Sustainers and Midlevel, Part Two: When There’s No Perfect Answer
If fundraising were simple, every organization would just pick the “right” model and move on.
But that’s not the world most of us are working in.
In Part One of this two-part series, we talked about the decision to manage sustainers in a centralized program versus in a relational mid-level portfolio. This decision should be driven by three things: your staffing structure, your data, and the program’s performance. For some organizations, the answer is fairly clear.
For many others? It’s not so simple.
Maybe your sustainer retention is decent, but growth is flat. Maybe your midlevel team has capacity, but not enough infrastructure. Maybe your data tells different stories depending on which report you run.
This is where strategy can get messy – where you’re just not quite sure what the right answer is.
In this post, we’ll walk through the most common complications we see when teams try to decide where sustainers belong, and the hybrid approach we’ve seen work when there’s no perfect box to put them in.
The Complication: Sustainers Can Be Hard to Grow
Here’s the reality that often gets overlooked:
Once donors are committed to a monthly amount, it can be harder to increase that gift.
You don’t want to disrupt dependable, recurring support. But you do want to continue growing donor investment and long-term value.
That tension is real.
Simply assigning sustainers to a relationship manager doesn’t automatically result in higher giving, especially if there’s no clear strategy for upgrades beyond “check in and say thanks.”
At the same time, sustainers still deserve:
Meaningful impact reporting,
Occasional personal touches, and
Reassurance that they’re valued partners, not just transactions.
Which means there’s no one-size-fits-all solution here.
A “Yes, And” Approach: Set a Threshold
One approach we’ve seen work well is creating a clear threshold for relational management within your sustainer program.
For example:
Sustainers giving $250+ per month are moved to midlevel and receive personal management
Lower-dollar sustainers remain in a scalable sustainer stewardship program
This allows you to:
Focus relational energy where growth potential is highest,
Protect your team’s capacity, and
Still maintain a strong, centralized sustainer strategy.
It’s not about where donors “belong.” It’s about where they can be best served, and where your team can be most effective.
Let the Data Lead the Decision
There are other complications and other solutions, of course. At the end of the day, any decision about whether to keep donors in a sustainer program should be driven by metrics, not instinct.
If sustainers are staying, giving consistently, and slowly growing, protect that program. If they’re stagnating and your relational team has room, test a different approach.
You should be looking at things like:
Retention of sustainers by giving band (in this case the midlevel threshold, for example $1,000-$9,999.99)
Average annual giving trends over time
Upgrade behavior (monthly increases or additional gifts)
Movement from sustainer → midlevel → major gifts
The Goal Isn’t Program Purity. It’s Donor Experience.
Whether sustainers are in a centralized program, a relational portfolio, or a hybrid model, the real priorities should always be:
Are we retaining donors?
Are we reporting back meaningful impact?
Are we creating opportunities for deeper partnership over time?
Because sustainers aren’t just recurring revenue. They’re some of your most loyal, mission-committed supporters.
And however you structure your programs, they deserve to feel you recognize that.