The Case for Support and the Development System

Development is the disciplined creation of relationships and resources for mission. Fundraising is the request within that system.

Write the case in seven parts

1. Need/opportunity: What matters for people, artists, place, and community?
2. Distinctive response: Why is Shake Rag suited to act?
3. Evidence: What is delivered and what changes?
4. Plan: What exactly will happen?
5. Economics: What does it cost, what is earned, and why is philanthropy needed?
6. Urgency: Why now—not manufactured crisis?
7. Invitation: What can this donor make possible?

A Shake Rag core case might connect:

• learning directly with artists;
• a rural campus where creative practice and place reinforce one another;
• access for children and adults;
• preservation of buildings that make the experience possible;
• a mixed model of fees, rentals/lodging, gifts, grants, volunteers, and partnerships.

Verify every claim against current data. Replace “transformative” with an observable change.

From institution-centered to public-value language

Weak:

“Our historic buildings need money.”

Stronger:

“The campus is part of the classroom. Stabilizing water entry protects safe, year-round learning and prevents a repair from becoming an emergency closure. The project costs $; committed sources are $; unrestricted support closes $___ and funds contingency.”

Weak:

“Please support youth programs.”

Stronger:

“A gift of $___ underwrites ___ local youth places, including materials and trained supervision. We will report participation, completion, and one defined learning/belonging measure while protecting children’s privacy.”

Segment the audience by relationship

Potential constituencies:

• participants/alumni and families;
• artists/instructors;
• Mineral Point residents and businesses;
• visitors and cultural travelers;
• preservation and craft communities;
• arts education and youth supporters;
• foundations and government agencies;
• vendors and corporate partners;
• volunteers and former leaders;
• planned-gift prospects.

Do not assume the same case motivates all. Maintain one truthful institutional case, then emphasize relevant evidence.

Prospect qualification

Score collaboratively:

Factor	Question
Alignment	Is mission/program/place genuinely relevant?
Relationship	Who knows them and with what trust?
Interest	What have they attended, asked, or supported?
Capacity	Is a gift range plausible—not treated as entitlement?
Access	Is there an ethical warm path?
Timing	What event, decision, or cycle matters?
Restrictions/risk	Could the likely interest create mission or cost problems?

Use A/B/C:

• A: qualified, named next move/date/owner;
• B: promising but missing relationship or interest evidence;
• C: broad community communication, no expensive moves.

Avoid invasive research, protected-class profiling, gossip, and data that the organization should not store.

Moves management

Each qualified relationship has:

relationship owner · staff strategy owner · current stage · interests · last meaningful contact · next move/date · likely ask purpose/range/timing · restrictions/conflicts · stewardship promise

A “move” changes understanding or commitment:

• campus tour around the donor’s interest;
• artist conversation;
• sharing an outcome report and asking for reaction;
• volunteer experience;
• proposal discussion;
• introduction to another leader.

“Sent newsletter” is touch activity, not necessarily a move.

Development plan math

Suppose the contributed-income goal is $420,000:

Source	Goal	Renewals expected	New/upgraded needed
individuals	$190,000	$135,000	$55,000
foundations/government	$140,000	$80,000	$60,000
sponsorship	$35,000	$20,000	$15,000
appeal/monthly	$40,000	$25,000	$15,000
net events	$15,000	$10,000	$5,000

Build a gift table larger than the goal because not every request closes:

Gifts	Amount	Subtotal	Qualified prospects needed at 3:1
1	$50,000	$50,000	3
3	$25,000	$75,000	9
10	$5,000	$50,000	30
30	$500	$15,000	broad pipeline

This is planning, not pressure. Probability should reflect relationship evidence.

Dashboard

Track leading and lagging measures:

• donor retention/reactivation;
• first-to-second gift conversion;
• recurring donors and upgrades;
• qualified pipeline by stage and ask month;
• proposals submitted/awarded and weighted value;
• meaningful visits/moves completed;
• acknowledgments within service standard;
• stewardship promises due/completed;
• unrestricted/restricted mix;
• concentration;
• event gross, direct cost, net, staff/volunteer hours, new qualified relationships;
• board commitments completed.

Revenue is lagging. Pipeline health and stewardship predict it.

Donor rights

AFP’s Donor Bill of Rights emphasizes truthful information, appropriate stewardship, recognition, confidentiality, and professional treatment ¹. Put rights into operating standards:

• acknowledge promptly and accurately;
• honor purpose;
• report setbacks honestly;
• use authorized access to donor records;
• respect communication preferences;
• disclose material benefits/conflicts;
• provide an accountable contact;
• never sell or repurpose a relationship casually.

The development system is successful when supporters understand the mission, choose freely, receive what was promised, and want to remain in relationship.