Fundraiser Metrics & Portfolio Management Camille Anderson - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Fundraiser Metrics & Portfolio Management Camille Anderson Licklider, Executive Director of Gift Planning David Lively, Senior Associate Vice President & Campaign Manager

Quantitative Goals for Gift Planning: Current State of Affairs 6 Quantitative Measured Used Number of prospective donors visited 48 Number and/or value of new life income gifts and additions raised 40 60 Total Number of new members in your legacy society 40 Participants Number and/or value of new bequest expectancies or IRA beneficiary 39 designations Number of proposals prepared 38 Number of existing donors and beneficiaries visited 36 Number and/or value of outright gifts raised 29 Dollar value of proposals prepared 23 54 Number of “moves” towards completing a gift 12 Number of new gifts closed in partnership with major gift officers 12 Yes No Number of new donors identified and engaged 11 Number of new proposals filed in partnership with major gift officers 7 Other 9 Figure 4.5.5: Does Your Institution Set Quantitative Goals for the Planned Giving Staff? From 2014 Program Analytics Report Excerpt from Client Conference presentation, 2015 2

First: What Are We Trying To Do? Challenges: How do we…  Collectively solicit more prospects and raise more major and planned gifts—at the highest level—to achieve our campaign goals?  Comprehensively prioritize best prospects university-wide and ensure thoughtful strategies to solicit each over the next 24-36 months?  Monitor and assess ongoing fundraiser activity and increase the level of productivity? Solutions:  Create system of metrics/accountability and reward productivity  Shrink fundraiser portfolios to focus and prioritize efforts

On Metrics… why measure?  What gets measured gets done  What gets measured and fed back gets done well  What gets rewarded gets repeated

Visits are Nice And All… Visits often serve as a proxy for Fundraiser productivity. They are used as the “effort measure,” as a trusted NU colleague recently put it. He suggested, “(this) was my main problem with it. So if you didn’t raise any money, your boss could say, ‘oh but you were out there hustling so I can’t fault you. Keep doing that.’ Which didn’t teach anyone anything and went hand-in-hand with being a ‘non-profit measure.’ For folks like me it was nonsense because I wanted to be measured on real stuff and I hated having an out.”

Also…Fundraising is Expensive (in other words, what’s your ROI?) Major Gift Fundraiser Expenses: Salary $________ Benefits (~28% of salary, or more) $________ Budget (travel, entertainment, etc.) $________ Supplies (computer, phone, letterhead, etc.) $________ Research (% of prospect research/mgmt. staff, etc.) $________ Database (% of license/staff support, etc.) $________ Space (office space, etc.) $________ Other misc. expenses $________ Training (CASE, etc.) $________ Opportunity Costs (i.e. how else could $ be used?) $________ Total Expenses: $________

Gift Planning: What to Measure The Primary Goal: Raise more gifts and commitments now We will measure relevant major and planned gift fundraiser activities that directly relate to soliciting and booking new major gift commitments. These activities include (but are not limited to):  Number of new major/planned gifts  Number of major/planned gift solicitations  Dollars raised in new major/planned gifts A Secondary Goal: Support and Collaboration We will measure gift planning support for gift officers. These activities include (but are not limited to):  Proposal/solicitation assists  Joint calls  Shared strategies/multiple solicitations  Gift planning consultations

Reduce Portfolio Size The Benefits:  Prioritize the entire prospective donor pool  Focus fundraisers on a manageable list of top prospects, each of which will have a substantive and clearly articulated strategy  Minimize uncooperative, territorial behavior between fundraisers as there will necessarily be many more qualified donor prospects from which to choose ( when they are not idle in another fundraiser’s massive portfolio )  Increase the aggregate number of solicitations annually as all fundraisers will be forced to make decisions about —and take actions with —the prospects to whom they are assigned  Eliminate excessive slack (i.e. inefficiencies), especially at the top of the prospect pool

The Typical Fundraiser Portfolio: Identifying Portfolio Slack Prospects Not Solicited with No Strategy or Solicitation Plan (Group D) Prospects Not Solicited but with Substantive Solicitation Strategies for Next Fiscal Year (Group C) Solicitations Declined in Current Fiscal Year (Group B) Gifts and Pledges in Current Fiscal Year (Group A) 9

