I have worked in two primary types of organizations, those with a defined constituency and those without. To clarify, I am viewing organizations with a defined constituency as those with a natural pool of prospects, alumni, parents, etc. I’m characterizing those without as, well, everybody else. There is something comforting about working with a defined constituency. You know who you are reaching out to. You have strategies that work for your audiences. You know that each summer you engage in a similar research process to learn about new constituents joining your organization. 

Organizations without defined constituencies need to identify their target markets, build their prospect pools, and find funders that align with their missions.The prospect pool is potentially much bigger but there is a lot more qualification work that needs to be done. It takes more effort to open doors, build new relationships, and raise funds. 

The upside to not having a defined constituency group is that the world is truly your oyster. You can reach out to anyone – individuals, foundations, or grant making organizations where there is mission alignment. The vastness of prospecting can feel exciting but it can also feel daunting. If only there was a more efficient way – let’s put a pin in that for a minute. 

In 2021, AI became a topic of conversation in a board meeting I was participating in. The primary point of the conversation centered around academic integrity. Nobody had any answers but everybody knew this problem wasn’t going away. The topic was tabled with some specific questions to be followed up on. Then the finance committee was on deck with a proposal for the new fiscal year budget. The chair gave a summary of the board’s role in the budgeting process and the overall purpose of the budget for the coming year. He read from his phone. He didn’t write the budget overview. While the larger board discussed AI, he entered a prompt into ChatGPT. In seconds, he had a generic summary of the purpose of budgets in a nonprofit organization and a general description of the role of the board in that process. What he read made perfect sense.

Once he completed his introduction, he let his colleagues know that his summary was prepared by AI. Gasps. That was my first real introduction to how AI can be used in the real world. It wasn’t all about cheating on term papers, it was a tool that would generally prove useful in the business world. But what does this have to do with fundraising? 

I’ve been following with interest the various applications and descriptions of how fundraisers use AI in their work. Reactions in the field range from curiosity to outright refusal that AI has any place in fundraising. The majority of suggestions for how to use AI in nonprofits tends to fall in the area of writing. It can draft appeal letters, cut down time generating copy for a new brochure, or refresh thank you messages. Now, I agree, it’s easier to edit than create – and make no mistake in what I’m saying here, edit you must. I do not recommend you take AI generated copy at face value, cut, and paste. The tool isn’t there – yet. But I think there are wider applications.

I work full time at an organization without a defined constituency. A colleague painstakingly researches potential funders, in our industry, who align with our mission that also make charitable contributions, or partner with nonprofit organizations. I knew there had to be a better way. I knew there were software programs I could purchase but I wanted immediate gratification. I wanted to find new prospects at that moment. So I went to ChatGPT. I typed the simplest question, what foundations support the mission of my organization. It gave me a list of ten potential prospects. Of those ten, seven were already in our portfolio. That gave me some confidence that I was on the right track. The results left me with three to research. A quick scan of the other organizations told me that one was not a good fit. The other two were good options. I regenerated the response to the same question, I was presented with five more options. You can see where this is going. Now, the person who combed the vastness of anyone who might support the mission of our organization was narrowed down. I redirected her efforts to concentrate more intently on the new organizations ChatGPT has surfaced. Efficiency earned.

Is it revolutionary?  You tell me. I shared this approach with a few others in the nonprofit space  over the next few days. The reactions were mixed. Some thought I was brilliant. Some had no interest in exploring AI for any facet of their work or life. I suppose that response is to be expected with something brand new that is regarded with such a high degree of skepticism. For me, it worked. My team gained efficiency. It changed how I thought about a core function of our work. Is it revolutionary? For me it is.