Measuring Fundraising Metrics

Problem: Many nonprofits have trouble knowing if their fundraising is working because they don’t track the important numbers and data.

Solution: By using data-driven strategies and technology to measure things like new donors, retention, and fundraising costs, nonprofits can make better choices to raise more money for their mission.

Fundraising success in the nonprofit sector increasingly depends on data-driven strategies. This report expands the key metrics that nonprofit organizations should track in acquisition, retention, engagement, revenue, major gifts, and operational efficiency, providing benchmarks and best practices for each. Nonprofits that excel in these metrics significantly outperform peers – for example, top-tier organizations achieve donor retention rates near 65-70% (versus an industry average around 45-50%) and enjoy fundraising returns on investment (ROI) as high as 10:1 in major gift programs.

Key insights include:

Acquisition Metrics: Nonprofits typically grow their donor base by only a few percent per year (average new donor acquisition rate ~2%). Tracking metrics like Donor Acquisition Cost (DAC) reveals the high upfront investment needed – for instance, direct mail campaigns often cost $1.00–$1.25 per $1 raised for new donors, meaning initial gifts may be unprofitable until donors are retained for future giving. Best-in-class organizations optimize acquisition by targeting likely supporters and balancing acquisition efforts with retention to maximize lifetime value.
Retention Metrics: Donor retention is one of the most crucial indicators of long-term sustainability. The average annual donor retention rate hovers around 45-50%, meaning most nonprofits lose half their donors year-over-year. First-time donor retention is especially low (~20% or even less), whereas repeat donors renew at much higher rates (typically 50-70%). Top organizations boast overall retention above 60%, often by prioritizing donor stewardship and recurring giving programs (monthly donors can have ~90% retention). Improving retention yields dramatic benefits in predictable revenue and donor lifetime value.
Engagement Metrics: Measuring how actively donors interact with a nonprofit (beyond donations) is key to understanding and boosting loyalty. Common engagement indicators include email open and click-through rates (nonprofit averages ~29% open and 3.3% click rate), event participation rates, volunteer involvement, and donor response to communications. While digital outreach has a wide reach, conversion to giving is challenging (e.g. only 0.09% of fundraising emails sent lead to a donation on average). High engagement (such as strong email response or event attendance) correlates with higher retention and giving levels. Organizations should monitor these metrics to refine their outreach strategies—personalized and multi-channel engagement is proven to improve results (for example, 48% of donors say regular email updates keep them giving).
Revenue Metrics: These reflect the bottom-line outcomes of fundraising efforts. Metrics like total dollars raised, year-over-year donation growth rate, average gift size, and donor lifetime value show whether strategies are yielding financial results. In 2022, the average one-time gift was about $121 across U.S. charities, and overall charitable giving has grown modestly in recent years (e.g. a 4.1% increase in dollars raised in early 2024 despite donor counts declining). High-performing nonprofits diversify revenue streams – cultivating major gifts, recurring donations, and broad-based support – to achieve steady growth. They also closely watch the share of revenue from top donors (often 80% of funds come from 20% of donors) to manage risk and opportunity in their donor portfolio.
Major Gifts Metrics: Major donors contribute an outsized portion of revenue, so tracking this segment separately is critical. Common metrics include number of major gift prospects, solicitation success rate, average major gift size, and major donor retention. Many organizations follow the Pareto principle: a small group of donors (often 10-20%) provides roughly 80-90% of funds. Major gift fundraising is highly cost-effective – averaging only $0.05–$0.10 to raise $1 – but requires long cultivation cycles and strong relationships. Effective major gift programs set clear performance targets (e.g. each gift officer managing ~100-150 prospects or raising $0.5M–$1M annually) and emphasize personalized engagement and stewardship to keep these key supporters invested.
Operational Efficiency Metrics: To ensure funds are raised cost-effectively, nonprofits track metrics like Cost Per Dollar Raised, fundraising ROI, and overhead ratio. A common benchmark is to spend $0.20 or less to raise $1 in overall fundraising cost. However, efficiency varies by method: major gifts and capital campaigns are extremely efficient ($0.05–$0.10 per $1) while acquisition campaigns or events are much higher cost ($0.50 or more per $1 in special events, and initial donor acquisition often exceeding $1 per $1 raised). Tracking these metrics by program helps organizations allocate resources wisely (e.g. knowing which campaigns have the best net return or where expenses are not justified by revenue). Best practices include leveraging technology to automate tasks and reduce costs, and continuously monitoring ROI to inform strategic decisions (such as scaling a profitable online campaign or reevaluating an expensive gala).

Each section of this report delves into these categories, providing expanded lists of metrics, definitions, and benchmarks from real-world research. We also discuss how to interpret the metrics, common pitfalls to avoid, and actionable strategies to improve performance. Finally, we cover the integration of modern technology – like nonprofit CRM systems and analytics tools – that make real-time tracking and reporting easier, along with best practices for data integrity and transparency. Fundraising teams and executive leaders can use this report as a guide for establishing a metrics-driven culture that supports strategic decision-making and drives sustainable fundraising growth.

Acquisition Metrics (Donor Acquisition & Growth)

Acquisition metrics measure how well a nonprofit is attracting new donors and growing its supporter base. New donors are the lifeblood for replacing those who lapse and for expanding an organization’s reach. However, acquisition is often expensive and challenging – industry data shows that nonprofits must work hard just to achieve a modest net growth in donors each year. Below are key acquisition-related metrics, along with their definitions and benchmarks:

New Donors Acquired: Absolute number of first-time donors gained in a period. This is a basic count of new supporters brought on through campaigns, events, appeals, etc. By tracking new donors and comparing to prior periods, organizations can gauge the effectiveness of their outreach. However, this number should be considered alongside the number of donors lost in the same period (net growth). For example, if 1,000 new donors were acquired but 800 previous donors lapsed, the net growth is only +200.
Donor Acquisition Rate (Growth Rate): The percentage increase in the total donor count over a period. It can be calculated as (New Donors / Total Donors at start of period) x 100. Industry benchmarks for donor base growth are relatively low – on the order of 1.5% to 3% annually on average. In fact, many nonprofits struggle to grow their donor counts at all, due to attrition balancing out acquisitions. A growth rate above 5% would generally be considered strong in the nonprofit sector, while double-digit growth is rare and usually tied to specific campaigns or surges in interest. Strategic insight: A low acquisition rate might indicate ineffective outreach or limited market reach, whereas a high rate (if retention is maintained) can significantly boost revenue over time. Organizations should set realistic growth targets (e.g. aiming for 5% net growth if the sector average is ~2%) and invest in channels that yield quality new donors.
Conversion Rate (Lead-to-Donor Conversion): The percentage of prospective supporters who take the step to donate. This metric can be applied to various contexts – for instance, the conversion rate of website visitors to donors, or event attendees to donors. A common example is the donation page conversion rate on a nonprofit’s website: what fraction of people who click “Donate” or visit the donation page actually complete a gift. Studies have found an average main donation page conversion rate around 12-17% for nonprofits. (By comparison, e-commerce sites often see <5% conversion, so nonprofits do relatively well in motivating intent into action.) Conversion rates can vary widely depending on the audience and the ask; for instance, a well-designed donation page with a compelling ask might convert 20% or more of visitors, while a generic appeal may convert far fewer. Tracking conversion rates helps identify bottlenecks in the fundraising funnel (e.g., lots of people click a donation link but abandon before giving – suggesting the need to simplify the form or make the appeal more convincing). Strategic use: If your conversion rate is below industry benchmarks, it flags an opportunity to optimize the user experience or targeting of your appeals (A/B testing different page designs or messaging can be useful). Even a few percentage points improvement in conversion can translate to many additional donors acquired.
Donor Acquisition Cost (DAC): The average cost spent per new donor acquired. This is calculated as the total marketing/fundraising costs devoted to acquisition divided by the number of new donors gained. It essentially measures how expensive it is to bring in each new supporter. Acquisition is notoriously costly – especially via methods like direct mail or paid advertising. Benchmarks vary, but one illuminating data point: acquiring new donors via direct mail often costs about $1.00 to $1.25 per $1.00 raised in the initial campaign. In other words, if you raise $50,000 from a direct mail acquisition mailing, the campaign might cost $50,000–$62,500, yielding a net loss initially. This equates to a high DAC and a negative first-year ROI. By contrast, renewal mailings to past donors cost much less (around $0.20 per $1 raised) since the audience is more receptive. Another way to frame acquisition cost is in dollar terms per donor (e.g. “we spent $25 on average to acquire each new donor”). This might combine various channels – events, online ads, mail – into one overall DAC. Acceptable levels of DAC depend on the long-term value of donors acquired. It can be financially sound to spend $100 to acquire a donor if that donor is likely to give $1,000 over their lifetime. But if DAC is rising over time, or varies by channel, that’s important to know. Best practice: track DAC by channel or campaign to identify where you get the best value. For example, you might find that social media ads yield new donors at $30 each, while an event yields new donors at $100 each – this insight guides budget allocations. Also, always evaluate DAC in conjunction with retention and lifetime value (see Retention Metrics) – a high acquisition cost can be justified if those donors stay and become loyal, but if they only give once and leave, the strategy is not sustainable.
Reach and Acquisition Funnel Metrics: In addition to the core metrics above, nonprofits often track intermediary steps in the acquisition funnel:

Email Signup Rate – how many website visitors or campaign respondents sign up for your email list or newsletter, indicating interest. This builds a pipeline for future donor conversion (even if they don’t donate immediately).
Engagement to Donor Conversion – e.g. what percentage of volunteers or event participants eventually donate. If you have programs where people engage in non-donation ways, it’s useful to track how many transition to giving.
Prospect Lead Volume – number of new leads/prospective donors generated (through list building, petition signers, etc.). This isn’t a “donor” metric per se, but it precedes donor acquisition; having a large, qualified prospect pool can predict higher new donor counts later.

Each of these can have its own benchmarks (for instance, donation landing page conversion rates we mentioned ~15% average; an email welcome series might convert a small but important percentage of new subscribers into first-time donors – perhaps 1-2% over the series, which is meaningful given typically low direct email response rates).

Benchmarks & Variance: Acquisition success varies by organization size and sector. Large, well-known nonprofits might attract thousands of new donors via brand awareness or viral campaigns, whereas small local charities rely on community events and referrals for slower organic growth. That said, the net growth of donor counts sector-wide has been very low or negative in recent years – one report noted a 1.3% decline in donors in early 2024 even as dollars increased slightly, reflecting the challenge of acquisition. A nonprofit should compare its acquisition rate to peers (for example, via cohort studies or platforms like Fundraising Effectiveness Project) and also monitor trends over time. If your new donor count is dropping year-over-year, it could signal saturation of your current strategies or external factors (like less reach on social media due to algorithm changes). Ideally, aim for an acquisition rate that at least offsets attrition. For instance, if 40% of donors lapse each year, you need >=40% of your prior donor count as new donors just to break even in count. High-performing organizations manage to both acquire and retain at high rates – a difficult feat that leads to robust growth.

