This document provides an introduction and context for the Money for Good project report. The project aimed to understand US consumer preferences and demand for impact investments and charitable donations. A survey of 4,000 individuals was conducted, with half having household incomes over $300k. The survey explored how nonprofits can obtain more donations, how donations can go to top-performing nonprofits, and the potential for impact investing. Key terms are defined, and the project team is described. The report will summarize findings and recommendations based on research into donor and investor behaviors and preferences.

1. H O P E C O N S U LT I N G
Money for
Good
The US Market for
Impact Investments
and Charitable Gifts
from Individual Donors
and Investors
M AY 2 0 1 0
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L

2. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
The Motivation for the Money for Good Project
It is our nature to see the world based on our own context, experiences, and
points of view. People in all walks of life struggle with this bias every day. How
can a new product fail when you and your cohort believed that it was a great
idea? The need to understand the world as it is – not as we wish it were – has
caused primary market research to become a multi-billion dollar industry.
The motivation behind the Money for Good project was to seek the ‘voice of the
customer’ for charitable giving and impact investing. This perspective has been
lacking in these sectors to date. As the Hewlett Foundation and McKinsey &
Company noted in their recent report “The Nonprofit Marketplace,” there is a
need to “invest in research that clarifies donors’ motivations, needs, and
decision-making criteria.”1
With this report we have attempted to address that need, and to build a
thorough understanding of the behaviors and motivations of Americans with
respect to charitable giving and impact investing.
1. “The Nonprofit Marketplace: Bridging the Information Gap in Philanthropy”, The Hewlett Foundation and McKinsey & Company, 2008
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 1

3. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
The Goal and Structure of the Money for Good Project
The goal of this project was to understand US consumer preferences, behaviors, and
demand for impact investment products and charitable giving opportunities
(together, these make up the “money for good” market), and then to generate
ideas for how for- and nonprofit organizations can use this information to drive more
dollars to organizations generating social good.
We structured the project around three key questions related to this overall goal:
1. How can nonprofits more effectively obtain donations from individuals?
2. How can a greater share of donations go to the highest performing nonprofits?
3. What is the market potential for impact investing and how can it be realized?
Note: We also looked at how these findings relate to people who donate or invest in developing
countries, with a particular focus on support to international entrepreneurship. Those findings
can be found in “Money for Good: Special Report on Donor and Investor Preferences for
Supporting Organizations Working Outside the US”
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 2

4. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
Our Approach to the Money for Good Project
WHO WE TARGETED HOW WE RESEARCHED WHY SURVEY IS UNIQUE
Individuals with household Used 3 sources of information: Breadth and Depth: survey is
(HH) incomes over $80K. unique both in the number of
These individuals represent External research, to learn respondents and the amount
the top 30% of US HHs in terms from previous work in the field of information it covered
of income, and make 75% of
charitable donations from Qualitative research, High Net Worth1: half (2,000)
individuals consisting of focus groups of the respondents had HH
and interviews with over 30 incomes >$300k, making this
We oversampled people with individuals, to test survey one of the most robust
household incomes over language and inform surveys of wealthy individuals
$300K, due to these hypotheses
individuals’ disproportionate Behavioral Focus: survey
share of charitable Quantitative research, looked at actions, not simply
contributions and investments consisting of an online survey stated preferences. It also
of 4,000 individuals. This was forced individuals to make
the main focus of our trade-offs to mirror real life
research decision-making and
1. We refer to high net worth individuals throughout this report as individuals with HH incomes of
minimize pro social responses
greater than $300,000, as this is one of the criteria to be an accredited investor
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 3

5. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
Key Definitions
Donations: Charitable donations by individuals to nonprofit organizations
Impact Investments that have an active social and/or environmental
Investments: objective in addition to a financial objective
Money for Good: Charitable donations + impact investments
Retail Donor or People with HH income between $80k and $300k. $80k is the
Investor: cutoff for the top three deciles of US HHs in terms of income
High Net Worth People with HH income over $300k, an income threshold for
Donor or Investor:1 accredited investors. This represents the top 1.3% of US HHs
Affluent Donor or Anyone with HH income over $80k (retail + high net worth).
Investor: This was the full scope of our research
1. Technically these are high income, not high net worth individuals. However, given the high correlation between income and assets and the fact that
income is a more stringent measure of being an accredited investor, we have used the more common term “High Net Worth” in this report
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 4

6. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
Project Team
 The Money for Good project has been generously funded by the Metanoia
Fund, the Aspen Institute of Development Entrepreneurs (ANDE), the Rockefeller
Foundation, and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
 The project was led by Hope Consulting (www.hopeconsulting.us), with
additional advice and services provided by Clavis Partners, Engage123,
CompassX Strategy, and e-rewards
 The project ran from December 2009 – May 2010
 For more information on these results, please contact:
Hope Neighbor – Founder, Hope Consulting – hope@hopeconsulting.us
Greg Ulrich – Project Manager, Money for Good – greg@hopeconsulting.us
Julian Millikan – Survey Design, Money for Good – julian@hopeconsulting.us
 The appendix contains additional information on the funders, partners and team
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 5

7. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
A Final Note on This Report
 This report summarizes the most important findings from our research
 In addition, we have developed recommendations for how various actors can
use these findings to drive more dollars to organizations generating social good
 These recommendations are supported by the fact-base we have developed
regarding the behaviors and preferences of donors and investors, but in some
cases require additional research to properly vet the ideas
• E.g., we found a demand for impact investment products with small minimum investments,
and recommend that the sector look for ways to provide those cost-effectively. However,
we can not state that it is in the best interests of any specific organization to develop these
products without a thorough understanding of the costs and benefits associated with them
 We have noted areas where additional research is required throughout
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 6

8. Agenda
1. Executive Summary
1. p 10
p 8 – 10
2. Increasing charitable donations from individuals p 12 – 34
3. Increasing donations to the highest performing nonprofits p 36 – 57
4. Realizing the potential of the impact investing market p 59 – 88
5. Final thoughts and next steps p 90 – 92
6. Appendix p 94 – 106
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 7

9. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Increasing Charitable Donations From Individuals
Recommendations – For Nonprofits to
Key Findings Improve Fundraising Capabilities
A. There is $45B of market opportunity, limited in part A. Segment on behaviors, not demographics
by high levels of loyalty in charitable giving
B. Tag and track your donors by segment
B. Donors are generally satisfied with nonprofits, but
cite being solicited too often as their key area of C. Determine what segments are best for your
frustration organization, given your strengths
C. Few donors do research before they give, and D. Develop consistent outbound marketing that
those that do look to the nonprofit itself to provide appeals to target segments
simple information about efficiency and
effectiveness
E. Prioritize investments based on what will drive
donor behavior
D. Behaviors matter: there are six discrete segments
of donors with different primary reasons for giving
F. Capture donors early
E. Demographics don’t matter: HNW donors behave
similarly to others G. Understand how to manage different segments
when approached
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 8

10. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Increasing Donations to the Highest Performing
Nonprofits
Recommendations – To Increase Funding
Key Findings to High Performing Nonprofits
A. While donors say they care about nonprofit A. There are three primary opportunities to
performance, very few actively donate to the improve the quality of giving:
highest performing nonprofits 1. Closing the “care vs. act” gap
2. Closing the “quality information” gap
3. Closing the “good vs. best” gap
B. Changing this behavior will be difficult given
donors’ varied motivations for giving, their loyalty B. The “Care vs. Act” and “Quality Information”
to the nonprofits to which they give, and the fact gaps are the top priorities and can be
that they believe that nonprofits perform well addressed concurrently by
1. Providing simple information donors will use
2. Pushing information to the donors
3. Building broad awareness around some
select key messages
C. The opportunity to close the “Good vs. Best”
gap lies with the High Impact segment
D. Foundations can also help direct more capital
to high performing nonprofits by helping them
to develop superior fundraising capabilities
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 9

11. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Realizing the Potential of the Impact Investing Market
Recommendations – To Unlock the
Key Findings Impact Investing Market
A. Most individuals are open to impact investing, but For organizations trying to unlock this market:
need to know more
A. Clarify what impact investing means
B. There is $120B of market opportunity, half of which
is for smaller (<$25k) investments; even the B. Build awareness of impact investing and the
wealthy want small investments opportunities available for investors
C. The opportunity is greater when positioned as C. Develop and disseminate information on impact
investments, not alternatives to charity investing to financial advisors
D. Once people get involved, their willingness to For all organizations involved in impact investing:
invest increases (ramp in effect)
D. Structure products with small initial investments (<
E. People discover & transact through their advisor $25,000)
F. The key barriers investors see relate to the E. Tailor products and messages by segment, to
immaturity of the market, not the social or appeal to different motivations
financial qualities of the investment opportunities
F. Make opportunities accessible to investors
G. Overall, downside risk is more important than
upside financial returns G. Position these as investments, not as alternatives to
charity
H. However, those general preferences don’t apply
to each investor. We found six discrete segments H. Address barriers related to the markets’ immaturity,
that have different priorities and motivations which are consistent across segments
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 10

12. Agenda
1. Executive Summary p 8 – 10
2. Increasing charitable donations from individuals
2. individuals p 12 – 34
3. Increasing donations to the highest performing nonprofits p 36 – 57
4. Realizing the potential of the impact investing market p 59 – 88
5. Final thoughts and next steps p 90 – 92
6. Appendix p 94 – 106
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 11

