Donor Management Statistics 2024 - Everything You Need to Know

Are you looking to add Donor Management to your arsenal of tools? Maybe for your business or personal use only, whatever it is – it’s always a good idea to know more about the most important Donor Management statistics of 2024.

My team and I scanned the entire web and collected all the most useful Donor Management stats on this page. You don’t need to check any other resource on the web for any Donor Management statistics. All are here only 🙂

How much of an impact will Donor Management have on your day-to-day? or the day-to-day of your business? Should you invest in Donor Management? We will answer all your Donor Management related questions here.

Please read the page carefully and don’t miss any word. 🙂

On this page, you’ll learn about the following:

Best Donor Management Statistics

Best Donor Management Statistics

☰ Use “CTRL+F” to quickly find statistics. There are total 259 Donor Management Statistics on this page 🙂

Donor Management Benefits Statistics

The mental and emotional benefits of volunteering are even greater, with 93% reporting an improved mood, 79% reporting lower stress levels, and 88% reporting increased self esteem by giving back. ^[0]

Donor Management Latest Statistics

Achieving DMGs rose from 18 to 66 per cent associated with significant improvement in OTPD. ^[1]
According to a nonprofit industry overview, the total revenue from nonprofits in 2019 was over $84.7 billion. ^[2]
This figure is 5% greater than 2018 figures. ^[2]
Churches, schools, and foundations make up about 40% of all nonprofits in the US. ^[2]
On the other hand, 15% is made up of civil, social, and business engagement organizations. ^[2]
Meanwhile, 7% are dedicated to human services while another 7% are for cultural and humanities nonprofits. ^[2]
300,747 religious organizations comprise 16.7% of total nonprofits. ^[2]
In second place are schools and other educational institutions with 248,253 organizations or 13.8% of total nonprofits. ^[2]
In third place are foundations and grantmaking organizations, which have 165,031 organizations or 9.2% of total nonprofits. ^[2]
They make up only 3.3% of total charitable organizations and 1.6% in charitable giving. ^[2]
Financial Statistics on Nonprofits 10% of the largest nonprofit organizations in the US derive their revenue from public support. ^[2]
This figure increased by 3.43% compared to 2018 figures. ^[2]
This represented a 4.2% increase compared to 2018. ^[2]
Regarding volunteer demographics, one survey found that people below 55 are more likely to volunteer. ^[2]
44% of nonprofit supporters say that people younger than 55 are more likely to volunteer. ^[2]
38% said that people 55 and older are more likely to volunteer. ^[2]
26% of nonprofit supporters say they are more likely to update their will. ^[2]
Meanwhile, 14% said that they are unlikely to update their will. ^[2]
46% of nonprofit supporters find it helpful to hear from nonprofit organizations. ^[2]
In contrast, 21% said that they have not noticed. ^[2]
70% of nonprofit supporters prefer that communications be sent through email. ^[2]
In contrast, 7% prefer physical mail while 6% prefer social media. ^[2]
47% of volunteers said that their volunteer time during the pandemic will decrease or stop altogether. ^[2]
Only 17% said that their volunteer time will increase. ^[2]
6% of young Americans said they have volunteered in person with a cause or organization. ^[2]
Another 6% said that they did so online or virtually. ^[2]
64% of volunteers in England participated in voluntary activities at least once in the last year. ^[2]
Meanwhile, 39% said they participated at least once a month. ^[2]
With regards to the gender of volunteers, 66% of the population in England that participated in voluntary activities in 2020 were female. ^[2]
70% of participants of volunteer activities in England were aged 65 to 74. ^[2]
Meanwhile, 67% were aged 35 to 49. ^[2]
27% of donors are more likely to give non. ^[2]
Overall giving increased by 2% in 2020. ^[2]
On the other hand, online giving increased by 21% in 2020. ^[2]
A survey found out that nonprofit organizations achieved a 25% retention rate for firstyear, online. ^[2]
On the other hand, the retention rate for multiyear, online only donors was at 66%. ^[2]
54% of donors said that the amount they donate will not change as a result of the COVID. ^[2]
On the other hand, 25% said that they will donate more. ^[2]
43% of donors said that they plan to continue to give to the charities they support during the pandemic. ^[2]
In contrast, 21% said they don’t know or have not thought about this while 16% said that they are supporting new nonprofits. ^[2]
