Feasibility studies are part of the early stages of responsible program planning.
Evaluation frameworks often recommend needs assessments and feasibility checks before implementation because they reduce guesswork and improve outcomes.
Think of a feasibility study as turning on the headlights before driving down the road.
It does not guarantee the destination.
But it dramatically improves the chances of getting there safely.
When donors receive story + impact data, they’re not confused — they’re convinced. Narrative draws them in emotionally; clear data explains exactly how their gift matters. In tests of online giving, messages that included both narrative context and real-world impact saw higher completion rates than narrative or stats alone.
When people give to others, the brain’s reward system lights up. Research shows that charitable acts activate the same regions associated with pleasurable experiences, like eating chocolate or social bonding, triggering the release of feel-good neurotransmitters such as dopamine and oxytocin. This neurological reward is part of why giving produces a “warm glow” and encourages repeat generosity.(
In fundraising, it’s tempting to celebrate when overall dollars go up. But behind every headline is a deeper truth: a few big gifts can mask donor erosion, retention challenges, and a weakening grassroots base.
Thanks to the Fundraising Effectiveness Project (FEP), we don’t have to guess. This nationally trusted collaboration between AFP Foundation for Philanthropy and GivingTuesday compiles donor data from thousands of nonprofits to help us read the pulse of giving trends.
And the story it tells? It’s one of promise—but also caution. Here’s what fundraisers need to know.
Monthly giving isn’t a trend. It’s one of the most practical expressions of relationship-based philanthropy, steady, values-driven support that keeps mission work grounded when other funding sources feel less predictable.
Over the last few years, national giving totals have risen, even as the number of donors has declined. The pattern many leaders are experiencing is real: fewer donors, deeper commitment.
On a quiet Sunday afternoon in March, we served dessert and poured coffee. The room was filled with laughter, ladies, stories, and a special guest—a meteorologist who also happened to be our state’s Miss America representative. But this wasn’t just about sweets and smiles.
This was about strategy.
I often hear leaders say, “We tried that, it didn’t work.”
Usually, they’re right. It didn’t work because it wasn’t designed to last.
Staff turnover, limited capacity, reactive fundraising, and grant-chasing can derail even the most passionate teams. The issue isn’t effort, it’s infrastructure.
The answer isn’t another campaign or a quick fix. It’s a system, one built around relationships, reinforced by consistency, and grounded in a clear definition of what the organization is asking donors to support over time.
Major giving follows a different rhythm. It doesn’t respond well to pressure, panic, or last-minute appeals. It develops through steady engagement, thoughtful stewardship, and leadership that signals foresight rather than reaction.
Many leaders have heard a version of the lesson: your emergency is not my urgency. Not because donors don’t care—but because experienced donors can tell when urgency is replacing relationship.
Sponsorships are frequently treated as quick revenue fixes. In practice, they work best when approached with the same discipline, structure, and judgment required for any sustainable funding strategy.