Transcript Advancement PowerPoint
Pathway II: Financial Sustainability
Overview of Advancement at the University of Maine
Pathway Members: Eric Rolfson Jeff Mills Pat Cummings December 11, 2012
Today’s Presentation
• Fundraising Partner Missions & Roles • Campaign Maine at a Glance • Preparing for the Next Campaign
– Establishing Philanthropic Opportunity – Benchmarking Investments in Development – Investment and Resource Allocation Opportunities – Funding Models for Development Operations
• FY’ 12 Objectives in Review • FY’ 13 Advancement Goals
Advancement Partner Roles —A Continuum Younger…
(smaller gifts)...........(larger gifts)…….
Older
Alumni Association • Build Class Identity • Build Interest Groups • Interest, Inform, Involve • • Prepare for Philanthropy • Network / Career Resource • Advocacy Transition Students to Alumni • • • • • Annual Giving Major & Principal Gifts Face-to-Face Relationships Moves Management Securing Investments Foundation • • • • Planned/Deferred Giving Stewardship Real Estate Manage Endowment • • • Stewardship Overlap Reunion Giving Prospect / Donor Engagement • • • • • • Overlap Gift Planning Prospect / Donor Engagement Endowed Gifts Pre-Funding Bequests Stewardship Triple Crown
Campaign Maine
Campaign Maine at a Glance
• Comprehensive Campaign: 2006 – 2011 • $150 million goal: $157.2 million raised • 23,000 donors from all 50 states and 26 countries • 18% participation among addressable alumni • 39% of donors made first gift during Campaign Maine accounting for 21% of the money raised • Alumni donations accounted for 45% of campaign; Friends 24%; Corporations 16%; Foundations 15% • 17 donors gave $1 million or more; 32 gave $500,000+ • Approx. 94% of the total came from 6% of the donors • Average annual increase of 68% over previous six-year period
Campaign Goals
Goal: $150M Raised*: $157.8M
$60 $50 $50 $47,8 $50 $40 $30 $38,9 $40 $35,3 $25.9
$20 $10 $5 $9,9 $5 $0 Student Support Faculty Support Capital Projects Endowed Excellence Funds Current Operations * Includes gifts, pledges, matching gifts, planned gifts, and bequest expectancies using campaign counting rules.
* Includes $10M + in countable ORSP grants 6
New Gifts and Commitments
Revocable $7.3M
Irrevocable $7.0M
Pledges Outstanding $12.0M
4.4% 4.6% 7.6% Outside Advance $19.8M
12.5% 70.9% Gifts and Pledge Payments $111.9M
7
Campaign Goals
Student Support by Use - $47.8M
$10,9 Current Operations $9,9 $25,9 $35,3 $47,8 $38,9 $36,9 Endowment 8
Campaign Goals
Current Operations $29,6 $9,9 $25,9 $35,3 Faculty Support by Use - $38.9M
$47,8 $38,9 Colleges $2.3M
0,3 5,0 8,6 4,2 0,5 Honors Education & Human Development Natural Sciences, Forestry & Agriculture Engineering Liberal Arts & Sciences Business, Public Policy & Health 18,0 Interdisciplinary / Research Institutes Endowment $9,3 9
Campaign Goals
Capital Projects - $35.3M
Property & Gifts in Kind Fieldhouse / Memorial Gym Collins Center for the Arts Hutchinson Ctr.
