When a fundraising rate moves from 20% to 25%, it increased by 5 percentage points and by 25% relative to the starting rate. Both statements are correct. They answer different questions.
Use percentage points to show the direct distance between two rates. Use percent change to show how large that movement is relative to the baseline. In a fundraising report, the clearest practice is usually to show the starting rate, ending rate, percentage-point change, and, when it helps the decision, the relative percent change.
This distinction matters in donor retention, donation-form conversion, recurring-gift share, campaign response, email click-through, and any other metric already expressed as a percentage. If the label is wrong or the baseline is missing, a small movement can sound dramatic or a meaningful improvement can sound trivial.
Percentage points vs. percent change: the two formulas
The UK Office for National Statistics defines a percentage point as the difference between percentages. That gives fundraising teams a simple two-formula rule.
Percentage-point change
New rate - old rate = percentage-point change
If first-year donor retention rises from 20% to 25%:
25% - 20% = 5 percentage points
This answers: How far did the rate move on the percentage scale?
Relative percent change
((New rate - old rate) / old rate) x 100 = relative percent change
Using the same retention example:
((25% - 20%) / 20%) x 100 = 25%
This answers: How large was the movement compared with where the rate started?
The word relative is useful. It tells the reader that the change was divided by the original rate rather than simply subtracted.
A fundraising example where the label changes the story
Imagine a nonprofit compares two fall appeals. These figures are illustrative.
| Metric | Prior appeal | Current appeal | Point change | Relative change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Response rate | 4.0% | 5.0% | +1.0 percentage point | +25.0% |
| Donation-form completion rate | 60.0% | 63.0% | +3.0 percentage points | +5.0% |
| Recurring-gift share | 10.0% | 12.0% | +2.0 percentage points | +20.0% |
Saying “response increased 25%” is mathematically valid, but it hides the fact that the observed rate moved from 4% to 5%. Saying “response increased 1%” is ambiguous and usually wrong if the writer means a one-point difference. A decision-maker may interpret it as a move from 4.0% to 4.04%, which is a 1% relative increase.
The better report sentence is:
Response rate increased from 4.0% to 5.0%, a gain of 1.0 percentage point, or 25.0% relative to the prior appeal.
That sentence gives the baseline, the ending rate, and both valid descriptions of the movement. No one has to reverse-engineer what “up 25%” means.
Which measure should a fundraising report lead with?
Lead with the measure that best matches the decision, but keep the underlying rates visible.
| Reporting question | Lead measure | Why |
|---|---|---|
| How far did retention or conversion move? | Percentage points | Shows the direct difference between rates. |
| How large was the improvement relative to the baseline? | Relative percent change | Scales the movement to the starting rate. |
| How many more donors or gifts did the change produce? | Count and rate together | Connects the rate movement to operational volume. |
| Did one campaign outperform another? | Rates, point change, and comparable denominators | Prevents a percentage label from hiding different audience sizes or eligibility rules. |
Percentage points are often the cleanest headline for movement in a rate. Relative change is valuable context, especially when the starting rate is low. Counts still matter. A 2-point improvement among 500 eligible donors and the same improvement among 50,000 eligible donors imply very different operational results.
The four-number standard for fundraising rate changes
For any material change in a percentage-based metric, show four numbers:
- Baseline rate: the original percentage.
- Current rate: the new percentage.
- Percentage-point change: current rate minus baseline rate.
- Relative percent change: point change divided by the baseline rate.
Then add the numerator and denominator when the audience size, traffic volume, or eligible donor population affects the decision.
For example:
Donation-form completion rose from 60.0% (1,200 completions from 2,000 starts) to 63.0% (1,323 from 2,100), an increase of 3.0 percentage points and 5.0% relative to the baseline.
This format supports the same disciplined review used in a fundraising report preflight: the reader can see the rate, the population behind it, the direction of change, and the precise unit used to describe that change.
Three traps to prevent before a report reaches leadership
1. Reporting relative change without the baseline
“Conversion improved 50%” may describe a move from 2% to 3%. The relative increase is large, but the direct movement is 1 percentage point. Show both rates so the reader can judge the operational significance.
2. Calculating relative change from a zero baseline
If a rate starts at 0%, relative percent change is undefined because the formula divides by zero. Do not call a move from 0% to 2% a 200% increase. Report it as an increase of 2 percentage points, then show the underlying count and explain that the activity was new.
3. Comparing rates built from different populations
Precise arithmetic cannot rescue an unfair comparison. If one campaign’s response rate includes all delivered messages and another excludes inactive recipients, the point and relative changes compare different denominators. Confirm population rules, time windows, deduplication, and attribution logic before interpreting the movement.
This is especially important in a donation page yield report, where starts, sessions, visitors, and completed gifts can each produce a different denominator and therefore a different conversion story.
Use the same label across dashboards, slides, and commentary
A calculation can be correct in a dashboard and become misleading in the executive summary. The problem often appears during translation:
- A dashboard shows “+2.0 pp,” but the slide says “up 2%.”
- A chart shows a relative lift, while the presenter describes a point increase.
- An agency report rounds the old and new rates before calculating the change.
- A social update repeats the largest-looking number without the baseline.
Create a small reporting rule for every percentage-based KPI:
- Store the baseline and current rate.
- Calculate point change from unrounded rates.
- Calculate relative change from the original unrounded rate.
- Round only for display.
- Spell out “percentage points” on first use.
- Carry the same wording into dashboard notes, board slides, and campaign reviews.
When a test result informs a decision, add the distinction to the fundraising test learning report. That keeps “adopt,” “retest,” or “stop” decisions tied to a clearly described effect rather than an inflated headline.
A quick review checklist
Before releasing a fundraising report that compares rates, ask:
- Are the starting and ending rates visible?
- Does subtraction use the label “percentage points”?
- Does relative change name the baseline?
- Are the numerators and denominators comparable?
- Were calculations made before rounding?
- Is a zero baseline handled without a relative-change claim?
- Does the written commentary match the dashboard calculation?
- Does the report connect the rate change to donors, gifts, revenue, or a next action?
Make the movement clear enough to act on
Percentage points tell you how far a fundraising rate moved. Relative percent change tells you how large that move was compared with the starting rate. Neither replaces the other, and neither should appear without enough context to understand the underlying result.
For your next campaign or retention review, use one sentence that states the baseline, current rate, percentage-point change, and relative change. Then connect that movement to the donor count or revenue decision it affects. ReportWerks helps nonprofit teams bring fundraising, marketing, donor, and campaign data into connected reporting views so these definitions stay consistent from the dashboard to the decision.
