High Capacity Donor Motivation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – High Capacity Donor Motivation PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: ad77a-YjE4M



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

High Capacity Donor Motivation

Description:

Belief in Mission (1) Institutional Need(5) Fiscal Stability(5) ... Belief in the mission of University. 0.93. 4.44. Preservation of the core values of the University ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:46
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 30
Provided by: chris298
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: High Capacity Donor Motivation


1
High Capacity Donor Motivation
  • A Taxonomy of Motivation and Differences Among
    Donors

Chris Foley, Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania
Library
2
Purpose of this Study
  • Determine why some high capacity donors gave at
    or above their predicted capacity while their
    counterparts did not.
  • Investigate a tentative taxonomy of donor
    motivations.

3
Importance of High Capacity Donors
  • Panas (1984),
  • Corporations and foundations will not save our
    not-for profit institutions and organizations.
    They have not in the past. They will not in the
    future. Men and women, properly motivated and
    giving from personal resources will make the
    difference (p. 11).

4
Why Motivation?
While, detailed demographic knowledge is
necessary to successful fundraisingit is not
sufficient.fundraisers must understand the
fundamental question of why people give.more
systematic analysis of donor motivation and
conceptual frameworks are needed so fundraisers
can carry out their tasks more effectively
(Mixer, 1993, pp. 4-5).
5
Donor Behavior Research
  • Emphasis on Demographics, see Campus Green
  • Three seminal studies on motivation
  • Panas (1984)
  • Prince and File (1994)
  • Shaw and Taylor (1995)

6
Study Context
  • University of Virginia, top public university
  • Capital Campaign, We Hold These Truths,
    1993-2000
  • 1.4 Billion raised
  • Second largest campaign by a public institution
    when the campaign closed.

7
About the study
  • Non-Donors were not studied.
  • Donors gave to all areas of the University.

8
Impact of Individuals
  • 90/10 Rule
  • UVa. Campaign .2 responsible for 60 of gifts.

9
UVa. Campaign Major Gifts
(Sweeney, 2001, p. 11)
10
Study Sample
  • 908 Usable addresses
  • Projected response rate of 56 or 507 completed
    surveys, provides a sample size large enough for
    a population of 3,262 to reduce sampling error to
    /- 4 at a 95 confidence level
  • Ns(Np)(p)(1-p)/(Np-1)(B/C)2(p)(1-p)
  • Where
  • Nscompleted sample size needed for desired level
    of precision
  • Npsize of population
  • Pproportion of population expected to choose one
    of the two response categories
  • Bacceptable amount of sampling error .04/-4
    of the true population value
  • CZ statistic associated with the confidence
    level 1.96 corresponds to the 95 level
  • (Dillman, 2000, pp. 206-207)

11
Study Population by Capacity
12
Definitions
  • High-Level Donor Gave at or above predicted
    capacity
  • Low-Level Donor Gave significantly less than
    predicted capacity

13
Potential Respondents by Ability and Donor
Category
14
Response Rate by Donor Level and Rated Capacity
15
Donor Grouped Motivations
  • Obligation/Responsibility
  • Expression of Values
  • Reward/Exchange
  • Organizational Characteristics
  • UVa. Specific
  • Social, Recognition and Reward
  • UVa. Specific
  • Belief in Institution
  • Self-Fulfillment
  • Relational
  • Financial
  • Obligation/Responsibility

39 Motivational Items
16
Original Groups
Belief in the Institution
Social, Recognition and Reward
UVa. Specific
Financial
Relational
Obligation/Responsibility
Self Fulfillment
17
Research Questions
  • Are there differences in motivation between high
    donors and low donors?
  • Are there differences in motivation among people
    with different levels of predicted capacity?
  • Are there differences in motivation for high
    donors and low donors across different levels of
    predicted capacity?

18
Differences between High and Low Donors?
Motivation Category Result Social, Recognition
and Reward ? UVa. Specific   ? Belief
in Institution   ? Self-Fulfillment  
? Relational   ? Financial  
? Obligation/Responsibility ?
19
Differences by Capacity?
  • Motivation Category Result
  • Social, Recognition and Reward ?
  • UVa. Specific   ?
  • Belief in Institution   ?
  • Self-Fulfillment   ?
  • Relational   ?
  • Financial   ?
  • Obligation/Responsibility ?

20
Interaction across Capacity and High/Low Donor
Status?
  • Motivation Category Result
  • Social, Recognition and Reward ?
  • UVa. Specific   ?
  • Belief in Institution   ?
  • Self-Fulfillment   ?
  • Relational   ?
  • Financial   ?
  • Obligation/Responsibility ?

21
Summary of Differences
  • Statistically significant differences found
    between high donors and low donors
  • Belief in the Institution (p.001)
  • Self-Fulfillment (p.001)
  • Relational (p.001)
  • Financial (p.001)
  • Obligation/Responsibility (p.01)
  • No statistically significant motivational
    differences found between donors with different
    predicted capacities.
  • There was no interactive effect of predicted
    capacity and donor status on motivation.

22
Findings
  • The categorization of motivations by the
    literature does not match that of the
    respondents.
  • High level donors and low level donors do express
    difference in motivation for giving though they
    share some motivations.
  • High level donors felt more strongly in each
    category of difference than Low level donors.

23
Top 10 Donor Reported Motivations
24
Implications
  • Organize ones thinking about donor motivation.
  • Awareness of donor interests
  • Tailored cultivation, solicitation and
    stewardship activities
  • Capacity and motivation appear de-linked
  • Planning at UVa. should not underestimate the
    importance of mission and tradition.

25
Further Research
  • Use of the motivational categories
  • Verification
  • New populations
  • Replication to improve generalizability
  • Qualitative investigation of donor motives

26
Limitations
  • One institution
  • Strong institutional identity
  • Less than forthright responses with regard to
    reward/influence items
  • As donor population becomes more female and
    diverse with regard to race, religion, and
    nationality, these motivations may shift.

27
Questions
28
Study Availability
  • Copies of this study may be purchased through UMI
    ProQuest. Visit http//wwwlib.umi.com/dissertatio
    ns/fullcit/3083082
  • You may also try to ILL the study from the
    University of Virginia.
  • Or, contact the author.

29
Contact Information
  • Chris Foley
  • Associate Director of Development and External
    Affairs
  • Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center
  • University of Pennsylvania
  • 3420 Walnut Street
  • Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206
  • (215) 898-2520
  • foleyc_at_pobox.upenn.edu
About PowerShow.com