HOPE CONSULTING                                          Money for                                          Good          ...
I NTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT The Motivation for the Money for Good Project   It is our nature to see the world based on our o...
I NTRODUCTION AND CONTEXTThe Goal and Structure of the Money for Good ProjectThe goal of this project was to understand US...
I NTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT Our Approach to the Money for Good Project  WHO WE TARGETED                                     ...
I NTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT Key Definitions   Donations:                               Charitable donations by individuals t...
I NTRODUCTION AND CONTEXTProject Team   The Money for Good project has been generously funded by the Metanoia    Fund, th...
I NTRODUCTION AND CONTEXTA Final Note on This Report This report summarizes the most important findings from our research...
Agenda    1. Executive Summary    1. Executive Summary                                           p 8 – 10                 ...
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYIncreasing Charitable Donations From Individuals                                                         ...
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYIncreasing Donations to the Highest PerformingNonprofits                                                 ...
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYRealizing the Potential of the Impact Investing Market                                                   ...
Agenda    1. Executive Summary                                           p 8 – 10    2. Increasing charitable donations fr...
I NCREASING CHARI TABLE DONATI ONS FROM I NDI VI DUALSExecutive Summary                                                   ...
A. MARKET OPPORTUNITY Nonprofit organizations receive a majority of their donations – $172B – from affluent individuals   ...
A. MARKET OPPORTUNITY  There is $45B of charitable donations available for  nonprofits from affluent individualsDonations ...
A. MARKET OPPORTUNITY The $20B of opportunity for “new donations” is concentrated in a third of donors   Only 1/3 of donor...
A. MARKET OPPORTUNITY  Donors are very loyal, leading to only $25B of  “switchable donations” (14% of total donations)    ...
B. DONOR SATI SFACTION                       A key area of donor dissatisfaction is that donors feel                      ...
B. DONOR SATI SFACTION  With a few exceptions, donors believe nonprofits  perform well on the important elements of giving...
C. DONORS‟ I NFORMATION NEEDSMost donors don‟t spend a lot of time researching,and those that do look for simple, digestib...
C. DONORS‟ I NFORMATION NEEDSDonors are looking for information on the efficiencyand effectiveness of an organization…“Sel...
C. DONORS‟ I NFORMATION NEEDS…and donors typically look to the organization itself tocollect information   “Please select ...
D. DONOR SEGMENTS Donors are not alike. We found that, statistically, donors break out into six behavioral segments       ...
D. DONOR SEGMENTS Each segment has different motivations for giving                                                       ...
D. DONOR SEGMENTS Repayer has the largest number of donors; Personal Ties has the largest amount of donations             ...
D. DONOR SEGMENTS There is at least $5B of market opportunity in each segment       Market Opportunity by Segment ($B)    ...
E. DEMOGRAPHICS Segments don‟t vary significantly by demographics; demographics are not critical predictors of behavior   ...
I NCREASING CHARI TABLE DONATI ONS FROM I NDI VI DUALSRecommendations for obtaining more donations fromindividuals by impr...
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONSA. Segment on behaviors, not demographics                        Why Do This   ...
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONSB. Tag and track your donors by segment                        Why Do This     ...
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONSC. Determine which segments are best for yourorganization, given your strengths...
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONSD. Develop simple, consistent outbound marketingthat appeals to target segments...
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONSE. Prioritize investments based on what will drive donorbehavior               ...
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONSF. Capture donors early                        Why Do This                     ...
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONSG. Understand how to manage different segmentswhen approached                  ...
Agenda    1. Executive Summary                                           p 8 – 10    2. Increasing charitable donations fr...
I NCREASING DONATIONS TO HI GH PERFORMING NONPROFITSExecutive Summary                                                     ...
0                                                                                                                         ...
A. DEMAND TO DONATE TO HI GH PERFORMING NONPROFITS … However, very few people spend any time looking into it…People say th...
A. DEMAND TO DONATE TO HI GH PERFORMING NONPROFITS … When they do research only a quarter are interested in the level of s...
A. DEMAND TO DONATE TO HI GH PERFORMING NONPROFITS … and they use that information to validate their donation, not to choo...
A. DEMAND TO DONATE TO HI GH PERFORMING NONPROFITS So, overall, only 3% of people donate based on the relative performance...
B. BARRIERS TO CHANGI NG BEHAVI ORChanging donor behavior is an uphill battle              Sadly, the reality is that ver...
B. BARRIERS TO CHANGI NG BEHAVI ORDonor‟s don‟t give to maximize their social impact.Only the “High impact” segment cares ...
B. BARRIERS TO CHANGI NG BEHAVI OR                       Donors feel that nonprofits perform well – there is no           ...
