University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Nonprofit donor retention: a case study of Church of the West

(USC Thesis Other)

Nonprofit donor retention: a case study of Church of the West

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 1

Nonprofit Donor Retention: A Case Study of Church of the West
by
Jordan K Lee

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2019

Copyright 2019 Jordan K Lee
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 2

Acknowledgements

This dissertation is dedicated to the love of my life, my wife Jennifer. Completing a
doctoral degree has been a major life goal of mine. It happened in large part because of your
support, sacrifice and encouragement over the years. I can’t thank you enough Jennifer. I love
you and appreciate you more than words can express.
I would also like to thank my parents Kenton and Benita Lee. You taught me to dream
big, work hard and take tangible steps each day to get better. You are both wonderful parents
and grandparents. I feel blessed and lucky to call you mom and dad.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge my three dissertation committee members, Dr. Seli,
Dr. Crawford and Dr. Maddox, as well as the other professors at USC who I had the privilege of
learning from as a doctoral student throughout the Organizational Change and Leadership
program. I’m a better person and leader today as a result of your investment in me the last three
years. Thank you all.

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 3

Table of Contents
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………5
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………...6
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………….7

Introduction to the Problem of Practice……………………………………………………8

Organizational Context and Mission………………………………………………………9

Importance of Addressing the Problem……………………………………………………9

Organizational Performance Goal…………………………………………………………10

Stakeholder Groups………………………………………………………………………..12

Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal……………………………………….13

Purpose of the Project and Questions……………………………………………………...13

Methodological Approach…………………………………………………………………14

Review of the Literature…………………………………………………………………...15

Factors that Influence Donor Motivation………………………………………….15

Fundraising Management………………………………………………………….18

Ministry Staff Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences…………………...21

Knowledge Influences……………………………………………………………..21

Motivation Influences……………………………………………………………..26

Organizational Influences…………………………………………………………30

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Ministry Staff Knowledge, Motivation, and the
Organizational Context……………………………………………………………33
Data Collection and Instrumentation……………………………………………………...36
Surveys…………………………………………………………………………….38
Interviews………………………………………………………………………….39
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 4

Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………………39
Results and Findings……………………………………………………………………….40
Participating Stakeholders…………………………………………………………41
Ministry Staff Knowledge Influences……………………………………..............43
Ministry Staff Motivational Influences……………………………………………47
Impact of Organizational Influences on Ministry Staff Knowledge and
Motivation…………………………………………………………………………52
Summary of Results and Findings………………………………………………...59
Recommendations for Practice……………………………………………………………60
Knowledge Recommendations……………………………………………………61
Motivation Recommendation……………………………………………………..64
Organizational Recommendation…………………………………………………66
References………………………………………………………………………………...71
Appendix A: Sampling Criteria………………………………………………………….82
Appendix B: Survey Protocol……………………………………………………………85
Appendix C: Interview Protocol…………………………………………………………89
Appendix D: Credibility and Trustworthiness…………………………………………...92
Appendix E: Validity and Reliability…………………………………………………….93
Appendix F: Ethics……………………………………………………………………….94
Appendix G: Limitations………………………………………………………………....96
Appendix H: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan…………………………...98

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 5

List of Tables

Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goal……..12

Table 2: Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences………………………...32

Table 3: Interview Participant Pseudonyms, Time on Staff and Role………………….....42

Table 4: Distribution of Participant Responses to Value Survey Items…………………..48

Table 5: Distribution of Participant Responses to Self-Efficacy Survey Items…………...51

Table 6: Distribution of Participant Responses to Autonomy Survey Items……………...54

Table 7: Distribution of Participant Responses to Goal Commitment Survey Items……..56

Table 8: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations…………………….61

Table 9: Summary of Motivation Influence and Recommendation……………………….65

Table 10: Summary of Organizational Influence and Recommendation………………….67

Table 11: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes………...99

Table 12: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation……………..101

Table 13: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors………………………………..102

Table 14: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program…………………...106

Table 15: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program…………………………….107

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 6

List of Figures

Figure 1: Conceptual framework………………………………………………………….35

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 7

Abstract
Donor retention is a significant problem for many nonprofit organizations who rely on financial
contributors to fund their existence and mission. This study focused on a single organization,
Church of the West (pseudonym), a multi-site church with five locations. The purpose of the
study was to evaluate the readiness of ministry staff at CW to achieve two donor retention goals.
Three research questions guided the study: (1) What is the ministry staff knowledge and
motivation related to achieving the stakeholder performance goal? (2) What is the impact of
organizational culture and context on the knowledge and motivation of ministry staff members?
(3) What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources that would support the achievement of the donor
retention goals? A gap analysis was conducted to identify gaps as well as assets possessed by
ministry staff that may impede or enable them to achieve the stakeholder performance goal. The
study utilized a mixed-methods case study approach. Twelve ministry staff members completed
a survey. Five of the 12 also participated in an interview to capture their unique perspectives.
The survey results and interview findings were compared and contrasted during data analysis.
Gaps were identified in the areas of knowledge, motivation and organizational support. Assets
were identified in the areas of motivation and organizational influences. Recommendations for
practice, including a robust training program, are put forth as a way to close the gaps and thereby
increase ministry staff knowledge and motivation related to donor engagement.

Keywords: donor retention, nonprofit organization, church, ministry, fundraising, gap analysis,
knowledge, motivation, organizational support, training.

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 8

Introduction to the Problem of Practice

Lapsed donors are a problem for many nonprofit organizations (NPOs) who rely heavily
on individual contributors as a major source of income to fund their existence and mission.
Although there are a variety of potential sources of funding for NPOs, such as foundation grants,
corporate donations, or government funding, Giving USA (The Giving Institute, 2018) reported
that in 2017, 70% of all charitable giving in the United States came from individual contributors.
A recent survey conducted by the Association of Fundraising Professionals of 10,829 charities in
the United States found that 55% of individual donors who gave in 2015 lapsed the following
year (Levis, Miller, & Williams, 2017). For each of the last ten years the retention rate has
remained below 50%. The greatest losses in donors each year come from lapsed new donors
who do not make a repeat gift the following year. In the years 2015 and 2016, every 100 donors
gained by NPOs was offset by 99 lost donors through attrition. The cycle of continually
attracting new donors, while losing nearly the same number of donors who lapse, is compounded
by the cost of new donor acquisition. The expense of acquiring a new donor is up to five times
the cost of retaining an existing donor (Sargeant, 2001). For this reason, many NPO leaders and
fundraising professionals have shifted strategy. In addition to attracting new donors, a key focus
is building relationships with existing donors, particularly repeat donors who have demonstrated
a commitment to the organization through their giving patterns. A high rate of lapsed donors,
particularly existing donors who have demonstrated a commitment to the organization through
repeat donations and sizable gifts, could lead to decreased funding. Less funding for a NPO may
result in a cutback of programs and services, whereas an increase in donor retention could result
in more financial resources that position a NPO for increased mission effectiveness through the
expansion of programs and services available to a particular population and society at large.
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 9

Organizational Context and Mission

Church of the West (pseudonym) is a Christian nonprofit organization located in the
western United States. The mission of Church of the West (CW) is to make more disciples and
better disciples, which is based on the Great Commission given by Jesus to his followers in
Matthew 28:19-20. Church of the West exists to share the message of Jesus with people situated
in their community as well as to make a difference both locally and globally through meeting
tangible needs. Church of the West began three decades ago as a small single-site church.
Today CW is a multi-site church comprised of five campuses with combined weekly attendance
of more than 3000 individuals. Each campus offers weekend church services, programs for
children and youth, volunteer opportunities, as well as midweek groups and classes. A variety of
programs are offered throughout the week to provide practical support in the areas of marriage,
parenting, finances, grief, and addiction. Church members also serve the community through
outreach initiatives that positively impact populations such as low-income families and the
homeless. As a nonprofit organization, CW relies on the contributions of individual donors to
fund its operations. In 2015 CW had 1,499 unique households who donated. Together they
contributed 90% of the church’s income. Retaining donors is of paramount importance for CW.
For that reason, donor engagement is a key responsibility for numerous staff members across
several departments.
Importance of Addressing the Problem

Donor retention is a significant problem for NPOs. Retaining new donors and repeat
donors is a challenge (McGrath, 1997; Miller & McGinness, 2016). It is important for NPOs to
address the problem of donor retention because a charity’s continued existence depends on
financial sustainability. A 2014 report by the Nonprofit Finance Fund asked 5,019 NPO leaders
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 10

in the United States to identify the top challenge facing their organization. Forty-one percent of
the respondents said achieving long-term financial sustainability was their top challenge, which
was the number one response. The consequences for a NPO that fails to keep individual donors
engaged could be detrimental and lead to organizational ineffectiveness or even worse shutting
down (Bryson, Gibbons, & Shaye, 2001).
Alternatively, a charity that intentionally addresses and improves donor retention will
likely increase its financial resources (Sargeant & Jay, 2004). More financial resources will put
the NPO in a better position to effectively accomplish its mission and positively impact the
particular population who is served as well as society at large (Weerawardena et al., 2010). In
the case of CW, a high rate of lapsed donors could result in decreased programs and services, or
closing one or more locations. On the other hand, a higher rate of donor retention could position
CW for increased mission effectiveness and organizational growth, leading to the opening of
more locations as well as offering more programs and services to the surrounding communities.
Organizational Performance Goal

The statistics for donor retention in churches are marginally better than nonprofit
organizations altogether. According to Mortarstone, a data analytics company that tracks 10
billion dollars of church giving data, the average retention rate for first time donors to churches
is 55%, which means 45% of first-time donors lapse (Bird, 2016). Additionally, the average
large church like CW loses 10 first time donors for every seven gained during a 12-month
period, resulting in a 30% loss. Moreover, of households who previously donated to a specific
church but have not contributed over the past 12 months, only 3% will be reactivated as givers to
the church in the next one year. For this reason, it is important for churches to act promptly to
follow up with lapsed givers in order to increase the likelihood they will give again.
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 11

Furthermore, research suggests lapsed donors who previously gave in higher amounts to a
particular charity are more likely to re-engage and give again to the same charity (Feng, 2014).
Therefore, the organizational performance goal established by CW is that by December 31, 2019,
CW will increase the retention of donors who contribute $500 or more annually by 10%. The
goal was determined with this dissertation project in mind by the leadership team of CW. The
achievement of CW’s organizational performance goal will be measured in comparison to the
donor retention results the prior year in 2018. The goal was established after a careful review
and analysis of internal data and after benchmarking against three aspirational organizations
similar to CW. The organizations were identified by networking with both colleagues and senior
leaders known by CW staff members. Each organization calculated their own retention rate.
Benchmarking revealed a gap in the rate of donors retained by CW compared to the other three
organizations. The rate of donor retention by each of the other organizations was in the range of
5-15% higher for donors who contributed $500 or more annually. The internal review and
benchmarking process resulted in the establishment of CW’s organizational goal of increasing
retention by 10% of donors who contribute $500 or more annually by December 31, 2019.
It is important for CW to pursue the achievement of their organizational performance
goal for a variety of reasons. Church of the West relies heavily on donors to fund its existence
and mission. Improving donor retention will result in more financial resources so that CW is
able to expand its impact by adding more locations and starting new programs. Failing to meet
the performance goal could lead to fewer financial resources, which could then result in mission
stagnation, cutting programs and staff positions, or closing down locations.

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 12

Stakeholder Groups
Three key stakeholder groups will contribute to the achievement of the global
organizational goal, namely ministry staff, central support staff and donors to CW. Ministry
staff will develop an action plan to follow up with lapsed donors, central support staff will select
a donor tracking software program, and CW donors will need to increase their use of online
recurring giving. Table 1 provides a summary of the organizational mission, global
organizational goal, and the three stakeholder performance goals that are tied to the global
organizational goal.
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
The mission of CW is to make more disciples and better disciples, which is based on the Great
Commission given by Jesus to his followers in Matthew 28:19-20.
Global Organizational Goal
By December 31, 2019, CW will increase the retention of donors who contribute $500 or more
annually by 10%.
Stakeholder Performance Goals
Ministry Staff
By September 1, 2019 the ministry
staff of CW will develop an action
plan to follow up with donors who
contributed $500 or more in 2018 but
have yet to give in 2019.
Central Support Staff
By January 1, 2019, the
central support staff of
CW will select a donor
tracking software
program.
Donors to CW
By December 31, 2019,
the number of donors who
have online recurring
giving setup will increase
by 20%.

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 13

Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal

All three stakeholder groups will contribute to the achievement of the global
organizational goal of increasing retention by 10% of donors who contribute $500 or more
annually by December 31, 2019. Ministry staff play a critical role when it comes to engaging
current and lapsed donors. Consequently, it was important to first evaluate the readiness of CW
ministry staff regarding their capacity to achieve the stakeholder performance goal, which is
linked to the global organizational goal. Therefore, the stakeholder group of focus for this study
is the ministry staff members of CW. The stakeholder performance goal is to develop an action
plan by September 1, 2019 to follow up with each donor who contributed $500 or more in 2018
but has yet to give in 2019. The stakeholder group of focus for this study was selected since they
are the individuals who interact with donors most often. Ministry staff are the face of the
organization. They talk with donors in person at church services and other events, build
relationships with donors throughout the week, and participate in fundraising gatherings and
initiatives. As such, they have the greatest amount of influence when it comes to engaging
donors. Developing an action plan will include segmenting the lapsed donors as defined by the
goal, crafting a concrete follow up strategy for each segment, and determining the best approach
to follow up with each donor segment. Failure to accomplish this goal will leave the
organization without an intentional strategy or plan. The lack of a donor follow-up plan will lead
to inaction, which in turn could result in additional lapsed donors and decreased funding of the
organization.
Purpose of the Project and Questions

The purpose of this project was to evaluate the degree to which CW is prepared and
positioned to achieve the organizational goal of increasing retention by 10% of donors who give
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 14

$500 or more annually by December 31, 2019. Data collection and analysis focused on the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to achieving the stakeholder
performance goal and the global organizational goal. While a complete performance evaluation
would focus on all stakeholder groups, for practical purposes, the stakeholder group of focus for
this study is the ministry staff of CW.
As such, the questions that guided this study are as follows:
1. What is the ministry staff knowledge and motivation related to developing an action plan
by September 1, 2019 to follow up with donors who gave $500 or more in 2018 but have
yet to give in 2019?
2. What is the impact of organizational culture and context on the knowledge and
motivation of ministry staff members?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources that would support the achievement of the
stakeholder performance goal as well as the global organizational goal?
Methodological Approach

This study utilized a case study approach. There are a variety of reasons why a case
study was the best methodological approach given the purpose of this project. To begin with,
there is a dearth of academic research on the topic of fundraising in church settings. The project
sought to understand how the particular context of CW influences the knowledge and motivation
of ministry staff in their pursuit of achieving the stakeholder performance goal. An important
characteristic of qualitative research is examining how some situations and events influence
others within a particular context (Maxwell, 2013). Additionally, the stakeholder group of focus
for this project consisted of 12 ministry staff members at CW. This stakeholder group comprised
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 15

a small, purposeful sample. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) recommended utilizing purposeful
sampling when the aim is to understand the perspective of the most knowledgeable and
experienced stakeholders in a specific context. Given that I wanted to examine the knowledge
and motivation of ministry staff at CW, and the impact of organizational influences on their
knowledge and motivation, a case study was the most suitable methodological approach.
According to Creswell (2013), a case study involves an investigator exploring a bounded system
through detailed, in-depth data collection. A case study results in a case description and case-
based themes. The organizational context of CW and the 12 ministry staff members that
comprised the stakeholder group of focus for this study constitute a bounded system.
Review of the Literature
In order for ministry staff members to accomplish the stakeholder performance goal of
developing an action plan by September 1, 2019 to follow up with donors who gave $500 or
more in 2018 but have yet to give in 2019, it is important for ministry staff to understand the
factors that influence donor motivation. These motivation factors, along with fundraising
management factors, help explain why a donor chooses to contribute, why a donor may choose
to lapse, as well as reasons a lapsed donor may choose to re-engage and donate again. What
follows is a brief review of the literature.
Factors that Influence Donor Motivation
Self-interested factors. Donors receive positive psychological benefits as a result of
contributing to a charity. Desiring to help another person, and then following through to actually
help another, results in a positive feeling for the person taking action to help another. For
instance, donors who give out of empathy to help another experience empathetic joy (Batson &
Shaw, 1991). Individuals do not give for purely altruistic reasons. Altruism, by itself, does not
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 16

fully explain what motivates contributors. Donors possess impure altruism, which is a
combination of wanting to do good for others while also receiving a benefit in return. The
psychological benefit donors receive when they contribute is described as “warm glow,” which is
a positive emotional feeling experienced when voluntarily helping another (Andreoni, 1989).
The “warm glow” effect of giving to charity has been studied by neuropsychological researchers.
Taxation, mandatory transfers to charity, as well as voluntary donations to charity all elicit neural
activity in areas of the brain linked to reward processing. As long as the individual believes the
money will be used for a good cause to help others, either by the government or by the nonprofit
organization, they experience a positive emotional feeling (Harbaugh, Mayr, & Burghart, 2007).
In addition to positive psychological benefits, a key motivating factor for why donors
give to charity is to improve their sense of self-image or reputation. Donors do not operate in
social isolation. A donor’s personal norms and behaviors are shaped by social norms and
observing the behavior of others. When the social norm is to give, those who have not yet given
are motivated to give to align with the social norm. Violating the social norm of giving by
choosing not to give results in feelings of guilt, shame and inconsistency with one’s self-image
(Schwartz, 1970). Guilt is a motivating factor for charitable contributions and is used in
fundraising efforts. The impact of a guilt appeal for funds is mediated by the sense of
responsibility a contributor feels (Basil, Ridgway & Basil, 2006). An individual’s sense of
responsibility is influenced by social norms. When the social norm is activated or triggered, an
individual’s sense of responsibility increases since they want to align with the social norm. A
lack of alignment to the social norm often results in feelings of guilt. Additionally, high capacity
donors can be motivated to give in order to enhance their reputation. For example, Ostrower
(1998) found wealthy donors contributed to the arts in New York City to gain prestige. Their
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 17

