When nonprofits face budget problems they all too often turn to the development staff as one of the first places to cut costs. Management's logic is simple: If people aren't giving and grants are down, why can't we get along with less in the development department?

But that short-term "solution" may cost an organization a lot in the long run. The current issue of the Chronicle of Philanthropy has an interesting article about the benefit keeping a fund raising staff for the long-term. The article "Longevity's New Appeal" (available to subscribers only) points out how fund raisers themselves have sometimes moved from organization to organization in order to build a career.

While some career movement has been for new challenges, much of it has been for higher salaries. And often, fund raisers move to new jobs because the only way to raise their salary in line with their increased skills is to move, usually to a bigger organization that has a bigger pay scale.

But a recent study by Eduventures, cited in this article, indicates that organizations may be losing money when they fail to retain development staff.

The study of more than 1,000 college and university fund raisers indicates that those staff who were in their job for less than five years generally obtained about one half of the donations they sought. When staff had more than five years experience, they received nearly two-thirds of the donations they sought.

Those conclusions are consistent with a key aspect of development work: that it is a relationship business.

And what would it mean to your organization if your development staff consistently raised one-third more money each year?

I recognize that it isn't easy for organizations to retain good fund raising staff. In fact, the main challenge is that an organization has to begin thinking out of the box.

Organizations that are freezing or reducing staff know that just keeping development staff is a big effort. And even in good times, how can you justify a 10% or greater raise for a great fund raiser when the rest of staff is lucky to see a 3% raise?

The only way to accomplish this, especially for smaller organizations, is to look at partnerships and cooperative efforts. A lot of organizations need the support of a skilled development person. But often they don't really need that person for a full 2,000 working hours per year. Maybe there is a chance to share that staff with another organization.

Yes, that's a tough task. The number one fear I hear from groups is that they can't share staff like that because it might compromise their fund raising data. Yet I would challenge those organizations to look at what really happens to that data now. Many small organizations are stuck in an endless cycle of hiring an entry level development staff. Things go one of two ways: either these people can't write grants or solicit funds, so they eventually quit and leave the field or they are good, and once they have a bit of experience, they go on to bigger organizations.

That endless cycle usually results in two things. First, you don't really have very good fund raising data because you don't have a consistent staffing of that function. Second, sharing a good fund raising staff person is no more dangerous to your data than the constant turnover.

Finally, a big part of the solution to these challenges lies with development staff. Your executive director and board had so much to deal with that you can't expect them to come up with these creative ideas. So the ball is in your court. If your organization is facing budget issues, you need to think about these ideas and flesh them out a bit. Then take them to the decision-makers in your organization. Think about how you can build the development department that you would like to work in at your current organization. It will be a challenge, but there is good evidence that if your organization invests in you, for the long-term, that investment will pay off.