I’m currently doing some research for Animal Advocacy Careers on specific skill types in animal advocacy that will be posted in forthcoming “skills profiles.” An example from my draft report on fundraising roles is below. Feedback very welcome! (Obviously this is an unusual case in that its a talent constraint directly relating to funding constraints.)
In our short initial survey and interviews with 12 CEO’s and hiring professionals from 9 of the “top” or “standout” charities currently or formerly recommended by Animal Charity Evaluators, 5 respondents selected “fundraising experience” as one of up to 6 skills (out of 25 options) that their organisation most needed; this was the second most frequently selected option, after “management.”
2 out of 10 respondents to the same survey mentioned fundraising roles as being “the hardest to fill.”
In our “spot-check” [note, this is forthcoming research, which will likely be released within a week] of current roles and advertised roles at 27 animal advocacy nonprofits, fundraising was the skillset that was most notably overrepresented in animal advocacy job adverts (appearing to be important in 17% of identified job ads) relative to the number of current roles in the movement (appearing to be important in 10% of current roles); this may imply that these roles are unusually hard to fill and that fundraising expertise is undersupplied in the community, relative to its needs. As discussed in our blog post on the spot-check, however, this research provides only very weak evidence on the question of what the movement’s greatest bottlenecks are.
There is evidence from a 2013 report that senior fundraisers are difficult to hire in US nonprofits generally. This makes it seem more likely that animal advocacy nonprofits face the same difficulty.
The same report found evidence that smaller nonprofits may struggle to attract the most experienced fundraisers. Given that many animal advocacy organisations have small budgets, this provides another reason to expect that animal advocacy organisations will struggle to hire fundraisers, though this is only very weak evidence that this is a bottleneck for the movement.
This is interesting and I look forward to reading more.
A more negative reading of this information would suggest that the issue may not be lack of fundraising skill within the organizations but rather that many of the interviewed ACE selected charities don’t get the funding they want because most people, or the donors the charities care about, don’t agree with ACE’s or the CEOs’ self-assessments that the charities are worth funding. That is, these folks may not donate for reasons having to do with the organizations not because of lack of relationship building, marketing, etc.
It’s a different sort of concern and suggests a different line of research inquiry, but may be worth keeping in the back of one’s mind.
Thanks for the input! If the above bullet points were evidence of funding constraints, then this “more negative reading” would be a plausible alternative explanation. But I’m not following how the above bullet points could be read in this way. Apologies if I’m missing something.
Are you thinking this applies to all 5 of the above bullet points? Or specific bullet points within that group?
In our “spot-check” [note, this is forthcoming research, which
will likely be released within a week] of current roles and
advertised roles at 27 animal advocacy nonprofits, fundraising was
the skillset that was most notably overrepresented in animal
advocacy job adverts (appearing to be important in 17% of
identified job ads) relative to the number of current roles in the
movement (appearing to be important in 10% of current roles);
I find this very hard to understand. My understanding is that 17% of
“identified job ads” was related to fundraising. I don’t get the next
part where you say talk about 10% of the current roles.
this may imply that these roles are unusually hard to fill and
that fundraising expertise is undersupplied in the community,
relative to its needs. As discussed in our blog post on the
spot-check, however, this research provides only very weak
evidence on the question of what the movement’s greatest
bottlenecks are.
I get it that fundraising is “over-represented” in animal advocacy
jobs with 17% of job ads talking about it, but what are the
percentages for the other skills? Without that I think it is hard to
say if 17% is high or not right? or Am I mistaken?
There is evidence from a 2013 report that senior fundraisers
are difficult to hire in US nonprofits generally. This makes it
seem more likely that animal advocacy nonprofits face the same
difficulty.
Very interesting report (especially the sample size of 2000
non-profits). Looking at the sample it looks like only 1% of all the
2000 odd organizations was from “philanthropy, volunteerism and
Grantmaking”. And highest was human services, educational institutions
and arts, culture, humanities. I think it can really skew the
results. Your thoughts?
The same report found evidence that smaller nonprofits may
struggle to attract the most experienced fundraisers. Given that
many animal advocacy organisations have small budgets, this
provides another reason to expect that animal advocacy
organizations will struggle to hire fundraisers, though this is
only very weak evidence that this is a bottleneck for the
movement.
Claims: Smaller nonprofit have fewer struggle to find most
experienced fundraisers
Evidence:
DDs with no experience based on salaries
8% > 50k$
23% < 50k$
This above evidence is confusing me to verify the claim. As it
directly doesn’t associate with small non profits but through some
association in salary. But the following seems to be causing less
confusion.
prospective donor research
24% have no experience for DDs in general
32% have no experience for DDs in small
32.25% have no experience for DDs in non-small (back
calculating)
Securing gifts
26% have no experience for DDs in general
38% have no experience for DDs in small
25% have no experience for DDs in non-small (back-calculating)
I am concerned now by the wording “struggling”. This doesn’t seem to
be too bad. Smaller nonprofits seem to have fewer people of
experienced staff. But are they “struggling”? I am not sure. And as a
result this seems like weak evidence for bottleneck claims. Agree. Am
I mistaken?
This is useful feedback. I might need to work on the wording.
Without that I think it is hard to say if 17% is high or not right?
I don’t think I agree with that—I think the important consideration is the number of identified advertised roles of a particular type relative to the number of identified currently filled roles of the same type. Not the number of advertised roles of type A relative to advertised roles of type B. But FWIW the full report is now published.
this seems like weak evidence for bottleneck claims
I agree its weak evidence; I think it’s the weakest of the 5 bullet points above. I find weak evidence useful.
Now I get what you were trying to say, I think. So you are saying you look at the ratio of “percentage of fundraising in latest job ads” vs “percentage of fundraising in current jobs”. That sounds like a smart proxy. Really interesting.
Do you know of actual TC positions? Can you please cite your source?
I’m currently doing some research for Animal Advocacy Careers on specific skill types in animal advocacy that will be posted in forthcoming “skills profiles.” An example from my draft report on fundraising roles is below. Feedback very welcome! (Obviously this is an unusual case in that its a talent constraint directly relating to funding constraints.)
In our short initial survey and interviews with 12 CEO’s and hiring professionals from 9 of the “top” or “standout” charities currently or formerly recommended by Animal Charity Evaluators, 5 respondents selected “fundraising experience” as one of up to 6 skills (out of 25 options) that their organisation most needed; this was the second most frequently selected option, after “management.”
2 out of 10 respondents to the same survey mentioned fundraising roles as being “the hardest to fill.”
In our “spot-check” [note, this is forthcoming research, which will likely be released within a week] of current roles and advertised roles at 27 animal advocacy nonprofits, fundraising was the skillset that was most notably overrepresented in animal advocacy job adverts (appearing to be important in 17% of identified job ads) relative to the number of current roles in the movement (appearing to be important in 10% of current roles); this may imply that these roles are unusually hard to fill and that fundraising expertise is undersupplied in the community, relative to its needs. As discussed in our blog post on the spot-check, however, this research provides only very weak evidence on the question of what the movement’s greatest bottlenecks are.
There is evidence from a 2013 report that senior fundraisers are difficult to hire in US nonprofits generally. This makes it seem more likely that animal advocacy nonprofits face the same difficulty.
The same report found evidence that smaller nonprofits may struggle to attract the most experienced fundraisers. Given that many animal advocacy organisations have small budgets, this provides another reason to expect that animal advocacy organisations will struggle to hire fundraisers, though this is only very weak evidence that this is a bottleneck for the movement.
This is interesting and I look forward to reading more.
A more negative reading of this information would suggest that the issue may not be lack of fundraising skill within the organizations but rather that many of the interviewed ACE selected charities don’t get the funding they want because most people, or the donors the charities care about, don’t agree with ACE’s or the CEOs’ self-assessments that the charities are worth funding. That is, these folks may not donate for reasons having to do with the organizations not because of lack of relationship building, marketing, etc.
It’s a different sort of concern and suggests a different line of research inquiry, but may be worth keeping in the back of one’s mind.
Thanks for the input! If the above bullet points were evidence of funding constraints, then this “more negative reading” would be a plausible alternative explanation. But I’m not following how the above bullet points could be read in this way. Apologies if I’m missing something.
Are you thinking this applies to all 5 of the above bullet points? Or specific bullet points within that group?
I find this very hard to understand. My understanding is that 17% of “identified job ads” was related to fundraising. I don’t get the next part where you say talk about 10% of the current roles.
I get it that fundraising is “over-represented” in animal advocacy jobs with 17% of job ads talking about it, but what are the percentages for the other skills? Without that I think it is hard to say if 17% is high or not right? or Am I mistaken?
Very interesting report (especially the sample size of 2000 non-profits). Looking at the sample it looks like only 1% of all the 2000 odd organizations was from “philanthropy, volunteerism and Grantmaking”. And highest was human services, educational institutions and arts, culture, humanities. I think it can really skew the results. Your thoughts?
Claims: Smaller nonprofit have fewer
struggle to findmost experienced fundraisersEvidence:
DDs with no experience based on salaries
8% > 50k$
23% < 50k$
This above evidence is confusing me to verify the claim. As it directly doesn’t associate with small non profits but through some association in salary. But the following seems to be causing less confusion.
prospective donor research
24% have no experience for DDs in general
32% have no experience for DDs in small
32.25% have no experience for DDs in non-small (back calculating)
Securing gifts
26% have no experience for DDs in general
38% have no experience for DDs in small
25% have no experience for DDs in non-small (back-calculating)
I am concerned now by the wording “struggling”. This doesn’t seem to be too bad. Smaller nonprofits seem to have fewer people of experienced staff. But are they “struggling”? I am not sure. And as a result this seems like weak evidence for bottleneck claims. Agree. Am I mistaken?
This is useful feedback. I might need to work on the wording.
I don’t think I agree with that—I think the important consideration is the number of identified advertised roles of a particular type relative to the number of identified currently filled roles of the same type. Not the number of advertised roles of type A relative to advertised roles of type B. But FWIW the full report is now published.
I agree its weak evidence; I think it’s the weakest of the 5 bullet points above. I find weak evidence useful.
Now I get what you were trying to say, I think. So you are saying you look at the ratio of “percentage of fundraising in latest job ads” vs “percentage of fundraising in current jobs”. That sounds like a smart proxy. Really interesting.
Thanks.