Jessica Ueland, Master's Research Paper

April 3, 2010
Donor Development in Challenging Circumstances:
Addressing Economic Troubles and Donor-Held Stereotypes to
Increase Nonprofit Giving by Individuals
A Research Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
Jessica A. Ueland
University of Northern Iowa
May 2015

DONOR DEVELOPMENT IN CHALLENGING CIRCUMSTANCES 2
This Study by: Jessica A. Ueland
Entitled: Donor Development in Challenging Circumstances: Addressing Economic Troubles
and Donor-Held Stereotypes to Increase Nonprofit Giving by Individuals
has been approved as meeting the research paper requirement for the Degree of Master of Arts.
__________________ ________________________________________
Date Dr. Rodney Dieser, Chair

Tables of Contents
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………..……5
CHAPTER 1
Introduction......................................................................................................................................8
Purpose of the Study..................................................................................................................9
Research Questions..................................................................................................................10
Significance of the Study.........................................................................................................11
Definitions of Terms ................................................................................................................14
CHAPTER 2
Literature Review...........................................................................................................................16
Section I: Economic Recession and Effects on Nonprofit Funding ........................................16
Government support....................................................................................................16
Individual donors ........................................................................................................17
The nonprofit sector’s response..................................................................................17
Section II: Donor-held stereotypes ..........................................................................................18
Diversity and accompanying stereotypes....................................................................19
Donor development during difficult economic circumstances....................................20
Understanding donor motivations ..............................................................................22
Addressing and defying negative stereotypes .............................................................25
Summary..................................................................................................................................32

CHAPTER 3
Review of Literature – Synthesis and Analysis………………………………………..…....34
Implications for Professional Practice .....................................................................................34
CHARISM Neighborhood Center...............................................................................35
United for Jefferson Initiative Survey.........................................................................36
Method ...............................................................................................................39
Procedures and sampling strategy.....................................................................40
Synthesis of survey results .................................................................................41
Analysis of survey results………….…..…………………………………………….45
Future Research........................................................................................................................48
Recommendations....................................................................................................................49
References......................................................................................................................................56
Tables.............................................................................................................................................60
Table 1: Jefferson Collaborative Community Questionnaire .................................................60
Table 2: Responses from the Jefferson Collaborative Community Questionnaire .................65

Acknowledgements
I want to thank Dr. Rodney Dieser for being both a wonderful teacher and inspiring,
encouraging program director. Dr. Dieser has shown much enthusiasm for our studies, this
program, and each one of our individual pursuits. From the very first day of our very first class,
Dr. Dieser has been someone our cohort could trust to look out for what was best for each of us
regarding our careers and passion for nonprofits. He has guided us along this entire journey -
thank you, Dr. Dieser, for the encouragement, guidance, knowledge and caring spirit you have
shared with us.
I am so grateful for all of my fellow cohort members: Elaine Appleby, Jamie Branch,
Ashley Craft, Christy Danielsen, Jasmine Declet, William Falk, Scott Ford, Elizabeth Heins,
Elizabeth Kehret, Jessica Malcheff, Ellie Rogaczewski, Nicole Rottinghaus, Emily Saveraid and
Emily Shields and Steve Watson. Each one’s different experiences and insights have been a
significant reason why this program has been so worthwhile. From our first class, we have been a
group that has done nothing but encourage each other along the way. Even though we have yet to
meet face-to-face as of the time I am writing this, I feel like I know each one personally as a
friend and colleague. Several cohort members have faced significant life challenges and
experienced big changes during our time in this program; I am thankful to have been on this
graduate school journey with this wonderful, accomplished group of world changers!
Thank you to Julie Pitzen for being the original connection to what became my first
“grown up job,” and for being an incredible mentor to me through her example and guidance. I
first discovered Family & Children’s Council through an undergraduate course taught by Julie.
Little did I know that two years and an internship later, I would get to join the FCC team and call
Julie my boss. Julie’s example of patience, passion for an important mission, integrity and

kindness toward others no matter the circumstances has, and continues to be, an example of what
I want to be like as both a leader and an individual.
My experience at FCC was, upon retrospect, the best possible place I could have started
my time as a “real grown up.” I have drawn so much from my experiences at FCC – I am
indebted to my wonderful FCC co-workers for taking a chance on an underqualified college
student. Thank you to Adriane Carlson, Glenda Husome, Jill Smith, Missy Denning, Kara
Swenson, Ruth Mussett, Priscilla Moore, Shelly Smith and Patty Nierling for the patience,
knowledge and laughs they shared with me! Every day, their passion for children and families
was evident. I strive to keep that same passion every day in my work.
Thank you to Jessica Moon Asa, Dr. Brenda Bass and Dr. Gary Gute. I would not have
been a student at UNI if not for UNI’s fantastic honors program, directed by Jessica. The
University Honors Program is where I met some of my best friends for life, as well as where I
grew in every aspect of being a student and critical thinker. Jessica made our honors experience
so rewarding. Dr. Bass, as the person who helped me write my very first grant application and
resume, gave me some of the original encouragement I needed in pursuing this degree. Dr. Gute,
as my honors thesis advisor, helped me transform a pitiful research study into a work that
actually resembled an undergraduate thesis. This experience helped prepare me for the
coursework in this program.
I am indebted to another Julie who also took a chance on a woefully underqualified
person. Julie Gunkelman, as executive director of CHARISM Neighborhood Center, connected
me with a role at CHARISM for which I was not the most qualified. I am so thankful for her
willingness to share her experiences and passion for CHARISM’s mission with me, as well as
her constant guidance, patience and advice. Her example as a director is one who is caring, wise,

kind and always striving to do what is right. I can only hope to be a leader like her someday.
Thank you also to the CHARISM team. Each one has shown so much care for the children and
families we get to call our “neighbors,” and they are part of the reason why I have looked
forward to going to work each day since my first day at CHARISM.
Thank you to each of my friends who I have had less time to spend visiting and talking
with – I am so excited to have more free evenings and weekends to spend with you all!
Thank you to my Aunt Jenny Borowiak, who shared the book One Child with me. After
reading the author’s account of her experience, I have known that I must do all that I can to
ensure that every child has a safe home and people who love him or her.
Thank you to my grandparents, Else Ueland, Karen Borowiak and Bernie Borowiak, for
being so generous and loving with everyone they meet, and for their encouragement. Thank you
also to my kind, hard-working brothers Jared, Joey, Kyle and Michael for being four men I am
incredibly proud to call my brothers.
Thank you to my mom, Ann, and dad, Jim, for encouraging me at every stage of my life,
especially in this master’s program. I owe so much to both of you, and I am thankful to have had
parents who care so much about our family. One of my goals in life is to help every child grow
up with parents who care for them as much as you have cared for me.
Thank you, Wes Offerman, for being so supportive and encouraging as I have pursued
this degree. I cannot wait to be able to spend time with you on Tuesday evenings now! Thank
you for being the best thing that has ever happened to me, and for helping me feel like anything
is possible, even when I doubt myself. (And thank you to Sam and Julie Offerman for raising the
sweetest, most wonderful son – and thank you for raising him to be a Panther fan!)

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
“In dreams begins responsibility.” This short but simple quote from William Butler Yeats
captures the heart of nonprofit work. Dreaming of a better world remains but a dream if no one
takes responsibility for helping make the changes needed to make the world a better place for
everyone, regardless of their life situation. A nonprofit’s mission will be nothing more than an
idealistic dream if there is no money and time to devote to the activities that work toward
meeting that mission.
While numbers may not elicit the same passion as a powerful mission statement, a
nonprofit organization’s budget must be prioritized by a nonprofit organization’s staff as much
as its mission. Without sufficient funding and other resources, both tangible and intangible, an
organization’s mission will remain just that – a mission. In order to work toward a mission and
accompanying goals, funding must be secured to make mission-related activities possible.
Various funding sources exist upon which nonprofits can draw, such as public and private
foundation grants, government contracts, for-profit business ventures, corporate sponsorships
and individual donations. Planned giving is another source of income that is an option for
donors. There are multiple options for giving that fall under the umbrella of “planned giving;”
each has different tax and legal characteristics for donors to consider (Hopkins, 2005). Contrary
to what the term “nonprofit” suggests, many nonprofits generate a profit, which is perfectly legal
(Hopkins, 2005).
Each nonprofit organization has different financial needs. Individual donations are
arguably the easiest source of income to procure, at least in theory; all an organization needs to
do, seemingly, is ask an individual for support. Unlike grants, which require completing