24% of young Americans said that they have donated goods and/or services to support others during the pandemic. ^[2]
75% of the population in England gave to charity in 2020. ^[2]
Seventy nine percent of females gave to charity during the said year while 70% were male. ^[2]
85% of people aged 75 and. ^[2]
In contrast, only 55% of people aged 16 to 24 did the same. ^[2]
90% of nonprofits in Nevada said that they experienced a decline in individual donations due to the pandemic. ^[2]
90% of nonprofits in West Virginia experienced event cancellations, which resulted in lost revenue. ^[2]
68.3% of nonprofits in Texas reported a decline in earned income from fees for services or membership dues. ^[2]
34.7% of nonprofits in Texas and 20.3% of nonprofits in Alabama and Georgia reported delayed grant processing because of the pandemic. ^[2]
57.8% of nonprofits in Connecticut reported incurring additional COVID 19 related expenses, such as cleaning protocols and personal protective equipment. ^[2]
40.1% of nonprofits in Texas reported cuts in working hours due to the COVID. ^[2]
53% of nonprofits within and outside the US have launched special appeals or emergency funds in response to COVID. ^[2]
32% of nonprofit organizations within and outside the US have adjusted or expanded their cases with a special focus on COVID. ^[2]
51% of nonprofits said that their fundraising and development, as well as volunteer services programs, have been significantly impacted by the pandemic. ^[2]
55% also said that their delivery of programs and services has been significantly impacted by the pandemic. ^[2]
Fifty two respondents (90%). ^[3]
Thirty nine organ procurement organizations utilized some form of written pediatric management guidelines, and 27 (47%) maintained pediatric donor management goals; compliance was infrequently monitored for both guidelines (28%) and goals (33%). ^[3]
A pediatric intensivist was always or usually involved in pediatric donor management at 47 organ procurement organizations (81%); transplant/organ recovery surgeons were always or usually involved at 12 organ procurement organizations (21%). ^[3]
More than half of nonprofits will do 13, but a staggering 27.6% of nonprofits surveyed make zero “touches” for their year end campaign, with the remaining ~10% making more than 5. ^[4]
In 2018,72 % of reporting countries, or 123 out of 171, had a national blood policy. ^[5]
Overall, 64% of reporting countries, or 110 out of 171, have specific legislation covering the safety and quality of blood transfusion, including 79% of highincome countries 63% of middleincome countries 39% of low. ^[5]
40% of these are collected in high income countries, home to 16 % of the world’s population. ^[5]
Age and gender of blood donors Data about the gender profile of blood donors show that globally 33% of blood donations are given by women, although this ranges widely. ^[5]
In 14 of the 111 reporting countries, less than 10% of donations are given by female donors. ^[5]
The highest increase of voluntary unpaid blood donations is in the Region of the Americas (25%) and Africa (23% ). ^[5]
79 countries collect more than 90% of their blood supply from voluntary unpaid blood donations. ^[5]
This includes 62 countries with 100% (or more than 99%). ^[5]
In 56 countries, more than 50% of the blood supply is still dependent on family/replacement and paid blood donors. ^[5]
99.8% of the donations in highincome countries and 99.9% in uppermiddleincome countries are screened following basic quality procedures, as compared to 82% in lowermiddleincome countries and 80.3 % in low. ^[5]
HCV Syphilis High income countries 0.001% 0.01% 0.06% 0.01% (0% – 0.01%). ^[5]
(0.003% – 0.13%) (0.002% – 0.05%) (0.002% –0.11%). ^[5]
Upper middle income countries 0.10% 0.29% 0.18% 0.34% (0.03% – 0.23%) (0.15% – 0.62%). ^[5]
Lower middle income countries 0.19% 1.96% 0.38% 0.69% (0.03% – 0.77%). ^[5]
(0.76% – 5.54%) (0.03% –0.80%) (0.16% – 1.25%). ^[5]
Low income countries 0.70% 2.81% 1.00% 0.92% (0.33% – 1.66%) (2.00% – 4.50%) (0.50% – 2.23%) (0.60% – 1.81%). ^[5]
This includes around 47% of plasma recovered from the whole blood donations. ^[5]
Transfusion committees are present in 50 % of the hospitals performing transfusions 65% in hospitals in highincome countries, 35% in uppermiddleincome countries, 31 in lowermiddleincome countries and 25% in low. ^[5]
The European region has the highest percentage of countries with haemovigilance systems (83%), followed by the Western Pacific (48%), the Eastern Mediterranean (47%), Africa (40%), South East Asia (40%), and the Americas (21%). ^[5]
