What’s wrong with the 7 steps of major donor fundraising?
This post was first published in May 2017. I have updated it because the argument it makes has only become more relevant and because, as you will read at the end, we now have data to back it up
Most people working in major donor fundraising have encountered the 7 Steps at some point. It appears at conferences, in training programmes, in textbooks. The framework outlines a logical chronology for working with major donors: identify prospects, research them, plan your approach, engage, ask, thank, and steward.
It would be churlish to say the 7 Steps are wrong. The sequence makes sense. You do need to identify someone before you can research them. You do need to cultivate a relationship before you ask. The logic is sound.
The problem is not the steps. The problem is what the framework assumes.
The 7 Steps works on the basis that everything else is already in place. A clear and compelling case for support. An accessible database. Strong senior leadership engagement. Good financial information. A communications plan for donors. In essence, the 7 Steps works best inside a well-functioning, well-resourced major donor operation — which is precisely not what most charities are starting from.
In our experience of setting up and reviving major donor programmes, the issue is rarely that fundraisers are following the wrong steps. It is that the fundamental ingredients of a strong programme are not sufficiently in place to begin with. Identifying prospects is the easy part. Everything that makes a prospect worth approaching — and likely to give — is where most programmes fall short.
Our preference, therefore, is to start somewhere different. Rather than a chronological process, we look at three core elements: What, Who, and How. For each, a charity needs to be able to answer some honest questions.
What:
Your case for support and your propositions
Do you have clear strategic aims and a list of costed projects that underpin them?
Have you articulated what a major donor's gift would actually fund, and what happens if they do not give?
Do you understand what kinds of projects are attractive to major donors, as distinct from what your organisation most needs?
Have you assessed the need your work addresses, and can you evidence it clearly?
Who:
Your prospects and your pipeline
Have you segmented your data and identified your largest, most recent donors?
Have you mapped your networks — trustees, senior staff, existing donors — for potential major donor connections?
Do you flag new significant donations as they arrive, including cumulative gifts over a threshold?
Do you have a prioritised prospect list, or simply a vague sense of who might give?
How:
Your infrastructure and your plan
Does your database give you the reports you need on individual and cumulative giving?
Do your finance and service delivery teams engage with fundraising in a way that supports major donor work?
Do you have a diarised communications plan for each of your donors and prospects?
Is one person clearly responsible for coordinating the overall programme?
Are your senior leadership and trustees actively involved in donor-facing activity, not just aware of it?
These are the nuts and bolts. The 7 Steps is not where you should start, and it will not help you identify why your programme is not progressing. What, Who, and How will.
When we first wrote this in 2017, it was an argument based on experience. Since then, we have built the Major Donor Scorecard — a free, 20-question assessment structured around exactly these three elements — and over 180 UK charities have completed it.
The data is illuminating. In some areas, the sector is stronger than people tend to assume. In others, the gaps are consistent, significant, and — if we are honest — have not meaningfully shifted in the two years we have been measuring them.
If you would like to see where your own programme stands before the report arrives, the scorecard takes less than two minutes.