This will seem to be a shameless promotion of our new product, the Atlas of Giving – and it is! But I can’t help it, because the Atlas of Giving is my baby. I’m very proud of what we’ve accomplished. I don’t think there is another product out there that can transform your nonprofit fundraising as dramatically, and I wish I could have had the Atlas of Giving when I was a nonprofit fundraiser and executive with the American Cancer Society Foundation.

We could have used the Atlas of Giving back in 2001.

In September 2001, I was serving as Chief Development Officer for the American Cancer Society. Our new fiscal year began on September 1. In the days and weeks following the 9/11 attacks on our nation, our Senior Management Team huddled together often to discuss what to do. Our most pressing question in those early days of our new fiscal year was – what impact is this going to have on our charitable giving income? At the time, no real-time charitable giving data was available. Compounding the problem, there was also no reliable forecast of charitable giving.

The economy had seemingly come to a standstill. Planes were not flying, consumer confidence was low, and regular American life had been significantly disrupted. It made sense that we should quickly adjust our budget. But, how? How much should we cut? When should cuts occur? What promotions should we reduce or eliminate? How should we time promotions in future months to take advantage of resurgence in giving?

We were flying blind with no instruments available to assist us.

We knew that disaster relief organizations like the Red Cross were experiencing a flood of new income as Americans dug deep to assist those directly affected by the attacks. And, we could tell from our receipts that our giving had flattened out. We did not know what to expect. The the Atlas of Giving index, forecast, and analysis could have made millions of dollars of difference for us and saved jobs.

We could have used the Atlas of Giving when the economy rebounded in 2002.

A year later, we had just finished our fiscal year – one in which our total income was up - though just marginally. In this historic year following the 9/11 attacks, we felt proud that we had done what few other non-relief charities had… we had produced an increase in gifts. But that was not based upon data at the time… just an experienced hunch and some anecdotal evidence from a few trusted peers.

Our CEO was in a difficult situation. His performance review was based in part on how the organization did in fund raising. Our income goals for the year had not been met because of the enormity of the economic effects of the 9/11 tragedy. But we felt that because of our efforts at working harder, smarter, and faster, we had been able to produce a small increase in giving in the most difficult conditions of our careers. If true, this small increase would have meant that we gained market share.

The Board of Directors took their job seriously and wanted to do the right thing. If, in fact, we had performed well in difficult circumstances, they wanted to provide favorable reviews and reward the staff with merit increases… but they wanted assurance. The chair of the compensation committee wanted data. “Isn’t there an index of charitable giving that we can use to compare our results with?” My answer…”no, there is not a real time index. The Giving USA numbers won’t be available until June of 2003 and they are based upon the 2002 calendar year, not our fiscal year. “This would not help us. the Atlas of Giving would have provided the information that we needed to honestly assess our comparative fund raising results for the year. Looking back at that time, I am proud of how we performed. But if we’d had the Atlas of Giving we could have done so much better.

Our direct mail would have been so much more effective.

One obvious example was our year end direct mail appeal. That appeal went to millions and cost millions to produce and mail. Because it had been planned so far in advance, we decided to send it at its regularly scheduled time with the hope that it would provide a needed boost in income. That was a major mistake. It performed poorly – producing millions less than normal. If the Atlas of Giving had been available, we would have had the information we needed to make a decision that would have netted us millions for our mission. We would have known that charitable giving (for non-relief charities) was declining during the last quarter of 2001. We would have also known that giving was forecast to make a rebound during the first quarter of 2002. Having this information, we would have elected to delay the mailing until February or March which would have added millions of dollars to our income.

Economic conditions clearly affect charitable giving. However, those economic conditions are fluid. And, what variables affect things the most? Consumer Confidence, real estate values, Gross Domestic Product, personal income, unemployment, stock values, and household wealth seem to play roles in the charitable giving picture – but how? How reliable are those values? How often are they measured? Which ones really play a role?

The Atlas of Giving was formulated by testing more than 50 variables. Some were demographic, some economic, some financial and some current events. The the Atlas of Giving formula was tested against more than 40 years of published giving data for the US. It correlates to established giving results at 99.5%. This formula allows the Atlas of Giving to do two things that have never been available. First, it can accurately measure aggregate giving for the US on a monthly basis. Second, it can reliably forecast charitable giving for future months.

The Atlas of Giving would have helped me as a fundraising manager.

As a fund raising manager, I constantly needed to evaluate the income production of staff and programs. With the Atlas of Giving, I would have been able to expand productive promotions, like online giving, more quickly and reallocate dollars from declining promotions (like a special event past its prime) to something more profitable. The improvement in our cost per dollar raised would have been dramatic. This would make us more attractive to our donors, our prospective donors, and watchdog organizations like Guidestar and the BBB Wise Giving Alliance.

With the Atlas of Giving, I would have also had the information that I needed to decline or delay requested expenditures due to poor market conditions or conversely, to accelerate promotional expenditures when charitable giving conditions were favorable. I would have had the information that I needed to accurately assess the performance of individual staff members. I would have been able to make hiring decisions with a much greater degree of confidence. It would have made my performance much better.

The Atlas of Giving would have also improved my credibility with my CEO, the Board of Directors, and my staff. I would have the data at my fingertips to successfully lobby for increasing budget and staff to prepare for upcoming opportunities. I would also be able to warn against significant expenditures based on unfavorable forecasts. I would have presentation data to answer questions about news events and their impact on our giving. I would be more confident, better prepared, and better equipped than ever before to be successful in any circumstance.