Title here

Text here

Organizations That Do Not Use Direct Mail

November 2001

Nine survey participants reported that their organizations do not raise funds through the mail. They gave the following reasons (participants were able to list more than one reason):

  • We do not have the funds to do mass mailings (7 respondents).
  • We do not have the staff to do mass mailings (6 respondents).
  • Although we accept contributions, we do not solicit them (4 respondents).
  • We use our Web site to communicate with donors (3 respondents).
  • Fundraising by direct mail has not proven effective for our organization (2 respondents).
  • We are a membership association; people support us by joining as members rather than by making contributions (1 respondent).
  • We do not wish to annoy current donors or potential donors (1 respondent).
  • We do not accept contributions (1 respondent).
The organizations these participants represented fell into 5 income categories:

  • Less than $25,000 (3 respondents)
  • $25,000-$99,999 (3 respondents)
  • $250,000-$499,999 (1 respondent)
  • $500,000-$999,999 (1 respondent)
  • $1,000,000-$4,999,999 (1 respondent)
The represented organizations worked in 17 of the 26 major NTEE (National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities) subject areas (participants were able to list more than one subject area):

  • Animal Related (2 respondents)
  • Arts, Culture, Humanities (1 respondent)
  • Civil Rights, Social Action, Advocacy (2 respondents)
  • Community Improvement, Capacity Building (3 respondents)
  • Diseases, Disorders, Medical Disciplines (2 respondents)
  • Education (3 respondents)
  • Employment, Job Related (1 respondent)
  • Food, Agriculture, and Nutrition (1 respondent)
  • Health—General and Rehabilitative (5 respondents)
  • Housing, Shelter (7 respondents)
  • Medical Research (2 respondents)
  • Mental Health, Crisis Intervention (3 respondents)
  • Philanthropy, Voluntarism, Grantmaking (1 respondent)
  • Public, Societal Benefit (4 respondents)
  • Religion (1 respondent)
  • Science and Technology Research Institutes, Services (1 respondent)
  • Youth Development (3 respondents)
Suzanne E. Coffman, November 2001
© 2001, Philanthropic Research, Inc.