intended?

This case statement was developed for major donors, corporate leaders, and philanthropists in Central Iowa with the capacity to make transformational contributions during a period of organizational crisis. It was specifically designed to resonate with individuals who had historical connections to the organization and understood its vital role in the community’s cultural landscape, as evidenced by the powerful opening narrative about the 1972 community mobilization to save live performing arts in Des Moines.

How Was This Piece Distributed?

The case statement was used in personal, one-on-one meetings with major donor prospects during the silent phase of what became an emergency fundraising initiative. It wasn’t broadly distributed but rather strategically shared with select individuals who had the capacity and potential interest in making transformational gifts to save the organization. One case expression was a direct mail piece sent to all ticket purchasers for the last five years, framing the campaign as requiring the community to travel to Minneapolis or Chicago to experience the performing arts — one of the most successful direct mail appeals in terms of donor acquisition.

Is This Document a Prototype?

No. This is an authentic case statement that I developed and deployed while serving as Development Director at Des Moines Performing Arts during the COVID-19 pandemic prior to ultimately re-opening in early 2022. I served as the sole author of the strategic content, narrative structure, and fundraising positioning. While a design firm provided visual layout and minor copy-editing for clarity, all substantive messaging, strategy, and written content remained my original work.

What Was the Purpose of This Piece?

At the height of the pandemic in 2021, Des Moines Performing Arts faced an unprecedented crisis — all performances canceled, most staff laid off, no clear timeline for reopening. The purpose was multi-layered: first, to articulate the existential threat in stark but hopeful terms, deliberately opening with the 1972 KRNT Theater story to remind donors the community had faced and overcome similar challenges before. Second, to demonstrate the cascading impact that DMPA’s potential failure would have on the broader arts ecosystem in Central Iowa. Third, to provide a clear pathway for donor intervention by outlining specific funding needs and naming opportunities — positioned as suggestions rather than limitations, empowering donors to support in ways aligned with their philanthropic goals rather than creating a transactional ask.

What Were the Expected and Actual Outcomes?

Initial expectations were modest — the primary hope was to secure enough funding through naming rights and major gifts to maintain skeleton staff and prevent facility deterioration during what was anticipated to be a lengthy shutdown. Success, at that moment, simply meant organizational survival.

The actual impact far exceeded initial expectations. The case statement helped secure over $15 million (more than three times the typical annual income) in predominantly unrestricted funding. This was particularly meaningful because unrestricted support provided the adaptability needed to respond to rapidly changing circumstances throughout the pandemic. The case statement also catalyzed deeper conversations about legacy giving, with several donors beginning discussions about including DMPA in their estate plans through charitable remainder trusts — creating an unexpected pipeline of future support that will benefit the organization for decades to come.

What Are the Ethical Implications?

The ethical implications were complex and multi-layered, particularly given the unprecedented circumstances of the pandemic and concurrent research into the ethics of legacy fundraising during emergencies. Key ethical decisions were guided by principles consistent with the AFP Code of Ethical Standards, particularly related to donor intent, transparency, stewardship, and the responsible use of charitable resources.

A primary challenge was the fundamental ethical question of asking for major gifts during a time of widespread suffering and uncertainty. This created an imperative to balance institutional needs with sensitivity to the broader human crisis — addressed by focusing the case statement on community impact rather than institutional preservation. The decision to include legacy giving opportunities was particularly carefully considered: I was deliberate in framing legacy options as one of several giving vehicles rather than emphasizing mortality or urgency. Another ethical consideration involved ensuring that emotional resonance did not become emotional manipulation — historical narratives were used to inspire agency and hope rather than obligation or guilt.

Why Did You Select This Piece?

I selected this case statement because it represents a pivotal moment in my professional development where my theoretical understanding of fundraising principles intersected with an unprecedented practical challenge. My ACFRE professional development, particularly in the areas of ethics and strategic management, had prepared me to approach this crisis with a sophisticated understanding of donor motivation, institutional sustainability, and ethical frameworks. The case statement’s success in generating unrestricted support — traditionally the most challenging type of funding to secure — demonstrates how theoretical understanding can inform practical success. This document demonstrates advanced competencies in major gift strategy, crisis fundraising, donor psychology, and ethical decision-making under conditions of uncertainty.

Intended Audience

This piece was primarily intended for fundraising professionals and academics in philanthropy, with a secondary audience of nonprofit management and ethics scholars.

Distribution Method

Published in the Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing, a highly respected and selective academic outlet, accessible to a broad range of practitioners and scholars in the field.

Is This Document a Prototype?

No. This is an original document co-authored with Dr. Routley. I was responsible for the development of the core conceptual framing, application of ethical theory to fundraising scenarios, and the translation of theoretical constructs into practitioner-relevant insights. My co-author contributed to academic structuring, literature integration, and peer review refinement. All practitioner-oriented analysis and applied ethical interpretation reflect my original work.

