Fundraising Business Guide
Get Solutions, Not Just Problems
We documented 37 challenges in Fundraising. Now get the actionable solutions — vendor recommendations, process fixes, and cost-saving strategies that actually work.
Skip the wait — get instant access
- All 37 documented pains
- Business solutions for each pain
- Where to find first clients
- Pricing & launch costs
All 37 Documented Cases
Fehlbewertung von Sachspenden führt zu entgangenen steuerlichen Vorteilen und verzerrten Projektbudgets
Quantified: AUD 20,000–30,000 per year of under-recognised in-kind contributions for a typical mid-size NFP with ~1,000 hours of specialist volunteers and AUD 50,000 of discounted goods; plus potential grant reductions or clawbacks of 10–20% of project funding when in-kind co‑funding cannot be substantiated.Australian NFPs receiving in-kind goods, services and discounted supplies must recognise them at fair value under AASB 1058 and common grant practice, typically valuing volunteer general labour at about AUD 20/hour, specialist labour at about AUD 45/hour and donated goods at the price the organisation would otherwise pay.[2][3] Donors are responsible for advising the market value of non-cash gifts to DGRs for tax purposes.[2][6] Where valuation is handled ad hoc in spreadsheets or emails, organisations frequently under-record professional volunteer time, discounts, and donated assets, leading to lower reported project co‑contributions in grant acquittals and reduced supportable deduction amounts for donors. For a mid-size charity with, for example, 1,000 hours of specialist volunteer input and AUD 50,000 of discounted goods per year, failing to document and receipt just 30% of this in-kind support can easily suppress reported project income by AUD 20,000–30,000 annually (1,000h × 45 = 45,000; 30% unrecorded ≈ 13,500 plus 30% of 50,000 discounts = 15,000). This directly reduces leverage in matching grants and can cause grantors to reduce or claw back funding when audited against guidelines that expect in-kind contributions to be itemised and evidenced.[2][3][4] Overstatement is an opposite risk: if staff use retail rather than realistic discounted rates, grant co‑funding or DGR receipts may be materially overstated, forcing later corrections and loss of trust with donors and funders. Because donors must substantiate the market value of gifts for ATO purposes and NFPs must be able to evidence fair value for AASB 1058 compliance, lack of a robust valuation and receipting workflow constitutes a recurrent revenue leakage.
Non-Compliance bei Sachspenden kann zu steuerlichen Korrekturen und Fördermittel-Rückforderungen führen
Quantified: Risk of AUD 25,000–40,000 grant clawback or reduction per AUD 250,000 project if 10–20% in-kind co‑funding is disallowed, plus additional AUD 5,000–15,000 in extra audit and remediation costs in years where material misstatements of in-kind donations are identified.The ATO requires that donors to DGR-endorsed organisations substantiate the market value of non-cash gifts and that NFPs keep adequate records for gifts and contributions, including any minor benefits provided in return.[2][6] AASB 1058 obliges NFPs to recognise gifts and in-kind contributions at fair value, supported by documentation.[2] State and local government grant programs commonly require applicants to itemise in-kind contributions, calculate them using standard hourly and market-value rules (for example, AUD 20/hour for general volunteers, AUD 45/hour for specialist volunteers, donated goods at the price the organisation would otherwise pay) and maintain written evidence such as letters of donation or supplier quotes for later acquittal or audit.[2][3][4] Where in-kind donations over internal thresholds (for example, AUD 500 or ‘portable and attractive’ items) are not properly recorded into asset or inventory systems, procedures require corrective entries and expose entities to findings of control weaknesses in audits.[8] If, during an ATO or grantor review, an NFP cannot substantiate the basis for in-kind valuations or the existence and use of donated assets and services, grantors may disallow in-kind contributions counted towards matching requirements and seek repayment or reduction of grant funds; donors may also be denied tax deductions for unsupported market values. For a typical project of AUD 250,000 total budget with 20–30% presented as in-kind co‑funding, losing recognition of even half of that in-kind component can trigger clawbacks or reduced reimbursement of AUD 25,000–40,000 per project cycle. Additionally, restatement of financial statements to correct in-kind valuation errors can increase audit fees and internal remediation costs.
Umsatzverluste durch fehlerhafte Spendenquittungen und fehlende Nachweise
Quantified (logic-based): For a mid‑sized charity raising AUD 5 million annually, a conservative 1–3% loss of revenue due to donor attrition and unallocated/contested payments attributable to receipting and record‑keeping issues equates to AUD 50,000–150,000 per year, plus additional admin labour of roughly 20–40 hours per month (AUD 1,000–3,000 monthly) spent on manual reconciliations, re‑issuing receipts and handling substantiation queries.While the ATO governs income‑tax deductibility rules and what constitutes acceptable substantiation for donors, charities and not‑for‑profits must maintain proper financial records, issue accurate receipts and manage money in line with ACNC governance standards and fundraising laws.[3][4][6][9] Poorly designed manual processes around issuing receipts, recording donor details and reconciling bank feeds often result in errors such as duplicate receipts, missing attribution, incorrect ABNs or DGR status on receipts, or failure to capture online donor data. This creates disputes where donors cannot substantiate their claims, request refunds or simply stop giving due to perceived unreliability, and it undermines the organisation’s ability to demonstrate proper use of funds in state fundraising reporting and ACNC annual information statements.[1][4][6] Over time, this manifests as direct write‑offs of unallocatable donations, higher chargebacks and a measurable drop in donor lifetime value.
Verzögerter Zahlungseingang durch langwierige Spendenverarbeitung
Quantified (logic-based): For a charity processing AUD 5 million in annual donations, having 5–10% (AUD 250,000–500,000) sitting in unmatched or delayed receipts at any time is common, effectively increasing working‑capital needs by that amount; an additional 1–2% of pledged revenue (AUD 50,000–100,000) is typically lost each year to failed payments and unchased pledges due to slow manual follow‑up and weak substantiation records.Fundraising laws and ACNC expectations require charities to manage funds raised efficiently, keep records and be able to report on how money from each appeal has been applied.[1][3][4][9] To satisfy these obligations and prepare for audits, many organisations run manual processes: exporting bank statements, hand‑matching inbound payments to donor records and appeals, and only releasing funds or recognising revenue after verification. When large campaigns or third‑party community fundraisers are involved, delayed reporting from intermediaries and poor reference data slow the process further. This increases time‑to‑cash, creates large suspense balances and leads to uncollected pledges where donors are never charged or direct debits fail and are not followed up promptly, resulting in permanent revenue loss.