Common Pitfalls in Acquisition Metrics: A major pitfall is focusing on quantity of new donors without considering quality. Not all new donors are equal – those acquired through random list purchases or sweepstakes might have very low subsequent retention, essentially “one-and-done” givers. It’s important to track not just how many new donors you get, but their initial giving level and whether they stay engaged. Another pitfall is overspending on acquisition for vanity metrics. For example, spending $100,000 to acquire 5,000 new donors looks like growth, but if most never give again, the money could have been better spent cultivating existing supporters. Ensure data integrity by properly coding new donors by source in your database – this allows calculating DAC and retention by acquisition source. Mislabeling or failing to track source will make your acquisition metrics far less actionable.

Actionable Recommendations (Acquisition): Based on these metrics, fundraisers can take concrete steps:

If your donor acquisition cost is too high relative to donor value, experiment with lower-cost channels (for instance, digital content marketing or peer-to-peer campaigns). Emphasize methods that leverage networks (referrals, social sharing) where the marginal cost per new donor is lower.
To improve conversion rates, test optimizations: simplify your online donation forms, use clear calls-to-action, ensure your site is mobile-friendly (mobile giving is growing, but mobile conversion rates are often lower than desktop – e.g. one stat found only ~8% conversion on mobile donation pages, so improvements there can boost overall acquisitions). Also, train staff/volunteers for in-person events on how to make an effective ask or follow-up, thereby converting participants into donors.
Monitor and reduce friction at each step: If lots of people start a donation (e.g. click donate) but don’t complete, investigate if the process is too long or if there are trust concerns. Adding testimonials or security logos, for example, can reassure donors to finish a gift.
Use technology tools to aid acquisition tracking: CRM systems and marketing software can track leads from campaigns all the way through to donation. Implementing proper tracking (UTM codes for online ads, unique campaign IDs for mail, etc.) will feed accurate data for your acquisition metrics.
Finally, align acquisition with retention by having a strong onboarding plan for new donors. Since first-time donor retention is low, plan from the moment you acquire a donor how you will welcome and engage them (thank-you calls, new donor welcome packets, first-time donor perks) to increase the chance that their first gift won’t be their last. This bridges into the next critical category: retention metrics.

Retention Metrics (Donor Retention & Loyalty)

Retention metrics assess an organization’s success in keeping donors over time and maximizing their lifetime support. Given the high cost of acquiring donors, improving retention is often the most efficient way to boost fundraising results – retained donors have higher subsequent giving and don’t require new acquisition expense. Donor retention rate is often called the “holy grail” of fundraising metrics because of its impact on revenue and sustainability. In this section, we outline key retention-related metrics, with benchmarks and best practices:

Annual Donor Retention Rate: The percentage of donors from last year who give again in the current year. This metric is usually calculated year-over-year (e.g., what percent of 2023 donors donated in 2024). It can also be measured for other intervals (quarterly retention, etc., though annual is standard in fundraising reports). Industry benchmarks for overall donor retention are around 40% to 45% for many nonprofits. That means, unfortunately, most organizations lose more than half of their donors each year. For example, according to the Fundraising Effectiveness Project, North American nonprofits had an average retention of ~46% in 2023, a decline from prior years. Larger or more sophisticated organizations might achieve retention rates in the 50-60% range. High-performing nonprofits that invest heavily in donor stewardship have been reported to reach 65%+ retention; in fact, top benchmark studies show some leading nonprofits hitting about 68% annual retention. On the other hand, small nonprofits or those without a retention strategy can fall below 30-40%. To put these in context, a retention rate of 50% means half of last year’s donors are retained – which also implies half must be replaced by new donors just to stay even. A retention rate of 70% would be outstanding and significantly reduces the pressure on acquisition. Acceptable vs ideal: Many experts suggest aiming for at least 50% overall retention as a baseline, and then pushing towards 60% or higher. Each percentage point increase in retention can yield a substantial increase in revenue over time (compounded through repeat giving and upgraded gifts).
First-Time Donor Retention Rate: The percentage of first-time donors in one period who give a second time in a subsequent period. This is a critical subset of retention to track because first-time donors behave very differently from repeat donors. First-time donor retention is typically much lower than overall retention. The sector average is often cited around 20% – meaning only about 1 in 5 new donors will give again the next year. Recent data has been even more stark: through Q3 2024, nonprofits retained only 13.8% of new donors year-to-date, indicating that nearly 86% of first-time givers had not yet given again (this was a year with particularly weak retention, but it highlights the challenge). By contrast, if you can convince a donor to make that second gift, their likelihood of continuing to give shoots up (we examine repeat donor rates next).

Improving first-time retention (sometimes called second-gift conversion rate) is often the quickest win for a fundraising team – these new donors have already shown interest, so targeted efforts like prompt thank-yous, welcome kits, and personalized follow-ups in the months after the first gift can significantly lift this metric. An ideal first-time retention might be 30% or more (some organizations manage to retain a third of new donors, which is well above average). Monitoring this metric separately ensures you’re not lulled by the overall retention figure which is usually higher due to repeat donors.

Repeat Donor Retention Rate: The percentage of donors who have given 2+ times in the past that give again. In other words, this looks at loyalty among established donors. As expected, this rate is higher than the first-time rate. According to the same AFP report, repeat donor retention was about 50% in recent data (50.3% through Q3 2024). It’s not uncommon for repeat retention to be in the 60-70% range for many organizations – these are people who have given in multiple years and are more committed. A healthy repeat retention rate might be, say, 70% (meaning 7 out of 10 multi-year donors donated again this year). If you see repeat retention declining, it’s a red flag that even your loyal donors are starting to drift away – perhaps due to insufficient engagement, economic factors, or changing interests. Best-in-class stewardship programs can push repeat donor retention even higher; some nonprofits report retaining 80%+ of their long-term donors in a given year, especially if they have a membership or subscription-like approach (e.g., a member organization where renewal is the norm).
Recurring Donor Retention Rate: This is specifically the retention of recurring gift donors (those who make automated monthly or quarterly donations). It’s worth separating because recurring donors behave differently – their giving is often “opt-out” (automatic until they cancel), and they tend to be very loyal. Recurring donors have exceptional retention: on average annual retention for recurring givers is often 80-90%. One analysis of DonorPerfect clients found about a 90% retention rate among monthly donors. Another source noted recurring donors have ~83% retention vs 45% for single-gift donors in one dataset. These donors are gold for nonprofits – not only do they retain well, they usually give more total per year (even if in smaller installments) and have much higher lifetime value. Thus, tracking the number and retention of recurring donors separately is important. If your organization can convert more first-time donors into recurring donors, you will likely see an overall retention boost. Benchmark: A monthly donor program could reasonably aim for ~85%+ yearly retention (meaning only 15% or less cancel each year). If you see higher attrition in recurring donors, investigate issues like credit card expirations (and whether you have processes to update info) or donor satisfaction.
Donor Attrition Rate: This is essentially the inverse of retention – the percentage of donors who gave last year but not this year (lapsed donors). Some organizations prefer to talk in terms of attrition to emphasize loss. It’s calculated as 100% minus the retention rate (for that cohort). For example, a 50% retention equals a 50% attrition. It can be helpful to frame the challenge: e.g., “We are losing 50% of our donors annually.” High attrition (especially if >50%) signals a need for improved retention strategies. Attrition can be further broken down into lapse segments:

New Donor Attrition (first-year lapse rate, which might be ~80% given 20% retention).
Multi-Year Donor Attrition (which might be 30-40% if 60-70% retention).
Long-lapsed reactivation rate (covered next).

Sometimes analyzing why donors lapsed (via exit surveys or at least looking at their last interaction) can provide insight for improvement.

Reactivation (Recapture) Rate: The percentage of lapsed donors (from prior years) who are reactivated in the current year. For example, if you had 1,000 donors who gave in the past but not at all last year (lapsed), and you managed to win back 100 of them with a renewal or “we miss you” campaign, your reactivation rate is 10%. This metric acknowledges that not all lapsed donors are permanently lost – some just skip a year or two. Industry data suggests recapture rates can be in the single digits to low teens. One example: an organization had a 10% recaptured donor retention rate (50 of 500 lapsed donors reactivated). Any reactivation is positive since it’s often cheaper to win back a lapsed donor than to acquire a brand new one (the donor has shown past affinity). Tracking this helps gauge the effectiveness of re-engagement campaigns. An ideal scenario is to have a systematic lapsed donor outreach that consistently reactivates, say, 10-20% of lapsed donors each year. If this metric is near zero, it means you might be neglecting a potentially fruitful segment (or those donors have truly churned).
Donor Lifetime Value (LTV): The total amount an average donor is expected to give from the time they first donate until they lapse for good. This is a composite metric that incorporates both retention duration and average gift size/frequency. While often computed as an estimate (e.g., Average annual donation * average number of years a donor gives), it’s extremely useful as a strategic indicator. For instance, if your average donor lifetime value is calculated to be $1,000, and your average first donation is $100, that implies the average donor stays around for 10 donations (perhaps over 5-7 years, if not an annual giver). Any improvement in retention will push LTV higher, as donors give for more years. Some industry benchmarks: one study found average donor LTV around $1,067 across many nonprofits, with average annual gift per donor ~$648. This will vary greatly by organization type (e.g., an alumni donor to a university might have a very high LTV if they give larger gifts over decades, whereas a small grassroots charity might have lower LTV per donor). Nonprofits should try to compute their own LTV and then work to increase it. How to use LTV: It helps justify spending on retention – if you know a retained donor will bring in X dollars over their life, you can decide it’s worth spending a portion of that to keep them. It also helps with setting acquisition budgets (e.g., spending $50 to acquire a donor with $1,000 lifetime value is a good investment).
Upgrade/Downgrade Rates: These metrics look at year-over-year changes in donor giving levels. For instance, the upgrade rate could be defined as the percentage of last year’s donors who increased their gift amount this year; similarly, downgrade rate for those who gave less. Monitoring this provides insight into donor engagement quality – are donors trending upward in their giving, plateauing, or declining? One might find that among retained donors, 30% upgraded, 50% gave about the same, and 20% downgraded. The goal would be to maximize upgrades (through strategies like suggesting slightly higher asks, showcasing impact to inspire bigger gifts) and minimize downgrades (which can be a warning sign of waning interest or economic constraints). There’s no broad industry “benchmark” for upgrade rates since it varies widely, but any consistent downgrading trend merits attention. Some organizations also track average gift amount year over year as a simpler gauge of whether donor value is rising.

Why Retention Metrics Matter: High retention is often the hallmark of a sustainable fundraising program. Retained donors have higher lifetime value, often increase their giving over time, and are more likely to become major donors or leave bequests. Also, improving retention is generally more cost-effective than continually ramping up acquisition to replace churned donors. A famous adage is that it costs 5-10 times more to acquire a new donor than to keep an existing one – retention metrics help focus efforts on the “cheaper” side of that equation. Additionally, many grantmakers and charity rating agencies look at broad indicators of donor support; a shrinking donor base (low retention not compensated by acquisition) can be a red flag to outsiders about an organization’s health.