Purpose of the Piece

The primary purpose was to deepen and operationalize the understanding of ethical dilemmas in fundraising through the application of established ethical theory. Recognizing that ethical challenges are a critical concern in fundraising, the article sought to bridge the gap between abstract ethical theories and practical fundraising scenarios. By systematically exploring frameworks such as deontology, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics, the piece aimed to provide fundraisers with a more nuanced understanding of ethical decision-making. A key purpose was to equip practitioners with a usable decision-making framework applicable in real fundraising contexts, particularly in situations where existing policies or guidelines proved insufficient — to elevate the discourse on fundraising ethics beyond compliance toward a more integrated ethical decision-making process.

Expected and Actual Outcomes

The expected outcome was to foster a more robust and ethically grounded approach to fundraising practices among professionals. The actual outcomes surpassed these expectations: post-publication, the article has been cited in academic literature and incorporated into professional training environments, demonstrating both scholarly and applied relevance. Feedback from readers highlighted how the article influenced their approach to ethical dilemmas, with many noting a shift toward more reflective and theory-informed decision-making. In my own professional practice, these frameworks have been directly applied in advising organizations on gift acceptance policies, donor due diligence, and ethical storytelling.

Ethical Implications

This work aligns with the AFP Code of Ethical Standards, particularly principles related to stewardship, transparency, respect for donor intent, and the protection of beneficiary dignity. A significant ethical implication centers on how the work challenges the profession’s often oversimplified approaches to ethical decision-making. By examining scenarios through multiple ethical lenses — trustism, donor centrism, and rights balancing — we demonstrate that ethical fundraising requires more nuanced consideration than simply following a checklist or relying on gut instinct. The piece also addresses the ethical obligation we have as sector leaders to advance professional practice by contributing to the theoretical foundation of fundraising ethics while maintaining practical relevance.

Why Did You Select This Piece?

My reason for including this article stems from a series of challenging ethical situations I encountered throughout my career. This demonstrates advanced competency in writing, ethical analysis, and the ability to translate complex theoretical concepts into practical frameworks for professional application. The article was peer-reviewed and selected for publication in the Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing, a highly respected and selective academic outlet, further validating the rigor and contribution of this work. This work represents not only what I have learned, but also my continued professional development in ethical fundraising — building on prior research and practice and contributing to ongoing sector-wide dialogue. It reinforces my broader professional philosophy that ethical fundraising is not situational compliance, but a disciplined practice of balancing competing interests in a way that preserves trust, advances mission, and respects all stakeholders.

For Whom Was This Piece Intended?

Neurogiving was written for fundraising professionals and nonprofit leaders with significant practical experience who are ready to examine the behavioral and neurological foundations of what they have intuited but not fully theorized. A secondary audience is nonprofit academics and researchers working at the intersection of philanthropy, behavioral economics, and organizational psychology. The book was deliberately written to be accessible to practitioners without sacrificing intellectual depth.

How Was This Piece Distributed?

Published as a commercially distributed book by Wiley, a major academic and professional publisher, Neurogiving achieved USA Today bestseller status, reaching an audience extending well beyond the nonprofit sector into general-audience readers interested in decision science, behavioral economics, and human generosity. The book has been adopted in fundraising professional development programs and nonprofit management coursework, and underwent editorial and peer review processes prior to publication.

Is This Document a Prototype?

No. This is a chapter from a commercially published, USA Today bestselling book authored solely by me. The chapter represents original work that I researched, wrote, and revised over several years of reading primary literature in neuroscience and behavioral science, conducting professional practice, and refining my argument through the writing process. Wiley did provide development and line edits to the book, which I ultimately approved or rejected. This piece represents the most sustained and substantial sole-authored writing work in my portfolio.

What Was the Purpose of This Piece?

Neurogiving began with a question I could not stop sitting with: why does generosity feel so human, while so much of how we ask for gifts feels mechanical — or worse, manipulative? The purpose of Neurogiving is to close that gap not through tactics, but through understanding. What does neuroscience actually reveal about the conditions under which generosity emerges? The chapter submitted for this portfolio focuses specifically on the neurological and psychological foundations of giving, the research on reward activation, the somatic marker hypothesis, and the implications of mirror neuron research for empathic fundraising. It lays the foundational argument of the book: that generosity is not something we teach donors to do — it is something we learn to stop obstructing. That reframe, from extraction to invitation, is both conceptually substantive and practically consequential.

Expected and Actual Outcomes

The expected outcome was a book that would shift the conversation in professional fundraising by moving it from intuition-based practice toward evidence-based design while preserving the relational and ethical foundation that makes fundraising worthwhile. The actual outcomes exceeded initial expectations: the USA Today bestseller recognition brought the book to audiences well outside the nonprofit sector. Within the fundraising and nonprofit management community, the book has been incorporated into training curricula, used as a text in academic programs, and cited in conference presentations and professional development workshops. I have heard from practitioners that the book helped them articulate something they had felt in their professional lives but could not previously name: that the moment a donor says yes eagerly is different in kind, not just degree, from a reluctant agreement, and that the difference matters.

