Bridging the Gap Between Programs and Fundraising: Why Cost per Success Matters

A recent NonProfit PRO article by Richard Perry, 4 Steps to Address the Disconnect Between Programs and Fundraising, raises a concern that many nonprofit leaders recognize immediately. Fundraising staff often struggle to describe their own organization’s programs with clarity and confidence. The article uses the comparison of a retail store to show how awkward this situation can be. A store associate who cannot identify what sits on the shelves or how products are organized would send customers elsewhere. The same issue appears in fundraising when staff try to secure support without a complete understanding of program offerings.

The analogy is useful. Anyone who has worked in a nonprofit knows how easily program teams and development teams drift into separate conversations, separate systems, and separate priorities. Program staff focus on service delivery. Fundraising staff focus on revenue. Finance staff monitor budgets. Everyone works hard, yet information rarely flows freely from one team to the next.

The article encourages nonprofits to map out program categories, break them into subcategories, calculate costs, and use that preparation to construct stronger funding requests. These steps help build internal alignment, and many organizations would benefit from the discipline of naming what they do with greater precision. Still, the approach stops short of answering a question that funders ask every day. They want to know which programs produce meaningful change and how much it costs for someone to succeed.

Funders pay attention to program descriptions, but they look for evidence that those programs make a difference. They study outcomes, not activities. They look for organizations that can show that participant results match the mission donors care about. This is where cost per success becomes the missing link.

Program Details Alone Do Not Answer Donor Questions

Listing a program category may tell a funder what your organization offers, yet it does not show how lives improve. Adding a list of subcategories adds another layer of precision, but it still leaves key questions untouched. A program can operate all year, serve thousands of people, produce impressive attendance numbers, and still leave funders uncertain about actual change.

Funders are under public and internal pressure to demonstrate that their resources support results. Boards ask for assurance that grants lead to community improvement. Corporate partners look for outcomes that match specific priorities. Donor advised funds require clarity for compliance and fiduciary responsibility. They all ask versions of the same question: What improved for participants and how do you know?

A catalog of program elements cannot answer that. Activity counts cannot answer that. A cost breakdown focused on staff, supplies, and overhead cannot answer that. Funders look for proof that investment leads to impact, and they expect organizations to supply information grounded in real results.

This expectation is growing across philanthropy. Organizations that depend on old reporting habits feel this shift more than anyone. When proposals rely on general language, funders question whether the organization understands its own effectiveness. When reports shift from year to year, funders question consistency. When organizations offer stories without supporting data, funders question whether the outcomes match the claims.

Cost per Success Brings Program Work and Fundraising Work Together

The retail analogy in the original article encourages nonprofits to think about programs like products. A shopper wants items clearly labeled and well organized. Yet the comparison breaks down at a certain point. Retail decisions focus on sales. Funding decisions focus on transformation and mission alignment.

Cost per success provides the clarity funders seek. It links program activity, participant outcomes, and financial stewardship in a way that both program and fundraising teams can understand. It answers questions that donors rarely speak aloud but always consider. Which program produces meaningful change? Which intervention delivers value aligned with community priorities? Which effort offers consistent and repeatable progress for participants?

When cost per success is available, conversations with donors become more grounded. Program teams can describe outcomes with evidence. Fundraising teams can speak about financial needs with stronger justification. Finance teams can trace how funds support specific results. Everyone works from the same information rather than separate spreadsheets and assumptions.

Organizations Need Shared Outcome Information, Not Just Shared Program Lists

The original article highlights internal silos as the cause of confusion. The deeper issue often comes from the absence of a unified approach to tracking and reporting outcomes. Program teams collect one set of numbers. Fundraising teams write proposals based on another set. Finance teams produce a third view of costs. These inputs rarely connect, which leaves funders with an incomplete picture.

When organizations introduce shared outcome measurement practices, the entire conversation shifts. Program staff document participant progress consistently. Fundraising staff use that evidence to answer donor questions with confidence. Finance staff can allocate resources in ways that support proven results. Everyone gains a clearer sense of what success looks like and how the organization moves toward it.

Moving Beyond Program Inventories

The steps outlined in the NonProfit PRO article create structure, yet many nonprofits benefit from a broader approach that goes beyond program labeling. Here are four practices that help organizations link program clarity, outcome clarity, and cost clarity in a way that strengthens fundraising communication.

1. Define what success looks like before organizing program content

Programs exist to create change. Start by identifying the outcomes that matter most for participants and the community. Once these outcomes are defined, program activities and budgets fall into place with greater purpose.

2. Track outcomes consistently across all program areas

Shared definitions and shared methods reduce confusion. When teams collect and interpret outcome information in consistent ways, organizations speak to funders with a unified voice.

3. Align costs with outcomes

Cost per participant can be helpful, but cost per success carries far more influence. It gives donors a clear sense of how resources translate into better lives for the people you serve.

4. Use stories supported by evidence

Participant stories bring outcomes to life, and outcome data strengthens those stories. Combined, they create a compelling and trustworthy case for support.

These practices create an internal environment where program and fundraising teams rely on the same information. Stronger communication with donors is the natural result.

Funders Respond to Clarity and Consistency

Funders value organizations that understand their own effectiveness. They look for leaders who can explain results without hesitation. They appreciate proposals backed by evidence and consistent methods rather than one time anecdotes or shifting metrics. They reward transparency and clear alignment with community needs.

This is why our team at SureImpact created our new guide “What Funders Want: The Ultimate Guide to Communicating Outcomes, Building Trust, and Securing Revenue.” Many nonprofits are working hard to deliver strong programs and meaningful results, yet they struggle to communicate those results in ways that answer funder questions. The guide offers practical steps to help organizations strengthen outcome communication, calculate cost per success, and build relationships grounded in shared expectations.

Download the Guide

If you want to strengthen donor conversations, clarify your outcomes, and present your programs in a way that funders understand and trust, our newest guide can support that work.

Download “What Funders Want” to gain a clearer approach to communicating outcomes, calculating cost per success, and presenting your impact with confidence.