13. I N C R E A S I N G C H A R I TA B L E D O N AT I O N S F R O M I N D I V I D U A L S
Executive Summary
Recommendations – For Nonprofits to
Key Findings Improve Fundraising Capabilities
A. There is $45B of market opportunity, limited in part A. Segment on behaviors, not demographics
by high levels of loyalty in charitable giving
B. Tag and track your donors by segment
B. Donors are generally satisfied with nonprofits, but
cite being solicited too often as their key area of C. Determine what segments are best for your
frustration organization, given your strengths
C. Few donors do research before they give, and D. Develop consistent outbound marketing that
those that do look to the nonprofit itself to provide appeals to target segments
simple information about efficiency and
effectiveness
E. Prioritize investments based on what will drive
donor behavior
D. Behaviors matter: there are six discrete segments
of donors with different primary reasons for giving
F. Capture donors early
E. Demographics don’t matter: HNW donors behave
similarly to others G. Understand how to manage different segments
when approached
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 12

14. A. MARKET OPPORTUNITY
Nonprofit organizations receive a majority of their
donations – $172B – from affluent individuals
75% of all charitable donations – The wealthiest 30% contribute
~$230B – come from individuals 75% of all individual donations
2008 2008
Donations Donations
($B) ($B) Top 30% HH = $172B
$300 $150
$250 $229 $115
$120
$200
$90
$150
$57 $57
$60
$100
$41 $30
$50 $23 $15
$0 $0
Individual Foundation Charitable Corporate Wealthiest ~1% of Next 29% (HH Final 70% (HH
Donations Grantmaking Bequests giving Households (HH Income >$80k) Income <$80k)
Income >$300k)
This research only looks at the most affluent 30% of households (>$80K in income)
Source: Giving USA, 2008
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 13

15. A. MARKET OPPORTUNITY
There is $45B of charitable donations available for
nonprofits from affluent individuals
Donations by top
30% of HHs ($B)
$250 New Donations Market
A minority of donors are willing to
Opportunity
consider donating an additional
$192 $20B over what they give today
$200 The market
$172 $20 opportunity is the
$25 Switchable Donations sum of new and
$150 $25B of donors’ current donations switchable
are not loyal to an organization, donations:
and are therefore available to
$100 be switched to new charities $45B
$147
Loyal Donations
$50 The majority of donations are
given to the same organizations
every year
$0
2009 Donations 2010 Potential
Donations
Loyalty and switching determined based on donors’ certainty around future gifts, and their historical giving patterns. Details in appendix
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 14

16. A. MARKET OPPORTUNITY
The $20B of opportunity for “new donations” is
concentrated in a third of donors
Only 1/3 of donors were willing to donate
more than they do today
 Question asked “if nonprofits
Willing only to Not Willing improved on the areas you pay
Reallocate to Change
attention to, would you change
25% 41%
your giving?”
 Only 34% of respondents said
they would donate more
 Those 34% would donate $20B
more (after adjustments to
reduce overstatements1)
Willing to  The 34% skew younger
Donate More • 38% of respondents under 50 willing
34% to donate more vs. 32% over 50
1. See appendix for details
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 15

17. A. MARKET OPPORTUNITY
Donors are very loyal, leading to only $25B of
“switchable donations” (14% of total donations)
The Majority of Donations are Loyal
 Loyalty was measured based on
% of $ Donated
% Total Gifts Loyal: 86% donors’ certainty around future gifts,
100%
% Total Gifts Available: 14% and their historical giving patterns1
78%  Almost 80% of all gifts made are “100%
80%
loyal,” meaning that there is a virtual
certainty that these gifts will be
60% repeated next year
• More loyal than typical industries
40%  Overall, on a weighted basis, 14% of
gifts are available, or “switchable”
• Varies by income: 19% of donations by
20%
10% retail individuals are available, but only
7% 11% of HNW donors’ donations
2% 3%
0%
100% Loyal 99-67% 66-33% 32-1% 0% Loyal
 This leads to $25B in “switchable”
Loyal Loyal Loyal opportunity ($172B * 14% = $25B)
1. See appendix for details
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 16

18. B . D O N O R S AT I S FA C T I O N
A key area of donor dissatisfaction is that donors feel
that nonprofits solicit them too frequently
Importance vs. Performance1
 For the most part, there is a high
• Ease of correlation between what donors say
• How org will donating
• Too frequent
use donation • Leadership
is important and how well they feel
solicitations nonprofits perform
• % of $ to OH quality
• Effectiveness • Ultimately a barrier to getting people to
Importance to Donors
change behavior
• Direct use
• Regular reports • Prompt and  Donors are not happy with how often
• Endorsements sincere they are solicited
• Can get thanks • 60% said this was very important to them,
involved but only 40% said they thought nonprofits
did a good job
• Innovative
• Consistent with external findings2
Approach
• Contact w/
beneficiaries  This analysis is for donor views of
• Social events nonprofits overall; it is useful for
• Gifts
• Recognition
nonprofits to ask their donors how
they perform specifically
Performance of Nonprofits
1. Donors were asked to rate the importance of various elements of giving, and the performance of the nonprofits to which they donated, on 1-6 scale
2. “2008 Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy,” March 2009. Said #3 reason people stop donating to an organization is “Too Frequent Solicitation” (42%)
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 17

