Daniel

Transcription

1 Daniel Ross

2 Key Metrics in Major Giving Fundraising Why visits this fiscal year to date should NOT be one of them.

3 Key Premise Metrics = Coaching Tips The data helps tell stories Highlight best practices Best used interactively with teams Use to drive coaching conversations NOT Thou Shall or Thou Shall Not

4 Industry Survey Sent to 2,900 Prospect Research and Development Managers 34 Responses (1.2% response rate) 3 In-depth interviews Mostly NOT ADVIZOR Clients!!

5 We Have Observed Industry Practices & Benchmarks are Not Working. Why? Development Officer Activities vs. Prospect Cultivation

6 What are your current gift officer performance goals?

7 What percentage of MGO compensation is tied to metrics?

8 Can you ascribe increased performance to the use of these metrics? Why Not? There is no reward/penalty tied to achievement / failure. They are simple benchmarks for excellence. We have the wrong metrics; they are not focused on cultivating prospects and maximizing revenue. Only 1 in 6! Metrics can be gamed, that is, MGOs become fixated on metrics to the point that they actually lose gifts. There is not any real focus on metrics outside of initial development plans which are created once a year. There really are no follow-on accountability measures in place.

9 Are there metrics that you would like to use that you are currently not using? What is holding you back? Yes, we'd love to look at penetration rate, close rate (# and $), portfolio size, # prospects qualified, # asks at different levels (e.g. $25K-$100K, $100K - $1M, $1M+) % of prospects moved through pipeline (which would be coupled with % of prospects in solicitation that receive an ask) DO leadership intransigence is holding us back.

10 Are there metrics that you would like to use that you are currently not using? What is holding you back? Pool penetration, solicitation yield, solicitation count, major gift qualifications. System limitations and fear of creating something "too complex hold us back.

11 Until cause and effect or some other direct link between metrics and overall fundraising performance are demonstrated, activity metrics are as good as any. They seem to be the industry standard and are generally thought to lead to fundraising success - "you have to be in front of a donor (a personal visit) to get that major gift". The problem is that metrics are often chosen in the vacuum of tradition and altered too often for any kind of behavior change to take place. Development staff in general are not data driven and don't have the aptitude or the motivation to track themselves. Note: Not ADVIZOR clients speaking!

12 Other Thoughts? Metris are only impactful if the organizations culture is willing to support conversations around them. We find it difficult to connect metrics to actual behavior of gift officers. Poor and/or altered definitions for metrics, poor data collection, etc. can make it tough for gift officers to focus on them when their job is to close by any means

13 We Suggest 5 Strategic Metrics 1. Prospect Assignments: Are all of our highest capacity and most engaged prospects staffed? Are pools reasonably sized? 2. Penetration: Is our pool of assigned prospects being connected with? 3. Movement: Are we moving prospects forward at a reasonable pace? 4. Solicitation Levels: Are our asks at the right level based on capacity and attachment? 5. Yield: Are we closing solicitations at an aggressive level?

14 Survey Says! What is a typical pool size for your major gift officers - including qualification stage?

15 Roughly how many years has your major giving program been up and running?

16 How many stages do you manage across your assigned prospect pools?

17 What are your prospect stages named? eg: qualification, early qualification, etc. A variety of names, but the most common are: 1. Qualification or Identification 2. Early Cultivation 3. Mature Cultivation 4. Solicitation 5. Stewardship

18 Do you manage and discuss with your team how long it takes prospects to move from one stage to the next? If so, what is your standard timing? Comments 1. Qualification 1-6 months; Cultivation: months; Solicitation: 6-12 months; Stewardship: Depends on situation/prospect months for Discovery; 9-18 months for Cultivation; 3 months tops for Solicitation; Stewardship is organic and is defined on a donor-by-donor basis. 3. Qualification - six months; Cultivation - 2 years; Solicitation - six months; Stewardship - 2 years 4. Qualification: 6 Months; Cultivation: 1.5 Years;. Ready to be asked: 1 Year; Solicitation: 1 year.

