What the Numbers Mean • The single lowest score across the entire assessment — 1.8 — is on having a documented individual giving strategy with assigned ownership. This is the foundational gap. • Organizations are slightly stronger on case for support (3.1) and operating reserves (3.1) than on the systems and people needed to convert that case into individual revenue. • The contingency score of 2.2 — "if our top three funders stopped giving tomorrow, we have a credible plan" — confirms in numbers what participants named in words: concentrated funder risk is the dominant exposure.
WHERE LEADERS ARE READY TO ACT IN THE NEXT 90 DAYS
Participants surfaced an unusually concrete and varied set of near-term strategies. Five themes emerged from the responses: 1. Stand up an individual giving practice Multiple leaders named this as their top priority — including building a strategy that can be implemented immediately, beginning the process of thinking through a more effective individual giving effort, identifying top individual donors and cultivating them, and re-engaging lapsed donors with new collateral. 2. Activate donor-advised funds (DAFs) Both organizational leaders and individual donors in the room cited DAFs as a near-term lever — both as a vehicle to invite supporters into and as a personal philanthropic practice to model.
3. Map the room — degrees of separation
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online