July 2025

31 Jul 2025

Stephen Mally Charities, Charity, Fundraising, NFP, Non-profit, Nonprofit, Nonprofit Management

KPIs: How to Set Fundraising Goals with Direct Reports

Practical Guide for Charity Leaders

Fundraising success doesn’t happen by accident—it’s the result of clear direction, measurable goals, and disciplined execution. One of the most effective tools for driving fundraising performance is the use of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). But simply handing down KPIs from leadership can backfire. To build a high-performing team, managers must engage fundraisers in co-creating KPIs that are realistic, ambitious, and aligned with organisational goals. Here’s how to approach this, what pitfalls to avoid, and what to do when KPIs aren’t met.

Engaging Fundraisers in Setting Their KPIs

Goals should not feel like arbitrary numbers imposed from above—they should be developed through a collaborative process between manager and fundraiser. This approach fosters ownership, motivation, and accountability.

Best Practices:

Start with the Organisational Target: Be transparent about the overall fundraising goal and how it breaks down by program (e.g., major gifts, regular giving, corporate partnerships).
Review Historical Performance: Discuss past performance—what worked, what didn’t, and what reasonable stretch goals could look like.
Tailor KPIs to Portfolio and Role: Fundraisers managing major gifts will have different metrics from those working in direct marketing or corporate giving. Set goals based on the maturity of their donor portfolio and pipeline health.
Encourage Input: Ask the fundraiser to propose their targets within organisational expectations, then negotiate to ensure they’re both realistic and ambitious.

This collaborative method encourages commitment rather than compliance.

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

Setting goals is deceptively simple—but there are traps to avoid:

Focusing Only on Activity Metrics: Meetings booked and calls made are meaningless if they don’t convert to revenue. Balance activity KPIs with outcome KPIs.
Setting Unrealistic Stretch Goals: Overly ambitious targets demotivate rather than inspire. Goals should stretch people but still feel achievable.
Ignoring Pipeline Variability: Not every portfolio is equally mature. A new fundraiser with a cold portfolio shouldn’t have the same KPIs as a seasoned team member.
“Set and Forget” Mentality: KPIs should be revisited quarterly—not just set in January and ignored. Circumstances change, and flexibility is key.

What to Do When Fundraisers Miss KPIs

Missing KPIs is inevitable from time to time. The key is not to jump to conclusions but to diagnose and respond appropriately:

Investigate the Why: Was it external (economic downturn)? Internal (lack of resources)? Or performance-related (not enough donor engagement)?
Intervene Early: Regular check-ins and pipeline reviews can highlight issues before they become crises.
Offer Support: Coaching, professional development, or adjusting portfolio composition might be necessary.
Address Performance Gaps: If underperformance is persistent and within the fundraiser’s control, it may warrant a structured performance improvement plan.

The point is to respond thoughtfully—support where possible, hold accountable where necessary.

Examples of Typical Fundraising KPIs

A healthy KPI framework blends quantitative and qualitative targets:

Revenue KPIs:
- Dollar value of gifts secured (annual, major, corporate)
- Year-over-year revenue growth
- Percentage of goal achieved
Pipeline KPIs:
- Number of qualified prospects added to portfolio
- Number of solicitations/proposals submitted
- Pipeline value relative to goal (e.g., 3x annual target)
Activity KPIs:
- Number of meaningful donor contacts per month
- Number of first-time donor visits
- Stewardship actions completed post-gift
Retention KPIs:
- Donor retention rate year over year
- Percentage of lapsed donors re-engaged

The right mix depends on role, tenure, and portfolio type.

Well-set goals are the backbone of a performance-driven fundraising culture. By engaging fundraisers in setting their own goals, tying them to organisational priorities, and managing them thoughtfully, charities can create a motivated, accountable, and high-achieving team. Goals should guide fundraisers—not burden them—and when used correctly, they can transform both individual performance and organisational impact.

29 Jul 2025

Stephen Mally Charities, Charity, Fundraising, KPIs, NFP, Non-profit, Nonprofit, Nonprofit Management, Revenue

Why Charities Must Set Revenue Goals for Fundraisers

In the world of fundraising, it’s easy to fall into the trap of measuring activity rather than outcomes. A common misconception is that if fundraisers are out meeting donors, they must be performing well. But any experienced fundraising leader knows that busyness does not equal effectiveness. Charities must move beyond counting donor visits and instead focus on what truly matters: delivering meaningful, measurable outcomes that advance the mission. This starts with setting clear revenue goals as part of the KPIs for every fundraiser.

Fundraising Is a Comprehensive, Multi-Step Process

Fundraising is not just about asking for money. It is a structured, strategic process that involves:

Identification: Researching and qualifying prospects who have both the affinity and capacity to give.
Cultivation: Building genuine relationships through personalized engagement, communications, and involvement.
Solicitation: Making tailored, strategic asks that align donor interests with organisational priorities.
Stewardship: Thanking, reporting back, and continuing to engage donors to encourage long-term loyalty and increased giving.

Each of these phases requires discipline, planning, and a focus on progression—not just face-to-face meetings. A well-rounded fundraiser drives donor relationships forward and ultimately secures commitments that fuel the charity’s work.

Individual KPIs Must Be Tied to Revenue

Without revenue goals, fundraising teams risk becoming overly focused on process metrics like the number of calls made or meetings booked. While these actions are important, they are merely leading indicators. The ultimate measure of success is money raised for the cause.

This is why individual KPIs should be a balanced mix of:

Activity metrics (e.g., number of meaningful contacts, cultivation events attended)
Pipeline metrics (e.g., number of qualified prospects, proposals submitted)
Revenue metrics (e.g., dollars raised, percentage of target achieved)

By tying individual performance to clear financial targets, charities ensure every fundraiser remains aligned with the organisational bottom line.

Team Goals Create Collective Accountability

Fundraising is not a solo sport. Successful fundraising teams share accountability for revenue outcomes. Team KPIs ensure that individuals work together towards broader organisational goals. This includes:

Coordinating on cultivation strategies
Sharing prospect intelligence
Supporting cross-team initiatives like events and campaigns

Team goals encourage collaboration, avoid silos, and ensure a coordinated approach to fundraising that maximizes impact.

Fundraising Without Revenue Goals? A Recipe for Failure.

Fundraising without revenue goals is like running a business without sales targets. It’s a directionless exercise that can lead to complacency, weak pipelines, and ultimately, missed opportunities to advance the mission. Charities exist to deliver impact, and impact is directly tied to the funds they can raise.

Setting clear, realistic, and aspirational revenue goals:

Focuses fundraisers on what matters most
Provides management with accountability and forecasting clarity
Ensures the organisation has the resources it needs to deliver on its promises

Fundraising is not just about showing up to donor meetings. It’s about driving outcomes through a disciplined, relationship-centered approach. Charities that set individual and team KPIs—anchored by revenue goals—create a performance-driven culture that fuels mission success.

In today’s competitive fundraising landscape, charities can’t afford to leave money on the table. It’s time to get focused, get accountable, and get serious about measuring what really matters.

24 Jul 2025

Stephen Mally Charities, Charity, Fundraising, NFP, Non-profit, Nonprofit

Comparing US and Australian Fundraising by Revenue Area

Charitable fundraising is a critical pillar of nonprofit sustainability, yet the way funds are raised—and the volume—varies dramatically between the United States and Australia. Both countries share similar motivations for giving, but differ in scale, maturity, structure, and public policy. In our last post, we created a comparison of overall fundraising between the US and Australia. In this post, we break down fundraising performance by revenue stream, comparing and contrasting these two markets with an eye to both totals and donor behaviour.

Comparing Overall Giving: Size & Scale

Metric	United States	Australia
Total Annual Giving (2023)	USD $499 billion	AUD $13 billion
Giving as % of GDP	~2.1%	~0.8%
Individual Giving	67% of total (est. $330 billion)	75% of total (est. $9.75 billion)
Number of Registered Charities	1.5 million	60,000+
Tax Deductibility Threshold	USD $300+ (standard deduction)	AUD $2+ (DGR registered charities only)

The US sector dwarfs Australia’s in both size and percentage of GDP, supported by deeper philanthropic traditions and larger foundations. However, Australians are generous per capita, and the giving culture is growing.

Comparing Direct Marketing

Direct marketing remains a fundraising workhorse—especially in donor acquisition and renewal.

Metric	United States	Australia
Annual Revenue (Direct Mail & Online Combined)	~$85 billion (est.)	~$1.5–2 billion (est.)
Donor File Size (Active)	100+ million households	~6 million households
Response Rates (Mail)	5–9% avg.	3–6% avg.
Channels Used	Direct mail, email, DRTV, SMS, social	Direct mail, email, SMS, telemarketing

Australia relies heavily on direct mail and digital, often outsourced to third-party agencies. Comparing Australia fundraising to the US market, the US market is more mature, using increased multichannel strategies and investing more in donor journey optimisation.

Comparing Regular Giving (Recurring Donations)

Metric	United States	Australia
Total Revenue	$45–60 billion (est.)	$1.5–2 billion AUD
Avg. Monthly Gift	$35 USD	$30–35 AUD
% of Donors on Regular Gifts	35% (est.)	50–60% of active donors
Acquisition Channels	Digital, DRTV, F2F, email	F2F, digital, telemarketing

Australia punches well above its weight in regular giving, particularly due to its high penetration of face-to-face (F2F) acquired donors. Comparing US nonprofits to Australia, the US charities are still more focused on annual giving or major gifts, but are rapidly increasing investment in digital recurring donor programs.

Major Gifts

Metric	United States	Australia
Total Revenue	$100–120 billion+	~$2–3 billion AUD
Typical Gift Size (Major)	$10,000+	$5,000+
% of Total Giving	~25%	~20–25%
Infrastructure	Advanced donor pipelines, prospect research, wealth screening	Developing—often ad hoc in small orgs

The US major gift market is highly developed, with planned cultivation pipelines and robust prospect research teams. Australian charities, while growing in this space, often struggle with staff capacity and high-value donor pipeline management.

Comparing Bequests (Planned Giving)

Metric	United States	Australia
Total Bequest Revenue	$43 billion (2023)	$1.1–1.4 billion AUD
Avg. Bequest Size	$78,000 USD	~$55,000 AUD
Tax Advantage	Estate tax benefits	No inheritance tax; less structured
Bequest Penetration	~9% of deceased adults leave a bequest	~8% of Australians (growing slowly)

Bequests are critical in both countries, but the US benefits from estate tax deductions, driving strategic legacy marketing. In Australia, despite no death duties, bequests are growing thanks to greater public awareness and investment in gifts-in-wills programs.

Trusts & Foundations

Metric	United States	Australia
Total Revenue from Foundations	$105 billion (2023)	~$1.4 billion AUD
Total Number of Foundations	140,000+	~5,000
Donor-Advised Funds (DAFs)	$230B under management	~400 Public Ancillary Funds
Compliance	Highly structured and regulated	Moderate regulation (ACNC)

The US market has thousands of independent foundations and over 1,000 community foundations managing donor funds. DAFs are growing rapidly. Australia is behind in DAF adoption but catching up via PAFs and PuAFs.

Corporate Partnerships

Metric	United States	Australia
Total Corporate Giving	$29 billion (2023)	~$1 billion AUD
Typical Models	Sponsorship, cause-marketing, grants	Partnerships, events, workplace giving
Level of Formalisation	High, often strategic CSR alignment	Emerging, often transactional

The US sector treats corporate giving as strategic philanthropy, often linking to ESG and shared value. Australian partnerships tend to be more tactical or campaign-based, with fewer long-term integrations.

Workplace Giving

Metric	United States	Australia
Total Raised via Workplace	~$4–5 billion annually	~$300–350 million AUD
Typical Participation Rates	10–15% (corporate programs)	<5% of eligible employees
Intermediaries	United Way, Benevity, YourCause	Good2Give, Benevity, Givar, others

Workplace giving is still underutilised in both markets. However, US employers are more likely to match donations or run large-scale internal campaigns. Australia has strong platforms but low employer engagement.

Comparing Events

Metric	United States	Australia
Peer-to-Peer Fundraising	$1.05 billion (2023)	~$200–250 million AUD
Galas/Charity Events	~$1.5 billion	~$150 million AUD
Platforms Used	Classy, JustGiving, Facebook, Eventbrite	Funraisin, Grassrootz, Humanitix

Australia punches above its weight in peer-to-peer and challenge events like City2Surf, but still has a less saturated event calendar than the US, which boasts tens of thousands of charity runs, cycles, and walkathons.

While the US fundraising market is more mature and diversified, comparing it to Australia, Australia is agile, tech-driven, and donor-loyal. Australian charities excel in regular giving and events, while the US dominates major gifts, bequests, and foundation giving due to its infrastructure and culture of philanthropy.

Charities on both sides of the Pacific can learn from one another. For Australians, that means increasing investment in high-value giving and bequests. For Americans, there’s value in adopting Australia’s recurring giving and digital efficiency models.

As both countries adapt to economic, social, and political changes, fundraising success will come down to building trust, stewarding donors effectively, and adapting infrastructure to support long-term growth.

22 Jul 2025

Stephen Mally Charities, Charity, Fundraising, NFP, Non-profit, Nonprofit

Comparison of Australian and US Charity Fundraising

As a dual citizen, I often get asked, “What are the differences between fundraising in Australia and fundraising in the United States?”. When it comes to charitable fundraising, Australia and the United States share common goals—mobilising public and private support for vital causes—but the methods, culture, and scale of fundraising vary significantly between the two countries. For charities operating in or learning from both environments, understanding these contrasts can sharpen strategy and unlock new growth.

Here are the key comparisons, the differences and the lessons learned.

1. Scale and Maturity of the Sector

The United States is home to the world’s largest nonprofit sector, with over 1.5 million registered charities and a deeply embedded culture of philanthropy. Giving in the US reached an estimated $499 billion in 2023, representing about 2.1% of GDP.

In contrast, Australia’s sector is smaller and younger, with around 60,000 registered charities and annual giving estimated at $13 billion AUD—less than 1% of GDP. While charitable giving is growing in Australia, it does not yet match the institutional or individual levels seen in the US.

Lesson for Australia: There is untapped potential to grow the giving economy. Australia’s challenge is to normalise large-scale giving through structured stewardship, major donor programs, and cultural shifts that celebrate philanthropy.

2. Tax Structures and Incentives

US donors benefit from a well-known charitable deduction that reduces taxable income, often incentivising major gifts. The process is familiar and built into annual financial planning, especially for high-net-worth individuals.

In Australia, while donations over $2 to deductible gift recipients (DGRs) are tax-deductible, the incentive is less aggressively promoted or integrated into wealth planning. Furthermore, estate and inheritance tax advantages that drive bequests in the US are absent in Australia.

Lesson for Australia: The sector could benefit from stronger advocacy to improve and promote tax incentives, particularly for major and planned giving.

3. Fundraising Culture and Risk Appetite

American charities are typically more assertive in their fundraising—making bold asks, investing heavily in development teams, and pursuing innovation in digital, events, and peer-to-peer strategies. Donor cultivation, stewardship, and campaign-based giving are standard practice.

Australian organisations tend to take a more conservative, sometimes risk-averse approach. Fundraising teams are often smaller and operate with tighter budgets. Fear of donor fatigue or over-asking can limit ambition.

Lesson for Australia: Culturally, charities need to give themselves permission to ask—and to invest. The sector would benefit from professionalising development teams and viewing fundraising as a long-term investment, not a cost.

4. Giving Vehicles and Infrastructure

In the US, vehicles such as Donor-Advised Funds (DAFs), private foundations, and endowments are widespread. DAFs alone held over $230 billion USD in 2023, acting as a major driver of structured philanthropy.