Ethical Implications

Writing a book that draws on neuroscience to help fundraisers raise more money requires careful ethical positioning. Behavioral science that can improve fundraising practice can also be misused to manipulate or exploit cognitive biases, manufacture emotional urgency, or overwhelm a donor’s deliberative capacity. This tension is not hypothetical; it appears explicitly in the book, and was an organizing ethical principle throughout the writing process. This work aligns with the AFP Code of Ethical Standards, particularly principles related to respect for donor intent, transparency, and the preservation of donor autonomy. The chapter advances an ethical framework that distinguishes between influence and manipulation, emphasizing informed consent, donor agency, and alignment with donor values as guiding principles. I also wrestled with the limits of neuroscience as an explanatory framework — brain imaging reveals activation patterns but does not resolve questions of meaning, value, or moral obligation. I was careful throughout not to overclaim what the science can tell us.

Why Did You Select This Piece?

Writing a professionally published book is the most substantial piece of sole-authored intellectual work in my professional history. It demonstrates advanced competency in writing, including sustained argument development, synthesis of interdisciplinary research, and translation of complex concepts into professional practice. The chapter I selected illustrates these capabilities without requiring the reader to engage with the full manuscript. It reflects the same qualities I value in the best professional writing: precision, genuine argument, accessibility without condescension, and respect for the reader’s intelligence. This piece reflects my broader professional philosophy that effective fundraising is grounded in understanding human behavior, respecting autonomy, and designing experiences that enable genuine generosity rather than extracting it.

For Whom Was This Piece Intended?

The primary audience was the international fundraising research community, academic scholars working at the intersection of technology and nonprofit ethics, and senior fundraising practitioners seeking normative frameworks for AI adoption. Rogare, the international fundraising think tank, explicitly convenes researchers and practitioners to grapple with questions the field has not yet developed adequate language to answer. A secondary audience was the broader nonprofit sector and those responsible for developing fundraising ethics codes and professional standards globally.

How Was This Piece Distributed?

The research agenda was developed through a structured Rogare working group process and shared with the international fundraising research community through Rogare’s publications and networks. Working drafts were circulated among participating researchers; the finished agenda was made available to practitioners and scholars across the AFP global network and connected academic communities. Publication in a Rogare report positioned it for citation and uptake in subsequent fundraising ethics scholarship.

Is This Document a Prototype?

No. This is an original document developed through my active participation in a Rogare working group convened to identify and articulate the ethical dimensions of artificial intelligence in fundraising. My involvement was substantive and ongoing: I contributed to the conceptual framing of the two central research questions, co-developed the research agenda priorities, helped draft and revise the document through multiple iterations, and was responsible for writing the initial draft. I joined and agreed to chair the group precisely because the intersection of AI and fundraising ethics was a professional priority I had identified independently, bringing both a practitioner’s perspective and an emerging research orientation to the collaboration.

What Was the Purpose of This Piece?

I chaired this working group at a precise inflection point for the fundraising profession. AI tools were being adopted faster than the field had developed ethical vocabulary to evaluate them. My purpose was not to produce rules or guardrails — it was to surface what the field did not yet know it was missing. The document draws a distinction I consider creatively generative between two fundamentally different questions practitioners had been conflating: What ethical issues arise from using AI in fundraising? And can AI itself be used to resolve ethical dilemmas in fundraising? That distinction reframes the conversation from “how do we implement AI safely” to “what does AI’s presence reveal about our pre-existing ethical blind spots?” — and it opens a different kind of inquiry. The research agenda covers eight interrelated areas: stakeholder perspectives on AI ethics; auditing algorithms for bias; fundraising-specific AI ethics frameworks; intellectual property unique to AI-generated content; transparency needs and limitations; accountability and liability; second-order societal effects; and oversight mechanisms.

Expected and Actual Outcomes

The expected outcome was to establish a shared research vocabulary and intellectual agenda that would orient the sector’s engagement with AI ethics over the coming years. The actual outcomes continue to unfold: the questions this research agenda surfaced have shaped subsequent conversations at fundraising conferences, sector convenings on responsible AI, and peer-reviewed philanthropy scholarship. Most significantly for me personally: the agenda’s identification of stakeholder perspective research as a critical gap directly catalyzed the 2025 Donor Perceptions of AI study I subsequently designed and led. Creative work sometimes has generative effects that extend far beyond its original outputs — and this is a case where the most important outcome was a research question that launched an entirely new empirical project.

