In our effort to create easy-to-read dashboards and be able to skim reports, we create this need to have lists of top things, and metrics are included. Just try a google search for best fundraising metrics. Yep, there are a few lists there. The problem is that so many list metrics that rely heavily on the context of other data.

Here's an example. Retention Rate. You will find it on almost anyone's list, but rarely will you see them talk about rates (with an 's'). The problem is, though, retention rates are different for different groups. Every article talks about the abysmal retention rate of first time donors; New donor retention rate is often significantly less than the rest of your database. This causes a problem.

A change in retention rate (assuming we aren't even beginning to look at margins of error) could actually be caused by a change in the ratio of new donors to existing donors. For example, let's say your overall database retention rate (the single rate for the entire homogeneous set of donors) is 41% and jumps to 47%, you may be ecstatic. It could also be the case where you stopped a bunch of acquisition strategies and the rate trended toward your existing donor retention rate, which may be unchanged, simply because they now represent a larger ratio of all donors compared with new.

So many of these metrics rely on ceteris paribus, a Latin term meaning, "other things equal." Sure, if your ratios of new donors to existing donors never changes, an increase in overall retention rate is great. However, without background context, we cannot know precisely why a rate has changed.

So what are the best metrics? As many as you can muster. If you haven't really started measuring, though, here's what you should at least start with.

Totals and Counts: Your gift counts, donor counts, and sums of gifts will all inform other metrics. At minimum, these should be known and measured every year. Knowing these numbers by quarters and months will help as well, especially if your solicitations tend to follow a pretty similar schedule year to year. 

Retention Rates (with an 's'): All of them. Chop into reasonably sized groups of donors who behave similarly. Try different groups. What you are aiming for is a number that does not seem to change in years where there was little-to-no change to retention procedures, so that you can test changes on them.

Measures of Central Tendency: Average gift is problematic because charity data is positively skewed and we often have outliers. So list everything. Mean (average), median, mode, and get a few trimmed averages in there. See the averages when you trim off the top and bottom 5% of gifts. 10%. 20%.

(Gross Estimated) Lifetime Value: Do not overestimate, though. You can see our video on how to estimate lifetime using BOTH new donor and existing donor retention rates. Then multiply the lifetime by a measure of central tendency (trimmed averages are good). This value can then be used to help determine if an acquisition may be beneficial.

Donor and Gift Deciles: Deciles are like percentiles (except dividing into 10s instead of 100s. I like Latin, OK?) You are measuring the 10% mark, the 20% mark, and so on. You want to really understand your gift distribution? Look at those numbers. (Bonus points, look where average gift lies.) When you spot changes in these measures year over year, you are seeing the subtle changes at different levels.