High-value, sustainable fundraising is rarely simple. This training will show you why — and give you a proven 7-step framework to do it well.
7
steps
~35
minutes
14
exercises
The core idea: Complex fundraising is not a gamble. It is a structured, evidence-based process. Every time you feel the urge to jump straight into writing a proposal or making a call — the seven steps come first.
Simple vs complex
Dimension
Simple fundraising
Complex fundraising
Decision-makers
One person
4+ people in different roles
Timeline
Days
Weeks to months
Failure risk
Low per attempt
High — multiple failure points
What matters
Volume + a good ask
Research, strategy, relationships
Examples
JustGiving page, event donations, merch sales
Grants, corporate partnerships, donor communities
Q Which of these is complex fundraising?
Step 1 of 7
Write down your position
Before writing a single word of a proposal or sending a single email, you need a clear, honest picture of where you stand. This is your diagnostic phase.
"A doctor doesn't prescribe medicine before understanding the patient's condition."
Your position = your current reality + what's changing around you + your precise objective. Write it in SMART format: Specific, Measurable, Active, Realistic, Time-bound.
This step applies whether you're going after a grant, a corporate partner, or running a public outreach or crowdfunding campaign. The context changes — the discipline doesn't. Toggle to see both:
Weak position — grant
"We want to get some grant funding to support our winter operations in Bosnia. We've been doing good work and we need money."
⚠ No target amount. No deadline. No named funder. No reason why now. This team will waste weeks chasing the wrong things.
Strong position — grant
"We will secure €40,000 from one European foundation by 1 October 2025 to fund our winter clothing distribution in Bihać serving 600 families. We have 3 warm contacts and 2 years of documented impact data."
✓ Specific amount, deadline, purpose, evidence base, identified prospects.
Weak position — crowdfunding outreach
"We want to do a crowdfunding campaign to raise money and get more people aware of what we do. We'll post on social media and see how it goes."
⚠ No target. No defined audience. No outreach plan. No timeline. "See how it goes" is not a strategy — it's a hope.
Strong position — crowdfunding outreach
"We will raise £8,000 via a 21-day Crowdfunder campaign launching 1 November 2025, targeting UK-based diaspora communities and young professionals aged 25–40 who already follow our channels. We have 340 warm followers, 3 volunteer outreach leads, and a filmed story from Greece ready to launch with."
✓ Target amount, channel, timeline, named audience segment, known assets, outreach leads identified.
Four questions to answer before you go further
What is our current reality, in plain factual language? (not what we wish it was)
What is changing in our environment — positive trends we can ride, or pressures working against us?
What is our exact SMART objective for this fundraising project?
How confident are we in success right now — and what would move the odds in our favour?
Q Which is the best SMART objective for Collective Aid's spring grant push?
Step 2 of 7
Map your key stakeholders
Complex fundraising never has one decision-maker. There are always at least four distinct roles. Pitch to the wrong person and you fail — even with a perfect proposal.
Strategic selling principle: If you only charm the decision-maker, you'll get blocked by the screener. If you only win the ally, you'll fail technical checks. You need all four. This applies equally to outreach campaigns — your "decision-makers" are the community influencers and segment leaders who shape whether your audience engages or scrolls past.
Tap each role to see how to approach them
👑
Final decision-maker
Grant: foundation director, CSR chair Outreach: community leader, trusted voice in target segment
Ultimate authority. No money (or momentum) moves without their buy-in.
🎯
Relevance judge
Grant: programme officer Outreach: the peer who decides "is this worth sharing?" in their network
Screens if your ask fits. Blocks access if it doesn't resonate.
📋
Technical screener
Grant: compliance/finance team Outreach: platform algorithm, group admin, event organiser
Checks if you meet the rules of the channel. Can block you on a technicality.
🤝
Internal ally
Grant: junior programme staff Outreach: an engaged follower, a diaspora connector, a local organiser
Advocates for you in spaces you can't reach. The most underused role in outreach.
Decision-maker: Respect their time. Be concise and outcome-focused. For a foundation director: lead with impact numbers and strategic case. For a community leader in a target audience: understand what they care about for their community first — your campaign has to serve them, not just use them.
Relevance judge: Echo their language back exactly. For a grants officer: show explicit alignment with their strategy. For an outreach segment: speak to what already matters in their world. If your message doesn't feel immediately relevant to their life or identity, it won't spread.