For example, in high income countries, the most frequently transfused patient group is over 60 years of age, which accounts for up to 75% of all transfusions. ^[5]
In low income countries, up to 54% of transfusions are for children under the age of 5 years. ^[5]
Overall, responses received from 171 countries cover 97.5 % of the world’s population. ^[5]
For instance, their AI driven predictions helped Greenpeace see a 22.8% improvement in ROI for a direct mail campaign in just 65 days!. ^[6]
Thanks to all these tools and more, one nonprofit organization even saw donations increase by 640%. ^[6]
Over 90% of American adults own a smartphone, so wouldn’t it be a missed opportunity to avoid everyone’s favorite device?. ^[6]
Donor Software Pricing Snowball Basic is free with a 2.9% processing fee and 30¢ deduction per transaction. ^[6]
Grants from DAFs to qualified charities totaled an estimated $34.67 billion, representing a 27.0 percent increase compared to 2019 and a new high. ^[7]
The DAF payout rate was 23.8 percent, one of the highest payouts on record. ^[7]
Payout has remained above 20 percent for every year on record, reflecting the consistent charitable support that DAF donors provide. ^[7]
In 2020, total estimated charitable giving in the United States was $471.44 billion, according to Giving USA. ^[7]
Contributions to DAFs totaled $47.85 billion in 2020, which equates to 10.1 percent of total giving. ^[7]
Gross domestic product declined yearon year by 3.4 percent.² Unemployment reached as high as 14.8 percent in April 2020 and remained above 6 percent by year end.³. ^[7]
Adjusted for inflation, that was 3.4 percent less than the year ending December 2019. ^[7]
5The Dow Jones Industrial closed the year up 7.2% and the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index rose by 16.4 percent. ^[7]
Table 2 shows an estimated total of 1,005,099 DAF accounts in 2020 among all charitable sponsors included in this report. ^[7]
There is an estimated $159.83 billion in DAF charitable assets and an estimated $1.1 trillion in private foundation assets.7. ^[7]
Grants from DAFs to qualified charities totaled $34.67 billion in 2020, equating to 54.5 percent of the estimated $63.60 billion granted by independent foundations.8. ^[7]
In other words, DAFs granted half of the dollar amount that private foundations granted while having about 14.5 percent of the private foundation assets. ^[7]
USA 2021, shows grantmaking of $88.55 billion in total grantmaking, including community and operating foundations, and reports that all grantmaking rose by 17.0 percent. ^[7]
To approximate grantmaking by independent foundations for 2020, National Philanthropic Trust took the estimate from the prior year and increased it by 17 percent. ^[7]
This is a 27.0 percent increase from a revised 2019 total of $27.29 billion and is one of the highest rates of increase on record. ^[7]
The compound annual growth rate for grants from 2016 to 2020 was 21.4 percent. ^[7]
In 2020, the 27.0 percent increase in grant dollars distributed exceeded the ten year average increase for grants of 14.8 percent. ^[7]
This number surpasses the revised 2019 value of $39.69 billion and is a 20.6 percent increase. ^[7]
The compound annual growth rate for contributions from 2016 to 2020 was 17.4 percent. ^[7]
A 20.6 percent growth in contributions growth in 2020 exceeded the ten year average increase of 18.1 percent. ^[7]
Modestly Charitable assets under management in all DAFs totaled $159.83 billion in 2020, a 9.9 percent increase from the revised 2019 total of $145.49 billion. ^[7]
The compound annual growth rate for charitable assets from 2016 through 2020 was 16.6 percent. ^[7]
The number of individual DAF accounts rose by 16.3 percent to 1,005,099. ^[7]
The compound annual growth rate for the number of donor advised fund accounts from 2016 through 2020 was 36.4 percent. ^[7]
More than half of charitable sponsors reported an increase in the number of DAF accounts. ^[7]
payout rates from DAFs annually exceed 20 percent in every year on record. ^[7]
The payout rate for 2020 was 23.8 percent. ^[7]
This is above the revised payout rate of 22.3 percent for 2019, and is the highest on record since 2011, when the aggregate payout rate was 24.2 percent. ^[7]
Average Donor Advised Fund Size Declines The average size of an individual DAF account is estimated to be $159,019 in 2020. ^[7]
This is a 5.5 percent decrease compared with the revised estimate for 2019 of $168,355. ^[7]
There are an estimated 1.40 million registered publi harities in the United States under Setion 501of the Internal Revenue Code.10. ^[7]
The 976 DAF charitable sponsors tracked in this report comprise less than 0.07 percent of those organizations. ^[7]
These charitable sponsors had a combined estimated 864,099 DAF accounts that granted $21.17 billion in 2020. ^[7]
The total value of grants from DAFs at National Charities to other qualified charities totaled $21.17 billion in 2020, an increase of 23.2 percent from 2019. ^[7]
The compound annual growth rate from 2016 to 2020 is 26.7 percent. ^[7]
National Charities distribute over 155 percent more grant dollars than the other two sponsor types combined. ^[7]
This represents an 18.7 percent increase over the prior year. ^[7]
This year’s rate of growth is slightly higher than the compound annual growth rate of 17.4 percent from 2016 to 2020. ^[7]
The simple ten year average is 18.1 percent. ^[7]
Total charitable assets in DAFs at National Charities totaled $100.15 billion in 2020, a 12.9 percent increase from a revised 2019 estimate of $88.74 billion. ^[7]
The compound annual growth rate for charitable assets at National Charities from 2016 through 2020 was 22.1 percent. ^[7]
A simple ten year average rate of change in charitable assets is 23.2 percent. ^[7]
The number of individual DAF accounts at National Charities grew to an estimated 864,099 in 2020 from a revised 720,375 in 2019, an increase of 20.0 percent. ^[7]
This one year growth is a decrease from a compound annual growth rate of 50.8 percent from 2016 to 2020. ^[7]
The total payout rate from DAFs at National Charities was 23.9 percent in 2020, nearly the same as the 23.7 percent payout rate in 2019. ^[7]
In 2011, DAFs at National Charities paid out 30.0 percent, which is the highest grant payout rate for National Charities on record. ^[7]
The lowest recorded payout rate for National Charities was 21.3 percent in 2016. ^[7]
The average DAF account size at National Charities in 2020 is estimated at $115,901. ^[7]
This represents a 5.9 percent decrease compared with the revised 2019 average of $123,186. ^[7]
These charitable sponsors had a combined estimated 84,334 DAF accounts that granted $8.29 billion in 2020. ^[7]
Grants from DAFs at Community Foundations totaled an estimated $8.29 billion in 2020, up by 33.7 percent from $6.20 billion granted in 2019. ^[7]
The compound annual growth rate from 2016 to 2020 was 14.1 percent. ^[7]
Total contributions to DAFs at Community Foundations were $9.64 billion in 2020, a 41.5 percent increase over a revised total of $6.81 billion from the prior year. ^[7]
The compound annual growth rate in contributions to donor advised funds at Community Foundations from 2016 to 2020 is 12.6 percent. ^[7]
Charitable assets in DAFs at Community Foundations totaled $45.84 billion in 2020, a 9.5 percent increase from $41.88 billion in 2019. ^[7]
The compound annual growth rate for 2016 through 2020 was 11.1 percent. ^[7]
The number of individual DAF accounts at Community Foundations was an estimated 84,334 in 2020, a 0.4 percent increase from the revised total of 84,003 in 2019. ^[7]
The compound annual growth rate from 2016 through 2020 was 4.4 percent. ^[7]
The total payout from DAFs at Community Foundations was an estimated 19.8 percent in 2020, an increase from 17.1 percent in 2019. ^[7]
The payout rate of 19.8 percent is the highest since 2011 and ties with the payout rate in 2017. ^[7]
The lowest payout rate in those years was 14.9 percent. ^[7]
This represents a 9.0 percent increase from the 2019 average of $498,554. ^[7]
The compound annual growth rate for average account size from 2016 to 2020 was 6.4 percent. ^[7]
These charitable sponsors had a combined estimated 56,666 DAF accounts that granted $5.21 billion in 2020. ^[7]
This is an increase of 33.6 percent increase. ^[7]
The compound annual growth rate from 2016 to 2020 was 16.2 percent. ^[7]
Compared to 2011, DAF grants from Single Issue Charities have increased by 264.0 percent. ^[7]
The change in contributions from 2019 to 2020 represents a 1.6 percent increase from the revised total of $4.87 billion for 2019. ^[7]
The compound annual growth rate from 2016 to 2020 was 4.8 percent. ^[7]
Historically, contributions to DAFs at Single Issue Charities have been less predictable than the other two types of DAF sponsors, with the highest rate of increase at 35.1 percent in 2012 and the lowest at 7.9 percent in 2015. ^[7]
Charitable assets in DAFs at Single Issue Charities totaled an estimated $13.84 billion in 2020. ^[7]
This is a decrease of 6.9 percent from a revised amount of $14.87 billion in 2019. ^[7]
The compound annual growth rate from 2016 to 2020 was 4.7 percent. ^[7]
This number is a 5.3 percent decrease compared with 2019, when there were 59,809 individual DAF accounts. ^[7]
