the x factor 1 the x factor of charitable giving: are

The X Factor 1

The X Factor of Charitable Giving:

Are Nonprofit Organizations Engaging the Generation X Donor?

by

LesLee L. Burnett

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts

in

Organizational Psychology

at

John F. Kennedy University

July 2006

Approved:

_____________________________________ ______________ Advisor/Research Coordinator Date

_____________________________________ ______________ Second Reader Date

The X Factor 2

Table of Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………………..………………3

Literature Review……………………………………………………………..…………………...5

Charitable Giving Motivation………………………………………………..………………….5

Fundraising Trends………………………………………………………………..…………….7

Generation X…………………………………………………………..………………………. 8

Method……………………………………………………………………….…………………. 12

Data Collection and Analysis…………………………………………………………………..13

Results……………………………………………………………………………..……………..15

Discussion………………………………………………………………………….…………….36

Recommendations……………………………………………………………………...………40

Summary……………………………………………………………………………………….41

Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………..…42

Appendix A……………………………………………………………………………………...46

Appendix B………………………………………………………………………………………47

Appendix C……………………………………………………………………………………....48

Deleted: Page Break

The X Factor 3

The X Factor of Charitable Giving:

Are Nonprofit Organizations Engaging the Next Generation of Donors?

Statistics show there are more than 1.4 million registered, nonprofit organizations in the United

States today (National Center for Charitable Statistics, January 2008). As this number increases,

nonprofit organizations will no doubt face increased competition for charitable dollars.

Donations made by individuals represent the largest source of charitable contributions, even

when compared to foundation and corporate gifts. In 2006, approximately 75 percent of all

charitable contributions came from individual donors for a total of $222.89 billion (Giving USA

Foundation, 2007).

Knowing one’s donors as well as understanding what factors drive their charitable giving

behavior may enhance a nonprofit organization’s fundraising success. Charitable giving attitudes

and behaviors appear to vary among generations (Eastman, 1995). It is thought that each

generation’s philosophy and approach to philanthropy has been shaped by historic and cultural

events that occurred while growing up. Things like war, economic prosperity or hardship, and

technological advancements significantly impact one’s world view and attitude toward society.

Generation X, typically categorized as those born between 1965 and 1976, is a unique

group in that it grew up in a rapidly changing society characterized by soaring divorce rates,

recession, the AIDS epidemic, and technological advancements never experienced by previous

generations. They were the first generation raised on television, personal computers, and video

games. As young adults, they came out of college into an unstable economy and a deteriorating

The X Factor 4

job market. Then, in the late 1990s, they found unprecedented success and prosperity with the

technology boom only to see it crumble a few years later.

Early on, words like jaded, apathetic, and slacker were used to describe Generation X.

But as its members age, Generation X is shedding those stereotypes. Many of those in

Generation X started careers later than the previous generation. However, statistics show that, in

their thirties, more members of Generation X are homeowners and wealthier than their parents

and Baby Boomers (typically considered those born between 1946 and 1964) were at the same

age (Kleber & Associates, 2005).

As the members of Generation X grow older (the oldest will be 43 years old in 2008),

have children, establish careers, and develop personal wealth, they are likely to become more

involved in charitable giving for personal and economic reasons. As competition for charitable

dollars among nonprofit organizations increases, nonprofits will need to examine this donor base,

understand what motivates it to make charitable donations, and find creative ways to engage it in

the charities’ missions. Old fundraising techniques may no longer be effective.

The goal of this project is to examine current fundraising techniques utilized by nonprofit

organizations and determine if there are best practices or techniques to encourage charitable

giving among Generation X. To gather data, a sample of no less than 50 nonprofit organizations

with annual budgets of no less than $25,000 will be surveyed using a web-based survey. The

survey will attempt to determine if charitable organizations collect information about the age of

their donors and, if so, whether they adapt their fundraising efforts given the age of the donors.

Also, the survey will seek to identify any specific fundraising techniques that have proven

successful with Generation X.

The X Factor 5

Literature Review

It is not enough to simply look at Generation X and predict how social and historical

events might influence that generation’s charitable behavior. The goal is to create a more

complete picture of Generation X and charitable giving by examining internal and external

factors at play. As a way to do this, the following literature review focuses on three main topics:

charitable giving motivation, fundraising trends, and Generation X.

Charitable Giving Motivation

Why does someone give money to a charitable organization? There are many factors at

play, and not all are altruistic. One’s culture has a strong influence on charitable giving, but

donors also seek to meet psychological needs, whether they realize it or not. Clary and Snyder

(1995) created what they call a “functional approach” (p. 112) to understanding charitable giving

by focusing on donor motivation. They identified the following six functions of charitable

giving. The first function is personal values. Charitable giving is a way to express personal

values such as altruism, the importance of community involvement, and the responsibility to help

others in need. The second is social influence. One’s decision to make a charitable gift may be

influenced by a perceived social pressure. A friend or colleague may ask someone to donate to a

child’s school fundraiser, and the person perceives that not making a donation could adversely

affect his or her social standing. The third function is career advancement, in which a donor is

motivated by financial or career gain. For example, a donor may make a gift to charity to receive

an income-tax deduction. Or, one may feel obligated to make a gift to his or her office’s annual

United Way fundraising campaign because the boss has encouraged all employees to give. The

fourth is protection. Charitable giving may be done as an act of contrition or as a way to alleviate

feelings of guilt, such as when a donor’s motivation to give comes from the feeling that he or she

Deleted: ¶

The X Factor 6

“may have so much while others have so little” (p. 116). The fifth function is enhancement. An

Independent Sector survey found that one of the leading motivators to give to charity was the

gained “sense of personal satisfaction” (as cited in Giving and Volunteering 1992, p. 224). In

other words, people give to charity because it makes them feel good. The sixth and final function

is understanding, which states that charitable giving is motivated by a donor’s desire to learn

more about a particular cause or to “enhance the cultural and intellectual life of their

community” (Clary and Snyder, 1995, p. 117). For example, some donors may see charitable

giving as a way to promote personal and community growth.

In their study, Schervish and Havens (1998) set out to discover what motivates charitable

giving. As part of the study, the researchers developed some basic assumptions as to why people

donate to charity. Schervish and Havens called these assumptions the “Identification Model” (p.

1). The Identification Model is comprised of five motivational elements:

1. Communities of participation. This element says charitable giving is

motivated by social and community groups of which a donor is a member.

2. Frameworks of consciousness. Here one’s personal beliefs, such as religious

or political beliefs, influence one’s choice to donate to charity.

3. Direct requests. This element assumes that simply being asked to give to

charity is a motivating factor.

4. Discretionary resources. This element states that if someone has the monetary

means to donate to charity, they will do so.

5. Models and experiences from youth. This final element says that if someone

was exposed to charitable giving, either by their parents, school, or church, he

or she will be motivated to give as an adult.

The X Factor 7

Next, Schervish and Havens compared their Identification Model to data gathered in a

national survey on charitable giving and volunteering that included questions about donor

motivation and beliefs. Not surprisingly, they found that people tend to give more to charity

when all five elements are at play. Looking at the data more closely, the researchers determined

that three of the five elements had the greatest impact on charitable giving. They were, in order

of importance, (a) communities of participation, (b) direct requests, and (c) discretionary

resources. The elements, frameworks or consciousness, and experiences from youth, proved to

have no statistical significance.

Fundraising Trends

After evaluating 30 years of data on charitable giving in the United States, as presented in

the 2002 edition of the AAFRC Trust for Philanthropy’s Giving USA, Grizzard (2006) gleaned

three significant trends in fundraising: the continuous increase of gifts to charity, the

contradiction between the state of the economy and the success of fundraising, and the ever

increasing competition for charitable dollars.