19. B . D O N O R S AT I S FA C T I O N
With a few exceptions, donors believe nonprofits
perform well on the important elements of giving
(Note: this is additional detail on previous page’s chart)
Donors’ View of How Important Various Donors’ View of the Performance of the
Attributes Are When Giving to a Nonprofit Nonprofits to Which They Give
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
Org's Effectiveness 90% 87% Ease of Donation
How the Org will Use my Donation 87% 75% Quality of Leadership
Quality of Leadership 78% 72% Org's Effectiveness
Percent of Costs to Overhead 76% 69% Prompt and Sincere Thank You
Ease of Donation 62% 68% How the Org will Use my Donation
Not Being Asked for Money Too Often 59% 60% Regular Progress Reports
Ability to Direct Donation's Use 46% 59% Percent of Costs to Overhead
Regular Progress Reports 41% 59% Ability to Get Involved
Endorsements by Person I Trust 34% 52% Endorsements by Person I Trust
Prompt and Sincere Thank You 31% 48% Ability to Direct Donation's Use
Ability to Get Involved 30% 40% Social Events Hosted by Charity
Org Approach - Novel / Innovative 28% 40% Not Being Asked for Money Too Often
Contact with the End Beneficiaries 24% 39% Org Approach - Novel / Innovative
Social Events Hosted by Charity 16% 38% Public Recognition of Donation
Worthwhile Gift 11% 36% Contact with the End Beneficiaries
Public Recognition of Donation 9% 25% Worthwhile Gift
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 18

20. C . D O N O R S ’ I N F O R M AT I O N N E E D S
Most donors don’t spend a lot of time researching,
and those that do look for simple, digestible info
Of those, ~75% spend …and they are looking for
Only 35% ever do research <2 hours researching… simple facts and figures
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Did Research on
Any Donation in Quotes /
2009 <15 Min 14% Testimonials
Stories 10%
15-60 Min 34%
35% 13%
65% 1-2 Hours 26%
15% 62%
Detailed
2-6 Hours 16% Reports
Never
Researched Facts and
Before Making a >6 Hours 10% Figures
Donation
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 19

21. C . D O N O R S ’ I N F O R M AT I O N N E E D S
Donors are looking for information on the efficiency
and effectiveness of an organization…
“Select the most important piece of information you
sought out before giving”
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
 For better or for worse,
Amount to "doing good" (vs. OH) 25% Overhead Ratio is the #1
The amount of good the org is accomplishing 24% piece of information
donors are looking for
How the org will use the donation 18%
Approach to solving the problem 8%  In general, people are
Endorsement by trustworthy org or person 7% looking for comfort that
their money will not be
Quality of organization's team 5%
“wasted” (top 3 answers)
What the donation will provide 4%
Size of the challenge org trying to address 4%  People care about
information on the
Negative information (scandal, etc) 2%
organization more than
Other 1% information on the size of
the problem (4%)
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 20

22. C . D O N O R S ’ I N F O R M AT I O N N E E D S
…and donors typically look to the organization itself to
collect information
“Please select the single most valuable source of
information you used”
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%  Many donors go directly
The organization’s web-site 16% to the organization
Employee/Volunteer at the NP 14%
(3 of top 4 responses)
A friend or family member 14%
 Only 10% use
Beneficiary 11%
intermediaries that
Internet search (e.g., Google) 10%
evaluate a wide range of
Website that has info on many NPs 10% nonprofits as their primary
Presentation at an event I attended 8% source of information
E-mails or mailings from the NP 4%
Other 4%  If there was a strong
Grant proposal or annual report 4%
demand for information,
there would likely be more
TV news report or media article/video 3%
activity with internet
Advisor (e.g., lawyer, financial advisor) 2%
searches and advisors
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 21

23. D. DONOR SEGMENTS
Donors are not alike. We found that, statistically, donors
break out into six behavioral segments
Repayer Casual Giver High Impact
“I give to my alma mater” “I primarily give to well “I give to the nonprofits
known nonprofits through a that I feel are generating
“I support organizations
payroll deduction at work” the greatest social good“
that have had an impact
on me or a loved one” “I donated $1,000 so I “I support causes that
could host a table at the seem overlooked by
event” others”
Faith Based See the Difference Personal Ties
“We give to our church” “I think it’s important to “I only give when I am
support local charities” familiar with the people
“We only give to
who run an organization”
organizations that fit with “I only give to small
our religious beliefs” organizations where I feel I “A lot of my giving is in
can make a difference” response to friends who ask
me to support their causes”
Note: Segments based on statistical analysis. See appendix for details
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 22

