In 2017, we conducted a survey of 410 high-income donors who had given at least $10,000 to a minimum of one charitable organization in the prior 12 months. Our aim was to determine whether there are significant differences between donors who give to domestic, U.S.-based causes and those who give to international causes. We were looking primarily at psychographic data—lifestyle, childhood experiences, and personal values—in order to help our clients improve major donor contributions. The findings help us not only segment major donor groups, but also develop strategies and improve messaging to the end of improving relationships with existing and potential major donors.
To understand the data, we must first understand the demographics of respondents. Nearly 60 percent of respondents were male; about 23 percent were between the ages of 45 and 54.
Frequency distribution of sex | ||
Sex | Frequency | Percentages |
Male | 244 | 59.51% |
Female | 156 | 38.05% |
Refused/Unidentified | 10 | 2.44% |
Total | 410 | 100% |
Age Range | ||
Range | Frequency | Percent |
<18 | 0 | 0% |
19 – 24 | 0 | 0% |
25 – 34 | 1 | 0.24% |
35 – 44 | 77 | 18.78% |
45 – 54 | 94 | 22.93% |
55 – 64 | 42 | 10.24% |
65 – 74 | 16 | 3.90% |
>74 | 2 | 0.50% |
Refused | 178 | 43.4 |
Total | 410 | 100% |
Just under 40 percent were married; 29 percent refused to indicate marital status.
Marital Status | ||
Marital status | Frequency | Percent |
Married | 162 | 39.5% |
Single | 62 | 15.1% |
Partner | 67 | 16.3% |
Refused | 119 | 29.0% |
Total | 410 | 100% |
We drew our sample from a list of individuals with annual household incomes of at least $250,000. However, we nonetheless inquired about household income in order to analyze charitable giving patterns. Almost 60 percent of respondents refused in provide the range of their annual household income; 15.61 percent indicated it was between $100,000 and $499,999.
Household Income | ||
Household Income | Frequency | Percentages |
$100,000 – $499,999 | 64 | 15.61% |
$500,000 – $749,999 | 61 | 14.88% |
$750,000 – $999,999 | 28 | 6.83% |
$1,000,000 and above | 13 | 3.17% |
Refused | 244 | 59.51% |
Total | 410 | 100% |
More than 8 out of 10 respondents had a master’s degree, doctorate degree, or professional degree, such as law or medicine.
Educational Attainment | ||||
Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | ||
Valid | Bachelor degree | 53 | 12.9 | 17.7 |
Master degree | 145 | 35.4 | 48.5 | |
PhD or professional degree | 101 | 24.6 | 33.8 | |
Total | 299 | 72.9 | 100.0 | |
Missing | 111 | 27.1 | ||
Total | 410 | 100.0 |
We asked survey respondents how many gifts of at least $10,000 they had made over the prior 12 months. Almost half had given only one gift of this size, and 27 percent had given two. But nearly 1 out of 4 respondents had given three or more major gifts.
Number of Major Gifts | ||
Number | Frequency | Percent |
1 | 193 | 47.07% |
2 | 111 | 27.07% |
3 | 63 | 15.37% |
4 | 26 | 6.34% |
5 | 9 | 2.20% |
6 | 8 | 1.95% |
Total | 410 | 100% |
We decided to ask about the three largest gifts our respondents had contributed, so we instructed our interviewees to think of these recipient organizations as “Charity A,” “Charity B,” and “Charity C.” When we asked the specific amount given to each charity, about 25 percent of respondents refused to tell us how much they had given to “Charity A.”
Count of “How large was your gift to. . .” | |||
Charity A | Charity B | Charity C | |
Provided amount | 311 | 125 | 54 |
Refused | 99 | 83 | 56 |
Not applicable | 0 | 202 | 300 |
Total | 410 | 410 | 410 |
Parsing the data about the size of gifts to each of these three charities provides some understanding. Of course, the minimum gift to each was $10,000 (we had filtered for major donors who had given at least this amount). The maximum amount given to any of the three charities was $80,000.
Size of Gifts | |||||||
Charity | N | Refused | Not Applicable | Min. | Max. | Mean | Std. Dev. |
Charity A | 311 | 99 | $10,000 | $80,000 | $27,257.23 | $18,214.62 | |
Charity B | 125 | 83 | 202 | $10,000 | $60,000 | $27,464.00 | $15,495.34 |
Charity C | 54 | 55 | 300 | $10,000 | $50,000 | $23,055.56 | $13,886.90 |
We were also interested in whether the cause or the charity that these donors were supporting with major gifts was a domestic (U.S.) organization or an “international” organization—that is, one whose work is primarily or solely outside the United States.
Domestic v. International by Charity A, Charity B, Charity C | |||
Charity A | Charity B | Charity C | |
Domestic | 211 | 40 | 40 |
International | 199 | 179 | 67 |
Total | 410 | 219 | 107 |
And here’s some interesting data. For those who gave to a domestic cause first (or as their largest gift or their favorite charity), most gave to international causes for their second and third gifts.
Domestic-First Donors | ||||
Charity A | Charity B | Charity C | ||
Domestic | 211 | 9 | 14 | |
International | — | 94 | 29 | |
Total | 211 | 103 | 43 |
However, among donors who gave to an international cause as their first gift, the majority also gave to international causes for their second and third major gifts.
International-First Donors | ||||
Charity A | Charity B | Charity C | ||
Domestic | — | 31 | 24 | |
International | 196 | 85 | 41 | |
Total | 196 | 116 | 65 |
Finally, we asked respondents to indicate the cause or the name of the various charities to which they had provided major gifts. The most common was religion-related causes, followed by human services such as the Red Cross.
Charity Classifications | ||||||
Charity A | Charity B | Charity C | ||||
N | % | N | % | N | % | |
Animal-Related | 6 | 1.5 | 6 | 1.5 | ||
Health Care | 35 | 8.5 | 17 | 4.1 | 12 | 2.9 |
Medical Research | 10 | 2.4 | 2 | .5 | ||
Food, Agriculture & Nutrition | 31 | 7.6 | 2 | .5 | ||
Human Services | 68 | 16.6 | 56 | 13.7 | 14 | 3.4 |
Philanthropy, Voluntarism & Grantmaking | 58 | 14.1 | 29 | 7.1 | 4 | 1 |
Religion-Related | 130 | 31.7 | 21 | 5.1 | 4 | 1 |
Unknown | 2 | .5 | ||||
Subtotal | 340 | 82.9 | 133 | 32.4 | 34 | 8.3 |
Refused/NA | 70 | 17.1 | 277 | 67.6 | 376 | 91.7 |
Total | 410 | 100.0 | 410 | 100.0 | 410 | 100 |
In Part II, we’ll share some of the findings of our study.