Missions Fundraising: A New Model
by Kiley Hawkins
From the perspective of the gospel, fundraising is not a response to a crisis.
Fundraising is, first and foremost, a form of ministry (Henri Nouwen).
As western economies have recently endured the greatest recession since the 1920s, nonprofit organizations have been forced to reconsider their foundational models of operation. Throughout this time, I have had a front row seat as the missions community in the West has struggled to remain financially sound. One interesting piece of this struggle that still remains is the challenge of a traditional funding model. In this article I would like to:
– Demonstrate that the traditional “personal support-raising” model, though previously adequate, is becoming less effective; and
– Propose the beginnings of a different model that may allow the missions community to move forward more effectively and sustainably.
The Lean Revolution and How We Arrived Here
While I could cite many reasons for employing this traditional funding model, all of them can be traced back to a single strategic principle: namely, learning. In the early phases of any initiative’s lifecycle, efficiency always gives way to learning. Eric Ries and Steve Blank have explained this principle through the Lean Startup movement [1]. They assert that the first phase of any initiative is to identify whether there is a real problem and whether there is a solution for it. Phase two should identify whether there is enough demand for the solution and whether it can be delivered consistently. In both of these first two phases, the emphasis is on learning.
This is the part in a mission effort’s lifecycle where an individual, support-raising, funding model makes sense. To translate Lean Startup principles to mission agencies, the goal of these first two phases is to validate effectively (1) the problem of unreached people and the task of the Great Commission; and (2) our strategies for fulfilling the Great Commission and the strategic ends to which donors are willing to partner. If validating these ideas is our goal, then mobilizing as many different missionary efforts as quickly as possible is our best approach. Likewise, in order to fund this approach, a decentralized, individual, support-raising model is the most agile one and carries the least overall risk.
However, initiatives do not stop with these two phases. The third and final phase that Lean Startup identifies is the Scaling Phase. While the goal of the first two phases is learning, the final phases’ goal is optimization or efficiency. The initiative has progressed beyond learning what works to creating the efficiency essential for growth. This is where many mission agencies are lacking. The funding model that served them well in the past is now grossly overmatched. Like a modern race car with a model-T engine, we’ve found ourselves trying to accomplish gigantic global strategies with an immature funding model.
The Challenge of the ‘Traditional’ Model
The challenges of a model built on individual support-raising go beyond the simple metric of whether it generates adequate revenue [2]. Since it fuels the strategy, the funding model is an integral part of the operation. Mission agencies are managing not only the “beneficiary value proposition,” but also and just as important, the “donor value proposition” [3]. Though they delegate the fundraising to missionaries, leaving them responsible to generate revenue, the organizations tries to retain control over strategic programming. Fundamentally this model creates a serious strategic misalignment for the organization. It is this underlying problem that makes this model unsustainable.
Too often missionaries and staff begin communicating the means and not the end of effective ministry [4]. Such that our donor value proposition becomes an invitation for donors to simply allow the missionary to participate, rather than being an invitation to accomplish something much bigger (beneficial impact)[5]. In other words, donor communication subtly becomes, “If you give, you may not be facilitating impact, but you are facilitating my participation.” And vice versa, “If you don’t give, you aren’t inhibiting impact, but simply my participation in the impact.” Missions funding is therefore reduced to who gets to participate, rather than how much of a difference we can make.
This model has many practical consequences:
1. It creates the opportunity for competing ministry strategies to exist between the organization and the missionaries.
2. It reduces donors’ awareness of the organization’s overall impact to the perspective and experiences of a single effort.
3. It invites donor control at a tactical level by communicating partnership around detailed decisions, rather than at a strategic level by emphasizing impact.
4. It weds the ability of personnel with fundraising ability, making it difficult to hire qualified people who cannot or will not accept a position in which they will not only have to perform their job, but personally raise their salary.
5. It practically eliminates the possibility of fully utilizing creative new ministry strategies (responsible short-term missions, local business, indigenous leadership, etc.).