First, charitable giving continues to increase regardless of the United States’ economic

climate. There was only one exception to this in 1987 when charitable giving decreased. That

decrease was attributed to two factors. The first was the stock market crash in October 1987.

Secondly, in 1986, after Congress passed a reduction in individual tax rates that took effect in

1987, many taxpayers transferred their 1987 charitable deductions to 1986 where it was more

advantageous.

The second trend Grizzard found was that successful fundraising efforts do not appear to

be related to economic conditions. He claimed success was based more on a nonprofit’s

fundraising strategy and execution (¶ 7). In others words, nonprofits whose fundraising efforts

The X Factor 8

remain diligent and well-planned tend to be consistently successful, regardless of the state of the

economy.

Finally, the third trend shows that competition for charitable dollars is increasing among

nonprofits. There are simply more charitable organizations in existence today seeking support.

Also, fundraisers are doing an increasingly better job in raising money for their organizations,

thus increasing the challenge of fundraising.

In Dreger’s (n.d.) article, Fundraising Trends for 2004 and Beyond, he outlined three

trends that are currently impacting the field of nonprofit fundraising and will continue to do so in

the future. The first trend is that charitable giving will continue to increase. Improvements in the

stock market and a stronger economy were initially the main drivers for this trend. The second

trend identified by Dreger is the continuing increase in competition among nonprofits for

charitable donations. This trend can be attributed to the growing number of charitable

organizations, the increasing need for services, and the “greater demand for accountability and

transparency” (¶ 12) in the nonprofit world. The final trend is the need for nonprofits to become

more technically savvy. Increasingly, donors want to be able to research nonprofits, receive

updates, and make donations online. It will be imperative for nonprofits to make electronic

communications and online giving part of their fundraising strategy.

Generation X

In 1991, Douglas Copeland coined the infamous generational name of those born

between 1965 and 1976: Generation X. In his novel, Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated

Culture, Copeland (1991) portrayed a generation of self-centered, unmotivated, jaded,

unconnected slackers with no sense of purpose or direction in life. Along with the name, these

stereotypes stuck with this generation whether they were accurate or not.

The X Factor 9

In her book, Boomers, Xers, and Other Strangers, Hicks (1999) identified the cultural

and historic events that have shaped and influenced the generations. Starting with the 1920s

through the 1990s, she looked at a variety of factors: everything from heroes of the day and

popular music to economic climate and international relations. Culture and historic events that

have shaped Generation X include a declining economy and job market both in the 1980s and

early 1990s, the advent of the personal computer, the technology boom of the late 1990s and

early 2000s, the AIDS epidemic, the increasing divorce rate, and the increasing rate of women

entering the workforce.

It has been 15 years since Douglas’ book was first published, and Generation X has

grown up. But many of the Generation X stereotypes remain. Kleber & Associates (2005)

identified some prevalent myths about Generation X and, using current statistics, attempted to

gauge the accuracy of those myths today.

Myth #1: Generation X is overeducated and underemployed. It is thought that Baby

Boomers’ disappointment with the job market in the 1990s was projected onto Generation X,

thus painting a bleak picture for Generation X as it entered the workforce for the first time.

Statistics show that Generation X, at a younger age, has made more money than their Baby

Boomer counterparts. Generation X’s average household income is also greater than Baby

Boomers’ average household income was at the same age.

Myth #2: Generation X lives with their parents longer. The downturn in the 1990s job

market may have influenced Myth #2. It was just assumed that Generation X would have trouble

finding employment or would be making less money and in turn they would not be able to afford

a home of their own. Statistics show that Generation X has been able to buy homes sooner than

The X Factor 10

Baby Boomers. Also, more single Generation X women have been able to buy houses than their

female Baby Boomer counterparts.

Myth #3: Generation X favors intangibles over possessions. Members of Generation X

have been spending money since they were teens and they have not stopped. According to a

Consumer Expenditure Survey, they have spent more money on “eating out, clothing,

transportation, entertainment, audio/visual equipment and housing” (¶ 22) than the average

consumer.

Myth #4: Generation X is cynical. This appears to be the only myth that could not be

disproved. Members of Generation X are not as idealistic as their parents and Baby Boomer

counterparts and are known for their sarcastic and ironic perception of the world around them.

Generation X, comprised of those born between 1965 and 1976, is proving to be a hard

donor group to reach. In a study conducted in 2003 by members of Indiana University’s Center

on Philanthropy, Richard Steinberg and Mark Wilhem found that when compared with two

previous generations, Generation X gave significantly less money to charity (Panepento, 2005).

Study results showed that a little more than 50% of households headed by a member of

Generation X reported making an annual donation of $25 or more (¶ 9), whereas 75% of Baby

Boomer headed households and 80 percent of pre-World War II headed households reported

making an annual gift of $25 or more (¶ 9).

But this does not mean Generation X is apathetic or disinterested in charitable giving.

Rather, its members approaching philanthropy differently than their parents and grandparents. It

is thought that the era in which Generation X grew up has had a significant effect on its

charitable behavior. Unlike the two previous generations, Generation X did not have “massive

The X Factor 11

social movements” (¶ 13), like World War II or the Civil Rights movement, around which to

rally. Thus, they did not develop a strong sense of community.

Generation X seems to be looking for ways to connect with their community, to build

“social networks” (¶ 13), and to put their skills to good use, not just give money outright. Some

nonprofits recognize this and are starting to tap into this generation’s need for a sense of

community. Instead of simply asking for money, nonprofits are asking for volunteer hours first.

They are targeting professionals less than 40 years of age and creating volunteer opportunities

where individuals can interact with their peers while performing a needed service for the

nonprofit. This way, they get to know a nonprofit personally and see the results of their volunteer

efforts firsthand.

It is this feeling of connectedness that seems to appeal most to Generation X. Some

nonprofits have begun to adapt their fundraising approach in response. Nonprofits are finding

that when they can connect Generation X to a cause, they not only get dedicated volunteers but

eventually much needed funding as well. One nonprofit that designed a program that matched

young professionals with senior-level executives to receive training on how to serve on a

nonprofit board of directors received about 300 new gifts from donors under the age of 40.

Statistics show members of Generation X are less likely to give money to charity than

previous generations (Semuels, 2004). One author, William Strauss, who has written books about

generational trends, claims that Generation X’s parents were not nurturing. Couple this lack of

nurturing with the absence of a major event, like a Vietnam War, to rally around and Generation

X has developed a sort of apathy towards helping others.

Even though statistics do show Generation X is giving less money to charity, some do not

believe they are not philanthropically inclined. Simply asking for money may not be the best

The X Factor 12

approach. Generation X is “more inclined to believe in something strongly and do something

about it” (¶ 12), says Larry Biddle, a thirty-year, non-profit fundraising professional. Biddle

suggests nonprofit organizations may be overlooking twenty and thirty year-olds thinking there

is no opportunity for monetary gifts. He believes many people in Generation X have money to

give and would do so if they truly felt the money would be used for a good cause.

Method

Research methodology is determined by the type of data to be gathered (Leedy, 1993). If

the data are verbal (i.e., descriptions of experiences, personal beliefs, or feelings) the

methodology is qualitative. Conversely, if the data are numeric (i.e., how many times a specific

event occurs over a period time) the methodology is quantitative. Though research design tends

to follow one or the other, the two methodologies are not mutually exclusive, and elements of

both will be used in this study. Data will be gathered using a combination of qualitative and

quantitative questions. For example, participants will be asked to describe fundraising practices,

but, they will also be asked questions such as geographic location, populations served, and

annual budget.

