Major Gift Goal Setting Without the Drama
A new fiscal year means new goals. Some of us are heading into October as the beginning of our fiscal year, so we thought we’d share one idea about how to set goals efficiently.
There are a lot of ways to set goals. And when Kara and I ask FourPoints clients how fundraising goals are built, the answers are often a mix:
Flat percentage increase over last year
Organizational or program budgets set as fundraising goals
Top-down leadership goals, with no real input from the people doing the actual work
Fundraiser-driven goals – a goal for every donor on the caseload
None of these is inherently wrong (well, except maybe the flat percentage increase. We have feelings about that one). The bigger issue is that some methods take a lot of time and energy, while others, especially top-down goals, give fundraisers little ownership in the number they’re ultimately responsible for achieving.
I’ve helped major gift fundraisers set donor goals for years, and somewhere along the way I developed a process that can get a full caseload done in about an hour. The goals are thoughtful. The fundraiser owns them. Leadership gets solid numbers for budgets and KPIs.
And my trick? It’s all based on numbers.
Before anyone says, “Wait. Didn’t she just say no flat percentages?” Hear me out. I said numbers, not math.
Where goal setting gets stuck
When fundraisers are asked to set goals donor-by-donor (which we absolutely support), the process often starts like this: pull up the first donor. Look at giving history. Think about the relationship. Remember the donor’s interests. Consider the last conversation. Check whether there’s a project that fits. Maybe dig around in the CRM for a while.
Ten minutes later, one goal is done. On a Major Gift portfolio, there are another 100+ donors. Who has time for that? Few of us. The tendency then is to enter goals without much thought, to procrastinate and hate the project, or spend hours on goal setting.
The issue is not that the relationship information is unimportant – it is. We’re just using it too soon.
First, take the people out of it
Temporarily. And by this, I mean, don’t look at the name of the person you’re goaling.
With a simple database export showing giving history, largest gift, capacity and other key numbers, I hide the donor names and personal information. Then the fundraiser makes an initial pass based only on giving patterns.
No names. No stories. No CRM breadcrumbs to follow. Just numbers.
A donor has given $5,000 every year but has a past largest gift of $20,000 and strong capacity? Maybe the initial goal is $10,000. Even a more modest $6,000 goal creates a meaningful lift.
Another donor gave $20,000 for two years and dropped to $10,000 last year? An initial goal of $15,000 or $20,000 may make sense.
We’re simply asking: based on the giving history in front of us, what looks reasonable?
That first pass usually takes less than 30 minutes for an entire caseload. All numbers. No story.
Which sounds remarkably cold coming from people who spend a lot of time talking about relationship-based fundraising (stay with me).
Then we put the people back in
Once the initial goals are set, we uncover the donor names. Now the fundraiser looks at the number through the lens of the actual relationship and adjusts where needed.
A few real examples:
A donor had given $25,000 annually for three years and once made a $50,000 gift. Based on the numbers, the fundraiser set an initial goal of $30,000. Then we uncovered the name. It was a family foundation that had already been very clear: $25,000 is their maximum annual grant. Easy adjustment. Goal back to $25,000.
Another donor gave $25,000 in FY24, $15,000 in FY25 and $10,000 in FY26. Based on the numbers alone, we set an initial goal of $15,000. Then we uncovered the name.
This donor had become increasingly excited about the mission, had a tour scheduled early in the new fiscal year and had estimated capacity of $500,000. The fundraiser was already thinking about a potential $100,000 ask. Suddenly, $15,000 felt far too low.
The goal moved to $50,000, with a $100,000 stretch goal. (More on stretch goals in a minute)
For most donors, the fundraiser had it right the first time. The original goal stayed exactly where it was.
Then we add stretch
At this point, I also like to identify stretch goals. Some organizations create a stretch goal for every donor. At FourPoints, we prefer to focus on the 10 to 15 donors who genuinely have the potential to move to another level (usually Tier A or strong Tier B donors).
The regular goal represents what we reasonably expect. The stretch goal represents an opportunity worth pursuing.
That second pass takes another 30 minutes or so. We’re done goal setting in an hour instead of several days.
The unexpected benefit: ownership
Yes, this process is faster. But the most important part is that fundraisers set the goals themselves.
One organization we work with has historically used a flat percentage increase across portfolios (yes, this is the part where we lovingly complain about flat percentages again). This year, we went through this exercise with their major gift officers.
Something interesting happened: every single time, the goals the fundraisers created were higher than the goals produced by the organization’s percentage formula.
The organization was actually expecting less.
In previous years, fundraisers had looked at those top-down percentage goals and felt they were too high, arbitrary or unfair. That created tension before the fiscal year even got underway.
This year, the numbers may be higher, but the conversation is completely different. Instead of being handed a number, the fundraisers built it. They looked at the opportunity, made the decisions and own the goal.
Sometimes better goal setting doesn’t require a more complicated formula. It just requires putting the information in the right order.
Here’s the formula again: Numbers first. People and stories second. Goals completed; and fundraisers are back to doing what they do best: building relationships and securing revenue.