From a strategic decision-making perspective, retention metrics can inform resource allocation: If retention is low, it suggests investing in donor stewardship (e.g. hire a donor relations manager, implement a new CRM for personalized touchpoints) will yield a good return. It also affects forecasting – if you know your retention, you can predict how many donors (and dollars) will recur next year and plan budgets more accurately. Organizations with subscription models (like membership or child sponsorship) pay extreme attention to monthly retention rates because each point of attrition immediately impacts revenue projections.

Common Pitfalls in Retention Metrics: One pitfall is not segmenting retention. As illustrated, first-time and repeat donors differ hugely. If you only calculate an aggregate retention rate, you might miss that you have a serious new donor retention problem masked by loyal long-term donors. Always break down retention by donor tenure or type. Another pitfall is focusing on retention percentage without considering the composition of who is being retained. For example, you might retain a higher percentage of donors but if they are mostly low-dollar donors and you lost a few high-dollar donors, total revenue could still drop. So pair retention analysis with revenue per donor analysis.

Also, some organizations calculate retention differently (number of donors vs. donations retained). Clarify the definition: retention rate is typically donor-based (as we’ve used). A related metric is gift retention rate, meaning what percentage of last year’s donation amount is given again this year by the same donors – this can sometimes be >100% if donors increased gifts. But usually when we say retention we mean donor retention count.

Another challenge is data accuracy: You need a reliable list of last year’s donors and this year’s donors and a way to match them. Using a CRM to tag donor records with last donation year helps. Pitfall: counting “reinstated” lapsed donors as retained can skew numbers. Generally, retention measures consecutive year giving. If a donor skips a year, they’re counted as lapsed (lost) in that year’s retention calc, but if they come back later, they’d count as a reactivated donor in that year.

Actionable Recommendations (Retention): To improve retention metrics:

Enhance Donor Communication and Appreciation: Ensure every donor receives prompt, meaningful acknowledgment for their gift. Ongoing communication is key – share impact stories, show how their donation made a difference, and keep them engaged through newsletters, events, or calls. Personalized touches (like a thank-you phone call for first-time donors, or hand-written notes for higher-tier donors) significantly increase the likelihood of a second gift. Since nearly half of donors cite regular email updates as what keeps them giving, build a robust donor communication calendar (across email, mail, phone, social) that provides value to the donor, not just asks.
Segment and Tailor Retention Strategies: Use your data to identify different donor segments and design stewardship accordingly. New donors might get a “welcome series” of emails introducing your mission more deeply. Mid-level donors might get invitations to special webinars or tours. Major donors often get one-on-one attention. Also identify at-risk donors – for example, donors who gave for 2 years but haven’t yet this year (sometimes called “LYBUNT” – Last Year But Unfortunately Not This) – and do targeted outreach to them before they lapse completely. One effective tactic is a pre-lapse campaign: if someone gave last year around a certain time, and now it’s been 12+ months, reach out personally to reconnect (mention their past support and invite them to renew).
Leverage Recurring Giving Programs: As noted, recurring donors have dramatically higher retention. Encourage donors (especially new ones) to enroll in a monthly giving program. Market the convenience and impact of steady support. Even if the monthly amount is small, these donors often stick around. Ensure you have systems to update expired credit cards and a way to gracefully recover missed payments (so involuntary churn is minimized). Many organizations name their monthly donors as a special club to build identity and loyalty.
Analyze Feedback and Reasons for Lapse: Consider surveying donors who lapse or those at risk (if you know someone downgraded their gift or stopped giving). While not all will respond, even a few insights can help – maybe they felt not sufficiently informed about results, or they had a customer-service issue (like not getting a receipt). Addressing these issues can directly improve retention. Some nonprofits hold donor focus groups to understand what keeps them coming back.
Set Retention Goals and Report Regularly: What gets measured gets managed. Set a specific goal, e.g. “Improve overall retention from 45% to 50% next year” or “Improve first-time retention to 25%.” Track these quarterly or monthly (cumulatively). Share retention stats internally just as prominently as dollars raised. This fosters a culture where keeping donors is everyone’s job, not just acquiring them. If fundraisers know that leadership cares about retention, they will prioritize those thank-you calls and follow-ups in their busy schedules.
Use Technology for Retention Alerts: Modern donor management software (CRM) can often automate retention-related tasks. For example, set up an alert for donors who gave 12 months ago but not yet this year, or automatically generate tasks for gift officers to call donors at the 6-month post-donation mark. Some systems can even predict who is likely to lapse using AI (e.g., identifying patterns of disengagement), allowing proactive intervention.
Celebrate and Publicize Retention Wins: When donors stick with you year after year, acknowledge that milestone. Some charities send special “anniversary” thank-yous (e.g. “It’s been 5 years since you first joined us – thank you!”). Recognizing loyalty can further reinforce it. Also, if appropriate, share aggregate retention success with stakeholders: for instance, telling your board “We retained 5% more donors this year” or even including a note in an annual report that “X% of our donors from last year continued their support this year, reflecting the trust our community places in us.” This underscores accountability and builds confidence among supporters that others are renewing too.

In summary, retention metrics are indispensable for gauging the health of your donor relationships. By paying close attention to these numbers and implementing targeted strategies, nonprofits can significantly increase donor lifetime value, reduce fundraising costs, and create a stable foundation for their missions.

Engagement Metrics (Donor Engagement & Experience)

Engagement metrics track how donors and potential donors interact with your organization, reflecting their interest, involvement, and sentiment. While retention metrics tell if donors continue to give, engagement metrics help explain why – highly engaged supporters are more likely to stay and increase their support, whereas disengaged ones may lapse. These metrics encompass communications (email, social media, etc.), events, volunteerism, and any touchpoints that indicate connection with your cause. They are often leading indicators: for example, a drop in email open rate could foreshadow a drop in donations later. Below we explore key engagement-related metrics and their benchmarks:

Email Open Rate: The percentage of recipients who open a given email message. This is a primary metric for digital engagement because email is a staple channel for donor communications. According to recent benchmarks, nonprofits have an average open rate around 28-30%. This means roughly 3 in 10 recipients open the emails (note: due to privacy changes like Apple’s Mail Privacy, reported open rates can be inflated since 2021, but 25-30% is a useful ballpark). A good open rate can vary; some highly engaged donor lists see 40%+, while less targeted mass emails might see 15-20%. If your open rates are significantly below industry averages, it may indicate list fatigue, poor subject lines, or deliverability issues. Conversely, much higher rates could indicate a very active subscriber base (or sometimes a small, well-cultivated list). Monitoring open rate over time and across different segments (e.g., donors vs prospects, or by type of email) provides insight into how compelling and relevant your communications are. Tip: Personalization and segmentation lift open rates – for example, emails with personalized subject lines have a 26% higher likelihood of being opened.
Email Click-Through Rate (CTR): The percentage of email recipients who click on a link within the email. This is usually calculated as clicks divided by number of delivered emails (or sometimes by number of opens, called click-to-open rate). Nonprofit average click rates are around 3% (meaning 3 out of 100 recipients click something in the email). This metric shows deeper engagement – opening an email is a low-bar passive action, but clicking indicates interest in the content (perhaps to read a story, sign up for something, or donate). An average click-to-open rate (CTOR) might be in the 10-15% range (if 30% open and 3% click, CTOR = 10%). If your CTR is below 1-2%, it means your content likely isn’t resonating or the calls to action aren’t compelling enough. Nonprofits should experiment with different content types: are donors more likely to click on a volunteer opportunity, a success story, a video, or a donation ask? Use A/B testing in emails to learn what drives engagement. Benchmark note: The cited 3.29% average CTR is an aggregate – your rate might differ if you include mostly donors vs a broader community list. Focus on trend improvement more than hitting an exact number.
Email Response/Conversion Rate: For fundraising emails specifically, a critical metric is what percentage of recipients actually donate (or take whatever primary desired action) as a result. As noted earlier, the average conversion (response) rate for fundraising emails is only about 0.09% – less than one-tenth of one percent. In practical terms, that’s 1 donation per ~1,100 emails sent. This sounds minuscule, but it’s the reality for large-scale email appeals. However, targeted emails to prior donors or segmented campaigns can achieve higher response rates (maybe 0.5%–1% in some cases). The key is to understand that email is often a volume play: it drives a significant share of online revenue (about 28% of online revenue comes from email appeals on average) even with low conversion, because of the large reach and low cost per contact. If your email donation rate is far below 0.09%, you may have deliverability issues or unengaged list. If it’s above 0.1-0.2%, you’re doing relatively well. Use this metric to gauge appeal effectiveness (and compare different campaigns’ performance).
Social Media Engagement: Metrics here include followers, post reach, likes, comments, shares, and click-throughs from social posts. While social media often drives relatively little direct giving in comparison to email or direct mail, it’s important for engagement and brand visibility. Benchmarks vary by platform and org size; one study found that for every 1,000 email addresses, nonprofits had on average 685 Facebook fans, 208 Twitter followers, and 160 Instagram followers – indicating email lists are typically larger than social followings. Engagement rate on social (e.g. % of followers interacting with a post) is often very low (under 1% on platforms like Facebook). Instead of chasing vanity metrics like total followers, nonprofits should monitor how engaged their audience is. For example, if your Facebook posts only get a couple of likes out of 10,000 followers, the content might not be cutting through. On the other hand, if a certain type of story generates lots of shares and comments, that’s a clue to focus more on that content. Benchmark: M+R’s digital study often reports social engagement metrics; for instance, they have noted overall Facebook engagement (defined as reactions, comments, shares per post per 1000 fans) around 5 interactions per 1k fans (0.5%) and even lower on Twitter. The specifics are less crucial than the trend: track your own engagement rate and aim to improve it by testing content and posting times.
Website Engagement & Traffic: The number of website visitors, and their behavior (pages per visit, time on site, bounce rate), can indicate interest in your cause. One key metric is the website donation conversion rate (covered in Acquisition). Aside from conversion, you might track how many people visit key pages like “About Us” or “Impact” or your blog – are they consuming the content you provide? Are they coming back? Tools like Google Analytics provide these data. If you run campaigns or publish new content, you’d expect to see traffic and engagement spikes. A low average time on page or high bounce rate on an important landing page could signal that content isn’t engaging or that the page needs better layout. Setting up goals (like tracking how many download a report or fill a form) can add more engagement measures.
Event Participation Rate: For events (online webinars, in-person fundraisers, volunteer days, etc.), measure the turnout relative to invitations or capacity. For example, if you invite 500 donors to a webinar and 100 attend, that’s a 20% participation (or conversion from invite to attend). If 200 register and 150 show up, that’s 75% show-up rate after registration. An event attendance rate of 70%+ of registrants is actually quite good (people often sign up but not all attend). Tracking these rates over time can indicate the appeal of your events and how engaged your constituents are. If few people are attending the opportunities you provide, you may need to adjust topics, timing, or promotion strategy. Also look at the composition: Are the people engaging via events your top donors, new prospects, or some specific group? For instance, some nonprofits have success with intimate “insider briefing” events for major donors or informal thank-you gatherings for volunteers. The metric can be as simple as number of attendees, but combining it with donor status yields more insight (e.g. “30 of the 50 attendees were donors who haven’t given yet this year – great re-engagement”).
Volunteer Engagement Metrics: If your nonprofit involves volunteers, those stats often correlate with donor engagement as well (volunteers are often donors, or become donors). Track number of active volunteers, volunteer retention, and hours contributed. A highly engaged volunteer force can be a pipeline for donations (and vice versa, donors might become volunteers). Some organizations compute a “volunteer conversion” metric: what percent of volunteers donate, or what percent of donors volunteer. While formal benchmarks are scarce, any increase in crossover (volunteers donating or donors volunteering) indicates deepening engagement.
Donor Engagement Score: Many nonprofits create an internal scoring system that combines various engagement touchpoints – for example, assigning points for attending events, opening emails, donating multiple times, making a peer-to-peer fundraiser, etc. This yields a composite engagement score for each supporter. If you have such a system, the metrics become: distribution of engagement scores, and movement of supporters between engagement tiers. For instance, you might classify donors as “highly engaged”, “moderately engaged”, or “low engagement” based on the score. This can help target who needs more attention. While not a public benchmark, it’s a best practice to develop some engagement scoring to quantify what “engaged” means for your unique donor base.
Surveys and Feedback Metrics: Consider donor surveys or Net Promoter Score (NPS) as a metric of engagement/satisfaction. For example, asking donors “How likely are you to recommend our organization to a friend?” yields an NPS that can be tracked. Or simply, track the number of donors who respond to surveys or provide testimonials. A high response rate on a donor survey (say >20%) would indicate good engagement and interest. These qualitative metrics can supplement the quantitative ones, giving texture to the engagement story.

