By Kerry Pereira Watterson, CFRE
CEO, Fundraising Well

Nonprofit leaders often ask why fundraising slows during periods of internal instability. They usually focus on external explanations: donor fatigue, economic uncertainty, shifting priorities, or increased competition for philanthropic dollars. But sometimes the problem is much closer to home.

When organizations tolerate toxic leadership, persistent dysfunction, poor communication, exclusionary behavior, or deep internal mistrust, fundraising becomes exponentially harder—not simply because morale declines, but because fundraisers are expected to carry organizational credibility externally while experiencing organizational instability internally.

That tension is rarely discussed openly in our sector. Yet frontline fundraisers live inside it every day. And it’s become a leading motivator for many of our coaching clients at Fundraising Well to seek our services as they search for a solution. We see the real impact it has on their organizations, the sector, and the future of donor trust. So, let’s talk about it.

Fundraisers Carry More Than Revenue Goals

Frontline fundraisers occupy a uniquely exposed position within nonprofits. They hear concerns from program staff, frustrations from operations teams, anxieties from boards, expectations from executive leadership, and questions from donors and community members. They often become informal translators between competing realities inside the organization.

Then they are asked to walk into donor meetings and confidently articulate vision, stability, and impact. That can be difficult under the best circumstances. It can become next to impossible when staff turnover is high, leaders are dismissive or abusive, departments operate in silos, or organizational values are inconsistently applied internally.

Donors may not see the dysfunction directly, but they often feel its effects:

●     inconsistent communication,

●     unclear strategy,

●     shifting priorities,

●     diminished responsiveness,

●     weakened storytelling,

●     and instability in relationships.

Fundraisers absorb much of that pressure long before anyone else names it.

Isolation Is Not a Strategy

During periods of uncertainty, many leaders instinctively limit transparency. They delay involving fundraising staff in strategic discussions until decisions are finalized, believing they are protecting teams from confusion or unnecessary concern. In practice, the opposite often occurs.

Fundraisers are left piecing together fragments of information from hallway conversations, departing colleagues, nervous board members, and donor questions they are unprepared to answer. The result is not clarity. It is isolation. And isolation weakens trust.

Fundraisers cannot credibly represent a vision they do not fully understand. If they are expected to help donors invest in the future of the organization, they need earlier access to the conversations shaping that future—even when those conversations are imperfect, unfinished, or difficult.

This does not mean every staff member needs every detail of every internal challenge. Thoughtful leadership still requires discretion. But there is a meaningful difference between confidentiality and exclusion.

Organizations that involve fundraising leaders earlier create stronger alignment, better messaging, and greater resilience during periods of change.

Relationship Building Is Internal Work, Too

One of the greatest mistakes nonprofits make is treating relationship building as something fundraisers only do externally. Healthy fundraising cultures are built internally first.

Years ago, while leading a development team during a particularly stressful organizational period, I started something informal called Monday Mocktails & More. Each week, I invited staff members from departments outside fundraising to grab a coffee, tea, smoothie, or favorite beverage with me—no agenda, no transactional purpose, and no pressure.

What emerged was far more valuable than another internal meeting. Program staff shared insights that never appeared in formal reports. Operations colleagues explained bottlenecks affecting delivery. Team members opened up about morale, frustrations, and hopes for the organization. Over time, trust deepened across departments.

The fundraising outcomes improved as well. Our stories became more authentic. Our understanding of impact became sharper. Collaboration strengthened, silos softened, and perhaps most importantly, staff stopped seeing fundraising as a department that merely “asked for money” and started seeing it as a strategic partner invested in each department’s success.

In difficult organizational climates, relational trust becomes operational infrastructure.

Fundraisers Are Often Informal Movement Builders

The nonprofit sector tends to define leadership too narrowly—through titles, hierarchy, or supervisory authority. But many frontline fundraisers are already functioning as informal leaders.

They shape narratives. They surface concerns leadership may not hear directly. They connect departments that rarely collaborate. They maintain continuity during turnover. They carry institutional memory. And they help stakeholders imagine what the organization could become, not simply what it is today.

In many organizations, fundraisers are quietly building internal movements toward greater transparency, collaboration, and accountability long before leadership formally recognizes the need for change.

That matters. Because the future of fundraising will not be built solely on better donor strategies or more sophisticated technology. It will depend on whether organizations are willing to cultivate cultures rooted in trust, openness, and shared ownership of mission.

Perhaps that lesson extends beyond individual nonprofits.

A sector that struggles to collaborate internally will inevitably struggle to organize collectively around larger systemic challenges facing our communities. If we hope to build stronger partnerships with philanthropy, government, and civic leadership, we must first strengthen our capacity for transparency and collaboration within our own institutions. That work begins closer to home than many leaders realize.

Where Do You Stand?

●     Are your fundraising staff included early enough in conversations about organizational direction and change?

●     What informal leadership responsibilities are your fundraisers already carrying?

●     Where might internal mistrust be quietly undermining external credibility?

●     How intentionally are you investing in cross-functional relationships inside your organization?

●     What would change if fundraising were treated not only as a revenue function, but as a strategic leadership function?

The organizations best positioned for long-term fundraising success will not necessarily be the ones with the largest development teams or the most polished campaigns. They will be the organizations where trust travels internally as effectively as vision travels externally.

Kerry P. Watterson, CFRE, is Founder & CEO of Fundraising Well, a certified LGBT Business Enterprise that helps nonprofits and social impact leaders strengthen fundraising, governance, and long-term sustainability. Over a 25-year career spanning philanthropy, public policy, advocacy, education, and the arts, he has raised and leveraged more than half a billion dollars for social impact causes, political campaigns, entrepreneurial ventures, and Broadway productions.

