Exit interviews are normally comprised of questions posed to employees who leave an organization. It’s hard and expensive to replace good workers, and the causes of departure may need to be remedied. I believe exit interviews could be useful in another context; they could be given to contributors who terminate or reduce support for an organization.

Let’s consider supporters of various nonprofits, civic organizations, churches, or cause related enterprises such as the Save the Skeet Foundation. (Billions of these harmless artifacts are destroyed each year, merely for pleasure.) Maintaining support is especially important in hard economic times, often when services are most valuable.

A compelling example is heightened demand on food banks at a time when donations drop. Some former contributors become recipients. It’s easy, although discomforting, to understand this transition.

Organizations dependent upon donations, not funds taken by taxation, must be sensitive to their constituents if they are to remain successful. There are always multiple contenders for this largess and today’s demands are growing. Contributions of time, money, or material goods arise from conscience and social pressure, but are triggered by communication and contact.

A recent AP report from Helena told of diminished support for churches. Similar stories of church struggles abound throughout the nation. Bozeman’s United Way campaign fell 20 percent short of last year’s performance despite having 15 percent more contributors. No organization dependent on contributions appears to be immune to the consequences of this economic downturn.

During hard times, competition for resources naturally increases. Opera competes with orphans, wildlife with wellness, and disease with destitution. This is a competitive, evolutionary process. While many organizations are likely to survive, only the most fit will thrive. Those that do will pay careful attention to donors.

Which organizations will persist, and which will perish? The results are surely not random and we can’t objectively measure the relative merits of competing organizations. They generate funds by some combination of hectoring and handholding, not by ignoring their donors. Here is an example with a lesson.

National Public Radio is a nonprofit media membership organization. It syndicates programs to nearly 800 stations in the U.S. Nearly half its funding comes from fees charged for programs aired by member stations.

NPR affiliates, such as our Yellowstone Public Radio, hold biannual fund drives to pay for station operations and program fees. Typically, member stations raise equal amounts through on-air pledge drives, corporate underwriting, and government and university grants. They occasionally receive special grants from listeners.

I hope YPR’s next fund drive will achieve its financial goal in these difficult times. I suggest better handholding and paying more attention to supporters. Here’s an example of an opportunity missed. Although it occurred some years ago, memories endure.

For mysterious reasons, a rancher near Bozeman was a regular listener to NPR’s Prairie Home Companion (PHC). (Perhaps he had an affinity for Garrison’s references to the “Dark Lutherans” of his youth.) The YPR station manager knew the rancher and told him that PHC had increased its fee and may be discontinued. The rancher volunteered to pay the entire fee for a while, betting that public support would follow. It indeed did and PHC is still on YPR, now twice each weekend.

This sounds like a happy ending—but isn’t quite. And here’s the lesson. PHC’s home base is the Fitzgerald Theater in Saint Paul, Minnesota. However, it travels throughout America with occasional shows, and has even stopped in Montana several times. When they announced a Montana venue, the rancher hoped, indeed expected, to receive an invitation. He did not and remembers the slight.

As a result, when YPR solicits for funds, the rancher’s generosity goes elsewhere. Biannual fundraisers don’t substitute for neglected handholding. This may seem a petty example, but it holds an important lesson: there are costs to ignoring donors or taking them for granted.

I suggest nonprofits monitor supporters who are generous with their time or money. If one vanishes or reduces contributions, consider an “exit interview.” This may determine the cause of defection. Perhaps nothing can be done, but paying attention will probably assuage the donor and she may come back. Attention is inexpensive and may be the best investment during these hard times.