Alfond Arena Bryant Pond Open Pledges for Pre-Campaign Projects Other Athletics - $1.0M
Mahaney Dome - $0.9M
Other Miscellaneous - $0.5M
$8.6M
$6.6M
$4.9M
$4.8M
$3.9M
$2.3M
$1.8M
$10,2 $25,9 $35,3 $38,9 $47,5 10
Campaign Goals
Endowed Excellence Funds- $9.9M
Public Service & Extension $4.0M
Other $2.7M
Physical Plant $2.4M
Library Athletics $0.5M
$0.2M
$25,9 $9,9 $35,3 $38,9 $47,8 11
Campaign Goals
Current Operations - $25.9M
Unrestricted $9.6M Restricted $6.5M Athletics Public Service & Extension Physical Plant Library $5.2M $3.3M $1.0M $0.3M $9,9 $25,9 $35,3 $38,9 $47,8 12
In-State vs. Out-of-State Donors
United States Outside US
Top 10 States (giving during campaign)
Maine Massachusetts New York Florida Georgia Hawaii California New Hampshire Rhode Island New Jersey 99.13% .87%
(New England 75.15%, Maine 58.49%)
58.49% 11.90% 3.82% 3.78% 3.03% 2.55% 2.12% 2.00% 1.61% 1.14% Number of Addressable Alumni 44,263 6,534 2,207 2,741 579 91 1,698 3,332 506 1,079 Based on donor households 13
New Donors vs. Established Donors
21% 39% 79% 61% % of Donors % of Money Raised New Donors Established Donors 14
Scale of Gifts
Gift Level Number of Donors % of Donors Cum. % of Donors
$5 million + $2.5 million + $1 million + $500k + $250k + $100k + 11 31 40 107 3 5 .01% .02% .05% .1% .2% .5% .01% .04% .08% .2% 11%
1%
$50k + $25k + $10k+ 133 216 434 .6% 1% 2% 2% 2% 4% $5k+ $2.5k + $1k + 499 611 1,474 2% 3% 7%
7%
9% 16% < $1,000 19,113 84% From Partners Not on Advance (# of Donors and Individual Gifts Not Available) 100%
Amount Contributed (rounded)
$ 24 M 19 M 15 M 20 M 14 M 16 M 9 M 7 M 7 M 3 M 2 M 2 M $ 3 M $ 18 M
% of Campaign
15% 12% 9% 12% 9% 10% 6% 5% 4% 2% 1% 1% 2% 12%
Cum. % of Campaign
15% 27% 36% 48% 57%
67%
73% 77% 82%
84%
85% 86% 88% 100% 15
New Gifts and Commitments
20 15 10 5 0 40 35 30 25 $19,0 FY06 $37,5
Campaign by Year
FY07 $22,0 FY08 $18,3 FY09 $14,6 FY10 $26,0 FY11 16
Campaign Impact on Fundraising
$25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 $14.6
6 Years Prior $23 Campaign 17
Assessing Philanthropic Potential
Confidential Screening Process
University of Maine Estimated Giving Capacity
(Over five years, to combined charities, if motivated) 29 246 Note: All alumni, but only “friends” that are current contributors, are included in the top two categories.
Raw Philanthropic
Potential By College
College
CLAS Engineering NSFA Education Business
# Rated Alumni
4,185 > $100k
Potential
$710 million 2,317 > $100k 2,272 > $100k 1,696 > $100k 1,383 > $100k $410 million $360 million $290 million $230 million
Total Potential $2 Billion
21
Donors of Gifts over $25,000
Current Major Gift Prospect Pool
22
P2G 1 & EGC>=$100,000
Prospective Major Gift Prospect Pool
23
Peer and Aspirant Development Operations
Benchmarks on Staffing and Budget
Comparison Institutions Kent State University Long Island University Pace University Rochester Institute of Technology Wichita State University
Dollars Raised: $12M to $30M annually Alumni of Record: 70,000 to 180,000
Aspirant Institutions Drexel University Mississippi State University Foundation San Diego State University
Dollars Raised: $40M to $50M annually Alumni of Record: 70,000 to 180,000 25
Comparison Group Fundraising Results Benchmark
Comparison institutions raise an average of approximately $20M and aspirant institutions raise over $45M – creating a good results-based comparison group for the University of Maine’s investment planning Total Dollars Raised from Fundraising Activities Aspirant Institutions
Average: $45.5M
$50,000,000 $45,000,000 $40,000,000 $35,000,000 $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0
Comparison Institutions
Average: $19.5M
$20,095,481 A B C UMaine D E F G H 26 Source: Council for Aid to Education, VSE FY2007 data, and submitted data from select institutions (2008 and 2009 data).
Benchmarking Overall Investments
University of Maine’s Office of University Development’s budget and staff size are significantly lower than aspirant institutions*
Table 1. Overall Investments
Total Development FTE Total Frontline FTE Percentage Frontline FTEs Total Development Budget
University of Maine & UM Foundation Comparison Group Median Comparison Group Average
33 30 31 10 10 13 33% $3,668,496 33% $3,354,157 42% $3,686,256
Aspirant Group Average
62 21 34% $5,441,374
Additional investments in the University of Maine’s fundraising program include $300,000 from the President’s Office for annual giving operations and staff investments in planned giving and annual giving from independent partner organizations of the University.
27
Benchmarking Opportunity
Despite a smaller alumni base, University of Maine’s focus on prospect identification and qualification – as well as opportunities to increase leadership annual giving – can build out a pipeline of future donors Total Dollars Raised Percent of Total Dollars from Individuals
Table 2. Scale of Operations University of Maine Comparison Group Median
$20,095,481 $19,054,783
Comparison Group Average
$19,532,719 61% 61% 61%
Aspirant Group Average
$45,478,859 39% Percent of Total Dollars from Corporations & Foundations Total Number of Donors Total Number of Alumni of Record Total Number of Rated Prospects over $25K Rated Prospects as Percentage of Alumni of Record 35% 9,045 81,497 2,000 2% 35% 11,433 94,057 2,523 3% 33% 14,176 117,739 6,488 6% 55% 31,527 129,174 5,938 5%
Across all institutions in Eduventures data set, the number of rated prospects is comparable to a median of 7% of alumni of record. The University of Maine’s currently identified 2,000 prospects represent 2% of alumni of record. The capacity screening being conducted in 2010 will identify new individuals who will need qualification
28
and cultivation to build a larger pool of potential major gift donors.