A survey will be used to collect data. This will allow a larger participant pool from which

to collect data. The survey will consist of open-ended questions that will require the participants

to provide answers in a comment box. There will also be multiple choice and fixed questions,

such as those requiring only a “yes” or “no” answer. However, comment boxes will also be

placed after these questions to capture any additional comments the participants may wish to

convey.

The X Factor 13

Leedy (1993) outlined certain elements that must be considered when creating an

effective survey. First, the questions must be extremely clear. Jargon with which participants

may not be familiar should be avoided. The construction of each question should make its

purpose clear, make it easy for the participant to answer, and elicit the desired answer the

researcher is seeking.

Second, the survey should be created to achieve a specific research objective. The design

of the survey is imperative. Each question should be objective, consistent, relevant, and

appropriate for gathering the desired data. The survey should be easy to read and complete and

be as brief as possible. It is also important to think about how it will be perceived by the

participants. It is helpful to consider how you would react if you were asked to complete the

survey. Does it look too long and overwhelming? Are the instructions easy to understand? Is the

goal of the survey clear?

Finally, how the participants are approached to take part can affect the success of the

survey. When inviting someone to take part, the researcher should focus on what the study’s

objective is and what the participant has to gain from it. Disclosing personal information about

the researcher is irrelevant to the study. Instead, the researcher should make the participant the

focal point of the solicitation. He or she should be specific about what the participant can gain

from taking part in the study.

Data Collection and Analysis

Approximately 150 nonprofit organizations will be indentified using specific criteria. The

organizations must (a) have a reported annual budget of $25,000 or more; (b) be registered with

the Internal Revenue Service as 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, nonprofit organizations; (c) provide

neither educational nor religious services; and (d) have an email address to which the online

The X Factor 14

survey can be sent. The organizations will be identified using the website GuideStar.org, a

searchable database of over a million IRS recognized nonprofit organizations in the United

States. The type of services the organizations provide will be determined using NTEE (National

Taxonomy of Exempt Entities) codes as developed by the National Center for Charitable

Statistics. GuideStar.org allows users to filter searches by NTEE code.

The survey will be hosted online at SurveyMonkey.com (www.SurveyMonkey.com). An

email invitation will be sent to the participants via the SurveyMonkey website. The email

invitation will include the purpose of the study, what participants can expect when taking the

survey, and a brief background of the researcher. The email invitation will also provide a link

that will give participants instant access to the online survey. Participants can then take the

survey immediately or return to it later. One week from when the email invitation was originally

sent, a reminder email will be sent to all participants who have not returned a completed survey.

Data will be gathered and stored by SurveyMonkey.com. The site provides only high-

level data analysis, so additional data analysis will be conducted. Survey data will be exported

from SurveyMonkey.com into an Excel spreadsheet for compilation and analysis. Data will be

divided into different demographics (i.e. annual budget or geographic location) to search for

differences and similarities. Patterns and relational connections among the data will be examined

as well.

A final component of this project will be to develop an educational piece for the survey

participants, post-data analysis. An executive summary will be created that will include

information on the motivational factors of charitable giving, the charitable giving behavior of

Generation X, and current fundraising strategies. The results of the survey will be presented

The X Factor 15

along with a discussion of the findings and how they may relate to the future charitable giving

behaviors of Generation X.

Results

The purpose of this research was to identify fundraising techniques utilized by nonprofit

organizations when targeting potential donors between the ages of 31 and 42, to examine the

charitable giving behavior of this particular donor group, and to identify any best practices that

encourage charitable giving from it. Data was collected using an online survey comprised of

multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Nonprofit organizations were selected using specific

criteria. The organization (a) had a reported annual budget of $25,000 or more; (b) provided

neither educational nor religious services; and (c) had an email address to which the online

survey could be sent. However, there was one exception. One respondent represented an

organization with an educational mission. One of the organizations that received the original

survey invitation forwarded it to an acquaintance, which in turn completed the survey.

In total, 176 nonprofit organizations were invited to participate in the online survey. The

return rate was 6%, with eleven organizations completing the survey. This low response rate

could be attributed to several factors, for example, an overabundance of email phishing scams

and spam email messages, the lack of recognition of the sender’s name, or simply not having the

time to complete the survey.

Follow-up telephone calls were made to four organizations that did not respond to the

online survey. The contacts at the organizations were simply asked why they chose not to

complete the survey. Representatives of two organizations responded similarly that they did not

recognize the name or email address of the sender of the survey invitation and simply deleted it.

The X Factor 16

Both were then asked if they thought the email invitation was spam. One reported being skeptical

of the email but did not necessarily consider it to be spam. He said, “My first thought was, ‘I

have no idea who this person is.’ I didn’t have the time to follow-up on the information you

provided about yourself and your study to find out if it was legitimate. So, I just deleted your

email.” The individual from the other organization said she never responds to emails from

unknown senders for fear of computer viruses. The third organization’s representative intended

to complete the survey but because of time limitations put it off until she thought it was too late

to respond. As for the fourth organization, I was never able to talk to a representative in person,

and messages were not returned.

The following section presents the findings from responding organizations.

1. How many years has your organization been in operation?

Answered question 11

Skipped question 0

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Participant

Less than 1 year 0% 0 -

1-3 years 0% 0 -

4-6 years 9.1% 1 P8

7-9 years 0% 0 -

10-12 years 0% 0 -

13-15 years 18.2% 2 P3 and P10

Longer than 15 years

72.7% 8 P1, P2, P4, P5, P6, P7, P9, and P11

Total 100% 11

Participant Additional comments:

P6 We were founded in 1937

The X Factor 17

All participants answered Question #1. Of the 11 organizations surveyed, 10 had been in

existence for 13 years or longer, with 8 of those in existence for longer than 15 years. There was

one outlier. One organization reported being in existence for only 4-6 years. It is not known if

these percentages reflect those of the group of organizations invited to take the survey as years in

existence was not a criteria used for selecting them.

2. Where is your organization located (City and State)?


Skipped question 0

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

City/Town 100% 11

State/Province 100% 11

Participant City/Town State/Province

P1 San Francisco CA

P2 San Francisco CA

P3 Denver CO

P4 Marietta GA

P5 Anchorage AK

P6 Orlando FL

P7 Waikiki HI

P8 Lake Hughes CA

P9 Birmingham AL

P10 Denver CO

P11 Conway AR

All participants answered Question #2. Those responding to the survey were located only

in the western and southeastern regions of the United States; 64% responded from the West and

36% from the Southeast. There were no participants from the Southwest, Midwest, and the

Northeast sections of the country. The average number of surveys sent to each state by region

was as follows: Midwest - 3.5/state (38); Northeast - 3.6/state (32); Southeast - 3.0/state (49);

The X Factor 18

Southwest - 3.5/state (14); and West - 3.9/state (43). The higher average for the West can more

than likely be attributed to the fact that eight nonprofit organizations in California were sent

survey invitations, whereas all other states received approximately three survey invitations each.

This corresponds to receiving more completed surveys (3) from California than any other state. I

sent additional survey invitations to a handful of colleagues who were involved with fundraising

efforts for nonprofit organizations in the Western region of the United States.

3. Which of the below categories best represent the type of services your organization

provided?


