Allowing donors to restrict their gifts increases giving, even though very few donors choose to exercise the option. (see for example here and here)  This is partly because donors like control of things (see DonorVoice’s Dr. Kiki Koutmeridou discussion of how donor control can get people to opt in here) and partly because the ability to designate allows people to pick options in concert with their own identity and preferences.

So:

• Increased average gift
• No additional cost of solicitation
• More satisfied donors

Why don’t more organizations allow for restricted giving?

As one who has tried, the main argument is the headache that would come from having multiple restricted funds (which can be mitigated by a strong caging vendor and clear online giving forms and databases).  But often the folks who will have to work harder because of restricted giving, knowing that this rationale won’t carry the day, say “what if everyone restricted their gift?”.  Or, more to the point, what if people restricted their gifts in a way that changed the way an organization’s budget is shaped?*

This argument often wins the day, despite the evidence that few people choose to restrict their gift.  As a result, organizations like Kiva and DonorsChoose continue to disrupt the nonprofit sector by allowing this control that donors crave.

But what if you could give people the option to restrict their gift, but subtly persuade them to choose a general gift?  This is precisely what Jung and Henderson studied, in a paper presented yesterday at the Science of Philanthropy Initiative conference.  (Hot off the presses!)

They found that people looking to direct their gift balance feasibility and desirability.  That is, if there is a highly attractive option and it’s easy to make a choice, people will make a choice.  If the attractiveness of options is similar and it’s difficult to make a choice, people will delegate the choice to the charity with an unrestricted gift.

They aren’t suggesting you make the choice process hard (although it would be good to have options that are all attractive).  Rather they use a clever bit of priming by asking participants in their study to do “why” tasks (why are you giving this gift) versus “how” tasks (how are you going to make your gift) before making the gift itself.  When people were primed to think about the process of giving, they were 40% less likely to designate their gift than when they were primed to think about why they were giving.

Now, we don’t have a captive donor audience we can focus to answer questions before they donate.  But priming still is a viable strategy.  Simply try bolding a line at the top of your donation form that explains the process, e.g., “You can make a difference in just three easy steps!”  This puts the donor in a 1, 2, 3 mindset and they will likely be less inclined to designate.

Hopefully, this trick will help you convince your internal audiences to allow you to start accepting (and advertising) donor-directed donations.

And if you want more tips from the SPI conference as I type up my notes, you can subscribe to our newsletter here: