By Rebecca Blum Emami
If there’s one relationship inside a nonprofit that can quietly make or break fundraising success, it’s the one between fundraising and finance. And yet, it’s often one of the most underdeveloped.
At their best, fundraising and finance are deeply aligned. They are telling the same story from two different angles: one outward-facing, one inward-facing. When that alignment is strong, organizations move faster, build trust with funders, and make better decisions. When it’s not, things start to fray. Proposals stall, reporting becomes painful, and opportunities get missed.
This isn’t just about process. It’s about partnership.
What a “Dream” Relationship Looks Like
The strongest partnership I’ve experienced with finance had a few consistent qualities.
First, there was mutual respect for expertise. Finance understood that fundraising is not just about asking for money. It’s about relationships, timing, and positioning. Fundraising, in turn, respected that finance is not just about compliance. It’s about stewardship, risk, and sustainability.
Second, there was a shared commitment to clarity. We weren’t debating numbers in the final hours before a proposal went out. We were aligned early on what we could confidently stand behind, how costs were allocated, and where we had flexibility.
And third, communication was proactive, not reactive. Finance wasn’t just reviewing budgets at the end. They were part of the conversation from the beginning. That meant we could shape opportunities together rather than retrofit them under pressure.
When that kind of relationship is in place, fundraising becomes more strategic and finance becomes more connected to the mission. It’s a much stronger place to operate from.
Red Flags
On the flip side, there are a few patterns that consistently create challenges.
One is when finance is brought in too late. If a budget is being built hours before submission or significant changes are happening at the last minute, that’s usually a sign that the partnership isn’t functioning as it should.
Another is when there isn’t a shared understanding of how funding actually works. For example, if finance is overly rigid about cost allocation without understanding funder expectations, or if fundraising is making commitments that finance can’t support, it creates tension and risk.
A third is lack of transparency. If it’s difficult to get clear, consistent numbers, or if different versions of a budget exist in different places, that’s a signal that internal systems need attention.
None of these issues are about individuals. They’re about structure, communication, and alignment.
What “Grants Management” Really Means
One of the most interesting things I’ve seen is how differently organizations define grants management.
In some places, it’s purely compliance: tracking deadlines, submitting reports, ensuring requirements are met. In others, it sits much closer to fundraising and includes strategy, relationship management, and pipeline tracking.
In reality, strong grants management sits at the intersection of fundraising and finance. It requires:
- Clear understanding of what was promised to funders
- Strong internal tracking of restricted vs. unrestricted funding
- Close coordination on reporting, both narrative and financial
When this function is disconnected from either fundraising or finance, things start to slip. Reports don’t fully align with budgets. Funders get inconsistent information. Staff spend unnecessary time reconciling details.
When it works well, it creates a seamless experience both internally and externally.
One Piece of Advice for Every Organization
If I had to offer one piece of advice, it would be this: development should always touch the money first.
What I mean by that is simple. If finance is receiving checks or gifts and development only hears about them afterward, it becomes very difficult to steward donors well. Acknowledgment, relationship management, and follow-up all take time and intention, and those moments matter.
Development teams can quickly alert finance to incoming funds, but the reverse is not always true when it comes to donor relationships. When development is looped in after the fact, the organization risks missing critical opportunities to thank, engage, and deepen relationships with supporters.
This doesn’t have to be complicated or create extra work. It’s about establishing a shared understanding that development has visibility into and initial touchpoints with incoming gifts, in whatever way works best for the organization’s systems and structure.
At the end of the day, donors experience how they are acknowledged and engaged, not how funds are processed internally. Ensuring development is part of that first touchpoint is one of the simplest and most effective ways to strengthen both stewardship and collaboration between development and finance. for credible impact. When outcomes are clearly defined and consistently measured, organizations are better positioned to secure funding, refine programs, and demonstrate results that last.