Download as PDF, PPTX
Uploaded byBloomerang
The Leaky Fundraising Bucket – What’s Wrong and How to Fix It
The document is a presentation by Ellen Bristol and Linda Lysakowski on fixing nonprofit fundraising leaks. They conducted a survey called the "Leaky Bucket Assessment" of 700 nonprofits to analyze 9 fundraising practices. For each practice, they provide the survey results, importance, and best practices. The practices include funder qualification criteria, acquiring/retaining/upgrading funders, funding diversification, staff resources, metrics, toolkit, and responding to poor performance. They offer a 10-week online course to help nonprofits implement the strategies.
More Related Content
Similar to The Leaky Fundraising Bucket – What’s Wrong and How to Fix It
The Leaky Fundraising Bucket – What’s Wrong and How to Fix It
- 1. The Leaky Fundraising Bucket – What’s Wrong and How to Fix It 10/21/15 1pm Eastern The presentation will begin shortly.
- 2. Before We Get Started 3 This presentation is being recorded! The recording and slides will be emailed to you later this afternoon. Please chat in any questions for our guest. We will answer them in the formal Q&A session at the end of the presentation.
- 3.
- 4. 3 Our guest presenters » Ellen Bristol & Linda Lysakowski, ACFRE
- 5. WHAT’S WRONG WITHYOUR FUNDRAISING….AND HOW YOU CAN FIX IT! Presented by Bloomerang October 21, 2015 Ellen Bristol Linda Lysakowski, ACFRE
- 6. ABOUT US Ellen Bristol PerformanceManagement Guru Developed Leaky Bucket Assessment Methodology Designer Consulting with Nonprofits 20 Years Author, Three Nonprofit Books Linda Lysakowski, ACFRE Consulting for 20+ years Serving Nonprofits 30+ Years Author of a Dozen Books for Nonprofits, Editor Trained More Than 26,000 Professionals Worldwide
- 7.
- 8. OUR HYPOTHESIS Effectiveness, Efficiencyand Productivity Leak Out of Development Efforts In Ways We Don’t Notice – Until the Pipes Burst and There’s a Crisis.
- 9. THE LEAKY BUCKETASSESSMENT Nine Standard Practices Evaluated at Four Levels Each Leaking Like a Sieve! Call the Productivity Help Line! Time for Preventive Productivity Maintenance! WATERTIGHT!
- 10. OUR ASSUMPTIONS Prospecting: Time WastedChasing Unqualified Prospects Can’t Be Regained Pipeline Management: Pursuing “Un-Baked” Gifts, Ignoring “Ready” Gifts Costs Time AND Money You Can’t Recover Metrics and Measurements: Measuring the Wrong Things the Wrong Way is Misleading, De-Motivating and Wastes Time
- 11. NINE DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES Funder-QualificationCriteria Acquiring New Funders Retaining Current Funders Upgrading Current Funders Funding Diversification Staff Resources for Fundraising Use of Metrics for Fundraising Performance Comprehensive Fundraising Toolkit Managing Undesirable Fundraising Performance
- 12. WE ANALYZED THEDATA
- 13.
- 14.
- 15. WHO RESPONDED? Respondents 700 Respondent Titles CEO – 22% CDO, Other Senior Staff – 37% General Staff – 27% Board Members and Other – 12% Size of Development Shop No Dedicated Staff – 6% ED + 1 or 2 – 43% 3 to 5 – 37% 6 to 10 – 8% More than 10 – 15% Prefer Not to Answer – 2% Revenue Level >$1MM – 36% $1MM to $4.9 MM – 30% $5MM to $9.9MM – 9% $10MM to $20MM – 7% <$20MM – 7% Prefer Not to Answer – 10% Sector Social Services – 33% Children, Community Dev., Education – 36% Arts – 10% Everything Else – 21%
- 16. CONTEXT FOR PRODUCTIVITY OneHour of Development Time Equals $1,000 - $3,000 Opportunity Risk Or More!!! How Much Are You Wasting?