19 Do you compare your solicitation (ask) levels to expected ask amounts calculated from your prospects capacity and attachment? If so, how has this been useful? Comments 1. This is a good idea! Gift officers refer to capacity ratings, but define ask amounts completely on their own 2. Identify sandbagging, realistic asks, asks that were premature, asks that are too small, etc. 3. This is tracked and has been discussed in the past. Not very successful as gift capacities are malleable based on calculation methods or recency of the screening. 4. We should be doing this. It would help to validate the proper ask amounts

20 Do you track and discuss what % of actual asks are getting closed? If so, what do you consider a good yield over a 12 month period? Comments 1. We track this for projection purposes, not performance 2. We don t, but we should 3. Yes, this is tracked. We close somewhere between 1:4 and 1:3. Unfortunately it is not discussed very often. 4. I tracked it for a bit, but leadership didn't seem interested in this metric as of yet. 5. We try for 1/4 to 1/3 of solicitations closing with a gift. 6. We know that we should, but it has not been operationalized at this point.

21 Clearly Solicitation Level and Yield Trade Off With Each Other and Measuring Just One Can Cause Problems

22 The Problem: Most teams focus on development officer activities Across Fiscal Year Periods

23 The Problem: Most teams focus on development officer activities Across Fiscal Year Periods

24 Better if across a certain period. ie: Last 12 months

25 Graphical Display Helps to Draw Out Stories & Best Practices

26 Unique Visits is Better What is up with John Brown?

27 Are We Being Strategic? Development Officer Activities vs Prospect Cultivation

28 Shift The Focus: 5 Key Metrics 1. Prospect Assignments: Are all of our highest capacity and most engaged prospects staffed? Are pools reasonably sized? 2. Penetration: Is our pool of assigned prospects being connected with? 3. Movement: Are we moving prospects forward at a reasonable pace? 4. Solicitation Levels: Are our asks at the right level based on capacity and attachment? 5. Yield: Are we closing solicitations at an aggressive level?

29 Pool Balance What is up with John Brown? Joseph Haber = 98 Assigned Prospects

30 Pool Penetration What is up with John Brown?

31 Pool Penetration Includes actions by Michael + others Ie: VP, Dean, etc. What is up with John Brown? Uncovered Potential

32 Pool Penetration: Click to see Michaels 42 assigned prospects with no connection in the last 12 months What is up with John Brown?

33 List of the 42 Prospects for Discussion and Review What is up with John Brown?

34 All Contacts for Cathyrn Kitchen What is up with John Brown?

35 Giving History for Cathyrn Kitchen What is up with John Brown? Why has she not been contacted?

36 Movement What is up with John Brown?

37 Stuck in Qualification What is up with John Brown?

38 Upper part of Amanda s cultivation Pipeline is weak Stuck in Qualification 80 = Too many in the Qualification stage & 25 are 6 months + What is up with John Brown?

39 Solicitation Levels Are the ask levels reasonable relative to Expected Value? Expected Value ( Capacity * Attachment Gifts in the past ~ 7 years ) Consider 3 Cases: $1mm capacity, highly engaged, no recent large gifts EV = $300K $1ml capacity, highly engaged, $200k gift 3 years ago. EV = $100K $1mm capacity, disconnected, no recent large gifts. EV = $20K

40 Solicitation Levels: John s Portfolio Compare Ask Amounts to Expected Value* Prospect Manager Prospect Name Ask Amt Expected Value Smith, John Major, Jim $1,000,000 $4,620,000 Smith, John Johnson, Sue $100,000 $450,000 Smith, John Monkey, Joe $0 $19,500 Smith, John Kaiser, King $0 $38,000 Smith, John Morgan, Mary $50,000 $19,500 Smith, John Hendrix, Jim $0 $6,500 Smith, John Ceaser, Julius $0 $2,660,000 Smith, John Franklin, Ben $0 $700 Smith, John Adams, John $0 $1,680,000 Smith, John Sartre, John $0 $58,500 $1,150,000 $9,552,700 * Usually drives a pretty good discussion. Is a $1mm ask good or bad?

