Why does donor retention look worse than it is?
- Files
- 3
- Rows
- 24,680
- Checks passed
- 25
Retention, by person
58.1%
Donors
5,510
Top 11 households
52.0%
What went in
Jul 1, 2022 – Jun 30, 2026
- Project
- Donor file: FY2023 to FY2026
- Subject
- Customers
- Rows
- 24,680
Source files
- gifts_fy23_fy26.csv18,432 rows
- constituents.xlsx6,214 rows
- campaigns.xlsx34 rows
The finished example
Demonstration data we built, not a customer's file.
Rendered by the same components that render your own projects.
Your retention is 11 points better than you think, and your income is far less safe.
704 of the 6,214 constituent records are the same people entered twice, mostly by online appeals creating a new record for someone already in the postal file. Counting records, retention is 47.2%; counting people, it is 58.1%: above the sector benchmark rather than below it. The same defect has been hiding the number that matters more: eleven households give 52% of unrestricted income, and two of those eleven are one household.
The same donors, counted two ways
- 015,510 people are stored as 6,214 records, and it is depressing your retention.
- 02The win-back appeal is addressed to 312 people who are giving right now.
- 03Eleven households are 52% of unrestricted income, and one of them ends this year.
Filed under
Closest to this one
Ranked by how many subjects they share with this project.
Have something like this?
Drop it in and see what comes back. You only pay once you like it.
No account needed to start. You only pay when you like what you see.