The

2010 Nonpr rofit F Fundra aising Surve ey

Funds s Raised d in 2010 0 Compared wi ith 2009 9

March 2 2011

The N Nonprof fit Rese earch Co ollabor rative

 Withspecialthankstotherepresentativesof1,845charitableorganizationswhotookthesurveyin February2011, andingratitudeforthetimeandcarefulworkofthemanyindividualswhoworkedon thisproject. 2011NonprofitResearchCollaborative Forpermissiontoreprint,pleasecontactMelissa@MelissaSBrownAssociates.com.

Key Findings
Overall contributions received in 2010 compared with 2009
Moreorganizationssawgrowth(43percent)thandeclines(33percent).Combined,twothirdsof respondentssaidtheysawcontributionsincreaseorstayaboutthesameasin2009.Thisisan improvementoverayearagoatthesametime,when46percentreportedadeclineandonly54percent sawgrowthorstablecontributionslevels. Afarlargersharein2010sawstableamountsofcontributionsreceived(24percentversus11percent lastyearatthistime).Theshiftbetween2009and2010isfromdecreasedtoaboutthesame. TheresultsinthiswaveareanimprovementovertheNovember2010surveyconductedbythe NonprofitResearchCollaborative.Atthattime,36percentofrespondingcharitiesreportedanincrease and37percentreportedadecreaseinthefirstninemonthsof2010.Thissuggeststhattheuptickin givinganticipatedinthelastweeksof2010mighthaveoccurred,butnonetheless,thegrowthin contributionsreceiveddidnotmatchexpectationsfortheyear. By region of the country Therewerefewmeaningfuldifferencesinthechangesinamountsreceivedwhenorganizations weregroupedbyregionoftheUnitedStates. By size (expenditure amount) Largerorganizationsweremorelikelytoseegrowththanwereverysmallorganizations.Thisis consistentwithNovember2010results,aswell. By type of recipient Changesacrosstypesofrecipientsarefairlyconsistentwiththegeneraltrend.

Share of funds raised by donor type (source of contribution)

Just45percentoforganizationsreceivedmorethan50percentoftheircontributionsfromindividual donors.Mostorganizationsreceived1to10percentoftheirrevenuefromotherfundraisingsources. Thesurveyincludedassourcesindividuals,bequests,foundations,corporations,andothercharities.

Changes in contributions received by fundraising vehicle

Internet/onlinegivingroseat58percentoftheorganizationsthatreportedusingitandmorethan threequartersreportedonlineorInternetfundraising.Majorgiftsandeventsproceedsroseathalfof theorganizationsusingthem,butformostotherfundraisingvehicles,thepicturewasmixed. Organizations,onaverage,usedsixofthe10vehiclesstudied.Organizationsthatraisedmoreuseda highernumberoftechniques,onaverage.

Fundraising investment linked to fundraising results

Mostorganizationsheldtheirinvestmentinfundraisingsteadyin2010.However,thosethatincreased expenditures,staffing,orvolunteerengagementweremorelikelytoseeincreasesinfundsraised. Thereisalsoarelationshipbetweenfailingtoinvestinfundraisingandfailingtomeetgoals.Thatis, investmentdoesntguaranteeincreases,butdecreasedinvestmentisassociatedwithnotmeetinggoals.

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Funding received was mostly for general operating expenses

Abouthalfoftheorganizations(51percent)reportedthat75percentormoreofthefundsraisedin 2010supportedoperations(ratherthancapital,investment,orendowment).

Last quarter fundraising is important but not dominant at many charities

Manycharitiesdoreceiveasignificantshareoftheirfundinginthelastquarter,butthissurveyfinds thatitisnotoverwhelminglythemostimportantpartoftheyearforfundraising.About50percentsay theyreceivemorethanonequarteroftheyearscontributionsinthelastquarteroftheyear.Forthe other50percent,givingisspacedoutovertheentireyear.

Expectations for 2011

Charitiesexpectgivingin2011toincreaseandarelikelytoholdstaffingandexpendituresfor fundraisingat2010levels.

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Contents
KeyFindings..................................................................................................................................................1 Summaryofthestudy...................................................................................................................................5 Changesintotalcontributionsreceived.......................................................................................................6 2010isslightchangefrom2009,withmoreseeingsameresultsthandeclines..................................7 Regionalvariationinchangesingivingmodest........................................................................................8 Largerorganizationsmorelikelytoseeincreasedcontributionsamounts..............................................9 Changeswereconsistentacrossalltypesofcharities............................................................................10 Fundraisingsuccesslinkedwitheffectivecommunications.......................................................................11 Changesin2010didnotmeetexpectationsstatedinlate2009...............................................................11 Evenwhileanticipatingincreases,organizationsbudgetedconservativelyfor2010fundraisinggoals....12 Halfoforganizationsmetfundraisinggoalfor2010..............................................................................13 Percentageofcontributionsfromeachdonortype...................................................................................14 Percentageofcontributionsfromeachdonortype,bysize......................................................................15 Onaverage,charitiesusesixfundraisingvehicles......................................................................................17 Resultsbytypeoffundraisingvehicleshowstrengthinonline,majorgifts,events.................................19 Onlinegivingtopslistofvehiclesshowinggrowth;resultsmixedformostfundraisingtechniques.....19 Somesubsectorsmorelikelytoreportsuccesswithsomevehicles......................................................21 Comparisonof2010resultstopriorStateofFundraisingSurveyresults..................................................22 Conditionsthataffectedfundraising..........................................................................................................25 Explorationofrelationshipbetweenfundraisinginvestmentandchangesinfundraising........................26 Fundingforgeneraloperatingsupport ......................................................................................................27 . Givinginthelastquarteroftheyear..........................................................................................................29 Largecharitiesmostlikelytoraise25%ormoreofdollarsinlastmonths............................................30 Anticipatedchangesfor2011.....................................................................................................................31 Challengesahead........................................................................................................................................32 Changesinrevenuefromgovernmentgrants............................................................................................33 TheNonprofitResearchCollaborative........................................................................................................34 Methodology...............................................................................................................................................35 AppendixA:TablesofChangesbyFundraisingVehiclebySubsector

AppendixB:Survey

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

List of Figures
Figure1: Percentageoforganizationsbysizeanddirectionofchangeinphilanthropiccontributions, FY2010comparedwithFY2009 ................................................................................................6 . Figure2: Adecadeofchangesinphilanthropicgifts.................................................................................7 Figure3: Percentageoforganizationsbydirectionofchangeincontributionsreceived,2010compared with2009,byregion...................................................................................................................8 Figure4: Percentageoforganizationsreportingdirectionandmagnitudeofchangeinphilanthropic contributions,2010comparedwith2009,bysizeoforganization(expenditures)....................9 Figure5: Percentageoforganizationsbydirectionofchangeincontributionsreceived,......................10 Figure6: Comparisonofpredictedchangeandactualchange...............................................................11 Figure7: Percentageoforganizationsbydirectionandmagnitudeofchangeinfundraisinggoal,.......12 Figure8: PercentageoforganizationsthatmetordidnotmeetfundraisinggoalforFY2010..............13 Figure9: Rangesfortheppercentageofcontributionsfromeachdonortype,2010.............................14 Figure10:Rangesforthepercentageofcontributionsfromeachdonortypeforverysmallorganizations (expendituresin2009<$250,000)...........................................................................................15 Figure11:Rangesforthepercentageofcontributionsfromeachdonortypeforsmallorganizations (expenditures$250,000to$999,999in2009).........................................................................15 Figure12:Rangesforthepercentageofcontributionsfromeachdonortypeformediumsized organizations(expendituresof$1millionto$2.99millionin2009)........................................16 Figure13:Rangesforthepercentageofcontributionsfromeachdonortypeforlargeorganizations (expendituresof$3millionormorein2009)...........................................................................16 Figure14: Frequencyofuseofdifferentfundraisingvehicles..................................................................17 Figure15:Numberoffundraisingvehiclesusedbyrangeofamountraisedincontributions.................18 Figure16: Fundraisingvehiclesusedin2010andchangesintheamountsraisedthrougheach ............20 . Figure17: Tenyearsofsurveyresultsaboutamountsreceivedthroughdirectresponsefundraising....22 Figure18:Tenyearsofsurveyresultsaboutamountsreceivedfromonlinegiving.................................23 Figure19:Tenyearsofsurveyresultsaboutspecialeventsnetproceeds...............................................23 Figure20:Tenyearsofsurveyresultsaboutamountsreceivedfromplannedgiving..............................24 Figure21:Tenyearsofsurveyresultsaboutamountsreceivedfromtelephonefundraising..................24 Figure22:Changesinfinancialresources,staffing,andvolunteersforfundraising,2010compared with2009..................................................................................................................................25 Figure23:Shareoforganizationsbypercentageoffundsraisedthatwereforoperations.....................27 Figure24:Percentageoforganizationsbyshareoffundingforoperatingexpenses,bytypeofcharity.28 Figure25:PercentageoforganizationsbywhatshareofcontributionsrevenuearrivedfromOctober throughDecember....................................................................................................................29 Figure26:Percentageofcharitiesreportingthattheyreceiveupto25percentor25percentormoreof theircontributionsfromOctoberthroughDecember,bycharitybudgetsize........................30 Figure27:PercentageofcharitiesreportingtheshareofcontributionsthatarrivefromOctoberto December,bytypeofcharity...................................................................................................30 . Figure28:Predictionsforchangesinfundsraised,expendituresforfundraising,andstaffinglevelsin 2011..........................................................................................................................................31 Figure29:Percentageoforganizationsbydirectionandmagnitudeofchangeingovernmentgrant revenue,2010...........................................................................................................................33 4 NonprofitResearchCollaborative March2011

Summary of the study

Morethan1,840peopletookthisonlinesurveyinFebruary2011.Most(93percent)wereCEOs, directorsofdevelopment,financeofficersorothermembersofamanagementteam. Questionsfocusedonseveralareas.Theseincluded: Magnitudeanddirectionofchangeincontributionsreceivedin2010,comparedwith2009 (fiscalyearwaspermitted)andmagnitudeanddirectionofchangeinfundsreceivedfor10 fundraisingvehicles.

