Stewardship vs. Prospecting: What American Football Can Teach Us About Charity Funding Models
When building teams—whether boards, delivery teams, or operational units—it’s helpful to consider what kind of team you need, not just what skills they offer.
That got me thinking about American football.
Just like American football uses offensive and defensive teams, charities often adopt different approaches to funding and strategy. Some focus on defensive stewardship—cautiously managing government or grant funding with a risk-averse mindset. Others take an offensive, entrepreneurial stance—proactively fundraising through donations, events, and partnerships. This article explores how funding models shape organizational culture, stakeholder relationships, and decision-making power. Transitioning from dependency to financial independence brings both freedom and new challenges. Understanding your funding model helps clarify your team’s purpose, behaviour, and direction.
In American football, different squads take to the field for different situations: the defensive team protects, reacts, and holds ground; the offensive team takes initiative, advances, and scores. You can draw a useful analogy with organizational teams—and especially with charities.
️ Defensive Teams: The Custodians
Charities that receive substantial funding from government or large benefactors often adopt a defensive stance. Their priority is stewardship—ensuring funds are spent cautiously, predictably, and in line with predefined conditions. Risk aversion, compliance, and prudent governance dominate their culture.
These organizations may be constrained by funding agreements, service-level contracts, or political scrutiny. The emphasis is on control and continuity, not innovation or growth.
Offensive Teams: The Prospectors
Contrast this with charities whose very survival depends on proactive fundraising: donations, sponsorships, events, and philanthropy. These are more entrepreneurial organizations. They invest in marketing, partnerships, donor engagement, and visibility—not because they want to—but because they must.
This doesn’t mean they lack financial discipline. On the contrary, good stewardship is essential to keep donors’ trust. But their culture is shaped by innovation, storytelling, and responsiveness, not bureaucracy.
Transitioning Between Models
Where it gets interesting is when a charity transitions from one model to another—often out of necessity.
What if government funding shrinks or becomes tied to increasingly complex conditions?
What if donor fatigue or economic downturns threaten event-based income?
What if a major benefactor becomes a minority stakeholder?
Jersey Hospice Care
Jersey Hospice Care is an excellent example of a charity that operates entirely on donations. That independence allows them to focus on patient-centred care without the red tape often tied to government grants. However, it requires constant investment in public engagement and trust-building.
Jersey Cheshire Home
Similarly, Jersey Cheshire Home thrives through philanthropic support rather than reliance on government funding. That freedom comes with a burden: the need for constant visibility, trust, and long-term donor engagement. But I suspect they’ll tell you—it’s worth it to preserve autonomy and purpose.
If you’re reading this, please donate to them because they absolutely need your funds for their very existence.
In both cases, financial independence empowers the organization. But I suspect it also demands a fundamentally different operating model, team structure, and culture.
Stakeholder Implications
A shift in funding affects power dynamics. When one funder provides 100% of your income, they often shape your mission, reporting, and delivery. But as you diversify funding or build your own income streams:
That funder’s voice may carry less weight.
Relationships must shift from dependency to partnership.
You may gain freedom—but also greater accountability to more stakeholders.
Some funders welcome this, enjoying a less burdensome relationship. Others may resent the loss of influence.
Final Thoughts
Charities—like sports teams—must constantly adapt to their context. Whether playing defensively or offensively, success depends on being intentional about your funding model, your culture, and your stakeholder relationships.
So ask yourself:
What kind of team do we need now?
What kind of funding do we rely on?
What would it take to change that model?
The answers may shape everything from your recruitment strategy to your next board meeting.
Further Reading
NCVO UK Civil Society Almanac: Insight into how UK charities are funded
NPC’s Funding Models Review: Compares earned income, donations, and grant-based models
Bridgespan’s “Ten Nonprofit Funding Models”: Breaks down common strategies with real examples
What funding model does your charity follow—and what would you change if you could? I’d love to hear your thoughts. Let’s start a conversation in the comments.
Would you like this reformatted as a downloadable PDF or a carousel version for social media?