Technical screener: Make their job easy. For grants: clean, complete, compliant applications. For outreach: understand the rules of the platform or community space you're entering — group admins, posting guidelines, community norms. Breaking these kills trust instantly.
Internal ally: Equip them to amplify you. For grants: give them talking points for internal meetings. For outreach campaigns: give engaged followers shareable assets, a simple message, and a clear ask. One trusted person vouching for you inside a community is worth 50 cold posts.
EU humanitarian grant — stakeholder map
Decision-maker: Head of ECHO's Western Balkans desk Relevance judge: Programme officer who pre-screens for thematic fit Technical screener: Finance team checking budget compliance and registration docs Internal ally: A desk officer who visited Collective Aid's Greece operation last year
The ally is the most underused resource here. One conversation to brief her before the panel review could be the deciding factor.
UK diaspora crowdfunding campaign — stakeholder map
Decision-maker: Two or three respected figures in UK Balkan diaspora community groups — their endorsement sets the tone for everyone else Relevance judge: Active members of Facebook diaspora groups who decide whether to share, engage, or ignore posts Technical screener: Group admins who control posting permissions; Crowdfunder platform moderation Internal ally: A Collective Aid volunteer who is themselves part of the diaspora community and already trusted within it
The ally here is transformative. A campaign pushed by a stranger raises £200. The same campaign shared by a trusted community member raises £8,000.
Your turn
Think of a real or likely upcoming opportunity. Map who plays each role — or what you'd need to find out.
Decision-maker
Relevance judge
Technical screener
Internal ally
Q A foundation programme officer tells you: "Your application looks strong — I'll pass it to the trustees for final review." What should you do next?
Step 3 of 7
Identify weaknesses in your plan
Most teams fail not because they lack passion, but because they never honestly interrogate their own plan. Weaknesses found early are opportunities. Weaknesses ignored become failures.
Uncomfortable truth: The most dangerous weakness is the one you're already making excuses for. If you're thinking "yes but we can get around that" — that's the one to fix first.
Four audit areas — click to explore
Evidence base
Do you have credible, verifiable, recent data behind every claim? Or are you relying on powerful anecdotes and passion? Funders — and crowdfunding audiences — have seen a thousand heartfelt appeals. Numbers and documented outcomes cut through.
Weak → strong: grant proposal
"We have helped hundreds of refugees with dignity and care over the last two years."
→ "Between Jan 2023–Dec 2024 we distributed essential supplies to 1,840 individuals across 3 countries, with a 94% reported satisfaction rate across 320 post-distribution surveys."
Weak → strong: crowdfunding campaign
"People are suffering and we need your help to make a difference this winter."
→ "Last winter we reached 600 families in Bihać. This winter 800 more are expected. £25 covers one family's kit. We need £8,000 by 1 December to guarantee delivery before the cold front hits." Specific. Urgent. Credible.
Storytelling clarity
Can a complete outsider understand what Collective Aid does, why it matters, and what you're asking for — in under two minutes? Test it. If they have questions, those questions are your gaps. This matters as much for a crowdfunding page as for a grant proposal.
Test your story
Pitch your project out loud to someone who knows nothing about humanitarian work. Time yourself. If it takes more than 90 seconds to get to the point, it's too long. For outreach campaigns: read your campaign page as if you're a stranger scrolling on a phone. If the ask isn't visible within the first 3 lines, you've already lost most people.
Relationships and networks
Are you approaching this opportunity cold — no prior contact, no mutual connections? Cold outreach rarely works at this level. Decision-makers get hundreds of unsolicited applications. Community audiences ignore posts from strangers. One warm introduction changes everything.
Fix: cold → warm (grant)
Before applying to a foundation, find a mutual connection on LinkedIn. Ask for a 15-minute call. Share an update on your work. When you apply, you're no longer a stranger — you're someone whose work they already understand.
→ Even one warm introduction raises response rates dramatically and often gets informal feedback before the official process starts.
Fix: cold → warm (outreach campaign)
Before launching into a diaspora Facebook group with a donation link, spend two weeks genuinely engaging — commenting, sharing community posts, introducing your volunteer who is a member. When the campaign launches, it's posted by someone the group already recognises.
→ Cold campaign post: ignored or removed by admin. Warm campaign post by a trusted community member: shared 40+ times within 24 hours.