24. D. DONOR SEGMENTS
Each segment has different motivations for giving
Casual High Faith See the Personal
Core Drivers of Giving1 Repayer Giver Impact Based Difference Ties
Cause impacted me or a loved one 38% 4% 2% 2% 6% 7%
Org is established and respected 4% 27% 7% 3% 7% 8%
I will be recognized or appreciated 1% 4% 0% 0% 1% 1%
Easy to give through work 0% 3% 0% 0% 1% 1%
Good social events or gifts 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1%
Focused on underserved social issue 2% 4% 18% 1% 4% 2%
Org better at addressing social issues 1% 5% 12% 1% 3% 2%
Fit with religious beliefs 1% 2% 2% 65% 3% 2%
Org works in my local community 3% 4% 3% 3% 30% 5%
Org is small - gift makes a difference 2% 2% 2% 1% 16% 3%
Familiar with org/leadership 3% 4% 2% 3% 5% 26%
Friend/Family asked me 2% 1% 1% 0% 1% 10%
In social or professional network 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 5%
Try to support friends' charities 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3%
1. The segments were derived by grouping individuals who had similar priorities across these “Core Drivers” of giving. We tested for multiple
segmentations (from 3-9 groupings) and found this breakout of six segments to be the most robust. The %’s represent the relative importance of each
variable to each segment’s decision making for charitable giving. “I care deeply about the cause” was important to all segments so was removed from
the analysis (it’s more of a table stake than a driver of segment-specific decision making). See appendix for further details on the methodology
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 23

25. D. DONOR SEGMENTS
Repayer has the largest number of donors;
Personal Ties has the largest amount of donations
% % MEAN MEDIAN
POPULATION DONATIONS DONATION1 DONATION2
Repayer 23% 17% $11,000 $1,800
Casual Giver 18% 18% $15,000 $2,500
High Impact 16% 12% $11,000 $3,500
Faith Based 16% 18% $18,000 $7,700
See the Difference 14% 10% $10,000 $2,500
Personal Ties3 13% 25% $27,000 $3,700
1. Refers to all donations. 2. Refers to all donations. Estimated as people entered their giving in ranges (e.g., $1,000 - $2,499) vs. directly inputting the
amount. 3. The reason that Personal Ties has such a large % of donations is because, in our survey, a disproportionate # of people who gave >$1M / year
fell into this category. This may be unsurprising, as many other reports discuss the importance of personal connections for very high net worth donors
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 24

26. D. DONOR SEGMENTS
There is at least $5B of market opportunity in each
segment
Market Opportunity by Segment ($B)
New Donations
Switchable Donations  Sufficient market opportunity
Repayer $3.4 $2.2
exists in each segment
Casual
$4.0 $5.9  Faith Based and Repayer are
Giver
the most loyal segments (93%
vs. 86% overall)
High Impact $3.0 $3.0
 The least loyal segments are
Faith Based $4.0 $2.6 Casual Givers & See the
Difference (80%)
See the
Difference
$1.6 $3.5  The Personal Ties switching
opportunity is driven by the
Personal Ties $3.3 $8.4 high current donation per
person
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 25

27. E. DEMOGRAPHICS
Segments don’t vary significantly by demographics;
demographics are not critical predictors of behavior
Segment mix is similar
across gender… …age… …and income
100%
100% 100%
Personal Ties
80%
80% See the 80%
Difference
60%
60% Faith Based 60%
High Impact 40%
40% 40%
Casual Giver 20%
20% 20%
Repayer
0%
0% 0%
$80- $150- $300- $750K+
Male Female 18-39 40-49 50-59 60+
$149K $299K $749K
Responses to other questions in the survey did not vary much by demographics –
most importantly, high net worth individuals responded similarly to everyone else
Note: breakouts on this page are for the raw data in from the survey, before adjustments were made to rebalance for population demographics
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 26

28. I N C R E A S I N G C H A R I TA B L E D O N AT I O N S F R O M I N D I V I D U A L S
Recommendations for obtaining more donations from
individuals by improving the donor experience
A. Segment on behaviors, not demographics
B. Tag and track your donors by segment
C. Determine what segments are best for your organization, given your strengths
D. Develop consistent outbound marketing that appeals to target segments
E. Prioritize investments based on what will drive donor behavior
F. Capture donors early
G. Understand how to manage different segments when approached
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 27

29. R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F O R N O N P R O F I T O R G A N I Z AT I O N S
A. Segment on behaviors, not demographics
Why Do This How to Segment
 Nonprofits segmentations are often Repayer Casual Giver
based on demographics, especially “I support organizations “I give to well known
age and income that have had an nonprofits because it
impact on me or a isn’t very complicated”
loved one”
 However, differences in age and
income do not point to differences in
High Impact Faith Based
how donors give, or what they want
• While it may be useful to spend more “I give to the nonprofits “We give to
that I feel are organizations that fit
time with affluent donors because they
generating the greatest with our religious beliefs”
are often willing to donate more, they
social good”
should not be targeted differently
Personal Ties See the Difference
 It is more useful to segment based on
what drives donor behavior, and “I give when I am “I only give to small
familiar with the people organizations where I
would thus influence the message and who run an feel I can make a
approach for that type of donor organization” difference”
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 28