- 17. #1: HOW YOUQUALIFY FUNDER PROSPECTS Leaky Bucket Scores: 11% - NO Standards 61% - ‘Preferences,’ No Documented Standards 16% - Wealth/Giving Only 6% - Capacity + Motivation Importance: Waste Money Chasing DOA’s Our Reaction: Groan! We Gotta Do Something About It!
- 18. BEST PRACTICES: QUALIFYINGCRITERIA Document Qualifying Standards Include Motivations for Giving, Not Just Capacity Recognize “Danger Signs” Make Sure All Solicitors Use The Same Criteria Coach Team Members to Use Criteria Properly
- 19. #2: HOW YOUACQUIRE NEW FUNDERS Leaky Bucket Scores: 22% - ‘We Just Try Hard’ 43% - ‘Preferences, No Targets’ 21% - Income-Only Targets 13% - Income Plus Number of Funders Acquired Importance: Always Need New Donors! Our Reaction: A Wag of the Finger!
- 20. BEST PRACTICE: ACQUIRINGNEW FUNDERS Establish Specific Performance Targets for Acquiring New Funding Sources Consider Targets Per Funding Category Publish Targets, Don’t Assume Evaluate Performance Against New-Funder Plan Regularly
- 21. #3: HOW YOURETAIN CURRENT FUNDERS Leaky Bucket Scores: 17% - No Targets 57% - ‘Preferences’ But No Targets 16% - Retention Targets 9% - Retention + Other Metrics Importance: FEP Results Confirm Our Data Our Reaction: Another Groan!
- 22. THE COST OFDOING BUSINESS POORLY It Costs Six Times As Much To Acquire A New Donor As It Does To Retain A Current Donor
- 23. BEST PRACTICE: RETAININGCURRENT DONORS Establish and Document Donor-Retention Targets Publish Targets, Don’t Assume People Remember Them Review Donor-Retention Performance Against Plan Regularly The FEP Project
- 24. #4: HOW YOUUPGRADE FUNDERS Leaky Bucket Scores: 30% - No Standards 47% - Encouraged, No Targets 16% - Set Targets 5% - Set Targets & Run Campaigns Importance: See “Donor Retention” Costs 6X + To Land New Funder Our Reaction: Room to Improve!
- 25. BEST PRACTICES: UPGRADE EstablishTargets for Cross-Sell, Up-Sell for Current Donors Prepare Appeal/Campaigns/Marketing Initiatives for Up-Sell & X-Sell Purposes Establish Strategic Development Plan for Each Major Funding Source Communicate with Donors/Funders
- 26. #5: STANDARDS FORFUND DIVERSIFICATION Leaky Bucket Scores: 9% - One or Few Funders 25% - Single Category 49% - Variety of Sources 16% - Well Balanced Importance: Too Many Eggs, Too Few Baskets Our Reaction: Keep Up the Good Work! Critical Issue!
- 27. BEST PRACTICES: FUNDINGDIVERSIFICATION Document Specific Growth Targets for Each Funding Category Document Specific Retention Targets for Each Funding Category Review Actual Diversification vs. Planned Diversification Regularly
- 28. #6: STAFF RESOURCESFOR FUNDRAISING Leaky Bucket Scores: 26% - ED Does It All 31% - ED + 1 17% - ED, Board, + 2 or More 25% - Dev Office, Board + ED Importance: Development Is a Full-Time Job Our Reaction: Hire Development Staff EARLY!