Skipped question 0

Answer Options Response Percent

Response Count

Participant

Arts, Culture & Humanities 18.2% 2 P4 and P5

Environment & Animals 9.1% 1 P6

Health 0 0 -

Human Services 54.5% 6 P1, P3, P7, P8, P9, P10 and P11

Social Justice 0 0

Other 18.2% 2 P2 and P10

Total 100% 11

Participant Other:

P2 Health and Human Services with an animal welfare based mission

P10 Education

All participants answered question #3. More than half (54.5%) reported providing

“Human Services” related services. Two organizations reported providing services relating to

“Arts, Culture, and Humanities.” One reported services related to “Environment and Animals.”

Another organization reported its services to be a combination of both “Health and Human

The X Factor 19

Services” and “Animal Welfare.” Finally, one organization reported that it provided services

related to “Education.” Educational organizations were excluded from the original group of

participants. The above percentages do not reflect those of the original group. Approximately

equal numbers of organizations were selected from each NTEE category: Arts, Culture, and

Humanities; Environment and Animals; Health; Human Services; and Social Justice.

4. What is the organization’s annual budget?

5. What percentage of the organization’s budget is derived from fundraising/donations?


Skipped question 0

Annual Budget Percentage of Budget Derived from Fundraising

Participant Type of Organization

$5.00 38% P6 Environment & Animals

$500,000.00 100% P2 Health & Human services w/ animal welfare based mission

$600,000.00 36% P3 Human Services



$1,100,000.00 80% P10 Education

$1,500,000.00 90% P9 Human Services

$1,800,000.00 100% P8 Human Services

$2,000,000.00 25% P5 Arts, Culture & Humanities

$3,500,000.00 35% P4 Arts, Culture & Humanities

$5,000,000.00 15% P1 Human Services

Mean Annual Budget $1,615,909.55

Range $5.00 - $5,000,000.00

Mean Percentage of Budget from Fundraising

49%

Range 1% - 100%

The X Factor 20

Both Questions #4 and #5 were answered by all eleven participants. One participant, P6,

reported an annual budget of $5.00. This, more than likely, was a data entry error. No

organization reported an annual budget of less than $500K or more than $5M, with the exception

of the above mentioned outlier. More than half (55%) of the organizations reported an annual

budget of more than $1M. Forty-five percent reported their annual budget as $900K or less.

Percentages of the annual budget derived from fundraising ranged from 1% to 100%, a

wide range. Seven of the respondents claimed 38% or less of their organizations’ annual budgets

came from fundraising. The remaining four claimed 80% or more of their organizations’ annual

budgets was generated by fundraising efforts.

6. What percentage of the organization’s budget is dedicated to fundraising efforts (including

staff salaries)?

7. How many staff members are dedicated to fundraising?


Skipped question 0

Percentage of Budget Dedicated

to Fundraising

Number of Staff Dedicated to Fundraising

Annual Budget Participant

7% 3 $5.00 P6

21% 1.25 $500,000.00 P2

5% 2 $600,000.00 P3

30% 2 $875,000.00 P7

1% 1 $900,000.00 P11

10% 0.5 $1,100,000.00 P10

11% 2 $1,500,000.00 P9

14% 5 $1,800,000.00 P8

15% 1 $2,000,000.00 P5

6% 2 $3,500,000.00 P4

4% 1.5 $5,000,000.00 P1

The X Factor 21

Mean Percentage of Budget Dedicated to Fundraising

11%

Range 1% - 30%

Mean Number of Staff Dedicated to Fundraising

1.93

Range 0.5 - 5

All eleven participants answered Questions #6 and #7. All reported having at least one

half-time staff member dedicated to fundraising; the most reported was five. Both organizations

with the least and most numbers of fundraising staff had annual budgets of over $1M but less

than $2M. The majority of participants (8) reported having 1-2 staff members dedicated to

fundraising. Organizations with an annual budget of less than $1M averaged 1.85 staff members

performing fundraising activities. Those with an annual budget over $1M average two

fundraising staff members. A larger annual budget did not correlate to more staff dedicated to

fundraising efforts.

8. Do you collect demographic information about your donors?


Skipped question 0

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Participants

Yes 90.9% 10 P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8, P9, P10

No 9.1% 1 P11Total 100% 11


P2 Very basic info though

Question #8 was answered by all participants. All but one organization, P11, reported

collecting some type of demographic information about their donors. Participant P11 also

The X Factor 22

reported the lowest percentage of budget (1%) generated from fundraising activities in Question

#6.

9. If yes, what types of data are collected? (check all that apply)


Skipped question 1

Answer Options Response percent

Response Count

Location (City and State) 100% 10

Age 30% 3

Sex 50% 5

Annual household income 10% 1

Education level 20% 2

Other (please specify) 20% 2

Participant Location(City & State)

Age Sex Annualhousehold

income

Educationlevel

Other

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11

Participant Other (please specify)

P5 student with organization or have a child in the classes

P10 Because I run an alumni association, I have the benefit of knowing most of this information from their graduate year, degree, etc.

The X Factor 23

One participant did not answer Question #9. Of the ten participants who did answer this

question, all reported collecting some type of demographic information. The city and state in

which their donors resided was recorded by all participants. In addition to the location of their

donors, half recorded the sex of their donors and one third recorded the age of their donors. On

average, at least two kinds of demographic data were collected. However, participant P10 noted

having access to donors’ demographic data because the participant managed an alumni

association.

10. If you do not collect demographic information about your donors, why not?

Answered question 6

Skipped question 5

Participant Responses

P2 Not easily available. Donors don’t want to reveal such personal info when they give.

P3 We collect demographic information somewhat sporadically and when data is readily available. We need to develop this area.

P4 We have collected demographic information via surveys (both money survey and surveys in our lobby) but they have been answered by only a small percentage of our donors.

P5 we don’t do more than above because we don’t do anything with it due to lack of time and staff.

P6 Staff has too hard a time getting basics entered correctly

P11 In prior years did not raise funds. Received funding through the United Way in prior years.

Though all but one participant reported collecting some kind of demographic data, six

provided a reason why they do not. Reasons that prevented the collection of demographic data

ranged from donors’ unwillingness to provide it when asked to a lack of staff to collect it.

Participant P11 reported having not received money from fundraising in previous years, thus the

organization did not have individual donors from which to collect demographic data.

11. Is donor demographic data used in planning and developing fundraising campaigns?

The X Factor 24

Answered question 9

Skipped question 2


Yes 88.9% 8 P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6 P8, P10

No 11.1% 1 P7Total 100% 9


P2 We look at zip codes for direct mail and past history of giving

P3 Somewhat. We target our fundraising campaigns to certain professions, political affiliations, and to a lesser extent age and sex.

P11 All events and donors are local

Two participants did not answer this question. Only participant P7 did not use donor

demography when planning a fundraising campaign. However, in Question #9, P7 reported

collecting donors’ locations, sexes, and ages. Participant P2 used zip codes to target potential

recipients of direct mail campaigns. Participant P3 used additional demographic data (profession

and political affiliation) rather than those kinds specifically mentioned in Question #9.

12. When developing a fundraising campaign, is a donor’s age a factor?


Skipped question 0


Yes 54.5% 6 P1, P3, P6, P9, P10, P11

No 45.5% 5 P2, P4, P5, P7, P8

Total 100% 11


P2 But I'm open to that in the future.

The X Factor 25

P8 Not at this time but as we move toward implementing a planned giving program, we will attempt to capture more demographics to target certain age brackets.

P10 I am new to this position, but plan to use much more electronic communication and social networking services to help advance our fundraising activities

All eleven participants answered Question #12. Half of the participants (P1, P3, P6, P9,

P10, and P11) reported considering a potential donor’s age when developing a fundraising

campaign; however, only P10 said his or her organization actually gathered the age of its donors

(Q #9). On the other hand, of those who said they do not factor a donor’s age into the

development of fundraising campaigns, two participants actually collect that exact demographic

data. Of the five participants who reported a donor’s age was not a factor in creating a

fundraising campaign, two, P2 and P8, said they wanted to or planned to rate it in the future.

