Why measure? - Northwestern University

Report
J U LY 2 6 , 2 0 1 3
Measuring Major Gift Officer Performance:
A Case Study and Lessons Learned
by Matt TerMolen and David Lively
On Metrics…
why measure?
What gets measured gets done
What gets measured and fed back gets
done well
What gets rewarded gets repeated
Why Measure?
Transparency inside the institution
ROI (within Advancement team but also
with budget)
Best practices
Helps to define success for fundraisers
Clarifies success for upward advancement
within the organization
First: Fundraising is Expensive
Major Gift Fundraiser Expenses:
Salary
Benefits (~28% of salary)
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:
$________
$________
$________
$________
$________
$________
$________
$________
$________
$________
$________
What to Measure
The Primary Goal: Raise more gifts now
We will measure relevant major 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 commitments
 Number of solicitations
 Dollars raised in new commitments
What to Measure
A Secondary Goal: Identify/Qualify New
Prospects
We will measure activities that directly relate to identifying,
qualifying, and cultivating new major gift prospects, who
will be solicited in future fiscal years. (Build the pipeline for
the future.)
These activities include (but are not limited
to):
 Qualification calls
 (Face-to-face) Visits
What to Measure
Collaboration
Encourage fundraisers to collaborate on solicitations.
These activities include (but are not limited to):
 Proposal/solicitation assists
 Joint calls
 Shared strategies/multiple solicitations
 Implementing high-touch engagement across campus
(e.g. reunion chairs, visiting committees, etc.)
Case Studies
DePaul University
Northwestern University
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
FULL SCALE IMPLEMENTATION: Adopting fundamental, far-reaching
reform
 Implementation of Accountabilities Grid
 Implementation of Top 20/Next 50 portfolio system
 FY2007-2011 results
DePaul University: “The Grid”
FY2007 MINIMUM GOALS
(minimums per category)
SVP/VP/
AVP
SENIOR
DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR
ASSOC.
DIRECTOR
ASST.
DIRECTOR
Number of Contacts/Moves
80
180
180
240
240
Number of Face-to-Face
Contacts/Moves
45
100
100
140
140
Number of Solicitations
(of $25K+)
12
20
20
20
20
Number of Major Gifts
Raised (of $25K+)
6
8
8
8
8
$ 4 million+
$ 2 million+
$ 750,000+
$ 500,000+
$ 250,000+
Major Gift Dollars Raised
(pledges/gifts of $25K+)
Major Gift Metrics & Accountability
DePaul University Major Gift Summary:
FY1989 - FY2011 Number of Gifts and Pledges of $25K+
200
180
184
July 2006: Full Implementation of new goals & accountabilities system
160
162
150
140
139
120
118
100
73
60
59
40
90
89
80
42
67
65
56
56
48
82
53
44
50
49
48
40
36
20
0
FY2011
FY2010
FY2009
FY2008
FY2007
FY2006
FY2005
FY2004
FY2003
FY2002
FY2001
FY2000
FY1999
FY1998
FY1997
FY1996
FY1995
FY1994
FY1993
FY1992
FY1991
FY1990
FY1989
DePaul University Major Gift Summary:
FY1989 - FY2011 Gift/Pledge Dollars of $25K+
$50,000,000
$45,000,000
July 2006: Full Implementation of new goals & accountabilities system
$40,000,000
$35,000,000
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$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
Current Status:
 Solid Major Gift activity in pre-Campaign
 Steady growth in recent years (but perhaps not significant
enough to achieve projected campaign goals)
 Large pool of rated/evaluated prospects (unassigned)
Campaign Needs:
 Need to significantly increase major gift outcomes in
campaign
 Influx of new fundraisers
 Increase productivity of current fundraisers (i.e. increase rate
of solicitation and volume of gifts)
 High number of unqualified but rated prospects in discovery
Case Study: Northwestern
Needed changes to improve fundraising
productivity during campaign planning stages:
 Need 50%+ Increase in gifts of $100K+
 Need 65%+ increase in gifts of $1M+
 Grow annual fundraising totals from ~$220M to
~$400M during campaign
Case Study: Northwestern
Number of Major Commitments of $100K+
450
Projections
400
Historical Giving Data
350
375
300
250
200
400
309
296
251
400
250
247
241
150
100
50
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Cumulative Major Gift Totals Per Month
350
309
300
276
250
200
150
100
50
0
AVG: FY06-FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13 (as of 6-27-13)
Cumulative Major Gift $ Totals by Month
$400,000,000
$350,000,000
$300,000,000
$250,000,000
$200,000,000
$150,000,000
$100,000,000
$50,000,000
$-
AVG: FY06-FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13 (as of 6-27-13)
The NU Accountabilities Grid
Regional Director
Director of
Senior
Associate
Assistant
of Major Gifts /
Development /
Associate
Director of
Director of
Senior Director Director of Major Director of
Development Development
of Development
Gifts
Development
AVP
Executive
Director of
Development
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
Number of Major
Commitments
($100K+)
5
5
5
7
5
6
7
5
2
Number of
Solicitations ($100K+)
9
9
10
14
11
14
16
12
6
$7M
$5M
$3.5M
$4M
$1.5M
$1M
$500K
Visits
(face-to-face)
30
40
80
90
80
90
100
115
130
Qualification Visits
(Subset of Overall
Visits)
15
20
20
30
25
30
40
50
75
Position
Management
Responsibilities
Dollars Raised
(Commitments of
$100K+)
$2.5M $3M
The Scorecard
TENTATIVE
FY13 Score Card
Number of
Number of Dollars
Number of
Major
Solicitations Raised Qualifications
Commitments
Visits
TOTALS
200% or more of Goal
39
38
30
15
12
133
175-199% of Goal
36
35
26
14
11
122
150-174% of Goal
33
32
24
13
10
112
125-149% of Goal
30
29
22
12
9
102
101-124% of Goal
27
26
20
11
8
92
100% (Achieve Goal)
25
24
18
10
7
84
75-99% of Goal
23
22
16
9
6
76
50-74% of Goal
20
19
14
8
5
66
25-49% of Goal
17
16
12
7
4
56
1-24% of Goal
14
13
10
6
3
46
0% (No Activity)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Secondary Solicitations
(Proposal Assists)
>10 asks
8-9 asks
6-7 asks
3-5 asks
1-2 asks
No Activity
TOTALS
10
7
5
3
2
0
Lessons Learned: what’s working, what isn’t?
Lessons Learned:
 The system should constantly be improved as more data are available (goals that are too high
create anxiety, goals too low don’t motivate)
 Metrics improved morale as all fundraisers understood the goals and the roadmap to success
 By making the focus on asks/gifts we became more purposeful in our work and in timemanagement
 Improved tools for managers as everyone understood the system, which is transparent and
consistent across all teams
What is working at NU?