Benchmarking Productivity
University of Maine has strong productivity per frontline officer, despite a smaller development budget investment per alumnus
Table 3. Overall Productivity
Average Dollars Raised per Frontline Officer FTE
University of Maine Comparison Group Median Comparison Group Average
$2,009,548* $1,797,486 $1,663,798
Aspirant Group Average
$2,388,622 Average Dollars Raised per Total Development FTE $968,457** $704,917 $660,617 $789,651 Average Dollars Raised per Development Budget Dollar $8** $5 $6 $8 Development Budget per Alumnus $30** $32 $34 $48 *Frontline Officer FTE includes 3 planned giving officers employed and funded by the University of Maine Foundation ** Represents Office of University Development only FTE and Budget. Figures would be reduced when including partner organization staff and budgets.
The University of Maine’s organizational structure for fundraising makes it difficult to calculate comprehensive return on investment in fundraising activities. Dollars raised per frontline officer is an all-inclusive metric by which to compare performance with peers.
29 Source: Council for Aid to Education, VSE FY2007 data, and submitted data from select institutions (2008 and 2009 data).
Benchmarking Fundraising Investments
University of Maine may need to invest in nearly all fundraising areas to achieve the fundraising performance of aspirant institutions
Table 4. Fundraising Area Investments Annual Giving Total FTE
Annual Giving Frontline
Major Gifts Total FTE
Major Gifts Frontline
Principal Gifts Total FTE
Principal Gifts Frontline
Corporate and Foundation Relations Total FTE
CFR Frontline
Planned Giving Total FTE
Planned Giving Frontline
Unit-Funded Frontline FTE University of Maine 2.0*
0.0
8.8
5.8
n/a
n/a
0.3
0.3
3,5**
3.0**
1.0
Comparison Group Median 2.0
1.0
9.9
6.6
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.3
3.0
1.6
0.0
Comparison Group Average 4.0
2.4
12.3
8.6
0.5
0.5
0.9
0.5
2.4
1.8
0.8
Aspirant Group Average 6.0
4.0
16.7
13.0
0.7
0.3
1.3
0.7
2.0
1.3
1.0
* Includes 0.75 FTE in Office of University Development, 1.0 FTE in Alumni Association and 0.25 FTE in Athletics **Employees of the University of Maine Foundation
University of Maine employs more planned giving frontline officers than other institutions. Do University Development gift officers have the tools and support to engage with prospective donors around planned giving opportunities in order to maximize a potential gift?
30
Benchmarking Support Staff Investments
University of Maine employs considerably fewer support staff than peers but maintains industry norm ratios of services staff to frontline officers
Table 5. Services Area FTE Investments
Total Service Area FTE Ratio of Non-Frontline FTEs per Frontline Officer Total Frontline Services FTE
Communications and Events Research and Stewardship/Donor Relations
Total Data Management/IT FTE
University of Maine Comparison Group Median Comparison Group Average
11 16 15 2.07
2.07
1.88
4 1 3 2 6 2 4 2 6 2 5 3 Total Advancement Administration FTE 5 6 6
Aspirant Group Average
37 1.98
16 9 8 10 11
In what ways do Office of University Development services areas provide support to fundraising partners in the
31
Foundation or Alumni Association?
Opportunities to Increase Fundraising Results
The University of Maine is productive with current resources, and should focus on raising donors’ sights to achieve desired growth
Factors Impacting Productivity
Tenure $3 000 000
Grand Total Dollars Raised per Frontline FTE
Job design $2 500 000 $2 388 622 $2 009 548 Administrative and services support $2 000 000 $1 500 000 $1 663 798 Prospect readiness/ portfolio maturity $1 000 000 $500 000 $ University of Maine Comparison Group Aspirant Group
Major Gifts Principal Gifts
32
Gift Thresholds
Benchmark Institutions Most often $50,000 Most often $1,000,000
When considering raising gift thresholds:
• Review the expectations, returns, or impact of
gifts at the current levels
• Determine the cost/benefit for staff hours (i.e.,
number of individuals or FTE needed to identify, cultivate, close, process, and steward gifts at these levels)
Factors Impacting Success
Factors that determine fundraising success help inform attention & investment
Institutional Factors
Institutional priorities Development priorities
CULTURE OF PHILANTHROPY
Unit priorities Academic leader involvement in fundraising
Unit-Level Factors
Campaign cycle
Fundraising Success
Faculty priorities Program maturity Activity reporting
PROSPECT READINESS
% of time fundraising Portfolio size and maturity Tenure in role Preferred job aspects Fundraising background
Individual Factors
33
Reinventing to Continue Growth To address institutional challenges to growth in giving, ask: is this . . .