The compound annual growth rate from 2016 to 2020 was 2.2 percent. ^[7]
The total payout from DAFs at Single Issue Charities was 35.0 percent in 2020, an increase from a 29.1 percent payout rate in 2019. ^[7]
The payout rate estimated for 2020 is the highest payout rate at Single Issue Charities since 2011 when the payout rate was 33.3 percent. ^[7]
The lowest payout rate at Single Issue Charities in the past decade was 26.5 percent in 2016. ^[7]
Single Issue Charities have the highest grant payout rate of all three types of charitable sponsors analyzed in this study, averaging 30.1 percent from 2011 to 2020. ^[7]
This represents a decrease of 1.8 percent compared with the 2019 average of $248,625. ^[7]
The compound annual growth rate from 2016 to 2020 was 2.4 percent. ^[7]
In the 2020 Donor Advised Fund Report, we predicted growth in contributions to DAFs and grants from DAFs, particularly at National Charities. ^[7]
Grantmaking increased at National Charities by 23.2 percent, at Community Foundations by 33.7 percent and at Single Issue Charities by 33.6 percent. ^[7]
The next report will include data from the final six months of 2020 for the 33.0 percent of DAF charitable sponsors whose fiscal year ends June 30, which includes some of the largest DAF sponsors. ^[7]
All methodologies consistently demonstrate that DAF payout has been well above 5.0 percent even above 14.0 percent. ^[7]
The Giving Institute said in a 2015 press release that while charitable giving is up in the United States, the percentage of that giving going to churches has dropped from 53 percent in 1987 to 32 percent in 2015. ^[8]
The same New York Times article that spawned this statistic also noted that between 2007 and 2016, the unchurched in America jumped from 16 percent to 23 percent. ^[8]
During the Great Depression, they gave 3.3%. ^[8]
According to a 2015 Sharefaith article, people with a salary of less than $20,000 are eight times more likely to give than someone who makes $75,000. ^[8]
This contrasts with 60 percent of atheist and agnostics. ^[8]
The Greatest Generation , the Silent Generation , and Boomers make up 78.8 percent of total church giving. ^[8]
A majority want digital options. ^[8]
According to a 2016 Time article, theaverage US household carries $16,061 in credit card debt. ^[8]
According to Nerdwallet, the average home with revolving credit card debt pays$904 in interest every year. ^[8]
A 2017 CNBC article suggested that this statistic was even lower, with 76 percent percent of people carrying less $50 and nearly half with less than $20 on them at any moment. ^[8]
71% of surveyed employees say it is imperative or very important to work where culture is supportive of giving and volunteering. ^[0]
America’s Charities Snapshot Employee Donor Research More than 49% of nonprofit respondents identified workplace giving as a growth strategy for their organization. ^[0]
America’s Charities Snapshot Nonprofit Research As consumers increasingly choose brands based on CSR values, 69% of respondents report that their organizations have generated increased sales as a result of CSR initiatives. ^[0]
30% of employee donors say the reason why they do not give through the workplace is that the causes they care about are not available as choices through their employer’s giving program. ^[0]
Employee Wellness, Retention, and Recruitment 88% of company leaders believe effective employee engagement programs help attract and retain employees. ^[0]
America’s Charities Snapshot Employer Research 77% of employers believe that offering employee engagement opportunities is an important recruitment strategy to attract millennials. ^[0]
America’s Charities Snapshot Employer Research 70% of employee donors say it is imperative or very important to work for an employer where mission and value align. ^[0]
America’s Charities Snapshot Employee Donor Research 53% of respondents in the 2014 Millennial Impact Study said having their passions and talents recognized and addressed is their top reason for remaining at their current company. ^[0]
Employees most committed to their organizations put in 57% more effort on the job and are 87% less likely to resign than employees who consider themselves disengaged. ^[0]
According to a Project ROI study , a well designed corporate social responsibility program can increase employee engagement by up to 7.5%, increase employee productivity by 13%, reduce employee turnover by 50%, and increase revenue by as much as 20%. ^[0]
55% of employees would choose to work for a socially responsible company, even if it meant a lower salary. ^[0]
