COMMUNITY FUNDRAISING - Lianne Howard-Dace

COMMUNITYFUNDRAISINGProblem child or

rising star?With revised introduction

Lianne Howard-Dace

Contents

Welcome_____________________________________03Executive summary_____________________________04Introduction___________________________________05Aims________________________________________05Background___________________________________05Developments_________________________________07Preliminary research____________________________08Findings______________________________________09How's it going?________________________________09Why do we bother?_____________________________12Are we nearly there yet?_________________________16Let's hear it for the volunteers!____________________21So, what now?_________________________________27Conclusions___________________________________29Recommendations_____________________________31Five Pillars of Community________________________32

WELCOME

C O M M U N I T Y F U N D R A I S I N G : P R O B L E M C H I L D O R R I S I N G S T A R ? 0 3

"Community

fundraising

is the most

dynamic and

diverse

fundraising

out there.”

I can hardly believe it's nearly five years since I submitted my MScdissertation and, a couple of months later, published a version of itonline to share with the fundraising community. Thank you to everyonewho has engaged with it over that time and given it a life, after all thattime I spent locked away writing it! The fact that I am still contacted by peers across the sector to discussthe paper tells me that the need for it has not diminished and so Ithought it was time to give it a lick of paint. I have added some annotations with new information and updatedanything really out of place. I have resisted the urge to rewrite thepaper in its entirety though, as I want to pick up some new projects andbuild on this work in new ways, rather than spending a long timeupdating it. I hope to share some supplementary content in the comingmonths with more recent case studies and examples, particularlylooking at the increasing role of digital in community fundraising. Whilst you should certainly bear in mind that this research is now five

years old when reading it, I am confident that it is still very applicable

today. As I reread my words from 2014 I feel that the trajectory set out

here is in motion and, thankfully, progress is being made. The five

pillars model on page 33, in particular, is still a highly useful tool for

community fundraisers at all levels.

If anything, I think it has become clear in the last five years that

community fundraising is shedding it's adolescent persona and being

taken increasingly seriously. The additional scrutiny on the sector

following the 2015 scandals and the impact of GDPR will only have

heightened the need to re-evaluate and bolster community fundraising

as many organisations' fundraising mix has, and continues to, shift. I see

lots of charities investing smartly in their volunteer-led fundraising

activities and as a community fundraising geek this brings me great joy!

I love hearing from people who have read the paper and chatting allthings community fundraising so please do get in touch if you haveideas and questions or you just want to discuss community fundraisingover a coffee. Enjoy! Lianne Howard-Dace May 2019

C O M M U N I T Y F U N D R A I S I N G :P R O B L E M C H I L D O R R I S I N G S T A R ? 0 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

STRONG STAFFEMPOWERED VOLUNTEERSPROACTIVE PLANNINGCOLLABORATIVE WORKING

INSIGHT-LED DECISION MAKING

This paper seeks to add to the limited discourse about community fundraising, an often misunderstood

area of voluntary income generation which can be found at the intersection of volunteering and

donating.

The study primarily explores whether community fundraising in the UK is growing, successful strategies

being deployed, and how opinions about community fundraising are evolving. In- depth discussions with

12 experienced fundraisers from a range of UK charities and agencies reveal the rich diversity of

community fundraising activities being carried out in the UK: from more traditional activity such as

collections and events organised by committees, to complex initiatives utilising new technologies. The

interviews also show the high esteem in which community fundraising is held by increasing numbers of

charity professionals and case studies of products or initiatives which show how some of the most

effective approaches being used to maximise income from volunteer fundraisers are being put in to

practice.

Sidelined by many in the 1990s, it was perhaps only the 2008 financial crisis and the adverse effect this

had on other income streams which led to community fundraising being re-evaluated, re-explored and

re-considered on a wide scale. This research confirms that more and more fundraising directors have

recognised the role community fundraising can play in not only generating funds in its own right, but

fuelling growth across the fundraising department. However, community fundraising has a long history

and as such there is variety in its fortunes in different charities, influenced as much by organisational

development cycles as sector trends.

The recommendations at the end of this paper identify five hallmarks of effective community

fundraising listed below. These principles are visualised in the “Pillars of Community Fundraising”

model on page 32 which gives practical pointers on how to weave the principles of success which

emerge from the interviews in to your own fundraising strategy.

COMMUNITY FUNDRAISING:P R O B L E M C H I L D O R R I S I N G S T A R ? 0 5

INTRODUCTION

This paper aims to examine the role of community fundraising within voluntary income generation of

UK charities. Community fundraising is defined and accounted for slightly differently by different

organisations, which makes quantitative research and analysis difficult. Instead, this research uses 12

experienced fundraisers as interview subjects for qualitative primary research and seeks answers to

the following overarching questions:

1. Are UK charities experiencing growth or decline in community fundraising?

2. Which products, models and approaches are experiencing success?

3. How is community fundraising viewed within UK fundraising?

AIMS

Community fundraising is also referred to as volunteer or regional fundraising and other terms used

internally by some organisations, such as supporter-led fundraising or third party fundraising. As it

crosses over with many other fundraising disciplines, particularly events fundraising and the employee

fundraising aspects of corporate fundraising, it can be difficult to define community fundraising in

concrete terms.

Different organisations account for community income in different ways, sometimes in other streams

such as those mentioned above. Often it is not separated out from other income from individuals in the

notes to a charity’s Statement of Financial Activities. Whilst this is not strictly incorrect it doesn’t take in

to account the fact that giving £1000 of your own income and giving your time to raise £1000 from

your network are two quite different ways of engaging with a charitable organisation.

Although this causes difficulties in comparing community fundraising performance between

organisations this paper seeks to look at the essence - the core activity - of community fundraising in

the UK rather than concern itself too deeply with black and white categorisations.

A key text written about community fundraising in the UK is Community Fundraising: the effective use

of volunteer networks edited by Harry Brown (2002). In the book Brown uses the definition

“Fundraising carried out by volunteers in their local communities” as his basic premise. As community

fundraising is so varied due to each organisation’s needs, strengths, cause type and history this

definition is necessarily broad and able to encompass many different activities and approaches within

it.

BACKGROUND

A new edition of this book is now available! I have contributed the chapters on collecting

and working with volunteers groups. Get your copy here

https://www.dsc.org.uk/publication/community-fundraising/


To ensure that the definition used in this paper was fit for purpose in the current context, 100

fundraising professionals were polled on Brown’s definition and some of the potential definitions he

lists which were offered by prominent fundraising managers at large UK charities such as NSPCC, RNLI

and Macmillan.

Which of these definitions of community fundraising do you most agree with?Fundraising carried out by volunteers in their local community (22.47%)

Individuals and groups fundraising through their own efforts (22.47%)

Mobilising communities to support your cause (40.45%)To start, develop and move on profitable, local relationships (8.99%)

Volunteer led fundraising activity (5.62%)

Synthesising the top three selections (where second place is drawn) which account for 85% of the

answers the following definition will be used throughout this paper: Mobilising individuals and groups to

raise money on behalf of charitable organisations. The nuanced difference in this definition from Brown’s

original in 2002 is in the operative word mobilising which suggests charities taking an active rather than

passive attitude towards raising money from community groups and individual fundraisers.

It may be argued that it shouldn’t really matter what people think of community fundraising if it’s

bringing in income - and if it isn’t bringing income then those derogatory views are justified.However, this is a rather simplistic view to take because if community fundraising is misunderstood it will

not be managed and strategised appropriately, therefore leading to a lack of investment and staff not

being adequately supported to focus on the most profitable activities.

Ultimately this will mean that organisations will not achieve the income levels they potentially could fromcommunity fundraising. Brown says: “Community and volunteer fundraising is sometimes seen as a poorrelation to other fundraising disciplines and anecdotal evidence suggests that some communityfundraising teams are left to mop-up residual activity which no one else wants to take ownership of.”(Brown, 2002).

This hints at the consequences of not taking community fundraising seriously and the vicious circle of

not giving sufficient strategic thought to its management, which means it never raises as much as it

could, in turn meaning it may not be deemed worthy of the attention needed to maximise its income

and so on, round and round..

MOBILISINGINDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS TO RAISE MONEYON BEHALF OFCHARITABLEORGANISATIONS

The Institute of Fundraising (IoF) says about community

fundraising on their website: “Volunteer fundraising is one

of the most prevalent forms of fundraising and is the most

frequent way in which the majority of the public engage

with and encounter fundraising practice” (2013). This being

the case, there is surely massive potential to maximise

the impact of community fundraising, both by generating

as much income as possible and also by generating leads

for other income streams.

BACKGROUND CONTINUED...


DEVELOPMENTSOver the last few decades community fundraising has fallen in and out of fashion with charities; with

cycles of centralisation, decentralisation, investment and disinvestment as a result. Some sector figures

have reflected on this, such as Tony Elischer who blogged:

While community fundraising boomed in the eighties in the UK it has had a very mixed history from the

mid-nineties onwards, falling in and out of favour and taking second place to many of the amazing

emerging techniques and channels for fundraising. As our options expanded and we professionalised

more we either ignored, took for granted or simply deprioritised community fundraising. Of course the

outlook was mixed across causes and size of organisation, but generally the attention was switching

and the focus was more on staff ‘controlled’ programmes and channels.(Elischer, 2013)

“A lot of big charities had local and regional teams 10 years ago [...] but they have since downsized andrefocused their offices back on London and have either skeleton teams or no teams regionally. So I thinka lot of them are now looking at how to really get that engagement back and trying to come up withdifferent models.” (Smedley, 2013) says Linda Butcher, chief executive of the Sheila McKechnieFoundation - supporting the above comments from Elischer. In the current economic climate the, oftenunrestricted, voluntary income generated by community fundraising is much in demand. Contrary tosome suggestions that community fundraising is on its way out, many charities are successfully findingways to make volunteer fundraising effective for their organisation, relevant to their supporters’ changinglifestyles and adding lifetime value to the rest of their fundraising programme. Richard Taylor - whilstDirector of Fundraising at one of the country’s largest fundraising charity, Cancer Research UK (CRUK),was recently quoted in Third Sector Magazine as saying “At CRUK, we’ve seen a renaissance in some ofour traditional fundraising channels, such as community fundraising, and I know this is also true of othercharities.” (Little, 2014). The traditional local support group may be fading, and typically ageing where it still exists, but that is notto say that new models for volunteer fundraising which reflect the changing nature of communities arenot emerging. Indeed, many of those communities may be moving online and generational attitudes tovolunteering and engaging with causes are having an impact on the shape of these models. Beth Kanterproposes that millennial volunteers, which she calls “Free Agents”, are likely to take a more transientapproach to supporting specific organisations and campaigns: “Free agents are individuals workingoutside of organizations to mobilize, raise funds, and communicate with constituents.” (2010). Iforganisations can find ways to engage with new supporters in their own language, and offer ways ofgetting involved which fit with their lives, there may yet be much life in community fundraising.

The research carried out in this paper will pick up on and seek participants’ opinions on issues raised

here such as whether perceptions about community fundraising are changing, how community

fundraising can adapt to changing lifestyles and the role of digital in community fundraising.

I was so grateful to Tony Elischer for engaging with me on thispaper and was saddened to hear of his passing in 2016. Find out

more about Tony's amazing contribution to the sector and the workof the foundation set up in his memory here.

http://tonyelischerfoundation.org/


PRELIMINARY RESEARCH

In addition to polling 100 fundraisers on definitions of community fundraising, they where also askedwhich activities they considered to be part of community fundraising. This proved indicative rather thanconclusive. Key activities widely considered to be part of community fundraising from this surveyinclude volunteer led events, community group cash donations, street collections, schools fundraising,student fundraising, faith group fundraising, sponsored challenges, celebration fundraising, localfundraising, university fundraising and community group fundraising which all received votes frommore than 50% of respondents. The full results of the poll of 100 fundraisers can be found below:

Which of these activities would you consider to be community fundraising?

“COMMUNITY FUNDRAISING ISDEFINITELY GROWING AND HAS HUGEGROWTH POTENTIAL.”

“I THINK FOR ANY CHARITYCOMMUNITY IS KEY BECAUSE IT ISYOUR FACE ON THE HIGH STREET.”


FINDINGS12 practitioners and consultants were interviewed for this report resulting in nine and a quarter hours of

interview recordings (raw interview files may be available on request). The following distils their

responses:

Feedback as to whether interviewees’ community fundraising was growing varied massively from ‘steady

decline’ through ‘broadly plateaued’ to ‘five-fold increase in net contribution’. There seemed to be no

particular pattern as to types or sizes of organisation experiencing growth or decline, but rather it had a

lot more to do with where community fundraising was at in its development cycle and whether the

incumbent teams had identified how to make community work for their organisation. The department

head who reported the five-fold increase in net contribution over four years said “Community fundraising

has grown quite dramatically since I joined in 2010 and is now the single biggest income stream. A

mixture of things has led to this growth: new products (some have worked, some haven’t) and crucially

the seeds we planted a couple of years ago are growing in to nice big trees for us.”

There was optimism even from those who hadn’t experienced such significant growth. A second

department head said that in both their current and previous organisations “Community fundraising is

definitely growing and has huge growth potential.” whilst ”Income is currently quite static but we have

plans in place for growth.” said a community fundraising manager.

As you would expect from this mixed feedback, fundraisers were seeing a broad range of growth, stasis

and decline across their respective community portfolios as well. One community fundraising manager

said “We’ve seen around 10% growth in the last couple of years - some areas within community are

growing and some declining - faith income declined for the first time in the last 12 months, schools are

static but individual volunteer fundraisers is really growing for us.” This increase in individual fundraisers,

which was mentioned by others as well, will be covered in more detail later in the discussion around

developments in volunteer fundraising models.

When asked how they thought community fundraising was performing across the charity sectorrespondents offered some interesting observations. One fundraising consultant said “I think communityfundraising anecdotally is growing, not necessarily in income but in importance for leveraging networks. Idon’t think community is just about [financial] ROI but galvanising support in different ways. Those who’vedone a portfolio review to strategise will be growing income but generally it will be pretty static.” This was a sentiment echoed by another consultant who said “Community per se is declining on what itused to be 15-20 years ago - but what I think is happening is that a lot of charities aren’t doing communityat their capacity so there is still potential for a lot of growth for those organisations. It can be veryprofitable when it’s done right.”

HOW'S IT GOING?

“I THINK COMMUNITY IS PERFORMING VERYWELL AND A LOT OF ORGANISATIONS AREINVESTING IN IT.”


There was a general indication of community fundraising income being on a positive trajectory. One head

of volunteer fundraising at a national charity said “We saw growth in 2012/13 and expect to see it in

2013/14 after a few years of pretty flat/low growth” whilst a community fundraising manager from a

regional charity reported that “In the last six months we’ve seen big increases, November and December

2013 were just record months for us. Speaking to my peers in other charities everyone seems the same;

it’s starting to pick up, we’ve hit the bottom and we’re on the way up.”

The ‘bottom’ eluded to here refers to the 2008 recession and the resulting economic turmoil. It seemed

that this period of instability had a variety of effects on community fundraising - not all of which were

negative, as might understandably be presumed. One head of community fundraising describes the

impact on their organisation: “Lower average gift values has been the main problem across the board,

event participation levels are down so we need more volume, more participation to address that. Relative

to regular giving, community is probably holding up more; there’s definitely a stronghold of resilience in

the community with some very loyal supporters.”

Others mentioned similar dips in gift values in different community activities and reflected on this in

relation to other areas of fundraising: “It’s still seen as a cost effect way to fundraise as opposed to say

the amount of investment for direct marketing acquisition, especially when a lot of direct marketing

programmes are stagnating.”