Whetherornottheorganizationmetitsfundraisinggoalsfor2010.

Directionandmagnitudeofchangeinresourcesavailablein2010forfundraising,includingstaff, financialsupport,andvolunteers. Theshareoffundsraisedthatwere: o Receivedfromdifferenttypesofdonors o Availableforcurrentexpenditures(operations) o ReceivedfromOctoberthroughDecember

Changesingovernmentgrantdollarsreceivedin2010comparedwith2009. Anticipatedchangesinfundsraisedandexpendituresforfundraisingin2011.

SurveyrespondentscouldentereithertheirEmployerIdentificationNumberortheorganizationsname andzipcode.TheseresponsesallowedtheresearchteamtousedatafromIRSForms990toclassify organizationsbysize,location(regionofthecountry),andsubsector(majorcategoryoftheNational TaxonomyofExemptEntities). AppendixAcontainsdatatablesprovidingmoredetailforsomeofthecrosstabulations. AppendixBcontainsthequestionsandresponsecountsforcharitiesthatreceivedgifts,beforedata cleaning.

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Changes in total contributions received

Justoverfourintencharities(43percent)reportedthatphilanthropiccontributionsin2010roseabove their2009level.Almostonequarter(24percent)foundthatcontributionswereaboutthesameasin fiscalyear2009.Onethird(33percent)sawsomelevelofdecline.SeeFigure1. TheFebruary2011resultsforallof2010showanimprovementovertheNovember2010survey conductedbytheNonprofitResearchCollaborative.InthatNovemberstudy,coveringthefirstnine monthsof2010,36percentofrespondingcharitiesreportedanincreaseand37percentreporteda decrease.Thisearly2011surveyaskedforresultsthroughDecember,and43percentreportedan increase.Thissuggeststhattheuptickanticipatedinthelastweeksof2010mighthaveoccurred. Figure1:Percentageoforganizationsbysizeanddirectionofchangeinphilanthropiccontributions,FY 2010comparedwithFY2009 Declined by more than 15% Increased by more than 15% 15 19 Declinedbylessthan15% Increased by less than 15% 18 24 24 Stayedthesame Ayearago,theAssociationofFundraisingProfessionalsfoundthat43percentofresponding organizationssawanincreasein2009,11percenthadcontributionsataboutthesameleveland46saw anincrease.AFPsurveyeditsmembers;thisstudyreachedalargergroupofcharities,includingAFP members. Thisstudyfindsthattheshiftin2010isfromdeclinesingivingtonochange.Thereisnodifference between2009and2010resultsinthepercentageofcharitiesthatsawgivingincrease. However,inthisstudy,alargershare(19percent)ofcharitiessawgivingincreasebymorethan15 percentthanwasthecaseayearearlier,whenjustunder14percentsaidgivinggrewby20percentor more.Thatis,whilethesameoverallpercentageoforganizationssawsomeincreaseinthetwoyears, morecharitiessurveyedthisspringsawahigherrateofgrowththanayearago.

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

2010 is slight change from 2009, with more seeing same results than declines
Morecharitiesreportedincreasedphilanthropiccontributionsin2010thandeclines.Thisisashiftfrom 2009,whenmorecharitiessurveyedinFebruary2010bytheAssociationofFundraisingProfessionals sawdeclinescomparedwith2008.Responsesin2010aredistinct,inpart,becauseaboutonequarter (24percent)oforganizationssawgivingremainapproximatelythesameasintheyearbefore.Thisis morethantwicethepercentagethatsawgivingremainaboutthesamein2009.Thustheshiftin2010is fromdecreasedasin2009toaboutthesame.SeeFigure2. Figure2:Adecadeofchangesinphilanthropicgifts

Percentageofrespondingcharitiesreportingchangeincontributionsreceived

49 60

54 65 63 69 65

46

43

43

Morethanpreviousyear
11 14 24

11 10 20 10 39 30 27 25 24 24 24 13 7 11

Approximatelythesame

40

46 33

Lessthanpreviousyear

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Note:2001and2010havedifferentmethodsfrom20022009.Resultsarenotdirectlycomparable.

Theresultsfor2010arenotasstrongasintheeconomicboomyearsofthemid2000swhen60 percentormoreofcharitiesrespondingtoasimilarsurveyreportedincreasedgiving. 2010ismarked,inpart,bytheunusuallylargepercentageofrespondingcharitiesthatnotedthat contributionswereapproximatelythesameastheprioryear.Innootheryeardoestheshareof charitieswithgivingaboutthesameapproachonequarter,asitdidfor2010.

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Regional variation in changes in giving modest

Thevariationinchangesingivingbyregionwasslight.TheMidwestshowedasomewhathigher percentageoforganizationsreportinggrowth(47percentcomparedwith43percentnationally)anda lowerpercentagewithdeclines(28percentcomparedwith33percentnationally).SeeFigure3. Figure3:Percentageoforganizationsbydirectionofchangeincontributionsreceived,2010compared with2009,byregion

43

44

47

40

40

Morethanpreviousyear
24 22 26 25 23

Aboutthesame

33

33

28

34

37

Lessthanpreviousyear

Total

North

Midwest

South

West

RegionaldefinitioninMethodologysection.

IntheWest,aslightlyhigherpercentagereporteddrops(37percentcomparedwith33percent nationally)andalowerpercentagereportedincreases(40percentcomparedwith43percent nationally). Theseresultsarebasedonresponsesreceivedandmightnotreflectallcharitiesineachregion.

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Larger organizations more likely to see increased contributions amounts

Ingeneral,organizationswithhigherexpendituresin2009weremorelikelytoseeincreasesin philanthropiccontributionsreceivedin2010,comparedwith2009.SeeFigure4. Figure4:Percentageoforganizationsreportingdirectionandmagnitudeofchangeinphilanthropic contributions,2010comparedwith2009,bysizeoforganization(expenditures)

20

21

18

20

Increasedbymorethan 15% Increasedbylessthan 15% Aboutthesame

19

22

31

29

28

24

20

22

13 21

21 13

21 10

18 11

Declinedbylessthan 15% Declinedbymorethan 15%

Very small

Small

Medium

Large

Verysmall=Expenditures<$250,000;Small=Expendituresof$250,000to$999,999 Medium=Expendituresof$1millionto$2.99million;Large=Expendituresof$3millionormore

Just39percentofverysmallorganizations(expenditureslessthan$250,000in2009)sawanincreasein contributionsin2010,comparedwith49percentoflargeorganizations(expendituresof$3millionor morein2009).Notethatthesizedefinitionsarebasedontotalorganizationalexpenditures,notsimply fundraisingexpenditures. However,insteadofseeingagreaterprobabilityofdeclinesin2010,theverysmallorganizationswere morelikelytoseecontributionsstaythesame.Thepercentageoforganizationsseeingdeclineswas similaracrossallorganizationalsizes,between34percent(verysmall)and29percent(large).

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Changes were consistent across all types of charities

Everysubsectorsawmorerespondentsreportinggrowthingivingin2010thanadecline.Most subsectorssawbetween20and30percentoforganizationsreportingthatgivingstayedaboutthesame in2010asithadbeenin2009.SeeFigure5. Figure5:Percentageoforganizationsbydirectionofchangeincontributionsreceived, 2010comparedwith2009,bytypeofrecipient(subsector)

41

47

41

46

38 63

44

52

Increased

21 22

29

26 24 18 27 19

Aboutthesame

38

31

30

30

36 19

29

30

Declined

*100orfewerrespondents.Usecautionwheninterpretingresults.