Australia is catching up, with Private Ancillary Funds (PAFs) and Public Ancillary Funds (PuAFs) slowly growing, but they are less prominent and less understood. Similarly, endowment-building is underdeveloped compared to the US.

Lesson for Australia: The sector must better educate donors and advisors about these structures and normalise legacy and long-term giving.

5. Digital and Innovation Capacity

US charities have more readily embraced AI, data analytics, and integrated digital strategies. They often lead in omnichannel donor engagement, leveraging CRM tools, automated segmentation, and sophisticated donor journeys.

Australian charities are investing in these areas but tend to lag behind in systems integration, data strategy, and digital confidence.

Lesson for Australia: Closing the digital maturity gap is essential. Investment in CRM platforms, business intelligence, and digital fundraising innovation must be prioritised.

6. Regulation and Compliance

Australia’s regulatory environment, driven by the ACNC, is relatively centralised and transparent. The ACNC Charity Register improves public trust and accessibility of information.

In the US, the IRS governs nonprofits, but oversight is less centralised, and state-level compliance adds complexity. However, US charities benefit from looser restrictions on commercial activities and advocacy.

Lesson for Australia: While Australia’s system supports integrity, there’s room for streamlining multi-jurisdictional fundraising rules and enabling more advocacy activity by charities.

The US fundraising landscape offers lessons in ambition, structure, and scale. But Australia’s charity sector, with its strong reputation for trust and innovation, is poised for transformation. The next decade presents an opportunity to redefine Australian philanthropy—borrowing what works from abroad, while tailoring it to a uniquely Australian context.

A mature, confident, and tech-savvy fundraising sector is within reach. It starts with investment, professionalisation, and a mindset shift—from scarcity to opportunity.

17 Jul 2025

Stephen Mally CEO Performance, Charities, Charity, Fundraising, Leadership, NFP, Non-profit, Nonprofit, Nonprofit Management

The Right Time/Way to Review a New Nonprofit CEO Performance

Hiring a new CEO is one of the most critical decisions a nonprofit board will make. But the work doesn’t end with recruitment. To ensure a successful transition and long-term alignment, it’s essential for the board to regularly review the CEO performance, starting in the first year.

When Should a New CEO Be Reviewed?

The first formal review of a new nonprofit CEO should typically take place at the 6-month mark, followed by a more comprehensive review at 12 months. The 6-month check-in is an opportunity to provide feedback, assess alignment with strategic goals, and course-correct if necessary. The 12-month review should be a deeper evaluation of the CEO’s progress against agreed-upon objectives and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

After the first year, annual reviews should continue, forming part of a structured performance management process. Providing constant feedback is a fantastic means to promote the CEO performance.

Why Timing Matters

Early reviews:

Reinforce expectations set during onboarding
Provide mutual feedback to strengthen the board-CEO relationship
Allow for early intervention if issues are emerging

Waiting too long to assess performance can lead to misalignment, misunderstanding, and missed opportunities for development or celebration of early wins.

How to Conduct the Review

Here are a few best practices for reviewing a new CEO:

Start with KPIs: Use measurable goals agreed upon at the start of the CEO’s tenure. These should align with the strategic plan and may include fundraising benchmarks, stakeholder engagement, financial management, team leadership, and mission impact.
Use a 360-Degree Approach: Include feedback from direct reports, key stakeholders, and board members. Consider using anonymous surveys to encourage candid input.
Schedule a Discussion: Performance reviews should be more than a written report—they’re a dialogue. Schedule a dedicated meeting between the board chair (or a designated evaluation committee) and the CEO to discuss findings and future priorities.
Document and Follow Up: Summarize the discussion, clarify any adjustments to goals, and outline support or resources the CEO needs. Revisit these points regularly throughout the next review period.
Make It Supportive: The goal of the review is not just accountability but also growth. Focus on professional development, alignment with mission, and enabling success.

A well-timed, thoughtful CEO performance review is a hallmark of strong governance. It builds trust, fosters alignment, and ensures the CEO is supported in delivering on the organisation’s vision. By committing to structured feedback and regular check-ins, boards play a pivotal role in setting their CEO—and their nonprofit—up for long-term impact.