The economic down-turn seems to have affected income from different audiences differently,particularly groups who have to fundraise for themselves like scouts, brownies and sports clubs who’velost any local authority funding they once had.” Individuals also want more out of their participation thanpreviously, which may explain a shifting preference for activities over cash gifts. As one interviewee put it:“People want an experience - something to be proud of or to show for what they’re doing. The economyhas forced that - people don’t have as much disposable income so they’re giving in different ways suchas sponsoring friends and family or doing an event themselves.” Another community manager said“Raising money is generally an easier ask than giving money for a lot of people especially in a time wherepeople want to do something as well, that’s where community fundraising has a massive appeal.”

It wasn’t unusual for the impact of the economy to be very positively expressed, such as onedepartment head who said “The economic down-turn has certainly helped community fundraising.There was a kind of refocusing on localisation. I think there’s been a refocusing on what communitymeans - other income streams have suffered, people cancelling their direct debits [for example] butcontinuing to support causes locally and I think that’s one of the reasons we’re seeing reinvestment incommunity.” As hinted at in the last statement, perhaps the biggest indication of a general belief in the potential forgrowth discussed is that the overwhelming majority of organisations in this study seemed to be investingin community fundraising in some way. One consultant who emphasised the importance of communityas part of the fundraising mix said simply “Smart charities are investing in community fundraising.”

HOW'S IT GOING? CONTINUED...


As you would expect from a potentially labour intensive area of work such as community fundraising, the

most common way in which charities are investing is through increasing the head count of their teams;

often employing support staff in order to “...free fundraisers up to get out in to the community and

fundraise.” Other areas of investment included “A good range of fundraising collateral to help staff and

volunteers raise money.” and “Piloting some new mass participation ideas.”

In contradiction to what some may suggest about problems professionalising community fundraising,

sophisticated approaches to investment were discussed; with comments such as “investing in line with

growth”, “recruiting staff to drive growth areas” and being “insight-led”. There was widespread

recognition that investment was vital for growth, which one manager expressed as a shift: “We’ve had

a change in our organisation with a new fundraising director - for a long time we were the typical

community fundraising ‘do everything on a shoe string’ but there is change and we’re now investing to

help us grow income and recruit more supporters.”

HOW'S IT GOING? CONTINUED...

Key points:• There is huge potential for growth (we just need to realise it)• Product/portfolio analysis is vital (and using it to make better decisions)• The 2008 recession was not entirely negative for community fundraising(and sometimes quite the opposite)• The sector is investing in community fundraising (and getting results)

• Increasing head count can be a key step (just make sure it’s the right

heads)


WHY DO WE BOTHER? There was a general acknowledgement that community can play a vital role when an organisation is in its

infancy and, whilst there were some indications of sector wide trends at play, comments around growth

and decline in community fundraising showed a strong correlation between developments in respective

approaches to community fundraising and overall organisational development. As one respondent said

“Community has been around so long there aren’t obvious sector wide patterns, not like you’d see with

street fundraising for instance.” Another commented “Organisations are at different points of

development of community fundraising. Some are still doing a lot of staff led activity, some purely

supporter led - there’s a real mishmash at the moment.”

Some interviewees elaborated on the development of community fundraising in their organisations. One

manager explained the patterns which had emerged from their organisation building service deliver

centres: “We had rapid expansion a decade or so ago so we’re very good at capital campaigns. Once we

transition from capital to revenue we become very reliant on the local community so we’re now looking

to inject growth there.” A manager from another charity referenced how the grass-roots beginnings of

the organisation were still evident geographically, saying “Now our voluntary fundraising groups are still

quite focussed around the part of the country where we started as people feel more ownership and

connection there.”

One consultant summed up some of the recent history of community fundraising like this: “In the 1990s

we saw charities falling out of love with community fundraising, started closing regional fundraising

structures, getting rid of staff, being tough with groups. By the end of 90s a lot of community fundraising

had closed down and some of the smarter charities like Save and CRUK realised this was a mistake

because of course those people were the heart of the charity and if you integrated them in to DM, digital

etc. they could be much more valuable. Over the last ten years we’ve seen a much bolder step back

towards community fundraising.”

So, have things moved on over the last 20 years? Has thinking about community fundraising

progressed at all? When asked to share their thoughts on how they thought community was viewed in

the sector there were a diversity of experiences expressed but they tended towards the more

negative. The term ‘poor relation’ was heard several times. Those interviewed who work specifically in

community fundraising were on the whole very passionate about this area of fundraising and the

comment “It pains me to say it but I think we’re still seen in the sector as quite low level.” is quite

representative of the general sentiment expressed across these interviews.

“WE SEE COMMUNITY AS A HUGE GROWTHDRIVER FOR THE FUNDRAISING DIRECTORATE.”


WHY DO WE BOTHER? CONTINUED...Several references were made to the specific mechanics of community fundraising and how those

influence perceptions, such as “Sector wise I would say that a lot of people still don’t really understand it,

I think they think we’re the retro, 1980s style of fundraising. I don’t think people recognise how

professional we are - ‘well, you’re the cake bake and the collecting tins!’” One consultant said

“Community isn’t very sexy so it doesn’t get the kudos it deserves.” Another consultant commented that it

is unglamorous. So, perhaps community fundraising is in need of some sector PR? It wasn’t all bad news

though, as one head of department said “I hear very positive things across the sector about community

fundraising [...] a lot of people are investing and growing this area, they are really trying to maximise the

opportunities which this income source presents and to use that regional presence that community

teams can give you to tap in to unrealised potential.”

There were definite suggestions of shifts in opinion, with comments like “Increasingly recognised as

skilled and strategic.” and “...think perceptions are becoming more and more positive.” One interviewee

expanded on this: “If you look at the wonderful things we’re doing... there’s amazing marketing, corporate

deals, sponsorship going on. I think that community fundraising teams are really getting it sorted now.

We’re seeing increasing professionalism within community fundraising - not just in the big charities but in

smaller ones as well where we’re taking very insight, market led approaches and we’re investing in very

well thought through programmes.”

One consultant spoke very highly of recent developments in community fundraising, saying “Anyonewho’s got any sense about them should always be supporting community because now it’s one of themost dynamic and diverse areas of fundraising. Community fundraising is definitely back, it’simproving, most smart charities know it’s an important part of the mix - it’s looked upon well, it’sgetting investment again” although they did go on to say “the downside is we’re not integrating asmuch as we could be even though we understand more what it is, how it works and its potential”which leads on to looking at how the sample thought community fundraising was perceived internallywithin their organisations, internal relationships and collaboration.

As you would expect with a diverse selection of charity sizes and cause types, internal perceptions werevaried - even within organisations: “I think the problem is a lot of people don’t understand what we do. Itseems difficult for people to grasp. There are some people in the organisation who probably think wejust do coffee mornings. Then there are people who don’t think that at all - the views are definitelydiverse.” The same comments about the mechanics of community fundraising, e.g. collection tins andbake sales, were heard when discussing internal perceptions but overall, things tended to be movingmore towards the positive than the negative. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it became clear that the proportion of income you bring into the organisation canhave a big impact on internal perceptions. Those community teams which bring in a larger than averagepercentage of voluntary income effectively buy themselves a seat at the table. One manager said. “We’reperceived really well internally, we’re the biggest income stream but also biggest team.” another said “Aswe have a disproportionate reliance on community it is ’too big to fail’ in a sense... by necessity there is aprioritisation.”


Phrases such as “dumping ground” and “dog’s body” were heard more than once, echoing Brown’s

suggestions of community teams being left to pick up residual activity. Some interviewees were

addressing this by clarifying to colleagues what community fundraising is within the context of their

organisation, for instance one department head said “We’ve helped them realise what it isn’t - we’re

often asked ‘can’t your committees go out and do this or that?’, e.g. hand out flyers, and we’re really clear

that they can’t... If you want the volunteer department to go out and recruit for that it’s a separate thing [...]

We have to be really clear on what we do and don’t do.”

Some interviewees also recognised that they hold the key to improving internal relationships. One said

“Changes in those [internal] perceptions have to be deliberately engineered, often people bring

perceptions about community from their previous workplace which amounts to a sense of it not being

seen at the higher level - we’re having to re-pitch, reposition, reframe how community is seen to work in

our organisation - emphasising the new initiatives and ways of working. We’ve had to deliberately look at

this and position it more strongly.”

