Fundraisers on Commission

There seem to be a lot of freelance fundraisers (or if you're in the arts, "development" personnel) in DC. This makes sense, as there are a ton of non-profits based in DC who rely on fundraising to further their missions. Some freelancers work for a set fee; others work on commission. Freelancers bounce from one small organzation to the next, some specializing specifically in small organizations. Actually, now that I'm thinking while typing, most probably specialize in small organizations, since larger organizations have their own development staff.

I'm starting to wonder why organizations don't start demanding that their freelancers work on commission. Some non-profits agree to contracts with freelancers that have a set fee in place. This means that in order for the non-profit to actually raise money, the freelancer will first have to raise their own fee, and then the non-profit gets to keep whatever comes after that.

But what if the contractor doesn't raise enough to cover their own fee?

Case study: At a previous organization, I saw management pay a freelance development team $15,000 for two month's work. However, that "top notch, highly recommended" team brought in $7,000. The result was that the organization then LOST $8,000 on a fundraiser! Not good. Management issues aside, this could have solved by a commission. If the contract stated a 20% commission, and the freelancers weren't all they were cracked up to be and only brought in $7,000, then they would be paid $1,400, with the org taking home $5,600. That's ridiculously low, but it's $5,600 more than they had before. And that's a lot better than LOSING $8,000 on what was supposed to be a fundraiser.

Why don't more organizations demand that freelance fundraisers work on commission? Why trust that even the "top notch, highly recommended" contractors will raise enough to cover their fee?