15 Jul 2025

Stephen Mally Charities, Charity, Charity Board, Fundraising, Leadership, NFP, Non-profit, Nonprofit, Nonprofit Management

How a Board Chair Can Set First-Year Actionable KPIs for a New CEO

When a new CEO steps into a nonprofit leadership role, the first year is both a learning period and a critical time for building momentum. One of the most important responsibilities of the Board Chair is to provide clarity, direction, and measurable expectations — and that starts with setting meaningful and actionable KPIs (Key Performance Indicators). Well-crafted KPIs not only give the CEO a framework for success, but also create accountability and alignment with the organisation’s strategic goals.

Here’s how a Board Chair can go about establishing strong, actionable KPIs for a new CEO’s first year:

1. Begin with Strategic Alignment

Start by reviewing the organisation’s current strategic plan. Every KPI should map directly back to one or more strategic priorities. If the nonprofit is in a growth phase, KPIs might focus on revenue expansion, infrastructure, or staff development. If it’s a period of consolidation, the focus might be on sustainability or improving impact measurement.

Tip: Ask: What does success look like one year from now?

2. Engage the Full Board

While the Chair leads the process, input from the full Board ensures broad alignment and buy-in. Use board meetings or a dedicated performance subcommittee to discuss key organisational needs and how the CEO can drive results in year one.

3. Focus on Achievable, Measurable Goals

First-year KPIs should be ambitious but realistic. They must be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART). Consider setting KPIs across a few key domains, such as:

Financial sustainability (e.g., meet or exceed fundraising targets)
Team leadership (e.g., complete an organisational structure review)
Stakeholder engagement (e.g., meet with top 20 donors and partners)
Strategic execution (e.g., develop a 3-year operational roadmap)
Board relations (e.g., conduct a successful board retreat or orientation)

4. Prioritise Learning and Culture

Remember, the first year is also about listening and learning. Include KPIs that encourage the CEO to understand organisational culture, staff dynamics, and community relationships. Examples include conducting a 90-day listening tour, initiating employee feedback loops, or engaging in DEI strategy development.

5. Build in Regular Check-Ins

Performance shouldn’t be evaluated once a year. Set quarterly or biannual checkpoints where the Chair and CEO meet to review progress, revisit priorities, and adjust KPIs as needed.

6. Document and Formalise

Once KPIs are agreed upon, document them clearly and include them in the CEO’s performance agreement. This transparency creates accountability for both the CEO and the Board.

Setting thoughtful KPIs is one of the most important ways a Board Chair can support a new CEO. It’s about setting the tone, defining success, and empowering the CEO to lead with clarity. Done well, it builds a strong foundation for trust, results, and long-term impact.

10 Jul 2025

Stephen Mally Charities, Charity, Charity Management, Fundraising, NFP, Non-profit, Nonprofit, Nonprofit Management, Outcomes, Strategic Plan

Whose Responsibility Is It to Achieve a Nonprofit’s Strategic Plan?

When a nonprofit organisation sets out to create a strategic plan, it’s a roadmap intended to guide the entire organisation toward mission-driven goals. But once that plan is approved, a common question arises: who is ultimately responsible for ensuring the plan is implemented and successful — the CEO or the Board?

The answer is both — but in different, complementary ways.

The Board’s Role: Oversight and Governance
The Board of Directors holds fiduciary responsibility and provides governance-level oversight of the strategic plan. They ensure the plan aligns with the mission and values of the organisation and that the resources — financial, human, and otherwise — are aligned to support the plan’s success. The Board sets strategic priorities, approves the plan, and monitors progress through regular reporting and accountability frameworks. Their role is not to manage the plan’s day-to-day execution but to hold the CEO accountable for its delivery.

The CEO’s Role: Leadership and Execution
The CEO, on the other hand, is responsible for operationalising the strategic plan. This includes aligning staff, setting KPIs, resourcing programs, and translating broad strategic priorities into actionable activities. The CEO is also the bridge between strategy and implementation — inspiring the team, cultivating stakeholder support, and tracking performance against the plan’s targets. A strong CEO leads the charge, drives internal culture around the strategy, and keeps the organisation moving toward its goals.