Why Engagement Metrics Matter: These metrics provide early warnings and opportunities. If you see declining open rates or event participation, it might predict lower donations ahead – giving you a chance to course-correct by adjusting your messaging or re-engaging supporters before you lose them. Engagement metrics are also often easier to measure on a continual basis than waiting for end-of-year donation totals. They allow more real-time management: for example, if you notice a key donor hasn’t opened the last 5 emails (many CRMs can report on email opens by individual), it might be time for a personal call or to check if their email changed. High engagement is generally a precursor to higher retention and giving. Engaged donors feel connected and thus are more likely to renew and possibly increase their commitment.

For executive leadership, engagement metrics demonstrate the strength of the community and constituency the nonprofit has built. A large, active base of supporters (even if not all are current donors) is an asset – it means more advocacy, more word-of-mouth spreading, and a pool to draw future donations from.

Common Pitfalls in Engagement Metrics: Vanity metrics are a trap – focusing on counts that don’t translate to meaningful engagement. For example, having a huge social media following looks good, but if those followers never donate or interact, it’s not actually advancing your mission support. Similarly, sending more and more emails might pump up total opens or clicks, but could annoy your base and lead to higher unsubscribes if not carefully managed. Always pair engagement quantity metrics with quality or outcome metrics (did that social campaign bring in any donations or new volunteers? Did that email series with a high open rate actually lead to gifts or at least clicks to read more about programs?).

Another pitfall is ignoring external factors. For instance, email open rates might drop due to technical changes (like Apple’s privacy changes leading to overestimated opens; or Gmail filtering affecting delivery). So interpret changes in context and use multiple metrics. If open rate drops but click rate holds steady, maybe the list is still engaged but technical reporting changed.

Also, be mindful of over-engagement: a small highly engaged group may interact a lot (e.g. a handful of super-fans who comment on every post), which is great, but ensure you’re broadening engagement beyond just the core. Look at how many unique people are engaging, not just total interactions. For example, 100 comments from 2 people is different from 100 comments from 100 people.

Actionable Recommendations (Engagement):

Segment Communication: Tailor messaging and frequency to different segments based on engagement. For highly engaged folks (those who always open emails and click), you might send more content or invite them to deeper involvement. For those who rarely engage, you might try a re-engagement campaign (“We miss you – here’s what’s new” or a special offer like a free report) or reduce frequency to avoid alienating them completely. Modern email tools allow segmenting by engagement level (e.g., targeting those who haven’t opened the last 5 emails with a different subject line or messaging).
Multi-Channel Engagement: Donors engage in different ways – some prefer email, some social media, some phone calls or mail. Don’t rely on a single channel. For example, coordinate campaigns so that a donor sees a message in email, on your Facebook page, and perhaps via a mailed postcard – this reinforcement can improve overall engagement (someone might ignore one channel but respond on another). Track cross-channel behavior where possible (e.g., use unique links or codes to know if someone coming to donate came from social vs email).
Improve Content Quality: If metrics like open or click rates are lagging, examine your content. Are your subject lines and titles compelling? Are you providing value in communications, or just asking for money? A common guideline is the 80/20 rule for content: 80% should be useful/interesting to the donor (stories, news, tips related to the cause) and at most 20% directly fundraising ask. If you shift to more story-driven, donor-centric communications, you often see engagement rise. Also incorporate visuals where possible – an image or short video can boost social media engagement significantly compared to text-only.
Timing and Frequency Optimization: Experiment with sending times and frequency. Perhaps your emails get higher engagement on weekends, or evenings, depending on your audience. Don’t just stick to a rigid schedule if the data suggests otherwise. Also, find the sweet spot for frequency – too few communications and people forget about you; too many and they tune out. Monitor unsubscribe rates (if you see a spike, that’s a red flag). The average annual email unsubscribe rate was around 9% in one analysis (this includes churn due to bouncing). Try to keep unsubscribe rates as low as possible by ensuring relevancy.

nptechforgood.com

Engage beyond Appeals: Provide interactive opportunities: polls, surveys, Q&A sessions, social media challenges, petitions related to your mission – these get people to take an action that isn’t donating but increases their emotional investment. If you run a small survey asking supporters for input on a project, those who respond are showing engagement that might correlate with future giving. Track who participates and follow up to strengthen those relationships.
Personal Touches for Key Donors: For mid to high-level donors, measure their engagement individually. Did this major donor attend our last donor webinar? Have they been opening our emails about the project they funded? Keeping notes on these interactions (often in CRM as “activities”) can alert you when engagement drops. For example, if a usually responsive donor goes quiet, a personal outreach is warranted. Many CRMs allow a donor dashboard showing recent interactions at a glance.
Utilize Engagement Tech: Tools like marketing automation can send emails triggered by behavior (e.g., if someone clicks a link about volunteering, they get a follow-up email on volunteer opportunities). Social listening tools can monitor mentions of your org or cause. Event management software can track RSVP vs attendance easily. Integrating these with your main database will build a richer picture of engagement. Also, use analytics: for instance, track which pages of your website donors visit most – if many donors read about a particular program, maybe that’s a program to highlight more in fundraising appeals.
Report Engagement to Stakeholders: Include key engagement metrics in internal dashboards or board reports, not just financial metrics. Leadership should see things like “email engagement up 5%” or “200 donors attended our annual town hall webinar (up from 150 last year)”. This emphasizes that fundraising is about relationships, not just dollars, and validates investments in communication and stewardship staff/activities even if they don’t have an immediate dollar ROI.

In summary, engagement metrics act as the pulse of your donor community’s interest and involvement. By actively managing and responding to these metrics, nonprofits can foster a more loyal, enthusiastic supporter base, which in turn will reflect in stronger retention and revenue outcomes.

Revenue Metrics (Financial Performance of Fundraising)

Revenue metrics are the most directly tied to the bottom line – they quantify the funds raised and related financial outcomes. While every nonprofit naturally tracks total dollars raised, breaking that down into more nuanced metrics helps clarify the drivers of revenue growth or decline. It’s important to not just celebrate the top-line results but understand the components (e.g., did revenue grow because of a one-time bequest, or broad small-donor increases? Are average gifts rising or falling?). Here are key revenue-focused metrics, with insights and benchmarks:

