Using the Power of Donation Matching

Transcription

1 Using the Power of Donation Matching Roewen Wishart CFRE, Bush Heritage Australia Session Objectives What are matching challenges? What are the benefits? How could I create one in the next year? Love my work, love my donors, love statistics 1

2 What is a Matching Challenge? Funded by a source donor or government Matches given for gifts of responding donors Common elements Capped total dollars and period Project allocation Ratio often 100% match, or one for one Sometimes, minimum donation Recent Australian Matching Challenges Woolworths Queensland Flood Jan 2011 in-store donation match - $7.5 mill in one week (Salvation Army) Australian Government Horn of Africa Crisis Dollar for Dollar appeal Oct-Dec $13.5 mill (numerous overseas development NGOs) 2

3 Recent Australian Matching Challenges The Nature Conservancy s David Thomas Challenge $10 mill (Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Birds Aust, Bush Heritage Aust, Greening Aust, Trust for Nature) Recent Australian Matching Challenges Ausaid NGO Co-operation Program all accredited development NGOs Complex formula - fixed base + proportion based on eligible contributions (donors & in-kind) Result = match ratio different for each NGO 3

4 $ 92 multiplied x 5 becomes $460 so CBM s field workers can reach and treat those in need $ 32 to open the eyes of FIVE adults like a Mum or Dad, Grandpa or Grandma $ 230 when multiplied becomes $1,150 to set FIVE children free from blindness! Recent Australian Matching Challenges dollar for dollar match cap $1 million $912,000 was raised from the public donor made up the difference to donate $1 million. 4

5 Potential Objectives for Matching Challenges New donors Upgrade of existing donors/ re-activation of lapsed Multi-year pledges Donors choice of charity Could the message spoil the long-term? Stephan Meier Do Subsidies Increase Charitable Giving in the Long Run? Matching Donations in a Field Experiment Federal Reserve of Boston Working Papers Contributions to one or two student benevolent funds 5, 7 or 12 CHF Solicited by mail with semester registration papers. All participants were past donors 5

6 Treatment groups had donations matched at 25% or 50% (for donating to one, or to both funds) Control group - no match After the experimental semester t, matching ended. Average donation calculated in experimental semester, then three more semesters after matching ended Difference is significant (p<.05 two sample T test) 6

7 Results for treatment group compared to control decreased aggregate average donations per student over all four semesters - approximately 4% points difference effect mainly due to decreased one fund only rate and increased no donation rate in all semesters after experiment Possible explanations: financial matching message 1. crowds out intrinsic happiness of giving 2. disrupts the trust-based relationship with the charity 3. induces a new donor-perceived benchmark (favouring charities which offer matching) 4. creates self-fulfilling expectation if donor perceives that match is offered because otherwise no-one gives 7

8 Qualifications No evidence of stewardship activity or response to lapsing Low value gifts only (but note: comparable to workplace giving) Ignores the value of the match itself (only studies the responding donors behaviour) The Nature Conservancy s David Thomas Challenge Objective to stimulate new and increased private giving for conservation Eligibility individuals and private giving only, with minimum $10,000 p.a. and max $1,000,000 New donors and substantial upgrade of established donors only Max 3 year pledge but once-only decision 8

9 The Nature Conservancy s David Thomas Challenge Study of FY 2004 to 2011 Sub-sample from three beneficiary NGOs (Bush Heritage, Trust for Nature, TNC) 90 donors, 38 brand new or lapsed for >3 years Total donations $10,064,000 during study period to June Total DTC donations $4,968,000 Other donations $5,096,000 The Nature Conservancy s David Thomas Challenge Study of FY 2004 to 2011 Mainly personally solicited major gifts (some used of direct mail donor survey pre-qualification) Range $10,000 to $500,000 total 57 single year gifts (62% of total) Good quality stewardship activity 9

10 10

11 Effects on Total Donations $6,000,000 $4,968,247 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,844,128 $3,252,109 $- Before DTC DTC Same Year & After DTC How Did the Matching Challenge Affect Total Giving Afterwards? - Summary Broad definition of afterwards counting all donations, including those made in same year as DTC donations Total same year and after donations increased compared to the same donors pre-dtc giving $1.84 mill v. $3.25 mill BUT not from same number of years for every donor 11

12 How Did the Matching Challenge Affect Average Annual Giving? No randomised control group possible Cohort analysis for donors who first responded in FY 2007 & FY 2008 (63 of the total 90 in study) Analysis of average annual giving for each donor: before DTC DTC donations same year and after DTC (depending on number of DTC gifts, 1-5 years) Effects on Average Annual Donation Cohorts FY 2007 and 2008 $50,000 $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 $4,154 3 Year average annual pre-dtc donation $46,373 Average annual DTC donation Change of average is significant at alpha=.05 t =.009 (paired T test) $10,520 Average annual "same & after" DTC donation 12

13 How Did the Matching Challenge Affect Average Annual Giving? Summary In the same years and after the DTC donations for each donor, average annual other donations have increased compared to the same donors pre-dtc average annual donations. The difference in average is statistically significant. Practical Tips for Designing a Matching Challenge Source Donor Phase The donor s motivation, not the organisation s, is most important ( influencing those who ought to give more, transformational gift, recognition) Consider your objectives, then sell the benefits to the mission (not necessarily to the organisation) Plan what to do in case of over-subscription (monitor approaching threshold, reduced ratio?) And under-subscription 13

14 Practical Tips for Designing a Matching Challenge Implementation Phase Where possible, phase the use of the Matching Challenge to achieve your top objectives first (new donors? Multi-year pledges? Upgrades?) BUT Keep it simple Avoid tied funding of multiple projects if possible Consider the language to suit your audience - leverage doesn t always rule! Practical Tips for Designing a Matching Challenge Implementation Phase Plan how to report on impact In any repeat usage with direct marketing (e.g. ANCP), consider a randomised test, and track medium-term effects Plan how to renew and upgrade after the matching ends.. a new matching Challenge? 14

15 Useful reference matching challenges in universities K Slade Double Happiness: Matched Funding Success Stories FIA International Fundraising Conference, Adelaide 2010 Thanks Barry McDonald & Lori Richardson, Member AFP - The Nature Conservancy Liz Hackett MFIA - Bush Heritage Australia Justin Glass MFIA - Trust for Nature (Vic) 15

16 Thank you to our sponsors Thank you to our sponsors Speaker recognition is proudly supported by Conference Partners Major Sponsors Supporting Sponsors FIA is proudly supported by 16