7. Support and income

Income matters through what it enables

An income plan should explain how resources support the mission, not merely how to increase a gross total. Fundraising, earned income, partnerships, volunteering and commissioning involve different exchanges, obligations and relationships. A large restricted contribution may not pay for the work needed to deliver it. A small reliable partnership may provide more useful capacity than a high-profile appeal with heavy administration.

Start with the resource need. Is the organisation short of flexible cash, specialist time, reliable referrals, equipment or predictable demand? A campaign for donations may not solve a shortage of trained supervision. Compare support routes against the need, the organisation's capabilities and the consequences for people who use the service.

Understand the whole support journey

A donor journey can include discovery, understanding the purpose, deciding to give, receiving acknowledgement, seeing an honest update and choosing whether to continue. Stewardship means maintaining an appropriate relationship, not repeatedly extracting another gift. Someone should be able to stop receiving optional communications through the organisation's approved process without being treated as disloyal.

An earned-income journey has different stages: a potential buyer identifies a need, compares offers, checks suitability, agrees terms, receives delivery and decides whether to return. In a commissioned service, the buyer and the participant may be different. A partner may contribute reach or facilities rather than cash. Name the exchange and each party's expectations before selecting communications.

Do not treat every supporter as a donor waiting to be converted. Volunteers may value a bounded role and reliable support rather than a fundraising appeal. Referral partners need accurate service information and feedback about the handoff, not necessarily a monthly marketing newsletter. A useful journey respects the relationship's purpose and its limits.

Calculate contribution rather than celebrating gross income

The fictional appeal dataset records 100 first gifts of £20. Gross income is £2,000. Direct costs are £400 and the campaign uses 30 staff hours. Cash contribution before staff valuation is therefore £1,600. If you use an illustrative planning value of £15 per staff hour, staff time adds £450, leaving £1,150 after that imputed cost. The £15 is an assumption, not a wage requirement or a verified organisational rate.

Keep cash and economic cost separate. Staff may already be paid, but their time still has an opportunity cost: other useful work cannot happen simultaneously. Conversely, valuing volunteer time in a planning model does not create a cash payment obligation. Show both views so a reader can understand whether the plan is affordable in money and in capacity.

Restricted support is intended for specified purposes or terms. For a teaching budget, identify which costs a contribution is assumed to cover and which remain unsupported. Do not assume the whole amount is available for general operations. Actual restrictions, reporting obligations and financial treatment need the organisation's finance and relevant professional review; this course does not settle them.

Treat retention as an observed cohort measure

The fictional dataset says 30 of the 100 first-time donors gave again within 12 months. That is 30% repeat giving within the stated window. It is not proof that 70 people are permanently lost, and it is not a forecast for a new cohort. Their reasons are unknown. A useful plan distinguishes no repeat gift from an explicit decision to stop contact.

Lifetime-value estimates are sensitive to assumptions about repeat giving, timing, gift amounts, costs and the period considered. A single first-year repeat rate cannot establish an indefinite stream of income. Build a short scenario table instead: low, central and high repeat counts with clear costs. If the strategy works only under the optimistic case, say so.

Do not maximise retention at any cost. An update that respects preferences may build a relationship even when someone does not give again. Pressure, misleading urgency or excessive contact can harm people and trust. Include balancing measures such as handling workload, communication preferences and complaints through an approved process. For the course, use fictional scenarios rather than contacting real supporters.

Compare earned income and partnership options

The fictional repair enterprise has a possible employer workshop offer. The buyer's price is not the same as the social value created. Calculate delivery costs, preparation, travel assumptions, capacity and any subsidy before claiming the offer funds other work. Include what happens if a buyer cancels or asks for extra scope. Do not take a real booking or payment as part of this course.

A partnership may reduce reach costs but create dependence. If one partner supplies most referrals, a change in their priorities can affect service use. If a sponsor wants recognition that compromises the organisation's message, apparent funding can carry a mission cost. Evaluate fit, concentration, operational burden and exit options rather than counting a signed agreement as success.

For commissioning, distinguish winning a contract from delivering a sustainable service. A bid can look attractive on headline income while requiring reporting or staffing that the organisation cannot support. Your course task is to ask the right resource questions and build a transparent scenario, not provide legal, tax or procurement advice.

Choose a relationship the team can sustain

Compare two support routes using net contribution, cash timing, staff capacity, mission fit and risk. Include the work after acquisition: acknowledgement, delivery, updates, complaints and maintaining accurate records. A plan that funds a campaign but not its aftermath is incomplete.

Finish with a support journey that people can understand and the organisation can maintain. State the purpose of the ask, the promised follow-up, the limits of the evidence and the point at which the team should stop or revise. Income is useful when it supports a credible service and a respectful relationship. It is not a reason to hide uncertainty or overstate impact.

Follow cash timing through an attractive offer

The workshop scenario has a £600 buyer price and £130 direct cash costs, leaving £470 before time valuation. Eight hours at £20 plus two administrative hours at £15 reduce the illustrative contribution to £280. But this figure is incomplete if preparation must happen before payment, if a buyer cancels or if another delivery displaces a more valuable commitment. The calculation is a starting model, not a statement of accounting profit.