Ethical Implications

This work is guided by the AFP Code of Ethical Standards, particularly principles related to stewardship, transparency, accountability, and equity in fundraising practice. The research agenda argues that the profession has historically prioritized functional skills over normative ethics and that AI’s arrival risks encoding those ethical gaps into automated systems operating at scale. Writing and endorsing that argument required me to hold a mirror to my own practice. The document’s treatment of equity deserves particular mention: AI in fundraising may concentrate capability among large, well-funded organizations; encode historical biases from existing fundraising datasets in ways that disadvantage historically marginalized donors and beneficiaries; and reduce the participation of communities in telling their own stories by automating those stories away from them. Naming these as research priorities was itself an ethical act: a commitment that professional inquiry should attend to power, not just efficiency.

Why Did You Select This Piece?

Creativity in fundraising is too often defined as aesthetic innovation — better design, more compelling imagery, more engaging campaigns. This research agenda represents a different kind of creativity: conceptual creativity, the ability to see a problem the field has not yet named and to construct a framework for thinking through it rigorously. It also demonstrates my engagement with the international fundraising research community at a level that goes beyond practitioner participation. Rogare is an intellectually serious think tank with global reach. My substantive contribution to a working group on AI ethics reflects a commitment to scholarship that I believe the ACFRE credential is intended to recognize and that I want this portfolio to demonstrate.

For Whom Was This Piece Intended?

The primary audience was the nonprofit and fundraising sector broadly — organizational leaders, major gift officers, communications staff, and development directors who needed empirical grounding for decisions they were already being asked to make about AI adoption. Secondary audiences included philanthropy researchers exploring how charitable giving behavior is shaped by emerging technology, and policymakers and professional associations developing guidance on AI use in nonprofits. The brief format was designed for practitioners with limited time; the fuller dataset was made available for those with deeper research interest.

How Was This Piece Distributed?

Distributed digitally to fundraising professionals through sector networks and partner organizations, as well as through a webpage that I designed. A concise quick brief was shared widely for practitioner use; a more detailed findings document was made available for researchers and organizational leaders engaging in formal planning. An infographic was produced to visually depict the results. The study has been cited in conference presentations and used as a reference document in professional development programming, including courses at Indiana University’s Lily School of Philanthropy.

Is This Document a Prototype?

No. This is an original research project. I designed the study methodology, developed the survey instrument, commissioned the data collection from a nationally representative consumer research panel, and authored the analysis and brief. One thousand and thirty-one donors were surveyed. Participants were screened for giving behavior; the sample spanned all major census regions and cause areas; quality-control checks were applied throughout. The intellectual design of the report — what segments to analyze and how to present findings for practitioner use — was entirely my own work.

What Was the Purpose of This Piece?

When I finished contributing to the Rogare AI ethics research agenda, one gap stood out with particular clarity: we had been developing ethical frameworks about AI and donors without any empirical foundation in what donors actually thought. The entire sector was operating on assumptions — that donors would be uncomfortable with AI-written communications, or that they would never know the difference, or that transparency would kill response rates. None of those assumptions were grounded in data. I designed this study to fill that gap. The creative act here was not only the design itself — choosing what questions to ask, how to frame them without predetermining the answers — but also how to structure the analysis so the findings would be useful rather than merely interesting.

Expected and Actual Outcomes

The expected outcome was a dataset that would give fundraising professionals something they had not previously had: actual evidence about their donors’ attitudes toward AI, not professional projection. The actual findings exceeded that ambition in several ways. The result that AI literacy is now mainstream among donors — 86% recognizing and understanding AI at least “somewhat” — shifted the conversation from whether to disclose AI use to how to do it well. The statistic that 92% of donors say nonprofits should be transparent about AI, combined with the finding that 32% would give less to an AI-enabled charity, provided the field with a productive tension it had not previously been able to name: transparency is a moral obligation that carries real risk, and navigating that tension requires more than good intentions. The study has been used in training programs and integrated into organizational planning conversations.

Ethical Implications

This work is guided by the AFP Code of Ethical Standards, particularly principles related to transparency, stewardship of data, and respect for donor privacy. Research that shapes professional practice carries responsibility. I have been deliberate about the limits of this study: it is a survey of attitudes, not behavior, and attitudes toward a hypothetical AI-enabled charity may not accurately predict giving behavior toward an actual one. I communicate these limits clearly in how I present the findings. Overconfidence in survey data is itself an ethical failure, particularly when that data is being used to justify significant organizational decisions. The data collection methodology also raised questions about donor privacy — specifically, whether using a consumer research panel to study donor behavior creates any obligations to the people whose opinions informed the study. I designed the study to be aggregate and anonymized, with no individual-level data collected or retained.

Why Did You Select This Piece?

Most creative work in fundraising operates at the level of execution: better campaigns, stronger messaging, more compelling design. This study operated at the level of knowledge generation, creating something the field could use that did not exist before I made it. That distinction matters to me as I think about what kind of professional I am becoming. The combination of this piece with the Rogare research agenda is deliberate. Together, they represent an integrated intellectual project: identifying the ethical questions the field needs to answer (Rogare), then gathering the empirical data needed to ground those answers (Donor Perceptions). To me, creativity at its most meaningful is generative — it makes new things possible that were not possible before. These two documents do that in sequence, and their relationship is part of what I want to demonstrate.