41 Solicitation Levels: Pool Balance For the pool compare the sum of the Ask Amounts with the sum of the CY Expected Value (EV / 7 years) Prospect Manager Prospect Name Ask Amt Expected Value CY Expctd Val Smith, John Major, Jim $1,000,000 $4,620,000 $660,000 Smith, John Johnson, Sue $100,000 $450,000 $64,286 Smith, John Monkey, Joe $0 $19,500 $2,786 Smith, John Kaiser, King $0 $38,000 $5,429 Smith, John Morgan, Mary $50,000 $19,500 $2,786 Smith, John Hendrix, Jim $0 $6,500 $929 Smith, John Ceaser, Julius $0 $2,660,000 $380,000 Smith, John Franklin, Ben $0 $700 $100 Smith, John Adams, John $0 $1,680,000 $240,000 Smith, John Sartre, John $0 $58,500 $8,357 $1,150,000 $9,552,700 $1,364,671 *Rational The math says that you can raise the CY Expected Value this year. You don t know upfront who will give, and a 33% close rate is good. So, to hit the CY Value with a 33% close rate the ask amount would need to be 3x the CY Expected value. Want to see a 2-3x coverage ratio*. In this example coverage is poor at.8x ($1,150k / $1,365k) Should drive another good discussion!

42 Solicitation Levels Wide range some very strong. But over half the team has ask levels that are generally low relative to current year expected values based on capacity and attachment. 60% of the fundraisers appear to be substantially under asking. We expect to see 2-3x pool coverage, 1.5x minimum.

43 Solicitation Levels vs Movement

44 Solicitation Levels vs Movement

45 Yield Solicitation Yields are very strong. $82M accepted out of $246M asked (1/3 of asked is accepted) 20 to 30% is typical. Most of the asks are low vs. expected value (the red bars on this page) Color = Ask / CY Expected Value

46 Best Practices Michael Ortiz looked terrible on Visits FYTD, but has good asks and strong yields. The others with strong visits don t look so good.

47 Best Practices Primary Staff Name Ask Amount CY Expected Amount Ask / Expected Accepted Amount Yield Overall: $13,054,300 $6,809, $3,240, Ortiz, Michael $3,800,000 $2,377, $1,550, Bastillis, Don $5,084,300 $3,223, $1,126, Carrington, Amanda $3,170,500 $862, $426, Peachtree, Francisca $999,500 $346, $138, Michael + 3 others are doing better than their peers strong asks and OK yields.

48 Showcase the Top 4 Performers Focus on the positives - celebrate the win Have each of the top performers share with their peers how they achieved both strong solicitations AND strong yields Openness and transparency is key Positive success vs. negative failure

49 Strong Performance: Per DO* in a Stable Program active prospects 75 to 120 in-person visits in Last 12 Months 80%+ Penetration (at least 80% of assigned prospects contacted in LTM; 50%+ of prospects visited) Efficient movement through stages (typically < 6 months in qualification, < months cultivation, <12 months solicitation) ~25 active proposals at any one time 2 3x Ask vs. CY Expected Value - Σ Actual Ask Amount / Σ CY Expected Amount* for each Development Officer pool 20-30% of Asks are closed (~8 to10 Solicitations closed in LTM) * After first year ramp up; Higher Ed focus, other sectors will vary ** CY Expected Value is calculated as capacity * attachment / liquidity

50 Using Metrics Stories, Coaching Tips & Best Practices Use metrics to uncover Stories and find Best Practices and Coaching Tips Which are shared and discussed openly with the team. Reviews Set Development Officer Operating Plans annually Plans focus on pool strategies and strategic metrics (see next page) Group discussion of best practices; team works to improve subpar performance Reviewed formally with DO s at least 4x 6x / year Data If it s not in the system it didn t happen Never perfect; use what you have Continual improvement

51 Results After First Year Data in System Abundant Optimism Cultural Shift 1/3 Got it 1/3 Not sure 1/3 Confused Changes in Behavior Baseline Established

52 Results After First Year More Visits 32% Increase More Individuals Visited 28% Increase More Proposals Presented - 154% Increase Higher Value of Proposals Record # of 7-figure gifts + overall higher level of performance Revenue increased by 30%

53 Summary: 5 Key Metrics 1. Prospect Assignments: Are all of our highest capacity and most engaged prospects staffed? Are pools reasonably sized? 2. Penetration: Is our pool of assigned prospects being connected with? 3. Movement: Are we moving prospects forward at a reasonable pace? 4. Solicitation Levels: Are our asks at the right level based on capacity and attachment? 5. Yield: Are we closing solicitations at an aggressive level?

54 Daniel Ross