Total Funds Raised: The total amount of money raised in a given period (year, quarter, campaign, etc.). This is the headline number – encompassing all donations, grants, event income, etc., depending on what you include in “fundraising” for your org. While straightforward, it’s useful to break this down by source: e.g., individuals, corporations, foundations, events, online vs offline, etc., to see where growth is coming from. Industry-wide, charitable giving in the US tends to rise slowly year over year (historically often around 4-5% annually, though it can dip in recession years). For example, Americans gave an estimated $499 billion in 2022, up slightly from the previous year. However, individual nonprofits might see big swings – a new capital campaign can spike total revenue, while loss of a major donor can cause a dip. Benchmarking total revenue is usually done by comparing to your own past performance or to similar nonprofits (via surveys or IRS data). Many boards set year-over-year growth targets, commonly in the 5-15% range for active fundraising programs. If you consistently see flat or declining total revenue (without a strategic reason), it’s a sign to revisit your fundraising strategy.
Donation Growth Rate: The percentage change in total fundraising revenue compared to the previous period. This metric contextualizes the total funds raised. For instance, a growth rate of +10% year-over-year indicates a healthy upward trend, whereas -2% indicates a decline. Growth can be further analyzed: how much came from acquiring new donors vs. more from existing donors? In recent sector reports, overall charitable giving growth has been modest or even negative in real terms – one FEP quarterly report showed a 4.1% increase in dollars raised in early 2024 vs prior year, while another noted declines by end of 2023. So a nonprofit achieving, say, +5% in a year where the sector is down might actually be outperforming peers significantly. It’s good to compare your growth with broader trends (e.g., Giving USA annual report or the Fundraising Effectiveness Project quarterly data). Also consider inflation – if inflation is 8% and your revenue grew 5%, you actually have less real buying power. Ideally, aim for revenue growth at least exceeding inflation plus any additional program growth needs. If growth rate is below expectation, use other metrics to diagnose (was it fewer donors, or smaller gifts? One-time last year gift not repeated?).
Average Donation (Gift) Size: Total donation amount divided by number of donations. This gives the mean gift amount. It’s useful to calculate for different categories – e.g., average online gift, average direct mail gift, average gift from individuals, etc. According to some statistics, the average one-time gift in 2022 was about $121. Online donations specifically often have a higher average; one digital benchmark found an average online gift of around $148 in 2022 (not cited above, but from M+R data historically). Average gifts tend to be higher for major donor-focused organizations (because large gifts skew the average). Another reference: average monthly recurring gift was $25 (which would accumulate to $300/year if sustained). Tracking your average gift over time can indicate changes in donor composition or effectiveness of ask amounts. If average gift is climbing, perhaps you’re doing better at upgrading donors or attracting wealthier supporters. If it’s dropping, you may be relying more on small donors or not inspiring larger commitments. However, note: Average can be skewed by a few big gifts. Median donation is sometimes a better measure of typical donor giving (the median might be much lower than the average if you have a few very large gifts). Some nonprofits use both: e.g., “our median gift is $50, average is $200” – telling you that most people give around $50, but the average is pulled up by big donors.
Donations per Donor (Frequency): Average number of donations per donor in a period. This metric looks at how often donors give. For example, if you had 400 donations from 200 donors in a year, that’s 2 donations per donor on average (some gave once, some more). If your mission naturally lends to multiple gifts (maybe you have event tickets, a year-end appeal, and a special project appeal), you might see an average of >1. If you typically only ask annually, it might be ~1. This metric, combined with average gift, helps compute the average annual contribution per donor. For instance, if average gift is $100 and avg gifts per donor is 1.3, then the average donor gives $130/year. Efforts to encourage multiple gifts (such as a mid-year special campaign or a monthly donor drive) would boost this metric. It’s often easier to get an existing donor to give an additional gift than to acquire a new donor – so many orgs do multiple campaigns a year. But be careful to not fatigue donors with too many asks. There’s balance to find, and this metric can signal if donors are responsive to multiple asks. A rising gifts-per-donor suggests successful cross-year engagement (or possibly more installment payments if people pledge and pay in parts).
Revenue by Donor Segment: Instead of one metric, this is a breakdown – how much revenue comes from major donors vs mid-level vs small donors. Commonly, nonprofits see a very skewed distribution: a small number of major gifts contribute a large share of revenue (the 80/20 or 90/10 rule we discussed). For example, you might find 80% of annual fund revenue comes from the top 50 donors. It’s useful to quantify this: “Our top 5% of donors account for X% of revenue.” As a metric, some organizations track concentration ratio – e.g., the % of total $ from top 10 donors. If that number is very high, it indicates heavy reliance on a few donors (which can be a risk if one withdraws support). A more balanced revenue profile (with strong mid-level support and a broad base) can be more resilient. On the other hand, major gifts are efficient and valuable, so increasing their share is often a goal – but it needs stewardship accordingly. Benchmark: Many charities indeed see ~80% of individual donation dollars from 20% of donors; some are even more top-heavy (90/10). This isn’t necessarily “bad,” but it should be managed. If your metric shows, say, 50% of revenue from 1% of donors, ensure high-touch stewardship for that 1%. Also, track the number of donors giving at various levels (how many $10k+ donors, how many $1k donors, etc.) as internal metrics, since growing those counts will drive revenue.
Recurring Gift Revenue Proportion: With the rise of monthly giving, it’s useful to track how much of your revenue is coming from recurring donations. For instance, “Recurring donors contributed $50k this year, which is 15% of our individual giving revenue.” This portion can be expected to grow if you emphasize recurring giving. Some nonprofits have set goals to have a certain percentage of donors on recurring plans, because it stabilizes income. There’s no one benchmark that fits all, but seeing recurring revenue increase as a share is generally positive (unless it’s cannibalizing larger one-time gifts – monitor if major donors downgrade to small monthlies, though typically recurring appeals target different audiences). The stat from Double the Donation said 57% of donors are enrolled in a recurring program (which seems high and possibly not across all nonprofits but maybe among those surveyed; nonetheless, recurring is becoming common). If over half of donors have some recurring arrangement, that’s great for planning purposes.
Grant and Corporate Revenue Metrics: If applicable, you might separately track metrics for institutional funding: number of grants, grant success rate (how many grant proposals won vs submitted), average grant size, etc. These matter for revenue diversification. For example, if 30% of your revenue is from grants, an internal metric could be grant proposal win rate (e.g., 50% of proposals submitted get funded). High success rate might encourage submitting more proposals; a very low rate might mean you need to target more appropriate funders or improve proposals. Similarly for corporate sponsorships: track how many and total $.
Pledge Fulfillment Rate: If you do pledge campaigns (donors commit to give X, often paid over time), track what percentage of pledge dollars are ultimately collected. For multi-year pledges or capital campaigns, this is critical. Ideally, you want ~100% fulfillment, but realistically some pledges fall through due to donors’ changing circumstances. If you see a pattern of only 85% pledge fulfillment, you might adjust forecasting and follow-up processes. Keeping this high ensures you realize the revenue you counted on.
Return on Investment (ROI) by Campaign: While ROI is more of an efficiency metric, it directly ties to net revenue. For any given fundraising activity, you can calculate net revenue (revenue minus cost) and ROI (revenue divided by cost). For example, an event that raises $100k and costs $40k yields net $60k, ROI = 2.5 (or $0.40 cost per $1). We will cover cost per dollar in the next section, but here the focus is on net dollars contributed by each strategy. Leadership often wants to know, for each revenue stream, how profitable is it? For instance, major gifts might bring in $500k with minimal cost, whereas a gala brings in $200k but costs $100k, netting $100k. Sometimes big gross revenue events are less impressive net – these metrics help decide if something is worth doing again or should be modified.

Why Revenue Metrics Matter: These metrics are directly tied to financial sustainability and mission capacity. They inform budgeting (knowing how much you can expect to raise and from where) and strategy (where to invest resources). For instance, if your average gift has plateaued but you need growth, you might implement an upgrade campaign or focus on major gifts to boost average gift size. If your growth rate is mainly from a few major gifts, you know a lot hinges on retaining those donors. If you see a decline in number of donors but total dollars up (a common trend recently – more money from fewer donors), it might be okay short-term but a warning sign long-term as the base narrows.

For the board and executives, revenue metrics are often the primary lens of success – but connecting them with the underlying donor metrics (acquisition, retention, etc.) ensures strategies to improve revenue are sustainable. E.g., one could juice short-term revenue by aggressive asks that burn out donors (leading to poor retention later). Balanced metrics prevent that.

Common Pitfalls in Revenue Metrics: Focusing only on totals without context can mislead. A classic example: boasting “we raised 20% more this year” but failing to note it was due to a one-off $1 million bequest. Next year might revert or drop without that. So, always contextualize spikes or dips (maybe include a metric of revenue excluding extraordinary gifts to see underlying trends).

Another pitfall is not adjusting for events like capital campaigns. During a capital campaign, annual fund might dip as donors allocate money to the campaign; revenue metrics should be interpreted with these factors in mind, possibly tracked separately.

Also, watch out for overly short-term focus. Year-over-year is important, but also look at multi-year trends. Some donors give big multi-year pledges which might cause a surge then a lull – measure on a campaign basis too.

Lastly, don't ignore cost when looking at revenue. Raising $1 million is wonderful, but if it cost $900k to do it, that’s a problem. Net and cost metrics are covered next in efficiency, but they must be paired with gross revenue metrics for a full picture.

Actionable Recommendations (Revenue):

Set SMART Revenue Goals: Use your metrics to set specific targets (e.g., “Increase total individual giving by 8% next year, driven by a 5% increase in average gift and 3% increase in number of gifts”). Goals should be realistic but ambitious. Base them on data: if retention and acquisition investments are planned, how will they translate into dollars? Also break goals by segment (like target major gifts vs general donors separately).
Focus on Donor Upgrades: To boost average gift and total revenue, implement upgrade strategies. This could be as simple as asking donors to increase last year’s gift by a certain percentage (many appeal letters include suggested ask strings slightly above past contributions). For mid-level donors, consider a dedicated upgrade campaign – maybe those giving $250 are asked to join a “Circle” at $500 level with some added recognition. Track success by seeing how many donors move up in giving brackets year over year (which will reflect in average gift metric).
Broaden the Base (if needed): If metrics show heavy reliance on a few donors (e.g., 10 donors = 50% of revenue), plan to broaden support to mitigate risk. This might involve growing your mid-level donor program or acquiring more small donors that can be cultivated up. It could also mean exploring new revenue streams (digital campaigns, peer-to-peer fundraising where supporters raise money from friends, etc.). While major donors remain crucial, a pipeline feeding into that group is important. Track how many mid-level donors “graduate” to major donor status each year as a metric of pipeline health.
Campaign and Channel Analysis: Dive deeper into each campaign’s revenue. After each major fundraising initiative (a gala, a giving day, a mail appeal), do a post-mortem: how much did we raise, from how many donors, at what average gift, and at what cost? Identifying the strongest performers helps refine future plans. For example, you may find your spring online campaign raised $50k from 500 donors (avg $100, low cost) while your banquet raised $100k from 200 donors (avg $500 but high cost). Depending on strategic value (events also have engagement value), you might decide to invest more in the online campaign next year if the ROI was better.
Predict and Mitigate Shortfalls: Watch revenue metrics during the year relative to goals. If by mid-year you’ve only achieved 40% of annual goal (when 50%+ would be expected by that time), that’s a signal to intensify efforts in the second half. Metrics like average gift or number of gifts can signal where the gap is – e.g., “we’re behind because donor count is down, even though average gift is on track” means focus on donor acquisition/recapture in year-end. Alternatively, if donor count is fine but average gift is lagging, maybe an extra upgrade ask or targeting a few donors for special asks could help.
Use Donor Lifetime Value in Planning: While revenue metrics are often annual, incorporate lifetime thinking. For instance, if you know the average donor LTV is $1,000, and you want to increase revenue long-term, you could focus on strategies that either increase the number of new donors (each with $1,000 future value) or increase LTV (perhaps by improving retention or moving average gift upward). If retention efforts push LTV from $1,000 to $1,200, that’s 20% more revenue per donor over time – substantial. So budget for activities that improve LTV even if immediate revenue doesn’t spike (like a donor recognition program).
Communicate Impact, Not Just Numbers: To maintain and grow revenue, don’t forget the why. Donors give more when they clearly understand the impact of their gifts. Ensure your communications consistently tie dollars to outcomes (“Your $100 provided meals for 20 families” etc.). If donors see the value of giving more, your average gift and frequency metrics can improve. In reports, share not only that revenue increased, but what it enabled in mission terms – this closes the loop with donors and can inspire greater generosity.

Revenue metrics are the scoreboard of fundraising. By diligently tracking and responding to these metrics, and connecting them with donor-centric strategies, nonprofits can achieve steady or even exponential growth in funds to power their mission.

