A few months ago, The Social Impact Staff Retention Project published their 2026 Social Impact Staff Retention Study. Access the full report here.

You may have seen the big numbers already:

• 70% of nonprofit workers are looking for or considering a new job
• 35% plan to stay in the nonprofit sector
• 22% say they are rarely or never fulfilled in their work
• 60% cite too much responsibility and not enough support as the top reason for leaving

Those numbers should make every executive director and board chair sit up straighter.

Read the full report closely, and there are deeper signals easy to miss, particularly where fundraising is concerned. Those signals carry major implications for nonprofit leaders, especially those who come from corporate environments.

Let's talk about them.

On page 5, the report compares nonprofit job-searching rates to all industries.

In 2026:

• 70.4% of nonprofit respondents are job searching
• Compared with only 43% across all industries

Corporate retention appears to be stabilizing. Nonprofit retention is not. That gap is wide and it's widening.

If you're a board member who leads in the corporate world, you may see employees settling in at your company. You may assume mobility has cooled.

That assumption doesn't hold inside nonprofits. Nonprofit professionals are still scanning the horizon at dramatically higher rates.

Shape governance decisions around corporate retention patterns instead of nonprofit data, and leaders will misread the risk entirely.

The top reason people are leaving: "too much responsibility and not enough support."

Look at the trend:

• 58% in 2024
• 59% in 2025
• 60% in 2026

It's creeping up.

Compensation complaints are steady. Unsupportive management is steady. Workload strain is rising.

That tells me something important. This isn't just about salary. It's about design.

Boards approve growth strategies. Revenue goals increase. Programs expand. Campaigns stretch. But staffing models often stay lean.

Your people feel responsibility increasing every year without structural reinforcement behind it. Retention will not stabilize on its own.

This is a governance conversation, not just a management one.

Thirty-eight percent of respondents say they are unsure whether they will stay in the nonprofit sector.

The report calls this group a canary in the coal mine. They aren't committed, but they aren't gone yet. They're watchful.

This group concerns me more than the 15% who plan to leave for other industries.

Here's why: unsure employees often stay physically. They detach psychologically. That looks like:

• Lower discretionary effort
• Less long-term planning
• Hesitation to invest in leadership development
• Quiet job searching

If you're leading a nonprofit, ask yourself: what would move someone from unsure to committed?

This one surprised me. Only 35% of those looking for new jobs cited political or funding concerns about the certainty of their role.

We often blame turnover on unstable funding. The data says internal conditions carry more weight than external volatility.

​That means the solutions sit closer to home than most boards assume: leadership support, workload distribution, role clarity, career sustainability. Internal levers, every one.

On page 6, fundraising comes in at 72% looking for new opportunities. It's not in the top three most at-risk functions.

Let's be clear: seventy-two percent is not stability.

Nearly three out of four fundraisers considering leaving means your donor relationships sit on shaky ground. Your campaign continuity does too. So does your revenue forecast.

Comparative ranking can distract from the real picture. Every functional area is under strain.

​For boards that evaluate fundraising primarily through outcomes: this is your wake-up call. You cannot separate revenue from the sustainability of the people generating it.

"Lacking growth opportunities" dropped from 58% in 2024 to 46% in 2026.

Sounds like progress on the surface. It may reflect better access to professional development. Or it may reflect a workforce too overloaded to prioritize advancement at all.

​When people are overwhelmed, survival eclipses ambition. That is not a thriving talent pipeline.

This report isn't a panic piece. It's a mirror.

Nonprofit professionals aren't disengaged from mission. They're questioning whether the sector can sustain them. That distinction matters: mission commitment is still strong. Structural confidence is weaker.

If you're a board member who doesn't live inside nonprofit operations every day, this data matters especially for you. You cannot assume corporate workforce trends apply here, that people will stay simply because the job market tightens, or that mission loyalty will override workload design.

Retention in nonprofits isn't just an HR metric. It's a revenue strategy, a governance responsibility, and a sustainability issue.

​The headlines tell you turnover is high. The deeper read tells you why.

Nonprofit boards set revenue goals. They shape expectations. They influence workload, flexibility, and support, whether they mean to or not.

Most boards are full of smart, capable people who've simply never been taught how nonprofit fundraising systems actually work.

When I work with boards and leadership teams, we don't just talk about raising more money. We build strategies that align ambition with capacity. We clarify what realistic projections look like. We create a shared understanding, so staff aren't carrying invisible pressure alone.

