CCPG -- Metrics Presentation May 2017 - FINAL

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 Quantitative Measured Used 60 Total Participants 54 Yes No Number of prospective donors visited Number and/or value of new life income gifts and additions raised Number of new members in your legacy society Number and/or value of new bequest expectancies or IRA beneficiary designations Number of proposals prepared Number of existing donors and beneficiaries visited Number and/or value of outright gifts raised Dollar value of proposals prepared Number of “moves” towards completing a gift Number of new gifts closed in partnership with major gift officers Number of new donors identified and engaged Number of new proposals filed in partnership with major gift officers 48 40 40 Other 39 38 36 29 23 12 12 11 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 First: What Are We Trying To Do? Challenges: How 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) Redistribution of Portfolio Slack Purple: Assigned Prospects without substantive solicitation strategies and current engagement activity (Group D from Exhibit 1, approximately 110 prospects*) Blue: Assigned Prospects with substantive solicitation strategies and current engagement activities (approximately 40 prospects*) Director of Development Associate Director Assistant Director Unattended prospects (purple) should be made available to fundraisers down the hierarchy, allowing more fundraisers access to top prospects Associate Director *Diagram assumes each fundraiser carries a portfolio of 200 prospects Assistant Director Assistant Director 10 DePaul University Major Gift Summary: FY1989 - FY2011 Gift/Pledge Dollars of $25K+ $50,000,000 $45M $45,000,000 $40,000,000 FY07 Q1: Full Implementation of new goals & accountabilities system $35,000,000 $29M $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $11.1M $10,000,000 $5,000,000 FY2011 FY2010 FY2009 FY2008 FY2007 FY2006 FY2005 FY2004 Major Gift Metrics & Accountability FY2003 FY2002 FY2001 FY2000 FY1999 FY1998 FY1997 FY1996 FY1995 FY1994 FY1993 FY1992 FY1991 FY1990 FY1989 $- 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 Northwestern University Current Status: Takeaways Program Assessment: Conclusions Conclusions:  Fundraisers were more focused on getting visits than making solicitations and raising major gifts  Fundraiser portfolios were much too large to manage effectively, and as a result we were not prioritizing our best prospects to be solicited  Fundraisers had no incentive to release idle prospects back into the open pool for others to solicit  Subsequently, nearly half of our top prospects lay fallow Solutions:  Implement new Accountabilities Grid with weighted scorecard in FY13 (and FY14 for Gift Planning)  Reduce average portfolios to 50-70 (max) so that fundraisers may better prioritize their activity The NU Accountabilities Grid (Major Gift Officers) Executive Senior Director Director of of Development Development Senior Associate Director of Development Associate Director of Development Position Associate Vice President Management Responsibilities YES YES YES NO YES NO NO NO Number of Major Commitments ($100K+)** 5 7 Number of Solicitations ($100K+)** 10 14 16 14 16 15 12 Dollars Raised (Commitments of $100K+)** $15M $7.5M $1.5M $1M Qualification Visits (Subset of Overall Visits) 15 20 20 25 20 25 40 40 Visits (face-to-face) 30 70 70 80 70 80 100 100 Director of Development $5M $6M $4M $5M **Does not matter which unit a gift supports The Scorecard Score Card 200% or more of Goal 175-199% of Goal 150-174% of Goal 125-149% of Goal 101-124% of Goal 100% (Achieve Goal) 75-99% of Goal 50-74% of Goal 25-49% of Goal 1-24% of Goal 0% (No Activity) Number of Major Commitments Number of Solicitations Dollars Raised Number of Qualifications Visits TOTALS 91 80 71 62 53 44 36 27 18 10 50 47 40 34 28 25 22 16 36 34 29 25 20 18 16 11 13 12 11 10 10 200 182 159 138 116 100 85 62 38 17 Secondary Solicitations (Proposal Assists) >10 asks 8-9 asks 6-7 asks 3-5 asks 1-2 asks No Activity TOTALS 20 14 10 Gift Planning Accountabilities Grid Gift Planning Proactive Work Management Major Gifts Responsibilities Reactive Work Number of Major Gift $ Major Gift Contacts Major Gifts Raised Asks Number of Major Gift Asks Major Gift $ Raised Gift Planning Contacts Consultations Executive Director Yes $3.0M 50 10 10 $10M 50 170 Director Yes 13 $3.5M 70 10 $5.5M 60 250 Director Yes $2.5M 50 $4.75M 50 170 Senior Assoc Director No 10 $2.5M 60 10 10 $3.0M 50 300 Senior Assoc Director No 6 $600K 70 6 $600K 50 200 Gift Planning Scorecard Gift Planning Proactive Work Major Gifts Reactive Work Number of Major Gift Major Gift Contacts $ Raised Asks Major Gifts Number of Major Gift Asks Major Gift $ Raised Gift Planning Contacts Consultations TOTALS 200% of more of Goal 34 28 20 10 34 28 20 16 10 200 175-199% of Goal 31 25 18 31 25 18 14 180 150-174% of Goal 27 22 16 27 22 16 13 160 125-149% of Goal 24 20 14 24 20 14 11 140 101-124% of Goal 20 17 12 20 17 12 10 120 100% (Achieve Goal) 17 14 10 17 14 10 100 75-99% of Goal 14 11 14 11 80 50-74% of Goal 10 10 60 25-49% of Goal 7 40 1-24% of Goal 3 3 2 20 0% (No Activity) 0 0 0 0 0 Major/Planned Gift Solicitations of $100K+: FY12-FY17 700 583 600 515 459 500 474 451 400 300 Full Implementation of Metrics and Portfolio Management System in FY13 200 189 100 September October November December FY12 January FY13 February March FY14 FY15 April FY16 May FY17 June July August Major Gift Activity ($100K+) from Individuals: FY06-FY16 Number of Major Gifts of $100K+ Dollars from Major Gifts of $100K+ (Individuals Only) ($ in Millions) (Individuals Only) $400 350 $379 330 $350 300 $346 289 289 $300 250 $289 Full Implementation of Metrics In FY13 223 $250 200 185 167 150 147 125 $219 $200 $150 Full Implementation of Metrics In FY13 126 127 130 $143 100 $119 $100 50 66 70 $62 $50 $39 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $ $66 $82 $76 $48 $19 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 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)  Increased $ from major gifts by 595% ($124.7M vs $17.9M) Additional Highlights in FY14:  of 15 Schools/Programs at NU raised a record number of major gifts from individual donors in FY14  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 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Ask Submitted Amount Proposals (in $MM) $3.5 64 $44.4 155 $102.5 131 $120.4 165 $118.5 208 $199.6 Submitted Proposals - Planned Gift Type 250 200 150 100 50 2011 2012 2013 Submitted Proposals 2014 2015 2016 Ask Amount (in $MM) Funded Proposals - Planned Gift Type FY 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funded Proposals 13 41 73 86 109 102 Total Amount Funded (in $MM) $2.3 $24.5 $35.0 $64.6 $85.0 $53.7 120 100 80 60 40 20 2011 2012 Funded Proposals 2013 2014 2015 Total Amount Funded (in $MM) 2016 Lessons Learned: what’s working?           Goals that are too high create anxiety, goals too low don’t motivate Clearly defined goals improved morale among fundraisers Became more purposeful in our work and in time-management Established less territorial behavior among fundraisers Improved tools for managers (through transparency and consistency) Requires managers to address varying levels of performance and expectations Buy-in that solicitation activity can and should be increased Focused fundraisers on closing gifts Encouraged Gift Planning officers to proactively support major gift fundraisers Encouraged fundraisers to follow a gift to closure regardless which unit it supports, creating a more cohesive team Q&A david.lively@northwestern.edu ... more of Goal 17 5-1 99% of Goal 15 0-1 74% of Goal 12 5-1 49% of Goal 10 1-1 24% of Goal 100% (Achieve Goal) 7 5-9 9% of Goal 5 0-7 4% of Goal 2 5-4 9% of Goal 1-2 4% of Goal 0% (No Activity) Number of Major Commitments... 14 10 100 7 5-9 9% of Goal 14 11 14 11 80 5 0-7 4% of Goal 10 10 60 2 5-4 9% of Goal 7 40 1-2 4% of Goal 3 3 2 20 0% (No Activity) 0 0 0 0 0 Major/Planned Gift Solicitations of $100K+: FY12-FY17 700 583... 182 159 138 116 100 85 62 38 17 Secondary Solicitations (Proposal Assists) >10 asks 8-9 asks 6-7 asks 3-5 asks 1-2 asks No Activity TOTALS 20 14 10 Gift Planning Accountabilities Grid Gift Planning