Insights Archive - Page 9 of 31

The journey to a donor’s first gift to your healthcare institution starts before they ever become a patient. Once a person schedules their first appointment or has an unexpected visit to the hospital, how are you embedding giving and the importance of their support into their overall experience as a patient?

In the 2023 CCS Philanthropy Pulse report, 143 healthcare institutions ranked more than 12 fundraising challenges they face today. Donor acquisition has remained one of the top-ranked challenges of the last few years, but in 2023, more people ranked it than ever before. Why has this remained an issue for several years in a row?

Healthcare’s landscape has evolved at a rapid pace since the global COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. We have seen growing shifts across multiple dimensions, from community hospitals to health system acquisitions, in-person doctor visits to telehealth appointments, hard copy patient records to digital patient feeds, and innovations in health informatics. Healthcare institutions have the unique benefit of constantly acquiring new patients and communities to serve, all of whom have the potential to become donors. As healthcare evolves, the patient experience adapts— our approach to grateful patient donor acquisition should too.

UNDERSTAND YOUR PATIENT AND DONOR POPULATIONS

Just as a prospect research team or gift officer would research a prospect before a meeting, you can maximize engagement strategies and increase the likelihood of reciprocity by leveraging data insights to understand your patient population. This can be as simple as researching the average household income or home value in your patient’s geographical catchment. Does it vary across counties? How does your patient population vary in age? Gender? How many of your patients are on government assistance? While many of these details are searchable online, building a relationship with your hospital’s marketing or patient experience team will enable you to leverage their expert insights.

Similarly, assessing your current patient donor population and evaluating their past engagement will provide context for what has been most successful in generating a first gift in the past. Was it a particular solicitation? A physician referral? A website or social media post? These insights can ensure that you maximize the strategies that have worked in the past and prioritize opportunities for the patient population you serve.

MAKE GIVING VISIBLE…

…Not just with names on buildings, but through the fabric of your hospital’s culture. This does not mean placing signs throughout the lobby that read “MAKE A GIFT!” Rather:

Embed ways a patient can say “thank you” in their welcome packets or post-care surveys. Patients frequently want to say, “thank you” and don’t know the best way. Make it easy to know how.
Promote stories of impact for gifts of all sizes. Embedding stories of how giving has impacted a patient, a physician or nurse, a hospital program, a breakthrough in science, or more, will set a precedence for the value the organization and patients place on all levels of philanthropic support.
Educate hospital professionals on the importance of giving and its role in their work, division, hospital, and the system overall. They serve as the frontline fundraiser before a patient connects with the foundation and can be your strongest partners and champions for giving.

DEMONSTRATE GIVING IS A RESOURCE For ALL

Individuals are more likely to support an organization or cause when they understand its impact on others, including themselves. Before a patient receives a solicitation from the hospital foundation, use your communications to emphasize 1) the role that giving plays in making the services, programs, and breakthroughs possible and 2) the benefits that a donor can experience based on how they give. Illustrate or prove the valuable resource your healthcare organization is to them as an individual and the community at large.

BE TIMELY

Data shows 5 communications within the first 90 to 120 days post-hospital visit (one direct mail and four emails) increases the likelihood of a gift on the 2^nd or 3^rd communication (between 30 – 60 days). Most importantly, insights from the Woodmark Summit indicate a patient or patient family is 76% more likely to make a gift if they receive a communication within the first 30 days post-hospital visit or care.

Patient privacy is most important, so it’s essential to work with your hospital staff to ensure any data you receive is HIPAA-compliant. Access to your hospital’s HIPAA-compliant patient data is an optimal opportunity to implement an automated patient data feed that allows the flexibility to automate and optimize your acquisition communications. This is not the case for all hospitals, in which case you can still leverage communications monthly based on the data you’re able to receive. Without access to patient data, you should plan and collaborate on a strategy forward with your hospital partners, ensuring you are substantively engaging potential donors for future sustainable support.

TEST AND EVALUATE YOUR COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES

Whether you’re communicating with recent patients or your catchment population at large, every communication should include an A/B test. It deepens your understanding of your potential donor community by investigating how they interact with your email or direct mail piece. With this test, you can answer questions like: Which links did they click? What call to action or gift string generated a higher gift? What subject line yielded a higher open rate? By regularly evaluating these results, you will be able to enhance future communications and increase the likelihood of a first gift.

A patient’s journey to giving back starts before they step foot in your hospital or doctor’s office. Building a program focusing on the patient journey and donor benefits maximizes the likelihood of their philanthropic investment, enhances overall engagement with your healthcare organization, and optimizes your ability to request and secure major, principal, and planned gifts. A culture of philanthropy that centers the patient-donor and highlights the potential in major gifts of assets, illustrates the extraordinary work you do, and collective impact that is possible when everyone participates!

Part II of our Building a Patient-Centric Journey to Giving series will explore how to implement data-driven communication journeys that lead to donor conversion and maximize your pipeline towards major, principal, and planned giving potential. Stay tuned!

More Insights

Article

Nonprofit Data Analytics: The Hidden Power of Your CRM Database

April 30, 2025

Unlock the potential of your organization’s CRM and data management techniques to secrure long-term fundraising success.

Article

Nonprofit Data Management: How to Turn Messy Data into Quality Insights

March 31, 2025

Learn simple steps you can take to manage your nonprofit’s data no matter where you are in your data health journey.

EXPLORE ALL INSIGHTS

Some campaigns manifest success right from inception. However, sometimes an organization has a strategic campaign vision but requires assistance with its execution and to build momentum. In this article, we share an example of how a Catholic institution partnered with us at CCS Fundraising to reinvigorate their campaign. Ultimately, they surpassed their initial goal of $70 million by an impressive $20 million.

Our Approach to an Effective Campaign

Launched in 2018, this diocesan campaign aimed to raise $70 million to support Catholic education and formation, clergy and seminarians, evangelization and discipleship, and charity and justice. Despite a well-defined strategic vision, the campaign needed help gaining traction. By the end of its first year, it had only achieved 40% of its multi-year fundraising goal. Recognizing the need for expert support, the organization sought assistance from CCS.

A Comprehensive Assessment

Upon the engagement’s commencement, CCS comprehensively evaluated the campaign’s foundational elements through an intensive two-month rapid assessment. We used our tried-and-true method to enliven a stalling campaign, in which we focus on and analyze five crucial areas:

Assessing the feasibility of the identified goal: CCS diligently examines whether the established goal remains attainable within the prevailing circumstances.
Evaluating the case for support’s reception and articulation: CCS meticulously appraises how the campaign’s rationale resonates with stakeholders and its communication effectiveness.
Identifying potential opportunities at the lead gift level: CCS explores the potential for substantial contributions at the highest giving tier. This helps to overcome any initial setbacks or limitations.
Gauging engagement levels of organizational, volunteer, and donor leadership: CCS assesses the enthusiasm and commitment of key individuals and groups responsible for driving the campaign forward, determining their willingness to undertake the necessary efforts to achieve the established goals.
Conducting a comprehensive audit and review of campaign methodology: CCS conducts an exhaustive examination of the campaign’s strategies and tactics, aiming to identify any missteps or inefficiencies. Subsequently, we devises a clear plan of support that collaboratively aligns leadership and operational organization.

