Science confirms those with less give more
I have always found it strange that those with the least to give are more likely to give when compared with those who have considerably more. While it seems counterintuitive, it’s true. Research from organizations like Giving USA supports an indirect correlation between a person’s estate value and their giving habits. The greater the estate value, the less a person is likely to give.
Here are some thoughts that immediately come to mind on the subject:
1. People with money aren’t bad. I think organizations (churches especially) are better at talking to people who are struggling financially than those who are financially successful. Therefore, the lack of conversation, perspective, and investment in relationships with those with the greatest resources results in a lack of giving from the group most likely to make a significant impact through their gifts.
2. Poor isn’t better than being rich. Money as an object is not bad. Having money or not having money is not indicative of sin or virtue. We must see ourselves as catalysts for change and find ways to increase the margin in our lives (time, talent, and treasure) so we can share more with others to multiply ministry opportunity and increase Kingdom impact. Everyone can do, give, and lead something. We must determine what we have the capacity to do and then do it.
3. People don’t have a giving problem. Some of the wealthiest people in the world are making some significant commitments. I hope others follow suit. The preservation of money should never outweighs a person’s desire to leverage their margin for greater social impact. What people struggle with the most is reasoning why they should give to you. With so many options available to the individual today, it’s important that we provide a compelling reason why your cause or organization is the best investment they could make.
4. Giving must be cultivated. The idea that people will just give to anything or anyone is not an assumption a church or organizational leader should never feel comfortable making. All gifts — even the smallest — must be cultivated through relationships and consistent interaction and participation with organizations and causes that connect with the giver. If you’re waiting for Mr. and Mrs. Wealthy to find you and save the day, then you’re in trouble.
How you talk about and approach the subject of money matters. Are you prepared? Your funding depends upon it.
Does your funding strategy fit on a napkin?
The Impact Income Napkin is one of my absolute favorite blog posts of all time. It’s simple and powerful.
Question: Is your mission and strategy simple enough to be written on the back of a napkin?
Jim Tomberlin offers “financial rules of thumb” for multi-site churches
Jim Tomberlin is the leading voice on multi-site churches today. I was thrilled when he agreed to offer some insights related to funding multi-site churches in a special post. You can follow Jim on Twitter, visit him on the Web, or check out his blog. Jim is “first class” in every sense of the phrase. Thanks, Jim. Great Job! (Note: Official bio information is at the bottom of this post.)
Multi-site has become a proven and effective strategy for launching new and vibrant congregations. Multi-site congregations have a high success rate because of the support and leverage of the sending church. So, what does it cost to go multi-site?
Here are some financial rules of thumb in multi-site church world:
- Multi-siting creates more seats at the optimal inviting hours for a fraction of the cost and in less time than adding on an existing church facility.
- Renting schools and theaters are the “lowest risk, lowest cost” way to multi-site.
- 50% of multi-site churches start in a school.
- $250k is the national average for start-up costs in a school or theater.
- 50% of start-up costs is for tech/media equipment; the rest is for portable equipment, marketing, and some staffing costs ramping up to launch.
- Add $1m for start-up renovation costs of a rented commercial facility.
- Church mergers or “absorptions and acquisitions” can be a low cost, fast-track, high impact way of multi-siting. Mutually-beneficial and mutually-desired church mergers are on the rise.
- Typically, churches will put multi-site funding into their operating budget and have a special fund-raising campaign to launch a multi-site campus.
- Churches will raise more money by utilizing a fund-raising, generosity specialist.
- It takes most campuses at least a year, two at the most, to become financially self-sustaining.
- It usually takes at least one year to recoup the people and financial investment at the sending campus.
- The larger the launch core, the sooner the campus can become self-sustaining functionally and financially.
- Giving tends to be higher per person at the new campus compared to the sending campus.
- The more people you launch with, the greater the overall net gain will be in attendance a year later.
- Typically, new campuses grow 25-50% in the first year. Many experience 50-100% growth!