Major Gifts Metrics (High-Value Donors and Gifts)

Major gifts warrant their own category of metrics because of their disproportionate impact and the specialized strategy they require. “Major gift” typically refers to donations at a higher threshold defined by the organization (for a small nonprofit, a major gift might be $1,000; for a large university, it might be $100,000+). These gifts often come from individual major donors, but can also include family foundations or corporate philanthropists acting like individuals. Major gifts programs focus on personalized cultivation (“major donor development” or “relationship fundraising”) and thus track slightly different KPIs. Key metrics in this area include:

Number of Major Gifts / Major Donors: Simply the count of donations above the major gift threshold in a period, and the count of unique donors who gave at that level. This tells you the volume of major gift activity. For example, an organization might have 25 donors who each gave $10,000+ last year (25 major donors, perhaps 30 total major gifts if some gave twice). This number can be benchmarked internally over years or against similar nonprofits. Many nonprofits aim to grow their stable of major donors because of the high ROI. If you had 20 major donors last year and 25 this year, that’s a positive trend. Industry-wide, it’s hard to benchmark counts since it depends on definition and constituency size, but one could say: if 10% of your donor base are “major” donors (providing 60-80% of funds), that’s not unusual. Some data suggests about 10-20% of donors account for 80-90% of revenue – which implies the proportion of major donors in the total donor pool might be in that range.
Major Gift Contribution (Revenue) Share: As discussed under revenue metrics, measuring what portion of total funds comes from major gifts is critical. Many nonprofits see something like 70% or more of individual giving from major gifts. For instance, a charity might raise $5M total, of which $4M (80%) came from gifts of $50k and up. This metric underscores the importance of major gifts. If the share is very high (say >90%), the organization may be reliant on a handful of funders; if it’s lower (say 50%), then the org has more broad-base strength but possibly untapped major gift potential. Benchmark: The Pareto principle often holds – around 80% from 20% (or an even more skewed 90/10 in some cases).
Average Major Gift Size: The mean (or median) amount of gifts considered “major.” This can be useful for setting ask levels and understanding your major donors. For example, if your average major gift last year was $25,000, you might set a goal to increase that to $30,000 through effective ask strategies or focusing on top donors. It also helps to separate first-time major gifts versus repeat, as often a donor might start at a lower major gift and then grow. Without external benchmarks (because average major gift will vary by org size), focus on internal benchmarks: is your average major gift growing? Perhaps because of a campaign or because you landed an ultra-major donor which lifts the average.
Major Donor Retention Rate: The retention of major donors specifically. This is crucial; losing a major donor can be a big hit. Often, major donors have higher retention than low-level donors, because they are deeply invested. But sometimes they give a large gift once (for a project or campaign) and might not repeat until years later or at all. Tracking this helps major gift officers prioritize relationship building. For example, if last year you had 30 major donors and only 20 gave again this year, retention is ~67%. If your overall donor retention is 45% but majors are 67%, that might seem fine – but given their importance, you likely want to push major donor retention as high as possible (80%+ ideally). Some recent trends showed even larger donors have seen retention challenges: a report noted major and “super size” donors had some of the biggest decreases in retention rates in 2023, indicating even high net worth donors are not guaranteed. So cultivation can’t be relaxed after one big gift; continuous stewardship is needed.
Major Gift Pipeline Size: The number of prospective donors being cultivated toward a major gift. Major gifts often result from a long “moves management” process, so measuring the pipeline (how many prospects at each stage: identified, qualified, solicited, etc.) is a key management metric for development directors. For example, you might have 100 prospects identified, 50 actively being cultivated (in communication, visits, etc.), 20 solicited (asked for a gift), and expecting maybe 10-15 to close as gifts this year. There are some rules of thumb: some say you need 3-4 prospects for each expected major gift (success rate 25-33%), though if prospects are well-qualified, close rates can be higher. Benchmark/Best practice: An oft-cited guideline is that each major gift officer can manage a portfolio of about 100-150 donors/prospects and should solicit roughly 1/3 of them in a year. Not all will give immediately, but that yields maybe 20-30 gifts per officer per year. Monitoring pipeline by person and stage helps ensure enough prospects are being worked to hit future revenue goals.
Solicitation (Ask) Success Rate: The percentage of solicitations (formal asks) that result in a donation. If an officer asked 10 prospects and 6 ended up giving (maybe some gave less than asked, but still gave), that’s a 60% success rate. This reflects the effectiveness of cultivation and matching the right ask to the right donor. A high success rate (e.g. >50%) suggests the team is doing well targeting likely donors and aligning proposals with their interests. A low rate (e.g. 20%) might indicate too many “cold” asks or insufficient cultivation. There isn’t a public benchmark easily cited, but anecdotal goals are often in the 50% range for well-run programs – essentially, you try not to ask unless you have reason to believe the answer will be yes (“never ask for a gift before the donor is ready” is a common principle).
Major Gift Officer Activity Metrics: Internally, to manage the program, many orgs track things like number of donor visits/meetings, calls, proposals made, dollars raised per officer. These are performance metrics for staff, not something to report publicly, but they ensure the major gifts program is on track. For example, an organization might set a target of each major gift officer making 10-15 face-to-face visits per month, and aiming to raise $1,000,000 per officer per year. One survey found only 25% of organizations set an expectation of $1M+ per officer, with many aiming $500k-$1M. This depends on prospect base maturity. If you have data like this, you can benchmark internally (if one officer consistently brings in double what another does with similar portfolio, investigate best practices or reassignments).
Time to Close / Stage Duration: How long does it take on average to convert a prospect to a donor, or to close a major gift from the first ask? If your metrics show that from first meeting to gift typically takes 12 months, that helps planning and managing expectations. If it starts stretching to 24 months, perhaps decisions are getting delayed or donors need more touches. Keep an eye especially on any major gifts that are pledged but not yet received; ensure follow-ups so they materialize (this overlaps with pledge fulfillment).

Why Major Gift Metrics Matter: Given that a handful of gifts can make or break your fundraising year, closely monitoring this area allows you to be proactive. For instance, if you notice your pipeline for next year is weak (not many big prospects identified), you can take action now to fill it – perhaps by researching new prospects, engaging board members to open doors, or ramping up prospecting efforts like wealth screening of your donor database to find hidden gems. If major donor retention dips, you might plan a special outreach or event to re-engage them.

Major gift metrics also justify resources: they can show the ROI of hiring another gift officer or investing in better donor research tools. When you can say, “Each gift officer brings in on average $800k, and we only have capacity to manage 100 prospects each but have 300 in our pool – hiring another could significantly increase revenue,” that’s a strong case.

For major donors themselves, tracking at an individual level (even if not formal metrics) is key: noting their capacity, their interests, the ideal ask amount, their personal milestones, etc., all feed into the strategy for that donor. Many CRMs allow you to capture this in portfolios or profiles.

Common Pitfalls in Major Gift Metrics: One pitfall is focusing only on dollars and neglecting relationships. For example, pressuring gift officers to meet short-term dollar targets can lead to them making premature asks or neglecting donors who aren’t ready, which could harm long-term potential. Metrics should be balanced between activity (inputs) and results (dollars) to encourage good process.

Another pitfall is not differentiating types of major donors – for example, an elder donor’s major gift might be a bequest pledge vs. a younger donor’s could be current gifts. If you don’t track something like planned gifts separate from current gifts, you might undervalue cultivation of bequests (which might not show up in revenue until later). Some orgs count expectancies (pledged legacy gifts) in metrics in some way (like number of planned gifts secured).

Be cautious in how you define “major gift” for metrics – adjust as your organization grows. What was major five years ago might be routine now. Update your threshold to ensure the metrics focus on truly high-value relationships that require special handling.

Actionable Recommendations (Major Gifts):

Develop a Moves Management System: If not already in place, implement a clear process for identifying, cultivating, soliciting, and stewarding major gifts. Use a CRM to track moves (touchpoints) and stages for each prospect. Regular pipeline review meetings (monthly or bi-monthly) should be held to go over each officer’s top prospects, next steps, and any roadblocks. This practice will naturally drive attention to metrics like number of visits (did we meet our goals?) and pending solicitations.
Prospect Research and Qualification: If your metrics show a small pipeline or too few major donors, invest in prospect research. Use wealth screening tools to analyze your donor database for capacity (you might find that a dozen of your $100 donors actually have capacity to give $10k+ but were never approached in that way). Also leverage board networks: a metric could be how many new major prospect referrals board members provide each year. Encourage your leadership to help open doors – track and celebrate when that leads to new gifts.
Personalized Stewardship Plans: For each major donor, create a mini “engagement plan” for the year. This could include how often they’ll be contacted and by whom, any special invitations (e.g., an exclusive tour, meeting with the CEO), their preferred recognition, and when to discuss next gift. By formalizing stewardship, you help ensure major donor retention stays high. The metric side is to monitor that these plan activities happen (e.g., did each major donor get at least two personal touches this quarter?). This qualitative approach supports the quantitative outcome of repeat gifts.
Leverage Matching Challenges and Leadership Gifts: Major donors can be encouraged to give in ways that spur others – for instance, a major donor might put up a $50k challenge match for a campaign. Track how often you are able to use such strategies and their results (e.g., “we secured 3 matching gift sponsors this year, which helped drive $100k in smaller gifts”). Major gift metrics are not just siloed; they can integrate with your broader campaigns. Making major donors part of the “team” through matches or testimonials can also strengthen their commitment.
Capacity Building for the Major Gifts Program: If the data supports it, make the case for expanding major gifts efforts. Perhaps hire an additional major gifts officer if the number of prospects per officer is too high to manage well. Or invest in training – major gift fundraising is a skill; sending staff to an APRA or AFP major gifts training can yield better performance (which you’ll see in metrics like increased success rate or higher average gift). Similarly, ensure you have budget for major donor cultivation (small events, personalized materials) – spending a few thousand on cultivation could result in hundreds of thousands in gifts, an excellent ROI.
Integrate Planned Giving with Major Gifts: Often major donors are the ones who also include the charity in their will. Have metrics for how many planned gifts are closed or how many known legacy society members you have. Many organizations treat planned giving as separate, but coordination is key – major gift officers should also be comfortable discussing legacy options. A strong planned giving program can eventually yield transformational gifts. For example, The Salvation Army (noted in Duke Haddad’s article) relies on planned gifts for a large portion of its funds. You might not see immediate revenue, but track commitments (e.g., “we secured 5 new bequest commitments this year, estimated future value $500k”) as a long-term major gifts metric.
Report Major Gift Progress to Leadership: Keep leadership and the board informed about major gifts pipeline and wins. This can be via a special section in a development report. E.g., “Major Gifts: 3 gifts of $50k+ received this quarter (vs. 2 last Q), 10 solicitations pending for Q4, major donor retention YTD 80%.” This highlights the work being done and can rally support for further investment or board involvement in major gifts. It also educates board members on the long lead time often needed for big gifts, setting expectations.
Recognize and Thank Generously: While obvious, it’s worth stating: ensure every major donor receives top-notch appreciation. Whether it’s public recognition (with permission) or private gratitude (personal calls from the CEO or thank-you letters highlighting impact), this is directly tied to retention. You might even have an internal metric like “thank-you call from ED made within 48 hours for 100% of gifts over $X” to enforce responsiveness. Many major donors give because they want to make an impact; showing them the result of their gift (perhaps a special impact report or naming opportunity fulfilled) closes the loop and sets the stage for future gifts.

Major gift fundraising often follows the maxim “go slow to go fast” – it requires patience and careful tending, but when done well, it produces large increments of revenue efficiently. By tracking the right metrics and continuously refining your major gifts strategy accordingly, your organization can secure the big bets that drive your mission forward.

Operational Efficiency Metrics (Fundraising Cost and Productivity)

Operational efficiency metrics evaluate how effectively an organization turns fundraising investments (money, time, staff) into funds raised. These metrics ensure that in the pursuit of raising more money, the nonprofit is doing so in a cost-conscious and sustainable way. Donors and watchdogs also pay attention to some of these (like overhead ratios), and leadership must balance investing in capacity with keeping efficiency within acceptable bounds. Key efficiency metrics and benchmarks include:

Cost Per Dollar Raised (CPDR): The amount of money spent to raise $1 of donations. This is one of the most telling metrics for fundraising efficiency. It can be calculated overall or by specific campaign or method. For example, if you spent $200,000 on fundraising expenses and raised $1,000,000, the CPDR is $0.20 (20 cents spent per $1 raised). Industry benchmark: Around $0.20 per $1 is often cited as a standard for general fundraising efficiency. In fact, this “20% cost” guideline is referenced in fundraising literature (traced back to James Greenfield’s work) as a reasonable average. However, acceptable ranges vary by method:

Major Gifts / Capital Campaigns: $0.05–$0.10 per $1 raised (very efficient) – i.e., 5¢–10¢ per $.
Foundation/Corporate Grants: ~$0.20 per $1 (similar to average).
Direct Mail Acquisition: $1.00–$1.25 per $1 (initially inefficient, as noted earlier – essentially a net loss on first gift).
Direct Mail Renewal: ~$0.20 per $1 (once donors are on file, mailings break even or better).
Planned Giving: ~$0.25 per $1 (slightly higher, as these efforts take long-term cultivation).
Special Events: ~$0.50 per $1 (events are relatively costly).
Online fundraising: Not explicitly listed, but generally quite low cost per $ (emails and digital appeals may be just a few cents per $, though if including digital ad spend it varies).
Overall National Average: $0.20 per $1 (20%).