The impact of financial stress on workers costs employers 13 18% of annual salary costs. ^[0]
Salary Finance 2020 report 64% of adults say that money is a significant source of stress in their life. ^[0]
American Psychological Association Just 39% of Americans say they have enough savings to cover a $1,000 emergency room visit or car repair. ^[0]
Bankrate 39% of Americans can’t cover a $400 unexpected emergency expense or would need to borrow or sell something to do so. ^[0]
The majority of companies (66%). ^[0]
Average employee participation in employer matching gift programs is 10%, demonstrating a marked opportunity for growth. ^[0]
Nearly 60% of companies offer paid time off for employees to volunteer, and an additional 21% plan to offer release time in the next two years. ^[0]
America’s Charities Snapshot Employer Research 82% of businesses say their employees want the opportunity to volunteer with peers in a corporate. ^[0]
America’s Charities Snapshot Employer Research 75% of U.S. adults feel physically healthier by volunteering. ^[0]
Doing Good is Good for You Study 92% of surveyed corporate human resources executives. ^[0]
In an analysis of over 30,000 individual volunteer activities, skills based volunteerism outperformed traditional volunteerism by 125% in all but one tracked benefit categories. ^[0]
70% of employers firmly believe that their employees expect them to be a socially responsible company. ^[0]
America’s Charities Snapshot Employer Research 70% of employees say it is imperative or very important to work for an employer where mission and value align. ^[0]
America’s Charities Snapshot Employee Donor Research 92% of companies believe that their customers expect them to be good corporate citizens. ^[0]
As social purpose’s role in purchasing decisions has increased, purchase frequency has also intensified 47% of global consumers buy brands that support a good cause at least monthly, a 47% increase from 2010. ^[0]
72% of consumers would recommend a brand that supports a good cause over one that doesn’t; a 39% increase since 2008. ^[0]
71% of consumers would help a brand promote their products or services if there is a good cause behind them; a growth of 34% since 2008. ^[0]
As you can see below, the average rate for nonprofits stays right around 45%. ^[9]
Over 70% of people that we recruit into organizations never come back and make another gift, so we’re caught on this treadmill where we have to spend lots of money on acquisition which most nonprofits lose money on anyway, just to stand still.”. ^[9]
For example, if you have 159 donors who gave again this year, but had 300 who gave last year, your donor retention rate would be 53%. ^[9]
Starting # of Donors Attrition Rate Donors Remaining After 1 Year Donors Remaining After 3 Years Donors Remaining After 5 Years You can see how quickly your pool of donors could evaporate. ^[9]
Just a small change in your donor retention rate (for instance, 10%). ^[9]
According to FEP, the recapture rate for lapsed donors is an astonishing 4% and has been on the decline for the last five years. ^[9]
If you have a 40% retention rate and a 60% attrition rate, you’ll only recapture about 4% of those donors that you lost. ^[9]
If a new donor gives only once – as nearly 70% do – then you’re often left with a loss on your initial investment to gain that new donor. ^[9]
voluntaries have donated whole blood, 851 (17%) plasma from apheresis, 64 (1.3%) experienced multicomponent donation, and 8 (0.1%). ^[10]
The population analysed in this study consisted of 4,906 voluntary blood donors of whom 3,716 (75.74 %) were male and 1,190 (24.26%). ^[10]
The population was further characterised into 3,983 (81%) donors of whole blood, 851 (17%) donors of plasma from apheresis, 64 (1.3%) multicomponent donors, and 8 (0.1%). ^[10]
The incidence of vasovagal reactions was very low, occurring in 0.2 % of the total sample. ^[10]
Indeed, among the population of 4,906 donors, only 63 suffered some kind of adverse reaction, of a minor or more severe entity, accounting for 1.2% of all the subjects .6). ^[10]
The statistical probability of an episode of complete loss of consciousness was equivalent to an incidence of 0.1%, that is, one case every 1,000 donors. ^[10]
This is far from the tabulated values of blood loss that can cause hypovolaemic shock, since more than 15–20% of the total blood mass, that is, 800–1,500 mL of blood, need to be lost, in order to be in at least class. ^[10]
Thus, a donation of 450 mL of blood will not put the subject even in class I risk, according to the table of classification of blood loss16. ^[10]