Unleashing the Power of Clarity

Through strategic interviews and diligent efforts, CCS helped meticulously redesign the case for support. This ensured effective communication of the campaign’s significance, its profound impact on local churches, and the specific areas to benefit from the funds. Refining the message resulted in a newfound clarity. Additionally, it instilled a renewed sense of purpose that resonated deeply with donors and volunteers, igniting their passionate commitment to the cause.

Achieving Operational Excellence

CCS also streamlined campaign operations to achieve success. With meticulous attention to detail, we formulated a comprehensive week-by-week plan encompassing well-defined fundraising benchmarks. Every campaign facet, from strategic considerations to implementation procedures, underwent thorough standardization. Thoughtful reevaluation and redesign of campaign materials ensured clear and concise communication with donors and volunteers. This methodical approach instilled a profound sense of organization and cohesion, fostering confidence and bolstering engagement levels.

Embracing Multiculturalism for Campaign Success

Recognizing the dynamic demographics of the Catholic community in the US, we place great significance on a multicultural approach. Clear and effective communication emerged as a priority in this diocese, where nearly half of the priests were foreign-born. Additional fundraising training resources addressed potential language and cultural barriers. By bridging gaps, fostering trust, and developing campaign materials in multiple languages, we effectively engaged the burgeoning population of Spanish-speaking Catholics and foreign-born priests in the Green Bay area. The result was an elevated level of participation and enthusiastic contributions as fundraisers approached these families for the first time to contribute to a capital campaign.

Captivating Donors With a Compelling Message

In the face of the challenges imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, we supported remarkable resilience and adaptability across parishes. Recognizing the prevailing circumstances, we urged parishes to perceive the campaign as an opportunity to foster reconnection with their parishioners in the aftermath of the global crisis. Emphasizing the utilization of campaign funds to restore Mass attendance to pre-pandemic levels, we underscored the urgent need and the substantial impact on local communities. This poignant narrative struck a deep chord with parishioners, reigniting their faith and rekindling their commitment. Remarkably, more than twenty parish communities experienced a revitalization in Mass attendance. In turn, this infused renewed vitality into their faith communities and reaffirmed the profound impact of the campaign.

A Winning Campaign Strategy

Revitalizing a challenged campaign necessitated a strategic assessment of its shortcomings, rallying support from parishes, and effective communication with stakeholders. CCS Fundraising’s comprehensive approach, encompassing a range of strategic initiatives, played a pivotal role in the campaign’s resounding success.

More Insights

Article

Nonprofit Data Analytics: The Hidden Power of Your CRM Database

April 30, 2025

Unlock the potential of your organization’s CRM and data management techniques to secrure long-term fundraising success.

Article

Nonprofit Data Management: How to Turn Messy Data into Quality Insights

March 31, 2025

Learn simple steps you can take to manage your nonprofit’s data no matter where you are in your data health journey.

EXPLORE ALL INSIGHTS

Join the conversation! Use #CCSGivingUSA.

DOWNLOAD PRESENTATION SLIDES

Our keynote speaker, Dr. Una Osili, who leads the research and production of Giving USA: The Annual Report on Philanthropy, a publication of the Giving USA Foundation, reveals new data from the 2023 report. Our esteemed panelists then discuss the significance and implications of 2022’s trends.

PRESENTED BY

Dr. Anna Pruitt

Managing Editor, Giving USA

IU Lilly Family School of Philanthropy

Jennifer Barrymore

Vice President of Advancement Resources

Northeastern University

V. Renée Cutting

Chief Philanthropy Officer

UNICEF USA

Mike Neal

Chief of Organizational Advancement

American Cancer Society, Inc.

Sarah Sochacki

Managing Director

Dr. Una Osili

Associate Dean for Research

IU Lilly Family School of Philanthropy

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

On Trends:

Does the increase in giving to foundations indicate that more donors are making gifts through Donor-Advised Funds (DAFs)?

Giving USA nets out contributions to and grants from DAFs for community foundations to reduce double counting. Other factors, such as the rapid growth in the number of foundations and the value of the assets held by foundations over time, help to explain the growth in giving by foundations.

Giving to foundations has had an above-average number of mega-gifts in recent years, which makes the series a bit less obviously tied to year-to-year economic trends. We’ll see if this is an anomaly or a new trend as we move forward.

If corporations have stepped up in the last few years, why was the percentage of Corporate Giving as a share of total giving only 1% higher in 2022 than it was 40 years ago? Are corporations giving through foundation vehicles—meaning their funding is not counted in the Corporate category?

Giving from corporate foundations is included in the giving by foundations estimate. Though corporations are not growing as a share of total giving, they are still growing over time. In the last 5 years, giving by corporations had an annualized average growth rate of 10.6%, far outpacing the growth in total giving over the same period (3.3%).

Is there any data to demonstrate that a decrease in individual giving may be a response to mega giving?

What evidence we have points to this not mattering as much; a recent report, What America Thinks About Philanthropy, asked non-donors about their motivations to not give, and only 3% said it was because they felt their gift did not matter relative to the larger gifts made by the wealthy.

What contributed to the large negative percent change in giving to public society benefit organizations in 2022?

Generally, Giving USA has seen strong linkages between stock market growth and growth in giving to the public-society benefit subsector. The decline in 2022 suggests that the subsector may also be sensitive to declines in the market.

Does Giving USA have any data to support the idea that—given the acute crises of 2020-2021—some philanthropists front-loaded their giving and so had less philanthropic funds to draw from in 2022?

There is limited data about donor fatigue and the effect of ongoing crises on charitable giving behaviors. More information is needed before we can understand whether and how individual giving patterns changed in response to the events ushered in by the pandemic.

How does GoFundMe factor into giving numbers for 2022? Could it help explain the decrease in individual giving?

When GoFundMe campaigns go to a nonprofit organization, Giving USA is capturing those donations. For instance, many of the largest GoFundMe campaigns in response to the Highland Park shooting went to VictimsFirst, a nonprofit that specializes in distributing funds to victims of shootings and their families. Their estimate would capture that data. Gifts that go directly to individuals are not included in their estimate.

Are mega-donors giving in any unique ways? How do they compare in their involvement?

MacKenzie Scott continues to give smaller gifts to hundreds of organizations year over year, which is generally acknowledged to be an unconventional approach. However, Giving USA does not compare the giving of mega-donors. The Giving Pledge, the movement in which philanthropists make a public commitment to giving the majority of one’s wealth to charitable causes, includes letters from signees explaining their decision to sign the pledge. Other measures of giving from mega-donors are available, including the Chronicle of Philanthropy’s Philanthropy 50 list and the Forbes 400 Philanthropy Score.

**Has Giving USA noted a correlation between volunteering and philanthropy? How many donors are volunteering?**

In general, research has shown a relationship between volunteering and charitable giving. However, Giving USA does not measure volunteering activity. More information on volunteering trends can be found at the Generosity for Life project.

How are nonprofits using AI and how do you think that will change in the future?

