The Effect Of Geography On Donor Choices

There are several common explanations for why people give to certain charities over others. Some believe that people tend to give to a similar kind of charity. For example, people who donate to religious charities may be more likely to donate to other religious charities, while people who donate to health charities may be more likely to donate to other health charities. Others believe that people tend to give to charities that help the same kind of beneficiary. For example, people who give to charities that help children may be more likely to support other children-focused charities. Still others argue that people choose charities with a particular geographical focus, especially those in their own region. Of course, all three factors may play into people’s donation decisions. 

In this study, researchers examined data from 1.5 million Australians — 10% of Australian donors — who gave to one of 52 large charities. The charities varied based on their focus area, beneficiaries, and geographic region. The researchers looked at which charities shared donors and whether subtype, beneficiaries, or geographical region best predicted donor crossover. In general, they found that charities tend to share donors. Three-quarters of all charities in the sample shared donors with every other charity. The percentage of supporters that each charity shared with others ranged from 0% to 34%. 

The authors also used statistical analysis to separate the charities into five “clusters,” where each cluster shared the most donors. Cluster 1 included large, well-known, mostly international charities. Cluster 2 contained charities in the Australian state of Victoria. Likewise, Cluster 3 contained charities in the Australian state of Queensland. Cluster 4 was made up of charities with a national focus or that operate in smaller states. Finally, Cluster 5 consisted of a single international development charity with religious ties. The cluster analysis suggests that people tend to donate to charities that operate in the same region. 

Researchers also looked at network centrality. They assigned an “in-degree score” for each charity, indicating the number of organizations that share at least 1% of their donors with that charity.  Explained differently, a high in-degree score means that donors from a large number of charities give to the target organization. While the researchers didn’t find any significant results when studying the in-degree scores based on charity subtype and beneficiaries, there were geographic differences. Regional charities showed lower in-degree scores than international and national charities. Similarly, international charities had lower “out-degree scores” than national charities (out-degree measures how many other charities 1% of a target organization’s donors support). This means that international charity donors are less likely to give to other organizations than supporters of national charities.

It appears that geography affects how people donate more than the subtype or beneficiaries of the charity. Specifically, people who donate to international charities tend to donate to other international charities. People who donate to charities that help a more local region tend to donate to other charities that help that region. If a charity is looking for more donors, it should prioritize looking for people who give to other charities in the same region, not those who donate to charities that are similar based on cause type and beneficiaries. For geographically similar animal advocacy groups, donor list swapping, co-fundraising, and joint events may be one way to increase funds in a mutually beneficial way.