13. Approximately what percentage of your donors is between the ages of 31 and 42?

Answered question 6

Skipped question 5

Participant Percentage of Donors Between the Ages of 31 & 42

P1 15-25%

P2 Don’t know

P5 60%

P6 41%

P7 1%

P10 20%

Mean 28%

Range 1% - 60%

Almost half of the eleven participants did not answer this question. Of those that did

answer, only one, P2, reported not knowing how many donors are between the ages of 31 and 42.

The X Factor 26

Participants P1, P5, and P6 recorded a percentage but reported they did not collect the age of

their donors in Question #9, so one could assume this is an approximation or a guess. The

percentage of donors reported between those ages varied between 1% and 60%, with an average

of 28%.

14. In terms of dollars donated, approximately what percentage comes from donors between the ages of 31 and 42?

Answered question 7

Skipped question 4

Participant Percentage of Dollars Donated from Donors Between the

Ages of 27 & 43

P1 10-15%

P2 Don’t know

P5 30%

P6 85%

P7 1%

P9 5%

P10 15%

Mean 25%

Range 1% - 85%

Question #14 was not answered by four participants, one of whom, P4, stated his or her

organization collects donors’ ages (see table in Q9). P7 and P10, the only two other participants

who reported collecting donors’ ages, responded 1% and 15%. One could assume that their

figures in the above table were the most accurate and the rest were again approximations or

guesses. Perhaps participants were unable to say that they did not know. The responses to this

question varied from 1% to 85%, with the average percentage being 25%. One participant, P2,

stated that he or she did not know the percentage. All but one of those participants that

approximated the percentage of donations that came from this age group reported it as only 30%

The X Factor 27

or less. The exception was P6, who reported it at 85%. P6 was the only participant who described

his or her organization’s sole mission as Environmental and Animals related. However in

Question #9, P6 claimed not to collect donors’ ages.

15. Do your fundraising efforts specifically target potential donors between the age of 31 and 42?


Skipped question 0


Yes 45.5% 5 P1, P3, P6, P8, P10

No 54.5% 6 P2, P4, P5, P7, P9, P11

Total 100% 11


P1 We hold youth related events but do not target youth in direct mail

P3 Depending on the campaign

P6 We split the efforts into several demographics - don't want to forget the elders

P8 We have two regional advisory groups that are currently comprised of mostly young professionals.

All participants answered this question, and the responses were split fairly evenly (5 -

Yes and 6 - No). Participants P1, P6, and P8 claim to target donors between 31 and 42 years of

age but do not collect that specific data from their current donors. It is interesting to note that the

word youth usually refers to children and teenagers. It is not clear what age group it is referring

to here: the children of these donors or the donors themselves.

16. If you answered “Yes” to Question 15, what fundraising techniques have been most

successful to engage donors between the ages of 31 and 42? What techniques have proven

unsuccessful?

The X Factor 28

Answered question 5

Skipped question 6

Answer Options Response Count

Successful 5

Unsuccessful 2

Participant Successful Unsuccessful

P1 Youth Events are the most successful

Direct Mail/Street Fair sign-ups

P3 We are planning a young, hip event for fashion entrepreneurs in the Denver area for December

-

P6 Special events -

P8 special events -

P10 Electronic newsletters, online doantion programs, recurring donations, easy to forward fundraising emails, giving in leiu of things like wedding favors (worked at a previous employer) [sic]

Reduced price tickets to fundraising events targeting older donors - just did not respond, as the event really did not appeal to younger people

Only five participants answered Question #16. It is interesting to note that P4 and P7, two

of the three respondents who reported asking the age of donors, did not respond to these more

specific questions regarding how to target a specific age group. When asked to give examples of

successful and unsuccessful fundraising techniques, a larger number of successful ones were

provided: five successful techniques and two unsuccessful techniques. All but one successful

fundraising technique noted had to do with special events. Of those who provided fundraising

techniques that proved successful with donors between the ages of 31 and 42, only participant

P10 reported knowing the age of donors in Question #9. P10 also reported specific and detailed

activities.

17. If you do not target potential donors between the ages of 31 and 42, why not?

The X Factor 29

Answered question 7

Skipped question 4

Participant Responses

P2 Again, we don't segment based on age. Although we did do a volunteer recruitment campaign aimed at people in their 20's and 30's.

P3 This is an area we are developing. The young crowd is relatively new for us (35 and under)

P4 don't have a sophisticated enough development plan to target by age

P5 don't collect that kind of demographic information

P7 Our membership base is comprised of mostly senior adults

P9 Coming off capital campaign-have not had opportunity to map out development plan

P11 We have not developed the data base to obtain information about ages of donors

Question #17 was answered by seven participants. It now becomes clearer as to why P4

and P7 did not respond to questions targeting this specific age group. P4 thought his fundraising

development plan was not “sophisticated” enough to focus on a particular age group. P7 targets

senior adults, donors older than this age group. As for others that did not report that they

captured age data on their donors, Participant P2 did not aim fundraising efforts toward potential

donors between 31 and 42 years of age but did aim a volunteer recruitment campaign toward

them. P3 was just beginning to focus on this age group. P5 simply does not collect the age of

donors, whereas P11’s organization has no means of doing so. P9 has not yet begun development

of future fundraising campaigns.

18. Do future fundraising efforts include targeting this age group?


Skipped question 1


The X Factor 30

Yes 60% 6 P1, P3, P6, P7, P10, P11

No 40% 4 P2, P4, P5, P8Total 100% 10

Participant If no, why not?

P5 don't specifically target based on age

P8 We are more concerned with building a major gifts program aimed at more senior-level prospects at this time.

All but one participant answered this question. Sixty percent said they will target

potential donors between the ages of 31 and 42 in the future; forty percent said no. Of those that

said “Yes,” only two, P7 and P10, currently collect the ages of their donors. Similarly, the four

participants who answered “Yes,” (P1, P3, P6, and P10) reported that they have fundraising

campaigns that currently target this age group.

19. In your experience, have you found donors between the ages of 31 and 42 give more, less, or

about the same as donors between the ages of 43 and 61?


Skipped question 1


More 10% 1 P7

Less 90% 9 P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P8, P9, P10

About the same 0% 0

Total 100% 10


P2 Slightly less, because their funding priorities tend to be around their kids

P11 Unknown

The X Factor 31

All but one participant answered Question #19. Only one participant, P7, reported donors

between the ages of 31 and 42 give more than those between 43 and 61. In Question #17, P7

responded that donors tended to be older than the 31 to 42 age group. All other participants said

the younger age group gave less. No participants reported the two age groups gave in similar

amounts.

20. In your experience, which of the following have you found to be true in regards to your

donors between the ages of 31 and 42?


Skipped question 1


Response Count

Participant

They donate more money than volunteer time 0% 0 -

They donate more volunteer time than money 70% 7 P1, P3, P6, P7, P8, P9, P10

They donate money only 10% 1 P4

They donate volunteer time only 0% 0 -

They donate comparable amounts of both money and volunteer time

20% 2 P2, P5

Total 100% 10

Additional comments:

P2 This is based on trends in the field and observations I've made

P3 We use countless volunteers under the age of 35. We want to transition them into financial donors/investors.