Many nonprofits are exploring new tools like AI to address the ongoing decrease in the number of donors. CCS Fundraising’s Revolutionizing Fundraising series explores real-time examples of this work and how you can apply AI techniques to your fundraising plan and outcomes.

On Methodology and Definitions:

**How does Giving USA collect data?**

Giving USA estimates primarily rely on econometric methods developed by leading researchers in philanthropy and the nonprofit sector and are reviewed and approved by members of the Giving USA External Review Panel. Members of the External Review Panel include research directors from national nonprofit organizations, as well as scholars from such disciplines as economics and public affairs, all of whom are involved in studying philanthropy and the nonprofit sector.

The Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy prepares all of the estimates in Giving USA for Giving USA Foundation. Giving USA develops estimates for giving by each type of donor (sources) and for recipient organizations categorized by subsectors (uses). Most of Giving USA’s annual estimates are based on econometric analyses and tabulations of tax data, economic indicators and demographics. Data for giving by foundations come from Candid.

Following the same approach used by leading public and private institutions that develop economic statistics, Giving USA researchers update data found within Giving USA each year. This is because current Giving USA estimates are developed before final tax data, some economic indicators, and some demographic data are available. The estimates are revised and updated as final versions of these data become available. Final estimates are usually developed two or three years after their initial release.

For more specific details on Giving USA’s methodology, please refer to the “Brief summary of methods” section within Giving USA 2023 or contact the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at adrldavi@iupui.edu

Is the 2021 giving total of $516.65 a re-estimated number and, if so, by how much?

Giving USA revises the giving estimate as additional data comes in each year, similar to the way that other economic series like GDP are revised. According to their revised estimate, total giving reached $516.65 billion in current dollars in 2021. In the case of 2021, there were three separate upward revisions, all unrelated, to individual, corporate, and foundation giving that contributed to the large upward revision overall. Giving USA typically revises numbers for at least two years. From 2011-2020 (the most recent ten years of virtually final data) the average revision was 0.83% and median was 0.31%.

**How does Giving USA define Mega-gifts?**

Giving USA defines mega-gifts as being greater than 0.1% of total giving each year, rounded to the nearest $50M. So, this year, mega-gifts were gifts of $500M or more.

Are Donor-advised funds (DAFs) counted under Foundation or Individual giving?

On the sources side, contributions to donor-advised funds are counted in whichever category the DAF contribution is made—most commonly, this would be in “by individuals” when an individual gives to a DAF and deducts the initial donation.

On the uses side, DAFs are counted wherever the organization that hosts the donor-advised fund is counted. For example, a donor-advised fund held within a community foundation will be counted with community foundations in the giving to foundations subsector. Freestanding donor-advised funds, such as Fidelity Charitable, for example, are counted in the Public-Society Benefit subsector on the uses side.

For all types of donor-advised funds, including DAFs held at community foundations, Giving USA takes the net of incoming contributions and outgoing grants when tabulating giving to the recipient subsectors, as donor-advised funds function as a pass-through. This approach helps to reduce the double-counting of contributions to these funds and recipient organizations.

Is giving by family foundations included in the Foundations estimate?

Yes, the giving by foundations estimate includes giving by family foundations. The growth in the use of family foundations as a giving vehicle may have been a factor in changing the shares of total giving comprised of individual giving and foundation giving in the last few decades—more research on this topic is needed.

Is giving by corporate foundations counted in Corporations or Foundations?

Corporate foundations are counted under giving by corporations.

Is individual giving (tithing) to churches included in the estimate for giving to religion?

Yes—Giving USA’s religion estimate includes giving to congregations.

**Under what subsector does Giving USA count giving circles?**

It depends on the fiscal sponsor for the giving circles. Many giving circles are hosted by foundations, and the grants made from those giving circles would be counted under giving by foundations.

**How does Giving USA differentiate the Public-Society Benefit subsector from the Human Services subsector?**

The Public-society benefit subsector includes a wide range of organizations, including national donor-advised funds (DAFs) such as Fidelity Charitable, pass-through organizations such as the United Way, Jewish federations, rights and legal advocacy funds, and community/economic development groups such as Community Development Financial Institutions (or CDFIs).

Human services organizations include those related to food and nutrition; housing and shelter; employment services and vocational training; youth services; public safety and community disaster relief; legal services; recreation and sports; family and children’s services; emergency assistance; and independent living and self-sufficiency for a wide range of populations. 

In general, Giving USA uses the National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE) codes to categorize nonprofits.

**Does Giving USA count giving to faith-based human services, education, and healthcare organizations under their functional categories, or is it all counted under Religion?**

Giving USA’s tabulation of giving to the religion subsector is very focused: it includes giving to support religious congregations and houses of worship; the organizing or national offices of denominations and faith groups; missionary societies; religious media (including print and broadcast); and organizations formed for religious worship, fellowship, or evangelism. 

Contributions to faith-based organizations offering healthcare, education, or social services, as well as those working internationally, are not included in Giving USA’s estimate for giving to religion. Rather, they are categorized within the other subsectors according to purpose.

**How does Giving USA define the International Affairs subsector?**

Giving USA’s estimate of giving to the international affairs subsector includes giving to organizations working in international aid, development, or relief; those that promote international understanding; and organizations working on international peace and security issues. This subsector also includes research institutes devoted to foreign policy and analysis and organizations working in international human rights. Giving USA’s estimates include donations of cash, securities, and in-kind gifts, such as food, medicine, equipment, and other items of value.

**Are US government grants included in Giving USA’s estimates?**

Government grants are not included in Giving USA’s estimates.

More Insights

Publication

CCS Philanthropy Pulse

February 13, 2025

Uncover the latest fundraising trends in the 2025 CCS Philanthropy Pulse report! Packed with data-rich insights from 600+ nonprofit organizations across diverse nonprofit sectors, this free report will help you plan for success in 2025.

Video

Planned Giving in 1-3 Hours a Week

March 9, 2023

This video, presented by CCS Fundraising’s Gift Planning Practice Group, will help you learn how you can make significant advances with planned giving — in just 1-3 hours a week!

We learned about the applications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in fundraising in Revolutionizing Fundraising Part I: Six Ways AI is Transforming the Nonprofit Sector, but what are some real-time insights into how nonprofits use AI to boost donor engagement and drive lasting impact?

AI can create efficiencies, such as making existing processes uncomplicated and faster, reducing chances of errors, getting better data, and helping staff focus on more challenging issues. Here are some examples of nonprofits using AI to help them reach their goals more efficiently.

AI Applications

Natural Language Generation to Create Donor Narratives

Natural Language Generation (NLG) uses machine learning and natural language processing to create human-like texts based on given prompts. NLG can turn donor data, including donation amounts, dates, and impact metrics, into personalized and captivating stories that connect with donors. This technology allows organizations to share the transformative impact of each donation, engaging donors and maintaining a high level of personalization while saving time and resources.