A community fundraising manager at a large national organisation commented that “There’s a lot of love

and support for community fundraising out there at the moment [internally].” and from all the interviews it

became clear how intrinsically linked these perceptions are with internal working relationships. There

seemed to be an increasing emphasis placed on demonstrating the value which community fundraising

can add to the rest of an organisation’s income generation programme, expressed for example as

“...demonstrating what added value you can bring to other departments.” and “The value which the

community team brings outside of straight forward income.” Where this was being communicated to

colleagues well and translated in to improved working practices, much success was reported.

Two of the most common approaches to enacting this were cross-selling different products to different

audiences and integrating campaigns across the department. One head of department described their

surprise at some of the conversations they had had recently with other fundraising heads in their charity:

“Never in my career have I had a head of individual giving come to me and asked for my help in that way

- it’s usually quite passive e.g. please mention this, distribute materials but they’re now recognising we

have access to an audience.” a move echoed by another interviewee who said “Regular giving is a

strategic priority in our organisation so linking community and event supporters in to that is currently a

big piece of work.”

Along with individual giving, a more obvious cross-over was mentioned by many interviewees with

corporate fundraising, particularly where regional community fundraising staff were best placed to offer

local support. “Regional teams deliver on the ground support for national partnerships,” said one

manager, going on to say “the flip-side is they can get gift in kind etc. for us.” Discussing integration at

their regional charity, one manager said “Most of our campaigns are department wide so every

fundraising team contributes to it...” Where this cross-selling and integration was working it was often

supported by community fundraising being positioned as central to the fundraising department structure.

“My director often says that strategically community fundraising is our most important income source

partly because we can be face-to-face and it gives us a good link to the service delivery side, we can

speak to families so regional presence is important.” mentioned one participant.

WHY DO WE BOTHER? CONTINUED...


One fundraising consultant discussed the impact of integration on donor’s interactions with charities:

“Typically structures have been discipline-led but actually you need to turn it around and think of groups

of donors and give them the best experience. You have to integrate the people, then integrate the

strategy, then integrate the products and make it a seamless relationship for the donor - they don’t want

three British Red Crosses, they want one British Red Cross... your job is to join up all the pieces and give

them a rich, engaging experience.”

Of course, this is easier said than done. Whilst there was a real appetite for this type of work amongst

interviewees it was usually described as a work in progress: “We see community fundraising very

much as facilitators of other income streams - but it’s not currently very planned. In community we’re

not shaping and guiding those things, currently we’re reacting to them... I hope to become less

reactive.” Other barriers to better collaboration cited included conflicting priorities and difficult

discussions around whose budget income would go against. It also seemed that few organisations

had developed their cross working sufficiently to be in a position to effectively analyse it.

WHY DO WE BOTHER? CONTINUED...

Key points:• Community is often pivotal in the birth of a charity (and can be side-linedwhen they go on to “professionalise”)• Organisational development stages are as influential as sector trends (if notmore so)• Community has been expanded and contracted continually (let’s breakthis wasteful cycle)• Opinions about community are improving slowly (though stereotypes andmisconceptions persist)

• We need to build bridges internally (and demonstrate our greater value)


Of course, the sometimes negative connotations about community fundraising discussed above show a

certain level of misunderstanding but it would be remiss not to look further at how some of the inherent

challenges of community fundraising may contribute to these points of view, before then exploring the

approaches and initiatives which are driving community fundraising forward. “Community fundraisers

struggle to prioritise and be planned in their work because it is very reactive.” sums up a key challenge

expressed by almost all interviewees. One said “Even in my last organisation which had a strong brand,

classic community activities and events which had a lot of support [it was] quite reactive rather than

proactive.”

It is hard to see which is the cause and which the symptom, but this reactivity can apply across the board:

right from day-to-day task management through to top level planning. Certainly this persistent issue

within community fundraising is exacerbated, rather than addressed, by strategic decision making

processes in many organisations - particularly in ones with larger teams. A fundraising consultant

interviewed for this paper considered this at length saying “Product development is rolled out via

community teams... not community teams coming up with the ideas... It adds to the poor relation stigma

because it’s very much ‘we’ll do this and then tell the regional teams’ rather than working collaboratively.

Community fundraisers are in touch with their audience a great deal so we need to train them to share

the insights that they’re being told [and] give regional staff permission to make decisions more.”

ARE WE NEARLY THERE YET?

CASE STUDYMaggie’s Cancer CentresSponsor a Day

Devised as a stretch, mid-value, product for community groups, individuals and corporates tosponsor a day of the year in one of Maggie’s centres with a 2500 target. Utilising the physicalasset of the cancer centres to harness support; sponsors receive bespoke, personalisedrecognition of a certificate, an architectural print of the centre and an invitation to come attendan exclusive sponsors’ event at the centre. Key Features: Stretch target to increase community gift values, fully utilising the organisation’sassets, strong recognition and stewardship of participants, annual nature of the day to increaserepeat activity, choice of days allows donors to make it meaningful for them

Response: 92 sign ups in first year. Around 80% from people looking to raise target (groups,corporates and individuals). Other 20% giving cash gift for the day.recorded and segmentedproperly. People were just so busy they weren’t recording things and regional budgets justweren’t looked at with the same rigour - a DM campaign would never be looked at like that.”Another talked about “The problem child mind- set of moving from one thing to the next.” andhow this contributes to data capture being forgotten. We’ll look at decisive steps being taken toaddress this shortly.


When asked about innovation in community fundraising, one interviewee posed some important

questions: “Are we reinventing too much? Do we overthink it? Do we just need really good stewardship

so that activities become resilient? People have been so loyal (even when they’ve been let down)... how

much better would it be if we’d nurtured them, stewarded them really, really well?”

This was echoed by a consultant who said “It’s as much about getting the basics right as it is about

innovation. [...] You don’t need gimmicks.” And there were many fantastic examples of how charities are

generating great results by taking exactly this ‘back to basics’ approach. A key issue which several

interviewees were looking to address was the poor capture and use of data touched upon above. Again

this was framed very much as a work in progress with many acknowledging that they are at the

beginning of an important journey here: “We’re not so great at capturing info on why people give but

we’ve identified this as an area to improve and have a current looking to address this through coding

data etc.” was one example given, along with “It recently came up when looking at the budget and key

performance indicators (KPIs) for next year about lead generation targets for each team. Now we will be

recording and measuring it going forward.”

One consultant said “There’s a shift that community isn’t just go and raise money in your community, it

has to be a bit more measurable.” and the comments from practitioners really backed this up. Perhaps

one of the boldest examples of this was summed up as “Trying to install a better sense of solicitation

process: using prospect pipeline in database, segmenting data much more clearly so community

fundraisers can see who’s been asked, who we should be engaging... being more deliberate and

proactive. Before, we were in the problem child world of moving from one thing to the next, collecting

the cheque, running off to the next thing - stewardship was lost so repeat activity was lost.” which brings

together many points raised so far. Again, this interviewee emphasised that these processes were still

being embedded but showed a solid commitment to this way of working.

ARE WE NEARLY THERE YET?

CASE STUDYCancer Research UKRelay for Life 24 hour relay run, licensed from American Cancer Society and run by volunteer committees inmultiple locations across the country. Format includes a “survivors lap” at the start and a candle litservice after dark. Taken a while for CRUK to build up and get formula right; when first introducedto the UK over 10 years ago it was staff led and not achieving its potential but has successfullymoved to a volunteer led event which has hugely empowered volunteers and increased netincome. Key features: Committees have great sense of ownership and feel part of CRUK, format allows forcontinuity but enough flexibility for local character to come through, staff made brave decision tofocus on value not volume and concentrate on concentrate on facilitating the strongest Relays. Response: Now have 45 annual events, Relays worth 50k+ compared to traditional committeeswhich raise 10-15k annually.


