the
Quest
for
Community
Donor Response Theory in Successful Nonprofits
Jeremy Beer
and
Matthew Gerken
National Catholic Development Conference
2015 Annual Conference and Exposition
September 15, 2015
WHY DO WE NEED A “DONOR RESPONSE THEORY”?
How we approac h
d e ve l o p m e n t i s d r i ve n by
the KIND OF RESPONSE we
are trying to elicit from
donors.
The response we try to elicit
depends on what we think
M O T I VAT E S d o n o r s .
So w ha t does motiva te donors? Why do they give?
2
THE NEW CONVENTIONAL WISDOM

Donors primarily give out of (enlightened) SELF-INTEREST
 D o n o r s a r e d r i ve n by a d e s i r e fo r a G O O D R E T U R N O N
THEIR INVESTMENTS
 Donors prioritize giving to organizations that can
D E M O N S T R AT E E F F E C T I V E N E S S A N D I M PA C T — t h e y l o o k a t
t h e d a t a , a n d g i ve a c c o r d i n g l y.
And if donors aren’t motivated to give for these reasons,
they ought to be! This moral assertion lies at the core of
the Effective Altruism movement, for instance.
3
R E S U LT S R E P O R T I N G
THIS NEW CONVENTIONAL WISDOM HAS BEGUN TO
P E R M E AT E T H E N O N P R O F I T WO R L D.
 Charity Navigator now gives more stars to nonprofits who show
that they are wor king to measur e their impact.
 Stars increasingly linked to an organization’s ability or
willingness to engage in “results repor ting.”
 T h e p r e s i d e n t o f C h a r i t y N a v i g a t o r, K e n B e r g e r, s a y s t h e
nonprofits who do this will “find it easier to attract funding than
c harities that don’t… This is what many donors are and will be
l o o k i n g f o r.”
4
R E S U LT S R E P O R T I N G C O N T I N U E D
 Is that true?
 S ho ul d w e b e red i recti ng mo re o f o ur sca rce reso urces tow a rd
strengthening our impact-measurement capacity?
 Should we be prioritizing programs whose impact is more
easily measured?
5
R E S U LT S R E P O R T I N G C O N T I N U E D
 Should w e be making grea t efforts to impress donors
with quantification?
6
MONEY FOR GOOD
M O N E Y F O R G O O D I S T H E N A M E O F A M A J O R 2 0 1 0 S T U DY.
Philanthropy expert WILLIAM SCHAMBRA summarizes its stunning findings:
 “Only 35% of donors ever do any research, and almost threequarters of these spend less than two hours at it.”
 “A m o n g t h o s e w h o d o r e s e a r c h , o n l y 2 4 % r e ga r d o u t c o m e s a s t h e
most important information.”
 “Of those who do research, the overwhelming majority—63%—use
it only to… confirm that the group they’ve already c hosen isn’t a
total fraud.”
 “Only 13% use the research to actually help them choose between
multiple organizations, i.e., to make decisions about which is
c o m p a r a t i v e l y t h e b e t t e r p e r fo r m e r.”
 “The upshot is that only 3% of donors give based on the
r ela tive perfor mance of charities.”
7
MONEY FOR GOOD CONTINUED
IMPACT
NON-IMPACT
Money for Good found that 16%
of donors could be classified as
“ I M PAC T G I V E R S .”
8 4 % o f d o n o r s a r e N O N - I M PAC T
GIVERS, or “heart” givers.
But many do not actually c hoose
between c harities based on
what they can discover about
differential impact—hence the
3% number reported on the
previous slide.
These donors give based on
religious conviction, local or
place-based commitments, or
p e r s o n a l t i e s . We m i g h t c a l l
them IDENTITY OR MEMBERSHIP
GIVERS.
8
T H E N E W C O N V E N T I O N A L W I S D O M A N A LY S I S
IN SUM, THE NEW CONVENTIONAL WISDOM IS UNWISE.
 Pe o p l e d o n’ t g i ve b a s e d o n a ro b o t i c c a l c u l a t i o n o f w h e r e t h e i r
dollar will go the farthest.
 There is no data-driven reason why a development professional or
nonprofit leader should buy the hype about impact giving.
 Expect “heart” giving to continue. It is in line with what we know
a b o u t h u m a n n a t u r e f r o m m o d e r n p s y c h o l o g y a n d s o c i o l o g y, f r o m
h i s t o r y, a n d f r o m t h e J u d a i c a n d C h r i s t i a n t h e o l o g i c a l t r a d i t i o n s .
9
HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY
WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT HUMAN BEINGS
THAT RELATES TO CHARITABLE GIVING:
 BELONGINGNESS may be the most fundamental psychological need
of all.
 I D E N T I T Y a n d PA R T I C I PAT I O N a r e c l a s s i f i e d a s a m o n g t h e m o s t
fundamental psyc hological needs by several major psyc hological
schools of thought.
 Research reveals that SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS may be the most
important factor in determining human happiness.
 Sociological theory suggests that in practice even we Americans
i n e v i t a b l y a r e e m b a r ke d o n a Q U E S T O F C O M M U N I T Y.
Money for Good suggests precisely that donors use their giving as a way to
a c h i e ve b e l o n g i n g n e s s, b u i l d a n i d e n t i t y, a n d b e c o m e m o r e c l o s e l y
c o n n e c t e d w i t h o t h e r s — n o t , p r i m a r i l y, a s a way t o s o l ve s o c i a l p ro b l e m s o r
change the world.
10
DONOR RESPONSE THEORY (DiRT)
The fundamental premise of DiRT is that to be successful, we must
approach donors as they actually are, not as we might wish them
to be.
