Fundraisers Abandon Ship
This post first appeared on August 19, 2019
Not only is the nonprofit sector doing a lousy job holding on to donors, we’re apparently equally awful when it comes to retaining nonprofit fundraisers.
In a recent survey conducted by The Harris Poll for The Chronicle of Philanthropyand AFP, using a self-selected sample of American and Canadian fundraisers, a whopping 51% of the respondents say they will leave their current nonprofit within 2 years. Even more disturbing, 30% of the fundraisers say they’re planning to leave the fundraising trade altogether.
Clearly, with the multi-year retention rate of donors averaging 45.5%, with 51% of the fundraisers ready to abandon their current posts and 30% ready to abandon ship altogether there’s trouble in paradise. Neither the donors nor the fundraisers who serve them are satisfied.
None of this should come as a shock. For 10+ years The Agitator, Blackbaud, and The Fundraising Effectiveness Project along with many other have chronicled the decline in retention and offered a host of solutions for remedying that problem.
And six years ago the landmark study Underdeveloped: A National Study of The Challenges Facing Nonprofit Fundraisingsounded the alarm, presciently warning that instability in the sector would result in 50% of the development pros leaving their positions within 2 years.
So, now it’s six years later– with thousands and thousands more new nonprofits competing for funds from thousands and thousands of fewer donors –and we’re standing still.Why?
Data from the current Chronicle/AFP Study are illustrative of some of the symptoms and perhaps shed some light on the cure:
- 36% of responding fundraisers say they’re dissatisfied with support they get from their boards.
- 29% are dissatisfied with the support they get from their CEO.
[ In 2016 Agitator readers, were asked about support from the top: 37% said fundraising support from their CEO and Board was “lacking” … 20% said “they’re clueless”.]
- 30% are dissatisfied with the level of recognition they receive for their accomplishments.
[ In a 2016 Survey of Agitator readers 40% said their CEO treats them “like an occasional visiting relative”…24% “like the gardener.” ]
- 27% of those who say they’ve left or are likely to leave report that unreasonable goals are a key reason.
[In our 2016 Survey of Agitator readers were asked which statement best described fundraising planning ‘at the top’ in their organizations said…
- Program goals are discussed with fundraising an integral part of the discussion — 26%
- “Tell us how much you can raise” — 17%
- “Here’s what we need … go raise it” — 58%
- 25% of current fundraisers are dissatisfied with access to professional development.
You can get the data from the current survey from AFP–Infographics summarizing the Survey here….Executive Summary here… Survey Results here. ]
For a textured, beautifully reported story behind the survey data I urge you to read Heather Joslyn’s piece in The Chronicle of Philanthropy. There you’ll find real-life examples of what fundraisers are up against. I urge you to share this with your board, CEO and colleagues. A sampling:
“Congratulations, you’ve been hired as a fundraiser! Now go raise money and don’t bother anyone.”
“That’s the message”, according to Heather, “too many fundraisers feel they’ve been given by their chief executives, their boards, and the people they work with: You’re on your own, kid.
“Oh, and this: And you better come back with the money –or else!”
What to Do?
This problem isn’t easily solved. Its roots are deeply entwined in a sector where leadership neither understands nor take fundraising and donors seriously.
Until boards, CEOs, Foundations, major donors –and yes, state regulators and rating agencies like Charity Navigator –-grasp the essential importance of well-trained, well-managed, and appropriately recognized and compensated “professionals” we’re in for a bleak future.
Roger
P.S. For The Agitator’sprevious rants on this subject see Before You Quit, Rate Your CEO, Fundraisers Rate Their CEOs, and I Hate the Way We Fail New Fundraisers.
9 Responses To “Fundraisers Abandon Ship”
2 responses to “Fundraisers Abandon Ship”
-
In the Underdeveloped study, small to mid sized organizations had development directors reporting they were more likely to jump ship than the largest organizations. Small to mid sized organizations had much longer vacancies to fill fundraiser positions and reported that it was very difficult to find development directors. In my experience, those organizations often have to hire fundraisers with little to no fundraising experience and then they don’t devote resources to ensuring that those individuals receive significant training. Small nonprofits don’t have the resources to compete with the biggest nonprofits in compensation.
Underdeveloped reported that 31% of nonprofits with budgets under $1M have no fundraising plan; 32% with no fundraising database. To me, that’s a clear side effect of having highly inexperienced fundraisers in their jobs.
We need a much better process of bringing new fundraisers into the field and supporting their development. I’ve been very intrigued by the potential for registered apprenticeship as a means to develop a career ladder … such a system would need that career ladder to span multiple employers.
As to executive directors and boards … yes, we need much more investment. But I would take this approach. A quarter of Executive Directors report in Underdeveloped that they lack the skills to be good fundraisers. The majority of EDs reported having no prior fund development experience. I think that boards need to be aware of this and require professional development in fundraising for their CEOs and ensure that professional development for their novice fundraisers and for their CEOs is included in their budgets.
Fundraiser often fail, and Underdeveloped supports this, when CEOs are not supportive and don’t include them at as part of the team at the highest levels of the organization… at least for small to mid sized shops. (Nonprofits with dozens to hundreds of staff in fund development need different ways of organizing… while everyone needs to be engaged in the strategy, not everyone can be at the top management or board table).
As for our board members… if the CEOs of their organizations and the development directors do not themselves have sufficient skills in fund development, how is it that we expect board members, volunteers recruited from many different backgrounds, most of whom have no fundraising experience, to know all about fundraising? Don’t boards usually turn to their paid staff as the experts in their fields? I’m done with board blaming. Boards need a baseline of knowledge about revenue strategies, the tradeoffs of pursuing different lines of revenue business, the capacity needed to be successful, basic planning … enough about the complexities of fund development to start asking the right questions of their staff.