Redistribution of Portfolio Slack Purple: Assigned Director of Development Unattended prospects Prospects without (purple) should be made substantive available to fundraisers solicitation strategies down the hierarchy, and current allowing more fundraisers engagement activity access to top prospects. ( Group D from Exhibit 1, approximately 110 prospects* ) Associate Director Associate Director Blue: Assigned Prospects with substantive solicitation strategies *Diagram assumes each and current fundraiser carries a portfolio engagement activities of 200 prospects (approximately 40 prospects*) Assistant Director Assistant Director Assistant Director 10

Case study: DePaul University AWARENESS: Generating awareness of the need for change  The current system is not working MOBILIZATION: Enlisting resources and stakeholders to undertake change  Identification of best practices:  Georgetown U./Oregon State U.: “The Placemat”  U. of Washington: “Top 25”  Buy-in from Advancement leadership PILOTING: Preliminary testing of new possibilities  Pilot run with business school for six months; full implementation 7/1/06 (Q1) FULL SCALE IMPLEMENTATION: Adopting fundamental, far-reaching reform  Implementation of Accountabilities Grid  Implementation of Top 20/Next 50 portfolio system  FY2007-2011 results

Major Gift Metrics & Accountability DePaul University Major Gift Summary: FY1989 - FY2011 Number of Gifts and Pledges of $25K+ 200 180 184 FY07 Q1 : Full Implementation of new goals & accountabilities system 160 162 150 140 139 120 118 100 90 89 80 82 73 67 60 65 59 56 56 53 50 49 48 48 40 44 42 40 36 20 0 FY1989 FY1990 FY1991 FY1992 FY1993 FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011

DePaul University Major Gift Summary: FY1989 - FY2011 Gift/Pledge Dollars of $25K+ $50,000,000 $45M $45,000,000 FY07 Q1: Full Implementation of new goals & accountabilities system $40,000,000 $35,000,000 $29M $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $11.1M $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $- FY1989 FY1990 FY1991 FY1992 FY1993 FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Major Gift Metrics & Accountability

Case study: Northwestern University AWARENESS: Generating awareness of the need for change  Program Assessment, FY12 (February 2012) MOBILIZATION: Enlisting resources and stakeholders to undertake change  Review current/historical activity:  Buy-in from leadership  Build consensus among gift officers on all central teams  Lay out ideas and plans middle of FY12 (May 2012) FULL SCALE IMPLEMENTATION: Adopting fundamental, far-reaching reform  Implementation of Metrics for all central major gift officers beginning FY13 (Sept. 2012)  Implementation for Gift Planning in FY14  Implementation of Metrics for Law and Kellogg in FY14  Reduce portfolio size for Schools/Programs team, beginning mid-FY13 and completed in spring FY14

Northwestern University Program Assessment & Campaign Needs Program Assessment (as of Feb. 2012):  Relatively good major gift activity  Steady growth in recent years  Large pool of unassigned rated/evaluated prospects  Significant portfolio slack  Influx of new fundraisers  High number of unqualified but rated prospects in discovery Campaign Needs:  Increase productivity of current fundraisers (i.e. increase rate of solicitation and volume of gifts)  Grow annual fundraising totals from ~$220M to greater than $500M+  Significantly increase major gift outcomes in campaign  Need ~50-70% increase in gifts of $100K  Need ~60-80% increase in gifts of $1M+  Increase number of major gift fundraisers to help achieve these ambitious goals  Qualify and engage large number of prospective major/planned giving donors

Northwestern University Program Assessment: Winter 2012 Significant Portfolio Slack Across all NU Teams (as of Feb 2012):  45% of all assigned prospects rated $1M+ had not been visited since September 2009 ( if at all )  55% of all assigned prospects rated $100K-$999K had not been visited since September 2009 ( if at all )  The typical portfolio for major/planned gift fundraisers in FY12 included approx. 115 prospects  In FY11 fundraisers contacted on average just 40 of their assigned prospects, or 35% of their portfolio In short, 65% of our very best prospects were effectively unmanaged in large, stagnant portfolios