Example: See examples and screenshots of ChatGPT’s use to generate thank-you emails, social media content, announcements, etc.
How to get started: Get a deeper understanding of large-language models (LLMs) with Coursera co-founder and AI expert Andrew Ng’s course series on building applications using LLMs.
Note: Some online tools may use your input as training data for their models. Avoid entering sensitive and confidential information. Since these models are built on text from websites on the internet, the generated language could be biased, non-inclusive, and offensive. Finally, these models and tools often make things up. Always verify the generated text for accuracy and propriety.

Natural Language Processing to Analyze Sentiment

The Natural Language Processing (NLP) toolkit includes tools and techniques to analyze the sentiment of a text, categorizing it as positive, negative, or neutral. These tools can assess donor engagement or feelings about a nonprofit by studying donor emails or gift officer visit reports. In addition, nonprofits can build an organization-level dashboard to monitor their donor population’s sentiments.

Example: Amnesty International built Troll Patrol to detect online abuse using Twitter data.
How to get started: Review Hubspot’s list of sentiment analysis tools to experiment with.

Grateful Patient Data Technology to Reveal Opportunities

Healthcare fundraising often relies on the generosity of grateful patients and their families. However, identifying potential supporters among hundreds or thousands of visits and patients remains challenging. AI-enabled automation offers a new solution for nonprofits to connect with potential donors effectively. This technology automates data extraction and analysis, allowing organizations to identify patients who express gratitude for their care. Using the nonprofit’s criteria, the technology generates lists of qualified prospects based on wealth capacity, prospect information, and machine learning. This significantly reduces the time required for data gathering, analysis, and prospect identification.

Example: This research paper describes the prediction of patient experience using machine learning. Similar methods apply to any healthcare organization to predict patient satisfaction and turn positive experiences into qualified donor prospects.
How to get started: The CCS Data Analytics team can create a data management, augmentation, transformation, and dissemination solution for your organization. This solution will drastically reduce the time taken from data intake and clean-up to prospect recommendations. It will focus on ensuring that your institution uses this data successfully and strengthen a culture of philanthropy to raise transformational and sustainable support from patients.

Chatbots to Engage Website Visitors 24/7

Nonprofits use AI-powered chatbots on their websites to engage with visitors, answer questions, and facilitate donations. Such chatbots are trained on vast amounts of proprietary data and tailored with if-and-then rules. Chatbots can provide information to visitors and encourage them to donate to the cause. This helps reduce response time to common questions and helps direct donors to programs aligned with their giving priorities.

Example: World Wildlife Fund’s Facebook Messenger assistant
How to get started: Tools like Chatfuel will let you create a chatbot without complicated programming.

Image Recognition to Categorize Media Assets

AI-powered image recognition helps organizations catalog their media assets. The technology allows the nonprofit to easily search and retrieve images for use in fundraising campaigns and other outreach efforts, making the appeals more relevant and compelling while reducing staff time searching for images.

Example: National Geographic Society
How to get started: Amazon Rekognition allows you to automate image recognition.

The Power of AI to Maximize Resources

Nonprofits can benefit significantly from using AI, as seen in these examples. AI can help simplify work, reduce mistakes, gain valuable insights from data, and allow staff to focus on meaningful work. With AI, nonprofits can better engage donors, save time and money, and meet their goals. Taking the first steps to use AI can help nonprofits make strong connections, create lasting impact, and build a bright future for fundraising. Now the question is: What approach will you take to unlock the potential of AI within your organization?

Explore Part III of this Revolutionizing Fundraising series, which provides guiding questions to help your nonprofit decide whether and how to implement AI.

More Insights

Article

Nonprofit Data Analytics: The Hidden Power of Your CRM Database

April 30, 2025

Unlock the potential of your organization’s CRM and data management techniques to secrure long-term fundraising success.

Article

Nonprofit Data Management: How to Turn Messy Data into Quality Insights

March 31, 2025

Learn simple steps you can take to manage your nonprofit’s data no matter where you are in your data health journey.

I once knew a man named Lauren, a name that was once popular for men but has since “gone out of fashion.” In a previous nonprofit position, I was surprised to find him in our database—and even more surprised to see someone had marked his gender as female and going so far as to add a “Ms.” to his salutation. I quietly corrected the mistake.

Someone else quietly changed it back.

Their intentions were good—they wanted to expand our data collection, ensuring that all the Johns and Janes of the world had appropriate gender markers and salutations for future event invites and direct mailings. However, without proper protocols about when and how to update donor records, they contributed to what is known as dirty data.

The database kept an audit log of all changes, so I found the culprit and explained that, no, this donor is not a woman; can you please leave the record as you found it? This honest mistake could have resulted in a slight to Lauren, someone whom I knew had been on the receiving end of honest data mistakes his whole life and who would appreciate an organization to which he donated a significant sum to correctly address him as “Mr.”

The world is full of Laurens—donors with unusual names, donors whose data points invite contradictions of how we expect to categorize people. Our world exists beyond binaries, but that’s not always the case for the tools that we use. It’s time to think about how we ensure that our data honors our donors through data integrity and inclusion. Below are some considerations for thoughtful and intentional data collection and application.

steps toward data inclusivity

Tracking Meaningful Data

We tend to think that the more data we have, the better. However, I often work with organizations with too much data—too many options to choose from upon data entry, data tracked in the wrong field, and data collected in online donation forms that are never used.

A key data integrity component is tracking the data that will lead your organization to relevant insights and outcomes. In the case of the dirty data culprit mentioned above, they wanted to invite women to events hosted by our organization’s women’s giving circle in the hope that they would become more philanthropically involved. Gender was a meaningful data point to track (though I would argue that gender is rarely relevant outside of specific gender-targeting initiatives like the women’s giving circle). The problem was that the data was not donor-provided—it was employee-assumed.

Your organization should determine what data is most important to achieving success. Often this starts by asking, “What does success look like for us?” and then working backward to understand what data points will inform your goals. For instance, if you want to expand your direct marketing, you would require addresses and emails on forms that donors and prospects fill out and run queries to check for inaccuracies in either field (such as gmal.com vs. gmail.com). Creating data standards and protocols that outline when and who enters integral data is equally important—these guardrails help organizations keep their data clean and trustworthy.

Addressing Donors With Respect

I once worked at an organization with around 60 salutation options on their online donation form. Trying to choose a title was one long, seemingly endless scroll. With the approval of the chief development officer, I narrowed the list down to a reasonable number of salutation options to improve the donor experience—and added an option as well.

Mx. (pronounced “mix”) is a gender-inclusive salutation often used by individuals who are not strictly male or female. Adding this option to the form signaled to donors that our organization valued and made space for donors who live outside the binary of Mr. and Mrs./Ms. As a trans person, it was vitally important to me that our data reflected the diversity of our donors.

Donors trust organizations to keep their data safe. If someone shares their information with an organization, it’s up to that organization to honor it. Adding gender-inclusive options to data fields allows organizations to accurately and respectfully capture information about their donors. Beyond salutations, organizations should consider tracking pronouns—pronouns are used daily and are critical to referring to someone with dignity. Capturing and using the correct pronouns is another way of valuing donors, and expanding data to account for gender diversity gives organizations helpful markers to aid stewardship.

