Fundraising consulting, reinvented as a platform.

Thank you for your request, and for joining the Margaret community! We're delighted to have you aboard.

Making an effective fundraising ask is an important step. However, before making a solicitation, it's crucial to consider what your approach will be and of course, who you plan to approach.

From your inquiry, it sounds like you're looking to reach out to entirely cold prospects to request seed funding. Do you currently have a targeted list of individuals to whom you would like to reach out? An important factor in cold outreach is ensuring that whomever you're trying to connect with has both the inclination and capacity to fund your work. If you already have such a list (or if you need help building out such a list), please feel free to submit future requests to Margaret — we're happy to help evaluate prospects.

For someone entirely cold to you and to your organization, the best approach you can take is to send an introductory message via email rather than asking for funding outright. This communication is meant to “get your foot in the door” so that you can cultivate a larger and more long-term relationship with a prospective donor.

The copy of this initial email should be short and snappy (to get attention), and contain the basics, including:

• Who you are — your background and credentials; the “why” behind your founding the organization
• A clear articulation of what the organization aims to accomplish, why it matters now, and the connection between this prospective donor and the cause. Field statistics and other data points can help catch your reader's eye and emphasize the importance of your work.
• Encouragement to view your website and socials, and a request for a phone call or an in-person meeting (as applicable — coffee, lunch, etc.) so that this prospect can learn more about the organization and how they can support its work.

From there, you can continue to develop your relationship with prospects and eventually determine what level of financial support you can reasonably expect from them. If helpful, you can always submit a draft of this email to Margaret for review.

When you eventually reach the point of making a solicitation, you should structure your appeal so that it is:

• Emotionally resonant — talk about the most direct, sympathetic beneficiary of your services.
• Portable — ensure that your message doesn't lose power based on who tells the story or makes the solicitation for support (you, your staff, a board member, etc.)
• Connects money to the problem — you're asking for funds that will directly resolve the challenge at hand, and your reader should be able to understand that throughline quickly and easily.

Thank you for your question. Identifying potential major donors within your existing network is one of the most effective places to begin, because the strongest prospects are rarely just the wealthiest people in a database. They are the people with some combination of capacity, affinity, and proximity to your work.

A good first step is to review your existing universe in a few categories:

1. Current and past donors. Look for people who have given more than once, increased their giving over time, responded to specific campaigns, attended events, or made a gift that was large relative to your average donation. Even a modest gift can signal deeper interest if the donor has a strong connection to the mission.
2. Board, staff, and volunteer networks. Ask board members, senior staff, and close advisors to review their personal and professional networks for people who may care about youth violence prevention, public health, education, justice, or community safety. The goal is not to ask board members to “sell” the organization, but to help introduce folks to the organization.
3. Event attendees and community champions. People who show up consistently (at events, public programs, community meetings, or advocacy moments) may have high affinity even if they have not yet made a major gift. Engagement is often a better indicator than wealth alone.
4. Institutional connectors. Pay close attention to people who may not be major donors themselves but can open doors to high-capacity individuals, family foundations, corporate partners, or civic leaders. These “connectors” can be extremely valuable in building a major gift pipeline.

Once you have an initial list, I recommend organizing prospects with a simple rating system: relationship strength, demonstrated interest, giving capacity, and next best step. The next step does not need to be a solicitation. In many cases, it should be a thank-you call, a coffee meeting, an invitation to visit a program, or a request for advice.

Since you did not include details about your current donor database or donor management tools, I would start with a manageable internal review rather than a large-scale screening effort. Even a list of 25–50 names can become useful if each person has a clear relationship owner and next move.

Thank you for this request! After reviewing your proposal, I have the following comments:

Executive Summary

• Grant proposals are essentially a very complicated version of a simple sequence: Input → Output → Outcome. Input is the change you're adding, in this case the Capital Circles program. Output is what happens because of your input. Outcome is how the world, or the population that you're working with, is different because of the output.
• In my opinion, the executive summary needs to be beefed up more in terms of the Output and the Outcome. You do a good job here of describing what you do, but you should dedicate at least a paragraph to describing how the world is different as a result. It couldn't hurt to include an intro sentence about the need as well — why are these people lacking access to capital? What is the personal and societal cost of these people missing out on opportunity?