Humanservicesorganizationsshowedthelowestpercentageoforganizationsgainingin2010compared with2009,withjust38percent.Nearlyasmany,36percent,reportedadrop,and26percentsaidgiving wasaboutthesame.Humanservicesorganizationstendtobesmall,andsmallorganizationsingeneral werelikelytoseegivingfallin2010. Just41percentofartsorganizationsand41percentofenvironment/animalsorganizationsreported growth,although38percentofartsorganizationssawadrop,comparedwith30percentof environment/animalsorganizations. Internationalorganizationswerehighlylikelytoreportgrowth,with63percentsayinggivingincreased in2010.Note,however,thattherewereonly43organizationsrespondingfromtheinternational subsector,soitisverydifficulttousethisresulttogeneralizeforallinternationalorganizationsinthe UnitedStates.

10

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Fundraising success linked with effective communications

Inopenendedresponsesaboutwhatmostaffectedfundraisingresultsin2010,surveyparticipants notedtheimportanceofeffectivecommunications.Whenclusteredbytheme,thesefivewereoften cited: Whatsingleissuemostpositivelyaffectedyour fundraisingin2010? 1. Communicatingtheorganizationsmission, Awarenessofourcausebroughtonby impact,andneeds. increasedmediacoverage 2. Increasedeffortsbystaffandboard Wewereabletodescribetheimpactinspecific members. andaccountablewaystothedonors. 3. Donoroptimismabouttheeconomy. TheBoard'scommitmenttoincreasingtheir 4. Donorsrecognitionofothersneedsdueto fundraisingeffortsandaddingadministrative therecession. andfundraisingstafftoaccommodatethenew 5. Increasedfocusongrantsandgrantwriting. erathatisuponus.

Changes in 2010 did not meet expectations stated in late 2009

Ayearago,61percentoforganizationssurveyedbytheAssociationofFundraisingProfessionals(AFP) anticipatedincreasesincharitablegivingin2010.Amongcharitiesthatparticipatedinthisyearssurvey, 43percentreportedanincreaseinFY2010comparedwith2009.SeeFigure6. Figure6:Comparisonofpredictedchangeandactualchange

Percentageofrespondingorganizationsindicatingpredictedoractualchange
61

Light shade=2009prediction Darkershade=2010reportedresults

43 33 26 24 13

Increase

Approximatelynochange

Decrease

11

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Even while anticipating increases, organizations budgeted conservatively for 2010 fundraising goals
Eventhoughmanyfundraisingprofessionalsearlyin2010anticipatedgrowthingivingduringtheyear, charitiespreparedbudgetsreflectingslowgrowthingivingfortheyear.Aboutonethirdsetgoalsat 2009levels(31percent).Another23percentprojectedadeclineingiving.Lessthanhalf(46percent)set abudgetthatreflectedanincreaseinfundsraised.SeeFigure7forabreakdownofthedirectionand magnitudeofchangeinbudgetedfundraisinggoalsin2010,comparedwith2009.

Figure7:Percentageoforganizationsbydirectionandmagnitudeofchangeinfundraisinggoal, 2010comparedwith2009 Goaldeclinedbymore than15%

9 18 14

Goalincreased by morethan15%

Goaldeclinedbyless than15%

Goaldeclined by lessthan 15%

28 31

Goalstayed the sameas2009

Whenanorganizationsetahighergoalthan2009,itwasmostlikely(29percentofallresponding charities)tosetagoalreflectinglessthan15percentincrease.

12

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Half of organizations met fundraising goal for 2010

Justoverhalf(52percent)ofrespondingorganizationssaidtheymettheir2010fundraisinggoal.Thisis essentiallynochangefromthe53percentwhoreportedmeetingtheirgoalin2009inAFPsstudyfrom ayearago.Differentcharitiesparticipatedinthesurveyinthetwoyears:AFPmembersinearly2010 andalargergroupcontactedbytheNonprofitResearchCollaborativemembersinearly2011. Figure8:PercentageoforganizationsthatmetordidnotmeetfundraisinggoalforFY2010

No 48

Yes 52

WhileahigherpercentageofcharitiesintheMidwest(55percent)mettheirgoalsthanthe52percent resultnationallyandalowershareofthoseintheSouth(48percent)mettheirgoalthereisno statisticallymeaningfuldifferenceinthesepercentages. Verysmallorganizations(expendituresoflessthan$250,000in2009)weretheleastlikelytomeettheir fundraisinggoals.Just38percentsaidtheydidsoin2010,comparedwith52percentforall respondents.Themajority(62percent)saidtheydidnotmeettheirgoal. Amongmediumsizedorganizations(expendituresof$1millionto$3million)andlargeorganizations (expendituresof$3millionormore),roughly64percentmettheirgoaland37percentdidnot.These samepercentageswerereportedbyorganizationsinbothsizecategories. Aswithregion,thereweredifferencesbysubsector,butthedifferencesarenotmeaningfulgiventhe lownumberofrespondents.Forexample,59percentofhealthcharitiessaidtheymettheirgoal,and46 percentofreligioncharities.Acrossallsubsectors,roughlyhalfoftheparticipatingorganizationsmet theirgoalandroughlyhalfdidnot.

13

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Percentage of contributions from each donor type

GivingUSAhasreportedsinceitsfirstpublicationin1956thatindividualdonorscontributethelargest shareofthetotalintheUnitedStates.Totestthisnationalresultattheorganizationallevel,thisstudy askedabouttheshareoffundingfromindividuals,foundations,corporations,andthroughbequests. Whilenotamajorityofallgivingexceptatverysmallorganizations,individualgivingisthelargestsingle sourceofcontributionsinthemajorityoforganizationsparticipatinginthissurvey. Figure9showshowparticipantsinthissurveyrespondedwhenaskedaboutthepercentageoffunding thatcomesfromvariousdonortypes.Aboutonequarter(22percent)oforganizationsreported receiving75to100percentoftheirtotalcontributionsrevenuefromindividuals.Anotherquarter(23 percent)saidtheyreceived50to75percentfromindividualdonors.Institutionaldonorssuchas foundationsandcorporationsmostoftenaccountedforlessthan10percentofcontributions,and bequestsoverwhelmingly(for44percentofrespondents)werelessthan10percentofthetotalraised in2010. Figure9:Rangesforthepercentageofcontributionsfromeachdonortype,2010
(Thesizeofthecircleandthenumberindicatethepercentageoforganizationsthatresponded.Thus,15percent ofparticipantssaidIndividualsgave1to9%oftheirorganizationstotalphilanthropiccontributionsin2010.Not shownarethepercentagesoforganizationsthatleftthequestionblank.)

22 15 17 21 23 Individual 31 22 17 8 4 Foundation 10 44 2 4 Bequest 19 4 7 26 1 Corporations 1 9 4 2 1 Othercharities 36 19%1024%2449%5074%75%100% Percentageofallcontributionsfromsource Notshownonthegrapharecharitiesthatreportednofundingfromthedonortype.Just3percent receivednodonationsatallfromindividuals,and18percentofsurveyparticipantssaidtheyhadno foundationgrants.About20percentofthecharitiesreportednogiftsfrombequestsin2010.Morethan 60percentofcharitieshadnocorporatefunding.Abouthalfoftherespondingorganizations(49 percent)donotreceivefundingfromothercharities.

14

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Percentage of contributions from each donor type, by size

Thereisnotmuchdifferencebysize,exceptalargershareofverysmallorganizationsinthisstudy received75percentormoreoftheircontributionsfromindividualsdonorsthanwasthecasein organizationswithhigherexpenditurelevels. Figure10:Rangesforthepercentageofcontributionsfromeachdonortypeforverysmallorganizations (expendituresin2009<$250,000)

10 24 36 12 19

14 15 15 2 6

15 12 9 1 4

21 6 3 1 1

36 4 2 1 2
Individual Foundation Bequest Corporations Othercharities

19%1024%2449%5074%75%100%

Percentageofallcontributionsfromsource

Figure11:Rangesforthepercentageofcontributionsfromeachdonortypeforsmallorganizations (expenditures$250,000to$999,999in2009)

16 30 45 23 33

23 25 19 5 10

23 18 12 4 5

21 14 6 1 1

16 2 2 1 1
Individual Foundation Bequest Corporations Othercharities

19%1024%2449%5074%75%100%

Percentageofallcontributionsfromsource

15

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Figure12:Rangesforthepercentageofcontributionsfromeachdonortypeformediumsized organizations(expendituresof$1millionto$2.99millionin2009)

20 34 53 35 47

17 26 23 7 12

24 22 8 5 5

24 8 4 2 2

14 5 1 0 0
Individual Foundation Bequest Corporations Othercharities

19%1024%2449%5074%75%100%

Percentageofallcontributionsfromsource

Figure13:Rangesforthepercentageofcontributionsfromeachdonortypeforlargeorganizations (expendituresof$3millionormorein2009)

14 40 48 39 51

11 29 25 18 10

23 15 10 7 3

32 8 3 1 3

17 3 2 0 1
Individual Foundation Bequest Corporations Othercharities

19%1024%2449%5074%75%100%

Percentageofallcontributionsfromsource

16

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

On average, charities use six fundraising vehicles

Mostcharitiesrespondingtothissurveyusedmultiplefundraisingvehicles.Theaverage,mode(most frequentanswer)andmedian(midpoint)areallsix.Thatis,respondentstothisstudyarehighlylikelyto reportuseofsixdifferentfundraisingvehicles. Themostfrequentsourceofdonationswasboardmembers,reportedby87percent.Majorgiftswere reportedby77percentofrespondents.Methodsofengagingdonorsfromonlinethroughspecialevents anddirectmailwerereportedbyapproximatelythreequartersofrespondents.Telephoneappealswere infrequent,usedbyjust18percent.Notethatdirectmailandemailappealsareconsideredtogetheras directresponseappeals.SeeFigure14. Figure14:Frequencyofuse*ofdifferentfundraisingvehicles
74 77 77 78 79 80 87

41 18

42

*SurveyparticipantscouldselectNAorskipthequestion.Bothwereconsideredevidenceofnotusingthefundraisingvehicle.

