Australia for UNHCR had a strong mid-value programme, 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 programme 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 programme had grown to more than 8,000 donors giving between $1,000 and $10,000 annually.

As the programme 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 programme into three streams tied to propensity and stewardship investment:

1. High stream mid-value: premium, high-touch journey

2. Standard stream mid-value: reduced-cost, semi-automated journey

3. 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 prioritised 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 programme focus and team efficiency

Australia for UNHCR reported the following outcomes from the approach:

• The mid-value programme 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.