Small Teams. Significant Philanthropy.
I frequently hear nonprofit leaders express a familiar frustration: “We simply don't have a large enough development team to raise the kind of money we need.”
The assumption is understandable. Larger institutions have extensive development operations, prospect researchers, planned giving specialists, sophisticated technology, and numerous gift officers. Their resources allow them to engage donors at a scale that smaller organizations cannot easily replicate.
Yet the size of a fundraising team is only one factor in its success. A dedicated team with strong philanthropic relationships, disciplined priorities, and a clear understanding of its mission can generate significant results.
Consider the nonprofit sector itself. According to the National Council of Nonprofits, 92 percent of reporting public charities have annual revenue below $1 million. Smaller organizations represent the overwhelming majority of our sector.
If meaningful philanthropy required large development departments, most nonprofits would have little opportunity to succeed. My experience suggests that smaller teams can possess advantages that deserve greater attention.
First, smaller organizations often have a direct connection between their mission, their leadership, and their donors. A donor interested in supporting a community health initiative, scholarship program, or social service can frequently meet directly with the individuals responsible for delivering that work. These conversations can provide a level of personal engagement that larger institutions must work deliberately to create.
Relationships remain the foundation of philanthropy. When a donor knows the executive director, understands the program, and sees the results of a gift, the opportunity for meaningful engagement grows.
Second, smaller teams must become exceptionally disciplined about how they spend their time. Every fundraising activity carries an opportunity cost. An event that generates modest net revenue while consuming months of staff time may prevent the organization from developing relationships with individuals capable of making transformational commitments.
This requires leaders to evaluate activities based upon their actual contribution to philanthropic revenue and donor engagement. Tradition alone is insufficient justification for continuing an activity.
Time recovered from less productive activities should be invested in donor relationships. Consistent cultivation, thoughtful conversations, personalized stewardship, and an understanding of each donor's motivations create the conditions for larger and more sustained commitments.
Third, a small development department does not mean that fundraising responsibility rests exclusively with a few employees. The CEO, board members, program leaders, and volunteers can extend the organization's capacity. A board member who makes a personal thank you call or introduces a prospective donor contributes meaningfully to the philanthropic process.
Technology can also help. Artificial intelligence and effective donor management systems can reduce administrative work, improve research, and support communications. Their greatest contribution is freeing staff to spend more time with donors.
Finally, organizations must protect their most valuable resource: dedicated people. Expecting two development professionals to execute the same volume of activities as a department of twenty is unrealistic. Clear priorities, appropriate expectations, and organizational support allow talented professionals to concentrate on the work that produces results.
We should stop measuring fundraising potential primarily through the number of people employed in development. Instead, consider the quality of relationships, clarity of philanthropic opportunities, commitment of organizational leadership, and discipline with which limited resources are deployed.
A smaller team may never match the operational scale of a large institution. It can still build extraordinary relationships, secure substantial gifts, and create lasting philanthropic impact.
The question should be less about how many fundraisers an organization employs and more about how effectively those individuals are empowered to build relationships that matter.