A nationally recognized fundraising strategist and governance advisor, Kerry works with organizations to build cultures of trust, collaboration, and resilience alongside stronger philanthropic results. He has taught at the University of California-Irvine, Hunter College CUNY, and the University of Arizona, and lectures around the world on philanthropy, ethics, and the future of the nonprofit sector. Kerry serves on the AFP NYC Board of Directors and is a BoardSource® Certified Governance Consultant.

by Kelly E. Gratan
Senior Vice President, Schultz & Williams

THE RISK NO ONE IS PLANNING FOR

When the head of development announces their departure, most nonprofit boards and executive directors respond the same way: they dust off the most recent job description, post the job, cross their fingers, and assume someone great will surface within a few months. 

In 2026, that assumption is increasingly dangerous. 

The talent shortage is real, and it’s hitting fundraising leadership hard 

There has never been a more competitive moment to find experienced development leadership. The pool of seasoned fundraisers ready to step into a Director, Vice President, or CDO role — people with major gift experience, board-facing credibility, and the strategic range to manage a full development operation — is genuinely thin right now. 

You may think you’ll have the position filled in 90 days. In reality, 120 is much more realistic, and that’s if you’re committed to finding the right person rather than just filling the seat. Rush the search, and you’re not solving the problem; you’re delaying it. 

This isn’t a recruiting problem you can solve by writing a better job description. It reflects years of underinvestment in developing mid-level fundraising talent, burnout attrition from the pandemic era, and a generation of experienced leaders retiring or moving into consulting. The pipeline is squeezed from every direction. 

What’s actually at stake during that gap 

Here’s what makes development leadership transitions uniquely high stakes: revenue doesn’t pause while you search, and the damage accumulates faster than most organizations expect. 

Donor relationships wane. Major donors have relationships with people, not institutions. When your development director leaves, those relationships become fragile — sometimes immediately. A donor who was three conversations away from a six-figure gift may go quiet. A grant renewal that lived entirely in someone’s head is now at risk. 

Momentum toward goals evaporates. Campaigns, annual fund pushes, and major gift pipelines don’t run on autopilot. Without experienced leadership driving them, progress stalls, and what looked like a healthy forecast starts to feel uncertain fast. Boards feel this too, and confidence in revenue projections erodes quickly when the development seat is empty. 

Your remaining staff will burn out. There’s a temptation to think the development team can keep the ship afloat, however long the search takes. We see this all the time. They can’t — at least not without a cost. Asking lower-level staff to absorb senior leadership responsibilities on top of their own work — or to continue their own work without the direction, guidance, and support they’re used to — is a reliable path to turnover, and losing more of your team mid-transition compounds an already difficult situation. 

Team morale suffers — often because of how the transition is handled, not just that it’s happening. Here’s a pattern that plays out in organizations more than it should: leadership decides to keep the departure quiet for as long as possible, believing they’re protecting staff from unnecessary anxiety. The intention is good. The result is almost always the opposite. 

Nothing stays quiet inside an organization. Staff talk. People notice when the development director isn’t in meetings, when their calendar clears, when the energy in the room shifts. What fills the information vacuum isn’t calm; it’s speculation, rumor, and eroding trust. 

Staff are adults who can handle leadership transitions. What they can’t handle is feeling like they’re being managed rather than informed. When organizations address transitions openly, honestly, and immediately, something counterintuitive happens: staff develop greater trust in leadership, not less. That trust translates directly into stability, engagement, and productivity at exactly the moment you need it most. Rip the Band-Aid off. I promise, the downside of being transparent and quick to communicate is much smaller than you think, while the upside has a myriad of benefits you’ve likely never considered. 

The case for interim development leadership, including two benefits most people miss 

The organizations navigating this well aren’t just posting the job and waiting. They’re bringing in experienced interim development leadership to protect the program while the search runs its course — stewarding major donors, maintaining momentum on campaigns and grant cycles, and stabilizing a team that’s anxious about its own future. 

But beyond the obvious coverage value, there are two less-talked-about benefits that may matter even more. 

Fresh eyes on what your organization actually needs today. Too often, nonprofits fill a development leadership role by essentially re-hiring for the last version of it — dusting off an old job description without stopping to ask whether it still fits the organization they’ve become. The fundraising environment is constantly shifting. Donor behavior, giving trends, team structure — what worked five years ago may not be what’s needed now. A strong interim leader brings to the table something an internal team rarely can: a rigorous, in-depth, and honest evaluation of the entire development operation — what’s working, what isn’t, where the gaps are, and what kind of leader is actually positioned to take the organization where it needs to go next. That analysis doesn’t just improve the search; it makes the eventual hire far more likely to succeed. 

Getting your development house in order before a new leader walks into it. A new development leader should arrive energized, ready to set ambitious goals and lead a high-performing team toward them. That’s a reasonable expectation… if the foundation is solid. But if the CRM is a mess, donor records are incomplete, gift acknowledgment is backlogged, marketing and development comms don’t talk to one another, staff are in the wrong positions, annual appeals are going out late time after time, processes are undocumented… I could go on — you’re not handing them an opportunity. You’re handing them a recovery project they didn’t sign up for. Nothing makes a talented new development leader wish they hadn’t taken a position faster than walking into a mess they didn’t know existed. A strong interim leader can do the unglamorous but essential work of optimizing systems, processes, and team structure so that when the right person arrives, they’re stepping into something they can actually build upon. 

The reframe for 2026 

If your organization is facing a development leadership transition this year, the question isn’t just “how do we find the right person?” It’s “how do we protect our fundraising and set ourselves up to hire better while we take the time to find the right person?” 

Those are two different problems. The first is a search. The second is a stability strategy, and it’s the one that doesn’t get enough attention until it’s too late. 

The talent market isn’t going to make this easier anytime soon. The organizations that plan realistically, communicate transparently, and invest in the right interim support will come out the other side with their donor relationships, their team, and their revenue intact — and a clearer picture of exactly who they’re looking for. 

The ones that don’t will spend their first year with a new, frustrated development leader rebuilding what they lost.