paperwork, or for-income ventures, which involve the development of complicated business
plans, donations from individual donors often come with few strings attached other than their
intent for the money’s use by the organization. Individual donors are perhaps the source of
income most readily available to nonprofit organizations.
Regardless of the myriad of other funding sources, few nonprofit organizations can
survive without donations from individual, for reasons beyond simply providing financial capital
to the organization. Individual donors can provide far more than just dollars to nonprofit
organizations, as will be discussed later in this paper. Financial capability is not the only factor to
consider in a potential donor, however; his or her beliefs about the organizational mission and its
clients are of equal importance.
A better understanding of how to be effective in cultivating donors when two of the
greatest barriers to donor development, lack of financial giving ability and negative stereotypes
associated with the organization’s clients, are present is the purpose of this paper.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to determine how a nonprofit organization can effectively
increase its funding from individual donors, even when faced with two significant barriers to
giving. One examined barrier to gaining individual donors is an economic recession and its
potential impact on a donor’s ability to give to an organization. The second examined barrier to
increasing individual donations is stereotypes held by a potential donor that may prevent him or
her from supporting the organization’s mission and clients.
Research was done to help better understand the diverse needs of individuals in the
Fargo, North Dakota area. The purpose of this research was to both understand what needs

nonprofit organizations can help meet, and also to give community residents who are often
victims of negative stereotypes and biases the opportunity to identify what they see as needs in
their own neighborhoods. This paper’s purpose, in addition to exploring how the economy and
donor-held stereotypes affect their propensity to give to nonprofits, is to analyze and better
understand the very people who are the beneficiaries of some gifts to nonprofits in an effort to
help donors truly understand who and what they are supporting through their philanthropy.
The economic climate and diversity of the United States both have an impact on
nonprofit organizations’ abilities to fund their activities. These two critical aspects of donor
development are examined in this research, so that nonprofit organization can better understand
donors’ motivations and prepare to address both barriers if (or, more likely, when) they are
encountered.
Research about the needs of the diverse population served by one nonprofit organization
is also examined, giving a glimpse into what exactly the needs are of this one organization’s
clients. This information is critical so that the organization can help donors who may hold
stereotypes about this population to understand why exactly their support is needed, and why
their stereotypes may be inaccurate.
ResearchQuestions
This research seeks to explore how nonprofit organizations can successfully raise funds
from individual donors, even when economic circumstances or personal beliefs seem to be
insurmountable barriers.
1. Can nonprofit organizations effectively maintain and/or increase financial donations from
individuals when the economy is in a recession? If yes, how?

2. How can a nonprofit organization prepare for inevitable economic depression or
recession so that its financial situation and ability to work toward its mission is not
severely disabled in such circumstances?
3. How can nonprofit organizations compel and persuade potential individual donors to
donate financially if the individuals believe negative stereotypes or hold prejudices that
keep them from supporting the organization’s mission and its clients?
4. How can CHARISM Neighborhood Center understand how to best serve its clients in
working toward its mission?
Significance of the Study
The two focuses of this study are both significant to nonprofit organizations and their
fundraising capabilities, and will remain significant as long as nonprofit organizations depend on
individual donations to help continue their mission. This study examines how a nonprofit can
maintain or increase financial donations from individuals even during a less-than-ideal economy.
This study also explores how negative stereotypes and beliefs that hinder some individuals from
giving in support of a mission can be defied, addressed, and perhaps even changed into beliefs
that support and lead one to support an organization, both literally and figuratively.
This research considers if and how a nonprofit organization can recruit new donors even
in the midst of challenging economic circumstances. This is especially salient, as the American
economy continues to recover from the recent economic recession, which had its greatest impact
in 2008 and continues to have an effect on today’s economy.
In addition to the economic focus of individual giving, this study explores another
significant component of and barrier to individual donations: negative of unfounded beliefs that

hinder an individual from supporting a mission. My current position is at a nonprofit
organization in Fargo, North Dakota that seeks to provide a safe and welcoming anchor point in
a neighborhood with poverty, great diversity, and basic needs. Both Fargo and North Dakota are
recognized as having growing, prosperous economies. One may think Fargo is an ideal and easy
area in which to cultivate donors, but not every resident of the Fargo community has seemingly
limitless funds to give to nonprofit organizations.
Individuals want to give to causes that they are passionate about, and that they care about.
Simply having money does not mean that an individual is going to give to our organization the
second he or she is asked! Fargo has a perceived culture of using common sense and being
intentional with one’s spending. Donors want to know that their money is going to make an
impact, and that it will be used responsibly by an organization. The recent economy has seemed
to give people a greater wariness in donating money – donors want to make each dollar go as far
as it can, in wake of the 2008 recession.
While many individuals in the Fargo area have a significant ability to give, they may
have a slightly decreased ability due to the recession’s effects on the economy and their industry.
Thus, as a fundraiser in this community, I cannot expect that everyone has the same amount of
money to give to a nonprofit as they may have just a few years ago. Our organization also needs
to seek support from individuals in ways other than simply writing checks, such as through the
donation of time, expertise or personal connections. This type of support is not as dependent on
an individual’s financial situation, and warrants cultivation just as financial donations do.
Despite a healthy local and state economy, not all Fargo residents have significant
disposable income. There are surely ways we can engage more of our fellow Fargo residents in
our goal to help our disadvantaged neighbors build skills and feel supported in their goals while

also being contributing, self-sufficient citizens, without only seeking financial help. This
research examines the donation of time and telling acquaintances about an organization’s
mission as another type of support that individuals can provide that is valuable, even if, initially,
it is not tangible financial support .
This paper will also examine how individuals who hold negative stereotypes or beliefs
about an organization and its beneficiaries, and thus may be initially resistant to supporting the
organization, can be led to become donors. My organization works with a significantly diverse
group of clients. Many Fargo residents simply do not realize the breadth of diversity that exists
in the community. Others are uncomfortable around people who seem to be different from them,
having little understanding of their backgrounds.
My organization’s challenge, as an organization that serves clients that are often victims
of negative stereotyping and prejudice, is to demonstrate to potential donors that this diversity is
a valuable part of our community, and to show them how our clients’ needs could easily be their
needs as well if individual circumstances and life experiences were different. An accompanying
challenge is determining what exactly our clients’ needs are in relation to our organizational
mission, so that we can accurately explain to donors how their dollars are making a difference in
our neighborhoods. We are all “neighbors” to one another in our city, and each of us needs help
in one way or another at some point in our lives, and our organization seeks to help meet the
needs of our neighbors so that they can be contributing, self-sufficient members of society.
This paper seeks to better understand how an organization like A Community of Homes
and Resources in Service to Many (CHARISM) Neighborhood Center can convey this belief to
potential donors who may initially be unlikely to donate to an organization with a mission like
ours. An understanding of how people’s inaccurate perceptions and negative stereotypes can

effectively be defied and addressed is valuable to any nonprofit organization, as not all potential
donors will automatically be willing to donate when initially approached!
Donors have a need to give, and nonprofits have a need for individual donors’ financial
support. This paper ultimately seeks to understand how organizations can effectively cultivate
donors, even when facing barriers such as an economic recession or negative stereotypes related
to the organization.
Definitions of Terms
Various concepts that are mentioned and discussed in this paper, in relation to nonprofit
organizations, economics and donor motivations, are defined here to assist the reader:
Altruism is a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing another’s welfare (Batson &
Shaw, 1991).
Donor-held stereotypes, for the purpose of this paper, are a donor’s perceptions of a group of
individuals who are perceived as having shared characteristics, values, beliefs and
circumstances with each other (McGarty, Yzerbyt, & Spears, 2002).
Double-dip recession is a decrease in real GDP, lasting for the standard textbook definition of at
least two consecutive quarters of time, which begins after the trough of the previous cycle
and prior to the reversion point (Kyer & Maggs, 2012) .
Earned income is income generated from the sale of products or for services provided by the
organization (Foster & Bradach, 2005).
Foundational grant is financial support received from an organization that was created from
designated funds, whose income is distributed as grants to nonprofit organizations (“The
AFP Fundraising Dictionary Online,” 2003).

Government contracts are agreements with human service nonprofit organizations to deliver
pivotal services to individuals, families, and communities on the government’s behalf
(Boris, de Leon, Roeger, & Nikolova , 2010. )
Human capital is the intangible collective resources possessed by individuals or groups, such as
knowledge, talents, skills and experience, which represent a form of value to a nonprofit
in working toward its mission (Huff, 2013).
Mission is a need or value of society that a nonprofit organization exists to address (“The AFP
Fundraising Dictionary Online,” 2003).
Philanthropy, for the purpose of this paper, is voluntary action taken to improve the well-being
of life for others, such as through financial gifts, acts of kindness or advocating for a
particular value or mission (“The AFP Fundraising Dictionary Online,” 2003).
Social entrepreneurship is working to bring about social change rather than to strictly make a
financial profit, often borrowing strategies and techniques from for-profit models and
applying them to the nonprofit sector to benefit society (Bacq, Hartog, & Hoogendoorn,
2014).