Somesurveyparticipantsreportedthattheirorganizationsincreasedfocusongrantsandproposal writingin2010. Onewrote,Wereceivedgrantsreceivedfromfoundationsthatwerenotavailablein2009. Anothersaid:Wearestartingtowriteourowngrantsinternallylessexpensive,moreeffectiveand timely.

17

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Thenumberoffundraisingvehiclesusedriseswiththeamounttheorganizationraises(notorganization sizebyexpenditurebutamountraised).Organizationsthatraiselessthan$250,000aremostlikelyto usebetweenfiveandsevenfundraisingvehicles,ofthe10includedinthestudy.Incontrast, organizationsthatraised$3millionormorewerehighlylikelytousemorethan7ofthevehicles included.SeeFigure15. Figure15:Numberoffundraisingvehiclesusedbyrangeofamountraisedincontributions

Amountraised incontributions
$3million+ 8% 62% $1$3million 4% 56% $500,001$1million 3% 47% $250,000$500,000 8% 22% <$250,000 24% 44% 22% 16% 14% 12%

73%

Numberofvehiclesused >7
5,6,or7 <5

Foranalysis,fundraisingtechniquesweredividedintothreegroups: 1. Acquisitionorrenewalgiving:requestsviamail/email,Internet/online,specialevents,telephone appeals,andpayrollcampaigns 2. Majorgiftgiving:requeststoboardmembers,majorgiftprospects,andinseekingplannedgifts 3. Institutionalgiving:requeststofoundationsandcorporations Byamountraised,thereisnostatisticallymeaningfuldifferencebasedonhowmanyofthefive acquisitionorrenewalmethodswereused.Whetherrespondingorganizationsusedoneortwoorall fivemethodshadnorelationshipwithwhetherorganizationsmettheirfundraisinggoal. Theresultformajorgiftgivingisdifferent.Fororganizationsraisinglessthan$250,000,between $500,000and$1million,orbetween$1millionand$3million,themoreofthethreemajorgiftmethods thattheorganizationused,themorelikelyitwastomeetitsfundraisinggoal.Therewasnorelationship, however,fortheothertwocategoriesofamountraised:$250,000$500,000millionandover$3 million. Organizationsthatraisedlessthan$250,000in2010weremorelikelytomeettheirgoalwhentheyused bothinstitutionalfundraisingstrategies(corporateandfoundations).

18

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Results by type of fundraising vehicle show strength in online, major gifts, events
Online giving tops list of vehicles showing growth; results mixed for most fundraising techniques
Figure16comparesincreases,decreases,andstableamountsraisedbytypeofvehicleused.Forthree ofthemorecommonlyusedfundraisingvehicles,atleasthalfoftheorganizationsthatusedthevehicle sawgivingincrease.Theseinclude: Online/Internetgiving,whichrosefor58percentoftheorganizationsusingit,and Majorgiftsandspecialeventnetproceeds,whichbothrosefor50percentoftheorganizations usingthem. Althoughonlinegivingroseatmoreorganizationsusingitthanothertypesoffundraisingvehiclesdid, onlinehasbeenreportedelsewhereasaccountingfor10percentorlessthantotalcontributions receivedatmostcharitiesthatuseit.(GivingUSA2009,GivingUSA2008,BlackbaudinNovember2010) Lessthanhalfoforganizationssawgrowthinfourothercommonlyusedfundraisingvehicles. Directresponseappealsyieldedincreaseddonationsat43percentoftheorganizationsusing them.Athirdoforganizationsusingdirectresponsesawstablerevenue,andnearlyonequarter (24percent)sawadecline. Fortypercentoforganizationsusingfoundationproposalsforfundraisingreportedincreased contributionsfromthismethodin2010,comparedwith2009.Athirdsawfoundationgrants remainstableandnearlyonequarter(24percent)sawadeclineinrevenuefromthisvehicle. Just39percentoforganizationsreceivinggiftsfromboardmemberssawanincreasein contributedrevenuefromthissource.Almosthalf(49percent)usingboardgivingsawitstay almostthesameasin2009. Justoveronethird(34percent)oforganizationsreceivingcorporatecontributions(grantsor gifts)sawanincreasefromthisfundraisingvehicle.Almost4inten(44percent)sawrevenue fromthisvehicleremainstable,butnearlyonequarter(22percent)sawadecline. Thethreeleastusedmethodstelephoneappeals,payrollgiving,andplannedgivingwere amongthemostlikelytostayatthesamelevelsasin2009.Forcharitiesusingthem,halfto60 percentsaidthesevehiclesgeneratedthesameamountasintheprioryear.

19

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Figure16:Fundraisingvehiclesusedin2010andchangesintheamountsraisedthrougheach

Percentageoforganizations using vehiclethatreportedchange

9 16

6 20

13 18

Increasedbymore than15% Increasedbyless than15%

54

60

52

Stayedthesame

13 7 Telephone

10 4 Payroll

8 9 Planned Gifts

Decreasedbyless than15% Decreasedbymore than15%

12 17 18 21 15

Percentageoforganizations using vehiclethat reportedchange

20 22

23

26 38 27

21 29

24

44 33 34 16 5 3 Online 6 Corporate gifts 10 8 Major gifts

33

35 27 49

16 8

15 10

13 9 Special events 8 4 Board Giving

Directmail Foundation oremail grants

20

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Some subsectors more likely to report success with some vehicles

Sometypesofcharitiesshowedresultsdifferentfromtheoverallfindingsbytypeoffundraisingvehicle. TablesfortheresultsbysubsectorareinAppendixA.Ofparticularnotearethefollowing: Artscharities: 59percentofparticipatingartsorganizationsthatusedplannedgivingreported thatrevenuefromthisvehicleremainedthesamein2010asin2009.Thisis higherthanthe52percentofcharitiesusingplannedgivingthatreportedstable revenuefromthissource.Notethatthedifferencereflectsonlytherespondents tothissurveysoisnotgeneralizabletoallartscharities. Educationcharities: 55percentusingmajorgiftssaidthatgiftsfromthisvehiclerosein2010, comparedwith50percentforallcharities. Environment/animals: Thesecharitiesweremorelikelytoseeboardgivingremainthesameandnot increasethanallcharitieswere.About69percentofenvironment/animals charitiessaidboardgivingwasstablein2010,comparedwith49percentofall charities. However,environment/animalscharitiesweremorelikelytoreportgrowthin receiptoffoundationgrantsthanwereothertypesofcharities.Nearlyhalf(47 percent)oftheenvironment/animalscharitiessaidfoundationgrantsrosein 2010comparedwith2009.Thisishigherthanthe40percentofallcharitiesthat saidfoundationgivingwasup.Again,thisfindingrepresentsthecharitiesthat respondedtothissurveyandmightnotbegeneralizabletoall environmental/animalsorganizations. Healthcharities: Morehealthcharitiesreportedgrowthinrevenuefromeventsthandidcharities overall.Oftherespondinghealthcharities,56percentsaidspecialevents proceedsincreasedin2010comparedwith2009.Thisishigherthanthe50 percentofallcharitiesthatfoundgrowthineventfundraising.Thisresultis basedonresponsesreceivedandmightnotbegeneralizabletoallhealth organizations. Publicsocietalbenefit: ThiscategoryincludescollectivefundraisingorganizationssuchasUnitedWay andJewishfederationsaswellasthinktanks,policycenters,andmore.Alarger percentageofrespondentsinthiscategorythanamongallcharitiesreported increasesforthreefundraisingvehicles:events,corporategiving,andplanned gifts.Forevents,55percentoforganizationsinthisgroupsawanincrease (comparedwith50percentoverall).Forcorporategiftsandgrants,44percent oforganizationsinthisgroupsawanincrease(comparedwith34percent overall),andforplannedgiving,39percentsawanincrease(comparedwith31 percentoverall).Thesedifferencesreflectresponsesreceivedandarenot necessarilygeneralizable.

