1 / 25

Fundraising Tactics & Efficiency: Results from a National Survey

Fundraising Tactics & Efficiency: Results from a National Survey. Thomas H. Pollak & Mark Hager Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, The Urban Institute. Patrick Rooney Center on Philanthropy, Indiana University . Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) * * * * * * * * * *

salena
Download Presentation

Fundraising Tactics & Efficiency: Results from a National Survey

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Fundraising Tactics & Efficiency: Results from a National Survey Thomas H. Pollak & Mark HagerCenter on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, The Urban Institute Patrick Rooney Center on Philanthropy,Indiana University Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) * * * * * * * * * * October 2003 Chicago

  2. The ProjectNonprofit Fundraising & Administrative Costs:Assessing Current Practices & Developing a Framework for Reporting • Understand scope & sources of variation in fundraising & administrative costs, & identify problems or inconsistencies in their measurement and reporting • Develop & disseminate accessible reports, tools, & guidelines to public, practitioners & policy-makers • Initiate a fact-based dialogue on how to ensure comparable & uniform reporting of these costs

  3. Survey Questions • Use of staff and volunteers • Use of fundraising information systems • Fundraising tactics • Auditing and cost allocation • Professional fundraisers • Standards & requirements of donors & others • Indirect fundraising by affiliates or federated funding orgs.

  4. Research Question • Are some fundraising strategies more efficient than others? I.e., do they generate more direct contributions per dollar of fundraising expense?

  5. Survey Results • Mailed surveys to 3,000+ NPOs • 1,500+ returned (51% response rate) • Sample was stratified random sample: • Stratified by: Size & Subsector • Sample and responses both closely mirror overall nonprofit sector.

  6. Survey Results • Caveats and Concerns • Surveys always have several sources of possible bias: • Non-responders may differ from responders systematically in important ways. • Item non-response bias among responders. • Veracity of responses. • Perceived incentives to respond.

  7. Survey Results • Caveats and Concerns Specific to this Study • Not always clear whether responders declared costs in a consistent manner. • Direct costs (printing and postage) • Direct labor costs • Indirect labor costs (CEO, etc.) • Indirect costs (rent, utilities) • Gross vs. net revenues for special events and mailings, etc.

  8. Survey Results • See “How Fundraising is Carried Out in U.S. Nonprofit Organizations.” Mark Hager, Patrick Rooney and Tom Pollak. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol 7, No. 4, 2002, pp. 311-324. • Covers Fundraising Roles of CEO, CDO, Volunteers, Consultants, etc.

  9. Survey Results • Forthcoming articles in NonProfit Quarterly • “Management and General Expenses: The Other Half of Overhead” • “Is Grant Proposal Writing a Fundraising Expense” • Forthcoming article in Giving USA Update • “Variations in the Cost of Fundraising” • Variations by size, age, mission using 990s.

  10. Direct Mail • Number of complete responses: 342. • Number stating they do not use: 812 • Incomplete data: 245 • Skipped line, matrix or “unsure”: 141 • Mean: 36.4 • Median: 10 • 25th & 75th Percentiles: 4.5—25.9 • % Using this tactic (among fundraiser’s): 43%

  11. Telephone Calls • Number of complete responses: 35 • Number stating they do not use: 1198 • Incomplete data: 83 • Skipped line, matrix or “unsure”: 224 • Mean: 54.7 • Median: 11.9 • 25th & 75th Percentiles: 2.6-42.0 • % Using this tactic (among fundraiser’s): 9%

  12. E-Mail • Number of complete responses: 9 • Number stating they do not use: 1296 • Incomplete data: 39 • Skipped line, matrix or “unsure”: 196 • Mean: 17.6 • Median: 7.5 • 25th & 75th Percentiles: 0.5-21.3 • % Using this tactic (among fundraiser’s): 4%

  13. Special Events • Number of complete responses: 540 • Number stating they do not use: 559 • Incomplete data: 304 • Skipped line, matrix or “unsure”: 137 • Mean: 9.1 • Median: 3.2 • 25th & 75th Percentiles: 2.0-6.3 • % Using this tactic (among fundraiser’s): 62%

  14. WEB • Number of complete responses: 24 • Number stating they do not use: 1118 • Incomplete data: 201 • Skipped line, matrix or “unsure”: 197 • Mean: 8.8 • Median: 7.0 • 25th & 75th Percentiles: 1.8 – 10.0 • % Using this tactic (among fundraisers): 16%

  15. Foundation Proposal Writing • Number of complete responses: 324 • Number stating they do not use: 518 • Incomplete data: 618 • Skipped line, matrix or “unsure”: 80 • Mean: 6.90 • Median: 20 • 25th & 75th Percentiles: 7.7 – 60.0 • % Using this tactic (among fundraiser’s): 69%

  16. Major Gifts • Number of complete responses: 124 • Number stating they do not use: 930 • Incomplete data: 288 • Skipped line, matrix or “unsure”: 198 • Mean: 172.7 • Median: 24.0 • 25th & 75th Percentiles: 8.4 – 100.0 • % Using this tactic (among fundraiser’s): 67%

  17. Capital Campaigns • Number of complete responses: 79 • Number stating they do not use: 1120 • Incomplete data: 140 • Skipped line, matrix or “unsure”: 201 • Mean: 427 • Median: 20 • 25th & 75th Percentiles: range: 8.0 – 53.8 • % Using this tactic (among fundraiser’s): 16%

  18. Federated Fund Raising • Number of complete responses: 79 • Number stating they do not use: 1094 • Incomplete data: 210 • Skipped line, matrix or “unsure”: 157 • Mean: 452.9 • Median: 28 • 25th & 75th Percentiles: 7.9 – 63.3 • % Using this tactic (among fundraiser’s): 21%

  19. Government Proposal • Number of complete responses: 285 • Number stating they do not use: 681 • Incomplete data: 486 • Skipped line, matrix or “unsure”: 88 • Mean: 869.8 • Median: 27.5 • 25th & 75th Percentiles: 9.5 – 102 • % Using this tactic (among fundraiser’s): 56%

  20. Planned Giving • Number of complete responses: 80 • Number stating they do not use: 1060 • Incomplete data: 188 • Skipped line, matrix or “unsure”: 212 • Mean: 690.8 • Median: 20.0 • 25th & 75th Percentiles: 7.8 – 100 • % Using this tactic (among fundraiser’s): 20%

  21. Congregations • Number of complete responses: 64 • Number stating they do not use: 1127 • Incomplete data: 153 • Skipped line, matrix or “unsure”: 196 • Mean: 50.3 • Median: 18.0 • 25th & 75th Percentiles: 6.1 – 60.3 • % Using this tactic (among fundraiser’s): 16%

  22. Door to Door • Number of complete responses: 11 • Number stating they do not use: 1294 • Incomplete data: 35 • Skipped line, matrix or “unsure”: 200 • Mean: 42.1 • Median: 10.0 • 25th & 75th Percentiles: 5.0 – 77.0 • % Using this tactic (among fundraiser’s): 3%

  23. Conclusions • Fundraising Tactics matter. • They have different returns on investments. • Other project research using Form 990 data found similar results: tactics matter. • Also found that the cost of fundraising varies by size and subsector quite a bit and by age a little. • Still much unexplained.

  24. Next Steps • For tactics with enough responses: • How does the return vary by size and by subsector. • Case studies: • How make decisions about how to allocate costs? • How do NPOs track costs and revenues? • What are barriers to tracking costs and revenues? • What would be helpful? • Develop templates to help NPOs track costs and revenues.

More Related