CHAPTER 2
Review of Literature
Section 1: Economic recessionand effects on nonprofit funding
The focus of this section of research is how nonprofit organizations are affected
financially when the economy is in a recession. When a recessive economy exists, consumers
typically have less money to donate, or their money buys fewer commodities or services than it
did in a more favorable economy. The economy is cyclical, so nonprofit organizations must
anticipate that at some point, their funding sources may be affected by a recessive economy. This
section examines how an economy in recession can affect nonprofit funding, and seeks to
understand how nonprofits can prepare for this inevitable situation.
Government support
In their national survey of human service organizations, Boris et al. (2010) found that
60% of the organizations count government contracts and funds as their largest source of
revenue. This is troubling since Salamon, Geller and Spence (2009) found that 35% of the 363
nonprofits from across the country who participated in their survey experienced a decline in
government support between September 2008 and May 2009, when recession effects were more
intense.
These findings suggest it is important for nonprofits to learn how they can protect
themselves financially and continue their vital work when the largest source of revenue for many
of them experiences constraints, as has been the case since 2007. The government is not as quick
to react to financial needs as individuals are capable of being, and thus, individual donors seem
to be a much better investment in terms of donor development.

Individual donors
Individual donors create a base of support for a nonprofit’s mission. Unlike other funding
sources, individual donors can do more than simply give money to an organization. In addition,
unlike with government contracts or grants, there are usually few stipulations for using donors’
money other than if donations are given with instructions to be used for a specific purpose.
However, individual donors are not the primary revenue source for many nonprofit
organizations.
Many nonprofits count the government as a primary revenue source, which is concerning
since this revenue source may be more negatively impacted by economic trouble than other
sources. Some nonprofits have demonstrated that individual donations do not necessarily have to
decrease as dramatically as other funding sources might in an economic recession, as will be
discussed in a later section. Individual donors can respond to urgent nonprofit needs more
quickly than the government can through its contracts and grants. Individual donors are a
valuable asset to a nonprofit in this way when considering how an organization can respond to
economic downturns.
The nonprofit sector’s response
The effects of the most recent recession on both individuals’ and nonprofits’ financial
situations may not be fully realized for years to come. As Susan U. Raymond wrote in her 2013
book, Recession, Recovery and Renewal, “Individuals will look forward with great financial
caution…” (p. 1). The government and business sectors have and will continue to adopt changes
to both prevent another recession and minimize the negative effects of the recent recession, such
as greater regulation of bank lending activity. These changes in response to economic climate

affect both the nonprofit sector and individual donors, as they are impacted by the government
and business sectors.
Since the American economy is cyclical, as Gassman et al. (2012) points out, nonprofit
organizations need to strategically plan for how they can survive financially if there is a double-
dip recession, or at the very least, plan for the next normal economic dip. Individual donors can
play a crucial role in helping nonprofits continue their missions when the economy negatively
affects other revenue sources, such as the government. Nonprofits can study how best to recruit
donors in the aftermath of such an economic crisis, but more importantly, should anticipate how
donors can help them prepare for lean financial times.
While the economy has slowly been recovering, consumers continue to be cautious about
how they spend their money; this applies to donors as well. Donors want to feel assured that their
money is going to an organization that can be trusted to use it wisely and effectively. Nonprofits
face the challenge of decreased spending abilities by some potential donors in the wake of the
economic spending.
Section 2: Donor-held stereotypes
Economic conditions and their effects on individuals’ giving abilities are not the only
significant hurdle that a nonprofit organization may need to address with potential donors.
Nonprofits may face donor-held stereotypes that can keep potential donors who are not as
negatively impacted by a recession from giving to one’s organization. An organization can only
expect to gain a donor if he or she has both an ability to give and an understanding of and
support for the organizational mission. An organization’s mission and its beneficiaries may be
understood and embraced by some potential donors more than others, depending on personal

beliefs and experiences. Stereotypes and negative perceptions held by a donor about some aspect
of a nonprofit organization must be addressed before he or she will consider supporting the
mission in some way.
Diversity and accompanying stereotypes
A troublesome economy is only one issue that nonprofits must deal with in terms of
securing funding. Individual donations are not always the biggest source of income for
nonprofits, but as discussed previously, individual donations are worth cultivating in an economy
that affects the government’s ability to fund nonprofit programming. Meanwhile, the United
States is a country full of diversity, and this is something to take into account when seeking
individual donations.
Potential donors who hold stereotypes about a nonprofit organization’s clientele who are
different from themselves may refrain from giving at all unless they better understand the
nonprofit’s mission, clients and importance. Nonprofits must determine how they can show
donors why their organizations are important and deserving of support, if they desire to increase
individual donations.
Nonprofits need to be prepared to continue their mission, even when the economy
reduces the ability of some funders to give, including both the government and individuals. Since
all individuals have had different life experiences and are unique, stereotypes and thinking that is
opposed to a nonprofit organization’s mission and philosophy must be dealt with in addition to
the economic circumstances that affect individual giving abilities. The literature examines how
the economy impacts giving and nonprofit organizations, as well as considering how to address
individuals’ thinking that might prevent them from giving to one’s particular organization.

Donor development during difficult economic circumstances
America’s “Great Recession,” which began in December 2007 and continued through
June 2009 (Seefeldt & Graham, 2013), led to financial stress not only for the government and
business sectors, but for the nonprofit sector as well. The effects of the recession are still being
felt today (Gassman et al., 2012). In their national survey of nonprofit human service
organizations, Boris, de Leon, Roeger and Nikolova (2010) found that more than half of the
organizations had experienced reduced cuts in their funding from government funds,
foundational grants and individual donors. Staying afloat financially as a nonprofit is a greater
challenge than usual in the midst of a troubled economy.
It is important for nonprofits that rely upon individual donors for a portion of their
budgets to recognize that individual donors are affected by the economy as much as nonprofits.
However, nonprofits must also consider that difficult economic times do not mean that people
are completely hindered from giving to organizations they wish to support.
While corporate donations and government funds decreased from 2009-2011, overall
individual donations increased during the same time period (Gassman et al., 2012). Current
donors may be able to give a lesser amount of money to nonprofits, and some potential donors
may be unable to give little more than their time, but this does not mean that donors completely
stop giving to organizations they care about during difficult financial times. Philanthropy is
practiced by individuals, even in a recessive economy, as donors have varying motivations (and
even needs) to donate to nonprofit causes (Prince & File, 1994). When the economy is in
recession, this does not mean donors’ motivations for giving will change even if they may have a
decreased ability to give at that time.

One reason for a smaller decline in philanthropic giving than one might expect in an
economic recession is that individual donors may perceive that the demand for nonprofit
programming and services is often greater in an economic recession and thus respond
accordingly if able. Funding for services provided by nonprofits often sees a cut just when those
services see an increased need.
Communication with donors is vital in helping to make up the difference in funding cuts
when they occur at the most inconvenient time. Surprising to some may be the fact that some
nonprofits did not see a decline in financial giving from individual donors during the most recent
recession. Surveyed faith-based nonprofits cited effective communication to donors as the reason
their particular nonprofits maintained nearly equal giving during the years of the recession
(Rogers, 2010). These sampled organizations were not alone in this occurrence; Gassman et al.
(2012) reported that donations from individuals to nonprofits nationwide “steadily increased”
from 2009-2011 (p. 18).
Long-time donors may be inspired to give more in a troubled economy than they did
previously if they have the means. New donors can be gained if an organization demonstrates
that the economy is negatively affecting its ability to offer needed services. Both of these
scenarios can make up for decreased donations from those donors whose giving abilities are
reduced as a result of a recession. As a result of giving from both existing and new donors,
relative stability in philanthropic giving can be achieved in tough economic times.
This knowledge that current donors may be willing to give more in an attempt to cancel
out the negative economic effects on a nonprofit’s financial situation is valuable from a
fundraising standpoint. It suggests that nonprofits should not stop seeking donations from current
donors even in hard economic times. Since a nonprofit’s other funding sources may be reduced

during and after an economic recession, individual donors are increasingly important in such
circumstances since some may be able to balance out other current donors who have to decrease
their giving.
Effective communication about a need is necessary for a nonprofit to gain financial
support from any source of revenue, but perhaps individual donors (potential and existing) are
the revenue source that can respond most easily during an economic crisis, thus warranting
greater study in terms of how to best communicate to them the need for their donations.
Understanding how nonprofits can most effectively recruit and maintain individual
donors when economic troubles arise and threaten other sources of revenue is knowledge that
will be valuable to any nonprofit organization. Along with attracting donors in a struggling
economy, another major challenge to donor recruitment is how to attract donors who may not be
drawn to supporting an organization due to stereotypes they hold that they associate with those
served by an organization.
Understanding donor motivations
How can a nonprofit organization recruit individual donors who are resistant to an
organization’s mission or clients due to stereotypes or prejudices? How can an organization
understand how to best serve its clients in working toward its mission? Not all funding sources
are appropriate or viable for every nonprofit; however, individual donors are a funding source
from which nearly all nonprofits can draw.
Misconceptions or stereotypes associated with a nonprofit’s mission or clientele can
prevent individuals from donating. This means nonprofits need to understand how to effectively
defy misconceptions to draw support from a larger donor base. This section examines how

