Hi Jim,

Found this through the Chronicle of Philanthropy’s “Give and Take.”

You’ve made some really good points. I’m just going to pick up on one point that disturbs me about this whole issue, and I admit this is my subjective opinion. I’m uncomfortable with the emphasis that’s placed on the amount donated. I have a friend who told me she and her husband have two charities they donate to every year and they switch between the two because they want their contribution to “mean something.” This is a result, I think, of the “elitist” mentality that’s hammered into people when they’re solicited by an organization, i.e., the more you give, the better you’re treated by the organization! In my view, longevity is just as important.

$10/month x 12 months = $120/year
1000 loyal donors x $120 = $120,000/year
$120,000/year x 5 years = $600,000 total

Well, you get the drift. And let’s not forget that some satisfied donors, no matter their donation size, may bring in others and increase their involvement with the organization over time. Plus there have been studies that show sizable planned gifts have been given by low-dollar donors who’ve been with the organization over a period of time (Warwick, I believe, wrote this in one of his many brilliant books).

Just my very subjective feelings.

Aila

Hi Aila,

I am so glad you found your way to my blog. I appreciate your comments and want to further our conversation. I ’d like to comment on two points you’ve made.

First, to your point about gift amount vs. giving longevity, an organization that focuses only on the “elite donors” isn’t going to be around very long. These donors are often few and far between, and they don’t typically initiate their relationship with an organization with their first gift being a “mega gift.” Sure, it happens, but we usually read about those gifts in the industry news. Instead, mega donors often form long-term relationships with an organization starting just the way you describe – through small (and sometimes recurring) gifts. This is the heart of relationship fundraising, and what the organizations that plan to be around for the long haul will focus on. They treat every donor like a mega donor and they develop long-lasting relationships with these donors. Of course the hope is that these people will give more, and more often, but the real hope is that these people will become investors in the organization – in it’s mission and ultimately in it’s success. And, while it may be sometimes difficult to accept, I don’t think we’re going to see a time when a $100 donor is treated the same as a $100,000 donor (and I am referring to both the donor that gives a one-time gift as well as the donor who has given this amount throughout their lifetime). If you think of dollars as “stewardship points”, then the $100 donor gets one “point.” The $100,000 donor – they get 100 “points”, 99 more points than the $100 donor. The more you give, the more invested in the organization you become. And the more accountable the nonprofit is to you.

Now, to your second point, again, we agree again. Planned gifts come from donors of all sizes. I for example, may never be a mega donor to any organization, but I have included nonprofits in my estate plans, and I know the money they will receive when I die will further their missions. I am a satisfied donor who knows I can make help some organizations by leaving some of my estate behind to benefit the causes I most believe in.

So, I think you have helped make the point that giving circles hinder an organization’s ability to build lasting relationships directly with donors. And, without these relationships, nonprofits will not be able to continue to build their portfolio of investors.

Thanks again, Aila, for you well-written comments!

Giving circles: threat or opportunity?…

Giving circles are groups of donors who study a cause, then pick charities they feel best address their issue(s) and combine their giving to those organization. (More about giving circles here at Wikipedia and they were examined last year on…