These figures provide context for evaluating your own CPDR. If overall you’re around $0.18-$0.25 per $1, that’s within normal range for many. If you’re consistently above $0.30 (30%), it may draw concern and you’d want to examine why (small organizations might due to economy of scale issues, but donors might question if too much is spent on fundraising). Conversely, a very low CPDR (<10¢) could mean you’re not investing enough in growth (e.g., relying on a few large gifts but not cultivating broad support). Use of CPDR: It helps identify which fundraising methods are cost-effective. For instance, you might find your peer-to-peer campaign cost $0.10/$1 (good) while your gala cost $0.60/$1 (not so good). This could lead to decisions to modify or even discontinue certain activities in favor of more efficient ones, or at least to manage them (maybe the gala has other intangible benefits like donor engagement or publicity, but you might try to get sponsorships to defray its costs and improve its CPDR).

Fundraising Return on Investment (ROI): This is the inverse of cost per dollar – how many dollars raised per $1 spent. For example, $0.20 cost per $1 raised is a 5:1 ROI ($5 raised per $1 spent). Sometimes it’s easier for stakeholders to grasp ROI (higher is better) than CPDR (lower is better). Using the above, major gifts ROI might be 10:1 to 20:1, events 2:1, etc.. Many charities aim for an overall ROI of at least 4:1 or 5:1 (which corresponds to that ~$0.20 CPDR). ROI can also be used per staff member (like “each development staff yields $X in donations” – though that’s more productivity measure). Insight: If ROI is declining year over year (less return for each dollar in), it may indicate diminishing returns in your fundraising approach or rising costs that aren’t matched by revenue. On the flip side, a rising ROI shows improved efficiency.
Overhead (Support Services) Ratio: The percentage of total expenses that go to administration and fundraising (vs. program). Often called the “overhead ratio” or “administrative ratio,” it’s a broader organizational metric. Many donors and charity evaluators historically fixated on this, although in recent years there’s been a movement to educate that some overhead is necessary and investing in capacity is important. Still, it’s commonly tracked. A typical nonprofit overhead ratio might be anywhere from 15% to 30%. Charity watchdogs (like BBB Wise Giving Alliance) often suggest overhead should be below ~35% to be reasonable, with high-performing orgs often under 25%. If your fundraising costs plus admin (back office) costs are, say, 20% of total spend, that means 80% goes to programs – usually seen as good by the public. However, overhead ratio alone is not a complete measure of effectiveness. For internal use, you might watch that fundraising as % of revenue stays in a healthy range (if it starts climbing, examine why – maybe revenue dipped, making the percentage look worse, etc.). It’s also good to articulate internally what investments are considered overhead vs program so you have clarity (e.g. donor database software – overhead or part of program outreach? Some costs blur lines).
Staff Productivity Metrics: This can include dollars raised per fundraising full-time equivalent (FTE), or # of donors per fundraiser, etc. For instance, if you have a development team of 5 and raised $2,000,000, then productivity was $400k per FTE. You can compare such metrics to similar organizations if data is available (sometimes in Association of Fundraising Professionals surveys or other studies). If one year you add staff but revenue doesn’t increase, the $ raised per FTE will drop – which might be okay temporarily if ramping up. But long-term, you want to see that each staff member is contributing to more funds raised. Another metric: donor portfolio size per gift officer (as mentioned, ~100-150 major donors per officer is typical). Or donor relations staff to donor ratio for stewardship capacity. These help ensure you are neither overloading staff nor having underutilized capacity.
Gift Processing Efficiency: How quickly and accurately gifts are processed and acknowledged. For example, average time to send a donation acknowledgment/receipt after receiving a gift. Best practice is within 48-72 hours for sending thank-yous. If your metrics show it’s taking 2 weeks, that’s an operational issue to improve (likely through better systems or staffing). Also error rates in processing (like % of gifts that had to be adjusted or donors that were mis-addressed in acknowledgments) – keeping that near zero is the goal for donor trust.
Donor Database Health Metrics: A bit tangential but relevant to efficiency – e.g., percentage of donor records with email addresses (the more you have, the cheaper it is to communicate vs. paper mail), or mail return rate (what % of mailed pieces come back undeliverable, indicating outdated addresses). Good data hygiene improves cost efficiency (less waste) and outreach effectiveness. For instance, if 10% of your mail appeals bounce, that’s wasted printing/postage – addressing that can improve net results.
Real-Time Reporting/Dashboard Use: While not a metric about money, one measure of an efficient operation is having timely data. E.g., “we update our fundraising dashboard weekly and review it” – this practice itself is a best practice and indirectly a metric (frequency of reporting, number of days after month-end to produce reports, etc.). Quick reporting cycles allow quick adjustments.
Budget vs Actual Fundraising Expense: Keeping an eye on the fundraising department’s expense budget vs actual is important. If costs are running higher without corresponding revenue, CPDR will worsen. Some organizations track fundraising expense as % of budget throughout the year to ensure they don't overspend for the return expected. If you plan to spend $250k to raise $1M (25%), and mid-year you’ve spent 60% of that but only raised 40% of target, efficiency might go off track unless a big year-end rebound is expected.

Why Operational Metrics Matter: These metrics ensure that funds raised truly maximize net support for the mission. Nonprofit leaders must be accountable to donors that their contributions go far. High efficiency can be a selling point (“for every dollar you give, 80 cents goes directly to programs”), though it should not be over-sold to the detriment of explaining impact quality. Internally, watching efficiency prevents the organization from falling into traps of diminishing returns – e.g., running an event that everyone loves but actually nets very little for the effort, or spending so much on acquisition that it drains resources from retention.

These metrics also inform strategic choices: If one method of fundraising has an extremely high cost per dollar, maybe shift focus to another method unless there are other compelling reasons to keep it. Conversely, if a certain program has an excellent ROI, consider investing more there.

From a transparency perspective, being able to report metrics like cost per dollar raised builds trust with stakeholders (as long as the numbers are within a reasonable range and accompanied by explanation). Many organizations include a pie chart in their annual report showing the breakdown of program vs admin vs fundraising expense.

Common Pitfalls in Operational Metrics: A big pitfall is obsessing over overhead to the point of starving the organization. The “Overhead Myth” campaign by Guidestar, BBB, and Charity Navigator has tried to combat this. If a nonprofit avoids any investment in fundraising or infrastructure just to keep the overhead number low, it can hurt growth and impact. Ideally, use these metrics to improve efficiency, but also educate stakeholders that investing in fundraising (to a reasonable degree) results in more money for the cause.

Another pitfall is not allocating costs properly. Some orgs under-report fundraising costs by not counting staff time or certain overhead, which might make efficiency look better but isn’t honest or helpful for internal management. Ensure your accounting properly attributes costs to fundraising when appropriate, so CPDR is calculated on true costs.

Additionally, comparing efficiency metrics across very different types of organizations can mislead. For instance, an organization that gets huge donations from few donors will have a superb CPDR, but that doesn’t automatically mean another org with many small donors is doing poorly – they just have a different model. Context matters. Use benchmarks as guides, not absolute rules.

Actionable Recommendations (Operational Efficiency):

Regularly Calculate and Review CPDR/ROI by Activity: After each campaign or event, crunch the numbers on cost vs revenue (include staff time if possible, or at least out-of-pocket costs). Create a simple table or dashboard of CPDR for each major fundraising channel annually. For example:

Method	Revenue	Cost	Cost per $1	ROI
Major Gifts	$800k	$80k	$0.10	10:1
Annual Mailings	$200k	$50k	$0.25	4:1
Spring Gala	$150k	$100k	$0.67	1.5:1
Online Campaigns	$100k	$15k	$0.15	6.7:1

Such a table (tailored to your org) quickly highlights where efficiency is strong or weak. Use it to make decisions: maybe the gala needs cost-cutting or greater sponsor support (aim to get that $0.67 down closer to $0.50 or better), or justify shifting resources to online which has great ROI, etc.

Streamline Fundraising Operations: Look for ways to reduce costs without harming effectiveness. This could mean negotiating better rates for printing and mailing, using email or social media more (very low cost per contact) instead of expensive channels when appropriate, or leveraging volunteers for certain fundraising tasks. Be cautious though – some cost cuts (like eliminating a donor newsletter to save money) could harm engagement and retention, leading to revenue drops. Always weigh the impact.
Invest in Technology to Increase Efficiency: Modern donor management systems and fundraising software can automate tasks (like email thank-yous, receipt generation, report making) that otherwise would consume staff time and possibly lead to errors. While tech has a cost, it often pays off in efficiency. For example, using an online donation platform that directly integrates with your database can reduce manual data entry (saving labor) and avoid missed or double-counted gifts. Real-time tracking dashboards (even simple ones using Excel or Google Sheets connected to forms) can save hours of compiling reports. Measure how these tools improve metrics – e.g., if gift acknowledgment time goes from 1 week to 2 days after implementing a new CRM acknowledgment workflow, that’s success.
Train and Cross-Train Staff: A well-trained staff is more productive and less likely to make costly mistakes. Provide training on using systems properly, data entry standards (to avoid cleanup later), and fundraising best practices (so efforts are well-targeted). Cross-train team members so that if one person is out, processing doesn’t grind to halt (keeping acknowledgments timely, etc.). Efficiency isn’t just about money, but also about processes being smooth.
Monitor Donor Contact Efficiency: This is more nuanced – ensure fundraisers are focusing their time on activities that yield results. For instance, if a gift officer is spending a lot of time on administrative tasks, that’s inefficient use of a high-value resource. Try to offload admin to support staff or automate it so gift officers can spend more time with donors (which yields more $$). One could measure “% of fundraiser time spent on direct donor interaction” – higher is better.
Data Hygiene Routines: Implement routine checks to maintain data accuracy. E.g., run address verification or change-of-address updates annually, remove duplicate records, etc. A clean database means mailings and emails reach the right people (improving ROI). It also avoids waste – for example, if you have 5 duplicate entries for the same donor and you mail them 5 copies of everything, you’ve quintupled cost for potentially annoyed donor. Dedicate time (maybe every quarter) to audit some part of the data.
Balance Efficiency with Effectiveness: Sometimes the most efficient route isn’t the most effective for growth. For example, personal phone calls to donors might not seem efficient (they take staff time per donor reached, vs blasting an email to thousands cheaply), but those calls could significantly boost retention and subsequent gifts. So, maintain a balance. Use efficiency metrics to eliminate obvious waste and streamline, but continue to invest in quality donor relationships even if they have a labor cost. Essentially, spend smart, not just spend less.
Communicate Efficiency Achievements: When you do improve an operational metric, let stakeholders know. For instance, if you manage to cut the cost of your annual event by 20% while raising the same revenue, mention in a board report, “We improved the net yield of the event – expenses were reduced by $X, increasing net proceeds for our programs.” Or, if your overall cost per dollar fell from 25¢ to 18¢ over a few years due to growth and smart management, that’s a positive trend to highlight in an annual report or donor newsletter (it shows you’re stewarding funds well). Just ensure to also emphasize that program impact was maintained or improved in parallel, so donors don’t think you’re cutting corners that affect the mission.