I explore these themes further in a Carey & Co Presents conversation with Christy Fitzpatrick, where we discuss leadership transitions through the fundraising lens, the ongoing staffing shortage, and the importance of having a plan in place when such transitions occur.

Kelly Grattan brings more than 25 years of experience leading advancement strategy, strengthening fundraising capacity, and driving organizational growth across the nonprofit sector. As Senior Vice President at Schultz & Williams, she advises organizations on campaign readiness, development leadership, and the systems needed to sustain philanthropic momentum.

Her perspective is shaped by both consulting and in-house advancement leadership, including roles at the Kimmel Center for the Performing Arts, Susquehanna University, Cabrini University, Gesu School, and Big Brothers Big Sisters of America. Kelly is Board Chair and Immediate Past President of the Association of Fundraising Professionals – Greater Philadelphia Chapter and holds both the CFRE and CAP® credentials.

by Lucretia Gilbert and Adam Glick
FRDNY 2026 Program Co-Chairs

Each year, the heart of the nonprofit world beats a little louder in Midtown Manhattan. On Friday, June 12, over 1,000 fundraising professionals will again gather for Fundraising Day New York (FRDNY) 2026 — the largest single-day conference on philanthropy in the United States. Hosted by the Association of Fundraising Professionals New York City Chapter (AFP-NYC) at the New York Marriott Marquis in Times Square, this event promises a dynamic day of inspiration, education, and connection for anyone dedicated to mission-driven work across the nonprofit sector.

A Conference Like No Other

Since its founding, FRDNY has grown into a cornerstone gathering for the philanthropic community, drawing attendees and participants from every corner of the nonprofit sector, from development associates beginning their careers to veteran chief development officers, CEOs, and other leaders in our field.  Whether you are entering the profession or leading transformative campaigns at the highest levels, FRDNY has something for you.

In addition to learning opportunities, FRDNY offers something equally valuable: community. Networking is woven throughout the day, from the morning registration and pre-conference activities to lightning talks, luncheon keynote, and the day’s signature happy hour to close FRDNY. The exhibitor area on the 6th and 7th floors of the Marriott Marquis gives attendees a chance to connect with consultants, learn about new technology platforms, and explore educational programs that can strengthen an organization’s fundraising capacity, further broadening the nonprofit ecosystem and strengthening our collective impact.

Learning at Every Level

One of FRDNY's greatest strengths is its inclusivity of experience. For newer professionals, sessions introduce proven frameworks and foundational strategies. For seasoned fundraisers, advanced discussions tackle complex challenges facing the sector — from navigating economic uncertainty and evolving donor expectations to integrating artificial intelligence into fundraising and stewardship strategies.  Flash coaching sessions led by respected industry fundraisers also give attendees a rare opportunity to receive personalized guidance and candid insights from some of the field's most thoughtful practitioners.  

AFP-NYC's ongoing commitment to inclusion, diversity, equity, and access (IDEA) is also reflected throughout the day’s programming. Sessions addressing equity in philanthropy, the experiences of fundraisers from underrepresented communities, and strategies for broadening donor bases ensure that the conference speaks to the diverse landscape of the nonprofit world today and the personal experiences of those leading the charge.

Keynote Spotlight: Barron Segar, World Food Program USA

Among the highlights of this year’s FRDNY will be a keynote address from Barron Segar, President and Chief Executive Officer of World Food Program USA. His career brings together the very qualities FRDNY celebrates: bold leadership, innovation, and an unwavering commitment to mission-driven work. Segar’s career stands as a powerful example of how visionary leadership can drive meaningful, global impact.

World Food Program USA mobilizes support across the United States for the United Nations World Food Programme’s efforts to combat global hunger and protect the world’s most vulnerable communities. Under Segar’s leadership, the organization quadrupled its revenue in fewer than three years, while earning exceptional ratings for financial health, accountability, and transparency.

Segar brings more than 25 years of experience advancing philanthropy and cause-driven partnerships across humanitarian aid, public broadcasting, and finance. Before leading World Food Program USA, Barron served as Executive Vice President and Chief Development Officer at UNICEF USA, where he oversaw all regional offices and led the Development Division to raise $650 million. Earlier in his career, Barron directed fundraising for Georgia Public Broadcasting, where his team earned national recognition for record-breaking performance.

A leading voice on global food security and philanthropy, Segar has appeared across major media platforms including Bloomberg TV, CNN, MSNBC, NBC News Now, Forbes, The Hill, The Guardian, and The Chronicle of Philanthropy. For five consecutive years, The NonProfit Times has recognized him on its Power & Influence Top 50 list for leadership marked by innovation and broad sector impact. He also served for more than two decades as a Founding Board Member of the Elton John AIDS Foundation.

His keynote will offer an inspiring perspective on how visionary leadership, strategic partnerships, and a deep commitment to purpose can drive transformational fundraising results — even amid increasingly complex global challenges.

Join Us 

Registration for FRDNY 2026 is now open, with opportunities available for AFP members and non-members alike, including discounted rates for groups and teams. For a profession grounded in connection, creativity, and continuous learning, Fundraising Day in New York remains one of the sector’s most energizing and influential gatherings.

At a moment when nonprofit organizations are being called upon to solve some of society’s greatest challenges, FRDNY offers more than professional development. It offers perspective, possibility, and renewed purpose where we can exchange ideas, elevate one another, and help shape the future of fundraising.

Lucretia Gilbert is a visionary nonprofit executive with 25 years of experience driving transformational growth, mobilizing philanthropic investment, and advancing mission-driven organizations across healthcare and social impact.

She currently serves as President & CEO of Ronald McDonald House New York, where she leads efforts to support families caring for children with serious medical conditions. Previously, she was Chief Philanthropy Officer at the Elton John AIDS Foundation, where she helped launch the $200 million Rocket Fund to expand global access to HIV prevention and care. In 2021, she founded The Philanthropy Advantage, advising nonprofits, foundations, and corporate partners on high-impact fundraising strategy.

Lucretia spent 13 years at the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, where as Chief Philanthropy Officer she led a best-in-class development program that generated more than $800 million to advance groundbreaking research worldwide. She also served as Executive Director of The Pink Agenda, building innovative, cross-generational engagement strategies to cultivate the next generation of philanthropists.  Earlier in her career, she held roles at Gilda’s Club Worldwide and the ALS Association Greater New York Chapter.

Known for building high-performing teams, strengthening boards, and fostering cultures of excellence and innovation, Lucretia brings an entrepreneurial and values-driven approach to leadership. She holds a Master’s in Public Administration and completed Executive Education in Exponential Fundraising at Harvard Kennedy School. She currently serves on the Boards of The Pink Agenda and Association of Fundraising Professionals New York City Chapter (AFP-NYC).

Adam Glick works with nonprofit organizations to determine, structure, and achieve their goals, from scaling philanthropic support across institutional, corporate, and campaign-specific sources, to full-scale strategic planning.

In 2026, Adam partnered with Greater Good Consulting. He previously served as Managing Director and remains of counsel as a Senior Consultant at Orr Group, where he has led many of the firm's multi-year partnerships. 

Adam's work has been featured in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Robb Report, among other publications. He has lectured on realizing public projects and fundraising at the Stern School of Business and Steinhardt School of Education (NYU), Hite Art Institute, American Cancer Society, Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts (CASVA) at the National Gallery of Art, and elsewhere.

by Cherian Koshy, ACFRE, CFRE, CAP®, Vice President, Kindsight
Author of the USA Today bestseller "Neurogiving".

Almost every prospect researcher knows the specific flavor of panic that arrives roughly 60 days before the end of the year. You are looking at a spreadsheet, the numbers are not where they need to be, and your leadership is starting to knock on your door with a sense of urgency. The default instinct—the one we reach for almost automatically—is to go wider. We tell ourselves that to hit our year-end goal, we simply need more donors.

This belief drives year-end acquisition sprints, expensive list appends, and cold outreach to people who have no established reason to trust us yet. After nearly 30 years in fundraising, I’ve realized that this acquisition-first instinct is often the least efficient move available. It costs us time, money, and energy we don't have, all while chasing people who require months of cultivation.

So what will actually work during the year-end crunch? Switching to an upgrade mindset and focusing on a shortlist of upgrade candidates.

The case for upgrade activation

There is a better way. The most effective year-end move is actually activating the donors we already know: we have to shift our mindset from acquisition to upgrade.

As a researcher, you hold the unique power to shift the organizational lens from finding new names to seeing existing donors more clearly. You have the power to move away from the "spray and pray" mentality and toward focused conversations that actually move the needle.

To build a shortlist of upgrade-ready donors, you have to segment your database in new ways and look for some key upgrade signals.

Mining your database

To finish the year strong, I want you to look at your CRM or database through a different lens. Utilize donor prospect research software to find two common segments often hiding in plain sight.

●       Loyal Lowballers: These are your long-tenured, consistent givers whose contributions have remained stagnant for years. They represent your highest upgrade potential because the affinity is already there; their gifts haven't increased simply because no one has invited them to give at their true potential.

●       Lapsed Giants: These are former major donors who have gone quiet but possess a proven track record of significant investment. Because they have previously demonstrated both high capacity and deep affinity, a single, well-framed re-engagement ask is often all it takes to bridge the gap to your revenue goal

These givers represent your highest priority for fast-turnaround goals because they possess the two things you can’t manufacture in 60 days: established trust and confirmed capacity. This is your starting point for your donor upgrade shortlist.

Identifying donors with the three-signal rule

The results of Kindsight’s recent Donor Readiness Gap survey showed that nearly half of all donors (47%) explicitly stated they would donate more if organizations understood exactly when they were ready to give. This is why identifying and understanding upgrade signals is so important.

With this in mind, you can narrow your list down. A donor isn't "upgrade-ready" just because they have a high net worth. As researchers, you know you have to look past the bank account and identify the intersection of three specific signals:

1. Behavioral Signals: What is the donor doing? Look for a gift within the last 12 months, increasing giving frequency, or event attendance. A donor who takes the time to show up—even virtually—is sending a high-value signal of commitment.
2. Capacity Signals: What does the data say? This goes beyond basic wealth indicators like real estate or business ownership. Watch for transformative life events like business sales or IPOs, and pay close attention to their "philanthropic footprint", meaning their giving history and propensity.
3. Affinity Signals: How are they leaning in? This is evidence that the mission means something to their identity. Look for volunteer time, unsolicited communications, or a personal connection to the cause, such as a family member served by your mission.

A donor with at least one signal from each category is a prime upgrade candidate.

Qualifying your high-impct shortlist

Now you should have a list of 25-50 donors. Your best candidates meet the following four qualifying conditions.

●       History: A current gift standing of two or more years—not a first-time donor.

●       Momentum: No recent lapses or downgrades in giving.

●       Headroom: Evidence that they can grow by at least 1.5x their current gift.

●       Three confirmed signals: At least one behavioral, one capacity, and one affinity.

Fewer, focused, data-backed conversations will outperform an impersonal blast to 300 people every single time. You can pass these on to your fundraising team, or, if you wear both hats, start taking action on these conversations yourself.

Unlock the potential in your database

The donors you need to hit your goal are already in your database, waiting to be truly seen. By shifting from an acquisition mindset to an upgrade mindset, you aren't just pulling a list—you are finding supporters who are ready for a deeper level of partnership with your organization.

If you want to dive deeper into the exact steps for building your donor upgrade shortlist, check out my Donor Upgrade Shortlist Worksheet, which guides you through activating your most promising donors before fiscal year-end.

Cherian Koshy, ACFRE, CFRE, CAP®, is the USA Today bestselling author of Neurogiving, The Science of Donor Decision-Making. He is a globally recognized keynote speaker, strategist, and entrepreneur with more than 25 years of experience advancing fundraising, leadership, and innovation across the social impact sector. Cherian has trained thousands of nonprofit professionals. His work bridges behavioral science and fundraising strategy, helping organizations transform how they engage donors, build teams, and drive results.

by Rasheeda Childress, Senior Editor for Fundraising
Chronicle of Philanthropy

Research shows AI tools can lead to longer hours and cognitive fatigue. Learn how to set boundaries that stop the always-on churn and prioritize quality.

Research recently published in the Harvard Business Review found that when employees at a tech company with about 200 workers were given AI tools, they ended up doing more work and being more productive, but they also worked longer hours.

The ongoing research is being conducted by Aruna Ranganathan, a professor at the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley, and Xingqi Maggie Ye, a Ph.D. student there. They declined the Chronicle’s request for an interview.

In their research, which was conducted over eight months, they indicated that longer hours may lead to burnout. ​​"Many workers noted that they were doing more at once — and feeling more pressure — than before they used AI, even though the time savings from automation had ostensibly been meant to reduce such pressure," they wrote.

While there are clear differences between for-profit businesses and the nonprofit world, burnout remains a persistent problem for charitable groups. And with more nonprofits experimenting with AI, some experts are concerned that the technology has the potential to exacerbate the problem for nonprofits. 

This “productivity paradox" — increased productivity but higher rates of burnout — is “one of the things I worry about the most with AI in our sector,” says Nathan Chappell, founder of fundraising.AI.

If a nonprofit can spend $20 a month on an AI tool that makes an employee 20 percent more productive, that’s equivalent to an extra day of work. It is tempting to view AI as a way to add to one’s work force without increasing personnel expenses, Chappell says.  But that approach could lead to retention problems, he warns, if staff end up doing more tasks than are suitable for a single job.

“Once the excitement of experimenting fades, workers can find that their workload has quietly grown and feel stretched from juggling everything that’s suddenly on their plate,” Ranganathan and Ye wrote in the Harvard Business Review.

They caution that the extra work can lead to cognitive fatigue, burnout, and weakened decision making. “The productivity surge enjoyed at the beginning can give way to lower quality work, turnover, and other problems,” they wrote.

So how can nonprofits avoid contributing to burnout and still use AI? By setting boundaries and better defining workload.

“So we don’t get caught in [situations] where we're just making the hamster wheel go faster, we have to consciously say we'll do better work, slower,” Chappell says.

Creating Boundaries and Defining Work

Creating a clear plan and setting goals can help prevent overwork, says Amy Starnes, chief innovation officer at Best Friends Animal Society.

The group is trying to show employees how AI can be a helper rather than simply cramming more work into the day, she says. “It could help you so that you can be elevated in the work that you love doing, that is the most meaningful to you.”

Chappell agrees, adding that leaders have to set the tone for the environment to help staff avoid burnout.

“Leaders have to say, Look, we're going to gain productivity, but we're going to safeguard that productivity,” he says. “If I can use a tool to gain 20 percent efficiency, my team is to then safeguard that 20 percent time to do things that are going to be really additive. And that means things that are inherently human.”

For example, Chappell says a fundraiser might spend more time talking to donors instead of spending time on analytics or figuring out whom to call. Fundraisers may find time to call donors without asking for money, just to deepen ties, Chappell says. “That can make a transformative difference.”

Nonprofit staff should be encouraged to examine their core duties and decide where AI can help, says Dan Kershaw, CEO of Furniture Bank, a Canadian nonprofit that helps people afford furnishings. “If you don't really appreciate where you are losing your time, you're just really, really busy,” he says. “If you add AI to the mix, the overwhelm will be there.”

Daniel Lombardi, who works for Kershaw as Furniture Bank’s lead fundraiser, tries not to cram more into his day just because AI is there.

Lombardi tries to spend any newfound time in conversations with donors. He’s also trying to use AI to help him avoid AI burnout. He’s asked his AI assistant to set some parameters for scheduling his day.

“As humans, we're actually pretty bad at multitasking,” Lombardi says. Instead of multitasking, Lombardi says he tries to focus on one thing and complete it. Then, he says, “if I want to go for a walk, that’s totally doable.

“My output is greater, but it doesn't mean I'm suddenly working more hours.”

Rasheeda Childress is the senior editor for fundraising at the Chronicle of Philanthropy, where she helps guide coverage of the field. Before joining the Chronicle, she covered financial and business news about nonprofit associations at Associations Now. Childress is a longtime journalist who has written and edited a variety of publications, including the Kansas City Star, Higher Education Technology News, and Campus Crime. She holds a bachelor’s degree from Howard University in Washington, D.C.

by Pinky Vincent Shubert, CFRE
Managing Director, Clarezza Insights LLC

This year, I am experimenting with how I show up. It’s just enough to notice what changes when I stop leading with the usual script.

Recently I attended a donor stewardship event at the invitation of a friend, who is a Major Gifts Officer. These evenings have a familiar rhythm. The kind of evening where the lighting is soft, the food is good, and everyone is quietly sizing up the room.

I started a conversation with one of the donors, Michelle. We talked about the event, about the city, about what was on her mind. As the crowd began moving toward the main space, she paused, turned around, and said, “This was great. Thanks for not asking me what I do for a living.”

I smiled. That was the experiment.

The question we reach for on autopilot

As we head into the next gala, conference, or networking event, I keep wondering how we are opening conversations. Or shutting them down, watering them down to professional pleasantries with the very first question we reach for.

So what do you do?

And then we do what people do. We hear the title and the organization. And our instinct takes over: What can this person do for the organization? That instinct is useful sometimes, but it can also hide the motivations that make someone care, such as personal experience, passions, and the problems they want to solve.