contributions led to opportunities to be board members or trustees of nonprofit arts and culture
organizations. These unique organizations provide a social context that helps define the elite
class that few people have the opportunity to join. For elite members, their monetary
contributions buy them cultural capital and respect from others.
Altruistic factors. Perceiving a need is a critical factor that prompts donors to contribute
funds. Wagner and Wheeler (1969) found that perceived need impacts the amount of financial
help donors provide. Need, as defined by the solicitor, showed no effect on donating. However,
need as perceived by contributors can positively influence donating. In another study, alumni
who intended to contribute money to their alma mater viewed the university’s need for additional
funds as a high need (Diamond & Kashyan, 1997). Those alumni who did not intend to
contribute to their alma mater viewed the university’s need for additional funds as a low need.
The actual reality of a need was not as important as the perceived need from the vantage point of
a potential donor. In a study of donors who give to the homeless, individuals who had greater
exposure to panhandlers were more likely to donate to them (Lee & Farrell, 2003). Other
motivating factors for giving to the homeless were values and religion, which prompt individuals
to care for the poor out of a sense of morality.
Alignment of values. Donors contribute funds to charities whose organizational values
are similar to their own personal values. Similarity between personal values and organizational
values increases the probability of a donation (Bennett, 2003). Moreover, similarities between
personal values and organizational values influences the selection of specific charities as
recipients by donors. A study of Republican and Democratic supporters revealed political
donors endorse the values central to the ideologies of the party they contribute to (Francia,
Green, Herrnson, Powell & Wilcox, 2005). Interestingly, more active donors to political causes
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 18

also tend to hold more extreme ideological views. Frequent donors to charity are also more
likely to value correcting injustices and taking care of the weak (Todd & Lawson, 1999). They
tend to emphasize spiritual matters, rather than material matters, and hold some form of religious
faith. Donors who contribute frequently believe in working for the welfare of others.
Personal connection to a cause or charity. Donors chose to engage with a particular
cause or charity based on a personal connection. Personal experience with a person in special
need or care is a central motivating factor for why a donor contributes to one charity instead of
another. This is true even if the experience is in the distant past or if the experience was gained
second hand (Radley & Kennedy, 1995). For example, although a majority of individuals are
aware of the existence of the NPO the United Way, most people are probably unfamiliar with
what the organization does since there are over 2000 local chapters of the United Way that
operate autonomously throughout the USA. Yet, those who know a beneficiary of United Way
funds are more likely to donate to the United Way (Pitts & Skelly, 1984). What’s more, a basic
connection, such as being an alum of a university, does not necessarily lead to long-term
engagement. Serious engagement happens through a socialization process that results in a donor
identifying with an organization or cause (Schervish, 1997). Identification happens through
“communities of participation,” whether official or unofficial, such as a school, church, or
neighborhood.
Fundraising Management

Theoretical foundations. Fundraising management requires organizational
commitment, comprehension of free-riding theory, as well as an understanding of solicitation as
the primary mechanism for raising funds. A study of ten colleges and universities identified the
following as prominent success factors in fundraising: (a) strong entrepreneurial leadership from
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 19

the president or chief development officer; (b) institutional commitment to fundraising; and (c) a
fundamental understanding of the unique strengths and weaknesses of the institution by the
participants in the fundraising program (Duronio & Loessin, 1991). Fundraising efforts are
maximized when they are supported by the leaders of the organization and the overall institution.
According to free-riding theory, a free-rider is a member of a group who benefits from group
membership but does not bear a proportional share of the costs of providing the benefits.
Albanese & Van Fleet (1985) found that a free-riding tendency operates in groups and that free
riding and group size are related. They also concluded that managers can use various strategies
to counter free-riding. Finally, solicitation is the primary mechanism for raising funds. The
Gallup Organization conducted the 1994 Independent Sector Survey of Giving and Volunteering.
The purpose was to study the probabilities that people will donate funds, given they have been
solicited or not solicited in the last year. The probability of donating cash or property in the past
year, having not been asked to do so is low, on average 38%, compared with a high probability
of 85% if one is asked to contribute (Bryant, Jeon-Slaughter, Kang, & Tax, 2003).
Solicitation strategies. Employing effective solicitation strategies is critical to the
success of nonprofit organizations in securing donations. One such approach is the “Foot-in-the-
Door” strategy when a small ask is made first followed by a larger ask later. This increases the
likelihood of getting a yes to the target ask, which is the second ask (Burger, 1999). The first,
smaller ask is a way to get one’s “foot-in-the-door” and prime donors for the second, larger ask,
which is the goal. Another solicitation strategy is to utilize printed materials to raise funds. In
general it is recognized that attractive, professional fundraising materials help raise more money.
However, donors and potential donors tend to overestimate the amount of money charities spend
on fundraising efforts. A study by Bekkers and Crutzen (2007) found that a plain white envelope
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 20

raised more money than an envelope including a picture of the beneficiaries. Organizations can
increase effectiveness in raising funds by creating categories of donors and a system for moving
them from one category to the next (Soukup, 1983). Categories may include non-donor, first
time donor, lapsed donor, renewed donor, and major donor. Targeted communication, including
solicitations, to donors in each category is one way to enhance effectiveness. Analyzing survey
results of 14,654 households in the USA, Yoruk (2012) found that 77% of respondents reported
that being asked by someone they know well to contribute to a charitable cause was an important
factor in their decision to give. Another significant factor reported by respondents was being
asked by clergy or previously volunteering at the soliciting organization before giving
financially. On the other hand, more than 80 percent of respondents said charitable campaigns
that are advertised through media outlets, even those with celebrity endorsements, were not
important factors. Solicitations made by phone, letter or over the internet were not identified as
important factors. The results suggest that personal requests to donate to a charity are more
effective than impersonal fundraising methods.
Organizational effectiveness and fundraising. Donors are motivated to give when they
sense their contributions are making an impact and being used effectively by the charity
receiving their contributions. Donors want their contributions to make a difference. That’s the
very reason they give. If donors feel like their contributions do not make a difference, then it
reduces their motivation to give (Duncan, 2004). Wing (2004) identified two trends in
philanthropy that are gaining momentum, namely an increased focus on measurable outcomes
and greater investment in the organizational effectiveness of charities. Many nonprofit
organizations provide annual reports to donors to illustrate their mission in action and to
demonstrate good stewardship of financial resources. Donors continually evaluate the charities
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 21

they give to and make a decision to continue contributing or to lapse. Annual reports typically
include a financial disclosure of income and expenses for donors to review. Financial
disclosures by nonprofit organizations help form how donors perceive the effectiveness of the
organization. Annual reports communicate about the activities of the charity and their
performance to interested parties. They also signal assurance to interested parties that the charity
is trustworthy. Financial information is especially important to committed donors, who want to
make sure their contributions are being used effectively (Parsons, 2007). In a recent study,
Karlan and Wood (2017) found that large prior donors were more likely to give again and to give
more when provided with information about the measurable difference the charity is making
through its efforts.
Ministry Staff Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Clark and Estes (2008) identified three critical factors that often cause a gap in achieving
performance goals. The three factors are inadequate knowledge and skills, suboptimal
motivation, and organizational barriers. These factors make up the KMO gap analysis
framework (Clark and Estes, 2008). This study utilized a modified gap analysis and the KMO
framework to evaluate ministry staff knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that
may enable or impede ministry staff in their pursuit of achieving the stakeholder performance
goal. For this reason, it was important to identify assumed knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences to guide the investigation.
Knowledge Influences
Krathwohl (2002) divided the knowledge dimension into four types. The four types of
knowledge are termed factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge is
basic information such as facts or terminology that is fundamental to a specific domain. The
second type of knowledge is conceptual knowledge, which is an understanding of the
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 22

interrelationships between basic elements in a larger structure. This includes knowledge of
categories, theories, principles, or structures in a particular knowledge domain (Rueda, 2011).
The third type of knowledge identified by Krathwohl is procedural knowledge. Procedural
knowledge is knowledge of how to perform a skill or a task. Finally, the fourth type of
knowledge is metacognitive knowledge. Metacognitive knowledge is the awareness an
individual possesses about his or her own cognitive processes. It is the type of knowledge that
permits a person to self-reflect on his or her own cognition in order to identify if something is
known or unknown, how it is known, and how to adapt to gain the pertinent knowledge.
Knowledge of reasons why donors lapse. The first conceptual knowledge influence
identified is that ministry staff need to possess knowledge of the various reasons why donors
lapse. Although individual donors lapse for reasons specific to their own situation, empirical
research has identified patterns for why donors in general stay actively engaged or lapse. It is
vital the stakeholder group of focus possesses knowledge of reasons why donors stay engaged or
disengage in order to accomplish the stakeholder performance goal.
Donors who possess shared beliefs with a charity typically have a higher level of active
commitment to that charity as expressed through their contributions (Sargeant & Woodliffe,
2007). Donors who have a strong personal link to a charity are also more likely to express active
commitment through repeat giving. Moreover, the quality of customer service by nonprofit staff
members has an impact on the level of a donor’s active commitment. A better quality of
customer service leads to a higher level of active commitment, whereas a worse quality of
customer service results in a lower level of active commitment (Nathan & Hallam, 2009;
Sargeant & Woodliffe, 2007). A key reason provided by donors for why they disengage is
clumsy communication or over-communication, even to the point of annoyance (Nathan &
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 23

Hallam, 2009). Other common reasons why donors disengage include changes the charity made
that the donor disagrees with, being solicited for money too often, the donor’s financial situation
changed, or the donor newly remembered they were supporting the charity but could not justify
why.
Although many donors contribute to charity for altruistic reasons, donors also benefit
from contributing by gaining a sense of satisfaction (Bennett, 2006; Nathan & Hallam, 2009).
The duration a donor remains engaged with a charity is heavily associated with two
psychometric variables, namely helper’s high and psychological involvement with the charity
(Bennett, 2006). As these two factors decrease, so does the level of donor engagement. The
duration a donor remains engaged with a charity is also positively correlated with the
encouraging feelings a donor experiences when thanked by the charity for contributing. It is
common for donors to lapse if they feel like they are not thanked enough for their contributions
(Nathan & Hallam, 2009).
There are a variety of reasons why donors stay engaged over time, as well as some
common reasons why donors choose to lapse. In order for the ministry staff of CW to achieve
the stakeholder performance goal of developing an action plan by September 1, 2019 to follow
up with a defined segment of lapsed donors, they will need to possess knowledge of the various
reasons why donors lapse in the first place.
Knowledge of reasons why lapsed donors give again. The second conceptual
knowledge influence identified is that ministry staff needs to possess knowledge of the various
reasons why a lapsed donor re-engages and begins giving again. Just as individual donors lapse
for reasons specific to their own situation, likewise individual donors re-engage and start
contributing again for reasons specific to their own circumstances. Furthermore, just as
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 24

empirical research has identified patterns for why donors stay engaged, similarly there are
patterns that help explain what type of lapsed donors re-engage. Feng (2014) identified several
patterns. Donors with a longer previous relationship with a charity have a higher likelihood of
revival than donors with a shorter previous relationship. It is also the case that donors who gave
previously in higher amounts have a greater chance of revival than those who previously gave in
lower amounts. Furthermore, donors who have lapsed for a longer period of time are more likely
to re-engage and contribute again, while donors who lapsed more recently are less likely to re-
engage.
There are certain mechanisms that drive charitable giving by motivating and stimulating
donors to contribute. The mechanisms that drive charitable giving include, but are not limited to:
(a) awareness of need, (b) solicitation, (c) costs and benefits, (d) altruism, (e) reputation, (f)
psychological benefits, (g) values, and (h) efficacy (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011). Each
mechanism represents a reason, or multiple reasons, why donors decide to contribute to a charity
initially or continually. Multiple mechanisms are likely to operate at the same time as motivation
for a donor to contribute. These mechanisms have the potential to motivate lapsed donors to re-
engage and begin giving again to a charity they previously supported (Bekkers & Wiepking,
2011). In order for the ministry staff of CW to achieve the stakeholder performance goal of
developing an action plan by September 1, 2019 to follow up with a defined segment of lapsed
donors, they will need to possess knowledge of reasons why a lapsed donor would decide to re-
engage and give again.
Knowledge of how to apply effective donor engagement strategies. The third
knowledge influence is that ministry staff need to be able to apply effective donor engagement
strategies. Whereas conceptual knowledge consists of understanding something intellectually,
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 25

procedural knowledge is knowing how to accomplish something. Procedural knowledge
determines if an individual is able to apply what they know factually or conceptually. Procedural
knowledge includes the steps, methods, techniques and strategies for completing a task (Mayer,
2011) as well as the when, what, why, where and who components involved in completing a task
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Research identifying effective fundraising strategies abounds. Regarding the effects of
message framing and evidence on fundraising, Das, Kerkhof, and Kuiper (2008) found that
information about charity goal attainment (e.g. the contributions of others), increased the
contribution intentions of other donors. Also, they concluded effective framing combined
statistical information with a negative message frame, whereas anecdotal evidence should be
framed positively. Storytelling to make the case to donors as well as a visually appealing brand
identity can increase effectiveness in fundraising (Clark, 2013). Another proven effective
fundraising strategy is to announce to potential donors the presence of a substantial lead gift that
has already been received by the charity (Huck and Rasul, 2011). Additionally, private benefits
such as invitations to private dinner parties and special events are effective tools for fundraising
(Sieg and Zhang, 2012). Written communication through direct mail, solicitation letters, or
thank you notes are also a key strategy utilized by many charities. Researchers have found
particular components of written communication can improve effectiveness. For instance,
results suggest written communication that emphasizes the credibility of the charity and has a
high level of readability (e.g. through the use of bullet points to summarize key points) produce
the highest donations (Goering, Connor, Nagelhout and Steinberg, 2011). The proliferation of
research and growth of literature has increased available opportunities for training to teach
effective fundraising strategies (Levy, 2004). In order for the ministry staff of CW to achieve the
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 26

stakeholder performance goal of developing an action plan by September 1, 2019 to follow up
with a defined segment of lapsed donors, they need to possess knowledge of how to apply
effective donor engagement strategies.
Motivation Influences
Motivation is a key ingredient to achieving goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). A person may
be capable of accomplishing a task, but they may not want to do the task or actually choose to do
it (Rueda, 2011). Motivation is defined as the instigation and sustainment of goal-directed
activity (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008). Motivation is what causes individuals to start
working toward a goal, persist throughout, and see it through to completion (Rueda, 2011).
For the stakeholder group of focus, two motivational factors are critical to making
progress in achieving the stakeholder goal. First, ministry staff members need to see the
usefulness in personally engaging donors. According to expectancy value theory, learning and
motivation are enhanced when an individual values a task (Eccles, 2006). Second, ministry staff
members need to feel confident in their ability to effectively engage with donors personally.
Bandura’s (1991) social cognitive theory calls this self-efficacy, which is an individual’s belief
that he or she is capable of successfully completing a task.
Expectancy value theory. Expectancy value theory can be reduced to two fundamental
questions: (a) can I do the task?, and (b) do I want to do the task? Confidence in one’s ability to
successfully complete a task enhances motivation and predicts better performance (Eccles,
2006). Conversely, an individual who lacks confidence in his or her ability to successfully
complete a task will not be as motivated as a person who is confident. Whether or not an
individual wants to do a task depends on the perceived value of the task. The higher the value
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 27

placed on a task, the more likely an individual will want to begin the task and persist in
completing it (Rueda, 2011).
Eccles (2006) identified four dimensions of task value: (a) attainment value, (b) intrinsic
value, (c) utility value, and (d) cost value. Attainment value is the amount of value an individual
attaches to a task based on how it fits with his or her self-image (Eccles, 2006). Intrinsic value is
the enjoyment or interest an individual experiences while engaged in a task (Rueda, 2011).
Utility value is the amount of value attached to a task based on how useful the task is to
achieving a particular goal (Rueda, 2011). Finally, cost value weighs the perceived cost in terms
of the amount of time and effort required to complete the task (Eccles, 2006). The amount of
value the stakeholder group of focus attaches to the task of personally engaging with donors will
be a major motivational influence. For this reason, it is important ministry staff attach utility
value to the task of personally engaging donors by recognizing its usefulness.
Ministry staff and utility value. In order for the stakeholder group of focus to take
initiative and stay motivated in making progress toward achieving the stakeholder performance
goal, the ministry staff of CW must see the utility value in personally engaging with donors.
Since nonprofit organizations are funded largely by individual donors, it is important nonprofit
workers see the usefulness in personally engaging donors, since donors are the very individuals
whose contributions result in creating and sustaining nonprofit jobs and programs. Nonprofit
workers are motivated to work in a nonprofit setting for a multiplicity of reasons. In a faith-
based nonprofit setting such as a church, two of the most significant motivations for employees
are personal faith and the opportunity to serve the community (Bassous, 2015). Nonprofit
workers are not typically motivated by monetary rewards. Rather, nonprofit workers are largely
motivated by non-monetary rewards, such as appreciation, recognition, and feedback (Beem,
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 28