I NCREASING DONATIONS TO HI GH PERFORMING NONPROFITSRecommendations on how to increase funding tohigh performing nonprofit...
RECOMMENDATIONS TO I NCREASE DONATIONS TO HI GH PERFORMING ORGSA. There are three opportunities to improve the qualityof g...
RECOMMENDATIONS TO I NCREASE DONATIONS TO HI GH PERFORMING ORGSA. The three opportunities to improve the quality ofgiving ...
RECOMMENDATIONS TO I NCREASE DONATIONS TO HI GH PERFORMING ORGSB. We believe that the “Care vs. Act” and “QualityInformati...
RECOMMENDATIONS TO I NCREASE DONATIONS TO HI GH PERFORMING ORGSB. The “Care vs. Act” and “Quality Information” gapscan be ...
RECOMMENDATIONS TO I NCREASE DONATIONS TO HI GH PERFORMING ORGSB1. Provide Simple Information – What is Needed            ...
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting

1,877 views

Published on

Amazing analysis of the philantropist american culture.
This is the result of: “investin research that clarifies donors‟ motivations, needs, and decision-making criteria.”

Published in: Education
0 Comments
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,877
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
58
Comments
0
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Money for good - A research in Donors - Hope Consulting

  1. 1. HOPE CONSULTING Money for Good The US Market for Impact Investments and Charitable Gifts from Individual Donors and Investors MAY 2010M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG
  2. 2. I NTRODUCTION 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, 2008M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 1
  3. 3. I NTRODUCTION AND CONTEXTThe Goal and Structure of the Money for Good ProjectThe goal of this project was to understand US consumer preferences, behaviors, anddemand for impact investment products and charitable giving opportunities(together, these make up the “money for good” market), and then to generateideas for how for- and nonprofit organizations can use this information to drive moredollars 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 developingcountries, with a particular focus on support to international entrepreneurship. Those findings canbe found in ―Money for Good: Special Report on Donor and Investor Preferences for SupportingOrganizations Working Outside the US‖M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 2
  4. 4. I NTRODUCTION 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 and of the respondents had HH 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 and1. We refer to high net worth individuals throughout this report as individuals with HH incomes of minimize pro social responsesgreater than $300,000, as this is one of the criteria to be an accredited investorM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 3
  5. 5. I NTRODUCTION 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 research1. Technically these are high income, not high net worth individuals. However, given the high correlation between income and assets and the fact thatincome is a more stringent measure of being an accredited investor, we have used the more common term “High Net Worth” in this reportM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 4
  6. 6. I NTRODUCTION AND CONTEXTProject 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, Compass(x) 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 teamM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 5
  7. 7. I NTRODUCTION AND CONTEXTA 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 throughoutM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 6
  8. 8. Agenda 1. Executive Summary 1. Executive Summary p 8 – 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 – 106M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 7
  9. 9. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYIncreasing 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 appeals to target segments provide 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 approachedM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 8
  10. 10. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYIncreasing Donations to the Highest PerformingNonprofits 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 B. Changing this behavior will be difficult given 3. Closing the “good vs. best” gap 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 capabilitiesM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 9
  11. 11. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYRealizing 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‟ that have different priorities and motivations immaturity, which are consistent across segmentsM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 10
  12. 12. Agenda 1. Executive Summary p 8 – 10 2. Increasing charitable donations from individuals charitable donations 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 – 106M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 11
  13. 13. I NCREASING CHARI TABLE DONATI ONS FROM I NDI VI DUALSExecutive 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 appeals to target segments provide 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 approachedM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 12
  14. 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 ~$230B – come from individuals 75% of all individual donations 2008 2008Donations Donations ($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, 2008M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 13
  15. 15. A. MARKET OPPORTUNITY There is $45B of charitable donations available for nonprofits from affluent individualsDonations by top 30% of HHs ($B) $250 New Donations Market A minority of donors are willing to consider donating an additional Opportunity $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 NS U L TI NG 14
  16. 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 501. See appendix for detailsM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 15
  17. 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: donors‟ certainty around future gifts, 100% 86% 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 NS U L TI NG 16
  18. 18. B. DONOR SATI SFACTION 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 is important and how well they feel use donation • Leadership solicitations nonprofits perform • % of $ to OH quality • Effectiveness • Ultimately a barrier to getting people toImportance 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 nonprofits to ask their donors how • Recognition 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 NS U L TI NG 17