prejudices and negative stereotypes that contradict a nonprofit’s mission might be reduced in
order to appeal to potential donors who hold such beliefs, including an exploration of what
motivates people to donate in the first place.
An understanding of what motivates people to give is imperative to determining how to
approach donor recruitment, and how to most effectively defy stereotypes that may be keeping
potential donors for giving. Whether or not true altruism exists is debated (Batson & Shaw,
1991; Beardman, 2012; Cialdini, 1991; Gill, Packer, & Bavel, 2013; Liu, 2012; Wallach &
Wallach, 1991). One source of debate about altruism’s existence is that some argue that the good
feeling that most people get from giving is technically a reward for giving. If true altruism is
rare, or even real, what is it that motivates people to donate to nonprofit organizations?
Most would agree that some donors do give out of at least partly altruistic motivation (if
it is possible to be “partly” altruistic), that is, giving simply for the good of others. This can be
described as “moral norms,” as opposed to social norms, and can have a greater effect on one’s
decision to give than social norms (Jones, Sullivan, & Greenberg, 2013; Linden, 2011). Other
potential rewards might be in play when one decides to give to a nonprofit organization, such as
tax deductions, but the desire to do good for fellow man surely is at least in play to some degree
when one donates to a nonprofit organization. Connecting the desire to do good for others with
one’s organizational mission is thus a good strategy for convincing a potential donor to take out
his or her checkbook.
In their 1994 book The Seven Faces of Philanthropy, Russ Alan Prince and Karen Maru
File write, “Donors enter a relationship with a nonprofit because they have certain motivations to
do so.,” (p. 8). This is still true today, more than two decades later. Altruism is a debated concept
in terms of being a pure and sole motivation for a donor’s giving (Wallach & Wallach, 1991), so

which other motivations can be identified in connection to donors’ decisions to give to nonprofit
organizations, if altruism is not the motivating factor?
The Seven Faces of Philanthropy explores seven different types of givers, each
motivated by different beliefs and influencers. For example, Prince and File explain that “The
Devout” giver donates out of his or her religious beliefs and teachings, while “The Repayer”
describes donors who give to causes or programs that they or someone they care about has
benefited from in some way. An understanding of different donors’ motivations for giving is
important for nonprofits who wish to cultivate donations from varied types of individuals.
The results of a survey and accompanying laboratory experiment study by Croson, Handy
and Shang (2009) suggests that perceived social norms are one significant influence on donor
behavior. Croson, Handy, and Shang (2009) found that participants made giving decisions based
upon what they thought others in similar circumstances would do, including how much money
they would give. If the participants thought others gave a large contribution, they were more
likely to give a similarly high contribution as well.
This research suggests that connecting potential donors with other donors from similar
social circles, such as at fundraising events, could increase their likelihood of giving as they will
likely give if others are also giving to the organization. Social norms and moral ideals held by
one’s neighbors can have a significant influence on a decision to give (Croson, Handy, & Shang,
2009; Wilhelm & Bekkers, 2010).
In addition to influencing a donor’s giving behavior, social norms and cultural moral
ideals can also have an effect on one’s thinking and behavior (Arniot, Sansfacon, & Louis, 2013;
Croson, Handy, & Shang, 2003; Thomas, McGarty, & Mavorb, 2010; Wilhelm & Bekkers,
2010) and therefore an effect on whether or not they will support a particular nonprofit and its

mission that they previously may have felt prejudiced toward. A change in prejudiced thinking
about a particular nonprofit’s mission or clients can lead to giving to the nonprofit, and this
change can be effected through changing social norms and thinking.
This presents a challenge to nonprofits struggling to decrease stereotypes and prejudice
held by potential donors: by causing a change in belief by one member of a social group, there is
potential for the whole group’s thinking to possibly be influenced and therefore make it more
likely that more of the group members will be attracted to a nonprofit’s mission.
Along with social norms, donors also choose to give based upon their particular
emotions, logic and reasoning in relation to an organization’s mission. The way in which an
organization frames its needs and mission is important. Some nonprofits use emotional appeals,
such as photos of sad, scared-looking clients or stories of terrible things that are happening
without donors’ money, for example.
Marjanovic, Struthers and Greenglass (2011) studied who donated to nonprofits that
helped victims of a natural disaster, and they concluded that appealing to donors’ emotions is
more effective than drawing upon donors’ logic and creating empathy. This finding draws
support for the traditional emotions-based appeals, such as those depicting sad children or
suffering animals. However, a response study (Einolf, 2012) contradicted this conclusion by
finding that appealing to donors’ reasoning and “cognitive empathy” was more effective than
emotional, affective empathy-based appeals.
Addressing and defying negative stereotypes
Einolf (2012) suggests that cognitive empathy differs from affective empathy in that
cognitive empathy is less likely to lead to victim blaming. Victim blaming is one aspect of

negative stereotyping that can challenge a nonprofit’s donor development. For example, blaming
a person who is homeless for their homeless situation does not make one very likely to give to an
organization that seeks to help homeless people. Instead, showing a potential donor what can
lead to one being homeless and what homelessness is like can cause them to better understand
what it takes to help someone escape that situation. Cognitive empathy for another person’s
plight can reduce victim blaming, and theoretically lead a potential donor to cognitively connect
a disadvantaged person’s needs to the work of a nonprofit organization.
A nonprofit can then show how they are helping those in need and create a logical
connection for the donor between the need and the organization. Helping donors understand an
organization’s mission, its clients and their individual circumstances will lead them to perhaps
better understand what it is like to be in need of an organization’s services. This feeling of
empathy can lead to the desire to help (Wilhelm & Bekkers, 2010), which makes an empathy-
based appeal a natural strategy for donor recruitment. This is also a good reason for nonprofit
organizations to truly get to know those whom they are serving so that they can accurately
portray their needs and situations to donors.
Empathy is not always the source of the decision to give, however; Wilhelm and Bekkers
(2010) found that the “principle of care” had a higher correlation with giving than did empathy
for another’s plight. The principle of care, as described by Wilhelm and Bekkers (2010, p. 11), is
the idea that one should help because helping others is a moral ideal, as opposed to feelings of
empathy that make one want to help reduce the plight of someone in need. Donors who give out
of practicing this principle of care would likely need to just simply be told that there is a general
need that they can help meet.

Einolf’s study (2012) found the effectiveness of logic- and empathy-based appeals to be
especially high amongst donors who are have received higher education, suggesting that if an
organization’s targeted donors tend to have a college education, appealing to their logic and
empathy would be more effective than using emotions-based appeals. This could include
statistics linked to a clear illustration of how their money is effectively helping those served by
the organization, for example.
Since the specific group of donors who have experienced higher education is likely more
used to analyzing information and applying logic from college coursework, it makes sense that
they would use these same skills and habits when evaluating whether or not to give to an
organization. Feeling sad, as is sometimes the result of emotions-based appeals, is not always
enough to convince someone to give to an organization. Thus, drawing on logic in combination
with creating cognitive empathy is a strong approach for nonprofits to use in terms of donor
development.
No appeal, regardless of how much it tugs on a donor’s heartstrings and makes sense
logically, will be successful if the donor is impeded by stereotypes or prejudice about the asking
organization’s clients and mission. Persuading this potential donor to give would involve some
type of intervention that reduces the prejudiced or stereotypical thinking in some way. A meta-
analysis of some common methods used to attempt to reduce stereotypes by Paluck and Green
(2009) found that there are design problems with many of these attempts, raising questions of
what is actually effective in terms of reducing stereotyped thinking.
A nonprofit may seek to reduce negative stereotypes about a population it serves that may
be believed by potential donors as part of its donor development strategy. This might not be as
easy as one might imagine, based upon a 2008 study by Kennedy and Hill. This study created an

experiment that studied “stereotype rebound.” Stereotype rebound is the ironic phenomenon that
occurs when one actively attempts to avoid thinking of others in a stereotypical way, only to
have increased stereotypical thinking and behavior, rather than decreased as one might expect
(Kennedy & Hill, 2008).
This stereotype rebound effect has been demonstrated in earlier studies (Hodson &
Dovidio, 2001; Wenzlaff & Wegner, 2000; Wyer, Sherman, & Stroessner, 2000), but Kennedy
and Hill did not find evidence of the stereotypical rebound effect in their experiment. Thus,
further study of the idea of stereotype rebound could be of use to nonprofits in seeking ways to
reduce prejudice and stereotypes about their clients and mission when seeking new donors.
Kennedy and Hill’s experiment (2008) gave participants the opportunity to imagine a
“day in the life” of person who is poor and write about it, using as few stereotypes about people
living in poverty as possible. They then tested how close they sat to a person who looks
stereotypically poor, expecting that the participants would sit further away from the person than
a member of the control group. Contrary to their hypothesis, participants sat closer to the person
who was poor.
In addition to Kennedy and Hill (2009), Penn and Corrigan (2002) also did not find
evidence of the stereotypical rebound effect in their earlier study that studied an unrelated group
that is often stereotyped. The results of these experiments are encouraging for nonprofits who
may want to employ a strategy similar to Kennedy and Hill’s by giving donors the opportunity to
live a day in the life of one of the beneficiaries of their organization’s programming.
Another strategy in attempting to reduce stereotypes and prejudice was studied by
Freeman, Aquino, and McFerran (2009), who studied if being a member of a “beneficiary race”
could be reduced as an impediment to donations to minority-oriented nonprofits. In the study,

