Nonprofit organizations must be transparent with the public about how they collect and store constituent data. Moreover, they should also be honest about how they use that data to guide their fundraising efforts. Constituents are growing more discerning about the privacy of their personal information and organizations are bound to hear more questions on this subject in the coming years (Barth et al., 2019). It is imperative that they be prepared to answer clearly and honestly. Do not bury this policy in a website footer, promote it. Doing so builds trust with constituents. It is also an opportunity to flip the narrative and explain how their information is being used to improve their experience and build a relationship with the organization.
Access to a nonprofit’s CRM, where the bulk of sensitive constituent data is stored, should be given only to employees whose roles and responsibilities directly relate to constituent engagement. The ability to edit this data should be permitted for an even smaller team of staff. When data needs to be downloaded out of the CRM, whether for contact lists, giving analysis, or reporting, saving the records in a spreadsheet is appropriate. However, staff should promptly protect the file with a password and keep it only as long as necessary. Spreadsheets are not appropriate for prolonged data storage. Improper storage of sensitive constituent information is a legal liability.
Adjacent to CRMs are email marketing platforms. These systems are perhaps the most valuable to a nonprofit’s engagement capabilities behind their CRM. While other forms of digital communications have come into use, email marketing remains a reliable method for staying in touch with constituents and raising money from donors. The variety of emails an organization will send include newsletters, executive communications, fundraising solicitations, and donor stewardship messages. As each of these serves its own purpose, they should also have their own subscription preference. Constituents may wish to read an organization’s newsletter, but prefer to not be solicited for gifts by email. In turn, donors may have multiple email addresses and want to receive organization updates at one, but their giving recognition at another. Understanding these boundaries is essential to strong constituent relations. This means keeping data up-to-date, clean, and free of defunct email addresses. Inconsistent records management can lead to reaching constituents where you should not or landing your emails in spam folders, thus falling short of their audience.
The data that an organization collects is a value added to their constituent relations strategy, but it can also serve the acquisition efforts for peers. List sharing is a common practice in nonprofit fundraising, guided by the belief that similar missions can attract similar audiences. For example, an organization whose mission is focused on environmental conservation may connect with another organization whose mission is focused on fighting climate change. When they share their donor lists with one another, they are expanding their prospective donor community. However, they are also demonstrating a willingness to release constituent information to other parties without explicit consent.
Public entities are more likely to have policies that limit data sharing with peers, but even these allow inter-organization sharing. Public universities are a prime example of this circumstance. Many will have organizations such as a public art museum and a performing arts venue within their purview. Due to their shared executive governance, these two seemingly independent nonprofits actually exist under the same governance structure. Importantly, permission and practice must not be conflated. List sharing with adjacent organizations is best implemented when constituents knowingly opt-in.
Excerpt taken from my dissertation, Digital Engagement and Data Governance in Nonprofit Advancement: Principles for the Future State. See the other three principles of digital fundraising here.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barth, S., de Jong, M. D. T., Junger, M., Hartel, P. H., & Roppelt, J. C. (2019). Putting the privacy paradox to the test: Online privacy and security behaviors among users with technical knowledge, privacy awareness, and financial resources. Telematics and Informatics, 41, 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.03.003.