For Whom Was This Piece Intended?

The feasibility study was primarily intended for the leadership of Sanad Trust Foundation (STF), specifically their directors, board members, and key stakeholders. The study served as both an internal strategic assessment document and an external validation of the organization’s readiness for a major capital campaign.

How Was This Piece Distributed?

The report was presented to STF leadership in a virtual presentation, with physical and digital copies provided to key stakeholders. Its confidential nature meant distribution was limited to those directly involved in the organization’s strategic decision-making process.

Is This Document a Prototype?

No. This is an original document created as part of my professional work as Chief Development Officer for Endowment Partners for a real client engagement. I was the lead consultant responsible for designing the study, conducting interviews, synthesizing findings, and developing all strategic recommendations. While the engagement was conducted within a consulting firm context, all analysis, conclusions, and written content in this report reflect my original work.

What Was the Purpose of This Piece?

The purpose was to assess Sanad Trust Foundation’s readiness to undertake a major capital campaign, while providing leadership with a clear understanding of the organizational, cultural, and philanthropic conditions required for success. The study served three primary management functions: (1) evaluating internal capacity including governance alignment, fundraising infrastructure, donor base development, and leadership readiness; (2) assessing external perception by gathering input from key stakeholders and prospective donors to determine the level of support for the proposed campaign; and (3) providing strategic recommendations to guide decision-making, including whether to proceed with a campaign, delay, or restructure the organization’s approach to philanthropy. In addition to assessment, the study functioned as a management tool to align leadership around realistic expectations, identify gaps in organizational readiness, and establish a roadmap for building sustainable fundraising capacity.

Expected and Actual Outcomes

The expected outcome was to provide leadership with sufficient information to make an informed decision about launching a capital campaign. The study resulted in a recommendation to delay the capital campaign, based on identified gaps in donor base development, governance alignment, and fundraising infrastructure. While this recommendation differed from the organization’s initial expectations, it was accepted by leadership and led to a shift in strategic focus toward capacity building. As a result, the organization began prioritizing donor relationship development, strengthening internal fundraising systems, and broadening stakeholder engagement. The effectiveness of the study was demonstrated by its use as a strategic decision-making tool, guiding leadership away from a premature campaign that could have resulted in reputational and financial risk, and toward a more sustainable long-term approach to philanthropy.

Ethical Implications

This study presented several complex ethical considerations beyond basic donor privacy and confidentiality. One significant challenge involved balancing my responsibility to deliver difficult findings with the obligation to build capacity within this emerging organization. I recognized that STF’s directors had invested significant resources, both financial and emotional, in the vision of a new campus — creating implicit pressure to validate the organization’s aspirations.

The inherent power dynamic between consultant and client was further complicated by cultural nuances within the Muslim philanthropic community. Many interviewees expressed discomfort with traditional Western fundraising approaches, viewing charitable giving through a different cultural and religious lens. The directors mainly identified the men in the family to interview; when pushed about educational and community case aspects, this was often handled by their wives. This required careful consideration of how to respect these perspectives while also identifying gaps in stakeholder representation critical to campaign success. Raising this issue proved to be challenging but essential to their long-term success. Ethical decision-making in this engagement ultimately required balancing respect for client autonomy with the professional obligation to provide candid, evidence-based recommendations — prioritizing long-term organizational sustainability over short-term affirmation.

Why Did You Select This Piece?

I deliberately chose this feasibility study because it represents a pivotal moment in my professional evolution as an advanced fundraising executive — one where success wasn’t measured by a campaign launch but by the courage to recommend against one. This reflects advanced competency in management, including strategic assessment, stakeholder engagement, organizational analysis, and the ability to guide leadership through complex decision-making processes. The study showcases my ability to navigate complex organizational dynamics while maintaining professional integrity — transforming what could have been perceived as a negative outcome into an opportunity for institutional growth. This piece demonstrates how important it is to address systemic issues rather than just immediate fundraising goals, and reflects my commitment to advancing the fundraising profession by sharing an example where “success” meant choosing not to launch a campaign.

For Whom Was This Piece Intended?

The primary audience was the WCSF Board of Directors and organizational leadership. The plan was designed to function simultaneously as a governance document — providing the board with a strategic framework for decision-making, priority-setting, and accountability — and as an operational management tool for the executive director and staff implementing strategic priorities. A secondary audience included district administrators, educators, and community partners. The writing had to be accessible to non-fundraising board members while being substantive enough to actually guide organizational behavior.

How Was This Piece Distributed?