The reactive qualities of community fundraising manifest themselves in many ways but a particularly

common problem area cited was data capture. It can be very difficult to implement the positive ways of

working mentioned in the previous section and the approaches which will be discussed later, when there

is little data on which to base decision making. Reflecting on a previous role one interviewee said “...trying

to take a more strategic approach was hard as money wasn’t recorded and segmented properly. People

were just so busy they weren’t recording things and regional budgets just weren’t looked at with the

same rigour - a DM campaign would never be looked at like that.” Another talked about “The problem

child mind- set of moving from one thing to the next.” and how this contributes to data capture being

forgotten. We’ll look at decisive steps being taken to address this shortly.

Other key problem areas identified in the interviews included poor “...attention to detail around the

recognition of supporters.” and not “...reporting back to people what we’ve been doing with their money

[to] keep them engaged and motivated.” Several respondents discussed how the aforementioned

reactive mind-set means that often long term approaches to relationship building are not taken and

retention strategies are often overlooked. This was highlighted by one head of community fundraising

who compared community fundraisers to volunteer managers: “The volunteer manager might not have

the same [financial] targets but will be much more focussed on the relational aspect of the experience

that supporters have, whereas community fundraisers are much more focussed on the transactional

elements and then move on to the next thing”. They went on to suggest a happy medium between these

two approaches may be fruitful.

Like other relationship building across fundraising disciplines these approaches take time. Reflecting on

their experience in their current organisation one fundraiser said “[You] don’t get results quickly... We’re

unproven in terms of results coming through but there’s attitudinal shift, behavioural shift, shift from

reactive to proactive happening. I expect 18-24 months for it to come to fruition” and it seems

expectations about how quickly this can take to happen need to be managed.

The answers to how charities can improve results of their community fundraising may be right under our

noses, in other areas of fundraising - with several interviewees citing direct marketing as a particularly

good source of approaches to adapt. Whilst many first class examples of community fundraising

initiatives were discussed, such as Macmillan Coffee Morning and Save the Children’s Christmas Jumper

Day, it was recognised that these are exceptional cases which many organisations, particularly smaller

ones, may struggle to replicate. In fact, more than once, frustration was expressed at trustees or senior

management suggesting ‘the next Macmillan Coffee Morning’ as a standalone community fundraising

strategy with little recognition of how long it took for that initiative to reach is current size and

prominence. It was also suggested that for an initiative to be successful on that level it would need to be

original in some way rather than merely imitating an existing product.

ARE WE NEARLY THERE YET? CONTINUED

“ALL JOKES ASIDE PEOPLE DO REALISE HOWIMPORTANT WHAT WE DO IS.”


All interviewees agreed that an area ripe for improvement is retention. Some of the issues here are

actually not very complex, one interviewee who was quite new to their organisation noted “People aren’t

coming back year on year because they phone up and say ‘I’m doing this event for you’, they get support,

a thank you and then no one contacts them again.” which seems symptomatic of many of the inherent

problems of community fundraising already discussed and addressable in part by freeing up staff time

where possible and taking a more proactive approach to stewardship as already discussed.

In this context, retention can be driven up by developing really good supporter care practices: “This year

we’re really focussing on donor retention, trying to interact with them more in different ways so it’s not

just email back and forth, back and forth - we’ll call them on the day of an event, send a letter when

money comes in... we give them a non-ask update, then ideas of how to remain engaged, then followed

up again to see how they are getting on.” as one community manager explained. This variety approach

was backed up by a consultant who said “Our job is to make it easy for donors. People have a low

attention span now... that’s why moving them between different areas and giving them different

propositions is part of keeping them interested.”

Other key areas of focus which the interviews brought to light included asking “What does personalised

fundraising look like?”, “Equipping our staff to be better story tellers.” and increased consistency,

particularly for larger teams with a lot of, potentially isolated, regional staff “...so the supporter experience

is always excellent no matter where you are in the country.” Looking to the future there was widespread

recognition that online channels will only grow in importance, although there were contrasting views on

how much responsibility for this does, and will, sit within community fundraising teams. Some

interviewees felt that social media could mainly be seen as a “rich PR tool” and, rightly, posed important

questions such as “Social media changes how we communicate massively but does it change how we

behave?”

Uptake of online sponsorship platforms was particularly reported as high. Overall there was a good

understanding from interviewees of the interactive nature of online communications and the possible

ramifications of this for community fundraising, although they were at different stages of realising its

potential. One said “We don’t have a coherent approach to digital engagement. We’re getting to a point

where all the team are competent in using these things and now need to look forward and get better at

it.” and another remarked “We’re looking at how we use social media going forward, to interact more -

link it to our campaigns and use competitions etc. to keep people coming back.”

During several interviews the parallels between crowd-funding and community fundraising were drawn,

particularly because of the peer-to-peer nature which both share. It was felt that there was much that

could be learnt from this growing sector, with Kiva and Avaaz being held up as particularly good

examples of it being used for social good. A consultant said “Online makes giving easier, more

immediate, feeding back instantly - it facilitates a lot of opportunities to communicate,” before

concluding “...tech is just an enabler, it’s a mechanism to help give and communicate better and faster.”

ARE WE NEARLY THERE YET? CONTINUED


As discussions continued there was a general feeling that social media provided great opportunities for

building new types of communities. One consultant warned “We’re too concerned about getting the

donation mechanism right and not enough about creating communities.” These online communities and

the connectivity of social media was seen as a possible way to overcome the issues of people being

more transient than previous generations, “Movember lets people do something local but also feel part

of something global.” was one example of this connectivity in practice.

On the whole there was a lot of appetite for integrating digital communications in to community

fundraising, with some developments such as online sponsorship having already been widely adopted

and others such as social media waiting to be fully tapped in to. As one consultant said “Some of the

most interesting things happening are definitely happening online.” and there was seen to be a great

deal of strategic opportunity here.

ARE WE NEARLY THERE YET? CONTINUED...

Key points:• We need to move towards more proactive ways of working (which make lifeeasier for us)• More attention is rightfully being paid to data ( its capture, use and analysis)• Longer term strategising has become a bigger priority (and needs time tocome to fruition)• There is much we can learn from colleagues in other disciplines(particularly approaches employed in DM)• A back-to-basics approach can be a good place to start (focussing on great stewardship, relationship building and retention)


Community fundraising is where the activities of volunteering and donating converge and therefore

encompasses a number of complex motivational and behavioural factors.

In discussing volunteer motivations the distinction that community fundraising involves ‘doing’ something

- as opposed to 'simply' giving money - was mentioned by most, and gives it nuanced differences to

individual giving. This seems particularly the case with some health-related causes. One interviewee

described how this plays out in their charity: “Volunteer fundraisers tend to be people with a link to

someone affected by the condition [...] there’s no cure so they’re seeing their loved one decline and they

channel their feelings in to fundraising. The motivation is it’s something positive they can actually do”.

This seems to come in to play in varying degrees in many causes, eg in the case of overseas aid people

may feel passionately about the issues but they can’t travel to that country, so they fundraise instead.

Following on from some of the discussion around the place of community fundraising in an organisation’s

early development, another common motivation cited was along these lines: “They were involved from

the start of the charity so they feel a lot of ownership of the organisation.” Other motivations referred to

included wanting to be part of something bigger than themselves, upbringing, social recognition for their

efforts and the opportunity to socialise and meet new people.

Some common barriers to volunteer fundraising included lack of understanding around charities’ work,

their need for voluntary funds and what geographical areas they cover. It was also mentioned that this

lack of understanding can sometimes manifest itself as people wanting to restrict funding to work the

organisation doesn’t do. There certainly seems to be work to be done in tailoring charities’ messages for

community audiences and fundraising in general. Another barrier to volunteering mentioned was donor

fatigue. One fundraiser said “There can be fatigue that people don’t want to do the same thing or ask the

same people year-on-year.” and another gave this example: “One supporter who’s done a lot of

marathons for us but the value of his efforts is decreasing as he’s done it in the past and some people

won’t sponsor him again.”