2001). Nonprofit workers are more likely to attach utility value to personally engaging donors if
they believe their peers and supervisors will appreciate and recognize their efforts. Donors make
it possible through their giving for faith-based nonprofit workers to have jobs that match their
personal belief systems and that make a difference serving the community. Therefore, it is
important nonprofit workers see the utility value in personally engaging donors.
Self-efficacy theory. Self-efficacy is an individual’s own competency beliefs regarding
their ability to successfully complete a task or activity. According to Rueda (2011) self-efficacy
is essentially self-confidence and is related to three motivational indicators; active choice,
persistence, and mental effort. A person who has a high degree of self-efficacy is more likely to
be motivated to start a task, persist throughout, and complete the task, whereas a person with a
low degree of self-efficacy is more likely to have a low degree of motivation. High self-efficacy
positively influences motivation (Pajares, 2006).
A number of factors influence the competency beliefs a person holds about their own
ability to complete a task. Prior knowledge one possesses about a task is a key influence (Rueda,
2011). Another significant influence is termed mastery experience (Bandura, 1991). Mastery
experience is one’s own positive experience while completing a task, which increases self-
confidence. Conversely, if a person has a negative experience while performing a task this can
decrease self-confidence. A third factor that influences self-efficacy is the type and amount of
feedback an individual receives from others (Rueda, 2011). If a person has a positive experience
in receiving feedback, the experience can increase self-efficacy (Bandura, 1991). Last is an
influence Bandura (1991) termed vicarious experience. An example of vicarious experience is
when one person observes another person successfully performing a task through modeling,
which can be a positive influence that increases self-efficacy for the one observing. When
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 29

individuals feel efficacious about their ability to complete a task, they are more likely to be
highly motivated to start and work hard toward achieving performance goals (Rueda, 2011).
Ministry staff and self-efficacy. In order for ministry staff to take initiative and stay
motivated in making progress toward achieving the stakeholder performance goal, the ministry
staff members of CW need to believe they are capable of effectively engaging donors. Churches
are a distinctive subgroup of nonprofit organizations. In a church setting, donors and their
families are often beneficiaries of the programs and services offered by the organization. For
members of the stakeholder group of focus, interacting with a donor is also an opportunity to
interact with a beneficiary and hear feedback. Nonprofit workers who have experienced positive
interpersonal contact with a beneficiary of their work are more effective and outperform
coworkers who have not experienced interpersonal contact with a beneficiary (Grant, Campbell,
Chen, Cottone, Lapedis, & Lee, 2007). A positive experience interacting with a beneficiary
results in a nonprofit worker who possesses more self-confidence, higher motivation, and more
persistence in completing tasks and achieving goals (Grant, 2008; Grant et al., 2007). Contact
with beneficiaries enables nonprofit employees to understand how their work makes a difference,
which in turn makes them feel more efficacious and motivated (Grant, 2008). For the
stakeholder group of focus, personally engaging with a donor is an opportunity to have positive
contact with a beneficiary of CW’s work. It is an occasion to see how the stakeholder group’s
work is making a difference and to receive feedback. Hearing feedback from a beneficiary can
be a positive experience that generates an increase in motivation by raising self-confidence, with
the result being more persistence (Grant, et al., 2007). Personally interacting with donors will
increase the motivation and confidence of ministry staff, which will generate the persistence they
will need to demonstrate in their pursuit of achieving the stakeholder performance goal.
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 30

Organizational Influences
Ministry staff autonomy. Church of the West needs to empower ministry staff to
autonomously develop and implement the donor retention plan. According to Gagne (2003),
autonomy support results in self-determination and higher engagement. Furthermore, Pintrich
(2003) found that organizational effectiveness increases when leaders trust their team. The most
visible demonstration of trust by a leader is accountable autonomy. This suggests CW will
increase the likelihood of achieving the global organizational goal if autonomy is given to
ministry staff in their pursuit of the stakeholder performance goal.
An empirical study by Malinowska, Tokarz, and Wardzichowska (2018) found a
relationship between giving employees more job autonomy and their enthusiasm and
engagement with their jobs. Effective organizational leaders help employees learn how to lead
themselves (Manz & Sims, 2001). This can be accomplished practically by providing employees
opportunities for self-guidance.
Organizational goal commitment. Church of the West needs to keep the stakeholder
performance goal and global organizational goal a consistent priority. According to Locke and
Latham (2002), commitment to goals is a necessary condition to the effectiveness of goal-
setting. An established goal without the commitment to pursue its achievement is pointless.
Knowles (1980) found that organizational effectiveness increases when leaders identify,
articulate, focus the organization’s effort on and reinforce the organization’s vision. A
fundamental way in which leaders do this is by explaining the “why,” the underlying reasons for
pursuing the mission, the vision, and organizational priorities. This suggests the leaders of CW
ought to focus the efforts of ministry staff on the global organizational goal and stakeholder
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 31

performance goal, as well as explain the why to ministry staff, and thereby demonstrate goal
commitment.
Goal commitment is the determination of a person, team, or organization to accomplish a
goal (Klein et al., 2001). Goal commitment moderates the connection between goals and
behavior. Goals increase motivation and performance by leading people to focus on specific
objectives, increase their effort, and persist through obstacles (Heslin, Carson, & VandeWalle,
2009). According to Sterling (2003), a corollary to goal commitment is the need for strategic
focus. In organizations that set too many goals, employees may struggle to identify and
implement changing priorities. For ministry staff to make progress in pursuing the stakeholder
performance goal, the leaders of CW as well as ministry staff must remain committed to
established goals.
Training ministry staff. Church of the West needs to prepare ministry staff to achieve
their goal by conducting donor engagement training. According to Clark & Estes (2008),
effective job training shows employees how to achieve performance goals. Furthermore,
organizational effectiveness increases when leaders provide employees with the professional
development necessary for the successful execution of their jobs (Waters, Marzano & McNulty,
2003). This suggests the achievement of the stakeholder performance goal and global
organizational goal is dependent on offering relevant and targeted professional development
opportunities.
Effective training leads to improved job performance that positively contributes to key
organizational results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). When done properly, job training
results in high impact learning (Clark & Estes, 2008). Training seeks to improve knowledge and
skills as well as employee confidence, which can increase motivation. Effective training delivers
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 32

results by providing information, guided practice, and corrective feedback. This suggests
ministry staff can be prepared and equipped to achieve the stakeholder performance goal with
appropriate training.
Table 2
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence
Conceptual

Ministry staff need to possess knowledge of
the various reasons why donors lapse.

Conceptual Ministry staff need to possess knowledge of
the various reasons why a lapsed donor re-
engages and begins giving again.

Procedural

Ministry staff need to be able to apply
effective donor engagement strategies.

Motivation Influences
Utility Value Ministry staff need to see the usefulness in
personally engaging donors.
Self-Efficacy Ministry staff need to believe they are capable of
effectively engaging donors.

Organizational Influences
Cultural Model Influence Church of the West needs to empower ministry staff to
autonomously develop and implement the donor retention plan.
Cultural Setting Influence Church of the West needs to keep the stakeholder performance
goal and global organizational goal a consistent priority.

Cultural Setting Influence Church of the West needs to prepare ministry staff to achieve
their goal by conducting donor engagement training.

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 33

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Ministry Staff Knowledge, Motivation, and the
Organizational Context
A conceptual framework consists of the ideas, beliefs, assumptions, and theories that
inform and guide research design (Maxwell, 2013). Conceptual frameworks typically take the
form of a graphic or narrative product that helps explain the key factors and concepts to be
studied as well as the relationships between them. The purpose of a conceptual framework is to
put forth a theory regarding what is occurring between the key factors and concepts and to
explain why. The assumed stakeholder influences for this study were presented independently of
each other in Table 2. The knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences, however, do
not function in isolation from one another. The conceptual framework for this study
demonstrates the way in which assumed knowledge and motivation influences and the
organizational influences interact with each other.
In CW’s pursuit to achieve its global organizational goal of increasing the retention of
donors by 10% of those donors who contributed $500 or more annually by December 31, 2019, it
will be necessary for ministry staff to first accomplish the stakeholder goal by September 1, 2019
of developing an action plan to follow up with donors who contributed $500 in 2018 but have yet
to give in 2019. Achieving the stakeholder goal supports and enables the achievement of the
global organizational goal. Meeting the deadline to develop an action plan by September 1,
2019, along with the quality of the action plan and its implementation, will be critical factors to
achieve the global organizational goal. The accomplishment of the goal by the September 1,
2019 deadline, as well as the quality of the plan, will be heavily influenced by the knowledge
and motivation of ministry staff.
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 34

For ministry staff to achieve the stakeholder performance goal, they need to possess
knowledge of three assumed knowledge influences: (a) ministry staff need to possess knowledge
of the various reasons why donors lapse (Bennett, 2006; Nathan & Hallam, 2009; Sargeant &
Woodliffe, 2007), (b) ministry staff need to possess knowledge of the various reasons why a
lapsed donor re-engages and begins giving again (Feng, 2014), and (c) ministry staff need to be
able to apply effective donor engagement strategies (Burger, 1999; Soukup, 1983). Two
motivational factors are also critical for ministry staff in their pursuit to achieve the stakeholder
goal. First, ministry staff members need to see the usefulness in personally engaging donors
(Bassous, 2015; Beem, 2001). Second, ministry staff members need to feel confident in their
ability to effectively engage with donors personally (Grant, 2008; Grant et al., 2007). These
knowledge and motivation influences have the potential to advance, as well as to hinder, ministry
staff in their pursuit of achieving the stakeholder performance goal. Furthermore, since the
achievement of the global organizational goal is tied to the accomplishment of the stakeholder
performance goal, these knowledge and motivation influences have the potential to advance or
hinder the global organizational goal.
There are three organizational influences identified by this study: (a) the organization
needs to empower ministry staff to autonomously develop and implement the donor retention
plan, (b) the organization needs to stay committed to achieving the stakeholder performance goal
and global organizational goal, and (c) the organization needs to prepare ministry staff to achieve
their goal by conducting donor engagement training. Since the stakeholder group of focus
consists of CW employees, the work of the stakeholders, including their pursuit of the
stakeholder performance goal, takes place within the larger organizational context and culture of
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 35

CW. For this reason, the three assumed organizational influences help shape ministry staff
knowledge and motivation.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Organization
(Autonomy, Goal Commitment,
Training)

Stakeholders

Knowledge (why donors lapse, why
lapsed donors re-engage, apply donor
engagement strategies), Motivation
(utility value, self-efficacy)

Stakeholder Goal:
Develop an action plan by
September 1, 2019 to follow up
with donors who gave $500 or
more in 2018 but have yet to give
in 2019.

Knowledge (i.e.,
why donors lapse,
why lapsed donors
reengage), Skills,
Motivation (i.e.,
utility value, self-
efficacy)

Global Organizational Goal:
By December 31, 2019, CW will
increase the retention of donors
who contribute $500 or more
annually by 10%.

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 36

Figure 1 provides a graphic representation depicting the conceptual framework utilized
by this study. The stakeholder group of focus, represented by the oval, is embedded in the larger
organizational context of CW, depicted by the larger circle. The three assumed organizational
influences help shape the knowledge and motivation possessed by the stakeholder group of
focus. The assumed knowledge and motivation influences of the stakeholder group of focus are
formed within the larger organizational context and culture of CW. The downward pointing
arrow from the concentric circles depicts the efforts of the stakeholder group of focus in pursuing
the desired outcome of achieving the stakeholder performance goal. The organizational
influences, the larger circle, as well as the knowledge and motivation influences on the
stakeholder group of focus, the smaller oval, work in combination to point to the same outcome,
namely the stakeholder performance goal. The downward arrow from the stakeholder goal to the
global organizational goal, represents the reality that in order for the organization to accomplish
its global goal, the stakeholder group of focus must first achieve the stakeholder performance
goal. Completing the stakeholder performance goal is a precondition of pursuing and achieving
the global organizational goal.
Data Collection and Instrumentation

The methodological approach selected for this project was a case study since the
organizational context of CW and the 12 ministry staff members that comprised the stakeholder
group of focus constituted a bounded system. Surveys and qualitative interviews were both
utilized. According to Creswell (2013), this approach can lead to a more complete understanding
of the research questions since it draws on the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative
methods while minimizing the limitations of each. Quantitative data was collected first through
administering a survey to 12 ministry staff members. Qualitative data was then collected during
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 37

the same month through interviews with a nested sample of five stakeholders. The survey results
were utilized to formulate probes and follow up questions, which sought to explore a topic
further by asking for more information or for a participant to clarify something (Seidman, 2013).
The survey data and qualitative interview data were compared and contrasted during analysis.
This project sought to understand how the particular context of Church of the West
impacts the knowledge and motivation of ministry staff in their pursuit of achieving the
stakeholder goal. All 12 stakeholders were invited to participate in completing the survey. Total
population participation was achieved. The survey questions were directly related to the research
questions that guide this project. Answers to the questions helped uncover stakeholder thoughts
and opinions, as well as provided insights about the motivation level of each stakeholder and
how they perceive organizational influences. Five stakeholders that met key criteria were then
invited to participate in a semi-structured interview. The sampling criteria for both the surveys
and interviews is located in Appendix A. All five agreed to participate. The purpose of the
interviews was to capture the unique perspective of each interview participant by gathering rich
descriptive responses.
Both data collection methods were utilized to capture data in order to evaluate the
capability and readiness of ministry staff members to achieve the stakeholder performance goal.
The evaluation focused on examining the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
that facilitate or impede ministry staff in achieving the stakeholder performance goal. The study
was concerned with the ability of stakeholders to achieve the goal, and what factors influence
whether or not they are capable of achieving the goal.

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 38

Surveys
The organization granted permission and provided access for me to contact each
stakeholder to invite them to participate. Through email I contacted the senior leader of the
organization and received written approval to contact ministry staff members and proceed with
data collection. I reached out to ministry staff through emails, text messages and phone calls as
needed. The survey instrument was administered online. Each of the 12 stakeholders were
invited via email to participate in the survey. The survey focused on motivation and
organizational influences, both of which are central to the research questions that guided this
study. A total of 11 questions were asked focusing on both the motivation of ministry staff and
how stakeholders perceive assumed organizational influences. Questions about the knowledge
stakeholders possessed were included during the qualitative interviews. For consistency and
ease of use, 10 questions on the survey utilized a Likert-type scale with five points. The final
question was open-ended. The survey instrument can be found in Appendix B. The survey
instrument was developed through a process of consulting the research literature, peer review by
colleagues familiar with the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO gap analysis framework, and an
assessment by the dissertation committee for this study. The surveys sought to measure the
motivation level of the stakeholders as well as how they perceive the role of organizational
influences in their pursuit of the stakeholder goal. The small, purposeful sample of five
individuals selected to also participate in a qualitative interview were asked questions about their
knowledge, motivation, and the organizational influences at work in their pursuit of achieving
the stakeholder goal. The findings of the surveys and the interviews were evaluated during
analysis.

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 39

Interviews

Informal interviews with five CW ministry staff members were conducted. The number
of interviews was determined in part by the small sample of stakeholders who met the
established sampling and recruitment criteria. The interview protocol, located in Appendix C, is
semi-structured with four introductory questions followed by 16 open-ended questions related to
stakeholder knowledge and motivation as well as assumed organizational influences. Follow-up
questions and prompts that further explored relevant topics or themes were also asked. The
probing questions arose naturally in the interview. Interview participants were given the option
of meeting on site at CW or off site based on their availability and personal preference. All five
opted to meet on site in a private meeting room. Each interview lasted between 30 and 60
minutes. Each participant was asked to give consent for the interview to be audio recorded and
all five granted permission.
The types of questions asked in each interview centered on the assumed influences put
forth in this study, namely the knowledge and motivation ministry staff members possess, as well
as how organizational influences impact stakeholder knowledge and motivation. These elements
were explored in order to evaluate whether or not ministry staff are equipped and motivated to
achieve the stakeholder performance goal, which in turn will enable CW to accomplish the
global organizational goal. Immediately after each interview was conducted, I wrote a reflective
summary of the interview. The recording of each interview was transcribed to enable data
analysis and interpretation.
Data Analysis

Data collection occurred in June 2018. Quantitative data was collected first through the
use of a brief survey. The results of the survey were analyzed by calculating the percentage,
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 40

frequency, and range of responses as well as the mode and median. The survey results are
represented visually through the use of tables. Furthermore, the findings of the surveys were
used to inform and shape probing questions during the qualitative interviews. Each of the five
individual interviews were audio recorded after permission was granted by each participant. The
recording of the interview was transcribed in order to assist with data analysis. After each
interview, I wrote a reflective summary of the conversation. According to Merriam and Tisdell
(2016), the purpose of analyzing qualitative data is to make sense out of the data through
answering the research questions at hand. The transcription of each interview, as well as the
written reflective summary, were carefully reviewed in order to find themes through the
comparison of one unit of information to the next. The results of the surveys and the interview
findings were also compared and contrasted to look for similarities and differences. The
presentation of results and findings will focus on answering the stated research questions that
guided this study.
Results and Findings
The purpose of the project was to evaluate the degree to which CW is prepared and
positioned to achieve the organizational goal of increasing retention by 10% of donors who give
$500 or more annually by December 31, 2019. The study focused on ministry staff in their
pursuit of achieving the stakeholder performance goal to develop an action plan by September 1,
2019 to follow up with donors who gave $500 or more in 2018 but have yet to give in 2019.
Surveys and interviews focused on the knowledge and motivation of ministry staff and the
organizational influences that enable or impede ministry staff in their pursuit of the stakeholder
performance goal.
The questions that guided this study are as follows:
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 41

1. What is the ministry staff knowledge and motivation related to developing an action
plan by September 1, 2019 to follow up with donors who gave $500 or more in 2018
but have yet to give in 2019?
2. What is the impact of organizational culture and context on the knowledge and
motivation of ministry staff members?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources that would support the achievement of the
stakeholder performance goal as well as the global organizational goal?
Participating Stakeholders
Quantitative data in the form of surveys as well as qualitative data in the form of
interviews were collected and then analyzed to answer the research questions. At the time of
data collection 50% of the survey participants had worked at CW for two years or less, whereas
the other 50% percent had worked at CW for three years or longer. When asked to indicate how
long they had worked in their current role at CW, one-third of survey participants indicated less
than two years, one-third indicated two years, and the remaining one-third indicated they had
been in their current role three years or longer. A small purposeful sample of five individuals,
who also completed a survey, were invited to participate in an interview. All five agreed to
participate. At the time of data collection, the five interview participants had experience working
at CW anywhere from one year to four years, with a median of two and a half years at the
organization. The interviews were conducted in person in a private setting and audio recorded
with permission granted by each participant. The interviews focused on ministry staff
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. The interview recordings were
transcribed to enable analysis and interpretation of the data. Pseudonyms for interview
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 42

participants are listed in Table 3 and were utilized to report the interview findings in order to
protect the privacy and confidentiality of the participants.
Table 3
Interview Participant Pseudonyms, Time on Staff and Role
Name (Pseudonym) Time on Staff Role

Steve

Adam

John

Chris

Will

4 years

1.5 years

3 years

1 year

2.5 years

Campus Pastor

Associate Pastor

Campus Pastor

Campus Pastor

Associate Pastor

The results of the surveys and the findings of the interviews are presented in the
subsequent sections. First, the knowledge and motivation of ministry staff will be evaluated.
The knowledge and motivation ministry staff members possess is an asset as they strive to
accomplish the stakeholder goal, whereas the lack of essential knowledge or a lack of motivation
is a gap that hinders their ability to accomplish the goal. Next, the impact of organizational
influences on stakeholder knowledge and motivation will be presented. Organizational
influences can be an asset to ministry staff, or they may demonstrate a gap that hinders ministry
staff in their pursuit to achieve the stakeholder performance goal. The final research question
dealing with recommendations for CW to improve future practice in the areas of stakeholder
knowledge, motivation and organizational resources will be presented in the final section of this
dissertation.