•
A leadership issue?
•
A strategy issue?
•
A marketing or messaging issue?
•
A prospect maturity issue?
•
A data issue issue?
•
A process issue?
•
A staffing or training issue?
•
An organizational structure issue?
34
Funding UM Advancement
How Public Institutions Fund Development
• 92% of public institutions use at least one gift source in funding development operations – At these institutions, gift/endowment fees have been in effect for an average of almost 19 years, and now contribute between 18% and 80% of development budgets • The two most commonly used gift sources, each used by 85% of public institutions, are: – Income earned on an ongoing basis on unexpended fund balances – Endowment-management or cost-recovery fee charged on current market value of endowed funds 36
Private and public institutions reported very different funding models.
Source: Eduventures, Inc. Funding Mechanisms for Development Operations: FY2009 Update, April 2009
Executive Summary: Public Institutions
Public institutions commonly use gift sources, generating flexibility and greater autonomy in funding development operations
92% 94% 43% of public institutions use at least one gift source in funding development operations *
At these institutions, gift and/or endowment fees have been in effect for an average of 19 years and now contribute between 18% and 80% of development budgets.
of foundations use a management fee on endowed funds to help fund operations, which contributes to 40% of their operation budget ** of foundations use a gift fee (one time fee) to help fund operations, which contributes to 5% of their operation budget**
* Source: Eduventures, Inc. Funding Mechanisms for Development Operations: FY2009 Update, April 2009 ** Source: CASE, Emerging from the Recession, Results of the 2010 Institutionally Related Foundation Fund Survey, for Doctoral affiliated institutions.
Private and public institutions reported very different funding models.
Source: Eduventures, Inc. Funding Mechanisms for Development Operations: FY2009 Update, April 2009 37
Proposed Two-Part Gift Reinvestment Fee
To permit UM and USM to charge a one-time gift reinvestment fee of up to five percent on all private outright gifts (not endowed gifts) to fund expansion of Advancement staff and programs. • To permit UM and USM to assess an annual management fee equal to 1.25 percent of the market value of its endowments held by the University of Maine System in addition to the annually determined pay-over which is 4.75 percent for FY12.
Revenue & ROI Resulting From P roposed Fee’s
Potential Fee Revenue
Gift Purpose Gift Fee Current
Current Operations 0%
Gift Fee Proposed Endowment Fee Current Endowment Fee Proposed
3% n/a n/a Endowment 0% 0% 0.25% 1.25% Capital 0% 3% n/a n/a Estimated Annual Fee Revenue $0
$255,000 $158,000 $712,000
• • Based on cash gifts to UMaine in FY12 and on endowment value of $63,262,000 on 6/30/2012 for UMaine funds held by the System.
Assumes 10% discount factors on both fees to account for gifts excluded from the fees.
Return on Investment for Frontline Fundraisers
All records with Major Gift Modeling Scores 800+ Predicted Potential Currently Assigned Not Assigned Number of Expected Gifts Estimated Dollars Raised
$10M + $5.0M
–$9.9M
$1.0M
–$4.9M
$500K –$999K $100K –$499K 3 12 267 225 1,321 6 11 131 340 7,173
5 MGOs 10 MGOs
0 1 0 1 14 38 12 14 38 74
5 MGOs
$0 $5 M $14 M
10 MGOs
$0 $5 M $14 M $19 M $1.2 M
$39.2M
$19 M $7.4 M $45.4M
FY ‘12 & FY ‘13 Advancement Goals
FY ’12 Advancement Focus
o Helping coordinate President’s
Listening and Engagement
tour o Establishing Presidential relationships o Building the Board of Visitors o Building internal collaboration among fundraising partners o Enhancing cultivation and stewardship o Restructuring to increase revenues and decrease expenditures
FY ’13 Advancement Focus
• Develop guidelines, opportunities and protocols for working together as independent partners in order to maximize resources, efficiencies and return on investment (ROI) • Organize to be pro-active rather than reactive regarding constituent ideas and demands • Develop, where appropriate, fundraising and communications strategies in alignment with the Blue Sky, including a parents program
FY ‘13 Advancement Goals Cont’.
• Partner with campus leadership to identify and develop engagement strategies for principal ($1 million +) and transformational ($10 million +) donors and prospects • Enhance culture of philanthropy internally and externally • Define policies in preparation for next campaign • Present a more united image to internal and external constituents • Lay groundwork for longer-term aspirational collaborations