By keeping a close eye on operational efficiency metrics, nonprofits can ensure that fundraising efforts are not only bringing in resources but doing so in a responsible and optimized manner. This stewardship of funds builds credibility and leaves more room for mission-focused work.

Integration of Technology and Best Practices in Fundraising Analytics

In the modern fundraising landscape, technology plays an indispensable role in tracking metrics, analyzing performance, and enabling data-driven decisions. To harness the full power of the metrics discussed, nonprofits must have the right tools and adhere to best practices for data management. This section covers how organizations integrate technology into fundraising analytics and the best practices to ensure accuracy, timeliness, and strategic use of data.

1. Donor Management Systems (CRMs) and Analytics Tools:

Most nonprofits use a Constituent Relationship Management (CRM) system or donor database as the central hub for fundraising data. Examples include Blackbaud Raiser’s Edge, Salesforce Nonprofit Success Pack, Bloomerang, DonorPerfect, Neon One, Virtuous, and others. A good CRM captures donation transactions, stores donor contact info and history, and often has built-in reporting for key metrics (like donor retention, LYBUNT lists, etc.).

Ensure your CRM is configured to track the metrics that matter. For instance, have fields for donor acquisition source, so you can later run reports on acquisition by channel. Use campaigns or appeal codes to tag gifts, which allows ROI analysis per campaign.
Many CRMs offer dashboard features or custom report builders. You can set up dashboards for metrics like year-to-date funds raised vs goal, new donors acquired, upcoming pledges due, etc., that update in real-time. These dashboards can often be shared with leadership through read-only logins or automatic email reports, improving transparency. For example, a fundraising VP might get a weekly email from the CRM with a snapshot of key metrics.
Data Analytics and BI Tools: For deeper analysis, some organizations export data to business intelligence tools like Tableau, Power BI, or even Excel for pivot tables and charts. These can merge data from multiple sources (e.g., CRM + email system + web analytics) for a holistic view. A BI dashboard could show, for instance, how email open rates correlate with donation spikes, or map donations by region.
Fundraising-specific Analytics Platforms: Certain tools allow nonprofits to upload gift data and get instant analysis of metrics such as retention, lifetime value, donor migration, etc. These tools often provide benchmarking against aggregated data from other users. Using such platforms periodically can validate your internal metrics and show how you stack up (for example, confirming your retention is above the benchmark or identifying if your average gift is lower than peers, prompting investigation).
Website and Marketing Analytics: Integrate Google Analytics (or similar) on donation pages to track conversion funnels. Use UTM parameters on links in emails or social posts to attribute donations to the correct source in Google Analytics. Many online fundraising platforms (like Classy, DonorDrive, etc.) provide conversion metrics and even A/B testing tools. If you run digital ads (Google AdWords, Facebook Ads), ensure conversion tracking is set up so you know the ROI of those spends (e.g., cost per donation from ads). Some CRMs can ingest web analytics data or at least allow storing it in donor records (like marking that a donor came via the website donation page vs via a mailed check, etc.).

2. Tools for Donor Engagement and Tracking:

Email Marketing Software: Platforms such as Mailchimp, Constant Contact, Engaging Networks, HubSpot, or CRM-integrated email tools are vital for engagement metrics. These provide open, click, and conversion stats. Many will integrate with your CRM so that a donor’s email interactions are logged in their profile (for example, Mailchimp can tag contacts in Salesforce with campaign activity). Ensure you have this integration so that, down the line, you could query something like “donors who clicked our last 3 newsletters” for a special ask – tying engagement to solicitation.
Social Media Management: Tools like Hootsuite or Sprout Social can aggregate social engagement data and track campaign-specific metrics (# of mentions, shares, etc.). While you might not import that data to your CRM, having a separate social media report and then correlating it with donation timings is useful. Facebook, Twitter, etc., also provide their own analytics (like Facebook Insights) – use them to refine your content strategy.
Event Management Systems: If you host events, use event software (Eventbrite, EveryAction events module, etc.) that can track registration, attendance, and integrate with donor records. This makes it easier to measure event participation rates and follow up with attendees. Post-event, you can tag who attended and see if their giving changes.
Volunteer Management Tools: If volunteers are significant, tools like VolunteerHub or Golden track volunteer hours and signups. Integrating or exporting that data to match with donor data can reveal engagement patterns (for instance, to see if volunteers have higher donor retention).
Surveys and Feedback: Use tools like SurveyMonkey or Google Forms for donor surveys and link responses back to donor IDs if possible. Some CRMs have survey capabilities or can import data. If you do an NPS survey, store the score in the donor’s record. These qualitative points can complement metrics (e.g., if a donor gave a low NPS, proactively reach out even if they haven’t lapsed yet).

3. Best Practices for Data Integrity and Accuracy:

Establish Data Entry Protocols: Standardize how information is entered into the system. For example, decide on consistent naming for campaigns/appeals, how to enter donor names and addresses (to avoid duplicates like “Bob Smith” vs “Robert Smith”), and ensure every gift is coded with the correct campaign, fund, etc. Provide training and a data entry manual for staff/volunteers who input data.
Regular Data Audits: Periodically run audits for common issues: duplicate records, missing key information (like missing salutations, or unknown gift sources), inconsistent coding, etc. Many CRMs have de-duplication tools to merge duplicates. Consider scheduling a quarterly data hygiene review.
Backup and Security: Ensure your data is backed up (most cloud CRM providers handle backups, but if using on-premise databases, have a backup regimen). Manage access rights in the system – only authorized staff should edit critical fields, and perhaps limit report viewing for sensitive data (like donor giving capacity info). Data breaches can erode donor trust, so follow best practices (strong passwords, possibly encryption for downloaded reports, etc.).
Accuracy in Metrics Calculation: When producing metrics, double-check formulas and definitions. For instance, if calculating retention, make sure you’re using the right date ranges and inclusion criteria. Many CRMs have canned retention reports – verify their logic matches your understanding. If doing in spreadsheets, have another team member validate the numbers. One missed filter can skew a metric significantly.
Version Control for Reports: If you’re distributing a metrics report to leadership, annotate or time-stamp it so everyone knows which period it covers and if any adjustments were made. This avoids confusion like “why did our donor count for last year change from the number we reported at year-end?” (Often due to data cleanup or late posted gifts – if that happens, explain the change). Maintaining trust in the data is crucial, so if metrics need restating, be transparent about why.

4. Real-Time Tracking and Stakeholder Reporting:

Live Dashboards: Many organizations set up internal dashboards (via CRM, BI tool, or even Google Sheets updated with Zapier from CRM) that management can view anytime. These might display year-to-date donations vs goal, number of new donors, etc., updating automatically. Real-time tracking enables quick responses – e.g., if a campaign is lagging mid-way, you see it in real-time and can decide to send a follow-up appeal or social media push. It also engages stakeholders; for example, development staff might be motivated seeing a progress bar to goal inch forward each day.
Board Reports and Transparency: Translate the metrics into formats suitable for board and donor communications. An executive dashboard for the board might focus on higher-level metrics: total raised, % to goal, donor retention rate, top-line ROI. You may incorporate visuals like charts showing multi-year trends. Ensure to contextualize – for instance, show a graph of retention over 5 years with an annotation where you implemented a new stewardship program that improved it. Boards appreciate seeing data-driven progress and will be more supportive of initiatives if they see the needle moving. Also, if something is off (say donor count decline), bringing data can spur strategic discussion rather than speculation.
Tying Metrics to Strategic Plan: If your organization has a strategic plan or annual plan with specific fundraising objectives (e.g., “increase number of donors under age 40 by 20%” or “launch monthly giving program to achieve 100 members”), track those metrics specifically and report on them. Use technology to create a report for each objective. This not only monitors progress but also signals to staff that these are priorities (since what’s reported is often what gets attention).
Automated Alerts and Triggers: Set up triggers for critical events. For example, some CRMs can send an alert if a VIP donor’s gift has not been received by their usual time of year (could flag potential lapse to follow up), or if a donation above a certain amount comes in (so leadership can personally thank quickly). Real-time alerts on big gifts or dips (like if daily online donations drop to 0 for a few days, maybe something is wrong with the form – an alert could catch that) are invaluable.

5. Continuous Learning and Adaptation:

Stay Informed on Benchmark Reports: Regularly review industry benchmark studies (like the annual M+R Benchmarks for digital, the Fundraising Effectiveness Project reports quarterly, Blackbaud’s Charitable Giving Report, AFP’s research, etc.). These provide external data that you can compare with your metrics. If you notice a trend (e.g., overall donor numbers declining in the sector, or growth of online giving), you might adjust strategy proactively. For instance, if sector reports show online giving is rising 10% year over year while mail is declining, ensure your metrics tracking shows how your org is performing in those channels and consider shifting resources if you lag.

afpglobal.org

Embrace Best Practice Sharing: Use technology communities (online forums, user groups) of your CRM or tools to learn how others are tracking and reporting. For example, Salesforce NPSP has a community where users share report templates or dashboard configurations for common fundraising metrics. Adopting these can save time and improve your analysis.
Scalability and Future-Proofing: As your organization grows, ensure your tech can scale. Maybe today an Excel sheet works for tracking donors, but in a year you might outgrow it – better to implement a robust CRM earlier. Similarly, if you plan new initiatives (like peer-to-peer fundraising events, or a crowdfunding campaign), research tools purpose-built for that and how they integrate into your main system so that the data flows in for holistic metrics.

6. Ethical and Privacy Considerations:

With more tech and data comes responsibility. Ensure compliance with relevant data protection laws (e.g., GDPR if you have European donors, CAN-SPAM for emails, etc.). Provide donors control over their data (unsubscribe links, honoring communication preferences). Also, avoid metrics that could inadvertently bias decisions in a negative way. For instance, a donor engagement score is useful, but be careful not to neglect low-score donors who might have capacity but just haven’t engaged yet. Use metrics to inform and focus efforts, but continue treating donors as individuals with unique circumstances.

By thoughtfully integrating technology and adhering to data best practices, nonprofits can make their metrics tracking more accurate, efficient, and insightful. This empowers fundraisers to spend less time wrangling spreadsheets and more time strategizing and connecting with donors. In essence, good tech and data practices turn raw data into actionable intelligence – guiding fundraisers toward the right decisions with confidence.