FDR 4400 Module 4 Final Project: A Fundraising Plan for a Youth Rowing Nonprofit Example

A Permanent Home on the River: A Three-Year Fundraising Plan for Delaware River Youth Rowing

Student Name

B.S.B.A. in Finance, Thomas Edison State University

FDR-4400: Fundraising for Nonprofits

Mentor Name

Month Day, Year

A Permanent Home on the River: A Three-Year Fundraising Plan for Delaware River Youth Rowing

1. Situation

Delaware River Youth Rowing spends about $620,000 a year and raises it from two foundations, a gala, a county grant and about 320 individual donors who give $105,000 in total. Its programs produce strong results, a 94 percent on-time graduation rate and 78 percent college enrollment among seniors, but its funding is concentrated and its leased boathouse is failing. Without a new home within three years, the program must shrink by half.

The organization's strengths and weaknesses point in the same direction. Its outcomes are measurable and moving, its alumni and parents are loyal, and the rowing community in the region includes people of means who understand the sport. Against that, two foundations supply more than a third of its budget, no one on staff spends more than a few hours a week on development, and its donor records sit in a spreadsheet maintained by a volunteer. A plan that grows individual giving must therefore begin by building the capacity to do it.

2. Goals

The goals rest on two judgments: individual giving is the most stable source the organization can grow, and the boathouse requires a dedicated campaign that annual fundraising cannot carry.

3. The Case

The plan uses the case statement developed in Module 1, which leads with the teenagers, their results and the urgency of the boathouse. For the campaign, the case adds the project: a modest boathouse with bays for 40 boats, an indoor training room and a study hall, on a riverfront parcel the city has agreed to lease for 40 years at a nominal rent. Weinstein and Barden (2017) stress that a campaign case must answer why this project, why now and why this organization; the boathouse case answers all three.

A short version of the case, used in appeals and visits, reads: "Every weekday afternoon, 140 Trenton and Camden teenagers come to the river to train, study and plan for college. Ninety-four percent of our seniors graduate on time. Our boathouse is failing, and without a new one in three years, half of these students will lose their place. A gift now keeps them on the water." The longer campaign case adds drawings, costs and the city's lease, and answers the questions a major donor will ask about how the building will be maintained.

4. Prospects and Segments

Prospect research in Module 2 sorted donors into five segments with distinct strategies. The plan relies most on two of them. Loyal small donors, about 70 people, will be invited to give monthly, which typically raises retention and annual value. Major gift prospects, 25 current donors and 15 newly identified members of the regional rowing community, will receive personal visits. The gift range chart for the campaign calls for a lead gift of $400,000 and about 30 gifts of $20,000 or more, which requires around 90 serious prospects; the current list holds about 40, so identifying more is the first task of year one.

5. Vehicles

The gala stays, but its role changes. Each guest receives a thank-you within two days, a results letter in the spring and an invitation to a regatta, so that the event begins relationships rather than ends them.

Stewardship ties the vehicles together. Every gift receives a thank-you within 48 hours, every donor of $1,000 or more a personal call from a board member, and every donor a mid-year impact report with stories and figures. Donors who give for three consecutive years are invited to a regatta reception and to join the bequest society, so that annual giving becomes the pipeline for major and planned gifts.

6. Board, Staff and Volunteers

The board will adopt a giving and getting policy: every member gives at a level personally meaningful and helps secure gifts or sponsorships. A development committee led by a board member will make major gift visits with the executive director. The plan adds a half-time development coordinator in year one, funded by a two-year capacity grant, to manage the donor database, mailings and events, freeing the executive director for major gifts. Alumni and parents will staff the erg-a-thon and regatta hospitality.

Before the quiet phase, the board gets two hours of coaching on telling the case in their own words, opening a gift conversation and passing the prospect to the director for the ask. Many board members avoid fundraising because they fear asking friends for money; giving them a defined role, such as hosting a boathouse tour, lets each contribute without asking directly.

7. The Boathouse Campaign

Feasibility (months 1 to 6). A consultant will interview about 35 prospects confidentially to test the case and the $2.4 million goal. Quiet phase (months 7 to 20). Board members give first, followed by the lead gift and leadership gifts; the public launch waits until at least 65 percent is committed, since donors give more when they see a campaign already well advanced (List & Lucking-Reiley, 2002). Public phase (months 21 to 30). Broader appeals, naming opportunities for boats and bays, and a community campaign for the final gifts. Construction and stewardship (months 30 to 36). Donors are thanked, recognized at the dedication and kept informed.

The campaign also carries risks the plan names. Construction costs may rise between the feasibility study and the groundbreaking, so the budget includes a 10 percent contingency and the case states the goal as a range until bids are received. A lead donor may want naming rights to the whole building; the gift acceptance policy sets the minimum gift for that honor in advance. And annual giving may dip as donors redirect gifts to the campaign, so every campaign solicitation will ask donors to maintain their annual gift as well.

8. Ethics and Information

The organization will follow the Association of Fundraising Professionals' code and the Donor Bill of Rights: gifts used as donors intend, accurate reporting of how funds are spent, no sharing of donor information and respect for any request for anonymity. Restricted campaign gifts will be held separately from operating funds. A donor management system will record every contact, gift and interest, with access limited by role.

Before the campaign launches, the board will adopt a gift acceptance policy covering gifts of stock, property and in-kind materials, naming rights and their duration, and the circumstances in which a gift would be declined, such as conditions that conflict with the mission. A written policy protects the organization from awkward decisions made under pressure and gives donors clear terms in advance.

9. Budget and Calendar

The calendar sets the gala in April, appeals in May and November, impact reports in June and December, the erg-a-thon in February and quarterly board reviews.

In years two and three the development coordinator becomes full-time, paid partly by the growth in individual giving the position produces, and the feasibility study cost does not recur. If the plan's revenue goals are met, fundraising expense will fall from about 20 percent of contributed revenue in year one to about 15 percent in year three.

10. Evaluation

Each quarter the board will see five numbers: total and individual revenue against goal, donor retention, number of monthly donors, major gift visits completed and campaign commitments against the gift range chart. Sargeant (2001) found that donors who feel thanked and informed stay longer, so retention is treated as the plan's leading indicator.

Efficiency will be watched alongside growth. The plan targets a cost to raise a dollar of no more than 20 cents in the annual fund, excluding the campaign's start-up costs, and tracks it by vehicle, so the board can see that the gala raises money at a much higher cost than monthly giving and adjust effort accordingly.

Conclusion

The plan addresses the organization's two risks together. Broader individual giving and a working board reduce dependence on a few funders, and a carefully prepared campaign secures the boathouse the program needs to survive. Both rest on the same foundation: a clear case, known prospects and donors who are thanked and shown what their gifts achieve.

References

List, J. A., & Lucking-Reiley, D. (2002). The effects of seed money and refunds on charitable giving: Experimental evidence from a university capital campaign. Journal of Political Economy, 110(1), 215-233. https://doi.org/10.1086/324392

Sargeant, A. (2001). Relationship fundraising: How to keep donors loyal. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(2), 177-192. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.12204

Weinstein, S., & Barden, P. (2017). The complete guide to fundraising management (4th ed.). Wiley.