Freeman et al. (2009) showed participants, who were of the cultural “beneficiary race,” video
clips of people of a minority race doing things that are considered morally admirable. They then
measured the participants’ willingness to donate to a nonprofit that was oriented on this minority
race after viewing the video clips in comparison to a control group that did not view the video
clips.
The study’s results demonstrated that the group which viewed the video clips of people
who were members of a stereotyped minority doing morally admirable acts were then more
willing to donate to the minority-oriented group. The results of Freeman et al. (2009) have an
important implication on which nonprofits could capitalize in their own stereotype reduction
efforts. Using some type of medium to demonstrate negatively stereotyped groups or people
doing something or acting contrary to popular belief can decrease stereotype beliefs and lead to
increased likelihood to support a related mission.
Interestingly, this finding was further replicated to a greater degree in the accompanying
study that was part of the overall Freeman et al. (2009) study. Participants read a written story
that described a morally admirable action by members of the minority group. Upon reading the
story, these participants had the ability to actually give to a minority-oriented nonprofit, as
opposed to simply signaling their theoretic willingness to give as in the earlier version of the
study. More members of the control group chose to give to the nonprofit than those who had not
read the story (Freeman et al., 2009).
A major implication that nonprofits can take from this study’s results is that emphasizing
positive things done by a group that is a victim of prejudice could be an effective way of
decreasing stereotyped thoughts held by potential donors, and also lead them to act upon this
change in their views.

Piff, Kraus, Cote, Cheng, and Keltner studied this same idea of pro-social action by
stereotyped groups in a different way in their 2010 study. This study’s results would be of
particular use to nonprofits with missions similar to that of the one at which I work, as its
participants were low-income individuals and this is the clientele served by my organization. Piff
et al. (2010) hypothesized that low-income individuals would be less likely to demonstrate pro-
social behavior, such as generosity and helpfulness to others, due to life circumstances that are
“…associated with fewer resources, greater exposure to threat, and a reduced sense of personal
control,” (p. 771). The results of the four separate studies they conducted contradicted the
hypothesis, leading to insights about members of this often-stereotyped economic status that can
be built on by nonprofits seeking to reduce prejudice against low-income individuals.
Low-income participants of the study by Piff et al. (2010) demonstrated greater
generosity, charity, trustworthiness and helpfulness in their actions than did high-income
participants. This finding was accompanied by moderator data that showed the low-income
participants acted with more pro-social traits because they had a stronger feelings of compassion
and egalitarianism than did the high-income participants. The results suggest that low-income
people give more than other higher-income groups, defying common stereotypes that low-
income citizens try to manipulate the social welfare system or are lazy.
A nonprofit could potentially translate the results of Piff et al. (2010) by capturing
examples of how low-income giving back to their communities. The results of Piff et al. echo
previous research with similar results (Greve, 2009; Independent Sector, 2002).This research
lends credible defiance to some stereotypes held by individuals about people with inadequate
incomes.

This data and information is valuable for nonprofits seeking to dispel such stereotypes
and prejudice toward low-income individuals if this group makes up their primary clients. The
findings of Piff et al. (2010) could be applied to nonprofit organizations who work with low-
income clients. Most importantly, this study suggests that nonprofit organizations should
strongly consider how they might concretely demonstrate to potential donors who may believe
stereotypes how those stereotypes are inaccurate.
Pittinsky, Rosenthal, and Montoya (2011) found that positive or negative behavior
toward minority groups is connected to the corresponding attitude toward the group. A person
with a positive attitude toward a minority group is likely to demonstrate positive behavior and
interactions with members of a minority race, and a person holding a negative attitude toward a
minority race is likely to act negatively toward that group. This might seem like common sense,
but Pittinsky et al. (2011) make an important point conclusion from their seemingly obvious
results: that “liking a minority group is not the same as not disliking that group,” (p. 141). Their
results suggest that people do not seem to be indifferent toward minority groups.
Based upon the results of the study by Pittinsky et al. (2011), an individual seems to have
either a positive view or a negative view toward a stereotyped group. Stepanikova, Triplett, and
Simpson (2011) found that a racial bias or prejudice toward people who are black negatively
affected their generosity and giving to toward blacks. What value do these findings from
Pittinsky et al. (2011) and Stepanikova et al. (2011) have for nonprofit organizations who serve
people of minority races? One implication that can be drawn is that if prejudice or stereotypes
toward a minority race held by an individual are decreased or defied, then that individual will be
likely to act positively toward members of that group, and vice versa.

Instead of being indifferent, an individual would be more likely to demonstrate positive
pro-social behavior toward a stereotyped group upon having their attitude change to be favorable
toward the group. Perhaps that “something” could be donating to a nonprofit organization that
supports and empowers this minority group that they were previously prejudiced toward.
When people have positive feelings toward a minority group, which nonprofit missions
or programs might they be most attracted to in terms of giving? The findings of Pittinsky et al.
(2011) were taken a step further in a study by Smith, Faro, and Burson (2013), which found that
people feel more led to give to a group of people who share a need, as opposed to helping a
single individual. They write, “Victims with positive traits are therefore viewed more favorably
when entitative, triggering greater feelings of concern and higher donations,” (p. 961).
It seems that the larger the number of people in need is perceived to be, the larger the
donations will be if the donor thinks positively about the group as a whole. Nonprofits can apply
the conclusion of Smith et al. (2013) to their organizations by illustrating just how great the need
is for a group of people after taking care to ensure that targeted donors seem to hold positive
attitudes toward the needy group in general.
Summary
It is clear that different strategies can be utilized by nonprofits seeking to reduce
stereotypes affect their clients and donations. Nonprofits can seek to help donors feel empathy
toward their clients, as well as helping them see examples of when stereotypes they believe are
proved false. Paluck and Green (2009) concluded that further study is needed to determine which
methods are actually effective at reducing stereotypes, but some of the previously-discussed
studies have shown that there are indeed methods that can reduce stereotypes. Nonprofits can

take different approaches to reducing stereotypes as part of their fundraising efforts, depending
on the personal motivations and beliefs of donors.

CHAPTER 3
Review of Literature – Synthesis and Analysis
The literature has illustrated that economic recessions do not automatically lead to
decreased giving, and can lead to supplemental giving if the need is effectively communicated to
those whose giving abilities are not significantly decreased in such a time. The literature has also
illustrated that donor-held stereotypes can be reduced. Financial circumstances and negative
biases toward clients are two significant challenges to nonprofit organizations who are seeking
donations from individuals.
Since the economy in the city of Fargo and state of North Dakota is thriving, the focus of
the study related to this research was on the diversity and needs that exist in the Fargo
community. Potential donors in the Fargo may be more likely to have more funds to donate than
in other communities, but having a favorable financial situation does not cancel out any beliefs,
biases or stereotypes about the clients served by nonprofit organizations that may seek their
support.
The previously discussed literature suggests that efforts to help potential donors better
understand stereotyped groups of people who could benefit both society and themselves with
some assistance, or a “hand up” as opposed to a “hand out,” can be effective. An individual
donor who holds negative stereotypes or has some sort of negative bias toward the clients of a
nonprofit organization is not a lost cause for a fundraiser.
Analysis of the literature has suggested that helping a negatively biased donor see how
their beliefs of a group may not be accurate for every member of the group can help them better
understand why they might want to support the organization and its clients. The literature also
demonstrates that helping an individual see how they are similar to a group or person in terms of

needs can also be an effective strategy for leading potential donors to become ongoing
supporters.
Implications for Professional Practice
Much can be gleaned from the discussed research on the topics of nonprofit giving by
individuals in an economic recession, and on reducing donor-held stereotypes that are related to
an organization’s mission. These are two significant aspects of individual donor development
that must be prepared and strategized for if a nonprofit organization seeks greater overall
financial stability.
During this master’s degree program, I have transitioned from a program coordinator role
to a fundraising and marketing role. CHARISM Neighborhood Center in Fargo has a goal of
increasing individual donors in preparation for an upcoming capital campaign. While Fargo has a
robust economy with many donors of significant giving ability, we realize not everyone has the
means to give money no matter how healthy the economy is at this time. We also realize that our
mission serves a client base that is often subject to negative stereotypes and biases.
When CHARISM received an opportunity to learn more about our clients, their family
structures, their needs, and their wishes for their neighborhood, it was the perfect opportunity for
me to get to know our neighbors even better, and to help me better communicate with potential
and current donors what they can do to make a difference in the lives of our neighbors and our
community. This was an ideal way to combine the two challenges that are the focus of this paper
with “real world” data that can be referenced and used in all aspects of our organization, from
program design to marketing to donor development.