A New Model
The strategic misalignment that exists in most mission agencies between strategy and fundraising is the largest barrier to reaching the scaling phase. So how do we re-align our organizations to create synergy between resource development and ministry programming? How do we move beyond simply verifying that the church is willing to participate to actually optimizing our mission agencies for maximum growth and impact? We must begin rebuilding our funding model. As we develop strategy, our communications and resource development should follow this strategy—not the missionary or the overall organization.
It starts by clarifying the actual objective. We need to ask, “What is success for this organization?” Ironically, many agencies state their objective as an outcome, such as disciple-making movements or church planting, but the only factor they are actually measuring is the activity of sending missionaries. This reinforces the idea we’re only inviting partners to fund missionaries’ involvement in the Great Commission, rather than inviting partners to join in the Great Commission through a specific strategy. Ultimately, if success is defined by mere activity or random results rather than by strategic outcomes, we are inviting partnership around the means to effective ministry and not the end itself.
Second, fundraising models must reinforce a proper relationship between missionaries and the organization. While the organization and individual missionaries may sometimes find themselves on different sides of an issue, donors and beneficiaries see them as one team. To them the team represents the means through which they can create or receive effective ministry. But as a means, both the organization and the missionary can actually become a distraction to the ultimate end of beneficial impact. Any effective funding model must require missionaries and organizational staff to serve as leaders working together.
Next, a direct relationship must be built between impact and partners. This is the relationship that is nonexistent in so many agencies. The biggest reason for a lack of funding is a lack of asking for funding in a way to which donors can honestly respond. Timely communication from an organization’s programs is vitally important, and it must communicate the actual impact occurring and how the donor is making a difference by partnering with the organization. In order to do this, there has to be an understanding of the goal, what strategies are being employed, and the resourcing necessary to execute these strategies effectively. Communicating impact invites supporters to become more attuned with how they’re making a difference.
Finally, an effective model should harness the power of executing in teams. While a team can be defined around a location, a specialized effort, or a specific people group, the objective is to continue execution according to the strategy. By communicating as a team, we begin communicating more consistently and with the most compelling stories. A team effort also may combine individual expense budgets into one team-wide vision-based budget. By communicating how a single contribution moves the team initiative forward, donors are motivated to respond honestly and enthusiastically to our invitation for partnership.
Conclusion
Henri Nouwen writes, “Fundraising is proclaiming what we believe in such a way that we offer other people an opportunity to participate with us in our vision and mission” [5]. So what do we believe? Do we only believe some of us are called to go? Or do we believe all of us have a role to play, whether as leadership or as a vital partner? If we believe that the Great Commission is not about who is appointed to go, but how God is seeking to reconcile the nations to Himself, then our strategies, communication, and fundraising efforts must reflect this vision of His mission.
__________________________
[1] Eric Ries, The Lean Startup (New York: Crown Publishing, 2011), x.
[2] Immediate revenue generation actually may be masking a more accurate picture of the long-term effectiveness and sustainability of this model. I refer readers to Groupon Inc. and “The Groupon Effect” as a case study.
[3] William Landes Foster, Peter Kim, and Barbara Christiansen, “Ten Nonprofit Funding Models,” Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring 2009.
[4] See Nell Edgington, “Addressing the Nonprofit Fundraising Elephant in the Room,” http://www.socialvelocity.net/2013/07/addressing-the-nonprofit-fundraising-elephant-in-the-room/.
[5] The term impact here is not used generically, but specifically describing the strategic outcome of any nonprofit. As it relates to mission agencies, impact is not anything positive in ministry but a predetermined strategic outcome the initiative was designed to create.
[6] Henri Nouwen, A Spirituality of Fundraising (Nashville: Henri Nouwen Legacy Trust, 2010), 3.
__________________________
About the Author: Kiley Hawkins is the co-founder and Chief Strategy Officer of Tailored Fundraising Solutions, a firm dedicated to assisting Christian, disciple-making organizations understand and implement holistic partnership development. Formerly, as the Development Manager for Free Will Baptist International Missions, he spent invaluable years aiding missionaries around the world in successful support-raising. One of his greatest strengths is in critical analysis of strategic fundraising plans. You can reach him on twitter at @kileyhawkins or at kiley@tailoredfundraising.com.
Recent Comments