Of the 63/4,906 (1.2%) donors who had adverse reactions to blood donation, only 40 (0.8%) were administered oral vasopressors, while the other 23 (0.4%). ^[10]
Of the 63 donors who had a vasovagal reaction, only 18 (0.36%) were given crystalloid solutions, while less than five (0.1%). ^[10]
Episodes of convulsive syncope occurred in 0.08% of males and also in 0.08 % of females of the whole population. ^[10]
Only one subject (0.02%). ^[10]
The analysis of the firsttime donors showed that there was not a significant degree of association (chi square = 5.59; 95 % CI and p = 0.06). ^[10]
The contingency analysis of periodic donors vs. agitation and sweating, showed a strong, very statistically significant association (chi square = 13.47; 95% CI and p = 0.001). ^[10]
The logistic regression analysis showed that the group of donors, in whom the venipuncture was difficult, had a statistically higher probability of developing pallor (95% CI and p < 0.001). ^[10]
The logistic regression analysis showed that traumatic venipuncture was a statistically significant determinant (p <0.001 and 95% CI). ^[10]
The multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that there was a marked statistical significance (p < 0.0002 and 99% CI). ^[10]
The multivariate logistic regression model showed very clearly that the greatest statistical significance occurred in the group of periodic donors (p <0.002 and 95% CI). ^[10]
The factors sweating and dizziness emerged as being statistically significant (p <0.05 and 95% CI). ^[10]
For example, if 60 donors out of 200 decided to give a gift again, your retention rate is 30% and your attrition rate is 70%. ^[11]
In 2017 the median donor retention rate for all non. ^[11]
In comparison, the average retention rate over the past 10 years is 44%. ^[11]
The retention rate in the 2017 report was 43%, so while retention has gone up slightly this year, it has remained pretty constant across the decade. ^[11]
For example, it you had 100 donors give $10,000 in 2014 and 50 of them returned in 2015 to give $5,000, your gift retention rate would be 50%. ^[11]
A median gift retention rate of 48% indicates that, though only 45% of actual donors are retained, those donors are giving more from year to year. ^[11]
As shown in Figure 1 below, gains of $6.009 billion (54.2%) in gifts were offset by losses of $5.762 billion ( 52.0%). ^[11]
So while we are seeing the total revenue from charities increasing, it is only a net growth of 2.2% when you take into account the number of donors lost. ^[11]
Gains in the number of new and recaptured donors were offset by losses in the number of lapsed new and lapsed repeat donors, producing a net gain in donors of just 0.747%. ^[11]
2017 data indicates that gain/loss growth in giving performance varies significantly according to size with larger organizations performing much better than smaller ones. ^[11]
As identified in The Non Profit Recurring Giving Benchmark Study, monthly giving/recurring donors have a retention rate of 90%. ^[11]
For organizations that did not automatically update the lost card, 75% did not reach out to get an updated card. ^[11]
Ten percent of the ECDs had met the DMG bundle at referral, 15% at the time of authorization, 33% at 12 to 18 hours, and 45% prior to recovery. ^[12]
Forty three percent had 3 or more organs transplanted per donor. ^[12]
[95% CI, 0.93 0.97]), increased creatinine level . ^[12]
[95% CI, 0.630.85]), DMGs met prior to organ recovery (OR = 1.90 [95% CI, 1.35 2.68]), and a change in the number of DMGs achieved from referral to organ recovery . ^[12]
The majority of donors were men, and 43% achieved the primary outcome of having 3 or more organs transplanted per donor. ^[12]
Of these ECDs, 10% had met the DMG bundle at referral, 15% at the time of authorization, 33% at 12 to 18 hours, and 45% prior to organ recovery. ^[12]
As can be seen, donors who were younger and had a lower creatinine level prior to organ recovery were significantly more likely to have 3 or more organs transplanted per donor. ^[12]
In other words, independent of the presence of comorbidities in the ECD population, having 3 or more organs transplanted per donor was significantly less likely as donor age increased. ^[12]
Metzger et al noted that the 1year and 5year survival rates of patients with ECD transplants were 90.6% and 69.9%, respectively, compared with 94.5% and 81.2% for patients with non. ^[12]
That means you’re likely to increase a single donor’s annual contributions up to 7 times by converting the supporter to a monthly donor. ^[13]
After analyzing DonorPerfect user data, we have found that 85% of donors who enrolled in automatic monthly giving in 2017 are still giving today!. ^[13]

