The Benefits Of Collaborative Fundraising

March 9, 2017      Roger Craver

In Part 8 of The Agitator’s Barriers To Growth series I cited “Insufficient Collaboration” as one of the principal barriers.

Of the more than 1 million nonprofits in the U.S., nearly 75% post annual revenues below $500,000. I noted that “this leaves little or no room for the ‘science’ part of fundraising like data analytics, predictive modeling and other higher cost skills that can aid in growth.”

“It shouldn’t be this way,” I lamented. “Why in the world should organizations of like mission, or proximate geographic location, wastefully duplicate infrastructure, technology, and data applications, when one set of tools could be cooperatively employed by all?”

Back then I called attention to  an outstanding example of fundraising collaboration, The Contributor Development Partnership, a cooperative that includes 100+ independent public broadcasting stations. CDP shares information and makes bulk purchases of telemarketing, face-to-face canvassing and other related services.

So I was mighty pleased to see that the Spring Issue of the Stanford Social Innovation Review (subscription only) features a piece titled “Collaborative Fundraising” that tells how CDP is “revitalizing public broadcasting with a fundraising model that can help other large profits with local affiliates”.

CDP owes a good deal of its success to the pioneering spirit, patience and persistence of Chuck Longfield, Blackbaud’s Chief Scientist, a decades’ long proponent of both collaboration and documentation of best practices.

In a nutshell, here’s what CDP has accomplished in collaboration with the stations:

  • Provided a data-driven approach to fundraising as well as software and services that small stations simply couldn’t afford on their own.
  • A uniform — but station-customized — set of donate buttons, forms and back-end responses for giving.
  • Analysis of missed revenue opportunities — far more than mere benchmarking — to alert stations to focus on monthly giving and renewal giving.
  • The Revenue Opportunity and Action Report (ROAR), a one-page quarterly bulletin produced for each station. Based on 24 key metrics it provides stations with a simple traffic-light icon indicating strengths, weaknesses and opportunities. “Green is good. Yellow means look carefully at this. And red means you need to fix it,” says Steve MacLaughlin, Blackbaud’s VP for Analytics who participates in the project.
  • In addition to data and analytics CDP also provides shared services for initiatives like thank you calls, face-to-face canvassing and car donation programs.
  • The stations pay a monthly fee to outsource these services to the nonprofit CDP.

Best of all, in my opinion, is requirement by CDP that, while stations can choose to use particular programs, they cannot tinker with techniques and approaches. As Michal Heiplik, CDP’s director puts it, “If you had each station trying to modify best practice, you’d never get scale.”

By maintaining consistency and avoiding whimsy in favor of data, CDP has posted some impressive gains for the stations.

  • Popular. 133 of U.S. 180 public television stations are signed up, plus 68 radio stations.
  • In its first year, the “thank you call” program generated 56% increase in first-year donor retention, 72% increase in first-year retention revenue.

No doubt in my mind that federated organizations with local/international affiliates can follow this model.  Habitat. Special Olympics. Oxfam. Save the Children. Salvation Army, etc.

In addition to federated groups, why not disparate organizations that operate in the same geographic area? I see no reason, other than overcoming inertia and territorial fears (no small barriers) why 10 or 20 or even more community groups couldn’t combine to benefit immensely.

I fully realize this is not a simple as I’m making it sound, but seldom in this trade are significant gains ever made without a lot of effort backed by a solid vision.

What do you think? Have you had any experiences with collaboration you can share?

Finally, an Agitator raise to Chuck Longfield and Steve MacLaughlin of Blackbaud and Michal Heiplik of CDP … PLUS to the participating stations for sticking with this bold and successful experiment in collaborative fundraising.

Roger

 

 

 

6 responses to “The Benefits Of Collaborative Fundraising”

  1. Jay Love says:

    I remember working alongside Chuck when he first imagined this vision of cooperation and sharing of best practices for the PBS world.

    Brilliant! (Not just for the idea, but having the ability to convince them to actually do it!)

    As the body of knowledge of just exactly what are “best practices” is built by dedicated researchers like Adrian Sargeant and Jen Shang, there is no reason not to put them into practice.

    Time will tell if those “best practices” can be put into play within a cooperative setting such as outlined above. The first steps must be made by the federated national and international groups as you suggested. If they can band together to buy insurance surely putting the best donor retention practices into action cannot be far behind…

    My bet is a major donor or substantial foundation will ultimately mandate it! Please come forward Mr. Gates or Buffet or Cuban…

  2. Jim O'Shaughnessy says:

    And kudos to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for their initial investment in this project 🙂

  3. I have been working with nine social service agencies who are collaboratively raising $120 million for affordable housing in our city. The campaign is called RESOLVE and is a true collaboration and collective impact model. Collaboration like this is not easy but the community and donors love it.

    Each partner agency has their own goal within the $120 million and work towards raising not only their own but the other eight partners’ goals as well.

    I truly believe that we need to encourage more of this type of approach.

  4. We have been pitching, pitching this for years. We do have lots of models of collaborative fundraising… the entire world of workplace giving and federated campaigns are a historic model. Unfortunately, it’s been undone as the workplace has changed and the United Way didn’t like seeing funds go to designated organizations (thought giving overall went up).

    Here are a few models of this back a few years ago. We see more in the collaborative campaign efforts. http://www.ceffect.com/2012/01/31/you-cant-hurry-love-or-collaborative-fundraising/ The very famous case of the Chattanooga Museums Collaboration, where three museums raised $120 million together and have administrative collaborations: http://lapiana.org/insights-for-the-sector/insights/collaboration-and-strategic-restructuring/chattanooga-museums

    The Balboa Park Cultural Partnership maximizes collaboration to increase visitors, event bookings, volunteers, all things that help increase revenues, connections, community support overall.

    For those very small organizations, one big challenge is that even together, those organizations aren’t spending a lot of money on their fund development programs so even if you pulled them together there might not be a lot of resources there. However, we’ve thought there is great potential for interest area groups like the small theater companies, the out of school time programs, historical societies and others to cluster their fund developing in the way you suggest. What it will take to move this forward is some high level of multiyear foundation support so that these groups can try it, fail, try it again, build trust, work out the kinks, to move them to that place where the results are clearly worth it.

  5. This comment isn’t germane to this post but has anyone else not received Agitator posts by email per usual the last few days? The last one I got was on Monday.

  6. Dan Stencel says:

    Three cheers for CDP! Their work in the Public Broadcasting sector is invaluable, and we at the station level are happy to have their support.