Revealing the Secrets Behind Donor Renewal: Rethinking Generosity, Community, and the Future of Giving

Below is an article by IPA Board Member Sanjay Bindra, MD, the Cofounder and President, of GOSUMEC Foundation USA. It is based on a conversation he had with Jon McCoy and Becky Endicott on the We Are For Good Podcast, which can be listened to by clicking here.

When most people picture philanthropy, they picture campaigns: Year-end appeals. Major gifts. Giving days. Capital drives.

But one of the most important questions facing the social sector may be far simpler:

Why do people stay?

Why does one donor give once and disappear, while another gives year after year? Why do some organizations struggle to build recurring support while others form communities that remain engaged for decades?

These questions sit at the heart of the GIVE Study — and they formed the foundation of my recent conversation with Jon McCoy and Becky Endicott, two of the leading voices in nonprofit education and community building.

What began as a discussion about research evolved into something larger: a conversation about community, belonging, health, identity, and the future of giving. In many ways, it was not a conversation about fundraising at all. It was a conversation about human beings.

From Refugees to Community

My interest in philanthropy began long before GOSUMEC Foundation existed.

My family became refugees during the 1947 Partition of India. Growing up, I heard stories from my mother and grandmother about people who had lost everything and rebuilt their lives through community. Neighbors became family. People survived because others showed up.

My grandmother taught me one of the simplest lessons about generosity. She would hand me bananas and bread and ask me to take them to someone in need. Her message never changed: You don't need to have a lot to give.

Years later, a second influence expanded that understanding. My father-in-law, an Emeritus Professor at UCLA, helped resurrect a rare book library through endowment philanthropy. From him, I learned a different lesson: Think beyond today. Build for tomorrow.

One lesson was about immediate compassion. The other was about long-term sustainability. Together, they became the philosophical foundation of our work.

As Becky reflected during the conversation, "This is how grassroots movements are formed."

The Question That Started the GIVE Study

The GIVE Study did not begin as research. It began as curiosity.

Like many young organizations, our first year was full of campaigns, urgency, and deadlines. It worked — but it was stressful. So I began doing something different. Starting with a few donors, I built relationships the same way I do with my patients. Then something unexpected happened: A few donors began giving again, without being asked.

That observation led me to a question. What is different about a first gift and a second gift?

The data was clear. According to Fundraising Effectiveness Project reports, first-time donor retention remains below 20%. Yet donors who make a second gift are dramatically more likely to keep giving.

The distinction became obvious. A first gift is often driven by emotion. A second gift is driven by a relationship.

As I put it during the podcast, "The first gift is a transaction. The second gift is a relationship."

That insight changed everything.

From Transactions to Relationships

So we shifted what we studied. Instead of fundraising campaigns, we studied sustainable giving.

We removed urgency. We removed scarcity messaging. We removed pressure. No giving-day countdowns. No emergency asks. No clocks ticking down.

Instead, we focused entirely on relationships. The result was the GIVE framework:

G — Gratitude. Not merely saying thank you, but helping people feel genuinely seen. "Gratitude is not what you give. It is how it is received."

I — Impact. People do not connect with spreadsheets; they connect with stories. We feel first, and then we think. Impact must be communicated through human outcomes.

V — Voice. People support what they help create. Invite supporters into the conversation. Listen. Build with people rather than for them.

E — Engagement. Relationships require presence. They cannot exist through automated emails alone. Community forms through interaction, conversation, and shared experience.

Together, these create a simple principle we call Arc Before Ask: build the relationship first, and the giving follows.

Small Organizations Matter More Than We Realize

One of the most meaningful parts of the conversation focused on small nonprofits — and the parallel holds just as strongly across India's vast landscape of grassroots organizations.

Most nonprofits everywhere are small. Most are local. Most serve their communities quietly and consistently — food programs, shelters, scholarship initiatives, elder care, after-school efforts, community support networks.

These organizations rarely make headlines. Yet they may be among the most important institutions in any society, because they create belonging, connection, and community.

And community matters.

A Physician's Lens: Community as a Health Intervention

I have spent decades studying health, and medicine has taught me something useful here.

For years, healthcare focused on changing individual behavior: eat better, exercise more, stop smoking. Those things matter. But we have increasingly learned that something else matters too — the conditions surrounding people. Housing, education, environment, food security, social connection. These are the Social Determinants of Health, and they shape outcomes as much as individual choices do.

The same principle may apply to philanthropy. Instead of asking "How do we change donors?" perhaps we should ask "How do we improve the conditions around donors?"

That idea produced one of the most powerful moments in the interview. After we discussed the health benefits of generosity, Becky responded, "You have discovered for your patients and for your people that generosity is a way to stay healthy." Then she added, "I'm just sitting here deeply emotional."

Giving is not simply an economic act. It is a social act. A relational act. A human act.

Dopamine or Oxytocin?

One idea resonated especially strongly: the distinction between dopamine-driven fundraising and oxytocin-driven relationships.

Campaigns create excitement, urgency, and momentum. These trigger dopamine. The donor feels good, the organization feels good, and a gift is made. But dopamine is a spark — and sparks fade.

Relationships are different. They build trust, recognition, connection, belonging. They create oxytocin.

As I shared during the interview: "Dopamine is a spark. Oxytocin is a bond." Perhaps the future of philanthropy lies in creating more bonds and fewer sparks.

Identity: The Hidden Driver of Sustainable Giving

One of Jon's observations stayed with me. Reflecting on the study, he said: "It builds a more sustainable base. It builds identity."

Identity may be the most underappreciated force in philanthropy. People do not give simply because they are asked. They give because giving becomes part of who they are. They begin to say: This is my community. This is my mission. These are my people.

At that point, giving is no longer a transaction. It becomes an expression of identity. And identity is durable.

Consistency Over Intensity

As the conversation drew to a close, Becky reflected on a phrase that has become central to our work: "Consistency over intensity."

That simple idea may summarize the entire GIVE Study. Relationships do not grow through occasional bursts of effort. They grow through repeated acts of care — a thoughtful note, a phone call, a story, an invitation, a conversation. Over time, these small actions compound.

"Relationships compound before they become visible."

The same principle applies to generosity. To community. To movements.

A New Question for the Sector

The social sector often asks: How do we raise more money?

Perhaps a better question is: How do we create communities where generosity naturally flourishes?

Sustainable giving may not be primarily a fundraising challenge. It may be a community challenge. And community remains one of the most powerful forces available to us.

A Final Thought

Near the end of the podcast, Becky offered a remark I will remember for a long time: "You are exactly why we created this podcast."

I took that not as a personal compliment, but as a reminder of what the sector needs more of: curiosity, learning, experimentation, community.

The GIVE Study began as a small experiment inside a volunteer-run nonprofit. But its larger lesson extends far beyond philanthropy. Human health and human giving are not separate conversations. Both are shaped by relationships. Both are shaped by belonging. Both are shaped by the communities we build around one another.

And perhaps the future of philanthropy begins with a simple realization:

When we strengthen community, we strengthen generosity. And when we strengthen generosity, we strengthen community.

Note: The GIVE Study began as a practice-based experiment within a small, volunteer-led nonprofit. Its purpose was not to create a product or consulting model, but to contribute openly to the sector's understanding of sustainable giving, community, and donor relationships. GOSUMEC Foundation used the Givebutter Plus CRM during the GIVE Study and collaborated with Givebutter on the GIVE Study Playbook. No financial relationship or compensation exists between the organizations.