CHARISM Neighborhood Center
A Community of Homes and Resources in Service to Many (CHARISM) Neighborhood
Center is neighborhood-based nonprofit located in the heart of Fargo, North Dakota’s lowest-
income and most diverse neighborhood. CHARISM is in its 21st year of connecting children,
families and individuals with skill-building programs and supportive mentors which help them
work toward their goals and improve quality of life. Its unique approach of serving
neighborhoods through relationship-based programming means CHARISM gets to know its
neighbors well, and this sense of community helps to build a stronger neighborhood.
Currently, over 250 children and families are served each week through various programs
for elementary and middle school youth and for adults and families. Long waiting lists for most
programs mean CHARISM seeks to increase its individual donor base to be able to offer its
programs to even more neighbors, and potentially more neighborhoods in the Fargo area. With
plans for a capital campaign in the next few years, CHARISM needs to increase its individual
donor base leading up to that campaign. CHARISM serves neighbors who are disadvantaged,
low-income, from other countries, or have some type of physical or mental ability. All of these
characteristics are not immune from negative stereotyping or biases, which is why learning how
to cultivate donors who may have these preconceived thoughts about CHARISM’s clients using
knowledge gained from the research is so valuable.
CHARISM, as a neighborhood center, wants to be a resource for its neighbors.
CHARISM wants to help meet the neighbors’ needs for skills, programs or support that can
make the difference in giving them the courage and resources to succeed in their goals for
themselves in their families. Rather than offering programs and resources that CHARISM thinks
its neighbors would like or need, we would rather offer programs that our neighbors want and

need. Therefore, any feedback from our neighbors about what they would like to see changed at
CHARISM or in their neighborhood is immensely valuable in helping us teach them to help
themselves.
CHARISM’s vision is to see neighborhoods with self-sufficient, contributing citizens,
and our neighbors’ feedback about what they know and think could help them have both those
characteristics is what we seek to know as we consider what types of programs and resources
CHARISM should offer as a neighborhood center.
United for Jefferson Initiative
In late 2013 and early 2014, the United Way of Cass-Clay sought to assess the needs of
the neighborhood served by CHARISM Neighborhood Center. This neighborhood, at the time,
had drawn community concern by being the origin of increased social service referrals. The
identification of needs by community members themselves was sought, as this would give these
residents some ownership in the solutions to these social problems, as well as ensuring that the
United Way was working to help real, rather than simply perceived or theorized, problems. The
results of this community needs assessment will guide an ongoing collaboration process between
service providers, businesses and schools to help improve the neighborhood’s well-being.
The Jefferson Elementary School neighborhood in Fargo, North Dakota is diverse in both
its population and needs. More than 17 ethnicities are represented in the neighborhood, and the
neighborhood serves as the first residence for most of the refugees who are placed in Fargo by
the Lutheran Social Services. It is also an area that includes publicly subsidized housing. This
area of Fargo has historically had one of the highest, if not the highest, rates of poverty in the
entire city.

Many issues affect this low-income, diverse neighborhood. A large percentage of the
referrals made to Cass County Social Services was from the Jefferson Neighborhood in the years
leading up to 2012, which prompted the agency to request that the United Way of Cass-Clay start
an initiative that would bring together professionals and the community to help improve the
safety and well-being of the neighborhood’s residents. The intended audience of this survey
evaluation is the members of this initiative, interested community members, and local
government representatives.
Prior to starting the initiative in 2012, United Way partnered with the Fargo Public
School District to compare public and school data from all elementary schools in the Fargo
Public School District. This data revealed Jefferson Elementary students to have both the lowest
average family income and the lowest averages of elementary math and reading scores in the
city. United Way sought to positively impact the well-being of the residents living in this
neighborhood.
Area nonprofits, service agencies, school staff and businesses were brought together
periodically to begin identify ways to collaborate and improve the well-being of the
neighborhood. This led to the identification of the following specific priorities for the
neighborhood:
1. Ensuring children enter Kindergarten ready to learn and have continued academic
success
2. Creating safe, stable, and affordable housing options for individuals and families
3. Supporting culturally appropriate programming for residents
4. Improving overall neighborhood safety

Upon identification of these priorities for action within the Jefferson Neighborhood, the
next step in this collaborative process was ensuring that these priorities identified by nonprofit
organizations like CHARISM Neighborhood Center were accurate in terms of addressing real
needs and issues. Most of the participants in these collaboration meetings worked in the
neighborhood, yet few were neighborhood residents themselves. Identified problems were based
on data and observations by staff. Efforts to improve the neighborhood would not be successful
if the initiative was not helping residents with what they also saw as being the issues.
The United Way chose to assess the needs of the neighborhood through a survey given to
residents who lived within the neighborhood’s boundaries to learn more about them and both
their observations and perceptions of their neighborhood. This feedback would serve to help the
United for Jefferson Neighborhood initiative respond to what the neighborhood residents
themselves want and need.
The survey itself demonstrated to the neighborhood that United Way wants to partner
with residents in improving their neighborhood instead of coming in and doing what outsiders
think would be helpful. The survey was also used to clarify whether or not the initiative was
focusing on real needs rather than what assumed needs.
Method
A committee comprised of a core group of service providers who serve many residents of
the Jefferson Neighborhood was created to design a survey questionnaire to distribute within that
specific community. Along with the United Way of Cass-Clay, this committee included
representatives from Cass County Social Services, Jefferson Elementary School, CHARISM
Neighborhood Center, the Jefferson Area Neighborhood Association (JANA), and the City of
Fargo. This committee created a questionnaire (see Table A) which included demographic

information, questions about which services in the community are used, and opinions about the
neighborhood in terms of safety, activities, strengths and issues.
The survey included twenty-seven questions (see Table A), which were revised through
several drafts to be more concise, clear, and at a 6th grade reading level, as many residents in the
neighborhood speak English as a secondary language. Questions that requested information that
was unnecessary to the purposes of the survey and the United for Jefferson Neighborhood
initiative were removed from the survey. Open-ended questions were also utilized to give
participants room to share their opinions that would not be easily captured by a few multiple-
choice question options.
Members of this initiative decided that the questionnaire would be distributed most
effectively by going door-to-door in the neighborhood to increase the likelihood of having the
surveys completed, rather than relying on the low-response rates associated with mailed surveys
and the lack of internet access for many residents in the area that would hinder utilizing a web-
based survey. Going door-to-door would also allow the initiative’s representatives to interact
with residents, increasing communication and building trust in the initiative’s purpose and
actions.
I had the privilege of serving on the committee that drafted the survey’s questions and
revisions, which involved much discussion of what I and other perceived to be needs, what we
knew to be needs, and how to word questions effectively for neighbors of varying reading
abilities. I was also responsible for the distribution of the survey to the neighborhood residents in
CHARISM Neighborhood Center’s service area. My experience with many of the diverse
residents of this neighborhood, as well as many service providers who also have connections to

this neighborhood, served me well in both helping create the survey itself, and in distributing the
survey as effectively as we could using a door-to-door method.
Procedures and sampling strategy
The sample frame was residents who live within the Jefferson Elementary School
boundaries, defined as Main Street to the north, University Drive South on the east, 25th Street
South on the west and 13th Avenue South to the south in Fargo. In addition to independently-
owned houses and apartment buildings, the survey setting included the Community Homes
apartment complex, Fargo Housing and Redevelopment Authority’s homes, Section 8 housing
units and Countryside Trailer Park.
Our committee that created the survey for this initiative set a simple goal of surveying as
many neighborhood residents as possible. We worked toward this goal by going door-to-door to
every residence in this neighborhood at two different times of the day to increase the likelihood
that a resident would be home when the survey was being distributed at their home, making it a
randomized sample. Surveys were distributed beginning in fall 2013 and through spring 2014.
I was thankful that so many of those who also have a presence in our neighborhood were
willing to help me reach as many neighborhood residents as possible. Jefferson Elementary
School administrative staff distributed the surveys to families who came to the school for the
English Language Learners registration day and any other families who came into the school
office and were willing to take the survey. JANA went door-to-door in their area of the
neighborhood. CHARISM utilized partnerships to distribute the surveys in their respective area:
CHARISM staff went door-to-door in the Countryside Trailer Park, a local daycare handed out
surveys to families from the neighborhood whose children were enrolled, apartment landlords

gave the survey to residents as they came to pay their rent at the beginning of the month, and
FHRA went door-to-door to distribute the surveys at their houses as part of their monthly home
visits.
The survey was printed on bright orange paper to help residents recognize if they had
already completed it at another location to help prevent duplication of answers. A second round
of this study is planned for 2015, using an online format with the questionnaire being posted on a
web site to make it even more convenient and private for residents to complete and share their
thoughts about their neighborhood.
Synthesis of survey results
This sample could be considered a randomized sample, as every resident of the Jefferson
neighborhood had an equal probability of being selected to take the survey as every person’s
residence was knocked on over the course of two months. However, even with surveyors going
door-to-door on different days and at different times of the day to reach people with varying
work schedules, there were still neighborhood residents who never got the opportunity to
complete the survey.
Surveys were left for people at their front doors if no one answered the door, with
instructions to drop the completed form off at the CHARISM Youth Center, which is in walking
distance of anyone in the neighborhood. Apartment building residents were instructed to place
completed surveys in their rent payment box, with CHARISM staff picking them up from
landlords weekly.
A total of 116 surveys (representing 116 households, not 116 individuals) was completed
in the first round of survey distribution. According to the most recently available public data,