Target Beneficiaries

• This needs to be much more targeted, and there are a few populations that I would de-center here. I'd go a level deeper when talking about “capital-constrained businesses.” Start by going back to the population you mention earlier in the summary, when you discuss a group that has been “historically excluded,” and then go even a level deeper to discuss why they're excluded. Is it because of their race? Gender? Socio-economic background? JPMC values the opportunity to uplift certain disenfranchised communities; in fact, they're encouraged (even mandated in some cases) by the CRA to do so. That's presumably why they mention low-income women of color in Chicago in their example.
• At some point in this list, I'd mention the 5 cities you include in the summary. It would be even better if you could give a statement about why you picked each, because the need is so great.
• I would avoid mention of angel investors and wealthy individuals as beneficiaries. Instead, you should center the people who will benefit from the engagement of those wealthy individuals and angel investors. If you engage an angel investor and get them to invest in a struggling business owner that's been historically left out of funding, the beneficiary there is the business owner, as well as the people they employ. JPMC will not find angel investors and wealthy individuals to be sympathetic beneficiaries of the grant. The one way you can try to continue to include them (and this may be a stretch) is to characterize them as recipients of education. For instance, if there is a wealthy person who has come from a traditionally excluded community and therefore doesn't have as many role models or examples to follow for traditional angel investment and community leadership in that specific way, then they could be called a beneficiary of your services.
• “Ecosystem builders” requires some clarification. How are they benefiting from your grant? Apply the same logic as above — make sure the beneficiary is someone who can't do this for themselves. This category should be reviewed similarly: “Philanthropic organizations, banks, CDFIs, and municipal/local government interested in fostering a more collaborative environment for local small businesses to thrive.” In this case, the beneficiary JPMC is looking for is the small business, and the community impacted by the small business. The philanthropic organizations, banks, and others are going to be your partners, not your beneficiaries.

Project Geographic Area Name

• This should be the 5 cities you mentioned.

Problem Statement

• The first sentences center wealthy business owners, bringing in confusion about who your pronouns reference. Rather than starting with “Wealthy people have it better, that's why we need to support non-wealthy people,” just keep it focused on why the organization needs to help non-wealthy founders. Focus on the high-interest debt, lack of access to relationships, and other barriers they face.

General note

• There are several data points toward the end of the application that are not filled in — make sure these are finished to the extent they can be by the time it's submitted.

I hope this is helpful in refining your application! Please feel free to reach back out if you have any other requests.

Thank you for your thoughtful question. Receiving a decline from a foundation or corporate funder can certainly be disappointing, but it should rarely be viewed as the end of the relationship.

In general, I recommend acknowledging the decision promptly. Thank the funder for their consideration and reinforce your appreciation for their work and philanthropic priorities. Even if they were unable to support you this grant cycle, they have invested staff time into reviewing your application. A gracious response demonstrates professionalism while helping keep the relationship positive.

If this was a first-time application with little or no prior engagement, I would not ask for a follow-up meeting. Instead, send a brief thank-you note and ask whether the foundation can share any feedback on your proposal. Many foundations have limited capacity to provide individualized feedback, but those that do can offer valuable insight into how your proposal was evaluated or whether there may be opportunities for future alignment.

If you already have an established relationship with the program officer in question, or have had conversations prior to submitting the proposal, then requesting a brief conversation is entirely appropriate. I would frame the meeting as an opportunity to learn rather than revisit or attempt to re-litigate the funding decision. For example:

“If you have 15–20 minutes in the coming weeks, we would appreciate the opportunity to better understand your current funding priorities and learn how we might be better positioned for future opportunities. We value your perspective and would welcome any guidance you are able to share.”

This approach signals that you respect the decision while demonstrating a genuine interest in building a long-term relationship. Institutional funders' priorities evolve over time, and a proposal that is declined one year may be highly competitive in a future cycle as funding strategies shift or new initiatives emerge.

