Capital Stewardship Campaigns: 10 factors that impact potential

This is part two in a series of articles on capital stewardship campaigns.  The first article asks the question every organization needs to answer before launching a campital program, “Are you ready for a capital campaign?”  If you have not read that one yet, you can read it here.  This article looks at some of the factors that impact potential.

There are formulas that can give a general answer to the question of potential. Maximizing potential, however, is dependent on a variety of factors, many that are related to the campaign process. These are at the top ten factors that will impact your overall potential.

Factor 1: Cash or Commitments

One of the decisions churches need to make as they plan for their fund-raising campaign is the length of the giving window. A short window would be in the range of 6 to 8 months.  The length of the giving window normally recommended is longer, usually for three years. This usually results in churches receiving commitments rather than cash, but commitments are better than cash for two reasons.

Commitments are better than cash because it substantially increases potential. When churches ask for a response in a short giving window, they tend to receive a cash response from what people have in their pocket today. When churches invite commitments rather than cash in a longer giving window it increases potential because people give from their three year’s potential.

The second reason that commitments are better than cash is because commitments establish a pattern of regularity in giving. We are often asked, “how can we move non donors into the donor base or move current donors that are giving at a minimal level to a higher level of giving?” The answer is to invite people to respond in a capital project. The reason is that capital projects are driven by purpose and vision and therefore create a giving dynamic that is exciting to give to.

Factor 2: The Timing of Construction

The timing of construction is crucial to receiving the commitments made during the campaign for project support. The truth is that the money will generally not come in unless the church builds. There is something magical that happens when the spade goes into the ground. The spade in the ground is also important for the release of commitments from major donors. Major commitments are released when the church needs them and the indication of when the church needs them is the start of construction.

Timing of construction is also very important because it accelerates giving and it reinforces that what the money was raised for is actually happening.

Most often the money will not come equally the three year period, but will come in 50% in the first year, 30% in the second year and 20% in the final year.

Factor 3: Project Clarity

Every church that is considering a building project should do a development feasibility study as outlined in the article, Are you ready for a campaign, both on the facility and the financial side. Without a clear vision of the what & more importantly the why, of the project, people will struggle to support it. 

Factor 4: Project Ownership

Project ownership is directly related to the process of congregational decision-making. Some churches do not need congregational approval to proceed, however it is always recommended that congregational approval of the project is sought.

Ownership tends to come from the process itself. The congregation needs to feel it has been informed and consulted in the decision process. This is what generates ownership. The greater the ownership elicited ahead of time, the greater the comfort level people will have when they are invited to support the project financially. The mistake many churches make is to rush the process. Rushing the process usually results in opposition and distrust, thereby impacting the financial response.

Leaders need to lead and when they do, it adds a tremendous dynamic to the overall congregational response.

Factor 5: Leadership Modelling

When churches initiate capital projects, one of the biggest challenges is the issue of believability.  People actually believing that raising those kinds of dollars is possible.

When churches struggle on the budget side, the question is always asked, “How can we raise those extra funds when we can’t even make budget?”  Or if the economy is struggling and the perception is that the money might be tight, jobs may be lost or that investments will generate very little return, the issue of ‘can we do this’ often surfaces.

The primary way to address the issue of believability is to invite leaders to make their commitment in advance as an encouragement to the larger congregation.  The goal is to receive seed gifts from 20-25% of the church’s leadership and encourage them to prayerfully and sacrificially commit from 50-60% of the goal in advance of the general congregational response.

Most major gifts in church campaigns come from leaders in the congregation that are part of the committed core. The focus in a church campaign is to invite core leaders to respond. and it usually means that 95% of the individuals with major gift potential have been asked as well.

Factor 7: Unresolved Church Conflicts

Church fundraising can be a slippery slope and issues that may impact response negatively sometimes arise. The ask for a financial commitment can often dredge up some amazing things as to reasons why people cannot or will not give. If churches do nothing these issues seldom appear and continue to live in people’s closets. Regardless of the cause, these issues when they surface, can have a devastating effect on a campaign.

Factor 8: Church Dynamic

New church plants or growing churches are exciting to work with because the assumption can be made that vision is clear and ownership of that vision is high within the congregation. The most difficult churches to work with are churches that are in the maintenance mode where the vision for ministry has dimmed over the years.

Clarity of vision is the fuel that drives the engine. Churches that have been in the maintenance mode for a number of years at best have a neutral environment. What will change the environment around is to have the church focus outwardly rather than inwardly.

Factor 9: Fundraising Focus

Capital campaigns can be designed to be simply need driven or money driven. These approaches do not work well because they are deficient in terms of giving motivation.  What works in a church is a focus on preparing the congregation to respond through articulation of the vision, sound biblical education in the principles of stewardship and clear communication of the cause. The extent to which churches take time to prepare the donor is the extent to which they will receive a cheerful and sacrificial response.

Factor 10: Level of Spiritual Commitment

Many of the preceding factors are process issues as to how people are educated and motivated to respond. Though other factors may influence levels of giving ultimately, the response flows from people’s levels of spiritual commitment to Christ, to the church, and their faith.  That is why it is important to treat stewardship as a discipleship issue, to educate people on the biblical principles of giving and resultant value systems, because it is out of those value systems that giving flows from.

Conclusion

There may be other factors that impact potential, but these factors have been proven to be the most important factors in maximizing a church’s financial potential in a capital stewardship campaign.  In the next article I will cover campaign design and what is needed to get your best results.