The Challenging Future of Denominational NGOs

Sometimes I think there are only two types of denominational NGOs today: Those that are in trouble, and those that will be. 

Earlier this year I interviewed fundraisers and some executive directors from 14 Canadian denominational NGOs—international relief and development agencies that are owned by church bodies like the Presbyterians, Anglicans, Adventists, Baptists and others.

All of them are facing fundraising challenges. 

For some, the challenges are severe. For others, not so much right now—but they likely will be in the future.

What are those challenges? 

An aging donor base. Many Canadian churches are greying. As churches age, the best givers—older people—are dying. The next generation is not nearly as generous or as loyal in their giving. 

Shrinking donor base. Along with growing older, many churches are getting smaller—the pool of donors is declining. The decline is more precipitous for the mainline churches, but even some evangelical churches are experiencing a downturn in attendance.  

The decline is felt in all age groups, but most among younger adults. At the same time, there is a growing loss of longtime members—a group known as the “dones.”  

These are people who have gone to church all their lives, but now, in the 60s and older, feel there are better ways to spend a Sunday morning.

Declining denominational loyalty. The older generation was loyal to denominational agencies. Church-related NGOs would only have to win them once; after that, their support could be counted on.

Younger donors are different. They may be as generous as their elders, but they spread it around to more organizations. They are also more cause-driven; something attracts them this month, something different appeals to them a few months from now. They are not necessarily loyal to one group.

What this means for denominational NGOs is that they can’t assume that because someone is Anglican (or Mennonite or United Church or Adventist) they will support their denominational agencies. They will give to the best and most compelling offers, wherever they come from.  

Falling donations through churches. When I started in this sector in the early 1980s, all we needed to do was send a letter to supporting churches once or twice a year and the money would come back.

Those days are gone.

Today it’s all about raising money from individuals; no more relying on pastors and priests to do our work for us—for free.

Not only that, many churches once had their denominational NGOs in their budgets; a portion of general giving was always sent to the agency, along with any special appeals.

That too is going, or gone. When a church has trouble paying the pastor’s salary or fixing the roof, the first thing to go is giving from the budget to external groups. 

What this means for denominational NGOs is that they have to be more proactive and marketing-oriented. They need to hire more people and spend more money on fundraising. 

Changing attendance patterns. Twenty-five or 30 years ago, it you asked someone if they went to church regularly they would assume you meant weekly. 

Today many churchgoers are what University of Lethbridge sociologist Reg Bibby coined as “monthly plus”—people who attend once, maybe twice, a month.

What this means for denominational NGOs is that even if they are successful in getting to preach on a Sunday morning, or hold a special giving Sunday, they will reach only part of the congregation. 

Internal competition for dollars within denominations. For a long time, denominations exhorted congregations to get involved in the community. The good news is that churches took the message to heart. The bad news is these new ministries cost money—money that now stays home.

The most recent example of this is Syrian refugee sponsorship. Hundreds (maybe thousands) of churches across Canada applied to sponsor a family (or two). It costs $30,000 to $50,000 to sponsor a family for a year—money that will stay home in 2016.

This is a good cause, to be sure, but every fundraiser I spoke to expects to receive less money from their churches this year because of it.

Then there are the special international projects supported by churches—how many sponsor an orphanage, clinic or school, or send their youth on a missions or service trip?

It’s always easier to raise funds for ministries close to hand, or for youth in the church—again, money that doesn’t make it to the denominational NGO.

Another source of internal competition is within denominations themselves. 

The denominational NGO may need funds for a program in the developing world, but so does the missions department and the youth department and the denomination’s administration itself (paying for the Bishop’s or moderator’s salary and the rent).  

There can be a fierce debate within a denomination about who can mail out an appeal and when and how many times. 

If the denominational NGO mailed out an appeal once already this year, it doesn’t matter how successful it was or how much It appealed to donors—it won’t get another chance, even if a golden opportunity to raise more money comes along. It’s someone else’s turn.

Growing external competition. World Vision is still the biggest church-related NGO in Canada. But since 2010 their fundraising is down $24 million ($283 million to $262 million.) 

People with inside knowledge at World Vision tell me the agency is busy developing very ambitious strategies to reclaim those missing dollars and donors.  

What does this mean for denominational NGOs? 

While they are required to play by the internal rules of when they can issue appeals, or how often they can mail to churches, external parachurch organizations like World Vision, Samaritan’s Purse and Compassion Canada (groups that are independent of denominations), are unburdened by such rules.  

They can contact a denomination’s churches and its members whenever and however they please—and they do. 

Speaking of Samaritan’s Purse and Compassion Canada, these two growing parachurch NGOs are also actively fundraising from Canadian churches. 

From 2010-14 Compassion Canada grew from $44 million in donations to $59 million. In the same time period, Samaritan’s Purse grew from $43 million to $51 million.

Growing Secularism. When a business sees its customer base dry up, it usually goes out to look for new ones. Church groups that watch their numbers shrink may want to do the same thing—grow their market. In church circles, that is called evangelism.

The problem today is that growing numbers of Canadians have no interest in the church or religion in general. 

In his recent book, The Meaning of Sunday: The Practice of Belief in a Secular Age, Joel Thiessen of Ambrose University notes that “‘demand’ for things that religious groups offer is not as strong as most assume. Regardless of what religious groups do to their ‘supply’ of religion (e.g. more relevant preaching, more and different programs, or contemporary music), few Canadians are likely to respond with greater levels of church attendance.

He notes that the fastest growing “religious” group in Canada are the “nones”—those who say they have no religious affiliation. 

This group now represents 24% of Canadian adults and 32% of Canadian teens, and it continues to grow.

What about churches or denominations that claim to be growing? The reality is that almost none of the growth is from people who have no church background.

A recent study by two evangelical authors, Sam Reimer and Michael Wilkinson, has confirmed what Reg Bibby said 35 years ago: 90% of church growth is people from other churches.

In other words, if a church is growing it is likely doing so at the expense of churches that are shrinking—they are just shuffling the same pool of people from one church to another, not actually growing the total number of religious givers.

This all sounds like so much bad news. 

I don’t mean to suggest that the task is impossible. Religious Canadians are generous, and they like to respond to needs in the world. Staff at denominational NGOs are dedicated and devoted to their tasks. And denominational NGOs have faced tough times before, and got through them somehow.

But the road may be steeper this time, the future more uncertain. With their fortunes tied to the success or failure of the churches that own them, many denominational NGOs will struggle. Not all may survive.

So: what to do? That’s a topic for another post.