Finally, don't let the conversation end with the decline. If a funder remains a strong strategic fit, continue to cultivate the relationship throughout the year. Share occasional updates highlighting organizational milestones, new program outcomes, or significant achievements without making another funding request. These touchpoints will help keep you visible and demonstrate continued impact, making it easier to reconnect when the next funding opportunity arises. Touchpoints can look something like this:

Dear [Program Officer], I hope you're doing well. I wanted to share a brief update and thank you again for considering our recent proposal. Over the past several months, we've continued to expand our work supporting New Yorkers impacted by the criminal legal system. Most recently, we launched (program update). One story that has stayed with our team is that of (notable event). We thought you might appreciate this snapshot of our work, given your foundation's commitment to strengthening communities and expanding opportunity. Thank you again for all you do to support organizations working toward these shared goals.

A thoughtful, gracious follow-up after a decline reflects well on the organization and reinforces that you view institutional fundraising as relationship-building rather than a series of isolated grant requests. Over time, that mindset often proves just as valuable as the proposal itself.

Thank you for the thoughtful follow-up — this is an excellent question, and preparation at this stage can make all the difference in how funders perceive your organization.

When getting ready for a meeting or call, the most effective step you can take is to thoroughly research the foundation in advance. Specifically, look at who they've funded in the past, the types of organizations they support, and the size and structure of those grants. This will help you determine both alignment in missions and an appropriate ask amount. The best place to find this information is the foundation's Form 990, which is publicly available through resources like Candid or ProPublica's Nonprofit Explorer. Additionally, if the foundation has a website, browse through the program areas and gather materials that correlate with their funding priorities.

In addition, it's helpful to look up the specific individual you'll be meeting with on LinkedIn. Understanding their career background, professional affiliations, or any published thought leadership can provide key insights into what they may care most about. These small details can help you tailor your language and framing in a way that resonates more personally with the person on the other side of the table.

In terms of next steps, it's uncommon — but not impossible — for a funder to request more information before a meeting. Foundations are often inundated with materials and, quite frankly, many see reviewing collateral as a form of “homework.” That said, if a funder does express interest in learning more before scheduling a call, I recommend sending a concise and compelling one-pager. This should include an overview of your mission, your impact to date, and, if appropriate, a brief, emotionally resonant testimonial from someone directly affected by your work. Keep it warm, focused, and easily skimmable. The goal is to pique their interest without overwhelming them.

Finally, if you don't hear back right away, don't be discouraged! At Hudson Ferris, we typically follow up four to five times over the course of six to seven weeks when first reaching out to a cold prospect for a client. Consistency and persistence often pay off. We've found that Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays tend to be the most effective days for outreach, so try to time your follow-ups accordingly. Each message should be brief, respectful, and include either a soft reminder or any current initiatives you are working on. This cadence keeps you on their radar without becoming intrusive.

Thank you for this question. Yes, there are a few ways to approach this, but I would recommend leading with LyftUp as the most direct fit for the Syracuse pilot's transportation need.

Because the need is specifically getting students to and from program and internship sites, this is less of a traditional “program grant” question and more of an access question: transportation is what allows young people to participate consistently in the first place. In your case, rideshare support is not a convenience expense; it's a participation, safety, and retention strategy for students in the Syracuse pilot.

The best initial fit I found is LyftUp Community Grants / LyftUp Access programs. LyftUp supports access to transportation for people facing barriers to essential services, including employment-related needs. I would frame the request around reliable transportation for justice-involved young people participating in career-building programming and paid internship opportunities, rather than simply asking for “Uber/Lyft costs.”

Suggested framing: the Syracuse pilot supports young people as they participate in program sessions, internships, and workforce development opportunities. For many students, transportation is the barrier between enrollment and full participation. Ride credits would help ensure students can travel safely and reliably to required program and internship sites, improving attendance, retention, and completion.