21

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Comparison of 2010 results to prior State of Fundraising Survey results

TheAssociationofFundraisingProfessionals(AFP)begantheStateofFundraisingSurveyinearly2002, inordertogaugetheresponseofdonorsinthewakeoftheattacksofSeptember11,2001.AFP continuedtosurveyitsmembersearlyeachyearthrough2010andnowjoinstheNonprofitResearch Collaborative(NRC).ManyofthequestionsusedinthisreportaredrawnfromAFPsmostrecentState ofFundraisingSurvey.However,thisyear,theinvitationtothesurveywasdistributedwidely,reaching nonprofitorganizationswithoutpersonnelwhoareAFPmembers.Thus,whileshownherefor informationalpurposes,resultsshouldnotbeusedtodrawconclusionsbasedonthisyearcompared withprioryears. Thissectionincludes10yearcomparisonsofsurveyresultsforfundraisingvehiclesthatwereincludedin theAFPStateofFundraisingSurveysandintheNRENonprofitFundraisingSurvey.Methodsnotshown werenotincludedinboth. Direct response appeals most often increased at 50 percent or less of charities Directresponseappeals,includingmailandemailmessages,wereusedby78percentofcharitable organizationsthatparticipatedinthe2011survey.Ofthoseusingdirectresponseappeals,43percent sawanincreaseinfundsraisedin2010comparedwith2009.SeeFigure17. Figure17:Tenyearsofsurveyresultsaboutamountsreceivedthroughdirectresponsefundraising

Percentagereporting givingbyvehicle:
46 41 43 56 38 49 66 51 40 43

Higherthanpast year
23 25 33

30 30

Stayedthesame

33 27

25 10 26

19

24

29

24

17

24

30

39

35 24

Lowerthanpast year

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Note:Thereweremethodologicaldifferencesinthecompositionofthesamplein2001and2010.Thereisno statisticalvalidityincomparisonsthatincludeeitherofthoseyears.

22

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Online giving shows more organizations had increases than decreases in all years studied Amajorityofrespondentsreportedincreasesinonlinegivingineveryyear.SeeFigure18. Figure18:Tenyearsofsurveyresultsaboutamountsreceivedfromonlinegiving

Percentagereporting givingbyvehicle:

57

51 61 64

55

61 88

53

60

58

Higherthanpastyear Stayedthesame Lowerthanpastyear

35

42 34 30

33

33 28 5 7 31 34

12

11

14

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Note:Thereweremethodologicaldifferencesinthecompositionofthesamplein2001and2010.Thereisno statisticalvalidityincomparisonsthatincludeeitherofthoseyears.

Special events results among the most variable Figure19:Tenyearsofsurveyresultsaboutspecialeventsnetproceeds Percentage reportinggivingby vehicle:
50

33 46 44 43 53 65 55 74 27 24 34 33 31 24 20 23 16 23 11 22 9 17 24 33 19 40 22 27 57

Higherthanpastyear Stayedthesame Lowerthanpastyear

Note:Thereweremethodologicaldifferencesinthecompositionofthesamplein2001and2010.Thereisno statisticalvalidityincomparisonsthatincludeeitherofthoseyears.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

23

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Planned giving Figure20:Tenyearsofsurveyresultsaboutamountsreceivedfromplannedgiving

Percentagereporting givingbyvehicle:
46 41 43 38 56 49 66 51 40 43

23 30 30 29 24 24 17 33 27 24 26 30 25 10 19 39

Higherthanpast year
25 33

Stayedthesame

35

24

Lowerthanpast year

Note:Thereweremethodologicaldifferencesinthecompositionofthesamplein2001and2010.Thereisno statisticalvalidityincomparisonsthatincludeeitherofthoseyears.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Telephone fundraising shows lowest percentage of response with increase, 2009 and 2010 Figure21:Tenyearsofsurveyresultsaboutamountsreceivedfromtelephonefundraising
16 44 35 53 52 50 65 30 31 29 35 18 23 23 24 25 27 11 26 28 49 64 46 31

Percentagereporting givingbyvehicle:
25

Higherthanpastyear Stayedthesame Lowerthanpastyear

54

25

20

20

21

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Note:Thereweremethodologicaldifferencesinthecompositionofthesamplein2001and2010.Thereisno statisticalvalidityincomparisonsthatincludeeitherofthoseyears.

24

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Conditions that affected fundraising

Nonprofitmanagersdeterminetheinvestmentofresourcespossibleforfundraisingeffortsinthe contextoftheorganizationsprogramactivitiesandotherfinancialneeds.In2010,mostorganizations maintainedstablelevelsoffunding,staffing,andvolunteerengagementinfundraising.SeeFigure22. Figure22:Changesinfinancialresources,staffing,andvolunteersforfundraising,2010comparedwith 2009
7 14 9 13 24 12

Increasedbymore than15% Increasedbylessthan 15% Stayedthesame

56

59 53

Decreasedbylessthan 15%
13 10 8 11 7 4

Decreasedbymore than15%

Financialresources Staffingforthe Volunteersassisting availableforthe developmentfunction withfundraising developmentfunction

Thebiggestincreaseininvestmentcamefromanincreaseduseofvolunteertimeforfundraising.That rosebymorethan15percentin12percentoftherespondingorganizationsandby1to15percentat another24percentofsurveyparticipants. Anadagesaysthatittakesmoneytomakemoney,andthisstudyconfirmedthat. Increasedinvestmentinfundraisinganddevelopmentcorrelatedwithmeetingafundraisinggoal.The strongestcorrelationisforfinancialinvestment(.0226,p<.01)followedbystaffing(0.174,p<.01).The correlationwasweakestforvolunteersassistingwithfundraising(0.147,p<.01). Note,however,thatjustinvestingwillnotmakefundraisingsuccessful.Anorganizationneedsastrong caseforsupport,acommunicationsstrategythatcanbeimplemented,andstaffandvolunteerstocarry outtheplans.

25

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Exploration of relationship between fundraising investment and changes in fundraising

Thissurveyanalysisincludes1,616participants,moreorlessequallydistributedacrossthenationsfour regions.Respondents,likecharitiesinthecountry,wereoverwhelminglyfromorganizationswith relativelylowbudgets(under$1million).Theparticipatingorganizationsarenotarandomsampleof charities,sostatisticalanalysiswillnotgenerateresultsthatcanbeappliedtoallcharities.Nonetheless, byexamininginmoredetailspecificresults,thisreportexploresfurthersomeideasabouthow fundraisingisconductedandhowchangesinfundraisingaffecttotalcontributions.

Investing in fundraising correlated positively with increased fundraising proceeds

Almosthalf(48percent)oftheorganizationsthatincreasedfinancialsupportforfundraisingby 15percentormoresawcontributionsincreaseby15percentormore.Aboutaquarter(27 percent)sawgivingrise,althoughbylessthan15percent.Combined,threequarters(75 percent)oforganizationsthatincreasedtheirfinancialsupportforfundraisingin2010sawan increaseinfundsraised.Lessthanaquarter(24percent)sawgivingremainflatorfall.

Organizationsthatkeptfinancialinvestmentinfundraisingthesameweremorelikelytosee contributionsdeclineorstaythesame(56percent)thantheyweretoseecontributionsincrease (44percent).

Aboutfourin10(43percent)organizationsthatallowedfundraisingexpenditurestodeclineby 15percentormoresawcontributionsdeclineby15percentormore.Justoverathirdofthese organizations(36percent)sawgivingstaythesameorincrease.

Investing in fundraising associated with greater likelihood of meeting fundraising goals

Findingswereconsistentforallfourorganizationalsizes.Forverysmall,small,medium,andlarge organizations:

Declinesofanyamountinfinancialinvestmentanddeclinesinstaffingwerebothassociated withalowerprobabilityofmeetingthefundraisinggoal.

Forverysmallandsmallorganizations,areductioninvolunteerengagementinfundraisingwas alsoassociatedwithalowerprobabilityofmeetingtheorganizationsfundraisinggoal.

TheNonprofitOverheadandAdministrativeCostStudy(www.coststudy.org)foundthatraisingfundsfor administrativeexpenses,includingfundraising,wasdifficultinallsizesoforganizations.Thisrepeatedly compromisedorganizationaleffectivenessinmeetingthecharitablemission,asthecharitiesmadedo withlessinnumerousways.

Verysmall:Expendituresof$250,000orlessin2009;Small:Expendituresof$250,000to$999,999in2009; Mediumsized:Expendituresof$1millionto$2.99millionin2009;Large:Expendituresof$3millionormorein 2009.

26

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Funding for general operating support

Totalcharitablecontributionswere$304billionin2009,accordingtoGivingUSA2010.Ofthat, approximately$31billionwenttograntmakingandoperatingfoundations.TheCouncilforAidto Educationreportsthat$11billionofthe$28billioningivingforhighereducationwasforendowmentor capitalpurposes.Fewotherstudieshavepreviouslyaskedaboutthepurposesofcharitable contributionsreceivedatmosttypesofcharities. Thissurveyfindsthatmorethanhalfoftheorganizationsparticipating(51percent)received75percent ormoreoftheircontributeddollarsforoperatingsupport.Another13percentsaidbetween50percent and74percentofcontributionswereforoperatingexpenses.Combined,64percentsaidthathalfor moreofthecontributionsreceivedwereforgeneraloperations.SeeFigure23.