Timing and context
Are you going at the right moment? For grants: budget cycles, political pressures, sector fatigue. For outreach: is your audience in fundraising-receptive mode, or are you competing with three other campaigns, a major news event, or a community crisis?
Timing failure — grant
A UK trust has just received criticism for funding in the Balkans without rigorous monitoring. Your proposal lands on a desk in defensive mode. Right move: delay, build a stronger monitoring narrative, apply when the cycle resets.
Timing win — crowdfunding
You launch your winter appeal the week a major UK newspaper runs a feature on refugees in Bosnia. Your campaign goes from 40 shares to 400 in 48 hours — not because the campaign changed, but because the moment arrived. Build campaigns that are ready to launch when the moment is right, not campaigns that need weeks of preparation after the moment passes.
Spot the weakness — interactive
Below is a real outreach plan outline. Click on the element you think contains the most significant weakness.
Objective: Raise £6,000 via Crowdfunder by 15 December to fund winter kits for 240 families in Serbia.
Story asset: A 90-second video filmed in Serbia showing distribution, with subtitles and a direct-to-camera message from a volunteer.
Outreach plan: Post the campaign link on Collective Aid's Instagram, Twitter, and email newsletter. Boost with £50 of paid ads targeting "people interested in refugees."
Timeline: 4-week campaign with a mid-point update post and a final 48-hour push.
Q What is the most significant weakness to address before applying?
Step 4 of 7
Assess receptivity
Funders don't act on objective facts. They act on their perceptions. You can have a perfect proposal and still fail if you've misread how the decision-maker sees themselves, sees you, and sees your offer.
"Think of receptivity like a river current. Fighting it exhausts you. Aligning with it moves you forward almost effortlessly."
Three lenses of perception
👁 How they see themselves
Bold innovator or careful guardian? Risk-taker or custodian of stability? Their self-image shapes every decision. If they see their role as minimising risk — bold language in your proposal will land badly.
🪞 How they see you
Credible and experienced, or unknown and untested? You can't fully control your reputation — but you can proactively address how you're perceived through credentials, testimonials, and track record.
📦 How they see your offer
Does your proposal register as a solution to one of their real problems — or as a distraction from what's already on their desk? Even a great project fails if it doesn't connect to their current priorities.
What to do based on what you find
They see themselves as cautious: Show predictability and control. Lead with a low-risk pilot proposal with clear success metrics and exit points — not a sweeping transformation. Include a monitoring plan that makes them feel in control of outcomes.
Example — cautious UK trust
A trust with a conservative portfolio asks: "What happens if the project doesn't deliver?" Instead of defending your model, say: "We propose a 6-month pilot phase with three review points. If at any point the evidence isn't there, we pause and regroup — you only release the next tranche when milestones are met."
They see you as untested: Start smaller. Show partnerships with more established institutions. Lead with your track record in analogous work, not the ambitious new thing. Prove reliability before asking for scale.
Example — grassroots NGO credibility gap
A funder has only funded larger INGOs before. Rather than competing on scale, say: "We partner with UNHCR on registration data and with Danish Refugee Council on distribution logistics — our agility fills the gaps that larger organisations can't reach." Borrow credibility from known brands.
They see your offer as irrelevant: Redraw the connection until your work is central to their priorities — not adjacent. Find the overlap and make it explicit. Don't expect them to make the connection themselves.
Example — education funder and humanitarian NGO
A foundation funds children's education. You run refugee distribution. Reframe: "Without consistent access to clothing, hygiene supplies and food, children miss school. Our distributions are what make your education programmes viable for displaced children." You're now their infrastructure, not a separate ask.
They see themselves as bold innovators: Match their energy. Lead with ambition and fresh thinking. Show how your model is pioneering or under-resourced in a way that positions them as early backers of something significant.
Example — impact-first corporate funder
A corporate CSR team describes themselves as "pushing boundaries on social impact." Lead with: "Most humanitarian organisations wait to be invited into conflict-adjacent zones. We're already there, already trusted, and already delivering — you'd be backing operational infrastructure that larger bodies can't build."
Outreach & crowdfunding — assessing audience receptivity: The same three lenses apply when targeting a public audience segment. How does this community see itself? How do they see Collective Aid? Does your campaign feel relevant to their world, or like an outside ask?
