presentation, popular fundraising practices, june 2015 public copy

POPULAR FUNDRAISING PRACTICES: WHICH ONES WORK FOR ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS?

Webinars

June 3, 2015 2:00 to 3:00 pm ETJune 4, 2015 7:00 to 8:00 pm ET

Presenter: Mary Dillon Kerwin

This session

❖ Report on initial findings on research into a fundraising tool that will help development directors set goals, manage time, and deploy resources.

❖ Intended audience: fundraisers/managers

❖ Download/view bluestrike.org/resources

❖ Ask for your reactions, comments, and questions regarding the research.

❖ Send comments to [email protected]

2

Agenda

How we got started

What we found (so far)

A look at the study’s limitations

Next steps

3

Saturday, April 15, 2023 Popular Fundraising Practices 4

BACKGROUNDProject Development


It started with . . .

. . . a question from the audience

“Can you tell me which strategy will yield the best results?”

Why is this question so hard to answer?


Tools that help us predict

• We have retirement calculators, we have mortgage calculators, we even have workout calculators . . .


How about one for development?

Your organization’srevenue mix, number of

donors

Your staff size and level of experience

Your volunteer profiles, willingness to help


If not data science, then what?

Hypothetical #1

If your organization is less than 10 years old, and you have fewer than 500 donors, and you have a part-time development director, then you are likely to find success . . .

1. Starting a sustainer program

2. Relying on board participation

3. Focusing on a combination of web-based giving strategies

9

Hypothetical #2

If your organization is going through an executive director transition, and you have approximately 2,500 donors, and you raised $2 million last year, you are likely to find success . . .

1. Starting a giving club for major donors2. Hiring additional

fundraising staff3. Focusing on cultivation of

high net worth individuals

10


Enlisting help for the project

❖ Conference calls with nonprofits, discussions with businesses and consultants

❖ Faculty advisor for independent study

❖ Data collection

❖ Analysis -- here we are!


Different perspectives/perceptions


Questions to think about As we go through the research, here are a few questions

to consider:

Have you seen similar, supporting or contradictory research?

How might you use the findings?

What other correlations or causes should we look for?


RESEARCHDescriptives and Group Differences


Research design❖ Focused on organizations engaged in advocacy, public

policy, civic engagement, and public interest law

❖ 778 organizations received an online survey (Jan. 20 to Feb. 17, 2015)

❖ Survey asked for information on organization’s 2013 fundraising practices

❖ Responses were matched with IRS administrative records (FY2013) to create the datafile.


About the sample

174 responses

162 completed surveys

44 states and 14 different categories


Figure 1.1 Nonprofit Category

Community Improvement

Education

Animal Related

Intl, Foreign Afrs, Natl Sec

Public Society

Other (Arts, Housing, Food)

Enviro Educ/Outdoor

Crime and Legal Related

Environment

Civil Rights

Enviro Conservation

3

4

4

6

8

10

17

19

24

30

37

Figure 1.1 Survey responses by nonprofit category


Individual giving and revenue❖ Most organizations (77%) have fewer than 1,000 donors

❖ Only 17% count on individual donors to make up 50% or more of their revenue

❖ Most (60%) have fewer than 5,000 names on their email files

❖ Average revenue is $2 million


Staff and volunteers

❖ Two-thirds of the organizations have staff dedicated to development

❖ 38% have executive directors with less than five years tenure; while one-third have tenure of 10 years or more

❖ Board participation is present, but modest


SURVEY Nonprofit Fundraising Practices Questionnaire


Figure 1.2 Fundraising Practices

Giving clubs

Matching campaigns

Conditional ask string

Sustainer program

Donate button on website

Second gift ask

22%

20%

20%

39%

30%

45%

42%

85%

51%

54%

85%

89%

Figure 1.2 Prevalence of fundraising practices


Figure 1.3 Giving Clubs

No Giving Club Recognition Only Recognition and Fundraising$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

$1,748,474$1,940,761

$2,697,044

Giving clubs with a fundraising component are associated with higher revenue


Figure 1.4 Matching Campaigns

No Matching Campaigns

Low emphasis Moderate Emphasis Heavy Emphasis$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

$1,778,860 $1,848,724

$2,655,744

$3,246,755

Matching campaigns are associated with higher revenue


Figure 1.5 Conditional Ask String

Did not use Used in few Used in some Used in most Used always$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$1,543,682

$2,768,055

$1,841,081 $1,683,012

$4,964,755

Consistent use of conditional ask strings yields best results


Figure 1.6 Sustainer Program

Low emphasis/no program Moderate and heavy emphasis$0.00

$500,000.00

$1,000,000.00

$1,500,000.00

$2,000,000.00

$2,500,000.00

$3,000,000.00

$3,500,000.00

$4,000,000.00

$1,789,965

$2,726,310

Sustainer campaigns see higher revenue


Figure 1.7 Second Gift Ask

Did not solicit Solicited once Some once, others more

Solicited all 2 to 3 times

Solicited all 4 times or more

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

$1,659,148$1,836,170

$2,697,201

$1,654,427

$2,217,072

Asking more than once a year helps when it’s targeted


Figure 2.1 Development Directors

No DevDir Less than 5 yrs 5 to 9 yrs 10 to 14 yrs 15 plus yrs$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

$1,537,686$1,297,823

$2,170,352

$3,066,418$3,213,659

Experienced development directors see higher revenue


Figure 2.2 Board Participation

Low Low to moderate Moderate to high High$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

$1,829,662$1,973,2673 $2,109,688

$2,506,708

Board participation has little to no impact


Figure 2.3 Executive Director Tenure

Less than 5 yrs 5 to 9 yrs 10 to 14 yrs 15 plus yrs$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

$1,873,090 $1,945,450$2,105,967 $2,242,143

Executive Director tenure has little to no impact


Figure 4.4 Comparison

DD & ED<5yr, BD Low DD & ED 5-10yr, BD L/M DD & ED 10-15yr, BD M/H

DD & ED 15yr+, BD H$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

An increase in development director experience has the greatest impact

Board participation Executive director tenureDevelopment director yrs experience


Other variables Age of organization*CategoryNumber of donors/email file*Assets to revenue ratioRevenue mix

* Indication of possible statistical significance


LIMITATIONSConsiderations in using the research


Limitations

❖ Not generalizable to all nonprofits❖ Does not measure all practices❖ Revenue is an imperfect dependent variable❖ Survey focused on 2013 - risk of memory decay❖ Ranges are difficult to use in regression❖ Low response rate may result in non-response bias


DISCUSSIONReal Life Scenarios


Discussion questionsHave you seen similar, supporting or contradictory

research?

How might you use the findings?

What other correlations or causes should we look for?


NEXT STEPSPhase II of research, sharing findings through webinars


Additional testingLooking for correlations

Segmenting by age, category, income

Controlling for media and unusual gifts


Sharing research findingsEmail to all survey respondents

Webinars with state nonprofit associations

Brown bag lunch with Association of Fundraising Professionals

presentation, popular fundraising practices, june 2015 public copy

Government & Nonprofit