I would also suggest researching the Central New York Community Foundation as a broader local prospect. I would not approach them for a standalone rideshare request, but they may be a fit if transportation is included as part of a larger Syracuse youth workforce access proposal. They have demonstrated interest in programs that connect Syracuse students to career development and paid internship opportunities, which is encouraging alignment.

In addition, I recommend directing the team to the free version of Impala to build out a stronger funder list. Impala is a prospect research tool for identifying foundations that have funded similar organizations, geographies, and issue areas. In this case, you could use Impala to search for funders supporting:

• Youth workforce development
• Justice-involved youth
• Paid internships
• Transportation access
• Syracuse or Central New York
• Barrier removal / program access

Similarly, the Margaret team would be happy to build an institutional prospect list for you via the à la carte services workflow. My recommendation would be to pursue this in two tracks:

1. First, contact LyftUp or explore Lyft's community access programs for potential ride credits or an in-kind transportation partnership. This is the cleanest fit for the specific rideshare expense.
2. Second, explore Impala to identify local and regional funders who may support transportation as part of a broader youth workforce, internship, or court-involved youth engagement request. For those prospects, build the transportation cost into the full program budget and explain it as essential to participation and outcomes.

Overall, I would not advise presenting rideshare as an isolated administrative cost. The more fundable case is that transportation is a direct service support that makes the program work. For students who may be balancing school, work, court involvement, family responsibilities, and limited access to reliable transit, a ride to an internship site can be the difference between a missed opportunity and a successful program experience.

Thank you for this question. It's one that comes up often as boards take on a more active fundraising role, and it's worth thinking through before the plan goes live.

To take the most straightforward part first: yes, board members using their personal email to communicate with donors is common at nonprofits of every size. There's even a school of thought that it's preferable, because it reinforces the personal relationship and the board member's status as a volunteer rather than as a member of staff.

On the liability question, you're right that putting donor information in more places increases your exposure. The good news is that smaller organizations manage this less through technology than through governance. A few things that work well:

• Have directors sign a confidentiality agreement or acknowledge a board policy committing to handling sensitive information responsibly and consistently with the organization's policies and values. This can live in a code of conduct or a similar document.
• Recognize that this is good practice regardless of cybersecurity. Board members regularly encounter privileged information in offline ways, and a clear standard covers all of it.
• Rely on the protections already built into the platforms you use. Your vendors' terms and conditions give the organization a degree of safe harbor. If Google suffered a Gmail data breach, for example, the liability would generally sit with Google, assuming the data itself had been used appropriately.

Beyond that, one of the most important policies any organization should carry is Directors and Officers Liability coverage, which governs the actions directors and officers take on behalf of the organization. It's my non-legal opinion that a breach resulting from hacking or improper use of information would fall under that policy, and it's worth confirming with your carrier that your current coverage is written broadly enough.

On the legal discovery question, I'd rather not comment broadly without knowing more, and of course, I recommend speaking with an attorney about that specific exposure.

If it would help, the Margaret team is happy to review your board confidentiality language or talk through how to package the donor data before it goes out.

Thank you for your question. Below are some recommended methodologies for locating email addresses for key donors, starting with the tools already available to you through Margaret, and moving toward external “pay-to-play” options. This sequence is designed to maximize efficiency and minimize cost. Please also feel free to use Margaret as a resource to request contact information for specific individuals — we can find contact information for up to 10 donors at a time.

1. DonorAtlas (via Margaret)

DonorAtlas is a new, AI-powered research tool that conducts large-scale data scrapes and aggregates philanthropic insights about donors. It is primarily a philanthropic research platform, and typically includes direct contact information for board members, key staff, and individual donors. Since you are already a Margaret subscriber, you're eligible to receive a discount on a subscription to DonorAtlas. You can find more information about this through the Quick Links section on your dashboard.

• Search the donor's name in DonorAtlas — it operates using a simple language search
• Confirm identity by reviewing their giving history, affiliated organizations, and location
• Email addresses are often available as part of their profile

2. Apollo.io

Apollo is a LinkedIn-based contact finder that matches verified LinkedIn profiles to its aggregated contact database.