Generally the barriers to participation which interviewees discussed were similar to those you would

expect for all types of volunteering, and by far the reason reportedly heard by most fundraisers is

people’s lack of time: “There can be a perception that they have to give up all their free time, people feel

concerns around that. People seem very busy with work, family, hobbies and are reluctant to give up

their time - they want to help but don’t want to lose their free time.” One consultant suggested the key to

overcoming this may lie in greater understanding of potential donors: “The charities which are really

good at this understand their target audience, they understand who they are, what their life-stage and

lifestyles are like.” and went on to ask “What are the characteristics about that demographic which you

need to understand to mobilise people to give up some of their time?”

LET’S HEAR IT FOR THE VOLUNTEERS!

“OUR VOLUNTEERS ARE ALL REALLY DIFFERENTAND THEY OFTEN SURPRISE ME.”


Possibly one of the most discussed and debated issues about volunteers in community fundraising is the

role of the traditional fundraising committee (branch, support group, friends group, appeal board etc.)

and these interviews made it very clear that a lot of organisations have problems here. One manager said

“We do have a terminally declining income stream from our branches, some of which even started when

the organisation was formed 50 years ago. In the heyday we had 250 branches and now we have 40.” The

trend towards decline in this area was pretty much unanimous and one interviewee cautioned against

not addressing these issues in a timely fashion: “People don’t volunteer in those traditional ways any

more (luncheon clubs etc.) - organisations need to be very careful if they don’t move and change their

fundraising propositions. You’re not going to bring new people in doing the same stuff you’ve done for

the last 30-40 years.”

The discussion around why traditional groups had become so unattractive picks up on some of the

barriers to volunteering mentioned above, namely time. One fundraiser said “If you join a committee

there’s an assumption it just keeps rolling on. Maybe we need things which happen for a fixed period [...]

let things reach their peak and know when to stop.” This leads on to the formality of these groups, which

can be off-putting. One interviewee said “[You have a] formal structure, chair, secretary, take minutes. Do

the same thing each year and they’ve all known each other a long time so it’s hard for new people to

come in.” A consultant reflecting on this issue said “You have to allow people flexibility to align with you,

form a temporary group and then move on. We are not a culture that likes membership the way we used

to - younger generations don’t want to be members of something, they want to affiliate.”

The age profile of groups is problematic as many consist of retired people which stops even middle-

aged people from wanting to join because they are at different life-stages. Another key issue raised as to

why these groups are declining was the steady increase of women in the workplace over the last few

decades. A community manager discussed the multiple impacts of this social change - “More women in

the work place has meant they don’t necessarily want to, or aren’t able to, be on those committees and

they don’t need it for their social life like they once did.”

LET’S HEAR IT FOR THE VOLUNTEERS! CONTINUED

CASE STUDYClic SergeantWig Wednesday A charity-wide ask for individuals and groups such as schools and workplaces to come togetherand all wear a wig on a Wednesday designated by the organisation. The idea came from asupporter who had a loved one suffering from cancer and wanting to do something positive fromthat experience they came up with the idea of Wig Wednesday which they took to the team atClic. It’s a concept which, whilst dealing with a difficult topic, is fun for people to get involved in. Key features: Supporter devised, easy to take part but creates big visual impact, synergy withcause (hair loss in cancer treatment) in an uplifting way, broad appeal to different audiences,social media played big role on the day.

Response: Raised £120k in year one from 1100 supporters with ongoing growth expected.


Whilst it was widely recognised that these types of group are in decline, interviewees warned against

abandoning the existing groups prematurely as was perhaps the fashion 10-20 years ago. One said

“When newer income streams like corporate started coming on board that was seen as the way

everyone should be going. How much did community fundraising became a self-fulfilling prophecy in

that people said branches are dying out so just stopped bothering with them? Ten years ago I heard that

branches were dying but they’re still here. I wonder how much people convinced themselves that

community was on its way out and therefore stopped paying any attention to it.”

Some traditional supporter groups are still raising significant sums for charities. One manager explained

how their organisation makes it work for them: “I think we really have a lot of friends groups compared to

other charities. They manage themselves: from ladies that lunch raising a couple thousand pounds in a

couple of hours to another group that might go to lots of local events and raise a few hundred pounds...

We do recruit new groups, flooding a target area over the period of a year and building up enough

interest to create a group and leave a legacy of support there.”

Those who understood, in product portfolio terms, that the traditional group ‘product’ is in decline in their

organisation realised they should continue with their existing groups but bring in refreshed models to

grow and replace them in time. More than one fundraiser described success with products which allow a

family affected by their cause, often with an ill or disabled child, to create their own informal group

where all activities carried out by their family and wider network are brought together, for example: “...we

now offer a product called family funds, where people can come along, they can set up their own little

fundraising group under their own umbrella - you get a page on the website, we give you all the

resources and talk to you about where you want your money to be spent and we’ll restrict it to an in-

budget expense which we already have. That type of fundraising group has grown quickly - have 50 now

and no sign of slowing down.”


CASE STUDYGreat Ormond Street HospitalBrighter Future Funds A rejuvenated tribute fund product to create a focal point for families fundraising in memory or incelebration. Addressing a need for more ongoing engagement with in mem and celebrationfundraisers who were usually one off with little repeat activity. Brighter Future Funds namechosen as a way of talking about in mem in a children’s hospital which has hope and survivorshipat its core. Allows lots of different volunteer activity to feed in to one fund online. Key features: Building peer-to-peer giving networks to increase lifetime value of in mem donors,strong online stewardship plan to maintain engagement, allow families to restrict income tospecific area of work, each fund allocated an account manager, shows recognition of donorsmotivations and efforts. Response: Double the number of funds in year one than target of 50, 80% of new in mem donorsset up a fund, 70% of fund holders actively fundraising rather than purely donating, 1 million raisedin first 18 months without cannibalising existing in mem income


Addressing some of the issues and concerns of volunteers, one manager outlined the type of informal

groups they are exploring - “We’re testing more informal groups with fundraising as primary objective -

might be shorter term e.g. come together for a couple of years to raise a certain amount or achieve a

particular thing and then disband.” utilising a more fixed-term rather than rolling approach as suggested

earlier. Those persevering with their committees are blending these types of approaches in to their work

and helping their volunteers to refocus their efforts: “You’ll maybe have a committee now that does one

big thing a year rather than a rolling programme of smaller events/activities.”

Another popular approach mentioned was to create more flexible community fundraising volunteering

opportunities. One interviewee said “Our ambassador scheme works well. They get training to give talks

etc. It can be really flexible, people like having control over when talks are, adding their own style to what

they’re doing.” There was also a strong sense that individuals fundraising independently of any group

structure are seen as the way community fundraising will probably progress. Most interviewees had

experienced or anticipated growth in this area and tools such as the ‘family fund’ and more flexible

volunteer roles are a step in the right direction of increasing repeat activity and peer-to-peer recruitment,

as it was generally felt that fluidity and autonomy within volunteer fundraising would only continue to

increase.


CASE STUDYWaterAid Speakers network A network of volunteer speakers who go out in to community groups to talk about WaterAid'swork. The network started through links to water companies who had a CSR obligation todeliver educational talks and has grown from there with many speakers now coming from thegeneral population. Speakers are given materials to help them deliver their talks, can benefitfrom a buddy system and get feedback on money raised and can progress to workshop leadertraining. Key features: Attractive volunteering opportunity due to flexibility, constant feedback fromgroups and speakers to keep improving, use of volunteers gives groups attention which staffalone couldn’t, option of having speaker cross-promoted in all community materials. Response: Now have 600 speakers nation-wide, 25% of schools go onto fundraise, gifts received within six months of a speaker average twice the value, £141k ofincome attribute to speakers network in last financial year.

“OUR VOLUNTEERS ARE ALL REALLY DIFFERENTAND THEY OFTEN SURPRISE ME.”


Challenge and sport events continue to be a prominent and effective way of recruiting individual

fundraisers and there are a number of current trends within this area of community fundraising. There

seems to be a move away from oversees challenges towards more UK events - with static household

income levels probably contributing to this. One fundraiser said “We’re seeing more and more UK events.