Figure23:Shareoforganizationsbypercentageoffundsraisedthatwereforoperations

Percentageoffundsraisedthatwere foroperations

None

124%

20

2549%

5074%

13

75100%

51 Percentageofrespondingorganizations

NOTE:Differentshadesareusedtodemonstratetheshareoffundingforoperations,withthelightestshadeindicatingthatno fundsraisedwereforoperations.Astheshadegetsdarker,theshareforoperationsincreases.

Just7percentreportedthatnoneofthefundsreceivedin2010wereforoperatingexpenses. Thereisnomeaningfuldifferencebyregion,eventhoughdifferentpercentagesoforganizationsinthe SouthandtheWestreportedreceiving75percentormoreoftheircontributionsforoperations.Inthe South,thepercentagewaslower,at48percent,thanthe51percentfoundgenerally.IntheWest,the percentagewashigher,at55percent.

27

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Operating expenses lower share of total at education and public societal benefit organizations
Bytypeofcharity,thissurveyfindsthatamongallorganizationtypes,amajoritysaidthat50percentor moreoftheircontributionsreceivedwereforfundingoperatingexpenses.Artsorganizationsand religionrelatedorganizationsweremostlikelytoreportthis,72percentand76percent,respectively. (Notethattofacilitateunderstandingacrosseighttypesofcharities.Figure24combinescategoriesthat arereportedseparatelyabove.)Theleastlikelytoreportthat50percentormorewasforoperating expenseswereeducationorganizations(at54percent)andpublicsocietalbenefitorganizations(at53 percent). Figure24:Percentageoforganizationsbyshareoffundingforoperatingexpenses,bytypeofcharity
Arts 20 8 72 0to24% 2549% Environment/Animals 25 6 68 50%ormore

Education

31

15

54

Health

27

11

62

Humanservices

24

68

International*

41

56

Publicsocietalbenefit

41

53

Religion*

16

76

Bysubsector,theseresultscannotbedirectlycomparedtootherstudies,inpartbecausethequestionis different.TheCouncilforAidtoEducation,initsstudyofhighereducationalinstitutions,foundthat approximately60percentofanestimated$28billioningivingforthe20092010fiscalyearwasfor currentoperations.Thisisnotthesameasaskingwhetherthepercentageofcontributionsforoperating supportfallsinrangea,b,orc,asthisstudydoes.

28

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Giving in the last quarter of the year

Nonprofitmanagersandmembersofthemediaoftenwanttoknowhowmuchoftheyearsgiving occursinthelastfewmonthsoftheyear,thesocalledgivingseason.Thissurveyisoneofthefirstto askthatquestionofalargenumberofcharitiesinallsubsectors. Figure25:PercentageoforganizationsbywhatshareofcontributionsrevenuearrivedfromOctober throughDecember 4 16 36 31 14 0%19%1024%2549%50%ormore PercentageofcontributionsarrivingOct. Dec. Figure25showsfivelevelsofcontributionsrevenue,fromnoneto50%ormore.Thesizeofthecircle representsthepercentageoforganizationsthatsaidtheyreceivedthatpercentageofcontributions revenueinthelastthreemonthsofthecalendaryear. Thelargestshareofcharitiesinthisstudy(36percent)saidtheyreceive25percentto49percentof theirtotalcontributionsinthelastthreemonthsoftheyear.Onlyaboutoneinsix(16percent)reported receiving50percentormoreoftheirtotalcontributionsinthelastthreemonths.However,abouthalf ofthecharitiesreceivemorethanonequarteroftheircontributionsinthelastquarteroftheyear.If contributionswereevenlyspaced,wewouldexpecteachcalendarquartertoaccountforroughly25 percentofphilanthropicdollarsreceived.

29

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Large charities most likely to raise 25% or more of dollars in last months
Resultsarevirtuallythesameinthegeographicregions(North,Midwest,South,andWest)asforall respondingcharities.However,thereisvariationbysizeofcharity.Smallerorganizationsaremorelikely toseetheircontributionsarrivethroughouttheyear,but59percentofthelargestcharitiessaidthat theyreceive25percentormoreoftheirgiftdollarsinthelastfewmonthsoftheyear.SeeFigure26. Figure26:Percentageofcharitiesreportingthattheyreceiveupto25percentor25percentormoreof theircontributionsfromOctoberthroughDecember,bycharitybudgetsize

Large

41

59

Medium

45

55 <25% 25%ormore

Small

47

53

Verysmall

55

45

Thereissomevariationbytypeofrecipientorganization.SeeFigure27:Percentageofcharities reportingtheshareofcontributionsthatarrivefromOctobertoDecember,bytypeofcharity. Figure27:PercentageofcharitiesreportingtheshareofcontributionsthatarrivefromOctoberto December,bytypeofcharity

All Arts Education Environment Health Humanservices International Publicssocietalbenefit Religion
38 38 50 62 47 42 47 51 62 50 49 57 53 58 53 49 0to24% 25%ormore 51 43

30 NonprofitResearchCollaborative March2011

Anticipated changes for 2011

Budgetsandplansforfundraisingforthisyearweredraftedinmidtolate2010.Organizations participatinginthissurveyweregenerallyoptimisticaboutincreasedcontributionsthisyearbutthe largestportionanticipatedthatstaffingandexpendituresforfundraisingwillremainthesameasfor 2010.Acombinedtotalof63percentprojectthatcontributionswillincreasein2011.Thirtynine percentanticipateincreasesinexpendituresforfundraising,comparedwith49percentthatsay expenditureswillremainthesame.Nearlytwothirds(65percent)saythatdevelopmentandfundraising staffinglevelswillremainthesameasin2010.SeeFigure28. Figure28:Predictionsforchangesinfundsraised,expendituresforfundraising,andstaffinglevelsin 2011
10 21 18 29 10

Increasebymore than15%

Increasebylessthan 15%
42

Staythesame
49 25 65

Decreasebymore than15%
9 3 4 3

8 4

Charitable contributions

Totalexpenditures forfundraising

Developmentor fundraising staffinglevel

Decreasebyless than15%

31

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Challenges ahead
Respondentstothesurveycouldwriteinresponsestothequestion:Whatisthesinglebiggest challenge,orissue,ortrendthatwillaffectfundraisingforyourorganizationin2011? Whilesomerespondingstaffatnonprofitorganizationssawoptimismfortheeconomyin2010,itwas stillthemostcommonlynamedchallengefor2011.Afewcommentsfromtherespondents: - Becauseoftheeconomy,donorsdonotwanttocommittomultiyearpledges. - People'sconfidenceintheeconomyandtheirwillingnesstogive. Respondentsfeelthattheirorganizationsareunderstaffedfor2011.Onesurveyrespondentnoted:I amaonepersonoperationtoomanyprojects/challengesforoneperson. Respondentswouldlikeboardmembertobemoreinvolvedin2011. - Lackofboardinvolvement/boardnotsufficientlypoisedtodomajorgiftfundraising. - Gettingourboardtogetinvolvedingive/getfundraising.Hasneverbeendonebefore andIamtryingtogetthisimplementedfor2011. Communicatingtheorganizationsmissionandimpactisalsoseenasanareaneededforsuccessin 2011. - OurbiggestchallengewillbePR,gettingthewordoutaboutourproject. - Successofanewmarketing/communicationsplanwhichincludesincreasingfinancial stability. Theeconomylimitedtheamountsomedonorswerecomfortablecontributingin2010,butitalso helpeddonorsfeelaconnectiontononprofitorganizationswork.Perhapstheconnectionsmadeduring therecessionwillturnintocontributionsasconfidenceintheeconomygrows.

32

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Changes in revenue from government grants

Whilenottaxdeductiblephilanthropiccontributions,governmentgrantsareamajorsourceoffunding formanycharitiesandarereportedasaformofpublicsupportonIRSForms990.Manydevelopment officeshaveresponsibilityforpreparingproposalsforfederalandstatefundingandareheld accountablefortheirresultsinthisareaastheyareforgiftsreceivedfromindividuals,estates, foundations,corporations,andothercharities.