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 43

Ministry Staff Knowledge Influences
Three knowledge influences were identified by this study as necessary for ministry staff
to possess as they pursue the achievement of the stakeholder performance goal. First, ministry
staff need to possess knowledge of the various reasons why donors lapse. Second, ministry staff
need to possess knowledge of the various reasons why a lapsed donor re-engages and begins
giving again. Third, ministry staff need to be able to apply effective donor engagement
strategies.
The survey focused on ministry staff motivation and organizational influences.
Questions to assess knowledge were not included in the survey instrument. Likert-style survey
questions can measure how a participant feels about their level of knowledge or how they
perceive their own understanding, but the scale would fail to adequately capture the actual
knowledge possessed by ministry staff on the topic of donor retention. Therefore, ministry staff
were asked to answer knowledge questions directly with descriptive responses in the qualitative
interviews, which better revealed their knowledge of the subject matter.
Ministry staff possess inadequate knowledge of reasons why donors lapse. Research
has identified a variety of reasons why donors stay engaged over time, as well as reasons why
donors choose to lapse (Bennett, 2006; Nathan & Hallam, 2009; Sargeant & Woodliffe, 2007).
In order for the ministry staff of CW to achieve the stakeholder performance goal of developing
an action plan by September 1, 2019 to follow up with a defined segment of lapsed donors, they
need to possess knowledge of various reasons why donors lapse in the first place.
To assess ministry staff knowledge of the first knowledge influence, each participant
interviewed was asked to identify possible reasons why a donor would stop contributing. Both
the quality of their responses was considered as well as the number of reasons each participant
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 44

was able to identify. Each participant identified between two and four reasons that were
legitimate. The small number of reasons identified by ministry staff, however, suggests they
possess a gap in knowledge of the wide variety of possible reasons a donor would lapse in the
first place. When asked to identify possible reasons donors lapse, Adam (pseudonym)
responded, “when they feel that they don’t agree with the vision, if there is a change, I guess, in
the direction organizationally.” John (pseudonym) answered the same question, “If they feel like
their funds are being misused.” Steve (pseudonym) shared from the perspective of his own
experience, “I’ve seen in church-life that a donor stops giving because they’ve decided to move
to a different church.” Chris and Will (pseudonyms) each struggled to identify possible reasons
why a donor would stop contributing, naming just two reasons each. Chris remarked, “In my
experience with people stopping their giving, it’s all been relating to the pastor.…on lower ends,
people stop giving because they are running into financial problems.” Will’s response was
generic rather than specific, “It’s either cause and effect from personal life decisions or they’re in
a place where they’re just not mentally or heart-wise connecting with us.” Ministry staff were
able to identify a small number of legitimate reasons why donors lapse in the first place,
however, the small number of reasons identified indicates a gap in ministry staff knowledge of
the first knowledge influence.
Ministry staff are inconsistent in their knowledge of why lapsed donors start giving
again. Research has identified patters detailing reasons lapsed donors decide to re-engage and
give again (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011; Feng, 2014). In order for the ministry staff of CW to
achieve the stakeholder performance goal of developing an action plan by September 1, 2019 to
follow up with a defined segment of lapsed donors, they will need to possess knowledge of the
various reasons why lapsed donors re-engage and begin giving again.
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 45

Multiple participants demonstrated a basic understanding of possible reasons why a
lapsed donor would start giving again by describing a series of scenarios. Adam emphasized the
importance of personal attention in re-engaging a lapsed donor, “when someone that’s a part of
the organization, or someone that’s a part of the leadership of the organization, decides to jump
in and connect with that person on a personal level.” Steve shared about the importance of
casting vision as a leader, “Vision has a lot to play in it. I think people want to be a part of
something that’s bigger than themselves.” Steve continued, “I think something that inspires
them. If there is something that an organization, a church does, that really inspires a person.”
Two of the interview participants struggled to describe specific reasons why a lapsed
donor may start giving again. Will started to answer and then admitted he wasn’t sure, “One
hundred percent buy-in. If they’re not bought in, so when they are, but when they…I don’t
know.” John only named one factor, “I would say most of the time with lapsed donors, at least at
our campus level, it’s because of a lack of engagement.” John went on to describe a couple
examples of this single factor but no other factors were identified. The interviews revealed some
ministry staff members possessed satisfactory knowledge of possible reasons why a lapsed donor
would re-engage and start giving again, whereas two of the participants lacked sufficient
knowledge. The interviews revealed ministry staff are inconsistent in their knowledge of reasons
why lapsed donors re-engage and start giving again.
Ministry staff possess inadequate knowledge of effective donor engagement
strategies. Researchers have identified donor engagement strategies that improve effectiveness
in fundraising (Clark, 2013; Goering et al., 2011; Huck and Rasul, 2011; Kerkhof & Kuiper,
2008; Sieg & Zhang, 2012). In order for the ministry staff of CW to achieve the stakeholder
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 46

performance goal, they will need to possess procedural knowledge of effective donor
engagement strategies.
When asked to describe how they go about interacting with a lapsed donor, multiple
stakeholders talked about the importance of building a personal relationship with donors. Steve
shared about the delicate nature of engaging lapsed donors. The way he interacts with a lapsed
donor depends on the relationship, “it’s all about relational equity with the people and so if I
have a close relationship, then I can have that conversation a little more pointed and laser
focused.” Adam shared a holistic approach, “I would just kind of check on their personal lives,
see how they’re doing, and how connected they feel to our organization.” Chris also focused on
relationships as a key ingredient to interacting with donors, “I mean, I think it all goes to
relationship.”
The interview participants were also asked to describe a personal interaction they’ve had
with a lapsed donor. John described a specific encounter with a family who had given
significantly and then lapsed, “I had an interaction with them about why. You know, how their
personal life was going.…So it wasn’t just all about giving.” Will described a particular
interaction with a lapsed donor this way, “actually they were one of my high volunteers. Since I
had a relationship with them, thank God, I was in a good spot myself. I was able to have a
conversation on behalf of the church.” Will re-enacted how the conversation started, “How are
you doing? How’s your family doing? Come to find out they were just teetering on the fence
like ‘Is this the right church for us?’” Steve made the comment, “Unfortunately I’ve had a lot of
personal interactions with lapsed givers. I don’t know if that’s a good thing or a bad thing.”
Steve went on to share about a recent encounter with a lapsed giver, who he invited to lunch in
order to check in with the individual personally.
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 47

All five participants emphasized the importance of relationships as a key ingredient to
interacting with lapsed donors. This demonstrated a unified philosophical approach at CW for
how they go about building and maintaining relationships with donors. At the same time, no
specific or proven donor engagement strategies were articulated, which indicated a gap in
knowledge of effective donor engagement strategies. Before ministry staff are able to effectively
apply donor engagement strategies, they must first possess a basic understanding of the strategies
they will be applying. Procedural knowledge increases when declarative knowledge required to
perform the skill is available or known. (Clark et al., 2008). Near the end of one of the
interviews Chris stated, “if there is something that I’m missing, it would be beneficial to have
some kind of guideline, or parameter.…I don’t know what that looks like, because I don’t know
what I’m missing.” The interviews revealed a gap in knowledge of effective donor engagement
strategies. This topic will be revisited when organizational influences are evaluated and
recommendations for practice are presented.
Ministry Staff Motivational Influences
This study identified two motivational influences which are critical to ministry staff in
their pursuit of achieving the stakeholder performance goal and global organizational goal. The
first motivational influence was that ministry staff members need to see the usefulness in
personally engaging donors. The second motivational influence assessed by this study was that
ministry staff members need to feel confident in their ability to effectively engage with donors
personally. Both influences were assessed through the use of surveys and interviews.
Ministry staff see the value in personally connecting with donors. The survey asked
participants to respond to two statements: (1) Personally connecting with donors is valuable for
me in terms of excelling in my job, and (2) When I personally connect with donors, it is valuable
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 48

to the organization as a whole. According to Eccles (2006), motivation is enhanced when a
learner values a task. The data collected for the first statement revealed mixed-results. As
illustrated in Table 4, 41.67% of ministry staff agreed or strongly agreed that personally
connecting with donors was valuable in terms of excelling in their job. This was matched by
41.67% of participants who indicated they neither agreed nor disagreed and the remaining
16.67% indicated they strongly disagreed. This suggests some ministry staff view personally
connecting with donors as a key to excelling in their jobs, whereas other ministry staff are unsure
if it valuable or disagree that it is valuable in terms of excelling in their job. On the other hand,
the survey results revealed the vast majority of ministry staff viewed personally connecting with
donors as valuable to the organization as a whole. The data found that 10 out of 12 participants,
or 83%, either agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. The remaining two participants
disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Table 4
Distribution of Participant Responses to Value Survey Items
Survey Item Response n Percentage

Q.3 Personally
connecting with
donors is valuable for
me in terms of
excelling in my job.

Q.4 When I
personally connect
with donors, it is
valuable to the
organization as a
whole.

Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

3
2
5
0
2

8
2
0
1
1

25%
16.67%
41.67%
0%
16.67%

66.67%
16.67%
0%
8.33%
8.33%

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 49

All five interview participants viewed personally connecting with donors as valuable.
Steve shared, “It’s super significant. I would say, on a given week, maybe 10% of my time I’m
thinking about who should I be interacting with, who do I need to connect with, who’s fallen off
my radar.” John emphasized the importance of personal interaction when describing the
significance of connecting with donors, “Unless they have a relationship with you, they’re not
gonna hear the vision behind why you’re doing what you’re doing and why the church is really
doing what it’s doing.” Will made this remark about the connection between personally
interacting with donors and the vision of the organization, “Once they know that you have buy-in
in their life, they’re more willing to see the vision.”
The interview participants also viewed personally interacting with donors as a central
component of their job responsibilities. Steve explained his job duties regarding donor
engagement this way, “My responsibility is to make budget.…so my goal is always to outgrow
what we want to spend.” Chris spoke about the expectation to bring in donations, “Our campus
has to produce. Our campus right now, is probably the first time in a very long time that we are
doing well financially. So there’s the expectation that we continue to do well.” Will remarked
about how often he interacts with donors as part of his job responsibilities at CW, “100%, all the
time. Everything I do is interaction with them because it’s the people that are going here.” John
also emphasized how valuable engaging donors was in terms of excelling in his job, “I interact
with Church of the West (pseudonym) donors each and every single day of my life….My job
responsibility is quite important with this. It’s the viability of our campus, viability of our
church.”
Based on the survey results and interview findings, ministry staff as a whole viewed
personally interacting with donors as valuable to CW as an organization. All five interview
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 50

participants also viewed personally interacting with donors as a key component of their job
responsibilities, whereas the survey results found only 42% of ministry staff agreed or strongly
agreed that personally connecting with donors was valuable in terms of excelling in their job.
This could be the result of the population makeup of each participant group. All five interview
participants were campus pastors or associate pastors. These individuals have the most
experience, knowledge, and defined responsibility for donor engagement at CW. The survey
population was comprised of 12 ministry staff members, some of whom interact with donors
informally but do not have clearly defined responsibilities for fundraising or donor engagement.
On the whole, this larger group, which included the five interview participants, was mixed in
their view of how valuable personally interacting with donors was in terms of excelling in their
jobs. Although campus pastors and associate pastors viewed personally interacting with donors
as valuable when it comes to excelling in their jobs, the same cannot be concluded for all
ministry staff at CW. Placing high value on a task results in increased motivation (Rueda, 2011).
For this reason, it is important for all ministry staff to view personally interacting with donors as
valuable when it comes to excelling in their jobs.
Ministry staff possess a high degree of self-efficacy. The second motivational
influence assessed by this study was that ministry staff members need to feel confident in their
ability to effectively engage with donors personally (Grant, 2008; Grant et al., 2007). High self-
efficacy can positively influence motivation (Pajares, 2006). Both surveys and interviews were
utilized to collect data to assess the self-efficacy of ministry staff regarding their ability to
engage donors. The survey instrument included two statements regarding self-efficacy: (1) I am
confident in my ability to personally interact with donors, and (2) I know I can learn how to
engage donors more effectively. The data suggests ministry staff possess a high degree of self-
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 51

efficacy both in their ability to personally interact with donors as well as to learn how to engage
donors more effectively. For both items nine out of 12, or 75%, either agreed or strongly agreed
with the statements. Only three participants marked a different response to each statement.
Table 5 displays all responses.
Table 5
Distribution of Participant Responses to Self-Efficacy Survey Items
Survey Item Response n Percentage

Q.5 I am confident in
my ability to
personally interact
with donors.

Q.6 I know I can
learn how to engage
donors more
effectively.

Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

5
4
1
1
1

4
5
1
2
0

41.67%
33.3%
8.33%
8.33%
8.33%

33.33%
41.67%
8.33%
16.67%
0%

The interviewees were asked to describe whether or not they were comfortable personally
interacting with donors. There were a wide range of responses. Chris commented, “Generally,
no. It can be a weird conversation if you have to actually talk about that stuff. I mean,
everyone’s awkward about money.” Adam described a reluctance to solicit funds, “As long as
I’m not asking for money.…I think just being able to connect with them personally, relationally,
just from where they’re at, I’m totally comfortable with that.” Will spoke about his progression
over time. Initially he was very uncomfortable with it but as he’s been coached through it he has
learned a lot and become more comfortable. Two of the five interview participants were fully
comfortable and confident in their ability to personally interact with donors. John responded,
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 52

“Yeah, I’d say it’s fully comfortable. I don’t have any problem talking to anyone about money,
about giving.” John explained further, “If you make it about you, then it’s awkward. If you
make it about the vision of the church, then I don’t see why not.” Steve was fully comfortable
and confident in his ability to engage donors in conversation, “Actually, I enjoy talking with
people about funding the vision of the local church.…giving conversations with our people are
pretty easy for me and I think if you look at our campus budget that is reflected in our growth.”
When individuals feel efficacious about their ability to complete a task, they are more likely to
be highly motivated to start and work hard toward achieving performance goals (Rueda, 2011).
The survey results indicated ministry staff generally have high self-efficacy in their ability to
personally interact with donors. The interview findings revealed some ministry staff are fully
comfortable talking with donors about the topic of money, while others are uneasy or hesitant to
talk with CW donors directly about the topic of money.
The results and findings also suggest there is a discrepancy between the high self-efficacy
of ministry staff and their lack of knowledge pertaining to donor engagement. The implication is
that ministry staff are confident in their ability to engage donors and they appear very motivated
to do so, however, they lack essential knowledge to engage donors effectively. The risk to CW
is that ministry staff will develop an action plan to follow up with lapsed donors to achieve the
stakeholder performance goal but the plan will be ineffective unless the knowledge of ministry
staff increases.
Impact of Organizational Influences on Ministry Staff Knowledge and Motivation
Three organizational influences were identified by this study as factors that may impact
the knowledge and motivation of ministry staff in their pursuit of the stakeholder performance
goal. First, the organization needs to empower ministry staff to autonomously develop and
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 53

implement the donor retention plan. Second, the organization needs to stay committed to
achieving the stakeholder performance goal and global organizational goal. Third, the
organization needs to prepare ministry staff to achieve their goal by conducting donor
engagement training.
Ministry staff possess a strong sense of autonomy overall. Autonomy support from
leaders results in self-determination and higher engagement of individuals (Gagne, 2003). The
survey instrument included two items regarding the autonomy of ministry staff. When it came to
their sense of autonomy to develop a plan to retain donors, one-third agreed or strongly agreed
that they have autonomy to do so. One-third of ministry staff neither agreed nor disagreed with
the statement. The remaining one-third disagreed or strongly disagreed. The second item asked
ministry staff about their overall sense of autonomy to see any task or project through to
completion by themselves once it has been assigned to them. As displayed in Table 6, 83.33% of
ministry staff indicated they agreed or strongly agreed they possess autonomy, whereas only two
participants, or 16.67%, disagreed with the statement. The survey results suggest ministry staff
have a strong sense of autonomy in their jobs overall.
The interview participants also spoke to the autonomy they have in fulfilling the
requirements of their job. Steve, a campus pastor who leads one of CW’s locations, described
his job this way, “My role on the team now is primarily focused on a particular campus and
leading that location.…we really have the autonomy to run the campus.” John also spoke about
the autonomy of each location, “So we have complete viability and autonomy of our own
budgets, our campuses.” When asked to describe the relationships with the central campus of
Church of the West, Chris remarked, “Our campus is a little more autonomous.”

