The final total: more than $30 million, about $10 million short of the original goal, but better than what for a time it appeared the campaign might bring in.
Of the $30 million, $4.7 million will be administered by the General Assembly Council for supporting international mission work. More than $20 million will support church growth and redevelopment in the United States, including $16.2 million administered by presbyteries and $4 million administered by congregations.
Only about 10 percent of the pledges given were unrestricted, with the rest being designated for specific purposes.
Administrative costs for the five-year campaign came to $4.3 million, including $2.3 million provided by the General Assembly Council and $2 million taken from the proceeds of the campaign.
The campaign will continue to collect money from the pledges through Dec. 31, 2012.
In making a final report on the campaign, Gillespie told the General Assembly Council Oct. 2 that he hopes the council feels “the pride that I do in the successes this campaign has had despite significant challenges.”
And he said he hopes the lessons learned during the campaign will stick. “We should be sure to learn from them now,” Gillespie said, “or we may well repeat the experience in the future.”
This five-year campaign started off as an effort to raise $40 million from a relatively small group of deep-pocket donors. That effort stalled, as it became apparent the campaign did not have a deep enough list of such potential donors. According to a report presented to the council, the campaign determined that it needed to find 1,000 “major gift prospects,” those capable of making gifts of $100,000 or more. But it had the names of only 100 to 200 such prospects. And others — presbyteries, congregations, and individuals — started clamoring that they did not want to be excluded from a campaign to raise money for international mission and church growth and redevelopment here at home.
So the campaign changed over time.
Leaders came and went repeatedly during the course of the campaign, and it became clear that presbyteries and congregations would play a much more important role. And there became evident a “structural weakness for funds development” in the PC(USA), the report states. “There was no capacity for coordinated donor relations or cultivation” and donor databases within the denomination were not well-coordinated.
That has improved over the life of the campaign, the report states. The software now in place “creates a capacity for improved communication with donors and interested others,” and allows appeals to be customized based on donors’ particular interests.
Among the lessons Gillespie pointed to:
– Many Presbyterians are not well-informed about the breadth of PC(USA) mission work.
– It takes time to cultivate gifts. As Gillespie put it, you don’t walk up to a stranger, “and ask for a seven-figure gift.” It takes time to nurture relationships, and some sessions plan their giving several years in advance.
– Donors want to be involved in the mission they fund. “Each of the major pledges to the campaign were made in a region of the world where the donor, whether an individual, congregation, or presbytery, had previously existing relationships,” the report states. “It was that involvement in mission that inspired the donor to make an even greater gift.”
Gillespie also told the council that the PC(USA) needs to be flexible in working with donors, “so we can link up to the passions God has already ignited.”