Connecting the Donor Dots

With the passing of the Obergefell ruling, nonprofits are seeing an increase in LGBTQ+ philanthropy, as more couples who can legally marry now choose to donate together. Often the spouses do not have the same last name—leading to a data integrity breach. Each person in the relationship receives separate solicitations because they have not been labeled as a single household in a database.

HOW GOOD DATA AFFECTS DONOR STEWARDSHIP

This challenge is not limited to LGBTQ+ donors—over the years, I’ve seen the use of “Mrs.” decrease as younger donors seem less interested in titles or adopting their husband’s last name. However, it’s important that organizations do their best to link these donors and develop stewardship plans involving both partners. Linking and soft crediting the donors accurately captures their combined donation totals and ensures both partners are involved in their philanthropic giving. Treating spouses who wish to donate together as a single entity demonstrates that your organization respects their union and appreciates their giving—no one should allow poor data practices to get in the way of good donor stewardship.

More Insights

Article

Nonprofit Data Analytics: The Hidden Power of Your CRM Database

April 30, 2025

Unlock the potential of your organization’s CRM and data management techniques to secrure long-term fundraising success.

Article

Nonprofit Data Management: How to Turn Messy Data into Quality Insights

March 31, 2025

Learn simple steps you can take to manage your nonprofit’s data no matter where you are in your data health journey.

Traditionally, those who make a gift every year are schools’ most loyal supporters. These individuals are bonded to the organization’s mission through consistent communication and engagement. As fundraisers, it is our responsibility to keep donors informed, understand what motivates them, and share the impact of their gift — no matter the size. Major gifts come to fruition through dedicated donor cultivation and engagement. By building and stewarding relationships with existing donors rather than working to acquire new ones, we can bridge the gap between annual and major gifts.

Understanding how and when to transition a mid-level or leadership annual giving donor to major gifts is crucial for strengthening an organization’s major gift pipeline. While this transition starts with exploring one’s giving potential, it ends with a shift in the donor’s mindset. As fundraisers, we can raise donors’ sights and inspire them to think deeply with us on what they hope to accomplish philanthropically.

building a strong major gift program is important for the education sector

In partnering with various nonprofits, CCS found that the top 10% of all donors contributed 92% of total fundraising dollars over ten years.

Notably, education partners have great confidence in major gifts in 2023.
• 45% of an institution’s fundraising comes from major gifts
• 84% anticipate mid-level gifts will either increase or stay the same
• 87% anticipate major gifts will either increase or stay the same

Defining a leadership annual giving prospect

What constitutes a leadership annual giving prospect at an organization can vary. For example, some organizations consider a leadership annual giving donor to be someone who makes an annual contribution of $1,000 to $25,000. Organizations that choose to invest in engaging leadership annual giving staff and a formal moves management process are building a major-gift-centered donor pipeline. This pipeline is focused on identifying and qualifying emerging prospects and ensuring that loyal, recurring donors feel connected.

How to transition a leadership annual giving donor to major gifts

Ensure the following are well thought out and successful before considering moving a leadership annual giving donor to your major gift pipeline.

Personalized Communication and Engagement

Development team members should send personalized communication to leadership annual giving donors, in addition to broad-based newsletters and emails. Providing a donor with the opportunity to have an assigned point of contact on the development team creates a deeper connection to the organization. Donors want to hear from you and understand how their gift is being put to work and their impact on the community.

Strong Stewardship

Leverage stewardship to inspire donors to dream big. Consider sharing stories of those directly impacted by your organization’s mission and what can happen when philanthropy is put to work. If you have giving societies in place, determine how a mid-level or consecutive giving society can create a natural cadence of communication. Provide meaningful touchpoints with key personnel at the organization, recognition, and opportunities for donors to see their gift in action. Strong stewardship can motivate donors to keep giving and, more importantly, consider an increased gift. Donors of all gift sizes who receive exceptional stewardship are able to see first-hand how your organization is handling their gifts. This, in turn, furthers their trust in your school.

WHen leadership Annual Giving Donors Should be Moved to the Major Gift Pipeline

Consider these key indicators when determining if a leadership annual giving donor should be moved to the major gift pipeline:

Note: Not all of the following need apply to move a donor into the major gift pipeline.

Qualify the donor. Prioritize consecutive, longtime donors who can make a major gift. Utilize a wealth screening tool to determine the donor’s capacity, including assets, current employment, and business holdings. Ensure your interests are aligned, and determine if a relationship exists either personally or with someone close to them.

Understand the donor’s philanthropic involvement within the community. Explore their giving (size and focus) to similar organizations or other nonprofits within your community.

Identify any shifts in the donor’s giving to the organization. Either the vehicle in which they give has changed and/or they have increased their annual gift amount. Vehicles to flag include giving through a family foundation or donor advised fund, a stock gift, or through their IRA.

Note a first-time unrestricted gift that falls within your organization’s major gift threshold (ex: greater than $25K). Also note if a donor shares one of the following:

They have included the organization in their will.
They are interested in serving in some volunteer leadership capacity (board, campaign, etc.).
They have experienced a major life change such as selling a business, retiring, or finding a new job.

As you build and grow your major gift pipeline, consider those closest to your organization as a starting point. Look at your leadership annual giving donors’ access, affinity, and ability to give — there may be a few diamonds in the rough.

More Insights

Article

Nonprofit Data Analytics: The Hidden Power of Your CRM Database

April 30, 2025

Unlock the potential of your organization’s CRM and data management techniques to secrure long-term fundraising success.

Article

Nonprofit Data Management: How to Turn Messy Data into Quality Insights

March 31, 2025

Learn simple steps you can take to manage your nonprofit’s data no matter where you are in your data health journey.

EXPLORE ALL INSIGHTS

Health organizations are complex institutions with comprehensive, nuanced, and meticulously created operating budgets. While perhaps best known for delivering patient care, executive leaders are obligated to ensure efficient operations and outcomes for wide-ranging responsibilities, including but not limited to:

Facilities
Personnel
Research
Training
Government Relations
Marketing
Equipment and Supplies
Legal and Compliance
Billing and Insurance
Medical records
Data systems
Food Service
Security
Parking

Each function is vital to the organization’s overall health and well-being and requires significant consideration, oversight, and resources. Amid the competing priorities necessary to run an efficient healthcare organization, C-suite leadership sometimes overlooks or deprioritizes philanthropy.

Despite being one of the few revenue drivers within a healthcare organization, the aggregate amounts raised through fundraising pale compared to clinical or other organizational revenue streams. Our historical experience and industry analysis have shown that philanthropy typically accounts for 1-3% of total health system revenue. Nonetheless, the philanthropic activity return on investment is unparalleled and can result in significant unencumbered monies for a healthcare organization.

Consider These 3 Healthcare Fundraising Points

Fundraising leaders should consider three key points when encouraging their C-Suite Executive Leadership to maintain or increase investment in their fundraising operations regardless of organizational size or financial position.

