Australia for UNHCR rebuilt a mid-value program around ranked stewardship priority
Australia for UNHCR had a strong mid-value program, but managing more than 8,000 donors meant stewardship time was being spread across people who were unlikely to respond. The team needed a defensible way to decide who to invest in, and who to step back from, without risking revenue.
Australia for UNHCR’s mid-value program was too large to steward with confidence
Australia for UNHCR is the UN Refugee Agency’s national partner in Australia. By 2023, its mid-value program had grown to more than 8,000 donors giving between $1,000 and $10,000 annually.
As the program grew, the cost of “treat everyone the same” showed up in two places:
Stewardship capacity was stretched.
It became harder to explain why some donors should get high-touch attention and others shouldn’t.
The team needed a safer way to choose who to engage right now
Before this work, mid-value donors were grouped into broad tiers and “active vs lapsed” segments.
That structure didn’t answer the question that mattered operationally:
Who should get premium, high-touch stewardship?
Who should stay in a lower-cost journey?
Who should drop back to core treatment without the team worrying they were leaving value behind?
Australia for UNHCR wanted a way to distinguish high-propensity and low-propensity donors regardless of tier or recency, then match journeys to that reality.
A time-boxed test showed reduced stewardship delivered the best ROI for low-propensity donors
Australia for UNHCR used mid-value propensity rankings to run controlled tests on stewardship intensity.
For low-propensity active mid-value donors, the team tested three approaches:
Reduced-cost stewardship
Increased stewardship
Control (standard mid-value journey)
The operational takeaway was clear: reduced stewardship delivered the best ROI for this low-propensity segment, and it protected team capacity.
Three clear streams made the workflow simple enough to run every week
After 14 months of testing, Australia for UNHCR restructured the program into three streams tied to propensity and stewardship investment:
High stream mid-value: premium, high-touch journey
Standard stream mid-value: reduced-cost, semi-automated journey
Core treatment: no mid-value stewardship for lapsed and low-propensity donors
This kept the approach execution-ready:
Where it lives: inside the team’s existing reporting and segmentation workflow
What it produces: clear streams and prioritized stewardship lists
How teams act: premium effort goes to the highest-propensity donors, while lower-propensity donors receive a lower-cost approach
The results held in both program focus and team efficiency
Australia for UNHCR reported the following outcomes from the approach:
The mid-value program was reduced from 8,000+ donors to 4,200 donors receiving high-touch stewardship.
The team saved 3 hours per week in stewardship resources.
Using high-propensity identification, the charity converted 66 new mid-value donors from its core supporter base, achieving a 28% conversion rate for high-propensity prospects.
Build a propensity-based mid-value operating model in 5 steps
Start with one weekly decision: who gets high-touch stewardship right now.
Rank donors by propensity and define a small, defensible “high-touch” threshold.
Design three journeys: premium, reduced-cost, and core treatment.
Run a time-boxed test comparing stewardship levels for low-propensity donors.
Lock the streams into your weekly rhythm and review thresholds as you learn.
See a low-risk mid-value prioritization pilot
Get a simple plan to test propensity-based stewardship streams with a small scope, so you can protect team capacity while learning what lift is realistic in your donor file.
Read our recent articles
For any unanswered questions, reach out to our support team via email. We'll respond as soon as possible to assist you.
