It's easy to talk about things in the abstract. Making them happen is far more difficult.
So, to give you some inspiration, here are two case studies of organizations that implemented a full-staff model of fundraising. Both in very different ways.
Would either serve as a good model for your organization? How about a combination of the two?
There's no one-size-fits-all way to do this. So think about what pieces might work for you as you read about each program.
Case Study #1: Neighbor to Neighbor MassachusettsNeighbor to Neighbor Massachusetts is a statewide, grassroots organization of low-income people fighting for economic justice.
When I left Neighbor to Neighbor in 2007, they had:
- A $1 million budget
- Two-thirds of their income coming from individuals
- A staff of 12, including a full-time Development Director
Every staff member had a list of donors that they maintained a year-round relationship with. Some had fewer donors than others, and contributed to fundraising in other ways like writing grants or organizing events.
Each person was expected to spend 5-10% of their time on fundraising.
Everyone was fully trained. The staff had clear expectations and goals, sample materials, and time to practice. They also received ongoing support, supervision, and accountability from the full team.
At staff meetings, there was always time for reviewing the budget and money raised to date, reporting on each person's individual progress, troubleshooting challenges, and role playing the latest call script or brainstorming talking points for a new campaign.
I'll circle back to the pros and cons of this model but first, let's talk about...
Case Study #2: Toxics Action CenterToxics Action Center is a New England-wide community organization committed to addressing the health impacts of pollution and other toxins in our environment.
When I first heard about this case study in 2010, Toxics Action Center had:
- An annual budget of $400,000
- Half their income coming from individuals
- An 8-person staff including 1 full-time fundraiser
All staff participate in an intensive 2-week fundraising blitz twice a year. They have 250-300 donor visits during this time. To make it happen, staff put aside their other work for two weeks for a "bootcamp" style campaign, working 12-hour days.
The first week focuses on training, prep, and calling donors to set up meetings. The Development Director conducts role plays, provides clear lists, and they set goals and expectations together.
In the second week, each staff person has 3-5 visits a day with an average gift of $250 per visit. This raises $70,000 in just one week!
And, since most people are out on the road that second week, three conference calls are held to check-in, share stories, troubleshoot challenges, and cheer each other on for the remaining visits.
So what do you think?
Here's my take on each one...
Pros and ConsEach of these models has strengths and weaknesses.
They both involve the full staff in fundraising and that means the organizations can build real relationships with many more donors. It also means more commitment, more engagement, and, yes, more money from these supporters.
Both models provide lots of training and support. They have clear goals and expectations for each person. And there is built-in structure and accountability to help everyone do their best work.
The Neighbor to Neighbor model has the benefit of being integrated with the year-round work of the organization. But this also means that the staff is never done with fundraising. And it can be a struggle to fit it in when program work is really busy.
The Toxics Action Center model has a clear beginning and end. But their program work virtually stops for two weeks at a time, twice a year. And the schedule is intense!
In the end...Maybe one of these models will work for your organization. Maybe bits and pieces of each. Maybe you've got a totally different idea for how to do it.
Regardless, the important take-away is this -- Fundraising can't be off in its own little corner while everyone else does the "real work." It has to be part of your whole organization. And that's easiest and yields the best results when everyone is part of it.
Thank you to the Grassroots Fundraising Journal and Andy Robinson for allowing the use of the Toxics Action Center case study. If you're not familiar with the Journal, check it out. It's one of the best fundraising resources around. Worth the subscription at twice the price!