The plan was presented to the WCSF Board in a facilitated session and formally adopted as the organization’s strategic framework for 2025–2028. Digital copies were distributed to all board members, the executive director, and key district partners. The document now serves as the reference framework for board meeting agendas, grant applications, staff priorities, and community communications. It is a living governance document for internal use, not a report produced for an external audience.

Is This Document a Prototype?

No. This is an original strategic plan developed for a functioning foundation through a structured stakeholder engagement process I designed and led. The plan emerged from primary research — interviews and survey responses with 24 stakeholders including board members, educators, school administrators, parents, community members, and district partners — which I designed, conducted, and analyzed. The strategic framework, writing, and final document are entirely my own work. While the plan reflects stakeholder input, all analysis, structure, and written content are my original work.

What Was the Purpose of This Piece?

WCSF came to this engagement at an organizational inflection point. The Foundation had a meaningful history of providing quiet, dignity-centered support to students, but without a coherent strategic framework to guide how it would grow or what kind of organization it aspired to become. The district around it was changing: growing more diverse, facing more uneven access to resources, confronting new community expectations.

The plan I developed had four interlocking purposes: to articulate a 10-Year North Star Vision; to define four strategic priorities — Advance Equity and Access, Shift from Responsive to Strategic Leadership, Strengthen Community Presence and Partnership, and Build for Long-Term Sustainability; to translate those priorities into specific, measurable objectives with three-year timelines; and to establish a management architecture for board decision-making, committee structure, annual evaluation, and fund development alignment. What made this management challenge distinctive was its equity dimension. The plan centers “dignity-based philanthropy” as a foundational value — a commitment that receiving support should not require disclosure of need, application processes that feel like means-testing, or any experience that marks students as different or lesser. Embedding that commitment structurally, not just rhetorically, required designing program criteria, governance processes, and communication practices that would uphold it under operational pressure.

Expected and Actual Outcomes

The expected outcome was an adopted strategic plan that would give WCSF a coherent organizational identity and a framework for proactive decision-making. The actual outcome has been a board more aligned around direction and more confident in its own leadership capacity, with increased clarity in decision-making, more structured committee work, and alignment between board priorities and organizational activities than at any previous point in the organization’s history. The plan has been formally adopted and is being used to structure board meeting agendas and committee work. Several board members have independently reported that working through the planning process changed how they understood their own governance role. From a fund development standpoint, the strategic plan created the organizational foundation for philanthropic growth: clear priorities give donors something specific to invest in; measurable outcomes give them evidence of impact; the equity framework gives them a compelling reason the work matters.

Ethical Implications

Serving as a strategic planning consultant for an organization serving students with a specific commitment to equity carries ethical weight. The stakeholder engagement process raised equity questions from the outset — ensuring that the perspectives informing the plan represented the full diversity of the community, not only the most vocal, most connected, or most experienced stakeholders, required deliberate design choices about who to invite into interviews and how to structure conversations to minimize status effects. As a consultant, I also held a specific ethical obligation: to produce a plan the board could genuinely own and implement, not a document I could be proud of. The discipline of subordinating my preferred frameworks and vocabulary to what stakeholders actually said is its own form of ethical practice. The plan’s equity commitments are substantive, not cosmetic: the dignity-centered framing reflects a specific ethical position that no student should receive support in a way that makes them feel marked, diminished, or different from their peers.

Why Did You Select This Piece?

I selected this strategic plan because it represents a different dimension of management competency than the Sanad Trust feasibility study. This piece demonstrates advanced management competency in strategic planning, stakeholder engagement, governance design, and the translation of values into operational structures. The Sanad work required professional courage — the ability to recommend against a campaign when the organization was not ready, even under pressure to validate their aspirations. The WCSF work required something equally demanding: the sustained discipline to design something complex and valuable over time, from stakeholder voices I had not controlled, in service of an organization’s future rather than my own reputation. This work reflects my broader management philosophy that effective leadership requires aligning values, strategy, and execution in a way that enables organizations to act with clarity, integrity, and long-term purpose.

For Whom Was This Piece Intended?

The primary audience was nonprofit organizations participating in the AI Opportunity Accelerator (AIOA), a cohort-based learning program administered by Project Evident, Inc. Participants ranged from executive directors and operations managers to development directors, communications staff, and program officers. The organizations varied substantially in size, mission, technology infrastructure, and prior AI experience — from organizations with no prior AI engagement to those already piloting specific tools. This heterogeneity was not a design constraint to be managed but an opportunity to build curriculum that met participants where they were rather than assuming a uniform starting point.

How Was This Piece Distributed?

The curriculum, including both slide deck and workbook, was delivered live during workshop sessions in multiple cities around the country. The workbook served as both a facilitated learning guide during four half-day in-person working sessions and an independent reference document that organizations could engage between sessions and return to after the cohort concluded. Participants were also connected to a community platform for peer learning, and the workbook was designed to generate outputs — including an AI Adoption Roadmap and associated governance documents — that organizations could take into active use.

Is This Document a Prototype?

No. This is an original curriculum document I developed as an independent contractor engaged by Project Evident, Inc. under a formal Statement of Work. The full intellectual content of the workbook, including the eight-component framework, pedagogical structure, activity design, and resource curation, was developed by me as original work. The contract with Project Evident engaged me specifically as the content developer and subject matter expert. Both the slide deck and workbook are my own work.

What Was the Purpose of This Piece?

Teaching adults about AI in a nonprofit context is a genuinely different pedagogical challenge from most professional development work. Unlike fundraising skills, where practitioners bring years of accumulated professional intuition, AI adoption asks people to engage with a domain where they may feel profoundly uncertain, where the landscape is changing rapidly, and where the stakes for getting things wrong — privacy violations, equity failures, loss of donor trust — feel significantly high. The risk is not only that people will adopt AI poorly; it is that they will feel so overwhelmed they avoid engaging at all, or so reassured by a training program that they adopt AI without adequate governance.

The learning objectives were to enable participants to: (1) understand the ethical, operational, and strategic implications of AI adoption in nonprofit contexts; (2) assess their organization’s readiness across governance, data, and stakeholder dimensions; (3) design an AI adoption roadmap aligned with mission and values; and (4) apply structured decision-making processes to evaluate AI tools and use cases. The eight core components — Safe and Fair Practice; Stakeholder Engagement; Data Architecture and Infrastructure; Governance and Risk; Design for Outcomes; Technology Implementation; Culture of Innovation and Managing Change; Monitor, Assess, and Learn — reflect a deliberate sequence: foundational ethical orientation before technical implementation, human and governance infrastructure before tool selection. Organizations that skip the first three components and jump to technology implementation are the ones that end up in the news for AI failures.

Expected and Actual Outcomes

The expected outcome was a cohort of nonprofit organizations that could move from passive AI consumers to intentional AI adopters equipped not just to use available tools but to evaluate them against their mission, manage the governance risks they create, and communicate honestly with the stakeholders who trust them. The actual outcomes included completed AI Adoption Roadmaps, governance frameworks, and organizational readiness assessments developed by participating organizations using the workbook’s scaffolding. Cohort feedback indicated that the structured sequence — particularly the emphasis on stakeholder engagement, ethical guidelines, and governance architecture before any tool evaluation — helped organizations avoid the most common pitfalls of technology adoption. Participant learning was evaluated through completion of structured outputs and cohort feedback indicating increased confidence in decision-making, improved understanding of AI-related risks, and the ability to apply ethical and strategic frameworks to real organizational contexts.

Ethical Implications

Teaching about AI carries a specific ethical responsibility: the risk of producing training that speeds adoption by providing the appearance of thoughtfulness without its substance. This aligns with the AFP Code of Ethical Standards, particularly principles related to transparency, accountability, and the responsible use of emerging technologies in service of donor and community trust. I was deliberate throughout the curriculum design to ensure this workshop would not function as a rubber stamp. This commitment is reflected in the sequence: Safe and Fair Practice comes first, not last. Organizations that work through it honestly will discover uncomfortable things — their data may have biases they had not examined; their governance structures may be inadequate for the oversight responsibilities AI creates; their stakeholders may not trust them enough to accept AI-mediated communications. The workshop requires organizations to engage with that discomfort rather than skip past it. Real professional development in this domain should produce more caution, not less.

Why Did You Select This Piece?

I selected this curriculum because it illustrates a specific and demanding dimension of teaching and training competency: not the delivery of instruction, but the design of a learning architecture. This piece demonstrates advanced teaching and training competency through curriculum design, learning objective development, sequencing of content, and the integration of applied exercises that produce measurable outputs. Teaching at an advanced level requires more than sharing knowledge — it requires the ability to determine what learners need to know, in what sequence, through what activities, toward defined outcomes, and to build that structure with intentional design. The process of building this curriculum is also important to me as a matter of professional coherence: the Donor Perceptions of AI research generated the empirical knowledge that grounds this curriculum; the Rogare research agenda identified the ethical questions it builds toward. Taken together, my teaching and training work is not a series of separate engagements but a coherent educational project grounded in research, shaped by ethics, and oriented toward building organizational capacity that serves donors and communities well.

For Whom Was This Piece Intended?

This curriculum was designed for two distinct but related audiences. The Board Member Workbook and slide deck was designed for Child Focus board members — accomplished community leaders who bring substantial professional expertise in their own fields but variable experience with fundraising conversations. They needed communication frameworks they could deploy authentically without feeling coached or scripted, and they needed a pedagogical approach that honored both their intelligence and their discomfort with what most of them perceived as “asking for money.” The Volunteer Ambassador Workbook was designed for community volunteers — people motivated by genuine commitment to Child Focus’s mission but without formal fundraising training or institutional authority. Their primary advantage over staff, and the design challenge this created, was authenticity: they were perceived as more credible precisely because they were not paid. The training had to amplify that credibility rather than replace it with scripted professionalism.

How Was This Piece Distributed?

Both workbooks and slide decks were delivered to participants as part of facilitated training sessions I designed and delivered for Child Focus at their headquarters in New Jersey. The workbooks functioned as both training guides during the sessions and reference documents participants could return to during and after the training. They were accompanied by facilitated exercises, small group role-plays, and individual reflection activities that the workbooks scaffolded.

Is This Document a Prototype?

No. These are original training materials I developed and delivered as a fundraising consultant engaged specifically to design and facilitate board and volunteer training for Child Focus. The frameworks, exercises, research grounding, and organizational customization were designed by me for this specific context. They are my original work. I served as both curriculum designer and sole facilitator, responsible for content development, instructional design, and delivery of the training sessions.

What Was the Purpose of This Piece?

Board members and volunteer ambassadors are the most credible voices a nonprofit has and the most consistently undertrained. The gap between potential and actual effectiveness in board and volunteer fundraising engagement is not primarily a motivation gap — it is a confidence and preparation gap. Most organizations either fail to train their board and volunteer advocates at all, or train them in ways that make the problem worse: providing so much institutional information that advocates feel overwhelmed, or providing talking points so scripted that advocates feel inauthentic using them.

I designed both workbooks around a different premise: that the most effective training gives advocates a small number of versatile conversational frameworks they can deploy naturally across a variety of situations, grounded in their own authentic story and relationship to the mission. The learning objectives were to enable participants to: (1) understand their role in fundraising as relationship-builders rather than solicitors; (2) develop and practice conversational frameworks for donor engagement; (3) articulate a personal, authentic connection to the mission; and (4) apply these skills in real-world outreach and relationship-building contexts. The goal is not compliance with a script — it is the cultivation of confident, genuine communication.

Expected and Actual Outcomes

The expected outcome was a board and volunteer corps that would leave training with specific language, practiced conversational frameworks, and personal narratives ready for actual use — and with increased confidence to initiate conversations they had previously avoided. The actual outcomes included a board more willing to make personal outreach not just to approve organizational plans but to actively engage their own networks in ways they had not done before. Volunteers reported feeling equipped rather than just informed: they left with completed worksheets, rehearsed personal stories, and specific commitments about follow-through in the weeks after training. The training was designed to produce action, not just awareness, and the structure of both workbooks — requiring individual written reflection, paired practice, and personal commitment-making — was designed with that behavioral outcome in mind. Participant learning was evaluated through completion of workbook exercises, observed participation in role-play activities, and post-session feedback indicating increased confidence, clarity in messaging, and willingness to engage in fundraising conversations.

Ethical Implications

Training board members and volunteers in persuasion raises ethical questions I take seriously. These considerations align with the AFP Code of Ethical Standards, particularly principles related to respect for donor autonomy, transparency, and integrity in fundraising practice. The workbooks draw on research-backed influence frameworks that are genuinely powerful tools. I made several design choices to keep these tools on the right side of the line between influence and manipulation. First, both workbooks foreground listening as a primary skill alongside speaking — understanding what a donor or prospect actually needs from a conversation and responding to that need rather than overriding it is positioned as foundational. Second, personal story is positioned as the primary vehicle for influence specifically because authentic personal narrative is inherently honest: it cannot be borrowed or manufactured, only offered. Third, both workbooks include explicit guidance on handling objections and disinterest in ways that respect the other person’s autonomy — not as challenges to overcome but as responses requiring acknowledgment and genuine engagement.

Why Did You Select This Piece?

I selected these two workbooks and decks together because they demonstrate a specific pedagogical capacity: the ability to design curriculum for two meaningfully different audiences within a single organizational context, using a coherent underlying framework while adapting the framing, examples, and exercises to each audience’s distinct starting point, motivation, and role. This is not simply writing two versions of the same document. Board members bring governance authority, professional credibility, and anxiety about fundraising to their training. Volunteers bring community authenticity, peer trust, and uncertainty about what they are actually being asked to do. Designing for both — using the same research foundation, the same ethical principles, and the same ultimate goal, but arriving there by different paths — demonstrates an advanced approach to curriculum design.

The coherence between this piece and the rest of my portfolio is also important to me. The communication principles in the Child Focus workbooks are grounded in the same behavioral science that animates Neurogiving; the ethical framing reflects the same principles that shape the Rogare research agenda; the stakeholder-centered approach mirrors the planning philosophy in the WCSF strategic plan. My intent is to demonstrate a clear throughline across all these pieces — that they build on one another, rely on each other, and create a coherent view of my approach to leadership and management, ethics, evidence and research, and lifelong learning. This work reflects my broader philosophy that effective training equips individuals not just with knowledge, but with the confidence, language, and ethical grounding required for action.