The donor stewardship check
Are you stewarding your donors well?
See where donor relationships are taking root, what needs attention, and where to begin. A short check for the people who care for your donors.
15 steps · A score out of 100 · Three practical next steps
Step 1 of 15
Context only
Your grade reflects reported stewardship outcomes, practices, and visibility. “I don’t know” earns the lowest points on scored questions. Your role, organization size, and donor demographics are not graded. Privacy policy
How your score works
Donor Insights assigns the weights, answer points, and grades. Published research informs the criteria, but this is a self-assessment, not a validated measure of stewardship or a peer percentile. Unknown scored answers earn zero. Questions without an eligible donor group are excluded and the remaining points are scaled to 100; those results are provisional. Organization context never changes the grade.
A: 90–100 · B: 80–89 · C: 70–79 · D: 60–69 · F: 0–59
- Donor retention (20) — FEP reported 43.3% overall retention for 2025. The whole-percent bands and points are Donor Insights criteria; 43–59% includes the sector reference. Higher bands are stretch targets, not published peer percentiles.
- Second gifts (15) — These are Donor Insights working targets. A twelve-month second-gift rate is different from FEP’s next-calendar-year new-donor retention; no like-for-like published benchmark was verified in the supplied sources.
- Recurring relationships (10) — Neon One reports 79.11% average recurring retention in 2025. Use this as directional context: platform populations and counting methods differ. Bands and points are Donor Insights criteria.
- Meaningful thanks (10) — A Donor Insights practice standard informed by thank-you guidance and relationship fundraising. The timing bands are not experimentally validated scoring cutoffs.
- First-gift welcome (10) — Donor Insights practice criteria informed by The Fund Raising School’s stewardship guidance. No universal welcome-sequence performance benchmark is claimed.
- Impact and trust (10) — Donor Insights practice criteria informed by relationship fundraising and philanthropic psychology. Frequency alone does not establish donor trust.
- Listening and choice (10) — Donor Insights criteria informed by Jen Shang’s work on identity, connection, and autonomy. Demographics alone do not tell you why a person gives.
- Reconnection (5) — Donor Insights practice criteria. A paused gift can have many causes; the quiz does not assume that more asking is the right response.
- Stewardship visibility (10) — Donor Insights practice criteria informed by The Fund Raising School’s discussion of data and human judgment. Any AI-produced figure still needs checking against giving records.
Research behind the check
- AFP / Fundraising Effectiveness Project — full-year 2025
Overall donor retention was 43.3%. This is broad sector context, not a matched peer group or a target for every organization.
- Neon One — 2026 Recurring Donor Report findings
Average recurring donor retention was 79.11% in 2025 in Neon One’s research. Its population differs from FEP’s; the two rates are not interchangeable.
- Institute for Sustainable Philanthropy — philanthropic psychology
Jen Shang’s work informs the questions about listening, donor identity, connection, and choice. It does not prescribe the quiz’s point values.
- The Fund Raising School — First Day Podcast
Bill Stanczykiewicz’s conversations on stewardship inform the welcome and relationship practices; Vicki Pugh’s discussion of AI and human judgment informs checking figures before acting.
- Neon One — thanking donors
Practical guidance supports prompt, personal thanks. The quiz does not promise a particular lift from a call or thank-you message.