1. No other revenue stream within the organization can generate philanthropy’s outsized returns.

Several measures help gauge healthcare organizations’ efficiency and effectiveness in raising philanthropic funds. One such metric is Return on Investment (ROI), which calculates the return, or profit, generated by an investment.[1] At many organizations, the fundraising team produces the highest ROI of any department. According to AHP’s 2022 Report on Giving, for every $1 invested in philanthropy, healthcare organizations return an average of $5.41, with the highest performers delivering as much as $7.78 per dollar invested. In comparison, for every $1 invested in patient care, hospitals and health systems will return on average between $1.01 and $1.03. [2]

2. Philanthropy is less resource-intensive than operational revenue streams.

When your organization’s C-Suite considers investment options to generate revenue, very few options are cheaper than philanthropy. A philanthropy-generated dollar takes less organization-wide effort, resources, and space to produce. It can cost up to 250x more to invest in clinical care than in philanthropy to net the same dollar amount.

Many hospitals and health systems face flat or declining profits due to increased headcount costs, clinical innovation and population health initiative investment, and core business commoditization and decreased utilization. COVID-19 pandemic-related elective surgery decline also greatly exacerbated declining profits. Consequently, increasing patient volumes may no longer improve the organization’s operating margin, a profitability indicator showing patient care operations income. [3]

Industry analysis indicates that most healthcare organizations already have razor-thin operating margins of 1-3%. In view of these margin pressures, the quantity of clinical services needed to net even $1 million is significant.

However, philanthropy can significantly impact healthcare organizations’ operating margins. According to AHP, the average healthcare organization’s fundraising “cost-to-raise-a-dollar” (CTRD)[4], a measure of fundraising efficiency, is $0.19, with the highest performers reducing that cost to $0.13. In comparison, a healthcare organization would need to invest closer to $0.97 – $0.99 in patient services to get a $1 revenue return. Using these metrics, the chart below illustrates the patient service dollars needed to net those of philanthropy.

Net Return	Patient Services Costs[5]	Gross Patient Services Revenue	Total Fundraising Expenses[6]	Total Fundraising Revenue
$10 million	$323 million – $990 million	$333 million – $1 billion in services	$2.34 million	$12.34 million
$5 million	$162 million – $495 million	$167 million – $500 million in services	$1.17 million	$6.17 million
$1 million	$32 million – $99 million	$33 million- $100 million in services	$230,000	$1.23 million

Utilizing the table figures from above, if a hospital’s chief financial officer (CFO) needs to produce $10 million in new revenue, what would be the most efficient route? At a 1% operating margin, the hospital would need to provide $1 billion in services, costing $990 million, compared to investing $1.9 million in fundraising operations.

Philanthropy provides undeniable value to healthcare executives looking for more complementary revenue sources. Of course, the argument is more nuanced than simply injecting additional fundraising operations capital to produce a guaranteed result, and most healthcare organizations’ primary mission surrounds patient care, which will always come first. Generating fundraising revenue differs from the supply and demand transactional nature of patient services. Yet, with payment cuts for care delivery on the horizon, philanthropy will likely have a more substantial ROI, become an even cheaper investment opportunity, and play a more significant role in alleviating margin pressures.

Fundraising operations investments should be monitored and reviewed regularly discern metrics such as ROI and CTRD, and to ensure that investments were wise. Organizations can pressure test additional and continual fundraising investments until the long-term ROI and CTRD diminish to the point that such investments are no longer an efficient or effective organizational practice.

3. In times of increased financial stress, philanthropy can be a good investment.

Philanthropy adds directly to an organization’s net operating margin, relieving margin pressure.

At first glance, it is not surprising that fundraising might seem inconsequential within overall healthcare organizational finances; AHP’s 2022 Report on Giving shows that health systems average $16.42 million [7] in annual philanthropy, perhaps marginal at billion-dollar health systems. However, the healthcare industry’s low operating margins also indicate that philanthropy could determine whether a hospital ends up in the red or black in any given year. In fact, according to the Kaufman-Hall analysis of 900 hospitals nationwide, 2022 closed out with operating margins at just 0.2% for December, with an average annual margin of -1.3%. Given this statistic, philanthropy can be vital to the bottom line.

Case Study: A West Coast-Based Nonprofit Healthcare System

To illustrate how financially impactful philanthropy can be on a healthcare institution, here is an example of a West Coast-based nonprofit healthcare system.

Operating Data (includes only patient services, not philanthropy financials)

Operating Revenue	$3,243,046,000
Operating Expenses	$3,157,320,000
Operating Income (Operating Revenue – Operation Expenses)	$85,726,000
Operating Margin (Operating Income/Total Operating Revenue)	2.6%

Philanthropy Data

Fundraising Revenue (Contributions and Grants)	$50,586,862
Fundraising Expenses	$8,615,529
Fundraising Income (Fundraising Revenue – Fundraising Expenses)	$41,971,333
CTRD (Fundraising Expenses / Fundraising Revenue)	$0.17

Operating and Philanthropy Combined Data

Total Revenue (Operating Revenue + Fundraising Revenue)	$3,293,632,862
Total Expenses (Operating Expenses + Fundraising Expenses)	$3,165,935,529
Net Income[8] (Total Revenue – Total Expenses)	$127,697,333
New Profit Margin (Net Revenue / Total Revenue)	3.9%

Philanthropy can be a critically powerful tool for an organization with negative operating margins. The $51 million fundraising revenue accounts for only 1.5% of the organization’s $3.3 billion total revenue, yet, the $42 million in net fundraising revenue represents an impressive 33% of the organization’s $128 million net income. Given the organization’s low operating margin (2.6%), philanthropy significantly contributes to the organization’s bottom line and overall fiscal health.

Philanthropy Is a healthy Investment for Healthcare Organizations

Health organizations now recognize philanthropy as a core business strategy to provide operational and capital dollars for organizational advancement, particularly during recent changes in healthcare economics. For any CEOs, CFOs, and healthcare leaders looking to improve their financial performance and operating margins, philanthropy is a worthy investment.

[1] For the purposes of this article, ROI is based on cash, not production accounting. ROI is calculated by dividing gross funds raised by total fundraising expenses.

[2] Assuming an operating margin of 1-3% per section 2.

[3] The operating margin is calculated by dividing the difference between the total operating revenue and total operating expenses by the total operating revenue.

[4] CTRD is calculated by dividing total fundraising expenses by total fundraising revenue.

[5] Assuming an operating margin of 1-3%.

[6] Assuming a CTRD of $0.19.

[7] Based on cash accounting.

[8] Net Income is the equivalent of the Operating Income + Fundraising Income.

More Insights

Article

Nonprofit Data Analytics: The Hidden Power of Your CRM Database

April 30, 2025

Unlock the potential of your organization’s CRM and data management techniques to secrure long-term fundraising success.

Article

Nonprofit Data Management: How to Turn Messy Data into Quality Insights

March 31, 2025

Learn simple steps you can take to manage your nonprofit’s data no matter where you are in your data health journey.

EXPLORE ALL INSIGHTS

In an increasingly competitive job market, nonprofits must recruit and retain the best talent. These are important considerations, especially around fundraising roles in nonprofit organizations that rely heavily on philanthropic revenue. Insights from CCS’s extensive experience with major higher education institutions confirm the following:

Maximized talent leads to thriving development teams and greater fundraising results.

