The most obvious way of measuring fundraising success is dollars raised. However, when your boss and board only focus on dollars raised, they miss a huge piece of the picture — and that can have serious consequences.
Let’s take the example of a new Development Director named Sasha.
Sasha’s Story: Is She Doing a Great Job?
In her first year, Sasha asks 10 donors for major gifts. To keep things simple, let’s say Sasha asks each donor for $10,000. They all say “yes” and she raises $100,000 in major gifts.
The board is only interested in total dollars raised, so Sasha reports that she raised $100,000. Everyone is delighted!
The very next year, Sasha goes back to the same 10 donors and once again, she asks each one for $10,000. Nine of the ten donors say “no”. The one remaining donor decides to give $100,000 (thank goodness).
Sasha again reports to the board that she raised $100,000. Her board members walk away feeling confident that she’s done a great job.
There are several issues highlighted by this example. We’re going to look at the big three.
3 Critical Ways to Measure Fundraising Success
Let’s examine these three critical ways of measuring fundraising success highlighted by the story above.
1. Number of recurring donors
If the board in the example above had cared about repeat donors, they would have known they had a big issue on their hands. Measuring recurring donors (the number of donors who give from one year to the next) is an important indicator of a strong fundraising program.
2. Percentage of asks received
When you measure the percentage of asks received, it tells you several important things:
- If you get all the gifts you ask for (as Sasha did in the first year) you are not asking enough. Getting every gift you request indicates you’re only asking when you’re one hundred percent sure you’ll get the gift.
- On the other hand, if you only get one out of every ten gifts you ask for, you’re clearly not doing enough research and cultivation. You’re asking so aggressively that most people are saying no.
Ideally, you should be getting 70-80% of the gifts you ask for. If you ask for 10 gifts from individual donors, 7 or 8 of them should say ‘yes’ to some gift amount (not necessarily the whole gift you ask for). Similarly, you should get 70-80% of the total amount requested from all donors.
Again, if you ask ten donors for $10,000 each for a total of $100,000, and collectively they give you $75,000, you’re doing a great job.
3. Quality of stewardship
The fact that Sasha lost nine out of ten donors indicates a real stewardship problem. Stewardship is about how you treat a donor after they make a gift.
- Does the donor feel adequately thanked in proportion to the gift they made?
- Do they know how their gift was used?
- Do they feel they made a difference?
If so, it’s likely (although never guaranteed) that they’ll give again.
If you are asking in person (or virtually) in a one-on-one (not bulk solicitation) way, you should be thanking and stewarding in the same way.
Of course, you’ll send a personal thank you note, and probably have someone from your organization make a thank you call. In addition, you’ll want to plan a one-on-one follow up to let them know how their money was used and reiterate how much the contribution meant to the clients or cause.
Track Critical, Easy Indicators to Measure Your Success
There are lots of ways to measure fundraising success. These are only three. The important thing is to pick indicators that are critical to success and relatively easy to measure. You never want to prioritize measuring to an extreme degree so that it hampers your ability to go out and raise money.
How do you measure success? Let me know in the comments.
Claire Axelrad says
Spot on Amy! It reminds me a little of the parable of the elephant. What you see depends on where you look. Perspective is everything. Thanks for writing this.
Sonia Brennan says
We measured success on our recent annual giving appeal by number of gifts, number of first time donors and then dollars raised. Based on data from the previous five years, we had marked improvement in all three measures, which was a great result.
Amy Eisenstein says
Way to go, Sonia!
Andrea Taylor says
Thank you for this! We often get caught up in measuring performance by looking primarily, and sometimes exclusively, at the amount raised. And while I by no means feel we should throw out metrics to measure performance, your suggestions get to other critical assessments – can the development officer maintain and strengthen their relationships through recurring gifts and through stewardship activities? Are they “shot-gunning” proposals or are they exhibiting thoughtful strategy with their solicitations (that will no doubt lead to more successful outcomes).
And I liked your analogy to college admissions. Interesting times!
Amy Eisenstein says
Yes! Thanks, Andrea.
Christopher Leafe says
Very informative article thank you for the insight. We are measuring by % increase in participation of giving annually – linking this to collective giving of small gifts can create scholarships which then improve recruitment rates in diversity and over time a % of those small donors can be cultivated into major givers, who fund scholarships. It cannot just be about the amount, its a combination of measurements across the organisation.
Steve Gerber says
Amy, the 2/26/2024 IU School of Philanthropy Podcast had a similar topic regarding stewardship and how our current donors are our best donors. Our field has evolved and matured in significant areas, but we still seem to struggle with implementing stewardship processes and equally measuring once the plan has been implemented. In business, it is understood (for the most part!) that your current customers are your best customers for repeat business, referral, and future business. A mature stewardship program that is measured will feed increased giving, gift size, and ultimately it can lead to planned gifts. Development before fundraising and fundraising coupled with development is the right approach! Thanks for this great article!