- 29. BEST PRACTICES: STAFFRESOURCES FOR FUNDRAISING Understand Strategic Importance of Development Move Development ‘Out of the Shadows’ Hire Development Staff EARLY – As Important As Technical, Clinical, Program Staff If/When Dedicated Support Is Not Possible, Adjust Development Targets and Performance Expectations Appropriately Build Your Case For Additional Support By Relying on Performance Facts
- 30. % NFP’S MEETINGFUNDING GOAL BY STAFF SIZE No Paid Staff: 39% Part-Time Staff: 50% 1 Full-Time Staff: 60% 1 to 4 Full-Time Staff: 71% 5 or More Full-Time Staff: 69% Source: Nonprofit Fundraising Study Covering Charitable Receipts at U.S. Nonprofit Organizations 2011, published April 2012, Nonprofit Research Collaborative
- 31. AVOID AT ALLCOSTS Discourage “Work Until You Drop” Heroism Take Downtime Sharpen the Saw
- 32. #7: HOW YOUMEASURE FUNDRAISING PERFORMANCE Leaky Bucket Scores: Tail Wags Dog Majority Using Trailing Indicators: 63% - Total Income (Trailing) 47% - Income per Category (Trailing) 14% - Donor Visits (Leading) 24% – Proposals & Applications (Leading) 13% - None of the Above Importance: If the Only Thing You Measure Happens After the Process Is Complete, You Haven’t Learned Much About the Process Our Reaction: Use “Leading Indicators” Figure Out What’s Going On “Upstream”
- 33. BEST PRACTICES: PERFORMANCEMETRICS Use More Leading Indicators Such As: Number of “Suspects” that Convert to “Prospects” and “Prospects” to “Expects Number of Times You’ve Asked Prospects What They Need/Want Use Special-Event Analysis; Establish Pre-Event Checklists, Interim Deadline Targets
- 34. #8: WHAT’S INYOUR FUNDRAISING TOOLKIT Leaky Bucket Scores: Strategic Plans – 13% Donor Profiles –45% Donor Mgmt Tools – 25% Case Statement – 55% None – 22% Importance: Workers Need Tools Our Reaction: Hmmm – Mixed Bag!
- 35. BEST PRACTICES: DEVELOPMENTTOOLKIT Strategic Elements First: Performance Targets for Income, Retention, Diversification Qualifying Criteria for Each Funder Category Strategic Plan Tactical Development Tools Second: Up-to-Date Case Statement Presentation Materials Donor Software (Plus Ability to Use It) Documented Development Plan (That You Follow) Documented Policies and Procedures Evaluation Tools
- 36. #9: RESPOND TOUNDESIRABLE PERFORMANCE Leaky Bucket Scores: Fire the DD – 15% More Events – 49% More Grants – 49% Staff/Board Training – 23% Improve Case Statement – 17% None of Above – 22% Importance: Trend Toward High-Cost, Low-Return Solutions Our Reaction: Think Strategically – Reverse Trend!
- 37. BEST PRACTICES: UNDESIRABLEPERFORMANCE Analyze Performance Metrics Over Time Avoid Knee-Jerk Reactions Consider Cost/Benefit of Events & Activities Consider Improving, Expanding Metrics and Benchmarks Learn Skills of Continuous Improvement Update Your Case Regularly
- 38. SPECIAL OFFER The LeakyBucket 10-Week Course: Ten Weekly 90-Minute Pre-Recorded Sessions Includes Ellen & Linda’s Recorded Web Sessions PLUS Participant Handbook, Special Downloads, Access to the Experts Publication Date January 1, 2016 For Bloomerang Users: $199, a $100 Saving! Email ellen@bristolstrategygroup.com to Add Your Name to the Announcement List! Mention You Are a Bloomerang User to Get Your Discount!
- 39. Bristol Strategy Group www.bristolstrategygroup.com EmailEllen: ellen@bristolstrategygroup.com Phone Ellen: 305-935-6676 Linda Lysakowski, LLC www.lindalysakowski.com Email Linda: linda@lindalysakowski.com Phone Linda: 702-892-0955
- 40.
- 41. https://bloomerang.co/resources •Nonprofit Wrap-‐Up •Bloomerang TV •Bloomies •Daily blog post •Weekly webinars •Downloadables
- 42. Upcoming webinars » https://bloomerang.co/resources/webinars/ HowWe Did It – An ED / Board Chair Duo Share Lessons, Confessions, and Tools to Fix What Ails Your Board Thursday, October 29th – 1:00pm Eastern Susan Schaefer and Bob Wittig