Jaime Graeber is the Development Manager at the Wortham Center for the Performing Arts. She is a member of the Association of Fundraising Professionals – Western North Carolina Chapter and received the 2025 Chamberlain Scholarship to attend AFP ICON in Seattle, Washington in late April. The Chamberlain Scholarship is available to individuals who have never attended the international conference. AFP ICON 2025 attracted over 3,000 fundraising professionals with more than 100 sessions. Jaime shared some of her reflections from her time below:

Reflections from AFP ICON 2025 in Seattle

Thanks to the support of the Association of Fundraising Professionals – Western North Carolina Chapter, I had the incredible opportunity to attend the AFP ICON conference in Seattle, WA as a Chamberlain Scholar. I was excited to take part in this nationally and internationally recognized event—three days packed with educational sessions, networking opportunities, and a firsthand look at the latest fundraising tools, technology, and vendor solutions.

Throughout the conference, I connected with professionals from arts organizations across the country, shari

ng ideas, challenges, and solutions. One particularly meaningful experience was attending the Affinity Group for Arts and Culture on Saturday evening. This discussion offered valuable insight into how arts organizations are navigating today’s political and philanthropy climate and gave me a broader
perspective on the common

themes and concerns in our field right now.

The educational sessions were

especially impactful. I deepened my understanding of stewarding mid-level donors, picked up fresh strategies for grant writing, and explored new approaches to corporate philanthropy. The exhibit hall was a hub of energy and innovation. I had the chance to demo various CRM systems and fundraising tools that are shaping the future of nonprofit development—and scoped out where to find the best coffee in Seattle (priorities, right?).

One of the most inspiring moments came during the Opening Session with astronaut José Hernández. His story of perseverance and resilience, and his powerful message about the importance of storytelling, reminded me why we do this work: to lift up voices,
share impact, and keep striving—even in the face of obstacles.

Of all the enriching experiences, one of my favorites was spending time with fellow WNC chapter members over dinner. Sharing stories, laughter, and a good meal helped build connections that I know will last long after the conference. I’m deeply grateful to AFP WNC for making this experience possible and for investing in professional development opportunities like the Chamberlain Scholar program. I return home with fresh ideas, new tools, personal connections with non-profit professionals, and renewed motivation to keep growing as a fundraiser.

Jaime Graeber
Development Manager
Wortham Center for the Performing Arts

Ben Kees is the Senior Director of Development at Western Carolina University, where he raises philanthropic support for the College of Arts & Sciences and manages a team of directors of development across four academic units. Kees received a Bachelor of Science from Kentucky Wesleyan College and a Masters of Education from Vanderbilt University. He is also the Co-chair of Programs for the Association of Fundraising Professionals – Western North Carolina chapter.

Pitch Your Own Game: Lessons from Baseball Legends to Enhance Donor Engagement and Major Gift Strategies

Development professionals have our own version of throwing strikes: honing our skills to engage donors in deep conversation, active listening, finding genuinely meaningful stewardship opportunities, or developing good timing of communication. But we develop and use our strengths according to the situation.

The Big Unit Versus The Professor

I grew up watching baseball in the era when two of the most dominant pitchers were Greg Maddux and Randy Johnson. They were drafted a year apart in the mid 80’s, rising to stardom early in the next decade. Each became a World Series champion on the way to being inducted into Cooperstown’s hallowed halls, once again, only a year apart. Along the way, Maddux became the first pitcher to win four consecutive Cy Young Awards—baseball’s annual award for the best pitcher in each league. Johnson followed suit, doing it himself a few years later.

These two guys were paragons of excellence in their craft. Both are regulars on most every all-time top ten list you could lay eyes on. However, to anyone (like me) who tuned in to TBS on summer nights and caught the West Coast highlights on Baseball Tonight or SportsCenter, you know that you even though their careers ran on very similar trajectories, Johnson and Maddux don’t have much in common.