• Search by donor name + known organization in Apollo, or paste the prospect's LinkedIn profile URL
• Confirm the match by checking job title, employer, and location
• Pull any available emails (work or personal) and phone numbers
• Run the email through a verification tool before sending
• Best for: donors with current professional roles and active LinkedIn profiles. Apollo offers a free tier with limited searches, and paid plans starting at around $49/month for more robust access.

3. Public sources

For donors without a professional online footprint, you may be able to utilize the following resources to procure contact information:

• IRS Form 990s for affiliated nonprofits (although physical addresses are more readily accessible on these forms)
• Press releases listing spokesperson contacts
• Alumni directories for known schools (if available)

If you have any further questions about how to leverage any of these options, or on how to access DonorAtlas, please don't hesitate to let us know.

Thanks for this request! Yes, I do think the organization should create a LinkedIn page.

LinkedIn would be especially useful for building awareness for the organization. It would provide a platform to reach board networks, conservation partners, landowners, and corporate and community funders. A page with consistent, thoughtfully-curated content can help instill credibility and trust while creating opportunities for warm introductions and new relationships.

I would recommend starting modestly. First, create a polished organizational page, then encourage board and staff members who are comfortable doing so to follow and engage with it. When creating the page, I would focus on a few fundamentals. Make sure the organization has a high-quality logo, a strong banner image that reflects your conservation work, a concise mission-focused description, an up-to-date website link, and complete contact information. I would also recommend highlighting a few key impact metrics from the website (such as acres restored, habitat protected, or trees planted) so visitors can quickly understand the organization's accomplishments.

After creating the page, aim to post two to three times per month. Good content categories could include project before-and-after photos, staff expertise, landowner education, nesting structure updates, sustainable agriculture insights, and donor-funded impact stories. You already have strong educational and technical content, so LinkedIn can serve as another channel where repurposed existing material can be amplified and shared.

The key is consistency. A dormant LinkedIn page is less helpful than no page at all. However, if you can maintain a light but steady posting cadence, a LinkedIn page is well worth the time investment. It will strengthen the organization's visibility and provide board members, supporters, and partners with content they can easily share within their own networks.

I hope these thoughts are helpful. The Margaret team would be happy to provide input on the LinkedIn page and future posts.

Happy Friday! Thank you for this question. An SMS pilot could be worth testing, especially with a segmented Little Green Light donor list. Here are some great options to consider.

1. TextforLess: best first option for a simple pilot; ask them for nonprofit pricing and support with opt-in/compliance language. Please note, they are also a Margaret partner — let them know that you're a subscriber to access preferred pricing.
2. Givebutter Plus: strong if you also want donation pages, tracking, and texting in one fundraising platform. Givebutter's texting feature is part of their Givebutter Plus offering, which starts at $29/month and scales by contact count.
3. DP Text / GivBee: more directly fundraising-oriented. Their Standard plan is $109/month and includes 2,000 SMS messages; additional messages are about $0.045 each, so a 3,000-person send would be roughly $154–$180 for the month, depending on keywords/setup.
4. Voizee: worth reviewing because it advertises a direct Little Green Light integration, including mass SMS, two-way SMS, text-to-give, and syncing engagement records back to LGL.

Regardless of what platform you use, I would budget approximately $150–$500 for a first pilot for a list of up to 3,000, depending on whether there are setup fees, keyword fees, platform minimums, or consulting/support costs. TextforLess should be your first quote.

When envisioning a message strategy, I would not lead with a long story in the first SMS. Texting is too compressed for a lengthy story to be conveyed effectively. Instead, use a brief emotional hook, then a clear solicitation. Something like:

“Because of donors like you, [brief impact/story in 8–12 words]. Will you make a gift today to help [specific outcome]? [link] Reply STOP to opt out.”

SMS should feel immediate and personal, while deeper storytelling can live on the landing page. This aligns with the broader donor cycle principle that cultivation and stewardship should make donors feel the impact of their gift, not simply receive another transaction request.

I hope these thoughts are helpful. The Margaret team would be happy to review any drafts or provide thoughts on strategy.