30. R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F O R N O N P R O F I T O R G A N I Z AT I O N S
B. Tag and track your donors by segment
Why Do This How to Tag and Track (Illustrative Ex’s)
 Because different donor segments Please answer the following three questions:
respond to different hooks, it is 1. Why do you donate to our organization?
important to know into which segment A. A loved one was afflicted by the disease
a current or prospective donor falls B. A friend asked me to
C. Donated at 25th anniversary event
D. …
 Segment tags can (and should) be
2. What do you like most about our organization?
tracked in an organization’s donor A. Strong religious principles
database B. More effective than similar nonprofits
C. …
 Determining which segment a donor is 3. How…
in is very doable; it can be as easy as
asking a few behavioral questions for Name Address Donation When Segment
each donor (again, this can’t be done John Doe 142 Oak St… $500 12/5/09 High Impact
based simply on demographics) Sue Kim 88 Chestnut… $250 9/15/09 Repayer
Jim Smith 42 Pine St… $75 1/1/10 Casual Giver
…
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 29

31. R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F O R N O N P R O F I T O R G A N I Z AT I O N S
C. Determine which segments are best for your
organization, given your strengths
Why Do This How to Pick Target Segments
 Nonprofits can’t be all things to all 1. Define what you stand for
people, and certainly can’t effectively
market themselves as such 2. Assess what you do best, and what
makes you distinct
 The best way to set your organization
3. Look at your current donors – why do
apart from others is to be clear on
they donate to your organization, and
your strengths, and market yourself into which segment do they fall?
accordingly
4. Now, look at the six donor segments –
 There is sufficient headroom in each select those that are the best fit for your
segment, so the available dollars organization
should not dictate where a nonprofit
focuses Some potential examples:
• Susan G. Komen: Repayer, Personal Ties
• A Local Shelter: See the Difference, Faith Based
• TechnoServe: Repayer, Personal Ties, High Impact
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 30

32. R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F O R N O N P R O F I T O R G A N I Z AT I O N S
D. Develop simple, consistent outbound marketing
that appeals to target segments
Why Do This Some Ideas…
 Donors give for different reasons, and  Create outbound marketing approach
thus respond to different appeals that appeals to target segments, i.e.,
• Channels for communication and asks
 Donors want simple information, and • Look and feel of website and images
• Consistency in all messages
are not willing to do a lot of research
 Communicate a few, simple messages
 While many donors want general
• Simple story that appeals to 1-2 segments
performance information, and want • Supported by a few key metrics
to know how their gift will be used,
different segments have different
 Create brief summaries / asks for
“hooks” that will inspire them to give
donors, nuanced by target segment
• E.g., a hospital could focus on:
a) appealing to the families of current When you donate to [org name], 99 cents out of
and past patients; every dollar go to help the end beneficiaries…
b) how they benefit the local community Do you remember the great times you had at ___
c) their quality vs. other hospitals University? Well, now we need your help…
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 31

33. R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F O R N O N P R O F I T O R G A N I Z AT I O N S
E. Prioritize investments based on what will drive donor
behavior
Why Do This How to Prioritize Investments
We measured the importance of various traits
 Nonprofits should only invest where it
for the sector as a whole (see pages 17 - 18);
will change behavior – and should not nonprofits could survey their donors to see how
invest where it won’t they perform on each of those dimensions
1.0
 Nonprofits need to understand what Unsatisfied needs
0.9
donors want and how donors feel that
0.8
the nonprofit performs on those criteria
0.7
• Nonprofits can attract more donors by
Importance
improving on ‘unsatisfied needs’ 0.6
• Nonprofits can save time and money by 0.5
cutting back on areas of over-investment 0.4
0.3
 Requires being strict – “Will changing 0.2
what we do here really cause donors to 0.1 Areas of potential
over-investment
[no longer] give to us?” 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Performance
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 32

34. R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F O R N O N P R O F I T O R G A N I Z AT I O N S
F. Capture donors early
Why Do This Some Ideas…
 Most elements of donor behavior  Engage young people who
don’t vary with age or income correspond with your target
segments and have strong
 Further, donors are rather loyal, so: earning potential
• Once they donate, they are yours to lose • Young donors program (e.g., Bravo Club)
• If you don’t have them once they’ve • Bring young, connected professionals to
started to give, they are hard to convert the Board (e.g., Young Associates Board)
 So, while many nonprofits target  Because an organization’s volunteers
wealthy, older donors, it may be are disproportionately likely to give to
better to target younger, less affluent that organization, create opportunities
donors that have earning potential for young people to volunteer
• Partner with firms with young professionals
(banks, consultancies, technology, etc)
 Invest in the lifetime potential of donors,
not just this year’s potential
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 33