  19. 19. B. DONOR SATI SFACTION 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% Orgs Effectiveness 90% 87% Ease of Donation How the Org will Use my Donation 87% 75% Quality of Leadership Quality of Leadership 78% 72% Orgs Effectiveness Percent of Costs to Overhead 76% 69% Prompt and Sincere Thank You Ease of Donation 62% 68% How the Org will Use my…Not Being Asked for Money Too Often 59% 60% Regular Progress Reports Ability to Direct Donations 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% Ability to Direct Donations Use 48% Ability to Get Involved 30% 40% Social Events Hosted by Charity Org Approach - Novel / Innovative 28% 40% Not Being Asked for Money Too… Contact with the End Beneficiaries 24% 39% Org Approach - Novel /… Social Events Hosted by Charity 16% 38% Public Recognition of Donation Worthwhile Gift 11% 36% Contact with the End… Public Recognition of Donation 9% 25% Worthwhile Gift M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 18
  20. 20. C. DONORS‟ I NFORMATION NEEDSMost 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 onAny 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 DonationM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 19
  21. 21. C. DONORS‟ I NFORMATION NEEDSDonors are looking for information on the efficiencyand 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 organizations 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 NS U L TI NG 20
  22. 22. C. DONORS‟ I NFORMATION NEEDS…and donors typically look to the organization itself tocollect 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 demand for information, Grant proposal or annual report 4% 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 advisorsM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 21
  23. 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 detailsM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 22
  24. 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 multiplesegmentations (from 3-9 groupings) and found this breakout of six segments to be the most robust. The %‟s represent the relative importance of eachvariable to each segment‟s decision making for charitable giving. “I care deeply about the cause” was important to all segments so was removed fromthe analysis (it‟s more of a table stake than a driver of segment-specific decision making). See appendix for further details on the methodologyM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 23
  25. 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 $3,7001. 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 theamount. 3. The reason that Personal Ties has such a large % of donations is because, in our survey, a disproportionate # of people who gave >$1M / yearfell into this category. This may be unsurprising, as many other reports discuss the importance of personal connections for very high net worth donorsM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 24
  26. 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 areFaith 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 thePersonal Ties $3.3 $8.4 high current donation per personM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 25
  27. 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% 80% See the 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 elseNote: breakouts on this page are for the raw data in from the survey, before adjustments were made to rebalance for population demographicsM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 26
  28. 28. I NCREASING CHARI TABLE DONATI ONS FROM I NDI VI DUALSRecommendations for obtaining more donations fromindividuals 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 approachedM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 27
  29. 29. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONSA. 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 NS U L TI NG 28
  30. 30. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONSB. 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 NS U L TI NG 29
  31. 31. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONSC. Determine which segments are best for yourorganization, 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 apart from others is to be clear on 3. Look at your current donors – why do 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 ImpactM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 30
  32. 32. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONSD. Develop simple, consistent outbound marketingthat 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 are not willing to do a lot of research • Consistency in all messages  Communicate a few, simple messages  While many donors want general • Simple story that appeals to 1-2 segments performance information, and want to • Supported by a few key metrics 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 NS U L TI NG 31
  33. 33. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONSE. Prioritize investments based on what will drive donorbehavior 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 • Nonprofits can attract more donors by 0.7 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 PerformanceM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 32
  34. 34. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONSF. 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 potentialM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 33
  35. 35. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONSG. Understand how to manage different segmentswhen 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 timeM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 34
  36. 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 donations 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 – 106M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 35
  37. 37. I NCREASING DONATIONS TO HI GH PERFORMING NONPROFITSExecutive 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 B. Changing this behavior will be difficult given 3. Closing the “good vs. best” gap donors‟ varied motivations for giving, their loyalty A. 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 B. The opportunity to close the “Good vs. Best” gap lies with the High Impact segment C. Foundations can also help direct more capital to high performing nonprofits by helping them to develop superior fundraising capabilitiesM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 36