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 54

Table 6
Distribution of Participant Responses to Autonomy Survey Items
Survey Item Response n Percentage

Q.7 I have the
autonomy in my job
to develop a plan to
retain donors.

Q.8 Once I am
assigned a task or
project, I am given
autonomy to see it
through to
completion by
myself.

Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

1
3
4
2
2

4
6
0
2
0

8.33%
25%
33.33%
16.67%
16.67%

33.33%
50%
0%
16.67%
0%

Interview participants also described their autonomy when it comes to engaging donors.
Steve shared that he is given a lapsed donor report so that he is aware of who has stopped giving.
He went on to say, “But really that’s about it…it’s really more of a ‘Hey, here’s who they are.’
Now you go and solve the problem.” Chris also talked about the autonomy he has to engage
donors at the location he works at, “It’s pretty much on our own.” John commented on how he’s
learned over time to engage donors more effectively, “That’s just something I’ve learned on my
own and gleaned on my own, and kind of did on my own.” The interview findings suggest
ministry staff have a strong sense of autonomy to fulfill the overall responsibilities of their jobs,
including developing a plan to engage lapsed donors at the particular campus where they work.
According to Manz and Sims (2001), effective organizational leaders help employees learn how
to lead themselves. Autonomy is a motivational asset that ministry staff possess in their pursuit
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 55

of achieving the stakeholder performance goal to develop an action plan by September 1, 2019 to
follow up with donors who contributed $500 or more in 2018 but have yet to give in 2019.
Ministry staff believe Church of the West is highly committed to achieving goals.
Commitment to goals is a necessary condition to the effectiveness of goal-setting (Locke &
Latham, 2002). Ministry staff responded to two survey items related to this organizational
influence. When asked to respond to the statement “Church of the West stays focused on
achieving established goals,” 10 out of 12 participants, or 83.33%, agreed or strongly agreed.
The remaining two participants neither agreed nor disagreed. This suggests ministry staff sense
CW possesses a high level of goal commitment. The second survey item focused on fundraising
goals specifically. Two-thirds of ministry staff, or 66.67%, agreed or strongly agreed that
fundraising goals are a priority at Church of the West. Only one participant disagreed with this
statement and the remaining three participants neither agreed nor disagreed. The survey results
found ministry staff sensed high goal commitment from the organization when it comes to
pursuing established goals, including fundraising goals. All responses are displayed in Table 7.
The interview findings also indicated ministry staff believe CW is highly committed to
setting and achieving organizational goals. John summarized the approach of CW leadership
regarding goal setting, “I’d say goals have been established since the beginning of when the
senior pastor got here ten years ago.…He stuck to and has been really intentional in creating and
establishing goals.” When asked if the leaders of CW are committed to achieving established
goals, Will said, “100% yeah. Ours do, but we’re a goal driven church.” Adam shared about the
importance of goals at CW, “It’s definitely a high priority.…we do want to see results.”
Organizational effectiveness increases when leaders identify, articulate, focus the organization’s
effort on and reinforce the organization’s vision (Knowles, 1980). Steve spoke about how CW
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 56

tracks progress toward goals, “Church of the West is really good at creating goals and tracking
data. Probably one of the better churches I’ve been at that actually takes information, puts it into
some usable spreadsheets, and then forecasts and looks at trends.” Steve went on to describe
three work goals, “those three have been my goals every quarter for the last several years and so
I think it’s really easy to just stay focused on those goals because they’ve never changed.”
Table 7
Distribution of Participant Responses to Goal Commitment Survey Items
Survey Item Response n Percentage

Q.9 Church of the
West stays focused
on achieving
established goals.

Q.10 Achieving
fundraising goals is a
priority for Church of
the West.

Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

7
3
2
0
0

3
5
3
1
0

58.33%
25%
16.67%
0%
0%

25%
41.67%
25%
8.33%
0%

Interview participants also shared that organizational goals and objectives at times have
changed. Steve talked about moving on too quickly, “I feel like sometimes we can get on to the
new thing faster than actually accomplishing what we’ve been focused on.” Will shared about
what happens when CW leaders change direction and replace old goals with new ones, “Do some
goals get pushed aside? Yeah, that happens…and we’ve gotta be okay with just dropping it.” In
his explanation of why priorities change, John said sometimes things come up that become the
top priority, “which is understandable, and you know makes sense for this season that we’re in.”
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 57

The survey results and interview findings suggest ministry staff believe the leaders of CW are
highly committed to achieving established goals. The interviews also revealed organizational
goals do change from time to time. A corollary to goal commitment is the need for strategic
focus (Sterling, 2003). For ministry staff to achieve the stakeholder performance goal and global
organizational goal, it is imperative the leadership of CW is focused on achieving established
goals.
Donor engagement training has not occurred at Church of the West. The third
organizational influence identified by this study was that Church of the West needs to prepare
ministry staff to achieve their goal by conducting donor engagement training. Organizational
effectiveness increases when leaders provide employees with the professional development
necessary for the successful execution of their jobs (Waters, Marzano & McNulty, 2003). This
final organizational influence was a topic in all five interviews. The interviews revealed a gap in
donor engagement training at CW. When asked what types of training or preparation related to
donor engagement had taken place to date at CW, Steve said, “None. I would say zero.” Adam
responded to the same question this way, “I wouldn’t say any.…there’s been other training to be
an effective pastor, to be more connected to people, but not specifically to talk about giving.”
John reflected on whether any donor engagement training had occurred for all ministry staff in
the past, “I think as a whole entire staff level, probably next to nothing that I can remember.”
When asked if there were any hindrances to effectively engaging donors, John mentioned the
lack of training at CW related to donor engagement and then recommended a training that would
include, “a page or a checklist or a breakdown of hey, this is how we engage with donors.…this
is what we do whenever you’re talking with someone. I think that would be good to have.”
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 58

Ministry staff members were asked in the interviews what could help them engage donors
more effectively. Steve suggested, “more of a systematic approach to donor development.”
Chris answered the same question this way, “I think there could probably be some kind of a
training.” Adam made the observation, “My assumption is that you would kind of have to know
and learn strategically how to engage in these conversations that are specifically relating to
funds.” John emphasized the value of a training for all ministry staff that would cover “this is
who we are. This is what we do. But this is also how we’re able to do it is through people
giving.”
Two interview participants described the importance of learning through observing other
more experienced individuals. Steve talked about the senior pastor’s role at CW in fundraising
and suggested, “Bringing along younger staff into those moments where he (the senior pastor) is
pitching vision, I think you learn more by watching sometimes than just doing.” Will also talked
about observing the senior pastor having conversations with donors, “so you get an
understanding of how to talk about it in a way that doesn’t come across, that seems like you’re
attacking them…but you’re actually showing care.” Both participants described the benefits of
watching another person model conversations. Steve mentioned how much he learned before
joining the staff of CW by observing more experienced others have conversations, “I’ve heard
the conversations that were had…and watched it masterfully connect with their (a donor’s)
heart.” Will described some helpful coaching he received from a colleague while doing a mock
conversion about lapsed giving, “It’s just basic hands-on, watching somebody do it and then
getting some feedback was super helpful.”
Ministry staff recognized their lack of training related to effective donor engagement
strategies. They also recommended possible training components that could improve the
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 59

knowledge and motivation ministry staff possess in their pursuit of achieving the stakeholder
performance goal and global organizational goal. Effective training leads to improved job
performance that positively contributes to key organizational results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016).
Summary of Results and Findings
In summary, the data collected revealed several important assets and gaps that should
inform organizational practice at Church of the West. Several gaps were identified in ministry
staff knowledge of donor engagement. When it came to knowledge of possible reasons why
donors lapse in the first place, the interview findings revealed ministry staff possess inadequate
knowledge (gap). The interview findings also revealed ministry staff possess inconsistent
knowledge of possible reasons lapsed donors re-engage and start giving again (gap).
Additionally, the interviews found ministry staff lacked knowledge of effective donor
engagement strategies (gap). Ministry staff described personal relationships as a key to
interacting with donors, but no specific donor engagement strategies were articulated.
Ministry staff saw the value in personally connecting with donors to the organization as a
whole (asset). Campus pastors and associate pastors (the interview participants) saw the value in
personally connecting with donors as a key component of excelling in their jobs. The same
cannot be concluded for the ministry staff as a whole, since the survey data collected revealed
mixed-results. Some ministry staff viewed it as valuable in terms of excelling in their jobs, while
others did not view it as valuable in terms of excelling in their jobs (gap). Ministry staff
possessed high self-efficacy. They were confident in their ability to personally interact with
donors (asset) and confident they can learn how to engage donors more effectively (asset).
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 60

However, a few of the interview participants expressed feelings of uneasiness or a hesitancy
regarding talking to donors directly about money.
The ministry staff of CW possessed a strong sense of autonomy to fulfill their job
responsibilities (asset). The interview findings revealed campus pastors and associate pastors
possess a strong sense of autonomy to develop an action plan to retain donors (asset).
Furthermore, ministry staff expressed that the organization and its leaders stay focused on
achieving established goals (asset). Still, the interview participants shared how organizational
priorities do change from time to time. To achieve the stakeholder performance goal and global
organizational goal, it is important for CW to keep the goals a priority. The data collected
revealed a gap in donor engagement training at CW. Ministry staff members expressed that no
formal training had occurred to date to resource and prepare ministry staff to engage donors
more effectively. The lack of training to date likely contributed to the ministry staff gaps in
knowledge identified by this study. Multiple staff members identified the lack of training as a
gap in their responses and shared suggestions about what type of training would be beneficial for
the ministry staff of CW. What follows are recommendations for organizational practice at CW
in the form of a training that will address the gaps identified by this study and better position the
organization by preparing ministry staff to achieve the stakeholder performance goal and global
organizational goal.
Recommendations for Practice
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework was utilized to evaluate if any gaps
exist in ministry staff knowledge and motivation. The impact of organizational influences on
ministry staff knowledge and motivation was also examined. Several gaps were identified
through data analysis and presented in the results and findings section. The purpose of this final
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 61

section is to provide recommendations that if implemented will help close the gaps and increase
ministry staff knowledge and motivation so they are prepared to achieve the stakeholder
performance goal, which in turn will enable CW to accomplish the global organizational goal.
Knowledge Recommendations
The recommendations offered are provided as a solution for the knowledge gaps that
emerged from data analysis. Church of the West ministry staff need to increase their knowledge
of reasons why donors lapse in the first place and reasons why lapsed donors re-engage and
begin giving again. Ministry staff also need to possess knowledge of donor engagement
strategies and be able to apply them. Table 8 displays the knowledge gaps identified through
interviews with ministry staff members and the context-specific recommendations based on
research literature.
Table 8
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Knowledge Influences Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation

Ministry staff need to possess
knowledge of the various
reasons why donors lapse.
(Conceptual Knowledge)

Procedural knowledge
increases when declarative
knowledge required to
perform the skill is available
or known. (Clark & Estes,
2008).

Learning is enhanced through
collaboration with others
(Laal & Ghodsi, 2012).

Provide a job aid that both
lists and describes various
reasons why donors lapse in
the first place.

Provide the opportunity in a
staff meeting for ministry
staff to break into groups of
three people to discuss the
various reasons why donors
lapse in the first place.

Ministry staff need to possess
knowledge of the various
reasons why a lapsed donor
re-engages and begins giving
Procedural knowledge
increases when declarative
knowledge required to
perform the skill is available
Provide a job aid that both
lists and describes various
reasons why lapsed donors
re-engage and begin giving
again.
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 62

again. (Conceptual
Knowledge)

or known. (Clark et al.,
2008).

Learning is enhanced through
collaboration with others
(Laal & Ghodsi, 2012).

Provide the opportunity in a
staff meeting for ministry
staff to break into groups of
three people to discuss the
various reasons why donors
lapse in the first place.

Ministry staff need to be able
to apply effective donor
engagement strategies.
(Procedural Knowledge)

To develop mastery,
individuals must acquire
component skills, practice
integrating them, and know
when to apply what they have
learned (McCrudden &
Schraw, 2006).

Effective observational
learning is achieved by first
organizing and rehearsing
modeled behaviors, then
enacting them overtly
(Mayer, 2011)
Provide training that utilizes
role play with feedback,
modeling, and coaching from
an expert fundraiser on how
to apply what they’ve learned
to real life donor engagement
situations.

Increase ministry staff knowledge of reasons donors lapse in the first place and
reasons lapsed donors re-engage and give again. The interview findings revealed ministry
staff possess inadequate knowledge of possible reasons why donors lapse in the first place and
inconsistent knowledge of possible reasons lapsed donors re-engage and start giving again.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), procedural knowledge increases when declarative
knowledge required to perform the skill is available or known. This suggests providing ministry
staff with a list of reasons why donors may lapse in the first place and why lapsed donors re-
engage and start giving again would deliver essential information stakeholders need to know
before they are able to apply it in their pursuit of the stakeholder performance goal. The
recommendations then for ministry staff are to provide them with a job aid that lists and
describes specific reasons, followed by the opportunity in a staff meeting for ministry staff to
break into groups of three people to discuss the various reasons.
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 63

Bekkers and Wiepking (2011) identified eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving.
These mechanisms help explain key reasons why people give, why they stop giving, or why they
re-engage to give again. The eight mechanisms are determinants of philanthropy. They are (a)
awareness of need; (b) solicitation; (c) costs and benefits; (d) altruism; (e) reputation; (f)
psychological benefits; (g) values; and (h) efficacy. According to McCrudden & Schraw (2006)
information processing improves when learners are given assistance in identifying and
understanding important points. Therefore, an explanation of the reasons why donors give,
reasons they choose to lapse, and reasons why donors choose to re-engage will help ministry
staff better understand donors to CW. This supports the recommendation to provide ministry
staff with a job aid that lists and describes particular reasons donors lapse in the first place and
possible reasons lapsed donors re-engage and begin giving again, followed by the opportunity in
a staff meeting for ministry staff to break into groups of three people to discuss the various
reasons.
Increase ministry staff knowledge of effective donor engagement strategies and how
to apply them. The interview findings revealed ministry staff lack knowledge of donor
engagement strategies and how to apply them. To develop mastery individuals must acquire
component skills, practice integrating them, and know when to apply what they have learned
(McCrudden & Schraw, 2006). Furthermore, effective observational learning is achieved by first
organizing and rehearsing modeled behaviors, then enacting them overtly (Mayer, 2011). This
suggests supplying ministry staff with the opportunity to practice with an expert fundraiser how
donor engagement strategies should be applied to everyday situations will increase their
learning. The recommendation then for ministry staff is to provide training that utilizes role play
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 64

with feedback, modeling, and coaching from an expert fundraiser on how to apply what they’ve
learned to real life donor engagement situations.
Storytelling to make the case to donors can increase effectiveness in fundraising (Clark,
2013). Additionally, private benefits such as invitations to private dinner parties and special
events are effective tools for fundraising (Sieg and Zhang, 2012). These are a couple of
examples of effective donor engagement strategies supported by research that could help CW
ministry staff develop an effective plan to follow up with lapsed donors. Through workshops
and interviews with 110 lapsed donors, Nathan and Hallam (2009) explored the experience of
donors who made the decision to stop contributing to a particular charity. They found that a key
reason active donors decide to stop giving is poor communication, which in many cases could
have been avoided. The way ministry staff interact with donors and how they choose to apply
donor engagement strategies in real life situations can impact whether donors continue to give,
choose to lapse or re-engage and give again. Therefore, it is important ministry staff are given
the opportunity to practice interacting with donors through role play and provided feedback to
improve.
Motivation Recommendation
The recommendation put forth is provided as a solution for the motivation gap that
emerged from data analysis. Whereas all ministry staff saw the value in personally connecting
with donors to the organization as a whole, only some ministry staff viewed personally
connecting with donors as valuable in terms of excelling in their particular job at CW.
Motivation is increased when a learner values a task (Eccles, 2006). The motivation of ministry
staff can be increased if they see the value in personally connecting with donors as a critical
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 65

component of their job. Table 9 displays the motivation gap identified through data analysis and
the context-specific recommendation based on research literature.
Table 9
Summary of Motivation Influence and Recommendation
Motivation Influence Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation

Ministry staff need to see the
usefulness in personal
engaging donors.
(Utility Value)

Motivation is enhanced if the
learner values the task
(Eccles, 2006).

Rationales that include a
discussion of the importance
and utility value of the work
can help learners develop
positive values (Eccles, 2006;
Pintrich, 2003).

Provide the opportunity in a
training for senior leaders of
the organization to share
rationales for why the role of
ministry staff in engaging
donors is important, followed
by a discussion of the
rationales.

Provide the opportunity for senior leaders to share rationales for why donor
engagement is important with ministry staff to increase utility value. The survey results and
interview findings revealed that some, but not all, ministry staff saw the value in personally
connecting with donors in terms of excelling in their jobs. If a task is not perceived to be useful
or beneficial by an individual, then he or she may be unmotivated to complete the task, whereas
if the task is viewed as highly useful or beneficial, then the motivation an individual possesses is
enhanced (Eccles, 2006). This suggests that providing an opportunity for ministry staff to hear
from senior leaders why the role they each play in engaging donors is important would illustrate
the utility value of the task. The recommendation then is to provide the opportunity in a training
for senior leaders of the organization to share rationales for why donor engagement is important
for ministry staff members, followed by a discussion of the rationales.
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 66

For ministry staff to better understand the utility value of donor engagement, it is
important for them to understand why the role they each play in donor engagement
matters. According to expectancy value theory, motivation is enhanced when a person has
positive expectations and positively values a task. When positive values are developed,
motivation increases. Eccles (2006) and Pintrich (2003) both found that a discussion of the
importance and utility value of their work can help learners develop positive values. If ministry
staff are provided the opportunity to hear from senior leaders why the role they each play in
engaging donors is important, then it is likely they will view engaging donors as a valuable
component of their job.
Organizational Recommendation
The recommendation offered is provided as a solution for the organizational gap
identified by this study. Donor engagement training has not taken place at CW to date. During
the interviews, ministry staff recognized the lack of training as a gap and also expressed ways
training could better prepare and position ministry staff to engage donors more effectively.
Training consists of information, guided practice and corrective feedback (Clark & Estes, 2008).
If CW offers donor engagement training to ministry staff they will be better prepared with the
knowledge and motivation necessary to achieve the stakeholder performance goal to develop an
action plan by September 1, 2019 to follow up with all donors who gave $500 or more in 2018
but have yet to give in 2019. Table 10 displays the organizational gap identified through data
analysis and the context-specific recommendation based on research literature.