35. R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F O R N O N P R O F I T O R G A N I Z AT I O N S
G. Understand how to manage different segments
when approached
Why Do This How to Manage Different Segments
 Targeting and messaging to chosen
1. Develop 3 reasons why each segment
donor segments is for outbound
should donate to your nonprofit, and
marketing communicate to all fundraisers
 However, when donors from ‘non 2. Create a simple set of questions that you
target’ segments come to you, they ask each prospective donor when you
meet him/her
should not be turned away • Can be standard questions with responses
that will assign each donor to a segment,
e.g., “Why are you interested in our
 As a result, it is important to have a organization”? (See Rec #2)
clear set of talking points to use with
each donor segment, not just your 3. Emphasize the messages appropriate for
target segments, to maximize your that segment
ability to appeal to them
4. Tag and track the donor over time
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 34

36. Agenda
1. Executive Summary p 8 – 10
2. Increasing charitable donations from individuals p 12 – 34
3. Increasing donations to the highest performing nonprofits
3. performing nonprofits p 36 – 57
4. Realizing the potential of the impact investing market p 59 – 88
5. Final thoughts and next steps p 90 – 92
6. Appendix p 94 – 106
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 35

37. I N C R E A S I N G D O N AT I O N S T O H I G H P E R F O R M I N G N O N P R O F I T S
Executive Summary
Recommendations – To Increase Funding
Key Findings to High Performing Nonprofits
A. While donors say they care about nonprofit A. There are three primary opportunities to
performance, very few actively donate to the improve the quality of giving:
highest performing nonprofits 1. Closing the “care vs. act” gap
2. Closing the “quality information” gap
3. Closing the “good vs. best” gap
B. Changing this behavior will be difficult given
donors’ varied motivations for giving, their loyalty B. The “Care vs. Act” and “Quality Information”
to the nonprofits to which they give, and the fact gaps are the top priorities and can be
that they believe that nonprofits perform well addressed concurrently by
1. Providing simple information donors will use
2. Pushing information to the donors
3. Building broad awareness around some
select key messages
C. The opportunity to close the “Good vs. Best”
gap lies with the High Impact segment
D. Foundations can also help direct more capital
to high performing nonprofits by helping them
to develop superior fundraising capabilities
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 36

38. 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
The organization's
M AY 2 0 1 0
effectiveness
How the organization will
use my donation
Percentage of costs
dedicated to overhead
Quality of the
organization's leadership
How easy it is for me to
donate
Does not ask me for
H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L
money too often
Allows me to direct
where my money goes
performance is important…
Provides progress reports
on their work
Highlight endorsements
by trustworty people/orgs
Allows me to get
Average score from respondents on a 1-6 scale, where 6 = “I pay extremely close attention to”
involved
A . D E M A N D T O D O N AT E T O H I G H P E R F O R M I N G N O N P R O F I T S
The majority of people say that nonprofit
Thanks me promptly and
sincerely
Offers a novel or
innovative approach
Provides contact or
engagement with
beneficiaries
Hosts worthwhile social
events
Provides a worthwhile gift
for my donation
Publicly recognizes my
one of the three highlighted responses
85% of respondents answered 5 or 6 to
donation
“How much do you pay attention to the following when giving to charity?”
37

39. A . D E M A N D T O D O N AT E T O H I G H P E R F O R M I N G N O N P R O F I T S
… However, very few people spend any time looking
into it…
People say they care about nonprofit
performance, but few look into it Comments from Focus Groups
% of all
Respondents “Giving to charity should be the easy
100%
thing in my life”
85%
80% “I don’t want to spend the time to do
research”
60%
“With known nonprofits, unless there is
40% 35% a scandal, you assume they are doing
well with your money”
20%
“[Third party validation]…would be
0% another layer of effort for me. I would
State that Do research on any have to figure out whether the rating
performance is "very gift
important" (1) company is reputable or trustworthy”
1. % responding 5 or 6 on a 1-6 scale, where 6 = “I pay extremely close attention to”
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 38

40. A . D E M A N D T O D O N AT E T O H I G H P E R F O R M I N G N O N P R O F I T S
… When they do research only a quarter are interested
in the level of social impact an organization is having…
“Select the most important piece of information
you sought out before giving” Comments from Focus Groups
0% 10% 20% 30%
“I look at what percentage of
Amount to "doing good" (vs. OH) 25% dollars actually goes to those
The amount of good the org is
being helped. I will look that up if it
24%
accomplishing is easy to find”
How the org will use the donation 18%
“I look for 25% or lower admin
Approach to solving the problem 8%
costs”
Endorsement by trustworthy org or
7%
person
“It’s too hard to measure social
Quality of organization's team 5%
impact”
What the donation will provide 4%
Size of the challenge org trying to
“I’m not a mini-foundation; don’t
address
4% treat me like one”
Negative information (scandal, etc) 2%
Other 1%
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 39