P11 Unkown [sic]

One participant (P6) did not answer Question #20. Seventy percent of the participants

said those between the ages of 31 and 42 donated more volunteer time than money; no one

reported that they gave more money than volunteer time. Only one participant, P4, said this age

group gave money only. Two, P2 and P5, said they gave equal amounts of both. No participant

The X Factor 32

reported this age group gave volunteer time only and no money. As noted in the Additional

Comments, P2’s response came not from experience with donors, but rather from “trends in the

field and observations.”

21. In your experience, what fundraising techniques have been successful with your donors

between the ages of 31 and 42? (check all that apply)


Skipped question 1


Response Count

Direct mail solicitations 20% 2

Traditional fundraising events (Galas, balls, luncheons, etc.)

50% 5

Interactive fundraising events (Runs or walks) 60% 6

Other (please specify) 50% 5

Participant Direct Mail Solicitations

Traditional Fundraising

Events (Galas, balls,

luncheons, etc.)

Interactive Fundraising

Events(Runs or walks)

Other

P1 P2 P3 P4

P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11

Participant Other (please specify)

The X Factor 33

P2 They like to be more engaged and active; and like the ease of on-line donations

P3 Think Tank Sessions at our community Think Tank and Sustainable Enterprise Events/Awards

P7 Internet plays a large role in their communication and responses.

P10 I worked for the Komen Foundation and the Race for the Cure is tremendously popular among younger people. I have found that traditional fundraising works, but other things could work better.

P11 Golf Ball Drop

Question #21 was answered by all but one participant. Though it is very similar to

Question #16, Question #21 asks respondents about successful fundraising practices on a broader

scale. Question #16 refers to techniques used in the participants’ current fundraising roles,

whereas Question #21 asks participants to consider their overall experience in fundraising.

Direct mail campaigns were less effective for the organizations in generating donations

with only two, P2 and P5, selecting it. Traditional fundraising events such as galas and

interactive fundraising events such as “fun runs” proved about equally effective with five and six

selections respectively. Special events were noted as being a successful fundraising tool by four

participants (P1, P3, P6, and P8) in Question #16 as well. The additional comments supported

the effectiveness of special events with two mentions of specific events (Race for the Cure and

Sustainable Enterprise Events). The importance of the internet for those between the ages of 31

and 42 was also noted by two participants.

22. How do your donors learn about your organization? (check all that apply)


Skipped question 0


Response Count

Direct mail solicitations 63.6% 7

The X Factor 34

Internet search 72.7% 8

Friends or family 90.9% 10

Volunteer fairs 36.4% 4

Newspaper/T.V. coverage 45.5% 5

Online volunteer matching services

18.2% 2

Other (please specify) 36.4% 4

Participant Direct mail solicitations

Internet search

Friends or family

Volunteer fairs

Newspaper/T.V. coverage

Online volunteer matching services

Other

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11

Other (please specify)

P2 Active volunteers also share the message to their co-workers

P3 Chambers, Associations, Volunteerism, Banks, Universities

P6 Workplace campaigns

P10 They graduated from this university, so we have an "automatic in"

Question #22 was answered by all eleven participants. The top three ways potential

donors learn about the organizations surveyed were, in order, Friends or Family, Internet Search,

and Direct Mail Solicitations. Least effective in educating potential donors about the

organizations was Online Volunteer Matching Services with Volunteer Fairs and

Formatted Table

The X Factor 35

Newspaper/T.V. coverage next. Though effective in introducing potential donors to the

organizations, Direct Mail Solicitations were not effective in generating actual charitable dollars.

Two participants noted in additional comments that potential donors learn about their

organizations in the workplace, either through coworkers who are volunteers or giving

campaigns. One participant noted that potential donors become aware of his or her organization

through community organizations and businesses such as chambers, banks, and universities.

23. Does your organization accept online donations via its website?


Skipped question 0


Yes 81.8% 9 P1, P2, P3, P6, P7, P8, P9, P10, P11

No 18.2% 2 P4, P5Total 100% 11

Additional comments:

P5 we are not set up at this time but will on the new web site

All eleven participants responded to this question. Nine organizations provide their

donors with online functionality to make donations through their website, whereas only two

organizations reported not being able accept donations via their website.

24. Thank you for completing the survey! If you would like to receive a summary of the survey

results, please provide your email address below.


Skipped question 1

The X Factor 36

Number of Participants Who Provided an Email Address

10

All but one (P3) of the eleven participants provided an email address in order to receive a

summary of the survey results.

In summary, it appears that participants are not giving much thought to donors between

the ages of 31 and 42, let alone any other age group. Though most participants (91%) collect

some type of demographic information about their donors, only 30% reported knowing the age

of their donors. Similarly, 91% of the participants were able to name specific fundraising

techniques that were successful with donors between the ages of 31 and 42 even though only

64% of the participants claimed they knew what percentage of their donors were 31 to 42 years

of age. The contradicting responses of the participants seem to point to a lack of awareness of the

demographic differences of their donors.

Discussion

The overall purpose of this study was to determine if nonprofit organizations were

engaging Generation X donors, those donors between 31 and 42 years of age. More specifically,

the study sought to identify fundraising techniques utilized by nonprofit organizations when

targeting potential Generation X donors, examine the charitable giving behavior of this particular

donor group, and identify any best practices that encourage its charitable giving. Data were

collected using an online survey comprised of multiple-choice and open-ended questions.

Organizations invited to participate were selected using specific criteria. The organization (a)

had a reported annual budget of $25,000 or more; (b) was registered with the Internal Revenue

Service as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, nonprofit organization; (c) provided neither educational nor

religious services; and (d) had an email address to which the online survey could be sent. In total,

The X Factor 37

176 nonprofit organizations were invited to participate in the online survey. The return rate was

6%, with eleven organizations completing the survey.

Initially, I anticipated a 10%-15% rate of return which would have resulted in

approximately 17-26 completed surveys. However, my response rate turned out to be only 6%

with eleven surveys completed. I was surprised by this at first but soon suspected that spam,

email phishing scams, and the threat of computer viruses probably had a significant impact on

the response rate. According to SpamUnit.com, a website dedicated to the spam email

phenomenon, statistics show that every twenty-four hours approximately 100 billion spam email

messages are sent around the world (Spanky, 2007). My suspicion was later confirmed when I

spoke with two organizations that did not complete the survey. Though neither of the two

mentioned spam specifically, they were no doubt influenced by past experience with it. Because

they did not recognize the sender’s name or email address, they chose not to respond to the

survey invitation. It is also possible that the recipients reviewed the survey, felt the topic was

unimportant, and discarded it. This could be a sign that just as corporations are proving to be

slow in addressing the retirement of the Baby Boomer workforce, nonprofits do not yet see the

necessity for defining their donors by age.

After analyzing the survey results, two unexpected themes emerged: (a) the lack of

demographic data collected by the participants and (b) the apparent lack of awareness of the

charitable giving behaviors and needs specific to Generation X donors (actual and potential).

Ten of the eleven participants reported collecting some kind of demographic data. The

data most recorded were City and State. This seems obvious as organizations could probably

extrapolate this information without asking donors directly for it. Based on responses to direct

mail solicitations, mailing lists could be matched up with donations received, or, organizations

The X Factor 38

may know gifts come from local donors. The second most collected demographic data was the

sex of the donor with 50% of the participants reporting that they recorded it. This could easily be

determined based on the donor’s first name. However, what was most surprising was that only

30% of the participants actually knew the age of their donors while claiming age was a factor in

developing fundraising campaigns. Even if the organizations know the general ages of their

donors, such anecdotal information cannot be used to its fullest advantage when creating a

fundraising campaign.