The Olympics made a big difference, especially to our cycling events.” In fact there are a growing

number of UK challenges and experiences being run by private companies which offer charities the

opportunity to buy places or participants to fundraise for a cause of their choice such as ‘Tough Mudder’

or “Colour Run’, and some follow in the London Marathon’s footsteps by having a designated charity each

year. Those charities which run their own events are also embracing this unusual experience trend, such

as Cancer Research UK adding the ‘Pretty Muddy’ obstacle 5k to refresh its Race for Life portfolio.

There is also a move towards less staff-led activity and more volunteer-led fundraising. One head of

department said: “Historically we’d have done our own activities like abseils etc., now everything is

supporter-led. It’s been really tough to make that transition, but very important.” and whilst staff time may

be spent on larger activities such as mass participation events, fewer staff will be involved in lower level

activity such as local fetes and talks to small groups and volunteers are encouraged to take on these

activities.

It is probably fair to say that volunteers can be both a strength and a weakness for an organisation, in that

they need to be managed and supported carefully to focus their good will in the most effective way.

Some of the most prominent volunteer fundraising propositions have come direct from supporters and

been adopted and scaled up by organisations, such as the Movember movement - but there is a fine

balance in identifying ideas with the most potential. As one consultant said: “Channelling people’s good

will in to the things which are the best use of their time and have the most impact can be really hard.”


CASE STUDYMuscular DystrophyMake Today Count A Sky Dive event originally conceived in response to a scientific breakthrough to raise moneyfor the next stages of the research. Saw supporters sky dive on their “extra” day - February 29th 2012. Originallythought to be a one-off but has become big part of the organisation’s fundraising calendar andnow looking to extend the concept of “making today count” to wider audience who may wish todo different activities other than sky diving. Key features: In response to a topical need, very targeted marketing to audience segment withvested interest in that area of research, tangible fundraising need, income restricted to area ofparticipant’s interest. Response: Exceeded budget, 80k in year one and year on year growth since then (100k expected2014.)


Several interviewees mentioned the need to manage volunteers’ expectations within the context of

‘clarity of purpose’ discussed earlier. Whilst all interviewees encouraged the move to more volunteer-led

activity, community fundraising staff were seen as expert facilitators who will need to help volunteers,

and it was pressed that staff need to be clear with volunteers how much support they can offer as their

time will be more valuably spent on some activities rather than others: “It takes a lot of skill to manage

volunteer expectations so when an activity doesn’t have the potential to raise enough you want to tell

them up front how much support you can give and the volunteer should feel delighted by the

conversation with you even if they haven’t got what they thought they wanted.”

In line with how other areas of community fundraising are developing it was recognised that in order for

volunteers to flourish they need the right resources, both physical resources and advice. If staff teams

take a logical approach to this, such as comprehensive fundraising packs, downloadable materials and

FAQs, then efforts will be harnessed to the best effect rather than staff offering ad hoc advice and

inconsistent support because they are reacting to rather than anticipating supporters’ needs.

One interviewee said “We’ve seen that if you can empower and support the volunteers they can go

out and deliver some really great things.” which reflects the overall positivity expressed around this

topic. They went on to sum up this move towards a volunteer-led approach brilliantly: “I think we as a

community fundraising part of the sector have got much better at building our volunteer networks,

seeing the power of our volunteers. Compared to 10 years ago our belief in what our volunteers and

supporters can do has completely changed - they’re our advocates, building links in their local

networks... We’re trusting them in a way we never did before. [The] relationship has very much shifted

to a partnership.”


Key points:• The participatory nature of community makes it different from otherfundraising (and it capitalises on different motivations)• Understanding community audiences is important (in order to create theright propositions)• A key barrier to volunteers fundraising is lack of time (so we need offeringswhich use their limited time for the highest impact)• We shouldn’t just dispose of historic volunteer models (but we need tobuild in new models to replace them in time)• Volunteer-led fundraising is far more efficient (and some of the best ideashave come from supporters)• We need to anticipate volunteers needs (and manage their expectations)


The discussions which took place during this series of interviews highlight that, contrary to what some

writing on the subject suggests, community fundraising is shifting and changing a great deal to be fit for

purpose in modern organisations - albeit at varying paces.

Indeed, the word ‘community’ is a term which is constantly being redefined by changing lifestyles in our

society, with the shift towards more women in the workplace and people feeling less affiliation to where

they live (due to moving locations more frequently than previous generations) particularly having an

effect on community fundraising. “One thing that’s been disintegrating in the UK over the last 40-50 years

is traditional communities, people don’t stick together like they used to, they move around.” as one

interviewee said. But it doesn’t mean they don’t belong to groups, networks or communities - they just

look different to how they did previously.

The internet is of course also having a huge impact on modern living; one consultant said: “Nowadays

one of the key things is you have to define what community fundraising is. 30 years ago it was very much

about the grass roots fundraising and now it’s changed forever by the web.” and community fundraising

will need to keep adapting to accommodate these shifts in order to reach its potential.

Truthfully, there are some amazing examples of how organisations who recognise and address the

issues raised in this paper are making community fundraising hugely successful for their organisation -

but the speed of change across much of the sector is generally quite slow and this is why community

fundraising is often seen as old-fashioned and is not reaching its full potential.

Within their own organisations several interviewees felt that community fundraising was making a

definite move from the problematic areas of the Boston Matrix in to the more positive quadrants: “Five

years ago problem child would be a good description; ad hoc donations, not a lot of repeat activity, no

follow up and poor stewardship... staff very stretched so moving on to the next thing and not looking at

repeat activity or enhancing the value. Lots of doing and reacting not a lot of thinking. It’s not necessarily

a rising star yet but it’s on that journey, becoming more stable.”

SO, WHAT NOW?

“THE MOST PRECIOUS GIFT WHICH APROFESSIONAL HAS THESE DAYS IS NOTMONEY, IT’S TIME. TIME IS THE RAREST GIFTOF ALL.”


Other managers said: “When I started, community was definitely a problem child, some might argue a

dying dog, but definitely now it’s a rising star - we’re seeing growth.” and “Probably a rising star or cash

cow now - seen more participative types of giving growing rather than ad hoc cash gifts.”

On the flip-side, one consultant commented “It’s not dead dog, not cash cow - maybe a lesser sort of

cow which is producing milk but not enough.” which hints that many organisations have not yet quite

discovered what will make community fundraising really work for them.

Certainly it is a mixed picture, but the responses in these interviews strongly point towards the

potential of community fundraising when a team gets the basics right, understands their audience and

proactively gives supporters what they need to maximise the value of their activity and keep them

engaged enough to continuing fundraising.

SO WHAT NOW? CONTINUED...

Key points:• There is a great deal of relevant community fundraising happening (andsome less fashionable stuff too)• We must adapt to people’s changing lifestyles (in a timely manner)• Communities and their meaning are constantly shifting (so communityfundraising should too)• Every aspect of our lives is changing because of the internet (of coursecommunity fundraising is too)• Community fundraising is making great progress (but there’s still plentyof room for improvement)


Looking back at the questions this paper set out to address there is much to digest and it seems that

experiences are very varied. However, it is hoped that the examples extracted from this research show

that there are approaches which several organisations are experiencing success with, and that there are

some best practice suggestions here which have practical application and add to the currently limited

discourse about this fundraising discipline.

In response to whether UK charities are experiencing growth or decline in community fundraising the

answer, frustratingly, is ‘yes’ - there is evidence of both. There is too much diversity of experience to

simply say that community fundraising is growing. However, the examples here and the anecdotal

evidence presented about sector wide opinions show that some organisations are getting community

fundraising right and growing, sometimes significantly, and also that there is huge potential for growth

for those organisations who are yet to crack the community fundraising nut. When viewed within the

context of the fundraising mix, community fundraising can be seen as a lever for growth across an

organisation’s voluntary income generation because it can create a lot of leads and open doors for other

fundraising disciplines.

Within this sample, both the organisations represented and the general impressions expressed about the

sector as a whole, increased investment is evident. Not only are organisations investing in community

fundraising, but they are doing so in a targeted, insight-led, manner. Head counts are being increased by

smartly looking at particular audiences, geographical areas or support staff to realise the most growth. In

the coming years it will be important that these investments are given sufficient time to bear fruit, are

evaluated appropriately and that results are used to build a case for continuing investment – otherwise

the cycles of investment and divestment will continue.

