Donors who stop giving to a charity probably do so because the charity has in some way failed them in what they consider the Most Important Qualities (MIQ) of a cause they would choose to support.

This was among the findings of a research report into attitudes of lapsed and active donors (3,000 of them) conducted by California-based Campbell Rinker and presented by President Dirk Rinker at the Congress of the Greater Toronto Chapter of the Association of Fundraising Professionals.

The survey found that 67% of active donors would quit giving and 14% would decrease their giving, because of “MIQ failure”, he says; 85% of them would take their money elsewhere in that case.

Highest values demanded of their charities by 80% of donors are honesty and integrity. But the reasons for quitting giving or decreasing contributions vary – 30% of donors quit giving, 35% decrease giving, because they’re not treated as a partner; 50% of lapsed donors and 67% of active donors would quit giving because they felt manipulated; 30% of lapsed donors and 13% of actives would quit giving if they were treated as “just a source of money”.

Other responses show that 50% of active donors and 62% of lapsed donors would quit giving if the charity assumed the amount they should give; another 25% of active donors would give less and 75% would quit giving if their gifts were not used as they intended.

If the MIQ failure were resolved, the Campbell Rinker research indicated, 62% of lapsed donors would return to the fold; 60% might come back if they received an apology.

Choices of whether to give and whether or not to continue giving are influenced primarily by events or activities within the charity rather than in the donor’s personal life, the research indicated.

Asked whether they would reduce their charitable giving because they experienced such personal events as a loss of income, change in personal finances, loss of a job, increased personal expenses, family member needs, health issues, or death of a spouse or family, only the loss of income rated very high, at 25% agreement from lapsed donors, 20% from actives. Nor are giving levels affected unduly by world events or catastrophes.

Lapsed and active donors are the same people, Rinker says, whether they are qualified by age, gender, marital status, household income, education level, or ethnic background.

Granted that personal and world events don’t influence their giving, the decision comes back to that Most Important Quality. This, respondents say, would be one or all of honesty in business practices, using the gift only for what the charity says it will, and honesty in the relationship with the donor.

The research shows, says Rinker, that lapsed and active donors are the same donors; they have similar responses to events that might impact their giving; they hold the same views about which charity qualities are important, but feel some fulfill on these qualities differently; the difference causes some to stop giving intentionally or just fall by the wayside.

Rinker divides lapsed donors into three groups – idle, in-betweener, and intentional.

The idle lapsed, he says, are unaware of the time since their last gift or of any major changes in their giving patters and still feel involved and supportive of the charity; they represent about half of lapsed donors and are likely to renew if approached properly.

The in-betweeners consider the charity to be very important but recognize they have ceased to give to it because they don’t see themselves as current supporters; they represent about one in four and are less likely to come back.

The intentionals are very aware of the time since their last gift and have stopped giving on purpose because they don’t consider the charity a priority or themselves to be supporters of it; they represent about one in 10 and are the least likely to give again.

Intentionals are also the biggest losses, having given an average cumulative lifetime gift of $1,233, vs $754 for in-betweeners and $580 for idles.