Project Overview
During my UO Advancement Leadership Internship, I worked on a longitudinal study of a donor recognition outreach effort for long-term Loyalty Circle donors. The project combined outreach activity data, giving indicators, and engagement outcomes to evaluate whether the campaign reached its intended audience, how donor response varied across segments, and what future stewardship efforts could learn from those patterns.
The work culminated in a project report and a reusable engagement metric tool that is still being used to help shape outreach efforts. The public summary here describes the study design, metric, and findings at a high level. The original working report is not linked because donor-facing and internal advancement materials should be reviewed before public distribution.
460
Personalized outreach messages sent to long-term Loyalty Circle donors.
68%
Open rate used to evaluate initial donor reach and message reception.
132
Donors completed the video activity, helping identify the link-click conversion point.
Campaign Reach
Before the engagement index was applied, the first question was whether the outreach actually reached donors and where participation narrowed. The largest drop happened between opening the message and clicking through to the video, making the click-through step the clearest point for strategic improvement.
Participation by Activity Phase
Recreated from the original report chart values; counts reflect the active records analyzed in the study.
Engagement Index
The engagement index translated outreach-platform behaviors into a practical score that could flag delivery problems, distinguish passive opens from active engagement, and compare response patterns across donor segments.
What the Index Revealed
The engagement index made the study more useful than a simple completion-rate report. Several donors who did not fully complete the video still scored in the substantive-engagement range because they shared, downloaded, replied, or returned to the activity. That helped identify interest that a completion-only metric would have treated as a weak response.
> 2
Substantive Engagement Beyond Completion
Decimal scores above 2 flagged donors who had not completed every video stage but still took additional high-intent actions.
2.07
A Segment Worth Studying
Giving Level 4 had an average engagement score above 2 despite a lower completion rate than nearby levels.
97%
The Click Was the Hinge
Among recipients who clicked the link, nearly all started the video, and most of those who started went on to complete it.
10%
No-Click Gap
The no-click group had an average gift-size change that was less than 10% of the clicked group, despite having more individuals.
Giving Level Was Not a Simple Engagement Predictor
This pattern shows that giving level alone was not a reliable proxy for engagement; some donors below the highest giving level showed substantive engagement and may represent meaningful future potential.
Average Engagement Score by Giving Level
Engagement Predicted Later Activity
The steady rise in later activity suggests that the engagement index captured more than one-time response; it helped identify donors whose outreach behavior signaled continued relationship momentum.
Percent Change in Activity by Giving Level
Recommendations
The study recommended refining donor segmentation so outreach strategy is informed by behavioral signals, not giving level alone. Engagement patterns help identify which donors are receptive to particular forms of recognition. This matters because the study showed that gift amount is not the same as engagement level; highly engaged donors at lower giving levels may represent important future relationship and giving potential. These signals can also show which audiences may respond better to a different message, format, or timing.