That kind of alignment does more than increase revenue. It reduces unnecessary strain. It builds trust between board and staff. It makes goals feel achievable instead of overwhelming.

When goals feel achievable, retention stops being an abstract HR concern. It becomes a natural byproduct of good governance.

Remember: fundraising is a relationship business. Retention matters to it directly. Donors read a lack of staff continuity as organizational instability, and it chips away at their confidence in your nonprofit. Caring about employee satisfaction and reducing turnover, for a nonprofit, is the same thing as caring about your bottom line.

​If you're reading this and thinking, "Our board needs this conversation," let's have it.

Schedule a call with me. We'll look at your goals, your staffing structure, and your board dynamics. I'll help you see where support can be strengthened and where expectations can be recalibrated.

You don't fix sector-wide retention overnight. But you can absolutely build an organization where your people feel supported, clear, and capable of staying for the long haul.

Let's start there.

Cheers,

P.S. Want more content on board fundraising, mindset, and sustainable revenue growth? Subscribe to the blog and get new posts delivered straight to your inbox.

P.P.S. If you're a nonprofit CEO or development lead who's tired of carrying the fundraising weight alone, a free discovery call is for you. Let’s chat.

If you liked this… 

• Diversify your Fundraising Revenue: The Six Revenue Streams Every Nonprofit Needs to Truly THRIVE
• The REAL Framework for Board Fundraising Transformation
• Know. Like. Trust. Give. Advocate. The Full Journey Your Board Needs to Understand
• Now. Next. Needed: The Simple Way for Nonprofit Leaders to Tell Their Story in a Way that Attracts Funding
• Asking Is Only 5%: Why Your Board Is Afraid of the Wrong Thing

If you're a nonprofit leader, there's a good chance you're holding your breath right now.

Maybe you're waiting to hear if that grant gets renewed. Maybe you're hoping your biggest donor doesn't decide to move on. Maybe you've done the math and realized that one person or one source is carrying way too much of your annual budget.

That's not a funding strategy. That's a gamble.

I've seen what happens when organizations build their entire revenue picture around a single mega donor who gives 30 or 40 percent of the annual budget. When that person walks away, whether because of a falling out, a change in priorities, or simply passing away, the organization is left with a hole that's nearly impossible to fill overnight.

The answer is revenue diversification. Not just across funding types, but within your individual giving portfolio, too.

​That's what the THRIVE model is all about.

THRIVE is a framework I developed to help small and mid-size nonprofits build a more balanced, more resilient individual giving program. Each letter stands for a different type of revenue stream:

T = Transformational Gifts (Major Donors)
H = Hope-Based Giving (Planned Legacy Gifts)
R = Retained Donors (Retention)
I = Intake of New Donors (Acquisition and Reacquisition)
V = Vested Commitments (Multi-Year Pledges)
E = Evergreen Giving (Recurring Monthly Giving Program)

You don't have to build all six at once. The goal is to understand what each piece does, where you have gaps, and how to start filling them in a way that's manageable for your team.

​Let's walk through each one.

These are your major gifts. And before you scroll past this section thinking "we're too small for major gifts," let me stop you.

Major is relative. At some institutions, a major gift starts at $100,000. At a small community nonprofit, it might be $1,000. The point isn't the dollar amount. The point is that you have donors capable of giving significantly above the average annual gift, and the goal is that you are actively cultivating relationships with them.

Major gifts don't appear out of nowhere. They grow from long-term relationship, and more often than not, the prospect is already in your database. They're giving you $25 or $50 a year. They're testing the waters. They want to see how you communicate, how you manage your programs, whether you're worth a bigger investment.

Here's a number that surprises people every time I share it: in higher education donors can give for 11-40 years before graduating to a major gift (pun intended). Eleven years. That means the transformational donor of your future is probably someone who made their first small gift to you a decade ago. (But don’t despair if you are a newer nonprofit, 21% of major gift donors had only been giving for 3 years before making their larger commitment.) (Giacomini et al. pg. 7)

The good news is that your future major donors are already in your database!

Once you've identified someone and you're in active, one-on-one relationship with them, you're looking at 18 to 24 months to close that major gift. (Giacomini et al. pg. 7)

That's what I call platonic dating. You're having coffee, hopping on Zoom, making phone calls. You're sharing where your organization is right now, where you're headed, and what it will take to get there. You're not asking at every turn. You're deepening the relationship until the ask is a natural next step, not a cold pitch.

