Are you the one doing data-driven analysis for your team and organization? If you do research, analysis, and analytics at your org, this article is for you. 

I want to ask you – how do you ensure the research and analysis you do is requested, executed, AND consumed with a lens of IDEA (Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Access)? Tough question, right? Especially when research teams are small, and the volume of requests is high. Today, I am zooming out to look at the entirety of my career in the industry to bring forward seven symptoms of non-IDEA-based research practices and what you can do to fix it.

 Watch out for:

  1. Your org uses everyday language that is centered around the word “donor”.
  2. Most of your research requests are only about finding the capacity of your donors and prospects.
  3. The majority of the focus from your segmentation-based research is creating lists of $100K+ donors vs. all others (irrespective of whether or not it is a Major Gifts campaign).
  4. The prime objective of your board-related research is to look at influential prospects with high capacity.
  5. Your fundraising surveys, irrespective of whether they are testing campaigns or an engagement survey, are suddenly leveraged to include 15+ demography-based questions to broaden that donor base without a clear (and thoughtful) strategy.
  6. Your annual portfolio analysis of fundraisers aims to define the success of fundraisers by the number of six- or seven-digit gifts they have brought.
  7. You are too busy fulfilling back-to-back research requests without having the opportunity to design an additional lens of inclusivity and equity in research.

Of course, this is not a black and white list, and you’ll need to keep in mind the nuances of the sector, geography, mission, organizational structure, fundraising history, and all other essential factors to a thriving and sustainable philanthropic institution. But, when you observe any of these symptoms or are living any of them, what could you do? What would you need to bring a change in the research practices? Is it about a few missing processes or something bigger missing in the organization’s culture? And, most importantly, do you feel comfortable and empowered to push for the necessary steps?

So, what is in your power when you are looking at spreadsheets full of data?

  • Rethink your reports: Remember, donors are important, yes. But they alone are not the reason for the fundraising. The community your mission impacts is the real why of your job. If teams around you use the word “donor” more than you can count, start with the report you produce. Draft a statement that expands the implications of the numbers beyond donors. Invite your stakeholders for a discussion (or become part of their meeting) about the true impact of the analysis. After all, data is only a conversation starter.
  • Infuse both affinity and capacity every time: Donors and prospects are not ATMs. If the research requests revolve around capacity metrics, then confirm if your fundraiser truly needs only capacity (most often, the request intake form can be “cleaned” with a strategic lens too!). And, if they do, push for affinity and capacity and use every opportunity to share knowledge about donors and prospects.
  • Inclusive segmentation: Do not segment only for $100K+ vs. others. Instead, build inclusive bands (based on both affinity and capacity) and offer data-driven engagement indicators for each band. (This article is not about those engagement indicators, but look into your data carefully, they do exist.)
  • Review requirements to become a board member: Provide your fundraising leadership team with data on your board and prospective board (including affinity, capacity, and past giving). Review (as feasible) the requirements of becoming a board member and how those requirements can be aligned with the community’s needs. (For ways to build a diverse board, read here)
  • Seek guidance from local IDEA consultants for demography-based surveys: Launching surveys without thoughtfully crafting demography-based questions can backfire on any good intentions. Instead of simply referring to Google-based examples, seek advice from the local community involved in IDEA-related issues.
  • Invest in your professional development around diversity, inclusivity, equity, and access: Learn, learn, and learn. Continuous learning is the only way we can empower ourselves to commit to redesigning our research practices. Choose your mechanism – conference, books, articles, following relevant individuals of this area on LinkedIn, or podcasts.

 These lists are not end all, be all. In fact, this is just a start. The real battle remains ahead of us – recognizing the patterns of non-inclusive research practices and breaking those apart, rebuilding one piece at a time. If we get to work in data, if we get to research, if we get to do frequent analysis, then let’s combine all that expertise with the courage to sustain this fight.

Meena Das is a Fundraising Analytics Consultant with a U.S.-based consulting firm. She specializes in designing and analyzing survey-based research tools. Meena appreciates spending her time outside work as a mentor to immigrants and pro bono research advisor to Nonprofits. Her two recent favorite projects are working on making data-based research tools more DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) compliant and designing the second season of her podcast “Being and Unbeing parents of an Immigrant”, where she wants to bring together the families of immigrants left behind in the home country. Connect with Meena on LinkedIn.