3,961 people reside in the Jefferson neighborhood with an average of 2.0 people per household.
Using this data, the survey was completed by individuals whose households represent about
5.9% of the residents in the Jefferson neighborhood, with most filling out all of the 27 questions
in the survey. However, the survey results, discussed in the following section, found the average
household size to be four.
The results of this neighborhood survey provide a snapshot of the community’s needs, as
identified by this small sample of residents. Although the sample was small, representing less
than 10% of neighborhood residents, much of the demographic data is similar to the known
demographic data from the most recent census. This makes it more likely that conclusions drawn
from this sample may be applicable to the larger neighborhood. The demographic data proves as
useful as other subjective questions asked of survey participants in getting a better understanding
of how the neighborhood functions and its residents.
The Jefferson Neighborhood is known as a diverse neighborhood, and the demographic
results of the survey confirmed this. Fifty-three percent of participants considered their ethnicity
to be white/Caucasian, 36% identified as Asian/Pacific Islander, 16% as African or African
American, and the remaining 12% included Native American, Hispanic/Latino and multi-ethnic.
Perhaps more interesting than residents’ ethnicities are their countries of origins: only 48% of
residents stated that the United States was their country of origin, with 16 other countries or
tribes of origin being identified by the other 52% of participants. In addition, 26 of the 116
participants require the assistance of an English translator.
Family characteristics were also of interest to the United for Jefferson Initiative in
determining how best to support and enhance the well-being of Jefferson Neighborhood
residents, particularly in relation to early childhood education and daycare needs. Thirty-eight

percent of participants who completed the survey are single parents, and while the average
number of people living in one household was 4, the largest household size reported was 9
people. Nearly 90% of participants reported that they work at least 15 hours a week, with 57%
working 40 or more hours per week; however, only 56% of participants said they could find
childcare for the hours they need most of the time.
Participation in neighborhood, family and children’s activities was another interest of the
initiative in creating this survey. Participants were asked to identify service agencies and
programs they or someone in their family have used within the past year, picking from a list of
25 programs and organizations identified as being used by residents of this neighborhood.
Only 58% percent of participants said that their children are involved in an after-school
activity. While just 31% of participants expressed interest in participating in a community
garden, 65% said that they participate in neighborhood activities most of the time or sometimes.
An encouraging statistic was that 85% responded that they feel a part of their neighborhood most
of the time or sometimes, and 87% feel that they and their neighbors care about their
neighborhood. There was a wide range in the number of people that participants felt they could
depend on, ask for a ride, or talk to about problems (see Question 22 in Table A), with a roughly
even number of participants for each.
The final question of the survey was of especially great interest to the United for
Jefferson Neighborhood survey committee, asking participants, “If you could change one thing
about Jefferson neighborhood, what would it be?” This was open-ended and participants gave
many different responses that provide even greater insight into the neighborhood and what the
residents themselves think about where they live. A sample of these responses, written verbatim,
includes:

• “Perception that diversity is bad”
• “I would try to get more people to keep an eye out for bullying…step in if
possible...”
• “More security around this area, so we can feel safe to live in this neighborhood.”
• “NOTHING!!!!!”
• “Less diversity”
• “More flowers”
• “Be more watched by the police.”
The responses range from having no suggestions for improvements to the neighborhood,
to implications of racist thinking, to suggestions that could potentially be improved upon or
addressed by the resources of the United for Jefferson Neighborhood initiative (For the full list
of these responses, see Table B).
Analysis of Survey Results
The Jefferson Neighborhood is comprised of diversity in family structures, neighborhood
perceptions, ethnicities, and needs. These varying types of diversity present both challenges and
opportunities for service providers, the larger Fargo community, and the residents themselves.
Below are recommendations regarding the four objectives identified by the United for Jefferson
Neighborhood collaborative in relation to data gathered from the Jefferson Neighborhood
Community Questionnaire:

In regard to ensuring children enter Kindergarten ready to learn and have continued
academic success: About half of residents cannot find quality childcare during the hours they
need it, and about a quarter of residents require an English interpreter. This suggests that young
children may not be ready to learn and succeed in Kindergarten due to lack of learning basic
skills because adult caregivers do not speak English well themselves or are not certified childcare
providers who emphasize basic early childhood learning skills. The United for Jefferson
Initiative should provide incentives for more quality daycares to be in or near the Jefferson
Neighborhood so that all families can help their children receive the early childhood education
they need to be successful in school , regardless of their background, education level or where
they live. CHARISM Neighborhood Center should also seek to expand programming options to
include quality early childhood programs, to aid in addressing this need identified by the study.
In regard to creating safe, stable, and affordable housing options for individuals and
families: Many residents mentioned neighborhood children’s close proximity to sex offenders in
the area. The United for Jefferson Neighborhood initiative should partner with the Fargo Police
Department to ensure that all sex offenders in the area are accounted for and are not violating the
terms of how far they must be from schools or children.
The initiative should also partner with daycare providers, Jefferson Elementary and
CHARISM Neighborhood Center to ensure that children receive sexual abuse prevention and
awareness education so that they know what to do if they ever encounter a situation with a sex
offender that parents worry about so much. Perhaps this preventative education would help
families feel the neighborhood is safer for their children if they know the police have a solid

control over sex offenders’ whereabouts and that their children have been taught what to do if
they are ever in a situation with an adult that makes them uncomfortable or hurts them.
The United for Jefferson Neighborhood initiative, including CHARISM Neighborhood
Center, should also engage landlords and the City of Fargo in ways to beautify and improve the
buildings the families live in so that they can take pride in living in a neighborhood that is cared
for and maintained. Incentives for increasing the pay at jobs that many of the refugee families
and low-income residents work, or encouraging businesses to open in the area could improve the
residents’ ways of life in general and the jobs that they are able to access.
In regard to supporting culturally appropriate programming for residents: Residents
who participated indicated that they have diverse ethnic backgrounds, and a little under half of
the residents did not have their children enrolled in after school activities. A few participants
suggested that they wish they knew their neighbors better and that there were more activities for
families and youth. CHARISM already helps fill this need significantly, but with long waiting
lists for programs, increased support from the United Way or through other grants could help
increase the number of families with access to this needed program.
The United for Jefferson Neighborhood initiative should seek to provide opportunities
and activities for residents that allow them to interact with their neighbors and also take into
account the values and interests of the different cultures represented within the neighborhood.
CHARISM provides many such activities in this neighborhood, and with increased financial
support from donor, grants or perhaps the United Way, more of these opportunities to build a
stronger neighborhood could be possible Programming for residents should reflect their different

cultures and values, and also build community and increased trust in neighbors through
relationship-building.
In regard to improving overall neighborhood safety: Several residents mentioned the idea
of increasing the police presence in the neighborhood in relation to feeling safe in their homes
and decreasing crime. CHARISM and the United for Jefferson Neighborhood initiative should
partner with the Fargo Police Department to offer open forums to the public to get more insight
into how they can make the community safer, as well as being more present in the neighborhood.
Perhaps more frequent patrol of the neighborhood and officers introducing themselves to
residents when patrolling could build both trust by the neighbors, and increased sense of
accountability should a resident be tempted to do something to threaten the peace of the
neighborhood in some way.
Better lighting on sidewalks and play areas is also recommended, as well as steps to
immediately remove graffiti when it is seen on the local playgrounds and homes. CHARISM
promptly reports graffiti when it is visible, and perhaps CHARISM could go beyond this to help
entice residents to report graffiti artists if they have knowledge of them, as well as doing some
sort of neighborhood education to explain to residents (likely those of high school or young adult
age) how graffiti negatively affects the neighborhood.
Future Research
The literature involving how stereotypes can be reduced is most dedicated to racial
stereotypes. There is less research on the topic of poverty stereotypes, as well as little research on
refugee-specific stereotypes. CHARISM Neighborhood Center serves a diverse group of people,

and one example of this is the fact that while many of our clients are of minority races or
ethnicities, some are American-born while others were born in refugee camps or other countries
experiencing some type of conflict. It is not accurate to apply research on racial stereotypes to all
of the clients we serve who are of minority races and ethnicities.
Thus, the application of the research to one of the two topics that make up the focus of
this paper, donor-held stereotypes, is more limited to donors who hold racial stereotypes as
opposed other stereotypes, such as stereotypes about people experiencing poverty or
homelessness. However, it is theorized that strategies that have been effective in reducing donor-
held stereotypes about races can be effective when combating other types of stereotypes as well.
Future research that further explores different types of racial and ethnic stereotyping would be
very valuable to nonprofits that serve diverse populations.
Research was limited in the other main topic of this paper: how the economy affects
donors’ giving and subsequently, nonprofits abilities to maintain their financial stability. The
sample size of nonprofits surveyed in the limited number of studies and research on the topic is
relatively small. Salamon, Geller and Spence (2009) surveyed 363 nonprofit organizations,
which is a significant number; however, their research focused on determining if and how much
of an effect the 2008 recession has had on their missions and activities. Future research could
greatly benefit the nonprofit sector by going beyond asking if and how much nonprofits were
affected by the recent economic recession, and finding out why some were affected more than
others.
Further exploration of the strategies of a greater number of nonprofit organizations that
had less of a financial struggle in the years during and after the 2008 recession would be very
valuable. Nonprofit organizations can then be more proactive by preparing for an inevitable