41. A . D E M A N D T O D O N AT E T O H I G H P E R F O R M I N G N O N P R O F I T S
… and they use that information to validate their
donation, not to choose between organizations
For the 35% that do research, it is
often to “validate” their choice of
charity Comments from Focus Groups
% of the 35% that
research “I just want to make sure my charities
100% ‘hurdle the bar’, I don’t care by how
much”
80%
63% “I just want to ensure that I’m not
60% throwing my money away.”
40% “I can’t determine which is the ‘best’
24% nonprofit, but I can find out if a
20% 13% nonprofit is bad”
0% “We give to faith based organizations if
To determine To help me To help me
whether I would decide how choose they are accredited by our church”
make a gift to much to give between
this organization multiple orgs
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 40

42. A . D E M A N D T O D O N AT E T O H I G H P E R F O R M I N G N O N P R O F I T S
So, overall, only 3% of people donate based on the
relative performance of a nonprofit organization
Gives based
Total Cares About Does Any Researches
Population Performance + Research + Performance + on relative
performance
3%
100% 85% 32% 21%
Note: %’s represent total people. So, while 35% research, only 32% care about performance AND research
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 41

43. B . B A R R I E R S T O C H A N G I N G B E H AV I O R
Changing donor behavior is an uphill battle
 Sadly, the reality is that very few donors actively try to give to high
performing nonprofits when they make their charitable contributions
 Changing these donors’ behaviors will be challenging, in large part
due to three critical barriers:
1. Donors don’t give to ‘maximize impact’
“I give because it makes me feel good”
2. There is no ‘burning platform’ to motivate change
“I don’t research, but I am sure that the nonprofits to which I donate are
doing a great job”
3. Donors are loyal
“I give to the same organizations each year. Some metric won’t change that”
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 42

44. B . B A R R I E R S T O C H A N G I N G B E H AV I O R
Donor’s don’t give to maximize their social impact.
Only the “High impact” segment cares about this at all
Importance of Key Drivers of Donation Importance of “Organization is Better
(for population overall) Than Others at Addressing Social Issues”
0% 5% 10% 15%
Care deeply about the cause 33%
Cause impacted me / loved one 12%
Repayer 1%
Fit with religious beliefs 11%
Org established and respected 9%
Casual Giver 5%
Org works in my community 7%
Familiar with org/leadership 7%
Focus on underserved social issue 5% High Impact 12%
Org better at addressing social issues 4%
Org is small - gift makes a difference 4% Faith Based 1%
Friend/Family asked me to give 2%
I will be recognized or appreciated 1%
Personal Ties 3%
In social or professional network 1%
Easy to give through work 1%
See the Difference 2%
Enjoy benefits (social events, gifts…) 1%
Try to support friend's charities 1%
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 43

45. B . B A R R I E R S T O C H A N G I N G B E H AV I O R
Donors feel that nonprofits perform well – there is no
‘burning platform’ for them to change
Importance vs. Performance1
• Ease of
• How org will donating  For the most part, we see a high
• Too frequent
solicitations
use donation • Leadership correlation between what
• % of $ to OH quality donors say is important and how
• Effectiveness
well they feel nonprofits perform
Importance to Donors
• Direct use
• Regular reports • Prompt and  This correlation is more stark than
• Endorsements sincere
• Can get thanks
one would see in most other
involved industries
• Innovative
Approach  This creates a big challenge to
• Contact w/ getting people to do more
beneficiaries
• Social events research -- they see no need to
• Gifts do so
• Recognition
Performance of Nonprofits
1. Donors were asked to rate the importance of various elements of giving, and the performance of the nonprofits to which they donated, on 1-6 scale
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 44

46. I N C R E A S I N G D O N AT I O N S T O H I G H P E R F O R M I N G N O N P R O F I T S
Recommendations on how to increase funding to
high performing nonprofits
A. There are three primary opportunities to improve the quality of giving:
1. Closing the “care vs. act” gap
2. Closing the “quality information” gap
3. Closing the “good vs. best” gap
B. The “Care vs. Act” and “Quality Information” gaps are the top priorities
and can be addressed concurrently by
1. Providing simple information donors will use
2. Pushing information to the donors
3. Building broad awareness around some select key messages
C. The opportunity to close the “Good vs. Best” gap lies with the High
Impact segment
D. Foundations can also help direct more capital to high performing
nonprofits by helping them to develop superior fundraising capabilities
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 45

47. R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S T O I N C R E A S E D O N AT I O N S T O H I G H P E R F O R M I N G O R G S
A. There are three opportunities to improve the quality
of giving
 While this is an uphill battle, we do see hope
• 85% people say they do care about nonprofit performance
• 60% of people say they will change their giving if nonprofits do a better job on
areas that are important to them
• We know that people do research for other decisions in life when they have
ready access to quality information
 Overall, we see three key opportunities to improve the quality of giving
1. Getting people that care about performance to do some research
2. When people research, getting them to care about the ‘right things’
3. Getting people to care about making the ‘best’ gift, just a ‘good’ gift
M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O N S U LT I N G C O N F I D E N T I A L 46