Example — UK Balkan diaspora segment
This community sees itself as proud, resilient, and deeply connected to the region's history. They may see Collective Aid as well-meaning outsiders. Your offer — helping people in their homeland — is highly relevant, but the framing matters.
Wrong framing: "Help us support refugees in the Balkans." (positions CA as the agent, them as donors) Right framing: "Your community built resilience through crisis. Help us make sure the next generation doesn't have to do it alone." (positions them as continuing their own community's story)
→ The second frame meets them in their own identity. That's receptivity applied to outreach.
Example — young professional segment (25–35, UK)
This segment sees themselves as values-driven but time-poor and slightly sceptical of charity overhead. They're wary of vague impact claims. Your offer needs to feel direct and accountable.
Right framing: "£25. One family's kit. We show you exactly where it goes." Keep the ask small, the proof direct, and the overhead question answered before it's asked.
→ Understand how a segment sees themselves and their giving — then speak directly into that worldview.
Q A foundation director has just publicly stated that her organisation is shifting focus toward "evidence-based, accountable NGOs with rigorous monitoring." How do you adapt your pitch?
Step 5 of 7
Frame it as a win-win
Fundraising done well is not begging — it's building a partnership where both sides gain something real. If you can't articulate what they get from this, you're not ready to pitch.
The shift that changes everything: Stop asking "will they support us?" Start asking "who benefits most from partnering with us?" That question reframes every conversation.
What a genuine win-win looks like by funder type
Their win
A foundation has a mandate to fund grassroots humanitarian NGOs in the Western Balkans — but lacks trusted local partners. Collective Aid is exactly the type of organisation their strategy requires. Funding us lets them demonstrate effective grant-making in a hard-to-reach region.
→ Frame: "This partnership lets you fulfil your Balkans mandate through a proven ground-level operator you can point to in your annual report."
Their win
A UK logistics company wants to demonstrate ESG credentials to investors and attract socially conscious talent. A visible partnership with Collective Aid — including staff volunteer days, co-branding on distribution vehicles, and a joint impact report — directly feeds their ESG narrative.
→ Frame: "Your team gets hands-on volunteering experience, your brand appears in our media coverage, and your annual ESG report gets a documented humanitarian impact story."
Their win
A government funder needs to demonstrate that EU humanitarian aid is reaching conflict-adjacent populations effectively and efficiently. A small, agile NGO with documented reach and low overhead costs is exactly the delivery partner they need to evidence impact per euro.
→ Frame: "We deliver documented impact at a cost-per-beneficiary that larger INGOs cannot match. Your funding goes further with us, and the audit trail is clean."
Their win
A major individual donor has personal connections to the Balkans — their family left during the 1990s conflicts. Supporting Collective Aid lets them act on a deep personal commitment. Regular field updates, named distribution runs, and direct contact with your team give them something no large charity can: proximity.
→ Frame: "You'll know exactly where every pound goes, receive quarterly field updates directly from our team, and see your contribution in practice — not just in an annual report."
Their win — diaspora community donor
A member of the UK Balkan diaspora doesn't just want to donate — they want to act on a deep connection to a place and a people they're still emotionally tied to. Collective Aid offers them direct, traceable impact in their homeland, a community of other people who feel the same way, and a channel for solidarity that feels real rather than abstract.
→ Frame: "This isn't just a donation. It's your name on a distribution run to families in the region your family came from. We send you photos. You see the impact."
Their win — young professional crowdfunding donor
A 28-year-old scrolling through Instagram doesn't want to feel guilty — they want to feel effective, informed, and part of something credible. They're sceptical of vague charity appeals and wary of overhead. Their win is a small, direct, accountable action that fits their values without requiring a major commitment.
→ Frame: "£25. One winter kit. We photograph every distribution. No overhead mystery — 91p of every pound goes directly to people on the ground." Give them a transaction they can feel good about and verify.
Build your win-win frame
🏢 Our win
❤️ Their win
If you can write their win with as much conviction and specificity as yours — you're ready. If the right box is full of vague generalities, either your research isn't done yet, or this might not be the right opportunity.
Q You're pitching a corporate sponsor. Which win-win frame is strongest?
Step 6 of 7
Prioritise your time ruthlessly
There are always more leads than you can chase. The best fundraisers don't work harder — they work with sharper filters. Build a scoring rubric, then use it every time.
The trap: Skilled fundraisers often spend weeks polishing a proposal because it feels productive — even when the odds of success are negligible. This is wishful thinking disguised as work.