- Multi-site was good stewardship in prosperous times, essential in tough economic times.
People want to fund life change
People want to fund life change. They don’t want to fund self-preservation.
Below is a video of a church who effectively uses the “cardboard testimony” idea. BUT the best part is at the very end when the pastor provides a great example of calling his people to action. Too often, we set up “the ask” but never follow through. Watch how this pastor clearly and compelling challenges his people to fund life change on the heels of Kingdom Impact being clearly demonstrated.
3 steps to a balanced church budget this summer
Summer is one of the most dreaded times of the year for church leaders (especially the business administrator). People scatter. And so do their donations. There was a time that people would mail a check or even drop it by the church office on their way out of town. Those days are long gone.
Churches deal with this reality in various ways. Some keep a separate “summer reserve” account in addition to their “rainy day” fund to maintain cash flow when the contribution line graph usually takes a steep decline for at least six weeks. Others plan their expenses to occur in the Spring and Fall in anticipation of the summer decline.
Whatever “dance” you have devised to manage the summer slump, here are three suggestions you might want to consider before summer arrives:
1. Leverage e-mail communication. Make sure you have everyone’s current e-mail address. (Good rule of thumb: update every 30-90 days.) It easy to keep people connected through e-mail. And research shows that even millennial donors prefer e-mail to every other communication platform when receiving information from organizations like churches. Don’t forget about video-mail which allows you to add a personal touch to your message.
2. Promote online giving. It may be a little late for a full-blown campaign to increase participation in your church’s online giving options, but it never hurts to remind people it’s available. Chances are they didn’t hear you the last time you mentioned it. (Good rule of thumb: About the time you’re tired of hearing yourself say it, that’s when the person in the pew begins to listen.) Using auto-giving options such as auto-debits or bank drafts keeps cash coming even if the members aren’t present.
3. Upgrade your Facebook presence. Since several hundred million people around the globe use this platform, your church might want to consider investing some time and people into building a social media presence through Facebook. Share crazy videos from church camp, link to your Worship services, and keep the stories of life change coming. Facebook has an amazing way of keeping people connected even though there is no direct or immediate personal interaction or dialogue. Don’t miss out on the benefits of building community even when your members aren’t there on Sunday.
Summer is coming. You can’t change that. What steps will you take today to ensure your church is fully funded throughout the entire year?
Have you tried something to overcome the summer slump and it worked (or failed miserably and you can laugh about it now)? I’d love to hear about it.
The Chronicle of Philanthropy takes a snapshot of Generation Y
Part of the “new normal” of church giving is that our approach and appeals to our congregation related to church funding are going to have vary by demographic. We are a micro-communication culture that wants to be communicated with in practice, language, and through mediums that are “native” to our worldview.
The risk is not that we’ll upset someone by not meeting their expectations.
The risk is that some will never “hear” us at all.
The Chronicle of Philanthropy provided a nice overview of Generation Y (people born between 1970 and 2000) in their May 6, 2010 print edition.
$341 Average amount members of Gen Y donate annually
3.6 Average number of groups they support
57% Share who have volunteered in the past year
21% Share who say helping others is on of their biggest priorities
20 Median number of text messages they sent in the past 24 hours
83% Share who has slept with their cellphones on or near their beds
29% Share who made their donations online over the past two years
37% Share who joined a charity’s online social network in the past month
Are you prepared to change your funding plan to meet the “new reality” of church giving?
Top 10 ways parents influenced teen giving
Parents set tone for teen giving highlights an important reality that teens/children model the habits of their parents.
Wondering how other parents encouraged their teen to give? Here are the top 10 ways teens said their parents shaped their habits about giving. This list was compiled using the information from the survey mentioned at the bottom of the news article:
1. Explained how I can help other people by my actions.
2. Encouraged me to speak up in family discussions.
3. Spoke to me about the volunteering and charity they do.
4. Supported me on things I cared about.
5. Told me why they were proud when I did good things.
6. Encouraged me to be my own person.
7. Set goals for me to achieve.
8. Spoke to me about the way my actions made other people feel.
9. Taught me to always consider other people’s views.
10. Explained the importance of giving to others.
Raising money will ALWAYS cost you something
The reason so many church leaders walk away from raising money is that it comes at a high cost.
