Martin Shell, Stanford’s vice president of development, says that the university has received more than 80 percent, or about $5-billion, of the money pledged by donors.

The campaign was announced publicly in 2006, after a “quiet phase” of two years in which $2.2-billion was raised.  But during the public phase, which lasted five years and ended in December,  the campaign ran into some slow periods, Mr. Shell acknowledges.

One of the worst periods was in early 2009, when Mr. Shell was forced to lay off 20 fundraisers. As a result of those layoffs and leaving vacant positions unfilled, he says, Stanford’s  development staff was reduced by about 50 people.

In 2010, Mr. Shell says, Stanford raised the smallest sum in six years, $600-million. Yet during that same year, he notes, the university made a big effort to reach out to donors, and it had a record number of both donors and gift transactions, with many people making gifts of $100 apiece.

Mr. Shell says that another reason the campaign did so well was that wealthy donors identified new projects for which university officials had not sought money.  Thomas Steyer and Kathryn  Taylor gave $50-million for a center for sustainable energy, and Jay Precourt gave $40-million for another institute devoted to developing alternative energy sources.

Other goals, however, such as raising $300-million for student financial aid, did not appeal to some donors. Stanford fell short of reaching its student-aid goal by $50-million.

The Stanford campaign had the largest goal of any capital drive until a few months ago, when the University of Southern California announced a $6-billion campaign, which some fundraisers have criticized as unrealistic.

Now USC’s goal “doesn’t seem that big,” says Bruce Flessner, a Minneapolis fundraising consultant who for decades has advised universities and other large nonprofits on capital campaigns. But, he adds, Stanford’s accomplishment puts “enormous” pressure on fundraisers to follow that example.

In recent years, Mr. Flessner says, other universities, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Purdue, and Carnegie Mellon, have established operations in Silicon Valley to compete with Stanford for big donations. “If you don’t,” he says, “Stanford just adopts your donors.”

Stanford’s campaign also underscores the importance of geography, Mr. Flessner notes. “This tells you that there’s a lot of money in Silicon Valley,” he says, “and Stanford does not have as much competition” as universities on the East Coast.

Mr. Flessner says Stanford is fortunate to be located in the country’s technology belt, which he calls one of three “wealth-creation centers” in the nation. The other two are New York’s  financial-services industry and the oil and energy industries in Texas.

He adds: “You don’t see too many $100-million gifts coming out of Atlanta.”

Dig deeper: Learn more about the geographic divide among wealthy donors.

The charity, which raises more than all but United Way Worldwide and the Salvation Army, announced that it had collected $2.9-billion last year, up from $1.6-billion in 2010 and $1.9-billion in 2007, before the recession took hold.

Most gifts to Fidelity are in the form of stock that has risen sharply in value, and last year’s jump to $2.9-billion—an increase of about 80 percent—reflects rises in the stock market in the past few years, Fidelity officials said.  From March 2009 to the end of 2011, stocks grew in value by 86 percent.

Donors were not just pouring more money into their funds: They were also distributing more money to their favorite causes. The amount donors channeled to charities from their Fidelity accounts totaled $1.3-billion, another record that surpassed the $1.2-billion distributed in 2007.

Fidelity’s data suggest that hard times have prompted some wealthy donors to shift support to charities that help the needy. By June 30 of last year, the dollar amount given to charities providing “community and human services” had grown by 11 percent over the previous 12 months. Those grants accounted for 27 percent of all Fidelity grants in that period, more than grants to educational (24 percent) or religious (11 percent) organizations.

“I wanted you to hear from me before you heard from someone else,” the writer began. “I am going to prison in February. Like each one of you, I am a broken person. My life is filled with bad decisions, poor excuses, and moral failings.”

Then Jeremy Gregg, executive director of the PLAN Fund, a microfinance group, explains that he is leaving to become chief development officer at the Prison Entrepreneurship Program.

Mr. Gregg says he sent the tongue-in-cheek message to hundreds of friends and colleagues because he wanted to share something he’s learned from volunteering at the seven-year-old prison program: People behind bars aren’t that different from you or me, he says, and they need a hand putting their lives back together.

That’s why the Prison Entrepreneurship Program offers an intensive five-month training that pairs entrepreneurs with Texas inmates. Prisoners work with mentors on a business idea they can start after they are released, with the goal of earning a decent wage.

Does it work? Less than 10 percent of the roughly 700 graduates from the program have returned to prison, compared with 45 percent of incarcerated men nationwide, according to Mr. Gregg.

Statistics like those have helped the Prison Entrepreneurship Program recruit a stable group of volunteer entrepreneurs and employers willing to hire the ex-offenders. But Mr. Gregg admits that “it can be challenging to raise money for a bunch of convicts.”

I’m interested in talking with other fundraisers who work for organizations with potentially controversial or unpopular causes. Share your story with me by writing to  holly.hall@philanthropy.com.

Four in 10 of those donors texted a contribution to help people in Japan following last year’s earthquake and tsunami, according to a survey of 863 people who made a text-message gift after the earthquake in Haiti. More than a quarter of donors to Haiti reported that they gave via cellphone after the BP oil spill in 2010, and nearly 20 percent said they made a text-message gift to help victims of last year’s tornadoes in the South.

The survey was conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, together with the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard and the mGive Foundation, with a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

Roughly three-quarters of donors said their gift after the disaster in Haiti was the first they had made via cellphone. About 80 percent said that text messaging was the only way they contributed to Haiti recovery efforts. About one-third reported making more than one text-message donation.

The memo outlined “talking points” for telling donors that the university has not changed its policy, which states that once a gift is made, it won’t be returned.

The focus on fund raising was included in one of four internal memos publicized in an Associated Press article that sheds new light on how the university initially responded to the crisis, which resulted after assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was charged with sexually abusing 10 boys. He has denied wrongdoing.

The other memos outlined damage-control steps taken by Penn State’s new president and provided a reminder that university officials should exude “remorse, humility, and resolve” when asked about the scandal.

The university may not be returning donations, but the scandal has caused some donors to hold back on fulfilling pledges or to discontinue monthly gifts. The crisis has the potential to depress donations and interfere with Penn State’s $2-billion capital campaign, which needs to raise $600-million by June 2014 to reach its goal.

What do you think of Penn State’s policy? Should the university be willing to return gifts made before the scandal? Does your institution have a policy on whether donations will ever be returned?

The most-viewed post on this blog summarized a report with dozens of ideas about how to increase charitable giving. But fund raisers were also looking for creative ways to inject new life into traditional approaches, as demonstrated by another popular most about a modern twist on the gala.

Here are the five most-viewed Prospecting posts of 2011:

Nonprofit Leaders Suggest Ways to Increase Charitable Giving
A new report offers 32 suggestions, such as dropping terms that mean little to most donors.

Flash Mob Surprises Guests at Fund-Raising Dinner
An antipoverty group lets its mission inspire a creative approach to a traditional gala.

Two-Thirds of Donors Plan to Cut Back on Giving This Fall
Job losses and uncertainty about the state of the economy are causing caution among many charity supporters, a survey finds.

Charity Wins Donors With Promise Never to Ask for Another Gift
Smile Train, a group that provides free cleft-palate surgery to poor kids overseas, has found a direct-mail piece that does a good job of winning new donors.

Fund Raisers Mull Effects of a Double-Dip Recession
Seasoned fund raisers speculate about what’s ahead in these uncertain economic times and offer advice on how to approach donors.

The consultants, Robert F. Sharpe and Barlow Mann, have made available a free hour-long Webinar on fund-raising advice and predictions for the coming year.

Among the tax issues likely to spur giving, they say:

Charitable deductions. President Obama has proposed limiting how much the wealthiest Americans can write off on their taxes for making gifts, and though Congress has not agreed so far, concern about the deficit could give the plan more traction in 2012. Donors who are worried about the potential for new limits in 2013 may be motivated to give in 2012, or accelerate payments on pledges from past years, so they can get a healthy tax break.

Estate taxes. People can give or leave up to $5-million to heirs tax-free in 2011 and 2012, but unless Congress takes action, much more of their estates may be taxable in 2013. The potential change has already prompted many wealthy people to think about how best to arrange their finances and provide for their families. A growing number of donors are  creating charitable lead trusts, which provide payments to a charity for several years before the assets revert back to the donors’ heirs.

Because the estate-tax law will prompt so many donors to review their wills, the consultants say nonprofits should be sure to remind older people to make charitable bequest plans.

Beyond tax issues, Mr. Sharpe and Mr. Mann urge fund raisers to focus on offering wealthy people options to give stock, real estate, or other noncash donations. Because interest rates have been at historic lows the past few years, donors who live off the earnings on their investments probably feel cash poor.

Charitable gift annuities may also be popular with donors in their 70s or older, they note. With annuities, older donors give assets to a charity to invest; in return, they receive payments for life and a tax break. Gift annuity payments are typically worth more than donors can realize from  treasury bonds, certificates of deposit, or money-market funds.

You’re not alone, says the actress Scarlett Johansson in an animated video that’s helping to increase year-end donations to Oxfam America, the U.S. branch of the global development charity. The video is part of a campaign that pokes fun at holiday-gift traditions to spur support for Oxfam.

In the video, Ms. Johansson is the voice of an animated female character who discourages viewers from giving lame holiday gifts—like a picture of a kitten or an ugly sweater. Instead, she suggests going to the group’s online portal, Oxfam America Unwrapped, and purchasing something more meaningful: chickens for a farmer, books for kids, or fruit trees for a village. “Now, these are really great gifts,” she says.

The video has garnered a “lot of traffic,” says Stephanie Kurzina, vice president for development and communications at Oxfam America. Giving through its online portal has been strong, she says, up more than 20 percent over last year.

To date, 4,724 people have clicked through the video to the site, resulting in more than $87,000 in donations from 778 transactions.

The video has been picked up by BBC America, CNN, and the Oprah Winfrey Network, says Josh Silva, a spokesman for Oxfam America. He says the video’s look and message are part of the holiday campaign this year: a series of illustrations used as print and online advertisements that take a creative approach to the theme of giving.

Some of the messages said:

• “Fruit baskets feed an office for a day. Fruit trees feed a family for life.”

• “No one thinks a toilet is a perfect gift until they need one.”

• “When you give a fruitcake, everyone goes hungry.”

“It’s been so successful because it’s played into not just an illustrative angle but the whole campaign,” Mr. Silva says. “It’s fun and cheeky.”

Contributions declined at more than half of parishes from 2008 through 2010, according to a new study. Roughly 20 percent of parishes said giving remained flat during that time, while 13 percent reported that contributions decreased at first and then rebounded. About 10 percent of parishes said donations rose.

The Center for the Study of Church Management at Villanova University analyzed the data 390 Catholic parishes provided as part of the Faith Communities Today survey, which was conducted by the Cooperative Congregational Studies Partnership.

Parishes’ budgets for charitable contributions were among the first victims of the downturn, according to the survey. About 55 percent of parishes reported that they reduced the amount of money they contributed to mission projects and charities.

Other responses to falling donations: postponed or canceled building projects or capital campaigns (53 percent of respondents), salary reductions or freezes (52 percent), delayed hiring for staff positions (30 percent), and layoffs or furloughs (22 percent).

As the economy continues to falter, some of the steps parishes have taken might become permanent, says Charles Zech, director of the Center for the Study of Church Management.

“One of the first things they cut back on was giving to charity,” he says. “That might be a permanent theme, that the church looks more inward and takes care of its own needs first as opposed to benevolences and charity to outside groups.”

Mr. Strauss, the author of The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists, spent years testing and perfecting the techniques men use to meet and attract women. One of the most effective techniques could also be useful to fund raisers, he said at the annual NextGen: Charity conference, in New York.

“The best way to sell yourself is to have somebody else selling themselves to you,” he says.

Instead of telling donors why they should give to your organization, Mr. Stauss says, ask them to explain why they would be good donors. When donors articulate why they would want to support your organization, they will convince themselves to give.

“Sometimes you almost have to talk people into doing what they already want to do,” Mr. Strauss says. “There’s no one who doesn’t want to give back.”

After donors make their gifts, it’s important to thank them, Mr. Strauss says. In donor relationships, like romantic relationships, one bad experience can sour a person on a whole group of people or organizations.

If you don’t thank your donors, or if you don’t get them involved once they make a gift, they may be less likely to support other charities, he says. Call it the all-charities-are-only-after-one-thing effect.

“My message to charities is don’t ruin it for the rest of the charities,” Mr. Strauss says.