The glamour trap — grant
A major international foundation contacts your team — exciting! But: their focus is climate-linked displacement, they've never funded in the Balkans, and the application requires 6 weeks of staff time. The potential sum is large, but mission alignment is low and likelihood of success is very low.
→ The rubric says no. Walking away feels hard. But chasing it would burn 6 weeks that could be spent on three higher-probability opportunities.
The glamour trap — outreach campaign
A volunteer suggests targeting a major UK influencer with 2 million followers who once posted about refugees. Reaching out, creating content for them, and managing the relationship would take the team two weeks. The influencer has never engaged with humanitarian NGOs and their audience skews toward lifestyle content.
→ Score it: mission alignment 2, likelihood of success 1, scale of return maybe 4, effort 5, strategic value 1. Total: 13/25. The rubric says no. Meanwhile the team has three warm community contacts who could activate targeted segments with one hour of outreach each.
Score your opportunity
Move the sliders for a real or hypothetical opportunity. Be honest — not optimistic.
Mission alignmentDoes their strategy genuinely match our work?
3
Likelihood of successDo we have evidence this is open to us?
3
Scale of returnIf successful, is the impact transformative?
3
Effort required5 = very high effort (months of work)
3
Strategic valueLong-term relationship or network benefit?
3
Score
15 / 25
Note on effort (slider 4): This is the only slider where a high score is bad. High effort plus low alignment is a guaranteed morale drain. Score 4–5 on effort only if your other scores justify it.
Q A prestigious donor approaches you. The potential sum is the largest you've ever been offered. But mission alignment is 2/5 and likelihood of success (given their history) is 1/5. Your team is excited. What does the rubric say?
Step 7 of 7
Define your ideal donor profile
You've done all the preparation. Now synthesise it into a portrait of exactly who you're looking for — and how well your current prospect matches that portrait.
Mindset shift: Not "who might give us money?" but "who benefits most from partnering with us?" That question makes everything that follows easier.
Five dimensions of an ideal donor profile
Core values and beliefs
What moral, political, or social commitments define them? Which values overlap with Collective Aid's mission — and which might create tension? For example: a funder with strong "local ownership" values may want to see community consultation in your programmes, not just top-down distribution.
Motivations and drivers
Why do they give? Impact, legacy, reputation, innovation, tax, political alignment, ESG? Do they respond to emotional stories or hard metrics? A programme officer responding to human interest stories is different from a board deciding based on cost-per-beneficiary ratios.
Engagement preferences
Do they prefer formal written proposals or relationship-first informal conversations? Public recognition or quiet partnership? Quarterly reporting or continuous field updates? Match your engagement style to theirs — not to what's easiest for you.
Capacity and influence
What gift size is realistic? Are they a one-off donor or a potential multi-year strategic partner? Do they open doors to other funders, networks, or media coverage that multiplies the value of their support beyond the funding itself?
Risk appetite and decision style
Conservative donors want safe, proven, measurable outputs. Progressive donors may accept ambiguity and fund innovation. Do they decide individually (one director) or collectively (trustee board)? A board decision takes longer — factor that into your timeline.
Example — Collective Aid's ideal foundation profile
Values: Grassroots accountability, humanitarian neutrality, evidenced impact Motivations: Meeting mandate in under-served regions; impact demonstration to trustees Engagement: Prefers informal first contact, then structured proposal; values regular field updates Capacity: €15k–€60k grants; potential multi-year if first grant goes well Risk appetite: Moderate — comfortable with new partners if evidence base is strong
→ When a prospect matches this profile, the entire pitch process is easier — because you're not trying to be something you're not.
Outreach: build an audience segment profile
For outreach campaigns and crowdfunding, your "donor profile" is really an audience segment profile — a precise picture of a group of people you want to activate. The same five dimensions apply. Use the cards below to build a profile for a segment you're planning to target.
Values
Strong sense of homeland identity, solidarity with those who suffered what their families survived, pride in resilience. Wary of being treated as a fundraising target rather than as a community with agency.
Motivations
Personal and family connection to the region. Want to act on that connection in a way that feels direct and real — not abstract charity. May give more around significant dates (anniversaries, winter, news events).
Engagement style
Respond to community-first approaches. Trusted community voices matter enormously. Facebook groups, WhatsApp chains, community events. Cold posts from unknown NGOs are ignored. Warm vouching by a respected community member is gold.