Thissurveyaskedaboutchangesinamountsreceivedingrantsfromgovernmentsourcesin2010, followingontheNovember2010surveythatalsoaskedaboutgrantrevenue. About45percentoforganizationsreportedreceivinggovernmentgrants,andofthose,moresawa decline(38percent)thansawstablegovernmentfunding(32percent)orincreases(31percent).Thisis consistentwithearlierassessmentsandwithmediareportsaboutgovernmentbudgetcutbacks.Tothe extentthat2011stateandfederalgovernmentbudgetsarefurthercuttingexpenses,nonprofit organizationsarebracingforfurtherdeclinesfromthisrevenuesource.SeeFigure29. Figure29:Percentageoforganizationsbydirectionandmagnitudeofchangeingovernmentgrant revenue,2010 (Onlyorganizationsreportinggovernmentgrantrevenuechangesareincluded.) Increased bymorethan 15percent
17 22

Decreased bymore than15percent

Increased by lessthan 15percent

14 16

Decreased byless than15percent

Stayed the same

32

33

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

The Nonprofit Research Collaborative

SixorganizationshaveformedtheNonprofitResearchCollaborative.Eachoftheseentitieshas,ata minimum,adecadeofdirectexperiencecollectinginformationfromnonprofitsconcerningcharitable receipts,fundraisingpractices,and/orgrantmakingactivities. Thecollaborativeeffortreducestheburdenoncharities,whichwillreceivefewerrequestsforsurvey participation.Surveyrespondentswillformapanelovertime,allowingfortrendcomparisonsamong thesameorganizations.Thisapproachprovidesmoreusefulbenchmarkinginformationthanrepeated crosssectionalstudies. Thecollaboratingpartnerstodateare: AssociationofFundraisingProfessionals,whichsurveyedmembersforanannualstateof fundraisingstudy; Blackbaud,Inc.,whichpublishesTheBlackbaudIndexandpreparesareportabouttheStateof theNonprofitIndustry; TheCenteronPhilanthropyatIndianaUniversity,whichconductsawiderangeofstudieson philanthropyandgiving; TheFoundationCenter,whichprovidesservicestononprofitorganizationsanddocuments trendsinfoundationgivingworldwide; GuideStarUSA,Inc.,whichhasissuedannualreportsabouttheimpactoftheeconomyonthe nonprofitsectorsince2002;and TheNationalCenterforCharitableStatisticsattheUrbanInstitute,whichtracksthefinances andactivitiesofnonprofitorganizationsandpreparestheNonprofitAlmanacandother publicationsandresources. Additionalorganizationsmayjointhecollaborative.Formoreinformation,pleasecontactReema Bhakta,rtbhakta@iupui.edu.

34

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Methodology
TheonlineonlysurveywasfieldedfromFebruary10toFebruary28,2011.Invitationstoparticipate weresentbyeachofthecollaboratingpartnerorganizationstoitsownhouselist,and communicationsfromthepartnerorganizationswentoutthroughsocialmedia(Twitter,Facebook, LinkedIn)messagingtoreachaswideagroupofcharitiesaspossible.Noestimateofthenumberof recipientsoftheinvitationtoparticipateispossiblegiventhisviraldistributionmethod. Atotalof1,845responsesweresubmitted.Notallwereeligibletocompletetheentiresurvey,as173 didnotacceptcontributions.Ofthe1,673whodidreportacceptingcontributions,notallcompleted enoughquestionstobeanalyzed.Resultsarebasedon1,616responses. Reportedvaluesarealwayspercentagesofrespondents,andthedenominatorexcludesnon respondentsforeachquestion. Becausethesampleisnotrandom,resultsarenotgeneralizabletoallnonprofitorganizationsinthe UnitedStates.Sometypesoforganizationsmighthavebeensystematicallyexcludedfromparticipating. Thesecouldincludeverylargeorganizationswhereresponsibilityfortakingonlinesurveysisnot assigned,organizationsthatfoldedduringtheyearbecausetheydidnothavesufficientfundraising revenue,organizationsfacingsevereweatherinFebruary2010astheMidwestandEastexperience numerousstorms,ororganizationsthatdonotuseemailorInternetconnections. Withaconveniencesample,nomeasuresoferrorcanbecalculated.Whileuseofstatisticalprocedures doesassumearandomsample,analysisdidincludeChisquaretestsfordifferencesforthissetof respondents.Whenadifferenceisreportedamongtheserespondents,thepvalueisalways0.05or lower.

35

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Region
Theregionaldefinition nsarethoseo oftheU.S.Cen nsusBureau. TheNationalCenterforC Charitable teinformationbasedonth heEmployerIdentification nNumberssu ubmittedwith hthe Statisticsprovidedstat orwithorganizationalnam mesandzipco odes,forthos seresponden ntswhodidno otincludeanEIN). surveys(o Codingforregionswas sdoneattheCenteronPh hilanthropyat tIndianaUniv versity.

Image:http://nces.ed.gov/n nationsreportcard/NDEHelp/We ebHelp/Welcom me_to_the_NAEP P_Data_Explorer r.htm

Distributionofrespon ndentsbyregion
526 458 401 459

Northeast

Midwest

South

West

36 NonprofitRe esearchColla borative March h2011

Size
SizeisbasedonexpendituresreportedonIRSForms990for2009.TheNationalCenterforCharitable Statisticsmatched990datawithEmployerIdentificationNumberssubmittedwiththesurveys(orwith organizationalnamesandzipcodes,forthoserespondentswhodidnotincludeanEIN).Thesizesused areasfollows: VerySmall:expenditureslessthan$250,000 Small:expendituresof$250,000to$999,999 Mediumsize:expendituresof$1millionto$2.99million Large:expendituresof$3millionormore Thesecategorieswereselectedinpartonthedistributionofthesizesoftheparticipatingcharities,so thatthefourcategorieshaveroughlysimilarnumbersofrespondents. Distributionofrespondentsbysizecategory,basedon2009totalexpenditures
566

368

400

282

Verysmall

Small

Mediumsized

Large

37

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Organizations by amount raised

Inadditiontolookingattotalexpenditures,organizationswerealsoorganizedbyamountraised.Some largeorganizationsreceivesignificantportionsoftheirrevenuefromfeesforserviceorgovernment contracts,sodonotraiseamajorityoftheirfundingthroughphilanthropicgifts.Thus,anorganizationin thelargeexpenditurecategorymightraiselessthan$250,000.However,whenanalyzingthenumberof fundraisingvehiclesusedbasedonorganizationalcharacteristics,weusedtheamountraisedrather thantheoverallexpenditurelevel. Mostorganizationsthatparticipatedinthissurveyraisedlessthan$250,000in2010. Distributionofrespondentsby2010amountsraised
925

264

236

242 178

<$250,000

$250,000 $500,000$1 $500,000 million

$1to$3 million

$3millionand up

38

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

Subsector codes
BecauseorganizationscouldprovidetheirEmployerIdentificationNumbers(EIN),subsectorassignment wasbasedonclassificationdoneattheNationalCenterforCharitableStatisticsfollowingtheNational TaxonomyofExemptEntities.SomeorganizationsdidnotprovideanEINandaspartofthesurvey,they couldidentifytheirorganizationaltypebyselectingfromalistof26categories,whichareusedbythe IRSforclassification.Relatedcategorieswerethenaggregatedintosubsectors(ormajorgroups)to provideabroaderviewofthenonprofitworld. ThemajorgroupsusedbytheNationalTaxonomyofExemptEntitiescorrespondtosubsectorstracked byotherpublications,includingGivingUSA.Theyare I. Arts,Culture,andHumanities II. Education III. Environment/Animals IV. Health V. HumanServices VI. International,ForeignAffairs VII. PublicSocietalBenefit VIII. ReligionRelated IX. Mutual/MembershipBenefit X. Unknown,Unclassified DistributionofparticipantsbyNTEEmajorcategory/subsector
585

265

197

250 167 43

238 100

*Lownumberofresponses.Oflimiteduseininterpretingresults.

39

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

AppendixA Datatablesshowingresultsbysubsectorbyfundraisingvehicle
Notshownaretwofundraisingvehicles:Payrolldeductionsandtelephone.Alsonotshownare organizationsintheInternationalandReligionsubsectors,duetoalownumbersofrespondentsineach. ARTS Percentageusingvehicleandpercentagesreportingdirectionofchangeincontributionsin2010 comparedwith2009 Percentage Using 57 69 80 68 75 28 77 75 Major Planned Mail Internet Board gifts Events Gifts Foundations Corporations Increased Stayedthe same Decreased 44 34 22 51 41 9 45 40 15 48 36 16 49 29 23 30 59 11 38 34 29 34 39 27

EDUCATION Percentageusingvehicleandpercentagesreportingdirectionofchangeincontributionsin2010 comparedwith2009 Percentage Using 68 65 76 66 69 37 65 66 Major Planned Mail Internet Board gifts Events gifts Foundations Corporations Increased Stayedthe same Decreased 41 34 25 57 35 8 39 47 14 55 23 22 48 32 21 32 45 23 32 40 28 30 42 27

ENVIRONMENT/ANIMALS Percentageusingvehicleandpercentagesreportingdirectionofchangeincontributionsin2010 comparedwith2009 Percentage Using 71 74 71 68 76 37 71 62 Major Planned Mail Internet Board gifts Events gifts Foundations Corporations Increased Stayedthe same Decreased 42 37 21 61 28 11 27 61 12 46 37 17 43 37 20 27 53 20 47 30 23 32 43 25

AppendixA:1

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

HEALTH Percentageusingvehicleandpercentagesreportingdirectionofchangeincontributionsin2010 comparedwith2009 Percentage Using 74 70 81 70 74 42 73 75 Major Planned Mail Internet Board gifts Events gifts Foundations Corporations Increased Stayedthe same Decreased 41 35 24 60 34 6 40 48 12 50 33 17 56 18 25 32 58 10 43 32 25 33 48 19

HUMANSERVICES Percentageusingvehicleandpercentagesreportingdirectionofchangeincontributionsin2010 comparedwith2009 Percentage Using 68 64 79 69 76 40 75 72 Major Planned Mail Internet Board gifts Events Gifts Foundations Corporations Increased Stayedthe same Decreased 43 31 27 57 33 10 38 52 10 45 35 20 49 27 24 29 51 19 41 36 23 32 47 22

PUBLICSOCIETALBENEFIT Percentageusingvehicleandpercentagesreportingdirectionofchangeincontributionsin2010 comparedwith2009 Percentage Using 66 Mail Increased Stayedthe same Decreased 44 37 19 61 Internet 57 40 3 80 Board 42 47 11 67 Major gifts 53 32 15 67 Events 55 25 20 34 Planned gifts 39 50 11 63 66

Foundation Corporations 38 38 24 44 37 19

AppendixA:2

NonprofitResearchCollaborative

March2011

AppendixB

Preliminary Results of the 2011 Nonprofit Fundraising Survey

These figures are based on the respondents who answered the questions to date. The final results will be released in March.