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 67

Table 10
Summary of Organizational Influence and Recommendation
Organizational Influence Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation

Church of the West needs to
prepare ministry staff to
achieve their goal by
conducting donor
engagement training.

Organizational effectiveness
increases when leaders
provide employees with the
professional development
necessary for the successful
execution of their jobs
(Waters, Marzano &
McNulty, 2003).
Provide professional
development through training
and coaching sessions to
increase ministry staff
knowledge and motivation to
prepare ministry staff to
achieve the stakeholder
performance goal.

Provide professional development for ministry staff by implementing a donor
engagement training program. The data collected revealed a gap in donor engagement training
at CW. Ministry staff members acknowledged that no formal training had occurred to date to
resource and prepare staff to engage donors more effectively. Effective job training shows
employees how to achieve performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Furthermore,
organizational effectiveness increases when leaders provide employees with the professional
development necessary for the successful execution of their jobs (Waters, Marzano & McNulty,
2003). This suggests the achievement of the stakeholder performance goal and global
organizational goal is dependent on offering relevant and targeted professional development
opportunities. The recommendation then is for CW to provide professional development through
the training and coaching sessions outlined in the program to increase ministry staff knowledge
and motivation, which will prepare ministry staff to achieve the stakeholder performance goal.
Effective training leads to improved job performance that positively contributes to key
organizational results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). When done properly, job training
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 68

results in high impact learning (Clark & Estes, 2008). Training seeks to improve knowledge and
skills as well as employee confidence, which can increase motivation. This suggests ministry
staff can be prepared and equipped to achieve the stakeholder performance goal with appropriate
training. This supports the recommendation for CW to provide the training and coaching
sessions presented in the program to increase ministry staff knowledge and motivation in order to
prepare them to achieve the stakeholder performance goal.
Program. Identified gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences will
be addressed through a training program conducted by a fundraising expert and the leadership
team of CW. Ministry staff will study a range of relevant donor engagement topics and practice
how to apply what they have learned. The program consists of one primary training session
conducted by an expert fundraiser, followed by three one-on-one coaching sessions between the
fundraiser and individual ministry staff members. There will also be three sessions for ministry
staff to practice how to effectively engage donors personally through role play with other
ministry staff members. Additionally, ministry staff will practice how to communicate with
lapsed donors in writing. The total time for completion is 480 minutes (8 hours).
During the initial training conducted by an expert fundraiser ministry staff will be
provided a job aid that lists and describes the various reasons why donors lapse in the first place
and why lapsed donors re-engage and start giving again. After the job aid is reviewed and
explained, they will also be provided the opportunity to discuss the job aid with other ministry
staff in groups of three. Furthermore, the expert fundraiser will explain a variety of proven
fundraising strategies supported by empirical research and how these strategies can be applied to
real-life scenarios. A discussion of the strategies will be included. The training will also cover
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 69

how to correspond with donors in writing. Examples of first-rate written correspondence will be
provided along with examples of poor correspondence and the differences explained.
After the initial training has occurred, ministry staff will be provided the opportunity to
practice interacting with donors through role-play. Each ministry staff member will have three
one-on-one sessions with an expert fundraiser and will receive coaching and feedback in those
sessions. Ministry staff will also practice interacting with donors through role-play with other
ministry staff members in three additional sessions. Finally, ministry staff will practice writing
correspondence to lapsed donors at least two times and receive feedback from a peer and their
direct supervisor on the quality of their writing. The full training program outline in the form of
an integrated implementation and evaluation plan can be found in Appendix H.
Finally, Church of the West should consider leveraging technology in three ways to
enhance the training program. The first recommendation is that CW video record the initial
training session with an expert fundraiser. The video recording of the initial training can be
saved and stored on CW’s shared drive, which employees utilize to save and access important
files. The recording of the initial training can be watched again in the future by current
employees as a way to reinforce the content. Additionally, the recording can be viewed by new
ministry staff members who join the CW staff after the training has occurred so they also benefit
from the training program. The second recommendation is that after the initial training, and for
the duration of the entire training program, CW utilize the digital platform Slack to foster team
conversations about donor engagement. A separate channel on Slack can be created for donor
engagement. The ministry staff of CW will be able to share their knowledge and experiences
with each other on the channel about what they are learning throughout the donor engagement
training. The final recommendation is that after ministry staff achieve the stakeholder
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 70

performance goal and begin implementing the donor retention plan, ministry staff should utilize
CW’s existing Church Management Software (CMS) system. Communication with current
donors and lapsed donors, whether in writing or in person, can be noted in the system and
accessed by other ministry staff members. The upside of tracking communication with CW
donors in the CMS system is that it automatically saves and houses the data all in one place,
which makes it possible for content in the system to be referenced months or even years later by
current staff or new employees.

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 71

References
Albanese, R., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1985). Rational behavior in groups: The free-riding
tendency. Academy of Management Review, 10(2), 244-255.
Andreoni, J. (1989). Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and Ricardian
equivalence. Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), 1447-1458.
Baker, L. (2006). Developmental differences in metacognition: Implications for metacognitively
oriented reading instruction. In Metacognition in literacy learning (pp. 83-102).
Routledge.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248-287.
Barber, Putnam, & Levis, Bill. (January 2013). Donor retention matters. Retrieved from
http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/412731-Donor-
Retention-Matters.PDF
Basil, D. Z., Ridgway, N. M., & Basil, M. D. (2006). Guilt appeals: The mediating effect of
responsibility. Psychology & Marketing, 23(12), 1035-1054.
Bassous, M. (2015). What are the factors that affect worker motivation in faith-based nonprofit
organizations?. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit
Organizations, 26(1), 355-381.
Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial
motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2), 107-122.
Beem, M. J. (2001). Fundraising in the balance: An analysis of job performance, appraisals and
rewards. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 6(2), 164-
171.
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 72

Bekkers, R. (2008). Straight from the heart. In S Chambre & M. Goldner (Eds.), Advances in
medical sociology, Volume 10: Patients, Consumers and Civil Society: US and
International Perspectives (pp. 197-221): Emerald Group.
Bekkers, R., & Crutzen, O. (2007). Just keep it simple: A field experiment on fundraising letters.
International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12(4), 371-378.
Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy:
Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 40(5), 924-973.
Bennett, R. (2003). Factors underlying the inclination to donate to particular types of charity.
International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(1), 12-29.
Bennett, R. (2006). Predicting the lifetime durations of donors to charities. Journal of Nonprofit
& Public Sector Marketing, 15(1-2), 45-67.
Bird, Warren. (2016, August, 2). How Can Big Data Increase Generosity in Your Church?
Retrieved from http://leadnet.org/how-can-big-data-increase-generosity-in-your-church/
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy
of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain.
Bryant, W. K., Jeon-Slaughter, H., Kang, H., & Tax, A. (2003). Participation in philanthropic
activities: Donating money and time. Journal of Consumer Policy, 26(1), 43-73.
Bryson, J. M., Gibbons, M. J., & Shaye, G. (2001). Enterprise schemes for nonprofit survival,
growth, and effectiveness. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11(3), 271-288.
Burger, J. M. (1999). The foot-in-the-door compliance procedure: A multiple-process analysis
and review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(4), 303-325.
Burgoyne, C.B., Young, B., & Walker, C.M. (2005). Deciding to give to charity: A focus group
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 73

study in the context of the household economy. Journal of Community & Applied Social
Psychology, 15, 383-405.
Clark, C. (2009). How storytelling and branding techniques can be used to create an effective
fundraising communications programme. Journal of Communication in Healthcare, 2(1),
47-53.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. IAP.
Clark, R. E., Feldon, D., van Merriënboer, J. J., Yates, K., & Early, S. (2008). Cognitive task
analysis. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 3, 577-
593.
Connell, J., Ferres, N., & Travaglione, T. (2003). Engendering trust in manager-subordinate
relationships: Predictors and outcomes. Personnel Review, 32(5), 569-587.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design (3
rd
ed.). Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches. Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage Publications.

Das, E., Kerkhof, P., & Kuiper, J. (2008). Improving the effectiveness of fundraising messages:
The impact of charity goal attainment, message framing, and evidence on
persuasion. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36(2), 161-175.
Diamond, W. D., & Kashyap, R. K. (1997). Extending models of prosocial behavior to explain
university alumni contributions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(10), 915-928.
Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84(3), 445.
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 74

Dirks, K. T. (2000). Trust in leadership and team performance: Evidence from NCAA
basketball. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 1004.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization
Science, 12(4), 450-467.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications
for research and practice. Applied Psychology 87(4): 611-628.
Dolan, D. A. (2002). Training needs of administrators in the nonprofit sector: What are they and
how should we address them?. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(3), 277-292.
Duncan, B. (2004). A theory of impact philanthropy. Journal of Public Economics, 88(9),
2159-2180.
Duronio, M. A., & Loessin, B. A. (1991). Effective fund raising in higher education: Ten
success stories. Jossey-Bass Publishers, 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco CA 94104.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Elder, S. D. (2010). Recruiting, training, and retaining high‐performance development teams.
New Directions for Higher Education, 2010(149), 81-88.
Falk, A., & Ichino, A. (2006). Clean evidence on peer effects. Journal of labor economics, 24(1),
39-57.
Fan, W., & Yan, Z. (2010). Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic
review. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 132-139.
Feng, S. (2014). Getting lapsed donors back: An empirical investigation of relationship
management in the post-termination stage. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector
Marketing, 26(2), 127-141.
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 75

Francia, P. L., Green, J. C., Herrnson, P. S., Powell, L. W., & Wilcox, C. (2005). Limousine
liberals and corporate conservatives: The financial constituencies of the democratic and
republican parties. Social Science Quarterly, 86(4), 761-778.
Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior
engagement. Motivation and emotion, 27(3), 199-223.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist, 36(1), 45-56.
Gillespie, N. A., & Mann, L. (2004). Transformational leadership and shared values: The
building blocks of trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(6), 588-607.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is right. Becoming qualitative
researchers: An introduction, 4, 162-183.
Goering, E., Connor, U. M., Nagelhout, E., & Steinberg, R. (2011). Persuasion in fundraising
letters: An interdisciplinary study. Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly, 40(2), 228-
246.
Grant, A. M., (2008). Employees without a cause: The motivational effects of prosocial impact
in public service. International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 48-66
Grant, A. M., Campbell, E. M., Chen, G., Cottone, K., Lapedis, D., & Lee, K. (2007). Impact
and the art of motivation maintenance: The effects of contact with beneficiaries on
persistence behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1),
53-67.
Harbaugh, W. T., Mayr, U., & Burghart, D. R. (2007). Neural responses to taxation and
voluntary giving reveal motives for charitable donations. Science, 316(5831), 1622-1625.
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 76

Heslin, P. A., Carson, J. B., & VandeWalle, D. (2008). Practical applications of goal setting
theory to performance management. Performance Management: Putting Research into
Practice, Jossey-Bass Publishers, 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco CA 94104.
Huck, S., & Rasul, I. (2011). Matched fundraising: Evidence from a natural field
experiment. Journal of Public Economics, 95(5-6), 351-362.
Jefferson, A., & Pollock, R. (2016). So What? Now What? In Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatirck,
Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation (pp. 135-141). Alexandria, VA: ATD
Press.
Karlan, D., & Wood, D. H. (2017). The effect of effectiveness: Donor response to aid
effectiveness in a direct mail fundraising experiment. Journal of behavioral and
experimental economics, 66, 1-8.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Wright, P. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2001). The
assessment of goal commitment: A measurement model meta-analysis. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(1), 32-55.
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education (revised and updated). New
York: Cambridge.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into
Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia-social and
behavioral sciences, 31, 486-490.
Lee, B. A., & Farrell, C. R. (2003). Buddy, can you spare a dime? Homelessness, panhandling,
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 77

and the public. Urban Affairs Review, 38(3), 299-324.
Levis, Miller, & Williams. (2017, April 4). 2017 Fundraising Effectiveness Survey Report.
Retrieved from http://afpfep.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/04/FEP2017Report4212017.pdf
Levy, J. D. (2004). The growth of fundraising: Framing the impact of research and literature on
education and training. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 2004(43), 21-30.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and
task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705.
Malinowska, D., Tokarz, A., & Wardzichowska, A. (2018). Job autonomy in relation to work
engagement and workaholism: mediation of autonomous and controlled work motivation.
International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health, 31(4).
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (2001). The new superleadership: Leading others to lead themselves.
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Vol. 41). Sage

Publications.

Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., & Hartley, K. (2006). The effect of general relevance
instructions on shallow and deeper learning and reading time. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 74(4), 291-310.
McGrath, S. (1997). Giving donors good reason to give again. International Journal of Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 2(2), 125-135.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and

implementation. John Wiley & Sons.

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 78

Miller, Ben, & McGinness, Heather. (January 8, 2016). 2015 fundraising effectiveness
survey report. Retrieved from www.afpnet.org/FEP
Nathan, A., & Hallam, L. (2009). A qualitative investigation into the donor lapsing
experience. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 14(4),
317-331.
Ostrower, F. (1998). The arts as cultural capital among elites: Bourdieu's theory
reconsidered. Poetics, 26(1), 43-53.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Parsons, L. M. (2007). The impact of financial information and voluntary disclosures on
contributions to not-for-profit organizations. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 19(1),
179-196.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of educational Psychology, 95(4), 667.
Pitts, R. E., & Skelly, G. U. (1984). Economic self-interest and other motivational factors
underlying charitable giving. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 13(2), 93-109.
Radley, A., & Kennedy, M. (1995). Charitable giving by individuals: A study of attitudes and
practice. Human Relations, 48(6), 685-709.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A
cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press. 1234 Amsterdam Avenue, New
York, NY 10027.
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 79

Sargeant, A. (2001). Relationship fundraising: How to keep donors loyal. Nonprofit Management
and Leadership, 12(2), 177-192.
Sargeant, A., & Jay, E. (2004). Building donor loyalty: The fundraiser's guide to increasing
lifetime value. John Wiley & Sons.
Sargeant, A., & McKenzie, J. (1998). A lifetime of giving: An analysis of donor lifetime value.
Charities Aid Foundation.
Sargeant, A., & Woodliffe, L. (2007). Building donor loyalty: The antecedents and role of
commitment in the context of charity giving. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector
Marketing, 18(2), 47-68.
Schervish, P. G. (1997). Inclination, obligation, and association: What we know and what we
need to learn about donor motivation. Critical Issues in Fund Raising, 110-138.
Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. R., & Pintrich, P. R. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory,
research, and applications. Pearson Higher Ed.
Schwartz, R. A. (1970). Personal philanthropic contributions. Journal of Political
Economy, 78(6), 1264-1291.
Seidman I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research (4
th
ed.). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research

projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75.

Sieg, H., & Zhang, J. (2012). The effectiveness of private benefits in fundraising of local
charities. International Economic Review, 53(2), 349-374.
Sinclair, B.T. (2015). Improving early grade reading instruction in Ghana: A discrepancy gap
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 80

analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los
Angeles.
Soukup, D. J. (1983). A Markov analysis of fund-raising alternatives. Journal of Marketing
Research, 314-319.

Sterling, J. (2003). Translating strategy into effective implementation: Dispelling the myths and
highlighting what works. Strategy & Leadership, 31(3), 27-34.
The Giving Institute (2019). Giving USA 2018: The annual report on philanthropy for the year
2017. Retrieved from www.givingusa.org
Todd, S. J., & Lawson, R. W. (1999). Towards a better understanding of the financial donor: An
examination of donor behaviour in terms of value structure and
demographics. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 4(3),
235-244.
Wagner, C., & Wheeler, L. (1969). Model, need, and cost effects in helping behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 12(2), 111.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced Leadership: What 30 Years of

Research Tells Us about the Effect of Leadership on Student Achievement. A Working

Paper.

Weerawardena, J., McDonald, R. E., & Mort, G. S. (2010). Sustainability of nonprofit
organizations: An empirical investigation. Journal of World Business, 45(4), 346-356.
Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as initiators
of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy
behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 513-530.
Wing, K. T. (2004). Assessing the effectiveness of capacity-building initiatives: Seven issues for
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 81

the field. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(1), 153-160.
Yörük, B. K. (2012). Do charitable solicitations matter? A comparative analysis of fundraising
methods. Fiscal Studies, 33(4), 467-487.

