It may be of interest that in the UK the regulatory body for charities in
England and Wales the Charity Commission has been concerned for some time
about such fund-raising contracts, not least because to be lawful the cost
of fund-raising (and other charity administrative expenditure including
salaries of regular staff for that matter) must be reasonable and
proportionate.  There have been a number of high-profile cases in which
contract fund-raisers have swallowed up in fees and lavish expenses
almost all of the money raised, though I do not think there have been any
allagations against museums on this point.

Patrick Boylan

==============================================

On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, Claire Thompson wrote:

> I absolutely agree with Anne - a percentage arrangement, while still
> sometimes used, is a good incentive to get fundraisers accepting all
> kinds of inappropriate gifts on your organization's behalf.  Why not hire
> someone really great, with a demonstrated track record, and plan to pay
> her what she's worth?  I would certainly be leery of any organization
> that offered me a compensation package involving a percentage - I would
> worry about their fiscal stability, and about their understanding of the
> development process.  There are other ways to track and encourage
> performance.  For example, most units here at the University of
> Virginia use the measure of numbers of significant calls (i.e. visits
> with qualified prospects where the campaign and its goals, and that
> individual's role in it, are discussed) made per year(150 to 300 being
> the norm, depending upon supervisory responsibilities, etc.)  Of course
> the total $$$ raised is also considered.  Raising really big money is
> done through building relationships, and with the active involvement of
> an organization's staff, board and volunteers.  It takes time, and it
> isn't cheap, but it does work if done properly.
>
> That's my two cents!
>