  38. 38. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 The organizationsM AY 2 0 1 0 effectiveness How the organization will use my donation Percentage of costs dedicated to overhead is important… Quality of the organizationsH O P E C O NS U L TI NG leadership How easy it is for me to donate Does not ask me for money too often Allows me to direct where my money goes Provides progress reports on their work Highlight endorsements by trustworty people/orgs Allows me to get involved Average score from respondents on a 1-6 scale, where 6 = “I pay extremely close attention to” A. DEMAND TO DONATE TO HI GH PERFORMING NONPROFITS Thanks me promptly and sincerely Offers a novel or innovative approach Provides contact or engagement with beneficiaries Hosts worthwhile social events The majority of people say that nonprofit performance 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. 39. A. DEMAND TO DONATE TO HI GH PERFORMING NONPROFITS … 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 performance is "very gift have to figure out whether the rating 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 NS U L TI NG 38
  40. 40. A. DEMAND TO DONATE TO HI GH PERFORMING NONPROFITS … 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 person 7% “It‟s too hard to measure social Quality of organizations 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 NS U L TI NG 39
  41. 41. A. DEMAND TO DONATE TO HI GH PERFORMING NONPROFITS … 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 orgsM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 40
  42. 42. A. DEMAND TO DONATE TO HI GH PERFORMING NONPROFITS 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 researchM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 41
  43. 43. B. BARRIERS TO CHANGI NG BEHAVI ORChanging 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 NS U L TI NG 42
  44. 44. B. BARRIERS TO CHANGI NG BEHAVI ORDonor‟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% Org works in my community 7% Casual Giver 5% 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% Enjoy benefits (social events, gifts…) 1% See the Difference 2% Try to support friends charities 1%M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 43
  45. 45. B. BARRIERS TO CHANGI NG BEHAVI OR 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 correlation between what use donation • Leadership solicitations • % of $ to OH quality donors say is important and how • Effectiveness well they feel nonprofits performImportance 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 NS U L TI NG 44
  46. 46. I NCREASING DONATIONS TO HI GH PERFORMING NONPROFITSRecommendations on how to increase funding tohigh 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 A. 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 B. The opportunity to close the “Good vs. Best” gap lies with the High Impact segment C. Foundations can also help direct more capital to high performing nonprofits by helping them to develop superior fundraising capabilitiesM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 45
  47. 47. RECOMMENDATIONS TO I NCREASE DONATIONS TO HI GH PERFORMING ORGSA. There are three opportunities to improve the qualityof 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‟ giftM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 46
  48. 48. RECOMMENDATIONS TO I NCREASE DONATIONS TO HI GH PERFORMING ORGSA. The three opportunities to improve the quality ofgiving Gives Based Cares About Does Any Researches Performance + Research + Performance + on Relative Performance 85% 32% 21% 3% Opportunity 1: Opportunity 2: Opportunity 3: The “Care vs. Act” The “Quality The “Good vs. Best” Gap Information” Gap Gap Get people to act on Get people to care Get people to give to their interest in nonprofit about social impact the top nonprofits, not performance by doing and other measures of just those that are some research performance „good enough‟M AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 47
  49. 49. RECOMMENDATIONS TO I NCREASE DONATIONS TO HI GH PERFORMING ORGSB. We believe that the “Care vs. Act” and “QualityInformation” gaps are the first priorities to address  These gaps address ~2/3 of all donors, representing $110B of annual donations  Making a small change on these donations will have more impact than even a doubling of the donors that try to give to the highest performing nonprofits (which currently represent just $5B of annual charitable gifts)  Changing individuals‟ behavior is very difficult, especially given the barriers in the charitable giving space. Given that donors state time and again that nonprofit performance is important to them, we feel that getting them to look at research isn‟t a significant change to their core behaviors • The core behavior that can be maintained is using information to validate gifts, not choose amongst different nonprofits, which will be harder to influence • Addressing the “Quality Information” gap requires no behavioral changes  Addressing these opportunities will disseminate performance information broadly, which will, in turn, motivate nonprofits to perform better and be the tide that lifts all ships  Getting simple information on nonprofit performance out to donors will help break down the belief that donors think that all nonprofits are strong performers  When getting donors to look at information, it is possible to simplify the information they receive and in doing so, improve the quality of informationM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 48
  50. 50. RECOMMENDATIONS TO I NCREASE DONATIONS TO HI GH PERFORMING ORGSB. The “Care vs. Act” and “Quality Information” gapscan be addressed concurrently Gives Based Cares About Does Any Researches Performance + Research + Performance + on Relative Performance 85% 32% 21% 3% Care vs. Act Gap Quality Info Gap  Many initiatives will address both of these opportunities simultaneously  Three ways to address these gaps: 1. Providing simple information donors will use 2. Pushing information to the donors 3. Building broad awareness around some select key messagesM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 49
  51. 51. RECOMMENDATIONS TO I NCREASE DONATIONS TO HI GH PERFORMING ORGSB1. Provide Simple Information – What is Needed Why Do This What Is Needed  When we look at the 35% of people  Donors who care about performance that do any research, we see that: but DON‟T research today will be • Donors do not spend a lot of time doing interested in information that is: research (75% spend < 2 hours) • Simple and digestible • Validates performance • Donors are looking for simple information (62% want facts and figures vs. more  Further, to create change across elaborate info) many donors, information must be: • Donors are looking simply to validate • Easy for sector to market and message nonprofits (ensure they aren‟t making a • Consistent with how donors absorb bad donation), which has a lower bar information today for information and negates the need for comparative metrics  However, what is not required/desired (from a donor‟s perspective): • Donors look to the organization – and to • Consistent information across nonprofits people close to it – to provide • Information that compares nonprofits to information each other • Detailing methodologies/scoring systemsM AY 2 0 1 0 H O P E C O NS U L TI NG 50

×