Moves Management

1. What Is Moves Management?

Moves Management is a fundraising framework for planning, coordinating and reviewing purposeful actions that deepen a prospective or existing donor’s relationship with an organization. It connects relationship-building with clear ownership and follow-through, helping development teams decide what should happen next rather than simply recording previous contacts. It is a management discipline, not a software product.

For nonprofit organizations, the central question is: what appropriate next action will help this supporter understand the mission, clarify their interests and make an informed giving decision? The framework should support voluntary philanthropy and responsible stewardship—not pressure donors into an organization’s preferred timetable.

2. Origin and Background

Moves Management is generally credited to David Dunlop and G.T. “Buck” Smith. Historical accounts trace its development to fundraising practice in the 1970s and 1980s, including Dunlop’s further development of the approach at Cornell University during the 1980s. A precise invention date or single founding publication is not firmly documented.

The original challenge was organizing sustained major-gift relationships. The intent was to help supporters connect their values with philanthropic opportunities, not create a game of accumulating contacts. That distinction remains essential when translating relationship-building into databases, activity targets and management reports.

3. How Moves Management Works

A common operating version uses five stages. A stage describes the relationship’s current context; a move is an action intended to develop that relationship. The following stages provide a useful starting structure.

These categories are not a compulsory sequence. Stewardship and cultivation can overlap; supporters may pause, reconsider or decline. Treat stages as working descriptions, not instructions to donors.

A useful move has a purpose, an owner, a date and a documented result. A program briefing might clarify a donor’s interest in unrestricted support. A conversation might establish that they prefer annual giving rather than a campaign pledge. Neither requires immediate advancement to another stage to be valuable.

For implementation, distinguish the donor relationship from the gift opportunity. One supporter might simultaneously receive stewardship for an existing commitment and consider a new proposal. Recording both avoids forcing the entire relationship into one misleading status.

4. When to Use Moves Management

Use Moves Management when fundraising depends on sustained, personalized relationships: major gifts, capital campaigns, significant renewals or planned-giving conversations. Stewardship responsibilities should remain visible throughout, including when the next financial commitment is distant or uncertain.

It is especially useful when executives, board members and development officers interact with the same supporters. The framework can structure decisions about relationship ownership, portfolio priorities and missing next actions. Relevant inputs include giving history, prospect interests, relationships, capacity research and pipeline information.

For foundation prospects, incorporate application windows, eligibility conditions and institutional decision processes into the plan. Do not assume that stronger personal engagement can substitute for satisfying the funder’s requirements.

Individual plans are not the best organizing mechanism for every mass appeal. For a large donor file, use segmentation to tailor communications and reserve intensive relationship management for appropriate supporters. Giving patterns, interests and communication preferences can inform that distinction.

The analysis is useful only if records are credible, staff can execute the plans and proposed funding opportunities match organizational priorities. Accurate communications, respect for donor intent and reporting on the use of funds are fundamental professional expectations.

Plan the effort around portfolio size, record quality and staff availability. A workshop can establish operating rules; it cannot instantly qualify prospects or resolve years of incomplete documentation.

5. How to Apply Moves Management: Step-by-Step

1. Clarify the decision and scope.

   Choose the objective: building a campaign pipeline, improving renewals or coordinating major-donor relationships. Define the planning horizon, programs and donor populations. Agree what improved performance would look like before designing activity targets.

2. Gather and validate the inputs.

   Combine gift records, interaction notes, donor preferences and appropriately obtained research. Distinguish confirmed information from estimates. Apply confidentiality and information-security practices, including access appropriate to each person’s role.

3. Define the relationship units.

   Use individuals, households or institutions as appropriate, preserving individual communication preferences. Maintain separate gift opportunities where necessary. Assign one coordinating relationship owner while identifying board members, executives and program staff who may contribute.

4. Construct the moves register.

   Use a constituent relationship management (CRM) system or controlled spreadsheet. Record stage, supporting evidence, interests, next action, action owner, due date and result. Link relevant gift opportunities and stewardship obligations without confusing them with completed interactions.

5. Interpret the portfolio.

   Review unassigned relationships, missing next actions, unresolved questions and workload concentrations. Examine whether activity is producing useful learning or donor engagement. Use reporting to improve prospect strategy and fundraiser coordination, not merely count transactions.

6. Translate insights into actions.

   Prioritize discovery conversations, relevant program engagement and appropriately timed proposals. For existing gifts, assign acknowledgment, reporting and other commitments explicitly. Program and finance teams should help ensure that promises can be fulfilled.

7. Test alternative assumptions.

   Revisit gift ranges, expected timing and available staff capacity. Consider delayed decisions, unavailable board introductions or changed donor interests. Keep prospective opportunities separate from commitments and cash-planning assumptions.

8. Align stakeholders and iterate.

   Pilot a manageable portfolio. Hold short, regular reviews focused on barriers and next decisions. Invite executive or program participation when needed, incorporate donor feedback and revise definitions before expanding the approach.

Where inconsistent statuses and missed handoffs are the main obstacle, CRM process optimization is a practical follow-on project. Translate the agreed relationship process into fields, tasks, reminders, permissions and useful reporting rather than buying new technology before clarifying how the team should work.

6. Example: Moves Management in Action

Illustrative example: Harbor Learning Trust is a fictional youth-literacy charity seeking three-year support for evening tutoring at a second location. Repeat supporters attend events, but staff have not consistently documented their interests or agreed next steps.

The development director pilots Moves Management with 18 households and two foundations. These illustrative counts are not benchmarks. The team reviews giving histories, board connections, donor conversations, program outcomes and a full-cost tutoring budget.

Qualification reveals that several event attendees prefer modest annual giving and do not want intensive engagement. They remain valued supporters but leave the personalized prospect portfolio. One household expresses particular interest in tutoring access and requests a discussion with the program director.

The cultivation plan addresses that household’s questions about staffing, attendance and sustainability. After the donor requests a proposal, the charity presents a defined opportunity. The household subsequently commits $60,000 over three years—an illustrative outcome, not an expected conversion rate.

The relationship owner coordinates acknowledgment and updates. Finance tracks the payment schedule separately, while the program director supplies agreed progress information. One foundation opportunity remains paused pending its application window. The insight is not “make more contacts”; it is “match the next action to demonstrated interest and decision readiness.”

7. Strengths and Limitations

Strengths

• Continuity: Relationship knowledge becomes less dependent on one fundraiser’s memory.
• Coordination: Development, executives and board members can contribute without duplicating or contradicting outreach.
• Stewardship visibility: Acknowledgment, recognition and impact reporting remain part of an ongoing relationship rather than disappearing after the gift arrives.
• Sharper resource choices: Explicit next actions help leaders distinguish useful engagement from activity without a clear purpose.

Limitations

The framework can impose false order on fluid relationships. Stage labels simplify motivations, readiness and changing circumstances; they do not reliably predict a gift. Rigid procedures can also crowd out the judgment and responsiveness that meaningful engagement requires.

Moves Management does not establish whether a program is effective, a funding restriction is operationally sensible or a campaign target is affordable. Supplement relationship planning with program evidence, financial analysis and gift-acceptance decisions.

It also cannot create unlimited staff capacity. A technically complete portfolio is not useful if officers lack time to carry out the promised engagement and reporting.

8. Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

• Confusing capacity with interest. Wealth indicators do not establish alignment with the mission. Use qualification conversations to test philanthropic interests before committing substantial staff effort.
• Counting every contact as progress. An invitation sent is not equivalent to meaningful engagement. Record what the action was intended to achieve and what was learned.
• Advancing stages without evidence. Internal enthusiasm can inflate the portfolio. Define observable criteria, such as a donor requesting a proposal, and allow pauses or reassessment.
• Allowing competing ownership. Uncoordinated board and staff outreach can undermine trust. Appoint a coordinating owner and agree who participates in each action.
• Neglecting donor autonomy. Repeated outreach or unwanted recognition can damage the relationship. Respect preferences, confidentiality and the donor’s ability to question proposed uses of their gift.
• Stopping at the dashboard. Reporting alone changes little. Give every agreed action an owner and review whether it happened, helped or needs revision.

When implementation spans development, finance, program teams and board volunteers, program management support can coordinate the rollout workplan, training, dependencies and follow-up. The development leader should remain accountable for relationship quality, rather than delegating the discipline entirely to a system administrator.

9. How Moves Management Relates to Other Frameworks

Donor segmentation and RFM analysis

Recency, Frequency and Monetary value (RFM) analysis describes giving patterns: how recently, how often and how much a donor has given. Use it before Moves Management to inform portfolio selection. It does not replace conversations about current interests or readiness.

Theory of Change

A Theory of Change connects organizational activities with intended outcomes and the reasoning behind them. Use it first when the funding proposition lacks clarity. Moves Management organizes supporter engagement; it does not demonstrate that the proposed program will achieve its intended impact.

RACI responsibility mapping

A Responsible, Accountable, Consulted and Informed (RACI) matrix clarifies participation in activities. Use it alongside Moves Management where proposal approval, acknowledgment or reporting crosses teams. It addresses responsibility allocation, while Moves Management addresses the relationship and its next actions.

10. Key Takeaways

• Moves Management organizes purposeful donor engagement, not merely contact recording.
• Use relationship stages as working descriptions, not deadlines imposed on supporters.
• Separate donor relationships, gift opportunities, stewardship obligations and cash expectations.
• Prioritize evidence of interest and appropriate next actions over activity volume.
• Start with clear ownership and a manageable pilot; technology should support the process.

11. FAQs About Moves Management

What counts as a move in fundraising?

A move is a purposeful action intended to develop understanding, engagement or commitment. A tailored conversation, program briefing or impact update can qualify. Its value comes from its relevance and result—not simply the fact that contact occurred.

What is the difference between Moves Management and donor stewardship?

Moves Management coordinates actions across the broader relationship. Stewardship focuses on honoring support through acknowledgment, responsible use of funds, recognition and reporting. Stewardship belongs within the relationship plan and continues beyond a successful solicitation.

Does Moves Management require fundraising software?

No. A smaller team can start with a controlled spreadsheet containing relationship ownership, status, next action, due date and notes. Software becomes useful when coordination and reporting become difficult. The underlying requirements are consistent records and follow-through.

Which metrics should nonprofit leaders track?

Balance relationship activity with outcomes. Review overdue actions, qualification results, renewal and retention patterns, gift outcomes and fulfillment of stewardship commitments. Avoid rewarding contact volume without considering relationship quality or whether supporters continue their engagement.