Questions that Open Doors

Before asking someone’s role, try these questions that invite connection:

• Warm: “What brought you to this event?” followed with “How did you hear about the cause?”
• Deeper: “What’s top of mind for you lately?” or “What’s energizing you right now?”
• Delightful: “What is bringing you joy these days?”

People light up when they talk about hobbies, passions, and courses that have nothing to do with their professional identity. It also tends to surface the kind of information no job title or wealth screen will hand you.

At the donor event, I learned more about Michelle than I would have if I had started with what she did for a living. She spoke with passion and hands-on experience about ensuring kids with incarcerated family members are not left behind in schools. She was thoughtful and engaged. Michelle would welcome an invitation to join my friend’s organization board, if someone asked her.

That exchange led to a follow-up meeting. Michelle begins her board term next month.

Building Belonging in Small Moments

At your next event, try one of the three openers and listen for a signal: an activity, a personal connection, or a frustration. Follow up with an invite: “Would you like to meet our program lead?” or “Could we introduce you to someone working on that issue?”

With donor retention stabilizing at just 43.3 percent last year according to the Fundraising Effectiveness Project, these moments of connection build the relationships that keep donors giving.

As fundraisers, we are creating moments of inclusion. And sometimes that starts with choosing a better first question.

Reach out to me on LinkedIn to continue this conversation.

And I hope to see you at Fundraising Day New York on Friday, June 12th.

What’s one question you have used that changed a donor conversation?

__________________________________________________________________

Pinky Vincent Shubert, CFRE, is a nonprofit executive, board leader, and immigrant who has lived in all five boroughs of New York City.

As Managing Director of Clarezza Insights LLC, she leads organizational transitions, facilitates strategic planning and staff retreats, and coaches teams to improve internal collaboration and fundraising results.

A frequent speaker and moderator, Pinky has presented at AFP ICON, Fundraising Day New York, WOC Symposium, and Nonprofit New York.

Pinky serves on the Global Board of AFP and on the AFP‑NYC board.

by CJ Orr
CEO, Orr Group

The short answer is no, but that misses the more important question.

AI is not coming for your prospect researchers' jobs. But it is fundamentally changing what those jobs look like. The real story isn't replacement, it's amplification.

At Orr Group, here’s what we’re increasingly observing with AI’s adoption in the field:

• Increased volume of prospects available for review and qualification
• Decreased time to write proposals, conduct research, and draft outreach
• Improved quality and depth of research on any given prospect

None of this happens without people. AI tools are only as effective as the humans who manage, filter, qualify, and review their outputs. That dynamic, human-in-the-loop element is a permanent feature of a high-functioning research operation.

Intuition Stays With the Researcher

Experienced researchers carry an internalized understanding of the organization: its culture, its donor relationships, its strategic priorities. They know, almost by feel, when a prospect fits and when something doesn't add up. No algorithm replicates that. Every AI output (prospect lists, qualification scores, drafted proposals) should be reviewed and edited by a qualified human before it ever reaches a gift officer or a donor.

More Prospects, Not Fewer Researchers

AI tools should be additive, not substitutive. A researcher working alone might surface 40 or 50 qualified prospects in a cycle. Working alongside an AI platform, that same researcher might evaluate 150, with tools handling initial filtering and alignment scoring, while human judgment applies across a much larger pool. This combines the prospect researcher's ideas and discernment, plus the tools’ ability to pull key data and relevant information quickly. Together, you get more and better prospects to pursue.

Less Time on Drafts, More Time on Relationships

Modern platforms can score prospects, draft customized grant proposals, and compile donor briefs in a fraction of the time these tasks once took. Drafts still get edited (they always should), but starting from a strong AI-generated foundation is materially faster than starting from a blank page. Gift officers and researchers reclaim hours they can redirect toward relationship-building and strategy.

Better Research Through Two Minds

A researcher might catch a connection that the research tool missed. The tool might surface a giving pattern the researcher didn't think to look for. Together, they produce a more complete picture. This is already standard practice in radiology, for example: AI tools and physicians review every X-ray together because the combination catches more than either could alone. Nonprofit prospect research is moving in the same direction.

Tools Orr Group Finds Exceptionally Helpful

The Bottom Line

AI will not replace prospect researchers. But it will change what excellent prospect research looks like, and what it can produce. The organizations that thrive will treat these tools as partners, not substitutes, while holding onto what no tool can replicate: the institutional knowledge, donor intuition, and professional judgment that great prospect researchers have always brought to the work.

More prospects. Less time. Better research. That's the opportunity. The human in the loop is what makes it possible.

Having served as a trusted partner to clients for over 10 years, CJ Orr has broad experience in fundraising and development, executive leadership, strategic planning, campaigns, and event management. He has launched funds, designed and led strategic initiatives, and driven fundraising for large galas and campaigns ranging from $10M to $1B+ in revenue. As an expert project and relationship manager, he executes on the development of strategies and tactics to drive effective fundraising plans that meet or exceed targets. Internally, CJ is responsible for setting and driving achievement of Orr Group’s financial targets and overseeing efficient operations within the firm. Additionally, CJ supports the efforts of Orr Group’s Growth team to identify and cultivate new business opportunities and build relationships with nonprofit partners, ensuring that the services offered are best aligned with our partners’ needs. CJ’s background in finance provides him with a strong foundation in analytics, metrics and ROI.

By Will Schrepferman
CEO, DonorAtlas

It's Monday morning. You have a donor meeting Thursday, and you're pulling up her record for the first time in a few months. Her giving history to your organization is there; a first $50 in 2011, steady annual support, a $5,000 gift after the gala in 2017. There's a contact report from your predecessor noting she once mentioned wanting to endow a scholarship. There's a capacity score from a screening run two years ago. It's useful. It's also not enough. So you open another tab and start Googling.

What's in a donor profile?

If you asked most fundraisers this question (and trust me, I have), they would describe what's in their CRM. That's half the answer.