Shared Accountability, Distinct Roles
Achieving the strategic plan is a shared responsibility. Success depends on strong partnership and clear communication between the CEO and the Board. When both parties understand their roles and collaborate effectively, strategic goals are not just aspirational — they are achievable.

In the end, strategy is a team sport. The Board sets the direction. The CEO steers the organisation. Together, they ensure the nonprofit makes measurable progress toward its mission. Together, everyone can celebrate and take credit for successful outcomes.

8 Jul 2025

Stephen Mally CEO, Charities, Charity, Charity Management, Leadership, NFP, Non-profit, Nonprofit, Nonprofit Management

How a New CEO Can Make a Big Impact in the First 90 Days

The first 90 days in a nonprofit CEO role can define a leader’s long-term success. It’s a period of intense observation, relationship building, and early wins. New CEOs stepping into mission-driven organisations must navigate unique dynamics — from donor relationships and governance responsibilities to community trust and limited resources.

Here are key ways a new CEO can make a meaningful impact in those critical early days:

1. Listen First, Lead Second

Start by learning — not just about programs and finances, but about culture, history, and people. Conduct listening tours with staff, Board members, donors, volunteers, and service recipients. Ask what’s working, what’s not, and what success would look like. This builds trust, surfaces valuable insights, and signals respect for the organisation’s legacy.

2. Clarify the Mission and Strategic Priorities

A clear understanding of the mission and current strategic plan helps the CEO align their work and decisions. Revisit the strategic plan with the Board and leadership team to identify priority areas for the next 6–12 months. If the organisation doesn’t have a strategic plan, consider initiating a light-touch planning process to set focus and direction.

3. Establish Strong Board Relationships

A productive CEO–Board relationship is foundational. Meet one-on-one with each Board member to understand their background, expectations, and aspirations for the organisation. Regular check-ins with the Board Chair and transparent communication set the tone for effective governance and support.

4. Communicate Early and Often

Internal and external stakeholders are paying close attention in the first few months. Use this time to clearly and confidently communicate your vision, values, and priorities. Staff town halls, donor updates, and community messages can help unify the organisation and reinforce momentum.

5. Assess Organisational Health

Review financials, staffing structures, technology, and fundraising performance. Work with the leadership team to identify any urgent risks, stalled projects, or resource gaps. Understanding internal systems early can prevent surprises down the line.

6. Secure a “New CEO Quick Win“

Identify and deliver on a small but meaningful improvement — whether it’s a new staff recognition program, an overdue policy update, or reactivating a donor relationship. Early wins demonstrate action and instill confidence.

7. Set Leadership Expectations and Culture

Articulate how you lead and what you value — whether it’s transparency, collaboration, innovation, or equity. Early behaviours set cultural expectations, so model the tone you want for the organisation.

In Summary

A nonprofit CEO’s first 90 days are a rare window of opportunity to inspire confidence, align teams, and lay the foundation for long-term success. By listening deeply, aligning to mission, and acting with intention, a new CEO can make a powerful early impact — one that sets the stage for bold progress and lasting change.

3 Jul 2025

Stephen Mally Charities, Charity, Charity Board, Fundraising, NFP, Non-profit, Nonprofit, Nonprofit Board, Nonprofit Management

How a New CEO Can Collaborate with the Board

When a new CEO steps into a nonprofit organisation, one of the most critical relationships to nurture from the outset is the partnership with the Board. This relationship sets the tone for governance, accountability, and ultimately, mission success. For the CEO, aligning closely with the Board can also be the key to achieving personal KPIs and organisational strategic goals.

Start with Shared Purpose

A CEO should begin by establishing a mutual understanding of the mission, vision, and strategic direction. This shared purpose forms the foundation for collaboration. Early conversations with the Board Chair and committee leads can help identify shared priorities and clarify expectations from both sides.

Align KPIs with Strategic Plan

The CEO’s KPIs should directly reflect the nonprofit’s strategic goals. A best practice is to map personal performance indicators to the organisation’s strategy pillars – such as financial sustainability, impact measurement, stakeholder engagement, and innovation. Presenting these aligned KPIs to the Board early can foster trust and ensure transparent evaluation.

Regular, Structured Communication

CEOs should institute regular updates, strategic dashboards, and board briefings that go beyond operational reporting. This encourages joint problem-solving and reduces surprises. Transparency builds credibility, while structured communication ensures the Board remains engaged at a strategic level.

Leverage the Board’s Expertise

Board members are not just governance overseers; they bring networks, expertise, and influence. CEOs should intentionally build relationships with individual Board members, understanding their strengths and tapping into their networks for partnerships, funding, and advocacy opportunities.

Create Joint Ownership of Success

Collaborative goal-setting and strategic retreats that involve both staff leadership and the Board can foster a sense of shared ownership. When the CEO and Board co-create solutions, momentum builds around key initiatives, and the entire organisation benefits from a united leadership front.

Embrace Feedback and Continuous Improvement

A new CEO should create space for mutual feedback with the Board. Inviting feedback and being open about lessons learned sets a tone of humility and growth. It also positions the CEO as a reflective leader focused on long-term success, not just short-term wins.

The most effective CEOs see the Board not as an obligation, but as a strategic partner. By fostering trust, aligning KPIs with strategy, and engaging the Board meaningfully, a CEO not only ensures a successful transition but builds the foundations for bold impact and sustainable growth.

1 Jul 2025

Stephen Mally Charities, Charity, Donor stewardship, Fundraising, NFP, Non-profit, Nonprofit, Stewardship

New Fiscal Year – What Fundraisers Should Do First

The beginning of a new fiscal year is a golden opportunity for fundraisers. It’s a fresh slate—an ideal time to reflect, refocus, and realign with your charity’s mission and revenue goals. Whether you exceeded last year’s targets or came up short, what you do in the first few weeks of the new fiscal year can shape your results for the next twelve months.

Here are the most important first actions every fundraiser should take as the new fiscal year begins:

1. Review Last Year’s Results

Before looking forward, look back. Analyse:

Total income raised (vs. target)
Performance by campaign, fund, appeal, or donor segment
ROI by fundraising stream (e.g., appeals, major gifts, regular giving)
What worked, what didn’t—and why

Use this information to inform adjustments to this year’s strategy.

2. Update Your Fundraising Calendar

Block out dates for:

Appeals and campaigns
Donor stewardship events
Application deadlines for grants
Board and reporting milestones

Make sure your activities align with the broader organisational calendar and program delivery timelines.

3. Refresh Campaign, Fund, and Appeal Codes in Your CRM

Starting fresh in your CRM (like The Raiser’s Edge, Salesforce Nonprofit Cloud, or Dynamics) ensures:

Accurate tracking of income by campaign and source
Clean reporting for Finance and Board reporting
Prevention of errors or misattributed gifts

Work with your data or CRM team to establish new codes or categories for the year.

4. Reconnect with Key Donors

Reach out to major donors, partners, and recurring givers to thank them for last year’s support and update them on what’s ahead. This simple gesture can strengthen relationships and set the tone for future asks.

5. Set Goals and KPIs

Reaffirm your fundraising goals and establish KPIs that are:

Aligned to organisational priorities
Measurable and time-bound
Broken down by campaign or program

Share them with your team and revisit them quarterly.

6. Plan Your First Stewardship Touchpoint

Don’t start the year with an ask—start with gratitude. A “Year Ahead Preview” email or donor update video can build goodwill and reengage supporters before your next fundraising push.

7. Meet with Key Internal Teams

Schedule check-ins with:

Marketing and communications
Programs and service delivery
Finance
CRM/data team

Align on shared goals, campaign themes, messaging, and system readiness.

The start of a new fiscal year isn’t just about launching into action—it’s about pausing to plan with purpose. With thoughtful steps in the first weeks, fundraisers can position their organisation for stronger campaigns, deeper donor relationships, and more sustainable revenue.

Start strong—fundraise smarter.