CCPG -- Metrics Presentation May 2017 - FINAL

From 2014 Program Analytics Report 54 6 Yes No 60 Total Participants Quantitative Measured Used Number and/or value of new life income gifts and additions raised 40 Number and/or value o

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

Figure 4.5.5: Does Your Institution Set Quantitative Goals for the Planned Giving Staff?

From 2014 Program Analytics Report

54 6

Yes No

60 Total Participants

Quantitative Measured Used

Number and/or value of new life income gifts and additions raised 40

Number and/or value of new bequest expectancies or IRA beneficiary

Number of new gifts closed in partnership with major gift officers 12

Number of new proposals filed in partnership with major gift officers 7

2 Excerpt from Client Conference presentation, 2015

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?

done well

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:

Research (% of prospect research/mgmt staff, etc.) $

Opportunity Costs (i.e how else could $ be used?) $

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:

will have a substantive and clearly articulated strategy

there will necessarily be many more qualified donor prospects from

which to choose (when they are not idle in another fundraiser’s

massive portfolio)

fundraisers will be forced to make decisions about—and take actions

with—the prospects to whom they are assigned

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

*Diagram assumes each fundraiser carries a portfolio

of 200 prospects

Case study: DePaul University

AWARENESS: Generating awareness of the need for change

MOBILIZATION: Enlisting resources and stakeholders to undertake change

 Identification of best practices:

 U of Washington: “Top 25”

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

Major Gift Metrics & Accountability

89 67

82 90

150 139 118

162 184

DePaul University Major Gift Summary:

FY1989 - FY2011 Number of Gifts and Pledges of $25K+

FY07 Q1 : Full Implementation of new goals & accountabilities system

Major Gift Metrics & Accountability

DePaul University Major Gift Summary:

FY1989 - FY2011 Gift/Pledge Dollars of $25K+

FY07 Q1: Full Implementation of new goals & accountabilities system

Case study: Northwestern University

AWARENESS: Generating awareness of the need for change

MOBILIZATION: Enlisting resources and stakeholders to undertake change

FULL SCALE IMPLEMENTATION: Adopting fundamental, far-reaching

reform

FY13 (Sept 2012)

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

Significant Portfolio Slack Across all NU Teams (as of Feb 2012):

September 2009 (if at all)

since September 2009 (if at all)

included approx 115 prospects

prospects, or 35% of their portfolio

In short, 65% of our very best prospects were effectively unmanaged in large, stagnant portfolios

Northwestern University Program Assessment: Winter 2012

solicitations and raising major gifts

a result we were not prioritizing our best prospects to be solicited

open pool for others to solicit

 Subsequently, nearly half of our top prospects lay fallow

Solutions:

(and FY14 for Gift Planning)

prioritize their activity

Current Status: Takeaways

Northwestern University Program Assessment: Conclusions

The NU Accountabilities Grid

(Major Gift Officers)

**Does not matter which unit a gift supports

Position

Associate Vice President

Executive Director of Development

Senior Director

of Development

Director of Development

Senior Associate Director of Development

Associate Director of Development

The Scorecard

Secondary Solicitations (Proposal Assists) TOTALS

>10 asks 20 8-9 asks 14 6-7 asks 10 3-5 asks 6 1-2 asks 4

No Activity 0

Score Card

Number of Major Commitments

Number of Solicitations

Dollars Raised

Number of Qualifications Visits TOTALS

Gift Planning Accountabilities Grid

Management Responsibilities Major Gifts

Number of Major Gift Asks

Major Gift $ Raised Contacts Major Gifts

Number of Major Gift Asks

Major Gift

$ Raised Consultations Contacts Gift Planning

Executive

Director Yes 5 8 $3.0M 50 10 10 $10M 50 170Director Yes 8 13 $3.5M 70 8 10 $5.5M 60 250 Director Yes 7 9 $2.5M 50 8 9 $4.75M 50 170 Senior Assoc

Director No 6 10 $2.5M 60 10 10 $3.0M 50 300Senior Assoc

Director No 6 6 $600K 70 6 6 $600K 50 200

Gift Planning Scorecard

Major Gifts

Number of Major Gift Asks

Major Gift

$ Raised Contacts Major Gifts

Number of Major Gift Asks

Major Gift $ Raised Consultations Contacts TOTALS Gift Planning

Major/Planned Gift Solicitations of $100K+: FY12-FY17

Full Implementation of Metrics and Portfolio Management System in FY13

September October November December January February March April May June July August

Major Gift Activity ($100K+) from Individuals: FY06-FY16

126 127 130

185 223

Central Major Gift Teams:

Fundraising Highlights: FY14 vs FY12

Recurring Activity for our Central Major Gift Officers* (20 fundraisers with more than one year in position in schools/programs & regional teams)

Compared with FY12 activity, these same fundraisers in FY14…

 Increased the number of solicitations by 170% (178 vs 66)

 Increased the number of $100K+ gifts by 211% (84 vs 27)

Additional Highlights in FY14:

 9 of 15 Schools/Programs at NU raised a record number of major gifts from individual donors in FY14

 8 of 15 Schools/Programs at NU raised a record amount of major gift dollars from individual donors in FY14

Planned Gift Proposal Activity

Proposal Activity for all Fundraisers, Specific to Planned Gifts (Bequest, Life Income, Blended)

FY Submitted Proposals

Ask Amount (in $MM)

Submitted Proposals - Planned Gift Type

Submitted Proposals Ask Amount (in $MM)

FY Proposals Funded

Total Amount Funded (in

Funded Proposals - Planned Gift Type

Funded Proposals Total Amount Funded (in $MM)

Lessons Learned: what’s working?

expectations

fundraisers

supports, creating a more cohesive team

david.lively@northwestern.edu