A complete profile, though, has two halves: what your organization knows about the donor, and what the world knows about the donor. Until recently, only the first half was conveniently available. That's starting to change, and the teams treating both halves as non-negotiable are seeing the results.

The Internal Half: What Your CRM Already Has

Your CRM ideally holds the institutional memory of every touch your organization has had with a constituent. This data is irreplaceable. Nobody else knows that your donor gave her first $50 fifteen years ago, or that she sat next to the board chair at last year's gala, or that she told a gift officer (in passing, at coffee) that her late father had been a first-generation college student. A donor profile without that context is incomplete.

But your CRM, by definition, only knows what you already know. It's a mirror of your relationship, not a real window into the person.

The External Half: What Lives Outside Your Walls

The other half is everything your organization doesn't already know: bio and background; career arc, and how this person built their wealth; giving to other organizations (when, to whom, at what level); boards they sit on; professional and personal networks, including who in your existing network knows them; public interests, causes, affiliations. This is the context that actually explains capacity and gets at a prospect’s “why.”

This is the half that answers "who is this person, and why would they say yes to us?" It's what a gift officer needs to tailor a case, calibrate an ask, and find the right warm introduction.

To be clear: external research is context, not omniscience. It won't tell you everything about family dynamics, health, or timing. It won't replace a gift officer's read of the person across the table. But it's the difference between walking into a meeting with an empty, unverified capacity score and walking in with a sense of who you're about to sit with.

Every fundraiser knows that this external half of the donor profile matters. The problem has always been getting it.

Why Most Profiles Have Been Have Been Half-Complete for Decades

Assembling the external half by hand is slow work. A thorough write-up on one prospect takes thirty minutes at minimum, and once you fall down the inevitable rabbit holes it can easily run to hours before you have anything a gift officer or principal will actually read.

The tools fundraisers have reached for to speed this up (traditional wealth screens and prospect research databases) help, but they don't close the gap completely. A screen will tell you someone owns a $4M house and holds stock in a particular company. What it won't tell you is how they made the money in the first place, what they care about, which of their giving patterns align with your mission, or how they're connected to anyone on your board. You also usually can't see where a capacity score came from, which means a gift officer either trusts the number blindly or does the verification work themselves. Either way, there's still a research job left to do before the data is usable in a meeting.

Large advancement shops have solved this by building sophisticated research teams. Good researchers turn raw data into judgment; they know what matters for a given prospect and what doesn't belong in front of a gift officer at all. Even as AI accelerates the availability of data, this expertise is going to be as valuable as it has ever been for big shops.

But most organizations don't have a dedicated research function, and for them the external half of the donor profile gets done in whatever time the development director can steal between everything else. Which usually means the top ten prospects get a proper dossier, and everyone else in the portfolio gets a screening score and a best guess. Not because fundraisers don't know the external context matters; there just aren't enough hours in the week.

What a Complete Profile Looks Like Now

AI can now assemble the external half–pulling sources across the open web, synthesizing a profile, and citing every fact back to where it came from–in minutes instead of hours. At DonorAtlas, we've built this so that every claim in a profile, from a net worth estimate to a board seat to a giving history at a peer organization, links back to the source it came from. The citations matter as much as the speed: they let a gift officer trust the profile without re-doing the research, and let a prospect researcher spend their time on judgment instead of assembly.

For shops with a research team, this means researchers spend less time gathering and more time doing meaningful prioritization and analysis. For shops without a research team, it means every donor in the portfolio can have the kind of profile that used to be reserved for the top ten.

Which brings us back to Monday morning. You're prepping for Thursday's meeting. Your CRM tells you she gave her first $50 in 2011 and mentioned a scholarship in 2017. Now, sitting alongside that, you have the other half (who she is in the world, how she built her wealth, what she's funded elsewhere, who on your board she already knows) cited, current, and ready before you've finished your coffee. Both halves of the profile, in front of you, before the meeting starts.

That's what a complete donor profile looks like. It's what the best conversations have always started with. What's changed is how many people now get to have them.

Will Schrepferman is the co-founder and CEO of DonorAtlas, the first donor research platform built from the ground up with AI. He raised his first dollar when he was 13, studied data science at Harvard, and is now on a mission to build the tools that fundraisers need in order to work smarter, save time, and raise more.

by Dee Dee Mozeleski, Sr. Vice President and Exec. Director & Senior Advisor to the President
The City College of New York and the Foundation for City College

Over the past several weeks, I have been meeting with students as part of an internship interview process. Full of curiosity, ambition, and thoughtful questions spanning how to begin building a career in advancement and advancement-collaborative roles. These conversations are always energizing. Many students ask some version of the same questions: How do I get started? Who helps me navigate this field?

These questions are about entry—but it is also a question about belonging.

For many, structured mentorship programs are one of the first doorways into our profession. They provide access to guidance, to networks, and to a clearer understanding of what advancement work entails. Mentorship, in this way, plays a critical role in helping individuals take those first steps with confidence and direction. With a great mentor, you can really develop a space that allows for all of the questions one might not be ready to share with others - especially not with supervisors or colleagues.

But as I listen to these students—and reflect on the trajectories of so many colleagues across our field—I am reminded that mentorship, while essential, is only part of the equation.

If mentorship helps you enter the field then sponsorship helps you move through it. I heard that this week from Robert Henry, a wonderful mentor and sponsor with another tremendous organization: CASE.

Mentorship and sponsorship are often spoken about interchangeably, but they serve distinct and equally important functions. A mentor helps you grow—offering perspective, sharing experiences, and helping you make sense of challenges and opportunities. Mentorship is often rooted in conversation: thoughtful, reflective, and grounded in trust. It is where confidence is built and where ideas can take shape.

A sponsor, by contrast, helps you advance. Sponsors use their influence and credibility to advocate for you in spaces you may not yet have access to. They are the ones who place your name in rooms you are not in, who speak to your strengths when opportunities arise, and who ensure that your work and potential are visible to others. Sponsorship is not just about guidance—it is about action. Like many of you, I have had both and likely used ‘mentor’ to describe those people because it was the first way our relationships were built.

