4th Annual Fundraising Growth Analysis

By Reinier Spruit
On December 10, 2014 At 2:00 pm

Category : Best posts Q4 2014, database, Latest posts, research

Responses : 5 Comments

cbf1Oops, I did it again. Like previous years I sliced and diced the Central Bureau of Fundraising (CBF) annual figures into some sort of growth analysis for the Dutch market.

Perhaps I should not repeat the methodology and disclaimer, because you’re probably not gonna read it anyway. Most of you scroll straight down to the tables below to see where your organisation is ranked. But let me just mention the main points before we dive into the figures.

The data used below are provided with the courtesy of the CBF, 2008-2013 Income Own Fundraising. Like last year, I’ve focused my analysis on fundraising income excluding income from legacies.

I’ve segmented the ranking in three income value segments to create a sort of apple and apple comparison. The first segment includes 30 non-profits who raise more than EUR 10 million, excluding income from legacies, in 2013. The next segment looks at 70 organisations raising between EUR 2.5 million – 10 million. The third part shows the segment EUR 0.5 million – 2.5 million, which includes 125 organisations.

So, three categories. In total 225 non-profits. The total income from ‘own fundraising’ (the CBF definition) from these organisations is EUR 1.37 billion, which represents 97% of the income raised registered at the CBF at 4 December.

The growth criteria are the following. Short term: year-over-year growth rate; from 2012 to 2013, 1 year. Medium term: compound annual growth rate (CAGR): from 2010 to 2013, 3 years. Long term: median growth rate: from 2008 to 2013, 5 years. I’ve ranked all non-profits within their value segment on all three growth indicators. The sum of these rankings decided their overall ranking.

This analysis will not tell you the secrets to success (or failure). It will hopefully push you into the right direction of some of the stars, and you’ll investigate further… There are 1001 reasons for these results, so don’t make draw any quick conclusions. Think about changed investment, emergency funding, new campaigns, etc.

Some figures from past Annual Reports changed due to different allocation of funds. So you might see differences with previous years…

OK, let’s go, Let’s look at the growth rates!

~~~ 10 million+ ~~~

The absolute winner, without any doubt, is KiKa, who ranks 1st in all three growth categories. Sure, awesome fundraising results has many reasons, but what KiKa is doing definitely works…

tableA

~~~ 2.5 million – 10 million ~~~

tableB

tableC

tableD

~~~ 0.5 million – 2.5 million ~~~

tableE

tableF

tableG

tableK

~~~ The 25 most exceptional non-profits ~~~

In this last table I’ve meshed up the above three categories into one. So these are the top 25 most exceptional organizations if we look at fundraising growth. I know, it’s not scientific, but I’m sure below table will end up in many Board or Management reports anyway… Congratulations to everybody with these terrific results!

tableX

Questions? Remarks? Ideas for future or further analysis? Let me know below in the comments. Good luck with your fundraising!

Share Button
Reinier Spruit (37 blogs on 101fundraising)

Reinier is in love with fundraising since 2001. Ever since he's trying to improve his own fundraising skills and those of others. He founded 101fundraising back in 2010. At the moment working with amazing clients through his one-man fundraising consultancy. Loves running and baseball.


Add your comment

XHTML : You may use these tags : <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



Comments

  1. Reinier, Excellent work! Thanks! It shows it is in all categories possible to grow. A good motivation for many to take risks and work together to also grow in 2015 and beyond.

     — Reply
  2. Reinier, thanks for the math. Looks good again. And maybe KiKa is willing to share some tips and tricks…

     — Reply
  3. Thanks for lining up these figures. Did anyone ever do a systematic analysis of what predicts fundraising income growth in the Netherlands? Or test theories from the international literature?

     — Reply
    • Hi Rene,

      Not that I am aware of. I’m also somewhat doubtful if it’s possible…

      I think what above figures mainly shows is that while some individual organisations show a superb growth trajectory, others don’t show great results… This has to do with a wide range of reasons, from financial and staff investment to philanthropic leadership and culture, and much more.

      I normally stay away from market wide analysis, because it’s often used to explain (often bad) individual performance, which I disagree with. I firmly believe that at least 80-90% of the reasons for great or bad fundraising results are internal, and not external.

      Are you planning any research in this area?

      Thanks,
      Reinier

       — Reply