If you’ve been an Executive Pastor Online reader for a while, you know I’ve written much on the topic of Donor Development. And, you know that our church has partnered with MortarStone, using their Donor Analytic application.
The more I get into this, the more amazed I am with the tool’s ability to help us understand what’s going on and, most important, what to do to improve. More about that later …
For today’s post, I wanted to share some “Top Giver” reporting details.
Check this out!
The Top Giving report represents the top 100 donors of the church, and what their commitment level is to a capital campaign or pledge giving strategy. If you cursor over the graphs, there is additional information depicted. In addition, the table data displays information regarding giving, current pledge, and giving to the pledge, as well as a budget to commitment ratio.
Top 100 Donors
The Top 100 Donors illustrates how these donors are tracking with their giving year to year. The blue graph represents historical giving, while the green is the projected giving from this group for the current year. A cursor rollover within each graph will display additional information.
Top 100 Donor Commitments
The graph on the right of the page depicts the top 100 Donors and their commitments as a graph of their annual giving. The graph on the right depicts their commitments and provides a comparison of churches nationally with respect to what % should be making a commitment, as well as whether their commitment is solid with respect to their annual giving history.
The table data can be exported to a CSV file. The “Commitment to Budget Ratio” [CBR] quickly identifies pledges that are not consistent with annual giving. In this case, the churchwide commitment was in 2012. Thus CBR is representing the pledge compared to 2012 giving. For a three year campaign, a ratio of 1.0 is normal. A number greater than 1.0 would indicate a very strong pledge and should be followed up to ensure proper commitment/receipt [or discounted]. A lower number than one ‘could’ indicate a lack of desire to make a commitment, or they don’t fully embrace the vision, or their capacity is limited, etc. This is a subjective measurement at best but is a good place to begin to better understand the probability of receiving the actual pledge.
Table Data – Current Year
When you select the current year, in this case, 2014, the table data expands to display the “projected” giving as illustrated in the graph above based upon historical giving of the top 100 donors. Also, the Commitment to Budget Ratio changes based upon the year you are reviewing.