Most of the donor files I look at have a version of the same problem: two or three relationships are holding up a disproportionate share of the revenue. In some cases the organization knows this and has been meaning to address it. In others, no one has run the numbers. Either way, the risk is real and it compounds quietly — until a donor steps back and the organization discovers how exposed it was.
This worksheet takes about an hour if you have three years of giving data in front of you. The output is a concentration score, a trend line, and a clear picture of what your mid-level pipeline needs to look like for the organization to be less exposed.
What’s inside
A four-step worksheet: map your top-10 donor file, calculate your concentration score, read the risk rubric, and rebuild the gift pyramid that de-risks your revenue.
The full worksheet — tables, scoring, and the pyramid — is in the PDF. Use Save as PDF above to download and fill it in.
Step 1. Pull your top-20 individual donors for each of the last three fiscal years.
Use your CRM or gift ledger. You need: donor name (or code if you prefer anonymity in this worksheet), total given that year, and total individual revenue for the organization that year. Do not include foundation grants, government contracts, or earned revenue in the denominator — this exercise is about individual giving only.
| Rank | Donor (name or code) | FY–2 given | FY–1 given | FY0 given | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | |||||
| 2 | |||||
| 3 | |||||
| 4 | |||||
| 5 | |||||
| 6 | |||||
| 7 | |||||
| 8 | |||||
| 9 | |||||
| 10 | |||||
| Total individual revenue (org-wide) | |||||
Step 2. Calculate the concentration score for each year.
Divide the sum of your top two donors’ giving by total individual revenue. Do this for each of the three years. That percentage is your concentration score. Then do the same for your top five and top ten.
| Tier | FY–2 share | FY–1 share | FY0 share | 3-yr trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Top 1 donor | ||||
| Top 2 donors | ||||
| Top 5 donors | ||||
| Top 10 donors |
Step 3. Where you land, and what it means.
These are working thresholds from diagnostic practice — not regulatory standards. Context matters: an organization with a $10M endowment buffer and decades-long relationships with its top donors is in a different position than one without either. But the thresholds are a reasonable starting point.
Low concentration: Top 2 donors under 30% of individual revenue
The org can absorb the loss of a top donor without a program-level impact. The work here is mid-level retention and upgrading.
Moderate concentration: Top 2 donors at 30–50%
Meaningful exposure. Manageable if the relationships are stable and a mid-level pipeline is actively building. Requires deliberate attention.
High concentration: Top 2 donors at 50–70%
A departure by either donor would require program cuts or emergency appeals to offset. De-risking belongs in this year's plan.
Critical concentration: Top 2 donors above 70%
The organization is effectively a two-donor shop. The priority before any new fundraising initiative is building the pipeline below this tier.
Step 4. Map your current file against a healthy pyramid.
The donor pyramid below shows standard gift tiers and the donor counts associated with a reasonably diversified file. Count your actual donors in each tier and note the gap. The gap at the mid-level tier — $1,000 to $25,000 — is almost always where concentration is manufactured. Donors at this level do not appear in concentration scores, but they are the pipeline that determines what the scores look like in five years.
| Tier | Gift range | Benchmark count | Your count (FY0) | Gap | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Principal | $100,000+ | 1–5 | Name-level relationships. Direct solicitation by ED or board member. Multi-year pledge common. | ||
| Major | $25,000–$99,999 | 5–15 | Portfolio-managed. Cultivation period 12–24 months before ask. Annual renewal expected. | ||
| Mid-level | $1,000–$24,999 | 20–80 | The shock absorber. Direct mail + personal touchpoints. Three consecutive years = upgrade candidate. | ||
| General | Under $1,000 | Varies | High volume, low touch. Retention drives long-term value. Source of future mid-level donors. |
What to do with this information.
The goal of this exercise is not to reduce major gifts — it is to build the tier below them. A strong mid-level pipeline ($1,000–$25,000 donors, retained three or more years) is the single most effective insurance against principal-gift concentration. It takes two to four years to build deliberately.
If your concentration score is at moderate or above, the practical priority is identifying the 20 to 40 current donors in the general tier who have the capacity and affinity to move to mid-level, and building the touchpoint calendar that gets them there. That work is not glamorous, and it does not show results in a single fiscal year. But it is the work that makes a major-donor departure survivable.