DIRT IS A SINGLE, SIMPLE FRAMEWORK TO ORGANIZE OUR
THINKING ABOUT MULTIPLE FUNDRAISING DIMENSIONS:
|1| What kinds of requests can we make of our donors?
|2| Where does eac h type of ask put the focus?
|3| What response does each type of ask tend to generate?
|4| What type of relationship does each kind of ask tend to
foster?
|5| How strong are the resulting donor relationships?
11
DONOR RESPONSE THEORY CHART
LEAST
ORGANIZATION
SUCCESSFUL
TRANSACTIONAL
WEAK
ORGANIZATIONS
MOST
MISSION
SUCCESSFUL
ORGANIZATIONS
RELATIONAL
STRONG
12
DONOR RESPONSE THEORY CHART
LEAST
ORGANIZATION
SUCCESSFUL
TRANSACTIONAL
WEAK
ORGANIZATIONS
MOST
MISSION
SUCCESSFUL
ORGANIZATIONS
RELATIONAL
STRONG
13
DONOR RESPONSE THEORY CHART
LEAST
ORGANIZATION
SUCCESSFUL
TRANSACTIONAL
WEAK
ORGANIZATIONS
MOST
MISSION
SUCCESSFUL
ORGANIZATIONS
RELATIONAL
STRONG
14
DONOR RESPONSE THEORY CHART
LEAST
ORGANIZATION
SUCCESSFUL
TRANSACTIONAL
WEAK
ORGANIZATIONS
MOST
MISSION
SUCCESSFUL
ORGANIZATIONS
RELATIONAL
STRONG
15
DONOR RESPONSE THEORY CHART
LEAST
ORGANIZATION
SUCCESSFUL
TRANSACTIONAL
WEAK
ORGANIZATIONS
MOST
MISSION
SUCCESSFUL
ORGANIZATIONS
RELATIONAL
STRONG
16
DONOR RESPONSE THEORY CHART
LEAST
ORGANIZATION
SUCCESSFUL
TRANSACTIONAL
WEAK
ORGANIZATIONS
MOST
MISSION
SUCCESSFUL
ORGANIZATIONS
RELATIONAL
STRONG
17
DOES THE THEORY HOLD UP?
OUR ANECDOTAL EXPERIENCE WITH MORE THAN 150 NONPROFITS
S U GGES TS TH AT I T D OES :
 Direct-mail appeals that ask prospective donors to join in a
community dedicated to a common, external mission perform
b e t t e r t h a n e m e r g e n c y, o r g a n i z a t i o n - c e n t r i c , o r s e l f - i n t e r e s t
appeals.
 Donor clubs drive increased giving because they provide an
opportunity for participation and contribute to identity building.
 Organizations that invest in relationship -building via
meetings with donors and donor prospects grow faster and are
se e n a s mo re e ffe cti ve by t he i r p e e rs.
18
S U P P O R T I N G D ATA
A M E R I C A N P H I L A N T H R O P I C R E C E N T LY S U RV E Y E D 1 0 0 N O N P R O F I T
OR GA NI Z ATI ONS A B OU T TH EI R FU ND R A I S I NG P R AC TI C ES A ND
OUTCOMES:
 FINDING A: more meetings translates to faster growth.
 FINDING B: more meetings and more communication is
associated with higher donor retention rates.
 FI ND I NG C : o rga ni za t i ons re gard ed by t he i r p e e rs a s t he
most effective invest more heavily in donor cultivation.
especially house-file mailings and meetings.
 FINDING D: the more you communicate—the more you mail
and meet, but not necessarily ask, the higher your average
gift size from individual donors.
19
D i R T A N D T H E C AT H O L I C T R A D I T I O N
DiRT urges us to approac h donors as collaborators in a community
jointly wor king toward some good, not as mere investors in a
s o c i a l t e c h n o l o g y. I t u r g e s u s t o t h i n k i n t e r m s o f c o m m u n i o .
 H E N R I N O U W E N : “ We h a v e m i s s e r v e d o u r d o n o r s i f “ w e
have not given them an opportunity to participate in the spirt
o f w h a t w e a r e a b o u t . We m a y h a v e c o m p l e t e d a s u c c e s s f u l
transaction, but we have not entered into a successful
re l a t i o nshi p.” Our g o a l : t o he l p b ui l d t he K i ng d o m o f Go d by
creating a community of love…”
 POPE BENEDICT XVI: “The essence of love and the essence
of charitable organizations are intrinsically connected. The
efficacy of an organization lies precisely in how it
successfully models Christ’s love of all.”
20
DiRT AND CHRISTIAN CHARITY
DiRT goes to the heart of the difference between secular
p h i l a n t h ro py a n d C h r i s t i a n c h a r i t y.
 SECULAR PHILANTHROPY has since its inception been
thought of as primarily a tool for social c hange.
 CHRISTIAN CHARITY is different: it is how we witness to
God’s superintending love and our relationship as brothers
and sisters. Social c hange flows downstream from that.
21
T H E TA K E A W AY S
| 1 | D o n o r s a s i m p a c t i n ve s t o r s i s m o r e hy p e t h a n r e a l i t y.
| 2 | Yo u r g o a l i s t o m a k e y o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n a p a r t o f y o u r
supporters’ innermost identities; to become part of who
they are.
| 3 | Donors respond best when you act as if the premise of
C h r i s t i a n c h a r i t y — t h a t w e w e r e m a d e by, i n , a n d f o r l o ve —
were true!
W H E N I T C O M E S T O D E V E L O P M E N T, T H I N K “ T H E Q U E S T F O R
C O M M U N I T Y.” T H I N K C O M M U N I O .
22