Great buy-in from across all teams
Agreement from all fundraisers and managers that we can and should increase our activity
We created a system that helps focus fundraisers on closing gifts
20 percent increase in $100K+ commitments through June 2013 (following a record year in
2012)
What isn’t working?
 It’s still new…fundraisers are still learning the system
 Uneven implementation across all teams
 Occasional questions regarding how to count various activities against the grid
Creating and implementing an
accountability/measurement system
 Evaluate your institutional culture/history
 Identify short- and long-term goals to assess and reward
productivity
 Identify relevant performance variables to measure
 Build consensus among major gift fundraisers for metrics
and involve team in the implementation process
 Include senior fundraising staff in the system (i.e. can’t
be “do as I say, not as I do”)
 Measure your activity systematically
 Assess and modify system as needed
Change management
 Address the “elephant(s) in the room”
– Varying levels of productivity among fundraisers
– Varying expectations among management and fundraisers
– Uneven levels of programs (e.g. business school vs. school of
education) or geographic regions
– Resistant deans, volunteers, and fundraisers
 Aim for optimal functionality for all fundraisers
– Create system that addresses issues above
– Consider implementing test period with one program (a high performing
program is preferred)
– Consider all variables during implementation and assessment
– As much as possible, create buy-in among fundraising team
– Give new staff a grace period (9-12 months recommended)
Your institution doesn’t/won’t employ
major gift metrics? Create your own
personal system
 Review current/historical institutional activity
— Productivity measurements
— Stage of Advancement program (new vs. mature program)
 Establish personal goals
 Measure/assess performance against goals
— Are they too aggressive?
— Are they not aggressive enough?
 Modify and implement needed changes semiannually/annually
 Build consensus from peers and leadership regarding
establishment of formal program
Questions?
Discussion
Thank You!
Contact Us:
[email protected]
[email protected]

similar documents