From the results, it appears that the nonprofit organizations are aware of their Generation

X donors but are not factoring them into fundraising strategies. This is consistent with what is

currently happening in the fundraising world at large. Today, fundraising campaigns are aimed

more toward those who are either Generation Y (typically considered those born between 1977

and 1997) or Baby Boomers rather than Generation X (Barbargallo, 2005). Generation X is

simply being overlooked. Perhaps this is because of the prevailing assumption that they are an

apathetic lot or because there just are not as many of them in the United States as Generation Y

and Baby Boomers, at approximately 81 million and 78 million respectively, .

But why should nonprofit organizations be thinking about Generation X, its charitable

giving behavior, and how to get it invested in their missions? First, consider that between 1996

and 2006, the number of nonprofit organizations in the United States increased approximately

36% (National Center for Charitable Statistics, 2007). This means there is an increasing number

of nonprofit organizations seeking support from the public. With this increased competition for

charitable dollars, it will become more difficult for nonprofits to fundraise. They will need to

find ways to distinguish themselves from other organizations with similar missions.

The X Factor 39

Next consider that Baby Boomers and Generation X have different charitable giving

behaviors. Generation X has already proved it is behaving differently and needs to be engaged

differently than Baby Boomer donors. Statistics show more Baby Boomers give to charity than

do Generation X. In a study conducted in 2003 by members of Indiana University’s Center on

Philanthropy, Richard Steinberg and Mark Wilhem found that when Generation X was compared

to Baby Boomers, Generation X gave significantly less money to charity (Panepento, 2005).

Study results showed that a little more than 50% of households headed by a member of

Generation X reported making an annual donation of $25 or more; 75% of Baby Boomer headed

households reported making an annual gift of $25 or more (¶ 9).

However, this does not mean that Generation X is less charitably inclined. At this phase

in their lives, the members of Generation X are seeking more than just an opportunity to give

money. In volunteering, they find opportunities to connect with other people in their community

and to utilize and improve their skills, which are all strong needs for them (Panepento, 2005).

The participants in this survey echoed that with 70% of them reporting that their Generation X

donors gives more volunteer time than money. Generation X is also strapped for cash. They are

the first generation to graduate from college with substantial student loans; they are experiencing

a high cost of living coupled with a lower standard of living as compared to their parents at the

same age (O’Shaughnessy, 2008).

Finally, a significant shift in donor demographics could be close at hand due to the

following three factors. First, the oldest Baby Boomers will be eligible for Social Security

retirement benefits in 2008 when they turn 62 years old (U.S. Social Security Administration,

2007). Second, people tend to increase their charitable giving over time as they grow older, but

there is a point where that upward trend ends: at age sixty-five (Havens, O’Herlihy & Schervish,

The X Factor 40

2006). Finally, there are approximately 78 million Baby Boomers in the United States, but only

about 47 million people make up Generation X (Hicks, 1999). Combine these three factors and

there is a good chance that more nonprofit organizations will be competing for charitable dollars

from a smaller donor group who statistically give less to charity.

Recommendations

Nonprofit fundraising is not so different from for-profit marketing. Though the products

are very different, the need to sell a message or value in order to be successful is similar. Not

unlike a for-profit company’s efforts to outsell its competitors, nonprofit fundraisers must

convince people that their cause is the most important and that their organization is the best at

serving that cause. With each passing year, as the number of nonprofit organizations seeking

funding grows, the competition for charitable dollars increases. Combined with a shifting donor

demographic, traditional fundraising techniques may prove to be less successful with Generation

X. However, there is a simple, yet powerful, way for nonprofit organizations to create an

advantage with fundraising campaigns, and it is one of the most basic principals of marketing:

know your audience.

In the book Robin Hood Marketing (Andresen, 2006), principals of for-profit marketing

are applied to nonprofit fundraising. Knowing your audience is one of the marketing principals

Andresen stresses, and research is how that is accomplished. Andresen (p. 47) recommends

nonprofits research the following about the people at which they plan to aim fundraising

campaigns: (a) the demographic and geographical groups they belong to, (b) what they care

about most, and (c) what their values and wants are.

The X Factor 41

Given the potential shift in donor demographics and what is known about the charitable

giving behavior of Generation X, it would behoove nonprofits to start asking the above questions

of their donors. At the very minimum, nonprofits should be asking their donors how old they are.

With just that simple piece of information, they can identify and analyze how their donors prefer

to communicate (email vs. traditional mail), how they give (online vs. writing a check), what

they give (money vs. stocks, money vs. volunteer time) and, finally, why they give (motivations

and rewards). Using that information to design a strategic fundraising campaign targeted directly

to Generation X donors will help nonprofit organizations create and maintain a competitive

advantage on an increasingly crowded playing field.

Summary

One hundred and seventy-six nonprofit organizations were invited to participate in the

online survey to determine if they were engaging Generation X donors, those between 31 and 42

years of age, with specific fundraising techniques. Though the rate of return was lower than

expected at 6%, the results provided valuable insight into the nonprofit organizations’ approach

to Generation X. Though the organizations seemed to be aware of their Generation X donors,

they were not leveraging the unique charitable giving behaviors and needs of this group to their

advantage. Considering the combination of a donor demographic shift and increased competition

for charitable dollars, it is imperative that nonprofit organizations take Generation X more

seriously to continue their successful fundraising efforts.

The X Factor 42

Bibliography

Andresen, K. (2006). Robin hood marketing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barbargallo, P. (2005). Generation x: The post-boomer babies now are young adults poised

to offer greener pastures for organizations seeking new donors. Fundraising Success.

Retrieved April 26, 2008, from

http://www.fundraisingsuccessmag.com/story/story.bsp?sid=32305&var=story

Clary, E.G. & Snyder, M. (1995). Motivations for volunteering and giving: A functional

approach. Cultures of Giving II(8), 111-123.

Copeland, D. (1991). Generation x: Tales for an accelerated culture. New York: St.

Martin’s Press.

Dreger, D.C. (n.d.). Fundraising trends for 2004 and beyond. Retrieved May 15, 2006, from

http://www.cdsfunds.com/fundraising_trends_for_2004_and_beyond.html

Eastman, C. L. (1995). Philanthropic cultures of generational archetypes. Cultures of

Giving II(8), 137-149.

Giving USA Foundation (2007). Giving usa 2007. Glenview: Giving USA Foundation.

Grizzard, C. (2006). Fundraising forecast: Who will succeed? Retrieved November 29,

2006, from http://www.onphilanthropy.com/site/News2?id=5611&page=NewsArticle

Grizzard, C. (2003). Three fundraising trends that really matter. Retrieved May 15, 2006,

from

http://www.onphilanthropy.com/site/News2?JServSessionIdr011=5d9tmq5ze3.app14a&p

age=NewsArticle&id=5313&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1042

Hall, H. (2006). The vanishing donor. The Chronicle of Philanthropy. Retrieved November

29, 2006, from http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04002101.htm

The X Factor 43

Havens, J.J., O’Herlihy, M.A., & Schervish, P.G. (2006). Charitable giving: How much, by

whom, to what, and how? In The Non-Profit Sector: A Research Handbook (chap. 23).

Retrieved April 20, 2008, from http://bc.edu/research/cwp/meta-

elements/pdf/charitablechapter.pdf

Hicks, K. (1999). Boomers, xers, and other strangers. Wheaton: Tyndale House

Publishers.

Hornblower, M. (1997). Great xpectations. Time. Retrieved May 15, 2006, from

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,986481,00.html

Independent Sector (1992). Giving and volunteering the united states. Washington, DC:

Independent Sector.