future recession using these strategies. The economy is cyclical in nature, so future research is
warranted in how nonprofits can best prepare for the less ideal times of this cycle. Nonprofits
serve such important missions for society and individuals, and they deserve to know how they
can best protect their abilities to keep working toward their missions.
Recommendations
Based upon the literature and the related study, a nonprofit such as CHARISM
Neighborhood Center that serves disadvantaged youth and families from diverse backgrounds,
should utilize some type of stereotype reduction efforts as part of its overall donor development
strategy if prejudice is identified as a potential barrier to donor recruitment. These residents may,
based upon appearance or first impression, have characteristics that make them more likely to be
victims of negative stereotypes and biases. The strategies explored by the research on the topic of
stereotype reduction could be effective and worth implementing in the donor cultivation
strategies of nonprofits like CHARISM that have a mission connected to groups that are more
likely to be victim of false or negative stereotyping.
The research indicated that helping potential donors see how they are similar to the
clients of an organization or the victims served by it, they may be more likely to support them.
The survey done of neighborhood residents helped give some important insight into
CHARISM’s clients’ needs, perceptions and dreams for their families and neighborhood. If
potential donors can personally connect with the fact that these neighbors want the same things
as anyone, such as safety and the ability to provide for themselves and their families, they may
be more likely to donate to CHARISM’s mission. This means CHARISM staff must get to know
potential donors more personally to not only determine what inspires them to act

philanthropically in general, but also to determine what deters them from giving
philanthropically.
Not only can stereotype reduction help in gaining donors for a nonprofit, it has a
secondary effect of helping to make the world a better place by reducing the number of people
who hold prejudiced views about an individual or a group of people without personally knowing
them. As the literature has illustrated, stereotypes can be reduced. Nonprofits can be a catalyst
for reducing biases and prejudices through their missions, programming, and the information
shared with potential and current supporters.
Nonprofit organizations play an important role in American society. They help the
government meet the needs of the people more efficiently, and give the people an avenue to have
their voices heard. However, nonprofits can also become dependent upon the government for
funding to keep working toward the missions. By seeking financial assistance from individual
donors, a nonprofit such as a smaller organization like mine can tap into individual donors as a
source of revenue that can respond more quickly to a need than the government usually can.
Individual donors can help nonprofits in ways other than offering dollars, however. As
discussed earlier, individual donors can also be tapped into as a source for volunteer work.
Volunteer work reduces the work burden for nonprofit staff, allowing them to spend more time
on specialized activities that work toward the organization’s mission. Individuals can contribute
so much more to a nonprofit organization that simple financial support, as opposed to other
sources of income.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 26.8% of adults said they volunteered with
an organization in 2009, the final year of the recession. Unemployment or reduced work hours
experienced by individuals as a result of economic decline can lead to an increase in

volunteerism, as people may seek to fill the time previously spent working in a productive way.
Nonprofit organizations could seek to increase their volunteer recruitment efforts in times of
economic recession in an effort to have volunteers’ time and efforts to benefit the mission
balance out a potential decrease in individual financial donations.
Individual donors can also act as verbal supporters of a nonprofit’s mission, increasing
the number of people who may be interested in donating either their time, money or both to the
nonprofit. Individuals are more likely to be able to give more in response to a need when the
economy is troubled, unlike the government which may need to decrease its funding support to
an organization, even if the need for the organization’s activities great. Any support gained by
individuals only increases the capacity of an organization to work toward its mission.
If a nonprofit is able to effectively communicate an increased need in tough economic
times, donors who are dedicated to the organization’s mission will likely respond if they are able.
While a nonprofit’s financial means might not dramatically increase in an economic recession,
this does not mean its financial means from individual donors will dramatically decrease.
Attention should be paid to cultivating current and new individual donors regardless of
economic conditions. Further study and consideration of how to most effectively recruit new
individual donors for one’s specific nonprofit organization could prove to be especially fruitful
in lean economic times. Different donors have different motivations for giving, and
understanding these motivations can help to offset the financial effects of a trouble economy.
Nonprofits have multiple options for securing needed funds. This allows nonprofits to
vary their funding sources, thus offering some protection in the event of one or more of the
sources being forced to decrease financial contributions. Diverse funding sources give an

organization greater financial stability, and each has different characteristics associated with their
financial support.
Government funds primarily provide financial resources to nonprofits, along with
technical support and stipulations for administering the programs for which given money is
intended. Money received from foundation grants is often simply money given to help support a
demonstrated need, with little more than outcomes reporting expected. Earned income strategies
can provide enough money to allow a nonprofit to focus more of its time and resources on
furthering its mission than fundraising activities. Individual donors, however, can be tapped for
more than simply money and are worth cultivating alongside these other funding options.
Within the nonprofit field, there has been discussion of late regarding how nonprofit
organizations can be managed more like for-profit businesses to rely less on federal funding,
foundational grants and individual donors. Theoretically, for-profit tactics could erase the need to
rely upon traditional funding sources that can be reduced or unavailable without much notice.
However, effective social entrepreneurship and nonprofit earned-income strategies do not make
up for the benefits that come from individual donors. Donors’ time can be as valuable to a
nonprofit as donors’ money.
Individual donors can be led to give of their time as volunteers, as well as giving of their
money, when there is a need; this human capital can be a significant resource for many
nonprofits. Individual donors have the ability to freely advocate for a nonprofit and can
encourage their family, friends and peers to support an organization and its mission. This furthers
their value to a nonprofit by exponentially increasing an organization’s number of potential
donors, volunteers and clients. Some strategic tasks in working toward a mission require human

capital as much as they require financial capital; thus, individual donors are valuable to a
nonprofit organization, recession or not.
An important consideration for nonprofits is that as economic conditions improve,
donors’ abilities to give of both their time and money can also improve. Nonprofits are presented
with both opportunities and challenges in a harsh economic climate. Greater access to potential
volunteers is one example of an opportunity that can arise from a recession. Volunteers may only
be able to give of their time, skills or experience initially, but as the economy improves as it
inevitably will, those volunteers are more likely to have the financial means to give back to the
organization in that way. If a nonprofit organization can help create an emotional connection
between the organizational mission and volunteer, that volunteer is much more likely to become
a financial donor compared to a stranger!
Volunteers may become donors when their financial situation improves if they have made
an emotional connection with an organization and its mission. Regardless of economic
conditions, both volunteers and individual donors should be cultivated and valued by nonprofit
organizations for what they add to an organization beyond simply being considered a source of
revenue.
CHARISM Neighborhood Center, specifically, can benefit from all of the strategies,
examples and recommendations gleaned from this research and analysis. The needs identified by
residents’ feedback in the described survey of CHARISM’s neighborhood residents can lead to
more meaningful strategic plans for donor cultivation and defined potential actions that
CHARISM can take to help these neighbors gain skills and increase their pride in their
neighborhood.. With time, implementation of strategies and actions based on this feedback will
improve the neighborhood’s well-being and help CHARISM Neighborhood Center more

effectively work toward its vision to “have safe and peaceful neighborhoods of self-sufficient,
contributing citizens.”
In summary, when seeking more individual donors for a nonprofit organization’s
mission, both negative stereotypes associated with the organization’s mission and a troubled
economy are barriers that can be overcome. New connections with individuals through
volunteering, strategies to reduce negative stereotypes based upon the discussed research in this
area, anticipation of eventual economic recession with accompanying financial risk reduction
strategies, and overall dedication to the importance of the organization’s mission can help an
organization continue to thrive and work toward its mission. Negative stereotypes toward a
mission’s organization or clients and an economic recession can both be significant barriers for a
nonprofit to overcome when seeking increased donor support, but the research shows that these
barriers can be overcome.
Nonprofits may never have full financial stability, but they can be assured that if they
believe their mission is important and will make a difference, the strategies to help others think
so too that have been discussed in this paper can help increase the donor base even in a recession
or when encountering mission-related stereotypes held by donors. “Where there’s a will, there’s
a way!” Individual donors are key in helping a nonprofit’s mission evolve from being a dream to
a reality, and a poor economy or negative stereotypes associated with the mission need not keep
an organization from gaining this crucial support.

Jessica Ueland, Master's Research Paper

Jessica Ueland, Master's Research Paper

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Jessica Ueland, Master's Research Paper

Similar to Jessica Ueland, Master's Research Paper (12)

Jessica Ueland, Master's Research Paper