​If you're an executive director, you should be having at least two to three of these conversations every week. Not because every person will become a major donor. Because you don't know who will become a major donors until you show up.

This is my term for legacy and planned giving, and I call it hope-based giving because that's exactly what it is. When a donor includes your organization in their estate plans, they are expressing hope in your long-term impact. They want to make sure you're still doing this work long after they're gone.

Here's what most small nonprofits get wrong about planned giving: they think it's for wealthy donors.

It's not.

Planned gifts are made from assets, not income. That loyal annual fund donor who has given you $100 every year for 15 years? She might not be able to give you much more than that right now. But she could leave you $25,000 in her will. Planned gifts are often the single largest gift a donor ever makes to an organization, and they frequently come from the most committed, longest-tenured people in your database, not necessarily the highest annual givers. In fact, the average planned gift is over 200 times larger than that same donor’s annual gift amount. (“Planned Giving Myths”)

​Now, I know that "planned giving" as a category can feel enormous and intimidating. There are trusts, charitable annuities, retirement account designations, life insurance policies, even real estate. It's a lot.
But you don't need to know everything about planned giving to get started. You just need to know two vehicles: bequests and beneficiary designations.

​Bequests: A donor works with their attorney to add language to their will directing a portion of their estate to your organization. Simple to set up. Simple to change.

Beneficiary designations: Even simpler. The donor contacts the holder of their retirement account or life insurance policy, fills out a form, and names your organization as a beneficiary for a set percentage. Then they let you know.

That's it. That's your starting point.

Start talking about these options publicly. Send a promotional email. Post about it. National Make a Will Month is in August, and National Estate Planning Awareness Week falls in October every year. Use those hooks. They give you a natural reason to start the conversation with your donor base without it feeling out of nowhere.

And here's the urgency behind all of this: we are in the early stages of the largest wealth transfer in history. Baby boomers hold the majority of private wealth in the United States. As that generation ages, that wealth will move. Nonprofits that are in that conversation now will benefit. Organizations that sit on the sidelines will not.

You can't win it if you ain't in it. 😊

Six out of ten donors will not give to your nonprofit again next year. (“Retention Time Series”)

​That's the industry average. Which means if you want to just stay even, you have to replace more than half your donor base every single year. That's exhausting, expensive, and completely avoidable with better systems.

Here's something that often gets missed in the retention conversation: retention doesn't start after the gift. It starts before it.

Where you get your donors matters enormously. If you're pulling in most of your new donors from a golf tournament or a 5K, you've already set yourself up for a low retention rate. Those folks came for the event. They may not have a deep emotional connection to your mission. They're not going to renew because they don't feel tied to the work you're doing.

Compare that to a donor who came to you through a volunteer orientation, a personal introduction, or a mission-aligned community event. That person came in connected. They're going to be far more likely to renew.

Stewardship absolutely matters, too. Does a first-time donor get a phone call from a board member? Do they receive a handwritten note? Do they hear what happened with their gift before they get the next ask? These are structures you must build intentionally, because if you leave them to chance, they don't happen.

Build the systems. Fix the leaky bucket. Getting above a 50 to 60 percent donor retention rate is one of the most powerful things you can do for your organization's long-term stability.

Even if your retention rate is excellent, you will still lose donors every year. That's just the reality. People move, circumstances change, life happens.

That means donor acquisition isn't optional. It's an annual requirement.

The goal isn't just to bring in new donors. It's to bring in the right new donors. People who are genuinely connected to your mission and who are likely to come back year after year. That's what builds a strong base.

Ask yourself: where are we finding new donors right now? And are those sources giving us people who renew?

If the honest answer is no, that's where to start. What would it look like to attract mission-connected donors instead of event-driven ones? Who are the people already orbiting your organization through volunteer work, advocacy, or community involvement who haven't made a gift yet?

​Start there.

This is multi-year pledges, and I am consistently surprised by how underutilized this is outside of higher education.

In higher education, multi-year pledges are standard practice. A donor says they'll give $5,000 a year for three years. Done. The organization projects that revenue, they plan around it, and they don't have to go re-cultivate and re-ask that same donor every year.

Smaller nonprofits rarely do this, and they're leaving a lot on the table.

Here's what a vested commitment does for you: it removes you from the cycle of making the case over and over again to the same donors. Instead of crafting a new proposal every year, you send a simple reminder. "Your pledge payment for this year is coming up. Thank you for your continued commitment." That's it.

The most common objection I hear is: “What if they don't follow through?"

The data answers this. The industry average fulfillment rate for multi-year pledges is 93%. That's not a typo. Industry averages show that between 80-90% of the dollars pledged do come in. (Ugrenovic)

The thing you do need to have in place is a follow-up system. Someone in your organization needs to be pulling upcoming pledges from the database every month and sending reminders. That's the whole system. Once you have it, you have one of the most reliable revenue streams available to you.

​And there's a bonus: many major donors actually prefer to structure their commitment over multiple years. It fits their financial planning better. Asking someone for a three-year pledge instead of a one-time gift can make the yes easier to get, not harder.

This is your monthly giving program, and "evergreen" is exactly right. Once you build it, it keeps going with minimal maintenance.

For donors, monthly giving is easy. They set it up, the gift processes automatically, and they don't have to think about it again. A donor who might give $50 once a year can give $10 a month and end up giving $120 annually. Most monthly donors give more over the course of a year than they would with a single annual gift.

For your organization, a monthly giving program is steady, predictable revenue. Once you've launched it and grown it to a meaningful size, the ongoing maintenance is relatively light:
​

• Update expired or declined credit cards when they come up
• Periodically ask long-tenured monthly donors to upgrade their amount
• Keep talking about the program in your emails and on social media so new donors know it exists
• Do a push once a year to grow the program
• Occasionally do something meaningful to recognize and celebrate your monthly giving community

That's the maintenance plan. It's manageable. And the payoff, predictable cash flow every single month, is worth the upfront work of launching.

You don't have to build all six revenue streams at once. Especially if you're a small shop with limited bandwidth.

Here's how I'd sequence it:

Start with R and I together: retention and intake. Get clear on your renewal rate and where you're sourcing donors. That foundation matters for everything else.

Add E: build or strengthen your monthly giving program. Even a small monthly giving community creates reliable, recurring revenue and raises your average annual gift per donor.

Build V and T together: as you start identifying major donor prospects, you'll find that multi-year pledges and major gifts often go hand-in-hand. Many significant donors want to spread their commitment over three to five years.

Add H as you go: don't wait too long on planned giving. Baby boomers are making these decisions right now. You want to be in the conversation.

The goal of the THRIVE model isn't complexity for its own sake. It's sustainability. It's building a revenue picture where no single source is carrying too much weight, where you know what's coming in, and where you're in genuine relationship with the people who make your mission possible.

That's what good fundraising looks like. Not frantic. Not transactional. Relational, intentional, and built to last.

If you are reading this and wishing you had a guide to help you begin to implement some of these revenue streams, let’s talk. Visit realdealfundraising.com/bookacall to find some time on my calendar.

Cheers,

P.S. Want more content on board fundraising, mindset, and sustainable revenue growth? Subscribe to the blog and get new posts delivered straight to your inbox.

P.P.S. If you're a nonprofit CEO or development lead who's tired of carrying the fundraising weight alone, a free discovery call is for you. Let’s chat.

If you liked this…

• The REAL Framework for Board Fundraising Transformation
• Know. Like. Trust. Give. Advocate. The Full Journey Your Board Needs to Understand
• Now. Next. Needed: The Simple Way for Nonprofit Leaders to Tell Their Story in a Way that Attracts Funding
• Asking Is Only 5%: Why Your Board Is Afraid of the Wrong Thing
• Listening Is a Skill: How Silence Wins Big Gifts

Giacomini, Cara, et al. CASE Study of Principal Gifts to U.S. Colleges & Universities. Council for Advancement and Support of Education, June 2022, https://www.case.org/system/files/media/file/CASEStudyofPrincipalGifts_finalrevised6.21.22_2.pdf.

“Planned Giving Myths, Facts, Stats, Ruminations.” PlannedGiving.com, 2026, https://www.plannedgiving.com/resources/planned-giving-facts/.

“Retention Time Series – Quarterly FEP Report.” FEP Reports, Generosity AI Working Group, https://publications.fepreports.org/retention-time-series/.

​Ugrenovic, Aleksandra. “What Is Pledge Fulfillment Percentage in Fundraising? How to Calculate and Use PFP?” RallyUp, 13 May 2025, https://rallyup.com/blog/pledge-fulfillment-percentage/.