Ask when cash arrives and when costs must be paid. An organisation can have a positive eventual contribution and still lack cash at the moment materials are needed. For a course proposal, show the timing assumption and identify the finance role that would need to confirm it. Do not solve an unverified cash gap by recommending borrowing or a real financial commitment.

Then test concentration. If one employer supplies all workshop income, a lost booking could remove the entire expected contribution for that period. If several small donors give, handling work may rise even as dependence on one relationship falls. Diversification is not automatically better when each route requires different skills and systems. Compare the capacity to maintain the relationships, not just the number of income sources. A reasoned choice might retain one manageable route while reserving effort to investigate another. State what evidence would justify expanding it and what obligations must be understood before an offer is made.

Before prioritising an income route, ask whether the organisation could still deliver its core service if the expected contribution arrived late or not at all. Record the fallback as a planning decision, not a prediction or an invitation to make a real financial commitment.

Study allocation and completion

Allocate 1.5 hours to this lesson and worked example, 1.5 to critical reading, 2 to the lab, 3 to the assignment, 1 to critique and 1 to reflection and revision: 10 hours in total. These are planning allocations, not measured duration or a timed assessment. Read in short sessions if helpful. All resources are plain text; a notebook, calculator or optional free spreadsheet is sufficient. No video, AI account or paid service is needed.

For critical reading, use the linked selection if accessible and the internal reading comparison. Record its question, argument, evidence type, assumptions and one reason it might not transfer to your organisation. A missing external reading does not prevent completion: compare the two original internal positions and state that you have not appraised the external source. Keep a source log with title, URL, access date if accessed, claim supported and limitation. Links are references, not permission to copy or upload readings to AI.

Complete the lab manually first. The supplied simulated AI output is authored teaching material, not a transcript, real research or verified model performance. Mark each claim supported, unsupported or contradicted. Optional live AI may generate alternatives from these fictional inputs only; record tool, date, instructions, checks and revisions. Never supply personal, confidential or unauthorised material. If not using AI, compare the supplied output against your manual work and label that route accurately.

For critique, use the rubric and annotated example, alone or with a consenting peer; no peer is required. For reflection, revise one consequential decision and record the old choice, new choice, evidence and unresolved uncertainty. Keep work locally. Self-completion records learning activity, not professional competence or an independently assessed award. Version: 1 November 2026; report suspected errors through the course host's available contact route, or retain a correction note if no route exists.

Practical lab — 2 hours

Calculate gross income, cash contribution and contribution after illustrative staff cost. Calculate 12-month repeat giving. Build repeat-gift scenarios of 20, 30 and 40 donors giving £20 once, assuming £100 follow-up cash costs and eight staff hours valued at £15 for planning. Explain why none predicts lifetime value. Compare a donor journey with the fictional workshop buyer journey.

Portfolio assignment — 3 hours

Produce an 800-word income/support journey with a cost table, relationship stages, preference/exit handling, resource need, restriction assumptions and one alternative route. Identify what finance or professional review would be needed before a real offer. Link the chosen resource route to your mission problem rather than inventing a fundraising requirement for every organisation.

Critique — 1 hour

Use the rubric and example, alone or with a consenting peer. Challenge the denominator, the strongest unsupported assumption and the most consequential operational risk.

Reflection and revision — 1 hour

Revise one decision and retain both versions with reasons. State the evidence that would reverse your choice. All work can remain local; no live AI, spend, contact or publication is needed.

Self-review weights: evidence and source appraisal 25%; critical reasoning 25%; contextual fit 20%; feasibility and evaluation 20%; clarity and reflective judgement 10%. Score each 0–4, then sum(weight × score / 4). These are illustrative learning criteria, not validated academic grades.

Evidence: preserve cohort and time-window definitions. Reasoning: compare gross income with cash and time-adjusted contribution. Context: distinguish donors, buyers and participants. Feasibility: include follow-up work and restriction assumptions. Reflection: show a scenario in which the alternative route is better.

0 is missing or misleading; 1 asserts without support; 2 supplies partial relevant support; 3 links evidence, alternatives and a feasible decision; 4 tests a serious contrary account and states a reversal condition. Correct invented evidence, privacy risks and unsupported public promises before self-completion, irrespective of the total.

Weak: '£2,000 raised means £2,000 profit and 30% retention guarantees future income.' Both claims overreach. Competent: 'Cash contribution is £1,600 before staff valuation; 30 of 100 gave again within 12 months.' Strong: 'After 30 hours valued illustratively at £15, contribution is £1,150. Repeat-gift scenarios are planning assumptions, not predictions; they need follow-up cost and mission checks. A smaller campaign could be better if acknowledgement and service delivery otherwise exceed capacity.' Annotation: the strong answer separates observed fictional counts, cash arithmetic and uncertain future assumptions.