Misappropriation of time and resources impacts productivity, dollars raised, and job satisfaction.

Staff turnover is costly.

The Center for American Progress has found that the average cost to replace an employee such as a major gift officer is up to 213% of the salary and benefits of the person being replaced. How can you mitigate some of the risks leading to turnover in your development office? Create a positive, inspiring work environment by maximizing your team’s skills. Ensure that all staff can professionally thrive by optimizing their work.

How are Your Frontline Fundraisers Spending Their Time?

Utilizing data gathered from over 70 annual higher education partners, CCS has found a ratio of 1:3 – 1:5 frontline fundraisers to support staff is optimal. In this model, “support staff” includes far more than administrative team members. Consider any member of your team who provides resources for your frontline fundraisers part of this definition of “support staff.”

A ratio below 1:3 may indicate your fundraisers are not dedicating enough time to active donor engagement. This results in an under-optimized fundraising team, fewer dollars raised, and increased burnout. Your fundraisers do not have the opportunity to do what they do best; deepen donor relationships and inspire new prospects.

A ratio above 1:5 may indicate an environment where “back of house” team members dominate, creating a high volume of red tape and potentially inefficient systems and processes. This results in an under-optimized fundraising team that is unable to focus on relationship building through strategic cultivation and solicitation leading to transformational gifts.

If your frontline fundraisers conduct any of the following indirect fundraising tasks, read on!

Event planning and/or management
Proposal writing and gift agreement administration
Program support
Prospect research

Administrative responsibilities (e.g., data entry)

the case for retention

Last year, CCS supported over 70 colleges and universities and worked with a total of 700 organizations located in over 350 cities across 18 countries. We frequently encounter frontline fundraisers with inordinate responsibilities that keep them from direct fundraising, which we define as cultivating, soliciting, and expertly stewarding prospective supporters and donors.

Though it might seem reasonable for fundraisers to wear multiple hats, this approach will cause frustration and increase turnover. Fundraisers need time to build relationships and time spent elsewhere can be costly especially when more than 67% of giving in the United States is driven by individuals. Individual philanthropy thrives on personal connections to your organization’s mission, and the time required to build those relationships is critical to fundraising success.

Retaining your fundraisers has a huge financial impact. It takes multiple years for a fundraising professional to meet their peak potential. In fact, the Chronicle of Philanthropy found that it took, on average, four years for major-gift fundraisers to “mature into their roles.” After four years, frontline fundraisers dramatically increased the average dollars they raised.

The Impact of an Imbalanced Development Operation

Examples abound demonstrating how the misappropriation of fundraisers’ time negatively impacts philanthropic revenue. Consider an organization that spends less than $0.20 to raise a $1 for their primary annual fundraising event. On the surface, this type of result is commendable. After closer consideration, however, this event’s low cost may mean that the development staff, including frontline fundraisers, carry too great a burden to optimize the cost to raise a dollar. This would certainly impact their ability to cultivate donors, build relationships, and solicit gifts—all of which could be avoided with a simple shift in resourcing for the event.

In addition to assessing how various activities impact fundraising, you can also assess how your frontline fundraisers individually make an impact. Here is one example:

Deon, whose salary is $100,000, is responsible for raising $1,000,000 each year. If 25% of Deon’s time is focused on non-fundraising activities, one could extrapolate that the organization is risking $250,000 in possible gifts each year (not even factoring in compouned growth). The organization is also indirectly budgeting $25,000 every year (a quarter of Deon’s salary) to support this non-fundraising activity.

This example does not account for the time it takes to develop meaningful donor relationships. With 25% less time to focus on fundraising, Deon has lost incalculable opportunities for relationship building and future revenue generation. For example:

Would a donor have given twice as much if Deon had the time to more deeply engage them?

This calculation will be further exacerbated when Deon is tasked with responsibilities that don’t play to his strengths and take him away from activity that will allow him to hit his goals. You can anticipate this situation will ultimately lead him to give notice, leaving your donors without a steward they know and trust.

If you think your organization would benefit from revisiting the delegation of responsibilities across the fundraising team, take these steps to determine your current fundraising-to-support staff ratio.

how to optimize Your Team

1. Evaluate and Redistribute Responsibilities

Begin by defining who you consider a frontline fundraiser and who you consider support, noting that support does not always equate to strictly administrative responsibilities. The simplest approach is to consider support staff as any role that does not hold direct fundraising responsibilities. Some roles may be split (e.g., roles that include managerial, administrative or other responsibilities), and for those roles you can divide their time across both categories (.25, .5, .75 etc.).

Here are some examples of how this might be approached:

Sample Role	Frontline	Support
Director of Development	.5	.5
Manager of Individual Giving	1
Major Gift Officer	1
Manager of Institutional Giving/Corporate Relations	1
Planned Giving Officer	1
Communications Coordinator		1
Research Analyst		1
Database Manager		1
Development Associate/Assistant		1
Special Events Manager		1
Alumni Relations Staff		1
Advancement Communications Staff		1

If the fundraising to support ratio falls short of our recommended 1:3 – 1:5 ratio, you should determine where you can delegate more of your fundraisers’ indirect work to support staff.

2. Consider Hiring Support Staff

Next time a vacancy opens up on your team, or you have an opportunity to add headcount, pause to reflect on this ratio and how your staff are currently spending their time. Consider asking your staff to spend two weeks tracking their time. This exercise will provide data for an informed assessment to support potential changes in the way you delegate and/or how you reallocate tasks.

To maximize your team’s efficiency with limited resources, CCS often encourages our clients to consider adding these support staff positions before adding costly frontline fundraisers:

Areas of Support	Impact
Proposal or Grant Writing	Frontline staff can advise on content but are not tasked with the considerable time necessary to produce stellar proposals.
Stewardship Report Writing	Frontline staff can focus on amplifying the stewardship process (e.g., arrange to hand-deliver a report) if not tasked with writing the content.
Event Coordination	Frontline staff can focus on inviting prospects and engaging attendees during and after the event, ensuring positive experiences, and deepening relationships.
Data Entry	This reduces desk time and ensures both efficacy and continuity of information included in the CRM.
Data Analysis	Harnessing your data to make informed decisions (e.g., portfolio analysis) can improve fundraising performance.
Prospect Research	Frontline staff can focus instead on research insights, connecting their donors to demonstrated areas of interest.
Board Management	Boards are frequently the biggest drivers of fundraising activity and expert management is key. Dedicated staff ensures that your Board is leveraged to their fullest extent and ensures a seamless donor experience.
Volunteer Management	Connecting donors to meaningful volunteer opportunities (such as Advisory Boards, Alumni Councils, Admissions, Career Development, etc.) frequently results in greater philanthropic investments. Frontline staff should connect the dots, while others should manage logistics such as volunteer assignments, training, and data collection.

Where your team spends its time is where your organization spends its money. Investing in the right kind and amount of support for your frontline fundraisers will reduce turnover, increase funds raised, and can make all the difference.

More Insights

Article

Nonprofit Data Analytics: The Hidden Power of Your CRM Database

April 30, 2025

Unlock the potential of your organization's CRM and data management techniques to secrure long-term fundraising success.