I know you want to use Donor Management Software, thus we made this list of best Donor Management Software. We also wrote about how to learn Donor Management Software and how to install Donor Management Software. Recently we wrote how to uninstall Donor Management Software for newbie users. Don’t forgot to check latest Donor Management statistics of 2024.

Reference

charities – https://www.charities.org/facts-statistics-workplace-giving-matching-gifts-and-volunteer-programs.
nih – https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20583513/.
financesonline – https://financesonline.com/nonprofit-statistics/.
nih – https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27513599/.
neonone – https://neonone.com/resources/blog/year-end-giving-statistics/.
who – https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/blood-safety-and-availability.
doublethedonation – https://doublethedonation.com/tips/top-fundraising-software-and-tools/donor-management-software/.
nptrust – https://www.nptrust.org/reports/daf-report/.
pushpay – https://pushpay.com/blog/church-giving-statistics/.
bloomerang – https://bloomerang.co/blog/donor-retention/.
nih – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2535889/.
causevox – https://www.causevox.com/blog/donor-retention-statistics/.
jamanetwork – https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/1889570.
donorperfect – https://www.donorperfect.com/nonprofit-technology-blog/donorperfect/monthly-giving-reports/.

How Useful is Donor Management

One of the primary benefits of effective donor management is the establishment of strong relationships with donors. By understanding their motivations, preferences, and interests, organizations can tailor their fundraising appeals and communications to resonate with the donor audience. This personalized approach not only increases engagement and donor loyalty but also enhances the overall donor experience.

Moreover, donor management enables organizations to track and analyze donor behavior and giving patterns. This data-driven approach allows organizations to segment donors based on various criteria such as frequency of giving, donation amounts, or communication preferences. By leveraging this information, organizations can target specific donor segments with more tailored and strategic fundraising strategies, resulting in better donor retention and increased fundraising success.

In addition to improving donor relationships and fundraising outcomes, donor management also plays a critical role in operational efficiency and effectiveness. By centralizing donor data and streamlining administrative processes, organizations can more efficiently track donations, issue receipts, and generate reports. This not only saves time and resources but also ensures transparency and accountability in financial management.

Furthermore, donor management helps organizations stay organized and focused on their mission. By setting clear goals, developing strategic fundraising plans, and monitoring progress, organizations can better prioritize their fundraising efforts and allocate resources effectively. This strategic approach not only maximizes the impact of philanthropic initiatives but also fosters a culture of accountability and results-driven performance.

Despite its numerous advantages, some may argue that donor management is resource-intensive and time-consuming. However, the long-term benefits of donor management far outweigh the initial investment of time and resources. In fact, the return on investment of donor management can be substantial, with organizations experiencing increased donor retention rates, higher donation amounts, and more successful fundraising campaigns.

Ultimately, donor management is a critical tool for non-profit organizations and charitable institutions seeking to maximize their fundraising potential and achieve their social impact goals. By cultivating strong donor relationships, leveraging data-driven insights, and embracing strategic planning, organizations can enhance their fundraising effectiveness, operational efficiency, and overall impact on the communities they serve.

In conclusion, donor management is not just a useful tool; it is an essential component of successful fundraising and impactful philanthropy. By prioritizing donor relationships, leveraging data analytics, and implementing strategic planning, organizations can elevate their fundraising efforts, drive meaningful change, and make a lasting difference in the world.

In Conclusion

Be it Donor Management benefits statistics, Donor Management usage statistics, Donor Management productivity statistics, Donor Management adoption statistics, Donor Management roi statistics, Donor Management market statistics, statistics on use of Donor Management, Donor Management analytics statistics, statistics of companies that use Donor Management, statistics small businesses using Donor Management, top Donor Management systems usa statistics, Donor Management software market statistics, statistics dissatisfied with Donor Management, statistics of businesses using Donor Management, Donor Management key statistics, Donor Management systems statistics, nonprofit Donor Management statistics, Donor Management failure statistics, top Donor Management statistics, best Donor Management statistics, Donor Management statistics small business, Donor Management statistics 2024, Donor Management statistics 2021, Donor Management statistics 2024 you will find all from this page. 🙂

We tried our best to provide all the Donor Management statistics on this page. Please comment below and share your opinion if we missed any Donor Management statistics.

Donor Management Statistics 2024 – Everything You Need to Know