-
Ah…our so-sad history. Not really a profession. Anyone can do it. Just get big buck donors on your board and they’ll connect with their connections and get the money. Power dynamics. And over and over.
I was an advisor to the UnderDeveloped Report. I wrote articles and developed a training program and and … And I was writing about “more than just fundraising tactics” in my first book, Strategic Fund Development…now in its 3rd edition. And mostly nothing much has changed very much.
It’s still amazing to me … the # of fundraisers who aren’t lifelong learners … who aren’t reading Sargeant & Shang, Jeff Brooks, Drucker, neuroscience research & so very much more. Fundraisers & fundraising associations that focus on fundraising tactics & tools – with too little in-depth learning & questioning & challenging &&&…
As Jay noted… There are new education programs. And marvelous new & old books & so very much beyond how-to tactics & tools. Past time for change. Seemingly more & more weakness in the philanthropic sector. What might the new year bring?
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
As usual Roger, you have nailed one of the biggest problems that has so many roots reaching back from it in our sector!
Will you be outlining possible solutions over the next week or two?
There are some new and innovative professional fundraising training options out there, but one dares not steal any of Roger’s thunder… 🙂
Jay
Thank you. We’ll be tackling the solution end of this problem with a focus an training. Why training? Partly because it’s essential from a skill standpoint, but also because it may be an important avenue for dealing with the important issues of respect and the need for nonprofit leaders to take fundraising seriously.
In most states there are hours of training required for a license to work in a nail salon. In no states are there training requirements for fundraising.
My guess is Boards and CEOs would develop a sudden interest and appreciation for fundraising training if they were denied the right to publicly raise funds without properly trained and licensed fundraisers.
Are finger and toe nails more deserving of training than the missions to which donors are asked to contribute?
Roger
I took on this very issue in the US Critical Fundraising Report published by Rogare (https://bit.ly/31MOtIH). Without standards, the idea that “anyone can do it” is perpetuated and the cycle continues. There is a body of knowledge, there are best practices, there are legal regulations and there are ethical codes. When leaders don’t know those exist or–worse–don’t care (i.e. “do whatever it takes to reach the revenue goal”), the sector suffers, missions flounder and needs go unmet for those who need us the most. Enough is enough.
I’m in the 30% that just left fundraising. Why? There are (sadly) plenty of reasons, from not just one job but from 20 years of cumulative experience. I’ve moved to the consulting side, working with leaders & hoping to help affect change from the outside–hey, I might be out of the nonprofit sector but that doesn’t mean I’ve given up completely! You’re absolutely right, Roger. It starts with leadership. Without it, even the best of fundraisers will struggle.
I wholeheartedly support a certification requirement, but since the cost will likely fall to the individual fundraiser, care should be taken that it is affordable and accessible.
I became part of the fundraising community in 1980. Soon after becoming a fundraiser, I began hearing talk about the problem of high turnover. Many problems were identified. Many solutions were offered. Unfortunately, Roger, as your post suggests, nothing substantive has changed over the intervening four decades. Nothing! NOTHING! N-O-T-H-I-N-G!
By all means, please continue to shine a spotlight on the problem. By all means, please offer your proposed solutions in future posts. All I ask is, please do not expect me to believe anything will change.
The biggest problem with fundraiser retention is a near complete lack of will, on the part of boards and C-level staff, to fix the problems. If that nonprofit cultural flaw remains unaddressed, those working in the nonprofit sector will be having the same conversation in another four decades.
Once there is a willingness to improve the situation, we can begin to address issues including: compensation, proper planning and goal setting, appropriate expectations of professional fundraisers, humane work conditions, proper staffing levels, professional development, and more.
To solve any problem, one must first identify the problem. When it comes to fundraiser turnover, we have long known there is a problem. However, I submit that that is not THE problem. THE problem is leadership’s lack of willingness to do anything about it. So, how do we address THAT problem? Until we do, any other discussion on the subject is nothing but spitting into the wind.
Thanks Michael, for your always thoughtful take on the situation. I recommend everyone read your post on this important subject. https://bit.ly/33LNLgF
The principal problem, as you effectively note, is leadership –or lack of it and the will to act at the top.
And you’re right that we can’t bury our heads in the sands of endless studies and hand-wringing. Rather, it’s well past time to start putting forth some recommendations on how to awaken and spur nonprofit boards and execs into action. Here at The Agitator we’ll be putting forth some suggestions and trust that you’ll continue to add your experience and wisdom.
Roger
“Underdeveloped” came out almost 7 years ago. Nothing has changed except maybe for the worse. Who is responsible for leading the response?
Will training/certification include a course on “How to Lead a Culture Change/Revolution for Your Organization from Your Middle Management (if you’re lucky) Position?”
“Culture of Philanthropy” in the new “donor centric,” a worthless phrase tossed into every conference session and slide deck because it’s trendy. And without defining it and enrolling a cadre of true believers committed to teaching how to create and nurture such a culture, audiences will continue to think it just means raising more money.
Thanks for the rant, Roger! I have devoted much of my professional career to the effort of educating board members about fundraising. They are just ignorant, and have myths in their heads about fundraising. They have no idea of how it works, and what fundraisers do every day. This goes for many nonprofit CEO’s as well.
Until board members and CEO’s decide to take it upon themselves to learn how fundraising works, what donors want, and how to treat their fundraising staff, then the situation will never get better. Somehow we have to incline them to want to learn more. I find that in my board workshops, the board members really have fun and say they have been enlightened – and they are ready to help. But it’s slow going, one board at a time!