Anonymous wrote:Hiring a bunch of consultants who have never raised money for a school and haven’t got any of it yet in the pipeline - who just declared a target amount with no plan isn’t exactly an exhale for anyone involved in what is obviously going to be an enormous public debacle

One correction. It’s not a “bunch of consultants”. It’s one security guard turned grant writer who graduated from liberty university.

Not knocking liberty university. I don’t really know much about it, maybe it’s a great school. But my point is who thinks of Liberty university as graduating financial whizzes?

One of SSFS' many strengths has always been being inclusive of ALL and hiring someone who graduated from Liberty University is really odd. Liberty teaches that homosexuality and transgenderism are sins.

This is so weird on so many levels.

Hiring a bunch of consultants who have never raised money for a school and haven’t got any of it yet in the pipeline - who just declared a target amount with no plan isn’t exactly an exhale for anyone involved in what is obviously going to be an enormous public debacle

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's what I'd worry about. Parents and alumni, whose support is so essential right now, are going to read about this "hurrah, an amazing $25M is in the pipeline" and use it as a reason not to give or give as generously.

It's the polar opposite of the message that they should be receiving. They should be hearing that the school is now stabilized, but that they can't get themselves back into the position they were in a few months ago. So. Philanthropy is essential, participation matters, and each family is asked to support the school to the best of their capacity for the next 5 years until enrollment and reputation can be rebuilt.

That's why this announcement was a big mistake. It lets donors off the hook. Which puts even more pressure on the success of this far-fetched partnership.

I hadn't thought of it that way. Ugh, I hope you're wrong but that's a really good point. I hope the school puts out another communication about length of time a grant cycle can take (a year but usually more) and that it is NOT a replacement for the community to stretch their giving during this pivotal time.

This school just keeps on failing to do the right thing. Mind boggling

Anonymous wrote:Here's what I'd worry about. Parents and alumni, whose support is so essential right now, are going to read about this "hurrah, an amazing $25M is in the pipeline" and use it as a reason not to give or give as generously.

It's the polar opposite of the message that they should be receiving. They should be hearing that the school is now stabilized, but that they can't get themselves back into the position they were in a few months ago. So. Philanthropy is essential, participation matters, and each family is asked to support the school to the best of their capacity for the next 5 years until enrollment and reputation can be rebuilt.

That's why this announcement was a big mistake. It lets donors off the hook. Which puts even more pressure on the success of this far-fetched partnership.

I hadn't thought of it that way. Ugh, I hope you're wrong but that's a really good point. I hope the school puts out another communication about length of time a grant cycle can take (a year but usually more) and that it is NOT a replacement for the community to stretch their giving during this pivotal time.

That’s a good point. If $25 million is just waiting for them, why should I continue donating over the already exorbitant tuition for the experience they provide?

Here's what I'd worry about. Parents and alumni, whose support is so essential right now, are going to read about this "hurrah, an amazing $25M is in the pipeline" and use it as a reason not to give or give as generously.

It's the polar opposite of the message that they should be receiving. They should be hearing that the school is now stabilized, but that they can't get themselves back into the position they were in a few months ago. So. Philanthropy is essential, participation matters, and each family is asked to support the school to the best of their capacity for the next 5 years until enrollment and reputation can be rebuilt.

That's why this announcement was a big mistake. It lets donors off the hook. Which puts even more pressure on the success of this far-fetched partnership.

Anonymous wrote:It’s possible that the “consultants” are compensated only as a percentage of grants received, but even so, they lose any shred of credibility based on their press release and “projected” yield. What grants are they expecting?

As a PP wrote, hard to imagine a less grant-friendly time for education.

That would be a violation of the Association of Fundraising Professionals' Code of Ethics. I'd run very fast from any consultant who wants a percentage of funds raised. I actually get a number of potential clients who want to that sort of compensation and I refuse to consider it; other fundraising professionals I know also work strictly at a flat or hourly rate. Which is not to say I haven't heard of people still trying to do percentage compensation, but they're unusual these days and usually a sign that they aren't on the up and up, imo.