Capacity
Wide range — from £10 one-offs to recurring £50+/month from more established community members. High potential for repeat giving if the relationship is nurtured and impact is shown. Network effect: one engaged donor can activate 10 more.
What turns them off
Feeling like an outsider NGO is "saving" their people. Generic humanitarian language that erases the specific cultural and historical context. No evidence of where money goes. Being contacted only when a campaign launches.
→ Outreach approach: Find and build relationships with 3–5 trusted community connectors before any campaign launches. Co-create the campaign language with them. Launch via community channels, not broadcast social media.
Values
Socially conscious, values-led, increasingly sceptical of large charity overhead. Want to give to organisations they can verify are efficient. Climate, human rights, and displacement are all on their radar.
Motivations
Want to feel effective, not just good. Respond to direct, traceable impact ("your £25 does this specific thing"). Often give in response to a specific ask from a friend or a content moment — not from unprompted browsing of charity sites.
Engagement style
Instagram, TikTok, newsletters from people they trust. Peer recommendation drives action — "my friend shared this" converts far better than an ad. Short, authentic content outperforms polished charity video. Prefer a small, clean ask to an emotionally overwhelming appeal.
Capacity
Typically £10–£50 per transaction. Low barrier to entry is key — don't lead with a £100 ask. Monthly giving potential if the first experience is smooth and the impact follow-up is good.
What turns them off
Complicated donation flows. Vague impact claims ("help us make a difference"). Guilt-heavy imagery. Overhead mystery. Feeling like they're being harvested for email addresses.
→ Outreach approach: Identify 5–10 Collective Aid volunteers with engaged personal followings. Brief them with a simple, shareable asset and a specific £25 ask. Their posts will convert 10x better than the organisation's own channels.
Values
Hospitality, sanctuary, and care for the stranger are central to most faith traditions. Many faith communities already have strong giving cultures and organised structures. The humanitarian framing resonates deeply — and cuts across political divides.
Motivations
Acting on religious duty and community values. Collective giving (a congregation contributing together) can be highly motivating. Named or dedicated donations (e.g. in memory of someone, or tied to a religious season) often produce larger gifts.
Engagement style
In-person is disproportionately effective. A 5-minute talk at a service, a community notice board, a letter from a faith leader endorsing the cause — all vastly more effective than social media for this segment. Trust flows through the institution, not the internet.
Capacity
Highly variable but often underestimated. A single congregation that decides to make Collective Aid a cause for a specific season can generate £2,000–£10,000+ in a matter of weeks. The faith leader's endorsement is the key unlock.
What turns them off
Feeling like they're being cold-pitched. Any language that feels politically charged or adversarial. Lack of transparency about where money goes. Not being acknowledged as a community with its own values — just treated as a cheque.
→ Outreach approach: Identify one faith leader contact. Request a 10-minute slot at a service or meeting. Bring one clear story, one specific ask, and a printed one-pager. If they say yes, one conversation becomes a community campaign.
Define your own audience segment. What do you know about the group you're targeting?
Segment name
Their values
Their motivations
Engagement style
Likely capacity
What turns them off
Outreach approach
How well does your prospect match?
Adjust the sliders for a real prospect you have in mind:
Values alignment
60%
Engagement style match
40%
Capacity and scale match
70%
Risk appetite fit
50%
Q Your ideal donor profile says foundations should have moderate-to-high risk appetite. A strong prospect matches on everything — values, capacity, engagement style — but is historically very risk-averse and only backs proven models. What's the right move?
✓
Training complete
You now have the full framework. Every time you start a new fundraising project, run through these seven steps before doing anything else.
The seven steps — your checklist
Write down your position
Map key stakeholders
Identify weaknesses
Assess receptivity
Frame the win-win
Prioritise ruthlessly
Define your donor profile
The rule that underpins all seven steps: Complex fundraising is about reducing uncertainty before you commit effort — not after. If you feel the urge to skip preparation and go straight to writing or calling, that urge is the signal to slow down, not speed up.
A note on persistence
Follow up internally once per day when something is stuck. Follow up externally on Mondays and Fridays. Not because it's polite — because complex fundraising lives and dies on momentum, and momentum requires you to keep it alive. Your time is valuable. Your work is urgent. Chase people up.