Greg Maddux probably wouldn’t stand out much in a crowd, clean-shaven and bespectacled, and at 6’ and 170lb, he probably looks a like a guy who works in the office next to you. Maddux had a fastball that didn’t touch 90 a lot of days. But it frustrated hitters with superior movement and unparalleled control. Randy Johnson, meanwhile, sported a mullet and mustache and towered above the competition at 6’10’’, in fact owning the title of tallest player in the history of the majors for several years. In addition to his imposing presence, Johnson also had a side-armed throwing motion and a blistering fastball that regularly clocked in at over 100mph.

Two very different styles, two incredibly successful careers.

“It’s not a speed contest, it’s a pitching contest.”

Greg Maddux was once quoted on his pitching philosophy when comparing himself to Johnson. It makes sense. When you can’t compete on speed, you compete on skill. As fundraisers, we operate with the common goal of securing resources for our organizations but are given quite a bit of leeway on how we go about accomplishing that goal. Like pitchers perfecting their grips and consistently hitting the strike zone, fundraisers also refine mechanics to hone our craft.

Once we establish the basics of things like navigating a conversation to qualify donor interest or how to write an effective meeting invitation, we are free to use some creativity and individualization in building a relationship. Your approach may be different from others, but the goal is the same—to build strong relationships that will potentially blossom into one that helps others have transformational impact for our organization. Johnson or Maddux: take your pick. There is not one single right way to be a successful fundraiser.

Fundamental knowledge? You bet.
Building blocks? Yes.
Best practices? Absolutely.
One size fits all? Only for your favorite team’s New Era snapback.

There are several ways to be good at fundraising. Just like being on the pitching mound, the expectation shouldn’t be for everybody to work in the same way. As with a successful baseball franchise, your leadership team will make sure that you get the training, resources, and support you need to be successful. But once your manager hands you the ball, it’s your game to pitch.

Pitchers are judged and evaluated on a lot of measures, but the main thing—no matter the role of starter, relief, set-up, or a closer, is to get outs. You could focus on strikeouts or you could try to induce soft contact or ground balls. But in the context of the game, you are a successful pitcher when you can get the batter out. Likewise, the fundraiser’s primary goal is evident in their title – raising funds. Success will ultimately be judged on how effective you are doing that for your organization. Each fundraiser’s portfolio is going to be made up of a completely different collection of people in different stages and with completely different personalities. This fact gives fundraisers a lot of freedom to chart their own path.

Even once you find a donor ready to make a gift, not every situation calls for the same approach! You’re not going to use the same approach when working with a donor planning a legacy gift that you would for a donor making their first $25,000 gift of impact. Even though your donors share the common interest with your institution (or diploma), they are not all the same.

To throw consistent strikes, read the situation

Pitchers might develop a hard-breaking slider to complement a fastball. They may paint the corners with off-speed pitches, or they may be part of the rare eephus or knuckleball fraternity. But if they can read the situation and throw strikes, they’re doing their job and are on the path to success. Some have said donors don’t say “no” to an ask, they say no to a specific element of the ask—the amount, the timing, the asker, the project, or the approach can all be barriers. Pay attention to the situation and be ready for when opportunity arises.

We might even end up like Maddux, who has a specific statistic named for him and his prowess at a certain part of his job—complete game shutout in under 100 pitches. This speaks to an ability to read situations efficiently.

This is my approach in leading my team. It is important for each of them to remember that I trust them to get out there and pitch their own game. I’m not going to be on every phone call or be at every meeting with my staff. As the team leader, I’m going to make sure they get everything they need to be successful. I’ll offer all the coaching I can, but once the ball is in their hands, it’s their game. This is my message to you as well.

Go out and make it your own.

For April’s blog article, we’re focusing on grants, and Mark Goldstein is certainly no fool when it comes to grant writing! We asked him to answer some questions to help you be more successful in securing funding from your grant proposals.