Both roles matter. But too often, we focus our attention on mentorship without being as intentional about sponsorship.

This distinction is particularly important in advancement where relationships, visibility, and access are central to success. It is also critical as we continue to think about equity within our field. Mentorship can help individuals build the skills and confidence needed to succeed. Sponsorship helps ensure that opportunity itself is more broadly and equitably distributed.

For organizations like Association of Fundraising Professionals, mentorship programs are a vital part of this ecosystem; it is one of the many reasons our chapter prioritizes work done through our Mentorship Committee. Mentorships create structured opportunities for connection and learning. They help to demystify a profession that can otherwise feel opaque to those entering it. The Committee is always looking ahead to the new cohort recruitment and I hope you will consider participating as either a mentee or a mentor!

As we continue to strengthen these efforts, we should also consider how to more intentionally cultivate sponsorship.

This does not necessarily mean formalizing sponsorship in the same way we do mentorship, though there may be opportunities to do so. More often, it requires a shift in mindset. It asks those of us in positions of leadership to think beyond advising and toward advocating. It asks us to be deliberate about whose voices we are amplifying, whose names we are putting forward, and how we are helping others gain visibility in meaningful ways.

It also invites us to think about mentorship and sponsorship not as separate or static roles, but as part of a continuum. A relationship that begins with mentorship—grounded in conversation and trust—can, over time, evolve into sponsorship, as confidence in an individual’s abilities grows and as opportunities for advocacy emerge.

For those entering the field, this perspective can be equally empowering. It encourages a more expansive understanding of what support can look like—and a greater awareness of what may be needed at different stages of a career. There are moments when guidance and reflection are most valuable. Then there are moments when visibility and advocacy become essential.

Ultimately, both mentorship and sponsorship are expressions of investment in people, in institutions, and in the future of our profession. They reflect a belief that our work is not only about meeting immediate goals, but about building leadership and capacity for the long term.

As advancement professionals, we understand the power of relationships. We cultivate them every day—with donors, alumni, partners, and communities. The same intentionality should guide how we support one another.

If we can do that—if we can pair the insight and care of mentorship with the action and advocacy of sponsorship—we will not only help individuals enter our field, but ensure they have the opportunity to grow, to lead, and to thrive within it.

Dee Dee Mozeleski is the Senior Vice President & Executive Director for the Office of Institutional Advancement, Communications & External Relations at The City College of New York and also serves as the Senior Advisor to the President. She serves on a number of boards including AFP-NYC, The National Scholarship Providers Association and FamilyKind and is a Cabinet Member of CASE District II. At City, she leads a wonderful team of professionals who are all working toward a billion dollar - “Doing Remarkable Things Together” campaign. She has been recognized by CASE District II, City & State, and Crain’s as a leader across multiple categories including workforce development, advancement, communications and higher education. She is the outgoing co-chair of the AFP-NYC Mentorship Committee.

by Veronica R. Bainbridge
Director of External Affairs, American Academy of Arts and Letters

I recently stepped into a new role, and I’ve been sitting with the mix of familiarity and newness that comes with any transition. As development professionals, we rely on shared best practices — but every organization has its own cadence, culture, and quirks, while the wider world has never seemed more askew.

Starting afresh is a time to reflect on the art and science of fundraising, which always asks us to balance competing forces: new ideas and proven strategies, serendipity and discipline, momentum and consensus, stability and change.

Here are a few ways I’m thinking about finding that (elusive!) balance:

Seek perspectives from colleagues across teams so you speak the same language
Fundraising doesn’t happen in a silo; building relationships across your organization enriches your work. Curiosity about program needs, institutional pressures, and colleagues’ perspectives offers insights into pain points, wish lists, and institutional decisionmaking; and ensures authenticity in the case for support you build for donors.

Make the invisible visible
It takes time and effort, but offering structured insights into development strategy — through staff presentations, short memos, or dashboards — demystifies fundraising. Too often, development is a black box; but when colleagues understand how prospect pipelines work, why stewardship matters, or the work behind a proposal, they become partners rather than bystanders. 

Transparency about process, timelines, and constraints is especially important when budgets are squeezed and pressure is high. Revenue is critical to power mission and program, and we can help ensure everyone understands they play a part in fundraising even if they never speak to a donor.

Invest in systems
Thoughtful infrastructure is a safety net. Clean data, clear workflows, and consistent time management mean you’re ready when opportunity knocks—whether a board member offers an immediate introduction, a donor asks for impact metrics today, or a foundation releases a surprise RFP.

Stay connected to the broader fundraising community
Research, peer learning, and professional networks spark ideas you can adapt to your own context. One of my most successful campaigns was inspired by a strategy from an organization a hundred times our size — reimagined to fit our scale and mission. This is where AFP programs and events have always made the difference for me (see what’s coming up for us here, including sessions on communications, partnerships, and Fundraising Day New York).

Trust your expertise
Your growing understanding of your institution, alongside with your growing fundraising skillset, gives you the tools to execute core projects and to pursue creative ideas that connect to strategies you know can work.

The world often pushes us outside our comfort zone, but what feels like a bold step can be rooted in knowledge, preparation, and experience. That’s the balance that fundraising asks of us. Have courage!

Veronica Bainbridge is Director of External Affairs for the American Academy of Arts and Letters, and serves as Secretary of the Board of Directors for the New York City Chapter of the Association of Fundraising Professionals. She was previously Chief Advancement Officer at Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum; and has also held fundraising leadership roles at Madison Square Park Conservancy, the International Center of Photography, Vineyard Theatre, and LAByrinth Theater Company. She has served as a panelist and speaker for Christie's Education, the NYC Department of Cultural Affairs, the High Line Network, and Fundraising Day in New York.