It would be deeply concerning, and potentially disastrous for fundraising in the UK, if the progress being

made in community fundraising was hindered because of premature judgment or ill-informed evaluation

of the work being carried out. Of course, there will be investments which don’t work out, but when

community fundraising teams are erroneously scaled down, or products pulled before they have had

time to mature, a great deal of organisational knowledge can be lost and ultimately the next team has to

start again from scratch, meaning they require another injection of investment. It is usually more cost

effective to keep something running, with changes and tweaks as necessary, than to pull it down – only

to be rebuilt again in a few years’ time.

Again, the question ‘Which products, models and approaches are experiencing success?’ does not yield

an easy answer because the cause, size, brand and history of an organisation all come in to play.

However there are some key principles which have emerged from this research which can apply to all

community fundraising. A practical summary of these principles can be found in the recommendations

below.

There is also evidence of much innovation, however innovation is perhaps more subtle or nuanced than

was anticipated at the outset of this research. Often the innovations which are having the biggest impact

and contributing the most to an organisation’s growth are not the big new campaigns which are

advertised on TV, but the small innovations being adapted from other disciplines and sectors and

implemented incrementally to improve administration processes, better manage donor relationships and

up-skill staff.

CONCLUSIONS


Becoming more proactive appears to be an important move for many of the organisations explored in

this research and the wider sector as understood by interviewees. There will always be a reactive

element to community fundraising, but by preempting volunteer fundraisers’ needs and having

resources and sources of advice ready to provide them with will be a much better use of fundraisers’

time than creating bespoke advice for each supporter regardless of the potential income their proposed

activity can generate. Another aspect to proactivity is to have stewardship plans in place for different

groups so that they are updated about the impact of their gift and offered different opportunities to

engage with the organisation, to build relationships and increase life-time value.

Different sizes of organisations will be able to implement the findings of this research in different ways.

Whereas larger organisations with bigger marketing budgets may be able to create big campaigns which

capture the cultural zeitgeist and put them in the mass market straight away, smaller organisations will

probably have to focus on their warm audiences and build more organically from there. Synergy with the

cause and products aimed at warm audiences (including beneficiaries not currently fundraising where

applicable) can help to build momentum here and creating mechanisms to foster repeat activity and

multiply friend- get-friend recruitment can help speed up organic growth.

This research shows that there has been a cultural shift away from more structured fundraising groups

towards more informal and autonomous fundraising by individuals. It is however worth noting that this is

a gradually declining area which has been on a downward trajectory for 10, maybe 20, years or more. It is

important that community fundraising departments are testing and then scaling up new products to fill

these gaps for their organisation but there is also a sense in which they should avoid throwing the baby

out with the bath water; existing groups should be recognised for their previous contributions and

afforded support which is reasonably in line with the income they have the potential to continue to raise.

If they can find their niche and understand their audience, some charities are even managing to increase

their number of groups with subtle changes to suit their supporters.

With regard to structures and professionalisation there seems to be much progress, and teams which are

seeing real success with community fundraising are rationalising their team structure for their current

needs and bringing in new staff to allow for more deliberate ways of working to be embedded. It seems

that organisations are beginning to realise that understaffing community is a false economy because a

fundraiser who only has time to run from one cheque collection to another can never take stock, improve

their working patterns and strategise about how to realise the full potential of community fundraising for

their organisation.

There is also a lot to be said for better collaboration between fundraising disciplines and whilst it’s early

days there is success being had where departments are breaking down silos and understanding the

importance of placing community fundraising in the fundraising mix to cross-sell and generate leads for

other areas and vice versa.

CONCLUSIONS CONTINUED

“THEY’RE GETTING MORE INVOLVED RATHER THANWRITING A CHEQUE FOR US.”


The recommendations from this report bring together some of the most commonly mentioned principles

for successful fundraising from this research in to an easy to use visual model to help practitioners

embed them in to their fundraising. this will be supported by further resources which build on the

recommendations. It is important to bear in mind that every organisation is at a different stage of their

development and in such a diverse discipline there can be no one-size fits all answers. Rather, the model

is intended to help guide discussions and thought processes; each fundraiser will need to discern the

suggestions most applicable to their own fundraising.

It must be noted that many of these things will take time to embed and time must be allowed for things

to come to fruition. However, the pace of change in our society is ever increasing and community

fundraisers will need to work hard at being more flexible, adaptable and embracing of new technologies

in order to keep up.

Notes to “The Pillars of Community Fundraising”

On the next page you will find this model which groups the findings of this paper in an easy to digest

format. The points in each area are prompts for community fundraisers to consider in their planning. A

good starting point would be a quick situation analysis, identifying which of the principles are currently

strengths and which are currently weaknesses. This will help develop short, mid and long term goals to

improve in the areas which will have the most impact for your organisation.

Further resources can be found at liannehd.co.uk

RECOMMENDATIONS

FIV

E P

ILL

AR

S O

F C

OM

MU

NIT

Y F

UN

DR

AIS

ING

ST

RO

NG

S

TA

FF

Rat

iona

lise

team

stru

ctur

e A

dm

in s

upp

ort t

o fr

ee fu

ndra

iser

s up

for t

he fi

eld

Sup

por

t wor

k-lo

adm

anag

emen

t/p

riorit

isat

ion

Sha

re le

arni

ngs

and

bes

t pra

ctic

e D

eleg

ate

dec

isio

nm

akin

g w

here

pos

sib

le T

rain

them

on

key

mes

sag

es D

evel

op d

igita

l sk

ills

EM

PO

WE

RE

DV

OL

UN

TE

ER

SP

RO

AC

TIV

EP

LA

NN

ING

CO

LL

AB

OR

AT

IVE

WO

RK

ING

INS

IGH

T-L

ED

DE

CIS

ION

S

Man

age

th

eir

exp

ect

atio

ns

Mak

e it

eas

y fo

rth

em

to

fun

dra

ise

Eq

uip

th

em

with

gre

at r

eso

urc

es

Re

cog

nis

e t

he

irco

ntr

ibu

tion

He

lp t

he

m s

cale

up

be

st id

eas

Pe

rso

nal

ise

com

mu

nic

atio

ns

Sh

ow

th

em

th

eim

pac

t th

ey’

rem

akin

g

An

ticip

ate

volu

nte

ers

’ ne

ed

s D

eve

lop

ste

war

dsh

ip p

lan

s F

ocu

s o

nre

ten

tion

as

mu

chas

, if

no

t m

ore

than

, acq

uis

itio

n M

ake

tim

e f

or

lon

g-t

erm

pla

nn

ing

Re

fre

sh p

rod

uct

sb

efo

re t

he

y st

art

to d

ecl

ine

Lo

ok

to in

teg

rate

ne

w t

ech

no

log

ies

Ch

alle

ng

e in

tern

alp

erc

ep

tion

s C

larif

y w

hat

yo

ud

o a

nd

do

n’t

do

Ge

ne

rate

lead

s fo

ro

the

r te

ams

Cro

ss-s

ell

pro

du

cts

acro

ssal

l au

die

nce

s A

gre

e jo

int

ob

ject

ive

s M

ake

frie

nd

sin

tern

ally

Pro

po

se jo

int

pro

ject

s

Ide

ntif

y yo

ur

war

m a

nd

pro

spe

ctiv

eau

die

nce

s L

ear

n w

hat

mak

es

the

m t

ick

Se

ek

con

stan

tfe

ed

bac

k fr

om

do

no

rs C

aptu

rem

ore

/b

ett

er

dat

a A

nal

yse

it a

nd

use

it t

o in

form

you

r d

eci

sio

ns

Me

asu

re a

nd

anal

yse

me

anin

gfu

l KP

Is

Lianne Howard-Dace MinstF(Dip) [email protected] @liannehd /in/liannehd

COMMUNITY FUNDRAISING - Lianne Howard-Dace

Documents

Transcript of COMMUNITY FUNDRAISING - Lianne Howard-Dace