By most measures, Jill A. Warren (left) isn’t wealthy.
She and her husband, the Rev. Robert D. Schoenhals, a United Methodist minister, together have never earned more than $112,000 per year. In some years, their combined income has totaled less than $40,000.
But they are diligent givers—they donate as much as 60 percent of their annual income to charity.
They’re big givers, for sure. But they often aren’t treated that way, especially by organizations that use database-screening tools to find wealthy donors.
“We’re the folks that fly under the radar, so we don’t fit the usual prospecting assumptions,” Ms. Warren said in a live discussion today with Chronicle readers. “The most important thing—just thank us. Send an acknowledgment after each gift. A small gift might represent a significant proportion of someone’s income or assets—we’re not the one-time big-gift givers, but we give a lot over time.”
She also advises fund raisers to pay more attention to people who volunteer at fund-raising events and other activities—regardless of their professions and income levels.
“Don’t underestimate our potential for major gifts,” Ms. Warren said. “There’ve been times I’ve been part of fund-raising activities, and the development staff didn’t ask me for a gift, probably thinking that because I work for a nonprofit, I wouldn’t have much to give. I felt really hurt by that. I was there because I wanted to give.”
You can find more advice by reading the transcript of today’s live Chronicle discussion.
5 Responses to Do Fund Raisers Ignore Too Many Middle-Class Donors?
lcyost - July 29, 2010 at 9:14 am
I agree with paying more attention to your volunteers. Speaking from volunteering expereince, I would be more likley to donate if i volunteered with your organization, on a normal day or at a special event, after the fact if i was treated well and felt apprectiated than if you asked before the event or felt ingnored or under apprectiated for the time I spent volunteering with you.
ramiuthudna - July 29, 2010 at 4:00 pm
It depends on the charity. The reality is that the Warrens are rare, and they aren’t going to receive a lot of attention from small charities because most middle-class volunteers aren’t worth the time and attention of a very small development staff when the pressure is on to solicit significant gifts now. It’s not the percentage of giving in proportion to a donor’s income that impresses our bosses — in fact, they couldn’t care less — it’s the cash we produce. We have no choice but to cultivate the wealthiest donors in order to close major gifts in an efficient and timely way…to pay for the cost of food, therapy, clothing, housing, child care, you name it…everything our clients need right now to survive. At small charities, we don’t have the luxury go out for endless lunches, picking over yet another chicken Caeser salad, trying to guess if people like the Warrens have wealth – or not. But universities do. With their large development offices and their long-range goals, they can afford to involve people like the Warrens with development staff for years, helping them write reunion gift appeal letters to their classmates and fussing over them and telling them how awesome they are when they come to campus to hand out cold sodas to incoming freshmen. Of course, every volunteer and potential donor wants to feel validated and important. In development, it’s all about the donor’s needs to feel satisfied with their work and we know that. It’s just that donors and potential donors aren’t all the same. Those of us who work in small charities won’t keep our jobs if we spend time equal time with everyone.
charliebernstein - August 3, 2010 at 10:33 am
The article’s premise, that it’s not just rich people who give, is good. But it needs to be pushed further. Since two-thirds of Americans – a plurality – are working class, it makes sense for nonprofits to also connect with that sector, as well. Studies repeatedly show that working class people are generous in terms of percent of their income donated, especially to social benefit organizations and religious congregations.Religious congregations are an example for us all. They offer many ways to give at many levels, so no one is left out. The result is a degree of self-sufficiency that is (or should be) an example for the entire nonprofit universe.Where I work, we rely on donors at all levels. Without support of rich, middle class, and working class people, we simply couldn’t accomplish what we do.
vparthur - August 3, 2010 at 3:24 pm
“The reality is that the Warrens are rare, and they aren’t going to receive a lot of attention from small charities because most middle-class volunteers aren’t worth the time and attention of a very small development staff when the pressure is on to solicit significant gifts now.”If I were a donor to your organization I would certainly begin looking for place where my donation was considered to be worth the time. In reality class and ability to give at a high level is only a part of the picture of successful fundraising.Consistency completes the picture. And I believe there are in fact far more consistent “low level” donors who can be cultivated up than there are wealthy donors who are at the ready to give over thier fortunes. Additionally, the work involved in cultivating a wealthy donor requires a heavy hand, meaning your whole team must pitch in to make sure that at every turn the wealthy donor is taken care of. Also raising big dollars requires big dollars as well – you must pay staff either in time or money for the extra work put into to the longer cultivation process. Whereas Ms. warren states herself that the litle things are more meaningful to a donor such as hereslf. For her the dollar given represents a treasure of heart and a significan belief in the organization’s mission, otherwise why would they continue to give?
pamelagrow - August 11, 2010 at 3:14 pm
“The reality is that the Warrens are rare, and they aren’t going to receive a lot of attention from small charities because most middle-class volunteers aren’t worth the time and attention of a very small development staff when the pressure is on to solicit significant gifts now. It’s not the percentage of giving in proportion to a donor’s income that impresses our bosses — in fact, they couldn’t care less — it’s the cash we produce.”I agree with vparthur above. With the technology available today, every donor can and should be made to feel like they are a valuable member of your nonprofit. EVERY donor. And who’s to say that a middle-income donor can’t become a major donor? It may just depend upon the options that you give them. A monthly gift of $50 to $100 per month adds up to a pretty nice gift in my book.