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 82

Appendix A: Sampling Criteria
The stakeholder group of focus for this study consisted of CW ministry staff members.
The methodological approach selected for this project was a case study, since the study is
intimately linked to the context of CW. Based on the rationale outlined by Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) for a bounded case study, the stakeholder population of focus selected for this study
comprised a small, purposeful sample of 12 ministry staff members. Data collection for the
study unfolded in two stages. First, all 12 individuals in the stakeholder population of focus
were invited to participate in completing a brief survey. Second, one-on-one interviews were
conducted with a subset of five individuals who completed the survey. The survey sampling
criteria and rationale as well as the interview sampling criteria and rationale are explained next.
Survey Sampling Criteria
The criteria below guided survey sampling.
Criterion 1. The job of the individual must be classified by the human resources
department of CW as a ministry staff position. This criterion ensured the staff members who
were invited to participate in the surveys had similar responsibilities when it comes to interacting
with donors.
Criterion 2. Individuals invited to participate in the survey will have personally
interacted with donors informally as part of their job responsibilities. This criterion guaranteed
each survey participant had some experience engaging CW donors, even though it may not be an
official part of their job description or assigned duties.
Criterion 3. The ministry staff members invited to participate in the survey must be full-
time employees. Although CW employs many part-time ministry staff, it has been full-time
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 83

ministry staff who tend to receive the most organizational support and who are the most familiar
with the culture, policies, and systems of the organization.
Survey Sampling Strategy and Rationale
The survey sampling strategy utilized for this study was purposeful. The population of
focus consisted of a small number of individuals, namely 12 ministry staff members. I sought
total population participation for the survey, which was conducted as stage one of the data
collection process. The 12 individuals that comprised the survey sample all met the above
criterion. Furthermore, the criterion was established to help ensure the individuals who
participated were stakeholders who have knowledge, perspective, experiences, and insights to
share (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Interview Sampling Criteria
The criteria below guided interview sampling.
Criterion 1. The job description of the ministry staff member included donor
engagement as an official responsibility. This criterion ensured the participating individual has
either performance outcomes or duties related to donor engagement they are accountable for.
Criterion 2. The ministry staff member has interacted with a donor in a formal capacity
or setting. Practically this means that they have participated in some capacity at fundraising
events or activities organized by CW for current donors. The rationale for this criterion is to
ensure the ministry staff member has been part of organizational fundraising efforts in addition
to any casual conversations or informal interactions with donors the individual has experienced.
Criterion 3. The role of the ministry staff member must be either a campus pastor or an
associate pastor. At CW, campus pastors and associate pastors are well known to donors. They
interact with donors multiple times each week, and therefore have the most experience engaging
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 84

donors compared to other ministry staff members. This criterion guaranteed those invited to
participate in an interview are the most knowledgeable and experienced members of the CW
staff when it comes to donor engagement.
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale
After data was collected through administering surveys, one-on-one interviews were
conducted with a subset of individuals who completed the survey. The sampling strategy for the
interviews was purposeful, with the goal of selecting individuals from whom the most could be
learned (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The ideal outcome was five interviews, which was achieved.
This enabled me to go in-depth with each stakeholder, collect a variety of perspectives, achieve
saturation, and compare the results of each interview (Maxwell, 2013). At the time of data
collection, there were seven ministry staff members who met the interview sampling criteria
outlined above. Three of them were campus pastors. I began by asking the three campus pastors
first if they would be willing to participate followed by the two associate campus pastors who
had been on staff at CW the longest. The interviews consisted of open-ended questions that
prompted the stakeholder to share his or her observations, perspectives, opinions, and
experiences. Furthermore, each interview allowed me as the investigator to gain access to
information about actions or events that cannot be observed or replicated (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 85

Appendix B: Survey Protocol

Nature and Purpose of the Survey:

Church of the West is a nonprofit organization that relies heavily on individual donors to fund its
mission. Ministry staff acts as the face of the organization and have opportunities to personally
interact with donors. This survey aims to understand motivation and organizational factors
related to donor engagement.

Instructions:

This survey should take approximately five minutes to complete. The survey is anonymous, so
you will not be asked to provide any personal information. Your answers are completely
confidential and will not be shared with anyone. Also, your participation is completely voluntary
and you do not have to answer any questions you do not want to.

Read each question or statement very carefully and then select the one response that most closely
and honestly describes your answer.

1. How long have you worked at Church of the West?

5 – Less than one year
4 – 1 Year
3 – 2 Years
2 – 3 Years
1 – 4 Years or more
2. How long have you worked in your current role at Church of the West?
5 – Less than one year
4 – 1 Year
3 – 2 Years
2 – 3 Years
1 – 4 Years or more

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 86

3. Personally connecting with donors is valuable for me in terms of excelling in my job.
5 – Strongly Agree
4 – Agree
3 – Neither Agree or Disagree
2 – Disagree
1 – Strongly Disagree
4. When I personally connect with donors, it is valuable to the organization as a whole.
5 – Strongly Agree
4 – Agree
3 – Neither Agree or Disagree
2 – Disagree
1 – Strongly Disagree
5. I am confident in my ability to personally interact with donors.

5 – Strongly Agree
4 – Agree
3 – Neither Agree or Disagree
2 – Disagree
1 – Strongly Disagree

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 87

6. I know I can learn how to engage donors more effectively.

5 – Strongly Agree
4 – Agree
3 – Neither Agree or Disagree
2 – Disagree
1 – Strongly Disagree
7. I have the autonomy in my job to develop a plan to retain donors.

5 – Strongly Agree
4 – Agree
3 – Neither Agree or Disagree
2 – Disagree
1 – Strongly Disagree
8. Once I am assigned a task or project, I am given autonomy to see it through to
completion by myself.

5 – Strongly Agree
4 – Agree
3 – Neither Agree or Disagree
2 – Disagree
1 – Strongly Disagree

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 88

9. Church of the West stays focused on achieving established goals.

5 – Strongly Agree
4 – Agree
3 – Neither Agree or Disagree
2 – Disagree
1 – Strongly Disagree
10. Achieving fundraising goals is a priority for Church of the West.

5 – Strongly Agree
4 – Agree
3 – Neither Agree or Disagree
2 – Disagree
1 – Strongly Disagree
11. Is there anything else that you would like to share with me about donor engagement
at the organization?

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 89

Appendix C: Interview Protocol
I. Introduction (Appreciation, Purpose, Line of Inquiry, Plan, Confidentiality, Reciprocity,
Consent to Participate, Permission to Record):

Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study. The interview should take less than 45
minutes. I appreciate the time that you have set aside to answer some of my questions and share
your experience and perspective.

Before we begin, I’d like to give you an overview of my study and answer any questions you
might have about participating. I am currently enrolled as a student at USC and am conducting a
study on nonprofit donor retention. I’m particularly interested in the approach you take to
interacting with donors, as well as the approach of the organization when it comes to engaging
donors. I am utilizing surveys and in-depth interviews with ministry staff members to
understand their experience and perspective on this topic.

As you may already know, I am the former Executive Pastor of Church of the West, however, I
am no longer employed by the organization. I want to let you know that I am only wearing the
hat of researcher today. What this means is that the nature of my questions is not evaluative. I
will not be making any judgments on your answers.

Also, I want to assure you that your name and the perspectives you provide will not be shared
with anyone outside. I will not share them with any other employees of the organization or
anyone else associated with the organization.

The data for this study will be compiled into a report. I do plan on using some of what you say
as direct quotes, however, nothing that you say will be directly attributed to you. I will use a
pseudonym to protect your confidentiality and will de-identify any of the data I gather from you.
I am happy to provide you with a copy of the transcript of this interview and my final paper if
you would like to review it. I will keep the data in a password protected computer and all data
will be destroyed after 3 years.

Do you have any questions about the study before we get started? If you don’t have any (more)
questions, I would like to have your permission to begin the interview. I have brought a recorder
with me today so that I can accurately capture what you share. The recording is solely for my
purposes to best capture your perspectives and will not be shared with anyone else. May I also
have your permission to record our conversation?

II. Setting the Stage (Developing Rapport and Priming the Mind, Demographic items of
interest (e.g., position, role, etc.))

I’d like to start by asking you some background questions about you.
 Could you tell me about your background in church ministry?
o How did you become interested in working for a church?
o How long have you worked for this organization?
o What roles or positions have you held?
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 90

 To what extent do you personally interact with CW donors?
o Tell me about your role in doing so.
III. Heart of the Interview (Interview Questions are directly tied to Research Questions):

Now I’d like to ask you some questions about your experience interacting with donors as well
as the approach of the organization when it comes to engaging donors.

Interview Questions
1. How would you describe your job responsibilities when it comes to engaging Church of
the West donors?
2. Do you think personally connecting with donors is significant? Please explain.
3. Can you describe for me some possible reasons why a donor would stop contributing to
Church of the West?
4. Can you describe for me some possible reasons why a lapsed donor who has stopped
giving would re-engage and start giving again?
5. How do you go about personally interacting with a lapsed donor?
6. Can you describe for me a personal interaction you’ve had with a lapsed donor?
7. What is it like for you to interact with donors? Is that a comfortable role for you? Why
or why not?
8. What are some examples of things that prompt you to personally connect with donors?
9. Tell me about the approach of the organization when it comes to engaging lapsed donors.
10. In what ways are you supported by the organization in your efforts to effectively engage
donors?
11. What do you feel hinders your ability to engage donors effectively?
12. What, if anything, could help you engage donors more effectively?
13. What types of training or preparation, if any, related to donor engagement have taken
place to date at Church of the West? Please explain.
14. What kinds of training or coaching would you find beneficial to help you better engage
Church of the West donors?
15. How would you explain the approach leaders of the organization take when it comes to
establishing organizational priorities and goals?
16. Do you feel the leaders of the organization remain focused over time on achieving
previously established goals? Please explain.

IV. Closing Question (Anything else to add)
I am wondering if there is anything that you would add to our conversation today that I might not
have covered?

V. Closing (thank you and follow-up option):

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with me today! I really appreciate your time and
willingness. Everything that you have shared is really helpful for my study. If I find myself with
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 91

a follow-up question, I am wondering if I might be able to contact you, and if so, if email is ok
with you? Again, thank you for participating in my study.

VI. Post interview reflective summary

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 92

Appendix D: Credibility and Trustworthiness

For the findings of this study to be both valid and reliable, the research methods
employed must be credible and trustworthy. Internal validity is established by how well the
findings match reality (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The surveys and interviews utilized for data
collection focused on capturing the experiences and perspectives of ministry staff members
within the organizational context of CW. The credibility and trustworthiness of this study was
safeguarded in three ways. First, more than one data source was utilized. All 12 ministry staff
members were invited to complete a survey. Then a purposeful sample of five individuals who
completed the survey were selected to participate in a semi-structured interview. The data
collected in each interview was compared to the results of the surveys. Furthermore, the data
from each interview was compared to the other interviews in order to find trends as well as
differences in perspectives. Second, the researcher wrote a reflective summary after each
interview was conducted. A reflective summary is an important practice utilized in qualitative
research to monitor a researcher’s own subjectivities or developing constructions (Shenton,
2004). These reflections were reviewed as the data was analyzed and interpreted to help ensure
the findings were rooted in the data itself. Third, descriptions that are rich and thick were
obtained in order to contextualize the study so that readers can determine to what extent the
findings may be transferred to their own context. Obtaining rich, thick descriptions is a valuable
strategy in promoting the credibility and trustworthiness of a qualitative study (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 93

Appendix E: Validity and Reliability

There are several ways in which I have worked to increase the validity and reliability of
the findings of this study. First, the methodological approach of a case study that utilizes both
surveys and interviews was selected intentionally. As Creswell (2013) pointed out, using more
than one data collection method through conducting both surveys and interviews acts to
corroborate the results. Secondly, every stakeholder was invited to participate in the survey to
ensure the greatest number of participants. Third, qualitative interviews were conducted with a
small, purposeful sample of five stakeholders. These stakeholders are the most knowledgeable
and most experienced staff members regarding donor engagement practices at CW. They are
essentially the organizational experts who provided data in the form of rich, descriptive
responses.
Non-responses are always a potential factor when surveys are conducted. Fan and Yan
(2010) identified numerous considerations that can impact the response rate of web-based
surveys, including ease of use, survey length, and personalization. Based on the
recommendations of Fan and Yan, several steps were taken to limit the potential of non-response
bias. First, the online survey was pre-tested to ensure it was easily accessible and user-friendly.
Second, the length of a survey has been found to have a negative linear relation with response
rates. The survey instrument consisted of 11 questions that can quickly be completed in about
five minutes. The short length of the survey encouraged participation. Finally, respondents were
personally invited by me to complete the survey. Personalizing the initial invitation as well as
the follow-up procedure has been found to increase response rates. All three of these steps were
taken to encourage maximum participation. Total population participation of the surveys was
achieved.
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 94

Appendix F: Ethics

The aim of this project is to understand the experiences and perspective of stakeholders in
the unique context in which their experience occurs. Ethics is pertinent to my study since I
collected data through conversations with ministry staff members. In order to ensure the safety
and protection of the participants, I submitted my study to the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board (IRB). All of the IRB rules and guidelines that protect the rights and
welfare of the study participants were followed.
It is appropriate here to make known my prior relationship with Church of the West.
Formerly, I was in senior leadership at CW in the role of Executive Pastor. I departed CW to
work for another employer in June 2017, a year before data collection occurred in June 2018. I
left on good terms and still maintain a cordial relationship with some of the staff members who
worked at CW during the same period I was employed there. My former role at CW was
disclosed to IRB, my dissertation committee, and every stakeholder who participated in this
study. I assured all participants that I was conducting the study solely as a researcher and not as
a former employee. Furthermore, I assured participants that the surveys and interviews are
confidential, their identities will be protected, and no raw content or identifying information will
be shared with anyone, including the leadership team of CW.
Glesne (2011) identified informed consent as a necessary component of ethical research.
Informed consent makes stakeholders aware that participation in the study is voluntary, all
conversations are kept completely confidential so that identities are protected, and participants
can withdraw from the study at any point without penalty. I explained to each participant in
writing and verbally that their participation in the study was completely voluntary, conversations
will be kept strictly confidential, and they can withdraw without penalty at any time. I also
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 95

disclosed my former role as the Executive Pastor at CW and that I was conducted the study
solely as a researcher. For those who participated in the interviews, I asked for and was granted
permission from each participant to audio record the conversation before commencing the
interview. The audio recording files and transcripts of the interviews are being stored on a
password protected computer at my residence. The files and transcripts saved on the computer
are also password protected. Additionally, pseudonyms were used on the interview transcripts
and in this dissertation to protect the identity of each participant. No incentives were provided to
the participants in order to avoid strong-arming their involvement.

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 96

Appendix G: Limitations
Given the nature, structure, and scope of this study, there were a number of factors that
may have impacted the findings. This problem of practice was selected since donor retention is a
widespread challenge in the nonprofit field. Church of the West was specifically chosen for this
case study for two reasons. The first reason is that there is a dearth of academic research on
churches and donor engagement. The second reason was access. Since I am former employee of
CW, I was granted access by leadership to stakeholders to conduct the study. The use of the
Clark and Estes (2008) KMO gap analysis framework as the theoretical foundation for this study
was required. This framework, along with the research questions, were an essential componant
of the Organizational Change and Leadership (OCL) program at the University of Southern
California (USC), and were selected for this dissertation by the Rossier School of Education.
This project was also a case study, so the findings and recommendations were bounded by the
organization. Although the findings may serve as an example for similar organizations to
consult, the findings were specific to the context of CW.
There were also several other limitations of this study that may have impacted the
findings. The first limitation was the small sample sizes for both the surveys and the interviews.
The size of these purposeful samples was limited by the number of ministry staff at CW who met
the sampling criteria. Since the sample sizes were so small, the results should not be generalized
to a wider population. Furthermore, all five of the interview participants are male. This was
simply the result of the staff makeup at CW. At the time of data collection, there were no female
campus pastors and no full-time female associate pastors at CW. Therefore, no female
employees at CW met the interview sampling criteria outlined in Appendix A. It is possible the
interview findings were impacted by an all-male perspective. Both male and female employees
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 97

met the survey sampling criteria outlined in Appendix A. Of the 12 ministry staff members who
completed a survey, nine of them are male and three of them are female. Another limitation was
the self-reported nature of both the surveys and interviews. The knowledge, motivation and
impact of organizational influences were not tested directly. Rather, data collection relied on
ministry staff to self-report their unique perspective. Self-reports are susceptible to social
desirability effect; where participants answer questions in a manner that will be viewed more
favorably by others. A final limitation of this study was time. This was not a longitudinal study
of how stakeholder knowledge, motivation and organizational influences at CW evolve over
multiple years. Rather, it was a snapshot in time. The findings answer the research questions
and make recommendations for future practice based on the timeframe of the study, with data
collection occuring in June 2018 and analysis and interpretation occuring in the months
thereafter. The time restriction was a result of the program sequence and deadlines of the OCL
program at USC.

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 98

Appendix H: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The implementation and evaluation plan is based on the New World Kirkpatrick Model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The model consists of four levels. Level one is reaction.
Level two is learning. Level three is behavior. Level four is results. Levels one and two provide
data about the design and delivery of a training or series of trainings. Levels three and four
provide data related to the effectiveness of the training or series of trainings. In the Kirkpatrick
model the evaluation plan is formulated by working backwards from level four results to level
one reaction. This method of forming an evaluation plan makes it easier to identify leading
indicators that link recommended solutions to the goals of the organization. What follows is a
detailed evaluation and implementation plan based on the Kirkpatrick model of evaluation that
Church of the West can use as a roadmap to success in their pursuit of achieving the stakeholder
performance goal and global organizational goal.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The mission of Church of the West is to make more disciples and better disciples, which
is based on the Great Commission given by Jesus to his followers in Matthew 28:19-20. The
global organizational goal is by December 31, 2019 to increase the retention of donors who
contribute $500 or more annually by 10%. Donor retention is both a challenge and opportunity
for many nonprofit organization who rely on individual contributors to fund their existence and
mission. A high rate of donor retention can lead to more financial resources, which in turn
results in more programs for the population served by the charity. On the other hand, a low rate
of donor retention can lead to fewer financial resources, which could result in the cutting of staff
and services offered by the charity and a negative impact on the population served.
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 99

The stakeholder group of focus selected for this study was church ministry staff. The
stakeholder performance goal is by September 1, 2019 the ministry staff of CW will develop an
action plan to follow up with donors who contributed $500 or more in 2018 but have yet to give
in 2019. In order for CW to accomplish the global organizational goal, they must first develop
an effective plan to engage lapsed donors. Since ministry staff members are the face of the
organization and the people who interact with donors and potential donors on a consistent basis,
they have been tasked with developing the plan that they will also execute at a later date. The
recommendations outlined for ministry staff and CW have been presented to bridge the identified
gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. If implemented, these
recommendations will improve ministry staff knowledge and motivation, and guarantee the
organizational support needed to achieve the stakeholder performance goal.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 11 displays the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators for Church of the
West based on the New World Kirkpatrick model. The indicators take the form of outcomes,
metrics, and methods for Church of the West’s external outcomes as well as internal outcomes.
If the internal outcomes are met as a result of the training and organizational support for ministry
staff members as expected, then the external outcomes for the organization should also be
achieved.
Table 11
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Church of the West is able to
increase financial resources
allocated to ministry programs.

