Local Fundraising Internationally
Current Predominant Thinking Within Missions Door:
"Local Fundraising in Latin America Is Not Impossible Due to Cultural Barriers and Expectations"
RESEARCH
CRU
Cru cites itself as a global Christian ministry with over 16,000 staff in about 190 countries.
Cru staff worldwide, including Latin America, are generally expected to raise personal financial support rather than receive a centrally funded salary.
Cru El Salvador has 6 full-time missionaries who serve alongside more than 50 associate staff and volunteers. Furthermore, the Cru website lists several countries in the "Latinoamérica y El Caribe" region where Cru has a presence, including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, and Trinidad & Tobago.
Cru country sites outside the U.S. (for example, the Philippines and Angola) explain that staff members, including national leadership, must raise support to cover salaries, benefits, and expenses, because Cru operates with no central funds. A Cru Colombia information page aimed at parents likewise notes that staff members are required to raise funds to cover the costs of their ministry, indicating that the same support-raising model is used in Latin America.
While the overarching expectation is personal support-raising, actual practice can vary somewhat by country, role, and local economic realities. Some staff may have partial local church or institutional funding, or different target amounts based on national salary scales, but the basic assumption in Cru’s system is that missionaries, including those in Latin America, build and maintain a donor team for their personal support.
Cru’s standard model is that staff raise support to cover essentially 100% of their Cru‐determined compensation package (salary, benefits, and ministry expenses), and this same philosophy is reflected in Latin American contexts, though the actual amounts are scaled to local salary norms and cost of living.
Cru describes its staff system as “supported staff,” where each missionary raises the funds required for their entire compensation: salary, benefits (health, insurance, retirement), and ministry expenses. Cru materials and independent descriptions of the model explicitly state that staff must fundraise their whole salary package, with no guarantee of organizational supplementation if support falls short.
Country sites (e.g., Colombia, Angola, Philippines, Trinidad & Tobago) all explain the same basic structure: national staff raise support for their own salary and benefits according to a locally defined salary scale, rather than receiving a centrally funded wage. These pages also note that a percentage of each gift (often around 7–12%) is retained by Cru for administrative and international expansion costs, meaning Latin American staff must raise enough to cover both their personal package and this overhead.
Cru’s official structure assumes that missionaries in Latin America, like elsewhere, are responsible for raising essentially all of their Cru compensation rather than just a portion.
Via Generosity
Costa Rican missionary fundraised locally to 100%
https://youtu.be/v2DNfZ53FUM?si=hdKt3F1beIH-oK4s
The story of Melissa Román of the CMM continues her story about how she learned and applied biblical concepts in support raising and how it's not only for "English speaking Americans".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkAEljGx7d4
https://youtu.be/HSLT8gCzTQ8?si=JAgdMJuGev8JcI7q
Many Latin American evangelical missions organizations require their missionaries to raise support, including Serge, TMS Global, and Crossover Global. These organizations emphasize the importance of financial support for their missionaries to effectively carry out their work.
Evangelical Missions Organizations in Latin America
Several evangelical missions organizations in Latin America require their missionaries to raise support. Here are some notable ones:
Organizations and Their Focus
| ORGANIZATION | FOCUS AREA | SUPPORT RAISING REQUIREMENT |
| Serge | Church planting, medical missions, education | Yes |
| TMS Global | Mobilizing and training cross-cultural witnesses | Yes |
| Crossover Global | Church planting among unreached people | Yes |
| World Team USA | Church planting and community engagement | Yes |
Key Details
These organizations typically provide training and resources to help missionaries effectively raise the necessary funds for their work.
URLs:
https://www.cru.org/us/en/communities/locations/americas/el-salvador.html
https://www.cru.org/lac/es.html
https://www.cru.org/us/en/opportunities/internships/international/faq.html
https://youtu.be/wOrP25cgilo
https://youtu.be/1OWFnuupSlk
https://youtu.be/etc8JEgXkYA
https://www.cru.org/
WHAT CHALLENGES DO LATIN MISSION LEADERS FACE WHEN RAISING FUNDS LOCALLY AND WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO DEVELOP RESOURCE MOBILIZATION CAPACITY?
by Nydia Rosalinda García-Schmidt
Fundraising_in_Latin_America_1_WHAT_CHAL
https://lausanne.org/global-analysis/financial-sustainability-and-the-future-of-mission
Mexico: Unidos en Mision México - Mesa Global https://www.mesaglobal.co/projects/65466
Latin America's Increasing Missionary Force in Global Missions https://radical.net/article/latin-america-global-missions/
https://lausanne.org/global-analysis/beyond-self-support-fundraising-for-missions
https://weamc.global/majorityworld-missiology/
BOOKS:
Mission in the Way of Paul (Christopher R. Little)
New Funding Models for Global Missions (Tim Welch)
https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1465&context=gcrj
(SOME) RESULTS
- Local Fundraising in Majority World Contexts is the norm, not the exception
- Those organizations who pay local missionaries salaries often resort to fundraising practices (example: IMB)
- In Latin American contexts, it's more helpful to raise for the organization or project than the individual
- In Latin American contexts, funding will be smaller and by individuals rather than churches, though church funding to missionaries is also practiced.
- An "all in" approach: individuals, organizational fundraising, and cross-cultural (i.e., traditional) fundraising is typically best.
- Historically, there are major problems with no local fundraising. So much so, that some international missions organizations and missiologists have advocated for zero international funding for missionaries or local church planters/pastors.
- "There are no solutions, only trade-offs" (Sowell)
MISSIONS DOOR OPTIONS
- Do nothing. Assume this is as good as it gets.
- Assume Majority World missionaries face obstacles so big in fundraising that they must be paid salaries from the U.S. In that event, their funding rests on the extra percentage of fundraising U.S. missionaries would have to do. This could only result in basic math ratios (i.e., it will take "x" number of U.S. multipliers to salary "x" number of international local multipliers).
- Bank everything on fundraising organizationally. Missions Door has little history in that category, and those who do "bank everything" on it are at the whim of the amounts those gifted in fundraising can raise annually. Since this may vary year to year, so too would the number of international missionaries the organization could pay.
- Create a scale. Ask international multipliers in majority contexts to have a minimum starting support, with a supporting goal for other multipliers so that they can one day join their U.S. counterparts.
- Go with the CRU model (Global + national centers with national centers bearing most of the fiscal burden, but global able to have full supervision). Ask all international multipliers to fully fund themselves (and the org at a standard additional percentage) across several salary thresholds (part-time, full-time, et al). or not be a part of the mission. On occasion, the global mission may donate funds into the local organizational mix as they have ability or up to a specific annual threshold (which may vary pending on donations).
- Hybrid version of 1-5.
- Other (?)