Wealthy non-donors: showcase the joy of giving to entice new gifts.

Individuals who choose not to engage in philanthropic giving but who are otherwise well positioned to do so by virtue of their relative personal income or wealth are a perpetual topic of discussion among nonprofit leaders. Many fundraisers invest a great deal of effort in pursuing non-donors whom they might see as terrific "prospects" despite the non-donors' apparent lack of interest in giving to their institutions.

Who are these wealthy non-donors, and how can they be brought into your organization's fold ... or can they? Do they have a right to remain non-donors? How can you tell whether it will be in your organization's best interest to cultivate people who clearly have the capacity to give, but not necessarily the inclination? Will this potentially labor-intensive process be worth the effort, or should you instead focus on your current donors and others who have otherwise indicated through their giving histories that they are interested in supporting similar causes--or in supporting nonprofits at all?

Relatively little data is available about wealthy non-donors, but the Center on Philanthropy Panel Study (COPPS), a large-scale longitudinal study conducted by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, can potentially yield some important insights. COPPS research conducted in 2003 about giving in 2002 defined the "high-wealth" donor/non-donor demographic as the top 7 percent of households surveyed, with total wealth (excluding home equity) of $500,000 or more. The top 2 percent of "mega-wealthy" U.S. households are not represented in the COPPS data in numbers that allow conclusions to be drawn about their impact on U.S. giving.

For high-wealth donors, the average income was $113,525, compared to $81,795 for high-wealth non-donors. It should be noted that some households have high wealth but comparatively low incomes (e.g., persons with assets but no regular salary). Currently, about 80 million households in the U.S. are donor households, including 90 percent of the "high-wealth" households.

So what do we know about the 10 percent of high-wealth individuals who reported that they didn't give in 2002? From COPPS, we know that, besides having an apparent lesser annual income than donors, current non-donors are far less likely to be married (only 43 percent of non-donors are married, compared to 74 percent of donors) and are far more likely to be divorced or separated than donors (28 percent compared to only 8 percent). Some 9 percent of non-donors have never married, similar to the 7 percent of donors who have not wed.

Similarly striking differences are seen between high-wealth donors' and nondonors' highest level of educational attainment. Some 66 percent of non-donors have not finished college (compared with 42 percent of donors). Just 27 percent of nondonors have a bachelor's degree or more, compared with 50 percent of donors. These figures will not add up to 100 percent since not all respondents provided information about their educational status.

Donors are more likely than non-donors to be individuals with relatively high wealth and educational status. The majority of donors fit this profile, while the majority of non-donors do not. However, approximately 1.5 percent of the households sampled in COPPS are composed of high-wealth nondonors with more than a high school education, presenting an interesting puzzle for fundraisers who would reasonably expect to find these households more inclined to give. This figure, when extended to the total U.S. population of 295 million, suggests that around 1.8 million households "should" be donors by virtue of meeting this typical donor profile, yet choose not to be.

Studies such as COPPS that provide facts about the wealthy non-donor demographic only begin to shed light on this topic. Much more research is needed on the non-donor population at all levels. Without benefit of additional conclusive research, fundraisers may fill the gaps in their knowledge with inaccurate assumptions and stereotypes about high-wealth individuals who choose not to give, or who give below the "expected" level. This tendency is highly counterproductive and unnecessarily polarizes the relationship between nonprofits and their potential donors.

Unfortunately, many nonprofit professionals exhibit a disrespectful, and even combative, attitude toward the wealthy non-donor. They wring their hands when that clever letter to all of the folks in the front orchestra seats who have never given a penny, rewritten five times, fails to garner more than a few responses. They label them free riders, deadbeats--or worse--behind closed doors. They call them LYBNTs ("Last Year, But Not This Year") if they stop giving. They take a "demand-based" approach to their fundraising, focusing on pressuring prospective donors into contributing to their organizations and on making them feel guilty if they choose not to give--or even if they do give, but don't give what is deemed "enough."

Donors are not merely a means to a fiscal end. Unfortunately, however, fundraisers often lose sight of the fact that giving is voluntary. It is by understanding the essential voluntary nature of giving, and by treating each prospective donor with the great respect that this knowledge entails, that fundraisers enhance the joy of giving for their donors. And by respecting the right of others not to give to their organizations, they take the first step in establishing credibility with non-donors.

To maximize the mutually beneficial relationship between their donors and their institutions, first and foremost, fundraisers must internalize the concept that each person has the freedom to choose to give or not to give, and at the level the person chooses. It's easy to forget that the voluntary nature of giving is what makes it so special, and what makes it feel so good to the donor. Nonprofit professionals who try to pressure donors to give (or to give more) and make them feel guilty for not doing so remove this critical voluntary aspect from the act of giving, and often force donors into defensive positions, perhaps further reducing their likelihood of giving. Resentment of those who choose not to support the fundraiser's cause, or to support it with gifts that are smaller than might be hoped for, hinders the continued development of philanthropy.

Fundraisers act inappropriately when they label non-donors pejoratively or become angry at former donors who are no longer sending checks. In fact, lapsed donors could have legitimate reasons to discontinue their support. In some cases, a change in personal circumstances (such as a recent divorce or economic shake-up) is unsettling enough to disrupt a donor's giving. Or the nonprofit, knowingly or not, might have mistreated or offended the lapsed donor.

Organizations often do the wrong thing when previous donors stop giving. They might become resentful, and even "write off" an "ex-donor" completely. Instead, nonprofit professionals should take into consideration the possible reasons or life circumstances that may have disrupted their giving. Nonprofits would be wise to respectfully contact donors who have stopped giving and learn more about their reasons. If the organization doesn't burn its bridges with the donor, the absence of contributions might be temporary. Again, fundraisers must be committed to the notion that everyone has the freedom to give or not.

Another issue that many nonprofit professionals overlook is that people often choose to give smaller gifts to many different organizations. Although their total giving might indicate that they would be labeled "generous," no one organization to which they give may recognize them as such. Other donors who might make fewer but larger gifts thus might be treated with more respect. If nonprofits treat all donors (and current non-donors) with the respect they deserve, they may choose to give more (or begin giving) in the future, and they will feel more positively and behave more generously toward organizations that have offered them regard and concern rather than pressure.

Excessive focus on the demand of the "bottom line" in many nonprofits reflects a limited understanding of donors and of the kind of relationship development that is necessary to engage them. Fundraisers often place undue reliance on fundraising technology, such as sophisticated donor management software and specialized rating tools, at the expense of personal relationships. These approaches can tend to dehumanize donors and contribute to labeling and resentment.

What can (or should) nonprofits do to engage non-donors? First, fundraisers should recognize that philanthropy is a voluntary act, and that people can choose not to give. Efforts to convert non-donors into donors should focus on understanding their circumstances and engaging them, rather than using pressure tactics that might isolate them further. Nonprofit professionals also should reflect on the data. There do seem to be differences between donors and non-donors, even among the wealthy. Fundraisers should focus their efforts on the non-donors who data analysis indicates are more like donors, rather than on the entire non-donor population. They should apply the same thoughtful approach to those who have stopped supporting their nonprofits and try to understand individual giving circumstances from the former donors' perspectives.

Finally, fundraisers should not judge donors by the gifts they make to the fundraiser's organization; they do not know the donor's total generosity. The voluntary nature of philanthropy is one of the aspects that helps bring joy to the donor. It is that joy and satisfaction that helps nurture and grow philanthropy as the donor's ability and inclination to give increases. Net

Eugene R. Tempel is executive director of The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University and a nationally recognized expert on philanthropy, fundraising and nonprofit management.