Raising money is going to cost you…
Time….it takes time to share your story and you never get the luxury of only sharing it only once and only through one medium.
Energy…it takes energy to discover what God is calling your church to do or become.
Effort…it takes effort to develop a strategy and define actionable items that create results.
People…it takes people encouraging others to get involved and there will always be someone who will leave your church using money as an excuse for his or her departure.
Money…it takes money to raise money and you might need to look outside your staff for guidance along the way.
Of course, the ability to fully fund your church and facilitate eternal life change and spiritual formation should be worth whatever it costs you along the way.
But if the cost just seems too high and appears to involve too much work, don’t do anything different. Nothing bad will happen immediately. Over time you will help direct money and people to other churches who are willing to incur the cost in exchange for seeing the evidence of life change.
Raising money will ALWAYS cost you something!
The power of relevance in raising funds
I have been thinking a lot about a recent Fundraising is Beautiful podcast from Jeff Brooks: The power of relevance.
“Relevance doesn’t just happen. The thing that just happens is irrelevance.”
- Jeff Brooks
The greatest obstacle church leaders have to funding budgets and raising money is that they assume that what is important to them is important to everyone else. Church leaders are often so close to the situation it’s impossible to have any objective perspective. They live with a sense of urgency because they know all the details and fail to acknowledge that the people in the pew are busy and will quickly forget whatever appeals were made Sunday morning by the time they finish lunch that same afternoon.
If you’re honest (and bold) enough to admit that your direct appeals from the pulpit aren’t getting the results in the offering plate that you’d like see, take 22:03 and listen how Jeff Brooks unpacks the incredibly successful Haiti relief funding appeals from people who largely lived with little connection to this country and were largely not personally affected by this natural disaster.
Are you relevant? Wait. Don’t answer that question yourself. Remember to ask the person in the pew.
Gap widens between giving to religion and number of households
Someone asked me a question recently that I couldn’t immediately answer. I’m not one of those people who just creates an answer, but I am one of those people who will search for the answer until I find it. When looking to answer this particular question, I stumbled upon some data that I find highlights a growing concern that churches must take very seriously.
This data is from Giving USA’s latest publication: Giving USA 2009 The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2008
Note: The data below represents per household giving to religion. (You can find it on page 84 if you have a personal copy of the report.)
- 1988: Giving to religion per household was $902 and there were 91.12 million households
- 1998: Giving to religion per household was $879 and there were 102.53 million households
- 2008: Giving to religion per household was $915 and there were 116.78 million households
This data reveals that giving per household to religion only grew about 1.4% over a 20 year period while the number of households grew by 22% during the same period.
Given what I’ve seen after studying the giving habits church members, this is consistent with the widening gap between growth in attendance/membership and growth in giving. While many churches are seeing their pews full Sunday after Sunday, the number of giving units is declining. In some cases, the giving units – while in decline – are increasing their gifts. Nonetheless, fewer people giving – even if they are giving more – is not a sustainable church funding model.
This is A PROBLEM.
But as Tom Peters says, “The problem is not the problem. The RESPONSE to the problem is almost always the problem.”
Hope is NOT a strategy.
“Meeting” an amended budget doesn’t remove the need to know the giving habit/trends in your church. This is the only way to validate that the ministry investment decisions you are making are, in fact, creating disciples who are deeper engaged in growing, serving, and giving.
What action steps will you take today to get a grip on your funding model to ensure the money exists to accomplish the ministry God has placed on your heart?
Hint: If you don’t DO something, NOTHING will change. Worse…whatever growth you did achieve, you won’t be able to maintain.