Kleber & Associates (2005). Lingering myths about generation x. Retrieved March 25, 2006,

from http://www.housingzone.com/article/CA503868.html

Klein, K. (2004). The ten most important things you can know about fundraising [Electronic

version]. Grassroots Fundraising Journal, January/February, 11-14.

Leedy, P.D. (1993). Practical research: Planning and design.Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Leonhardt, D. (2008, March 9). What makes people give? New York Times. Retrieved

March 10, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/magazine/09Psychology-

t.html

Moore, C. (2003). Generation my: Not seeing your xer garden grow? Retrieved May 15,

2006, from http://www.onphilanthropy.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6157

Nichols, J.E. (2005). The new face of donors. Fundraising Success. Retrieved June 1,

2008, from

The X Factor 44

http://www.fundraisingsuccessmag.com/story/story.bsp?sid=27318&var=story&publicati

on=FundRaising%20Success&publicationDate=7/19/05&slug=The+New+Face+of+Don

ors&category=None&section=Unknown&swd=judith%20e.%20nichols

National Center for Charitable Statistics (2008). Registered nonprofits organizations by state.

Retrieved June 1, 2008, from http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/NCCS/Public/index.php

O’Shaughnessy, L. (2008, May 19). Debt-squeezed gen x saves little. USA Today. Retrieved

May 20, 2008, from

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/retirement/2008-05-19-generation-x-

retirement_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Panepento, P. (2005). Connecting with generation x. The Chronicle of Philanthropy.

Retrieved March 25, 2006, from

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v17/i12/12003301.htm

Schervish, P.G. & Havens, J.J. (1998). Why do people give? The Not-For-Profit CEO Monthly

Newsletter, 5(7), 1-3.

Semuels, A. (2004, October 4). Generation x not in the giving mood – yet. Pittsburgh Post-

Gazette. Retrieved March 25, 2006, from

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04278/389735.stm

Spanky, T. (2007). Spam statistics. Retrieved June 1, 2008, from

http://www.spamunit.com/spam-statistics/

Texas Commission on the Arts (n.d.). Trend watch. Retrieved June 1, 2008, from

http://www.arts.state.tx.us/toolkit/leadershiptransitions/trendwatch.asp

U.S. Social Security Administration (2007). Nation’s first baby boomer files for social security

The X Factor 45

retirement benefits – online. Retrieved June 1, 2008, from

http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/babyboomerfiles-pr.htm

The X Factor 46

Appendix A

Email Invitation to Participate in the Online Survey

Subject: What is Your Organization Doing to Engage the Next Generation of Donors?

Your feedback is requested as part of a study examining the giving behavior and needs of donors 31-42 years of age (often known as Generation X). I am conducting a short online survey to identify fundraising techniques currently utilized by nonprofit organizations to engage these donors. I am undertaking this study as part of a Master of Arts in Psychology program at John F. Kennedy University in Pleasant Hill, CA.www.jfku.edu

The survey is confidential and will only take about 10-15 minutes. Participants will have the opportunity to receive a summary of the survey results once the data has been collected and analyzed.

Do not miss this opportunity to learn what other organizations are doing to connect with Generation X donors. To participate, simply click on the link below.

[SurveyLink]

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

LesLee Burnett

The X Factor 47

Appendix B

Survey Purpose and Instructions

Thank you in advance for taking the time to complete this survey. Detailed information about the survey is provided below.

What is the purpose of this survey?The purpose of this survey is to examine the charitable giving behavior of people between the ages of 31 and 42. This group is often referred to as Generation X. In addition, the survey will attempt to identify current fundraising techniques utilized by nonprofit organizations to target this age group and determine if there are best practices or techniques to encourage their charitable giving. I am undertaking this project as part of a Masters of Arts in Psychology program at John F. Kennedy University in Pleasant Hill, CA.

How long will it take?The survey should take approximately 10 minutes to complete, depending on how much commentary you choose to include. After some questions, you will find a text box where additional comments can be made. You are strongly encouraged to provide specific examples and comments in support of your responses.

Is the information confidential?Yes. Survey data will be compiled and analyzed in aggregate and participants will not be identified. Additional comments provided by participants may be reported verbatim, but will not include who submitted them.

Will the survey results be shared?Yes. A survey results summary will be made available to all participants. At the end of the survey you will be asked to provide your email address in order to receive the summary via email.

Do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding the study or this survey at [email protected]. And again, thank you for your participation.

Sincerely,

LesLee Burnett

The X Factor 48

Appendix C

Survey Questions

1. How many years has your organization been in operation?o Less than 1 yearo 1-3 yearso 4-6 yearso 7-9 yearso 10-12 yearso 13-15 yearso Longer than 15 years

Additional comments: [Open text box]

2. Where is your organization located (City and State)?o City/Towno State/Province

3. Which of the below categories best represent the type of services your organization provided?

o Arts, Culture and Humanitieso Environmental and Animalso Healtho Human Serviceso Social Justiceo Other (please specify)

[Open text box]

4. What is the organization’s annual budget?

[Open text box]

5. What percentage of the organization’s budget is derived from fundraising/donations?

[Open text box]

6. What percentage of the organization’s budget is dedicated to fundraising efforts (including staff salaries)?

[Open text box]

7. How many staff members are dedicated to fundraising?

[Open text box]

The X Factor 49

8. Do you collect demographic information about your donors?o Yeso No


9. If yes, what types of data are collected? (check all that apply)o Location (City and State)o Ageo Sexo Annual household incomeo Education levelo Other (please specify)

[Open text box]

10. If you do not collect demographic information about your donors, why not?

[Open text box]

11. Is donor demographic data used in planning and developing fundraising campaigns?o Yeso No


12. When developing a fundraising campaign, is a donor’s age a factor?o Yeso No


13. Approximately what percentage of your donors is between the ages of 31 and 42?

[Open test box]

14. In terms of dollars donated, approximately what percentage comes from donors betweenthe ages of 31 and 42?

[Open text box]

15. Do your fundraising efforts specifically target potential donors between the age of 31 and 42?

o Yeso No


The X Factor 50

16. If you answered “Yes” to Question 15, what fundraising techniques have been most successful to engage donors between the ages of 31 and 42? What techniques have proven unsuccessful?

Successful [Open text box]

Unsuccessful [Open text box]

17. If you do not target potential donors between the ages of 31 and 42, why not?

[Open text box]

18. Do future fundraising efforts include targeting this age group?o Yeso No

If no, why not? [Open text box]

19. In your experience, have you found donors between the ages of 31 and 42 give more, less, or about the same as donors between the ages of 44 and 61?

o Moreo Lesso About the same


20. In your experience, which of the follow have you found to true in regards to your donors between the ages of 31 and 42?

o They donate more money than volunteer timeo They donate more volunteer time than moneyo They donate money onlyo They donate volunteer time onlyo They donate comparable amounts of both money and volunteer time


21. In your experience, what fundraising techniques have been successful with your donors between the ages of 31 and 42? (check all that apply)

o Direct mail solicitationso Traditional fundraising events (Galas, balls, luncheons, etc.)o Interactive fundraising events (Runs or walks)o Other (please specify)

[Open text box]

22. How do your donors learn about your organization? (check all that apply)o Direct mail solicitations

The X Factor 51

o Internet searcho Friends or familyo Volunteer fairso Newspaper/T.V. coverageo Online volunteer matching serviceso Other (please specify)

[Open text box]

23. Does your organization accept online donations via its website?o Yeso No


24. Thank you for completing the survey! If you would like to receive a summary of the survey results, please provide your email address below.

[Open text box]

the x factor 1 the x factor of charitable giving: are

Documents