I noted in Part 1 of this series that “our trade won’t transform from its current eminence-based state to one more evidence-based overnight. In fact, the path to empiricism and scientific proof will be long and rocky. And plenty of disagreement, tension, name-calling, or worse will mark the journey.”

Beyond the usual battles involving egos there are practical/financial reasons why the reliance on myth, folk remedies and pronouncements by the eminent will prevail until that bubble collapses under rigorous testing and a means to more easily access reliable findings and data.

Reaching the goal of sharing and marshalling reliable information and making it easily accessible to all fundraisers at best is a long-term goal; at worst a pipe dream. But surely, it’s a dream worth pursuing considering what’s at stake.

In the meantime, what’s a diligent fundraiser in search of reliable information to do?

‘How’ and ‘where’ do we go for information? Right now, as best I can determine, the process of tracking down reliable information is quite ad hoc and, quite frankly, pretty hit or miss.

Here’s an example that arose as I was working on this series. Canadian fundraiser Kimberley MacKenzie, on a Facebook group titled Fundraising Chat, raised a question about list trades/swaps and the legal obligations surrounding the practices.

A number of experienced folks responded — back and forth — to Kimberley’s questions with a host of answers and insights, including a note from Adrian Sargeant indicating that “list swops typically reduce thee subsequent lifetime value of supporters by around 15%.”

I’m not getting into the pros and cons and details of exchanging donor lists. What is notable is that for an issue so fundamental, especially for direct response fundraisers, accessing reliable information on the subject is anything but simple.

Google ‘fundraising donor list exchange’ and you’ll have to wade through 1.6 million entries in an effort to answer whatever question — legal, ethical, practical — you have. Go to the AFP’s site and they’ll narrow your inquiry down to 2,600. While over at the UK’s  Institute of Fundraising you’ll find between 47 and 2 entries depending on the search terms you use. For US direct response fundraisers the DMA Nonprofit Federation maintains a library and publishes a journal of relevant information, but you have to be a member. And then there are the academic/research organizations like the Hartsook Centre for Sustainable Philanthropy and its think tank Rogare, and the Lily Family School of Philanthropy at Indiana University to name but three of a number of sources of research on philanthropy and fundraising.

And digging through the journals and reports produced by these formal associations and academic research organizations won’t uncover the wealth of practical, tested information that exists in the private libraries of fundraising consultancies, large nonprofits, and some blogs.

[See Ken Burnett’s description of the “Guard Book” or what my firm called the “Testing Bible” that hopefully many agencies and organizations still maintain.]

That’s one of the reasons Tom and I were pleased when The Commission on the Donor Experience announced its 28 projects and placed them on SOFII for easy accessibility. Continuation of the ambitious goals and  work of the Commission has now been turned over to the Institute of Fundraising and I sure hope IoF keeps this project going and growing.

My point is that unless you’re prepared to perform like a hunting dog, ranging out and about on the scent and spending lots and lots of time, the task of tracking down evidence-based information is mighty time consuming. Plus, fundraisers seeking information have to be able to evaluate the quality and testing rigor behind the evidence for themselves.

In short there’s no quick and relatively easy ‘where’ or ‘how’ to access quality, reliable information — particularly of the practical, applied-research type.

Perhaps our sector — individual fundraisers, foundations, associations and growth-oriented thinkers — should be clamouring (and contributing proper amounts of money) for the creation of an Oxford Bibliographies-type resource where evidence-based, peer reviewed information essential to the future of our trade is available and accessible in one place.

Sure, it’s an enormous and perhaps unrealistic undertaking, but consider what’s at stake.

How do you get your information? What would you recommend as your ‘ideal’ solution?

Roger