Push for stewardship definition, but confusion over what it should be

Fundraising | Celina Ribeiro | 24 Jul 2008

There is industry wide support for the development of a common definition of fundraising stewardship, according to the interim findings of a survey into the phenomenon.

Just over half (56 per cent) of fundraisers believe there should be a “common, accepted definition” of fundraising stewardship.

However, early analysis of a survey carried out by Relationship Marketing has uncovered a moderate level of inconsistency as to current understanding of what stewardship involves.

While 26 per cent of respondents said that “acting to ensure the sustainability of the pool of public donations” was an essential component of stewardship, 29 per cent responded that “ensuring all donors everywhere can give more for longer periods of time” - a closely related activity - was not a part of stewardship at all.

“While we are seeing some patterns emerging, there isn’t really any part of the survey that gives the impression that fundraisers are speaking with a single voice,” said Relationship Marketing’s Gordon Michie.

“And while we have a majority of people saying they think fundraisers need a standard definition of stewardship, there’s a substantial minority that don’t think we need it.”

A surprising 16 per cent of those surveyed said that promptly and politely thanking a donor for a gift was a definition of stewardship in and of itself.

The online survey is ongoing and Relationship Marketing will release the final analysis of the results in October.

Who's Who: Celina Ribeiro

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

Robust but respectful debate
Strongly held opinions
Intelligent relevant discussion
The sharing of relevant experiences
New participants

We will not publish:

Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
The posting of contact details for yourself or others
Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.