The amount of money
spent on existing and
new ministry programs.
Compare quarterly expenses from
the previous year (breakdown by
each campus and ministry
department accordingly).
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 100

Church of the West is able to
increase financial resources
contributed to outside ministry
partnerships that make a
positive impact locally and
globally.

T The amount of money
given away by Church
of the West to partner
organizations.
Generate a quarterly report to
analyze expenses and determine
the amount of money given to
other partner organizations each
quarter compared to the same
quarter the previous year.
Church of the West is able to
increase weekend church
service attendance through
campus expansion (adding one
or more locations).

The number of
individuals who attend
weekend church
services at a Church of
the West campus.
Generate a monthly attendance
report to analyze data and
determine the level of year-over-
year growth or decline.
Church of the West is able to
increase the quality of ministry
programming for families
through facility and
technology upgrades.

Parent satisfaction in
the quality of ministry
programming increases.
Compare before and after survey
results.
Internal Outcomes
After ministry staff develop
and implement the donor
retention plan the annual
revenue CW receives will
increase.

The amount of money
received each fiscal
year.
Generate a monthly report to
analyze data and determine the
percentage growth or decline
compared to the same month the
previous year.

After ministry staff develop
and implement the donor
retention plan the number of
donors who contribute to the
organization will increase.

The number of
households who
contribute financially to
the organization
through the fiscal year.
Generate a quarterly report to
analyze data and determine the
number of total households who
have given something year-to
date, compared to the same length
of time the previous year.

After ministry staff develop
and implement the donor
retention plan the retention rate
for households who contribute
$500 or more annually will
increase by 10%.

The number of
households who
contribute $500 or more
in the same fiscal year.
Generate a quarterly report, with
names, to compare which
households that gave $500 or
more the prior year have
contributed again the current
fiscal year, and which have not
contributed.

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 101

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. Church of the West ministry staff members are the stakeholder
group of focus responsible for developing an action plan by September 1, 2019 to follow up with
donors who contributed $500 or more in 2018 but have yet to give in 2019. To accomplish this
performance goal, there are three critical behaviors ministry staff must exhibit. First, they must
meet established timelines for making progress in their pursuit of the stakeholder goal. Second,
they must practice how to effectively engage donors personally through role play. Finally, they
must practice writing correspondence with lapsed donors (handwritten notes, letters, and emails)
that incorporates effective donor engagement strategies. The specific metrics, methods, and
timing for each of these outcome behaviors appears in Table 12.
Table 12

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
Meet established
timelines for making
progress.

The percent of time
deadlines are met.
At each deadline marker
ministry staff will
submit a written report
to senior leadership to
update them on progress
made.

Once a month for
three months prior
to the stakeholder
performance goal
deadline of
September 1,
2019.
Practice how to
effectively engage
donors personally
through role play.

The number of
times ministry staff
intentionally
practice role play.
2a. Practice how to
effectively engage
donors personally
through role play with a
fundraising expert who
acts in the role of a
coach.

Once a month for
three months prior
to the stakeholder
performance goal
deadline of
September 1,
2019.

2b. Practice how to
effectively engage
donors personally
through role play with
other ministry staff
members.
Once a month for
three months
between coaching
sessions with the
expert fundraiser
prior to
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 102

September 1,
2019.

Practice writing
correspondence with
lapsed donors
(handwritten notes,
letters, and emails) that
incorporates effective
donor engagement
strategies.

The number of
times ministry staff
intentionally
practice writing
correspondence with
lapsed donors.
2a. Ministry staff will
submit practice written
correspondence to each
other for peer review
and feedback.
Two times in the
last 120 days,
leading up to the
September 1,
2019 deadline.

2b. Ministry staff will
submit practice written
correspondence to their
direct supervisor for
review and feedback,
after revising content
based on peer review
feedback.

To be submitted
after revisions
twice in the last
120 days, leading
up to the
September 1,
2019 deadline.

Required drivers. The ministry staff members of Church of the West require support
from their direct supervisors and the organization as a whole to achieve the stakeholder
performance goal. This support will reinforce what they have learned in the recommended
training and encourage them to apply what they have learned on the job. Table 13 outlines
recommended drivers to support the critical behaviors of ministry staff members.
Table 13
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing

Organizational leaders will demonstrate and
model goal commitment for ministry staff
members by reaffirming the goals and
sharing why they are a priority in staff
meetings.
Twice a month. 1, 2, & 3
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 103

Following the initial training with an expert
fundraiser, put the topic of donor
engagement on the agenda of the next
ministry staff meeting and have each person
share something they learned.
The week after the initial
training.
2 & 3
Review the job aids that were presented in
the initial training two more times.
Review four weeks after the
initial training and again eight
weeks after the initial training.
2 & 3
Following each practice session utilizing
role play, put the topic of donor engagement
on the agenda of the next ministry staff
meeting for each person to share what they
are learning.
One week after each of the
scheduled role play sessions.
2 & 3
Encouraging

Coaching given through three one-on-one
sessions with an expert fundraiser.
Once a month for three months
prior to the stakeholder
performance goal deadline of
September 1, 2019.
2 & 3
Provide the opportunity in a training for
senior leaders of CW to share rationales for
why donor engagement matters, followed
by a discussion of the rationales by ministry
staff.
Twice in the last 120 days,
leading up to the September 1,
2019 deadline.
3
Set up a donor engagement channel on
Slack to foster team communication so
ministry staff can encourage each other.
After the initial training and for
the duration of the training
program.
2 & 3
Rewarding

Senior leadership give recognition and
praise to ministry staff when each
established timeline for progress is met.
At each timeline checkpoint,
established by ministry staff.
1
Senior leadership celebrates with ministry
staff through a team dinner and fun activity
when the donor retention plan has been
implemented by ministry staff.
At the completion of
implementation.
1, 2, & 3
Monitoring

At each deadline marker ministry staff will
submit a written report to senior leadership
to update them on progress made.
Once a month for three months
prior to the stakeholder
performance goal deadline of
September 1, 2019.
1
Ensure each ministry staff member attends
the three sessions to practice how to
effectively engage donors personally
through role play with a fundraising expert
who acts in the role of a coach.
Once a month for three months
prior to the stakeholder
performance goal deadline of
September 1, 2019.
2
Ensure each ministry staff member attends
the three sessions to practice how to
Once a month, for three months
between coaching sessions with
2
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 104

effectively engage donors personally
through role play with other ministry staff
members.
the expert fundraiser prior to
September 1, 2019.

Confirm ministry staff submit practice
written correspondence to each other for
peer review and feedback.
Two times in the last 120 days,
leading up to the September 1,
2019 deadline.
3
Ministry staff will submit practice written
correspondence to their direct supervisor for
review and feedback, after revising content
based on peer review feedback.

To be submitted after revisions
twice in the last 120 days,
leading up to the September 1,
2019 deadline.
3

Organizational support. It is recommended for CW to provide support for ministry
staff critical behaviors. This will be accomplished primarily through the training program. The
organization must provide the training and coaching sessions recommended to increase ministry
staff knowledge and motivation to achieve the stakeholder performance goal. Furthermore, the
stakeholder performance goal and global organizational goal must remain an organizational
priority and not be abandoned in the middle of the process. Additionally, organizational leaders
can demonstrate and model goal commitment for ministry staff members by reaffirming the
goals and sharing why they are a priority in staff meetings twice a month. Full participation by
ministry staff and their supervisors is critical so that each ministry staff member receives the full
benefit of the training program.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following the completion of the recommended solutions, ministry staff
will be able to do the following:
1. Explain five reasons why donors lapse. (D)
2. Explain five reasons why lapsed donors may start giving again. (D)
3. Describe three effective donor engagement strategies. (D)
4. Apply donor engagement strategies to real life situations with donors. (P)
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 105

5. Establish timelines and monitor their progress. (P, M)
6. Value the planning and monitoring of their work. (V)
7. Recognize the value in articulating the vision of the organization in written
correspondence to lapsed donors. (V)
8. Practice implementing what has been learned about donor engagement through
writing drafts of correspondence to lapsed donors. (P)
9. Value the opportunity to personally interact with donors, potential donors, and lapsed
donors. (V)
10. Indicate confidence in their ability to personally engage donors. (Confidence)
11. Indicate confidence in their ability to achieve the stakeholder performance goal.
(Confidence)
Evaluation of the components of learning. It is important for ministry staff to
demonstrate both declarative and procedural knowledge related to donor engagement before they
take significant steps toward achieving the stakeholder performance goal. Therefore, it is
important to evaluate learning for both declarative and procedural knowledge. Furthermore, it is
critical ministry staff value the training before they are expected to apply what they have learned
to real life situations. They must also be confident in their ability to apply what they have
learned about effective donor engagement. Table 14 lists the evaluation methods and timing for
these components of learning.

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 106

Table 14
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”

Discussion at table groups of the reasons
why donors lapse and reasons lapsed donors
choose to re-engage.
After the job aid has been reviewed in the
initial training day with the expert fundraiser.
Teach back where ministry staff teach back
an effective donor engagement strategy
learned in the training.
At the end of the lesson on effective donor
engagement strategies, as part of the initial
training day with the expert fundraiser.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”

Discussion of how to set and monitor
timelines for achieving the stakeholder goal.
During a separate staff meeting.
Individual application of the skills during
role play exercises with a coach and with
peers.
During one-on-one sessions with a coach and
ministry staff role play sessions.
Quality of the feedback received from the
expert fundraiser on role play exercises in
one-on-one coaching sessions.
During one-on-one sessions with a coach.
Quality of the feedback received from peers
on role play exercises.
During role play sessions with ministry staff.
Quality of the feedback on practice written
correspondence received from peers.
After the initial training.
Quality of the feedback on practice written
correspondence received from direct
supervisor.
After the initial training.
Post training program survey to assess level
of confidence in applying what was learned.
After the full training sequence.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”

Discussion of why donor engagement
matters
During staff meetings when senior leaders
reinforce the value of the organizational goals.

Throughout the duration of the training
program on the donor engagement Slack
channel.
Pre-training and post-training survey item. After the full training sequence.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”

Discussions after training, practice, and
feedback from coach and peers.
During the final one-on-one sessions with a
coach and on the donor engagement Slack
channel.
Pre-training and post-training survey item. Before training and after full training
sequence.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 107

Discussions after training, practice, and
feedback from coach and peers.
During the final one-on-one session with a
coach and on the donor engagement Slack
channel.
Pre-training and post-training survey item. Before training and after full training
sequence.

Level 1: Reaction
The first level of the New World Kirkpatrick model of evaluation is reaction. This level
seeks to measure the degree to which participants find the training engaging and relevant to their
work. It is the customer satisfaction measurement. Table 15 outlines the various methods and
tools recommended to measure the reaction of ministry staff as well as the timing of when level
one reactions should be captured.
Table 15
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement

Attendance at initial training event During the initial training event
Observations by the expert fundraiser
conducting the training.
During the initial training event
Post-training survey At the end of the initial training event
Attendance at one-on-one coaching sessions During the sessions
Attendance at one-on-one ministry staff
sessions for role play practice
During the sessions
Submittal of practice written
correspondence to donors
After initial training event
Relevance

Pulse check with participants At the midpoint of initial training event
Discussions with other ministry staff
members
Throughout the entire training sequence on the
donor engagement Slack channel.
Customer Satisfaction

Pulse check with each individual ministry
staff member
At each of the three one-on-one sessions with
assigned coach
Post-training sequence survey Two weeks after entire training sequence

NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 108

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. Evaluation of Level 1 and Level
2 will occur immediately following the initial training program. Ministry staff will be invited to
complete a brief survey to evaluate their engagement, the relevance of the content, and their
commitment to applying what they have learned. Open-ended questions will also be utilized to
evaluate the declarative and procedural knowledge of donor engagement ascertained as a result
of the training.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Delayed evaluation of the
training will occur approximately four weeks after the completion of the entire training
package. Church of the West leadership will administer to ministry staff a brief survey
containing open and scaled items. The survey will utilize the Blended Evaluation approach
recommended by Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, to measure all four levels in the same survey. The
data will be analyzed to measure the benefit of the training program.
Data Analysis and Reporting
Data analysis will begin immediately after data collection occurs. The first survey will be
administered following the initial training program. This data will be analyzed and reported to the
leadership of CW so the results can influence what happens moving forward and maximize the
value offered by the remainder of the training package. This follows the PDCA cycle of
improvement, which consists of four stages: Plan-Do-Check-Act (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). The training program is planned first, carried out second, a check is conducted third to
measure if new knowledge and skills have been learned and put to use, than an action plan is
formulated based on the results of the analysis. According to Jefferson and Pollock (2016), there
are only five options organizational leaders have when it comes to taking action on a training
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 109

initiative. They can expand it, continue it, revise it, scale it back, or kill it. The leaders of CW
will evaluate the results of the initial survey and select the option they deem to be the best path
forward.
The delayed survey will be administered after the entire training package has been
completed. The results of this survey will help leadership answer three questions: (1) Did the
donor engagement training package meet expectations? (2) If it did not meet expectations, why
not? (3) If it did meet expectations, why did it do so? Leadership can then determine if another
round of training is desired, warranted or unnecessary.
It is recommended that CW utilize bar graphs to report the results of the scaled-items on
the immediate survey and the delayed survey. This will give leaders a visual representation of
how scaled-items were answered by ministry staff. The results of the open-ended items on each
survey will be analyzed by the expert fundraiser who facilitated the initial training session and
one-on-one coaching sessions. The fundraiser will review the open-item questions and provide a
summary report to the leadership of CW. Additionally, the open-item responses will be compiled
into a master list so the leaders of CW can review the unedited answers if they choose to. This
will allow leadership to hear from each ministry staff member in his or her own words. It is highly
recommended that the surveys be anonymous so ministry staff can be honest and frank in their
answers.
The survey results will provide leadership the data necessary to evaluate ministry staff
engagement, knowledge, skills, attitudes, confidence and commitment, as well as what ministry
staff believe will be the predictive results of the training program. When it comes to interpreting
the results, the leadership team of CW will focus on identifying three things: key findings, positive
NONPROFIT DONOR RETENTION 110

factors that indicate a path to success, and negative factors that could be barriers to success unless
additional action is taken.
Finally, dashboards will be utilized to track progress on the internal outcomes identified in
Table 11. Reports will be used to determine year-over-year growth or decline in annual revenue,
the number of donors who contribute to CW, and the retention rate of donors who give $500 or
more annually. The dashboards will provide leadership a snapshot of fundraising results, which
are the desired outcomes of this donor engagement training program for ministry staff.
Summary
Data analysis revealed gaps in ministry staff knowledge and motivation. To close these
gaps and prepare ministry staff to successfully achieve the stakeholder performance goal, an
intervention has been proposed. The New World Kirkpatrick model was utilized to plan,
implement, and evaluate a detailed training program. The aim of the program is to implement
specific knowledge, motivation, and organizational recommendations that are aligned with the
specific findings uncovered through data analysis. For Church of the West to accomplish its
global organizational goal, it is necessary for ministry staff to first achieve the stakeholder
performance goal. The training program, including the implementation and evaluation
components, will increase ministry staff knowledge and motivation so they are supported and
prepared to achieve the stakeholder performance goal. The New World Kirkpatrick model
emphasizes the importance of evaluating the program throughout implementation, rather than
measuring what happened at the end of the entire training program. Following the
implementation and evaluation plan carefully will enable CW to influence what is happening
throughout the program and maximize the current and future results of the training.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Employee retention and the success of a for-profit cosmetics company: a gap analysis

PDF

The board fundraising challenge after nonprofit mergers: an evaluation study

PDF

Strategic support for philanthropic fundraising: a needs analysis of development officers in higher education

PDF

Employee churn in afterschool care: an evaluation study of manager influences on employee retention and turnover

PDF

The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis

PDF

Preparing millennial students for a multigenerational workforce: an innovation study

PDF

Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study

PDF

The effects of organizational culture on millennial engagement and turnover in start-ups: an innovation study

PDF

Factors contributing to student attrition at a healthcare university: a gap analysis

PDF

Increase parental involvement to decrease the achievement gaps for ELL and low SES students in urban California public schools: an evaluation study

PDF

One to one tablet integration in the mathematics classroom: an evaluation study of an international school in China

PDF

Increasing institutional retention: a gap analysis

PDF

A case study in student retention at a Northern California private Jewish day school: a gap analysis

PDF

Utilizing data analytics in the field of physical security: an exploratory study

PDF

An analysis of influences to faculty retention at a Philippine college

PDF

Manager leadership skills in the context of a new business strategy initiative: an evaluative study

PDF

Retaining female field grade officers in the USAF: an evaluative study

PDF

Employment rates upon MBA graduation: An evaluation study

PDF

Increasing strategic investments of philanthropic funding in nonprofit organizations

PDF

Teacher role in reducing the achievement gap: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Lee, Jordan K. (author)

Core Title Nonprofit donor retention: a case study of Church of the West

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 04/24/2019

Defense Date 03/11/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag church,donor retention,Fundraising,gap analysis,Knowledge,ministry,Motivation,nonprofit organization,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational support,Training

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Seli, Helena (committee chair), Crawford, Jenifer (committee member), Maddox, Anthony (committee member)

Creator Email jlee@spu.edu,lee727@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-142070

Unique identifier UC11675690

Identifier etd-LeeJordanK-7228.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-142070 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LeeJordanK-7228.pdf

Dmrecord 142070

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Lee, Jordan K.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA