Using Productivity Standards to Drive Major Gifts Success

Transcription

1 November 19, 2009 Using Productivity Standards to Drive Major Gifts Success Eloise D. Stuhr Vice President and Managing Director

2 Topics to be Covered Today The foundation of prospect tracking systems Measuring major gifts officer productivity Contributing factors to success, performance standards, and potential challenges Best practices for a yearly work plan Page 2

3 Who Should Have Performance Standards? Vice presidents Associate/assistant vice presidents Chief development officers Junior development officers Planned giving officers Corporate and foundation relations officers Page 3

4 Grenzebach Glier and Associates Prospect Tracking System Foundation

5 Prospect Tracking System: Guidelines The system should allow the major gifts officer to manage and maximize the donor s relationship with the institution The system should require of major gifts officers a strategy for all major gifts prospects Process in place for discussion around any new assignments Page 5

6 Prospect Tracking System: Guidelines Portfolio of prospects 15%-20% annual turnover Fairly evenly distributed between discovery, early and advanced cultivation, solicitation, and stewardship 20%-25% should be in advanced cultivation and solicitation stage Prospect pools should not exceed the following ranges: Principal Gifts: Major Gifts: Planned Giving: Leadership Annual Giving: Corporate and Foundation Relations Staff: Page 6

7 Prospect Tracking System: Contact Example To: All development officers This week s proposed prospect manager assignments are attached. Please let me know by Friday if you have any questions or objections to any assignments or reassignments. Those without a dispute will be coded as attached next Monday. As a reminder, best practice is for development officers to discuss and resolve any disputes, first and wherever possible. Those without resolution will be given to the Associate Vice President for a decision. Page 7

8 Grenzebach Glier and Associates Measuring Major Gifts Officer Productivity

9 Key Major Gifts Officer Performance Standards Meaningful prospect contact Proposals Adherence to yearly goals Overall quality of work Page 9

10 Meaningful Prospect Contact Grenzebach Glier and Associates

11 Meaningful Prospect Contact: Responsibilities Overall responsibilities of a major gifts officer Personnel and/or program management Proposal development and/or writing Donor relations/stewardship Level of responsibility Major gifts: 15 contacts/month Principal gifts: 6 contacts/month Lead gifts to the annual fund: 18 contacts/month Page 11

12 Meaningful Prospect Contact: Prospect Pool Composition Composition of prospect pool Alumni Former patients or patient family members Parents Corporations/Foundations Patrons and/or friends Page 12

13 Feeding the Pipeline From high end annual gifts to research and screening, major gifts officers must feed the pipeline with new prospects Expect major gifts officers to identify new prospects each year, and add to their portfolios Page 13

14 Stages of Prospect Engagement Contact Reason Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Total Cold Call Cultivation Evaluation Solicitation Stewardship Total Page 14

15 Sample Guide for Assignments Criteria Admin Principal Major Gifts Planned Giving C+F** AVP Dir. Sr. Dir. MGO1 MGO2 MGO3 MGO4 PG1 PG2 Dir. Gift Capacity $100K+ $2.5M+ $100K+ $10K+ $50K+ $50K+ $50K+ $75K $75K $10K+ Portfolio Size 30-50* 73 50* * Primary Region All All All Five Cnty. All Five Cnty. Five Cnty. All All PA Secondary Region E. PA FL MD OH - - NE Volunteers Yes Yes Yes *Indicates management responsibilities which limit the number of prospects in the assigned portfolio. **C+F prospects generally are to be comprised of corporations and private independent foundations. Privately held businesses and family foundations whose donor or principal decision maker is an alum, parent, or board member of the institution. Page 15

16 Proposals and other solicitations Grenzebach Glier and Associates

17 Proposals Proposals Expect conversion of 50%-65% Higher often means insufficiently aggressive Lower can mean indiscriminate delivery of proposals Page 17

18 Solicitations Donor Name Contactor Name Brief Description Goal Setting Prospect Project Name Proposal Amount Alverez Donna M Larkin Jennifer Indicated that she inclined to give to the project Yes Stadium $100,000 Case Marian A Dr Patterson Michelle Discussed planned gift options, value of estate gift, giving interests, and family Yes Field House $75,000 Beck David Alan Dr. Larkin Jennifer Outlined benefits of giving to this project No Library $175,000 Carlson Susan Lambert Johnson Frank Met to discuss gift in honor of her husband No Arts Center $250,000 Davis Thomas Allen Dr. Larkin Jennifer Dinner at their home No Museum $50,000 Page 18

19 Adherence to Yearly Goals Grenzebach Glier and Associates

20 Goal Setting Process Set target amount to be raised Identify which prospects are ready to be solicited Get everyone working together Page 20

21 Dollars Raised Expected salary return: Break even within first year Three times the expense return in second year Five times in the third year Consider not just dollars raised but approved proposals, annual contacts, and overall quality of work Page 21

22 Goals Expect development officers to solicit 70% of their target population of major gifts donors This will be a selected population of the total assigned prospect pool Expect development officers to work with others for team approaches Page 22

23 Sample Report: Yearly Goals for an Institution Sample Report: Yearly Goals for an Institution FY2009 Unit/Program: Total Cash Goal New Pledge Goal* Planned Gift Goal Special Purpose Goal** Proposals/Asks Pending 1.7M.3M 1.0M.2M 0 Asks to be made 3.3M.8M 2.5M 1M 1.5M Total 5M 1.1M 3.5M 1.2M 1.5M * Does not include expected pledge payments ** For example, physics building, fundraising, auditorium project Page 23

24 Sample Report: Yearly Goals for a Major Gifts Officer Prospect/Donor Name Prospect Manager Proposal Delivery Date Ask Amount Giving Rating Last Gift Date Stephanie Newell Doreen Stewart 12/7/2009 $500,000 C 9/18/2002 Patrice Clark Kevin Rudolph 12/7/2009 $1,000,000 B 1/14/2003 James Rhine Jeannie Barnhardt 12/14/2009 $500,000 B 5/11/2006 Steven Franklin Jeannie Barnhardt 1/5/2010 $250,000 A 6/12/2008 Doug Francisco Elaine Cohen 1/12/2010 $175,000 A 10/17/2008 Page 24

25 Overall Quality of Work Grenzebach Glier and Associates

26 Other Effective Metrics for Measuring Performance Number of contacts ( , letters, phone calls) Number of qualification visits (including those who were not deemed to be major gifts prospects) Number of strategies developed and documented Asks made toward identified priorities Total dollars requested Number of gifts closed Assists Page 26

27 Obstacles to Measuring Major Gifts Officer Performance Perceived loss of donor-centric fundraising Less control for unit managers Uneven portfolios among major gifts officers Page 27

28 Planned Giving Program Metrics Seek gifts that are generally used to build long-term assets of the institution, often for endowment or unrestricted purposes Provide donors with ways to make extraordinary gifts beyond current income Include some gifts that are revocable or that will not provide assets to the institution before the donor s death In best practice, metrics are integrated into solicitation strategies for outright major gifts Number of new outright gifts from donors who have documented planned gifts Page 28

29 Other Planned Giving Metrics Increase in dollar amounts of outright gifts (annual, capital funds) from donors who have documented planned gifts Number of gifts in which the planned gift officer partners with the frontline gift officer to complete a sophisticated planned or outright gift Pipeline of documented future gifts: number and dollar value Percentage of realized planned gifts that come from previously documented intentions versus unexpected gifts Percent penetration of planned gift prospects (age, capacity, and inclination) with documented intentions Page 29

30 Obstacles to Measuring Planned Giving Programs Perceived (and often real) length of time needed to cultivate, solicit, and close a planned gift Measuring annual investment (staff, program) from operating budget against returns that will come years later, and usually for endowment purposes Valuing gifts in present dollars, or valuing expectancies with no specific dollar attached Concern about revocable intentions Page 30

31 Corporation and Foundation Relations Obstacles Cash and pledges from foundations and corporations other than those closely held by families Gifts that can provide faculty research funds without contractual obligation Page 31

32 Obstacles to Measuring Corporate and Foundation Relations Programs Measuring annual investment (staff, program) from operating budget against real returns Concern that much of the corporate and foundation offices support is the work of faculty, not development officers Page 32

33 In Summary: Key Success Factors Grenzebach Glier and Associates

34 Key Success Factors Clear, documented, and transparent expectations Expectations for individual gifts officers and for the team/unit/institution Appropriate formal and informal rewards for all members of successful ask teams and those meeting the metrics Clear consequences for those who do not meet the metrics Page 34

35 Questions Grenzebach Glier and Associates

36 Questions Eloise D. Stuhr Vice President and Managing Director p f [email protected] Page 36