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for that/. Then, assuming that SSFS is paying the “firm,” it certainly doesn’t assuage concerns that they have not learned their lesson(s).

Q: how does ssfs solve its money problems?
A: by wasting more money

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

“This partnership marks a turning point in the life of the school,” said Dr. Sean Hamer, Head of School. “It is both a vote of confidence in our future, and a direct investment in our campus, our students, and the generations of SSFS families to come. We are grateful to the donors who made this possible and to KG Strategic Consultants for their expertise in guiding institutions like ours toward transformative funding.”

Several detectors are showing this is a 100% AI-generated statement. IMO, relying on AI demonstrates a lack of critical thinking. I’d be very cautious.

Um. this is 100% incorrect. Just ran it through several myself and none of them are indicating any AI generated text. So...PP needs to state which "several detectors" they used so others can run the same text through it because it appears here that the poster screaming "fake post" is the one who is the fabricator

While I don’t understand why anyone would make up that statement, I also don’t think it’s relevant. Whether the statement was AI generated or not is neither here nor there. This thread wasn’t “does ssfs use Ai for its news releases?”.

My question is why is the school shelling out $$ they don’t have for grants that no one will care to give them and why can’t their hired admin figure out anything without consultants? Every year I get an email about how they hired a consultant to solve something. I’m just staying next year to find a better school but that ssfs can never figure out how to solve their own problems and keeps taking these illogical steps is what concerns me.

The last thing I'd do if I sat on the Board of a well regarded 64 year old educational institution, is hire a random team of ex security executives that have only written Federal grants, that were educated at Liberty University, that are trying to reinvent themselves with my beloved institution as their first private client. Especially when the arena is literally filled with established players in this field with REAL contacts at the right foundations , REAL credibility to represent the school and REAL writing talent. See their website --terrible grammar throughout. This matters when you are advertising your grant writing expertise. Not a bad idea on the part of the Board to get outside fundraising help. Just a terrible and weirdly naive move to hire this obviously inexperienced firm. So..something is seriously missing in this story. It makes no sense at all. And it's so out of bounds that it raises major red flags.

Thanks for that/. Then, assuming that SSFS is paying the “firm,” it certainly doesn’t assuage concerns that they have not learned their lesson(s).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s probably doing this on a contingency fee basis—and filling a gap the school can’t afford to staff. This is fairly normal.

Not in fundraising though. I worked in this field for years and contingency fees, finders fees, etc. weren’t (and aren’t) allowed in the professional association’s code. It’s considered unethical and bad practice. I have no idea if that’s the case here, but it shouldn’t be.

I don’t know but I assume this is nto the case for grant writers.

https://grantprofessionals.org/page/ethics ("19. Members shall not accept or pay a finder’s fee [3], commission [4], or percentage compensation based on grants and shall take care to discourage organizations from making such payments.")

Anonymous wrote:

“This partnership marks a turning point in the life of the school,” said Dr. Sean Hamer, Head of School. “It is both a vote of confidence in our future, and a direct investment in our campus, our students, and the generations of SSFS families to come. We are grateful to the donors who made this possible and to KG Strategic Consultants for their expertise in guiding institutions like ours toward transformative funding.”

Several detectors are showing this is a 100% AI-generated statement. IMO, relying on AI demonstrates a lack of critical thinking. I’d be very cautious.

Um. this is 100% incorrect. Just ran it through several myself and none of them are indicating any AI generated text. So...PP needs to state which "several detectors" they used so others can run the same text through it because it appears here that the poster screaming "fake post" is the one who is the fabricator

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s probably doing this on a contingency fee basis—and filling a gap the school can’t afford to staff. This is fairly normal.

Not in fundraising though. I worked in this field for years and contingency fees, finders fees, etc. weren’t (and aren’t) allowed in the professional association’s code. It’s considered unethical and bad practice. I have no idea if that’s the case here, but it shouldn’t be.

I don’t know but I assume this is nto the case for grant writers.