Several factors come into play. When you spot an enticing prospect, a key question to consider is the grantmaker’s geographic focus, particularly with private foundations. Will this funder make awards to where your organization provides services, how often has it made awards in your county, and what size grants have been awarded to comparable organizations near you? The answers can be found for free on funder websites, in grantmaker 990 forms posted on Candid or in for-pay foundation databases. Next, read grantmaker guidelines to see whether you meet other requirements. Review their focus areas and carefully consider whether they fit what you do and if they share a similar philosophy.

If you can’t realistically make a case for alignment, you are unlikely to be funded, and your energy will be better spent elsewhere. If you are aligned well enough, you must demonstrate that a grant will enable your organization and the funder to fulfill their respective missions. You can maximize alignment by only requesting funds for parts of the project that address grantmaker priorities. For instance, if your focus is on providing housing repair assistance to anyone in need, and the funder’s focus is on providing any type of assistance to older adults in need, you can ask the foundation to support repairs to seniors’ homes. As you write, be sure to emphasize points that demonstrate alignment with the funder—don’t assume the alignment can go unstated.

Definitely submit it on bright pink paper (ha! just kidding). I don’t recommend anything odd that might make the application less legible or try reviewers’ patience. Often, just following guidelines, using clear language, and demonstrating a great need for a vital service will move your application toward the top of the stack. To make it stand out even more, dig deep for data and timely news items that indicate a crisis you can help avert; include an appropriate short story of how a client’s life clearly improved; forecast specific, realistic, but ambitious measurable and time-sensitive outcomes; and share accomplishments that show you have improved many people’s lives.

As a reviewer, I see many mistakes that can easily be addressed. Common ones include not following instructions carefully; failing to explain the problem affecting your organization’s service area (e.g., only citing state or US stats); providing answers that don’t entirely address application questions; and spending too little time organizing applications (for example, scattering community needs throughout an application instead of relegating them to the ‘Need Statement’ section). All of these errors can be avoided by building in time to reread your draft and correct problems. It also helps to have someone unfamiliar with the project review the application and provide feedback.

Craft a clear, concise narrative you believe in that logically explains why your project is crucial. Gather data about the needs you believe must be addressed, and the strategies or methods you trust will make an impact. Incorporate data and anecdotes wherever your story needs validation or documentation. For instance, if you address breast cancer, data might illustrate it is a big problem locally (using data on mortality, cases reported, county health needs assessments, etc.). If you propose to combat lung cancer through screenings, you can cite data showing that early treatment results in a better prognosis. You can quote local people who have had lung cancer and say early treatment did, or would have, made their lives better, proving your point and raising the emotional stakes of your story.

Funders want your narrative and budget to tell the same story. They want to know how funds will be spent, why each line item is warranted, how expenses were calculated, and how expended funds enable project implementation. Funders want to know how much you are requesting from them, and how much is needed to support the entire project. In the income section of your budget, they usually want at least half of your project revenues to come from other sources, to see that project fundraising is on schedule, and that you anticipate raising funds in a timely way to implement all or most of the project. They often don’t want their grant to be more than about 10% to 20% of your total budget, especially where services are concerned. If funds are used for contracts or significant capital expenses, they want to see specific bids or estimates obtained within the past six months.

This can vary. With Federal grants, there are often clear limits on the amounts used for such expenses. When rules about such costs are more general, different grant writers have their own philosophies, but I usually recommend counting everything possible as a direct cost. For instance, if you can show that a proposal funds a project that equals 50% of your organization’s workload, you can typically justify charging half of your phone, rent, and administrative expenses directly to that project.

You treat funders with respect, empathize with their challenging role, be yourself, and make life as easy for them as possible. You demonstrate that your work aligns with theirs and that you can be trusted to help them achieve common aims. This can be done in many ways: read their websites and guidelines before calling with questions; exercise patient persistence in contacting them and realize you may not get an immediate response; understand that there are some questions they may not be able to answer in fairness to other applicants; thank them for their help even when you don’t get a grant; ask thoughtfully for feedback when funding requests fail; submit reports transparently and on time; and so on. A lot of grant writing involves patience, candor, initiative, sensitivity, and creative problem-solving with others. Having a sense of humor doesn’t hurt either!