What were your organization's cumulative gross dollars raised in FY 2010 from all private philanthropic sources?
Count Less than $250,000 $250,001 - $500,000 $500,001 - $1 million $1,000,001 - $3 million $3,000,001 - $5 million $5,000,001 - $10 million $10,000,001 - $50 million $50,000,001 - $75 million More than $75 million Total: 925 265 236 242 59 48 50 6 16 1,847 Percent 50.1 14.3 12.8 13.1 3.2 2.6 2.7 0.3 0.9 100.0

How have your organization's gross dollars raised from all philanthropic sources changed from FY2009 to FY2010?
Count declined by more than 15% declined by less than 15% stayed the same increased by less than 15% increased by more than 15% Total: 278 329 449 448 343 1,847 Percent 15.1 17.8 24.3 24.3 18.6 100.0

Did you reach your fundraising dollar goal in 2010?

Count Yes No Not applicable Total: 870 811 166 1,847 Percent 47.1 43.9 9.0 100.0

How did your fundraising dollar goal in 2010 change from your goal in 2009?
Count declined by more than 15% declined by less than 15% Sstayed the same increased by less than 15% 154 233 515 479 Percent 9.2 13.9 30.6 28.5

AppendixB:p.1

AppendixB
increased by more than 15% Total: 300 1,681 17.8 100.0

Approximately what percentage of your organizations total contributions in FY 2010 arrived from October through December?
Count None 1-9% 10-24% 25-49% 50% or more Total: 66 263 562 647 285 1,823 Percent 3.6 14.4 30.8 35.5 15.6 100.0

Approximately what percentage of your organizations contributions received in FY 2010 came from the following sources?
0% Individuals Foundations Corporations Bequests or from trust distributions from estates Other charities (such as United Way, congregations or Combined Federal Campaign) 43 (2.48%) 300 (17.29%) 344 (19.83%) 978 (56.37%) 1-10% 250 (14.41%) 512 (29.51%) 740 (42.65%) 400 (23.05%) 10-24% 288 (16.60%) 377 (21.73%) 327 (18.85%) 109 (6.28%) 25-49% 353 (20.35%) 279 (16.08%) 164 (9.45%) 55 (3.17%) 50-74% 403 (23.23%) 142 (8.18%) 73 (4.21%) 19 (1.10%) 75-100% 385 (22.19%) 62 (3.57%) 27 (1.56%) 8 (0.46%) N/A 12 (0.69%) 46 (2.65%) 43 (2.48%) 136 (7.84%)

767 (44.21%)

562 (32.39%)

146 (8.41%)

65 (3.75%)

28 (1.61%)

13 (0.75%)

122 (7.03%)

Please indicate how amounts received in FY 2010 changed from those received in FY2009 from the following sources:
Decreased by more Decreased by less than 15% than 15% Direct mail/e-mail Telephone fundraising Online/Internet giving Board giving Major gifts* Special events/net-event proceeds Planned gifts: estates, trust distributions, annuity distribution Foundation grants 103 22 38 55 98 119 (6.21%) (1.33%) (2.29%) (3.32%) (5.91%) (7.18%) 204 40 58 116 123 180 (12.30%) (2.41%) (3.50%) (7.00%) (7.42%) (10.86%) Stayed the same 434 (26.18%) 161 (9.71%) 418 (25.21%) 708 (42.70%) 418 (25.21%) 364 (21.95%) Increased by less than 15% 335 48 464 341 342 387 (20.21%) (2.90%) (27.99%) (20.57%) (20.63%) (23.34%) Increased by more than 15% 217 25 250 219 287 284 (13.09%) N/A 365 (22.01%)

(1.51%) 1357 (81.85%) (15.08%) (13.21%) (17.31%) (17.13%) 422 (25.45%) 211 (12.73%) 385 (23.22%) 320 (19.30%)

59 123

(3.56%) (7.42%)

56 202

(3.38%) (12.18%)

356 (21.47%) 460 (27.74%)

127 281

(7.66%) (16.95%)

90 242

(5.43%) (14.60%)

965 (58.20%) 345 (20.81%)

AppendixB:p.2

AppendixB
Corporate gifts or grants Payroll giving 77 28 (4.64%) (1.69%) 206 66 (12.42%) (3.98%) 555 (33.47%) 411 (24.79%) 286 138 (17.25%) (8.32%) 149 43 (8.99%) (2.59%) 378 (22.80%) 967 (58.32%)

*MAJOR GIFT: An order of magnitude higher than the organizations usual range of gift amount (e.g., $1,000 if typical is $100) and has the potential to have a significant impact on the organization.

Approximately, what percentage of the total amount raised in contributions was for annual operations (as distinct from endowment gifts, capital expenditures)?
Count None 1-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75 -100% Total: 122 327 137 216 847 1,649 Percent 7.4 19.8 8.3 13.1 51.4 100.0

How did the following conditions affect your fundraising efforts in FY2010, compared to 2009?
Decreased by more Decreased by less than 15% than 15% Financial resources available for the development function Staffing for development function Volunteers assisting with fundraising Other (please specify): 142 142 54 10 (8.66%) (8.66%) (3.29%) (0.61%) 187 110 101 7 (11.41%) (6.71%) (6.16%) (0.43%) Stayed the same 790 (48.20%) 781 (47.65%) 724 (44.17%) 27 (1.65%) Increased by less than 15% 193 176 327 12 (11.78%) (10.74%) (19.95%) (0.73%) Increased by more than 15% 97 116 169 22 (5.92%) (7.08%) (10.31%) (1.34%) N/A 225 (13.73%) 303 (18.49%) 250 (15.25%) 521 (31.79%)

How do you anticipate the following conditions will change in FY2011 compared to FY2010?
Decrease by more than 15% Income from charitable contributions Total expenditures for fundraising Development/fundraising staffing level 67 48 52 (4.10%) (2.93%) (3.18%) Decrease by less than 15% 134 149 55 (8.19%) (9.11%) (3.36%) Stay the same 392 (23.96%) 780 (47.68%) 965 (58.99%) Increase by less than 15% 662 449 263 (40.46%) (27.44%) (16.08%) Increase by more than 15% 338 163 142 (20.66%) (9.96%) (8.68%) N/A 43 (2.63%) 47 (2.87%) 158 (9.66%)

How have your organizations gross dollars raised from government grants changed from FY2009 to FY2010?
Count Percent

AppendixB:p.3

AppendixB
declined by more than 15% declined by less than 15% stayed the same increased by less than 15% increased by more than 15% N/A, do not receive government grants Total: 179 130 260 115 140 797 1,621 11.0 8.0 16.0 7.1 8.6 49.2 100.0

For classification purposes, what is your primary responsibility with the organization?
Count CEO/Executive Director/President Chief Financial Officer/Organization Treasurer Executive Officer (other than CEO/Executive Director or CFO/Treasurer Fiscal/Finance (Other than Chief Financial Officer or Organization Treasurer) Board Member/Board Director/Trustee Development/Fundraising Programs and Services Communications Marketing Technology Volunteer Other (please specify): Total: 625 114 121 26 73 547 25 7 12 2 12 56 1,620 Percent 38.6 7.0 7.5 1.6 4.5 33.8 1.5 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.7 3.5 100.0

What was your organization's annual operating budget in FY2010?

Count Less than $25,000 $25,000 - $99,000 $100,000 - $249,999 $250,000 - $499,999 $500,000 - $999,999 $1,000,000 - $2.99 million $3,000,000 - $4.99 million $5,000,000 - $9.99 million $10,000,000 - $49.99 million $50,000,000 - $75 million More than $75 million Total: 170 195 202 179 188 296 104 101 142 18 22 1,617 Percent 10.5 12.1 12.5 11.1 11.6 18.3 6.4 6.2 8.8 1.1 1.4 100.0

2011 Nonprofit Fundraising Survey

AppendixB:p.4