Article

Nonprofit Data Management: How to Turn Messy Data into Quality Insights

March 31, 2025

Learn simple steps you can take to manage your nonprofit's data no matter where you are in your data health journey.

SEE ALL IN: Higher Education

Artificial Intelligence is a broad field with a wide range of sub-fields, and data science also sometimes uses AI. Almost every application of AI depends on the input data, which the AI algorithms use to predict an output. One preferred definition of AI is “Prediction Machines,” given in the namesake book by Ajay Agarwal.

With the power of AI, nonprofit organizations can now automate and optimize their fundraising practices to engage donors more effectively and make a more significant societal impact.

Consider these six applications of AI in fundraising.

1. Giving Likelihood Prediction

One of the most promising applications of AI in fundraising is giving likelihood prediction. By studying the donation history of donors in a dataset, AI algorithms can predict the likelihood of future donations. These predictions can then be used to group donors, such as lead annual giving or major donors, and tailor communication and fundraising strategies accordingly. A popular technique for such predictions is Random Forests, more commonly referenced as “decision trees,” graphical representations of all the possible solutions to a decision based on certain conditions. AI takes the manual decision-making process out of the mix and does it for you.

2. Segmentation

AI can segment prospects or donors based on similarities such as geography, age, donation history and preferences, major in college, graduation year, and other factors. This can help to customize fundraising strategies to better engage and retain donors. Clustering or cluster analysis is a commonly used method to create these segments. Giving likelihood models can be combined with segmentation to help with donor retention or upgrades.

3. Text or Language Generation

AI language generation models such as ChatGPT and the underlying generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) models have gained attention for their ability to generate text and language. In the context of fundraising, language generation models can be used to generate qualification emails, thank you or stewardship letters, proposal generation, and research profile creation.

4. Image, Video, Music, or X Generation

AI can generate images, videos, music, or other forms of content. These models are trained on large datasets of images or other media using a combination of human labeling and computerized description. Some fundraising applications are graphic generators for communications, personalized stewardship videos, or dynamic proposals.

5. Augmented or Virtual Reality (AR/VR)

Augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR) can also be used in fundraising to transport prospective donors into an imaginary world to show the impact of their gifts. While not strictly in the AI domain, AR/VR technology can overlay different objects into our physical world or transport us to a different one.

6. Data Science

Data science is an applied field that can be used to stitch together unique fundraising solutions by analyzing large datasets to identify trends, insights, and opportunities for optimization. AI technologies can automate and optimize various fundraising practices and operations, enabling nonprofits to focus on their core mission of positively impacting society.

In conclusion, AI can revolutionize the fundraising sector through its ability to provide valuable information on donor behavior, segmentation, communication, and content creation. Nonprofits can use AI technologies to automate and enhance their fundraising practices and operations, allowing them to take the guesswork out of what may yield the most remarkable results and concentrate on their primary objective of creating a more significant impact on the world.

Explore Part II of this Revolutionizing Fundraising series, which dives into real-time examples of this work and how you can apply AI techniques to your fundraising plan and outcomes.

More Insights

Article

Nonprofit Data Analytics: The Hidden Power of Your CRM Database

April 30, 2025

Unlock the potential of your organization’s CRM and data management techniques to secrure long-term fundraising success.

Article

Nonprofit Data Management: How to Turn Messy Data into Quality Insights

March 31, 2025

Learn simple steps you can take to manage your nonprofit’s data no matter where you are in your data health journey.

SEE ALL IN: Data Analytics, Systems, & Research

New York, NY – CCS Fundraising, the world’s leading fundraising and strategic consulting firm, is proud to announce the elevation of five new partners in the firm. These individuals have demonstrated exceptional leadership, expertise, and a deep commitment to advancing the mission of the clients they serve.

Suzanne Eden, Barri Kass, Douglas London, Tim Nurvala, and Sarah Sochacki have been instrumental in driving fundraising success and lasting community impact for CCS clients, and their contributions have been invaluable to the firm. CCS is thrilled to recognize their accomplishments and welcome them into the new role of Partner.

Suzanne Eden has been with the firm for over a decade, providing leadership to clients in the areas of campaign management, strategic planning, major gifts, and more. She has worked with a diverse range of nonprofit organizations, from small community-based nonprofits to large national institutions, and across all client sectors. Her engagement as a presenter at national development conferences and as a published author for CCS thought leadership has helped both her clients and the firm achieve transformative impact. Suzanne received her B.A. from Trinity College of Arts & Sciences at Duke University and an MBA from New York University’s Stern School of Business.

Barri Kass joined CCS in 2010, bringing with her eight years of experience in the legal profession. During her tenure, she has counseled multiple organizations through nationwide planning studies, intensive campaign goal setting, case development, and pipeline building. She has a deep understanding of the philanthropic landscape and has helped clients navigate complex fundraising challenges with success. Barri received her B.A. from University of Michigan and her JD from Brooklyn Law School.

Douglas London has built his entire professional career in fundraising and strategic consulting. His areas of expertise include fundraising planning, inclusive philanthropy, major gift strategy, donor stewardship, and development staff coaching and management. He has a strong track record of guiding clients through transformational initiatives, helping them to achieve ambitious goals and build lasting relationships with donors. Doug is a native Chicagoan and received his B.A. in Communications & Politics from Lake Forest College.

Tim Nurvala has over 35 years of experience working with nonprofit organizations, governmental agencies, and international technology. His strategic approach and focus on impact have helped clients achieve sustainable growth and success. He has worked with nonprofit organizations spanning numerous industry sectors including education, healthcare, faith, environmental, and human services. Tim has a B.A. and M.A. from the University of Florida and a M.A., Ph.D. (ABD) from American University.

Sarah Sochacki has been a key member of our team for nearly a decade. With an expertise in case development and major gifts strategy, she has executed campaign planning studies, facilitated multi-million-dollar campaigns, directed development assessments, and coached client staff and volunteers through securing transformational gifts. As part of her continued commitment to philanthropy, Sarah regularly presents at various industry events and on CCS sector- and region-specific webinars. Sarah holds a B.A. from the University of Notre Dame and a M.S. in Fundraising Management from Columbia University.

“We are thrilled to promote Suzanne, Barri, Doug, Tim, and Sarah to partner,” said CCS Fundraising CEO, Jon Kane. “Their dedication to our clients and the firm has been exemplary, and we are confident that their leadership will help us continue to grow and provide transformational impact to our partners and communities around the globe.”

With the addition of these five partners, CCS Fundraising continues to strengthen its position as the world’s leading fundraising and strategic consulting firm.

About CCS Fundraising

CCS Fundraising is a strategic consulting firm that has partnered with nonprofits to create transformational change for over 75 years. CCS Fundraising provides a wide range of services that support and strengthen nonprofit fundraising programs, including campaign management, strategic planning, data analytics, and major gift strategy. The firm’s expert consultants, skilled in campaign and development strategy, work closely with organizations of all sizes across nonprofit sectors and geographies. For more information on CCS Fundraising, please visit www.ccsfundraising.com