Transcript New Models of Fundraiser Accountability and Prospect Pools

New Models of Fundraiser
Accountability and Prospect
Pools
Dave Scott, Development Services Manager
Glasgow Caledonian University
Glasgow Caledonian University Prospect Pool Review
Meeting
What’s your pool like?
Big and rich?
What’s your pool like?
Small but rich?
What’s your pool like?
Small and rubbish?
Or just underdeveloped?
4 years ago…
• A handful of donors with a handful of dollars
• 4 fundraisers in need of prospects
• Someone new to prospect research as the sole resource
• A database with little or no details with lots of missing
information
• No fundraising projects or ‘case for support’
• Main aim = as many high wealth donors in front of fundraisers
as possible
• As a result = bag and tag as many suspects/prospects as
possible
As a result…
• Good working and intelligent prospect pipeline tool
• A number of high level donors met giving within a short period
of time
However…
• Focus on new donors with not enough focus on progressing
new prospects
• Pipeline blocked resulting in issues with fundraisers moving
prospects along
Models of prospect pools
How many prospects do your (full-time) fundraisers have
allocated to them on average?
100?
150?
200?
250+?
Models of prospect pools
What are the benefits of a large pool versus a smaller pool?
• More prospects to see
• Better chance of hitting targets by seeing more people
• Higher targets from estimated wealth of pool
Models of prospect pools
What are the negatives of having a large pool versus a smaller
pool?
• Ability to prioritise prospects
• Focus on higher wealth individuals
• Ability to meet as many prospects as possible - only 250
working days in a year so time is tight
• Ability to build a meaningful relationship with a prospect
• Hoarding of prospects by fundraisers or a reluctance to let go
Example: Pool Size –v– Contact
Pool
No
Size
Contact in
the last year
Last contact
1-2 years
Last
contact >2
years
No personal
contact
1
112
88%
8%
3%
<1%
2
349
65%
17%
8%
10%
3
127
98%
2%
-
-
4
140
67%
25%
5%
3%
5
91
85%
12%
-
3%
n.b. personal contact judged as face-to-face, telephone call,
email (Source: University Of Strathclyde)
North American models
DePaul University – Chicago (2010)
University of Chicago (2010)
Northwestern University – Chicago (2010)
Loyola University – Chicago (2010)
Illinois Institute of Technology – Chicago (2010)
University of Texas, Austin (2011)
Majority had the pressure of researchers populating pools of
150 – 300+ active prospects
Apart from DePaul University
DePaul University - Chicago
• 6 years into their first ever campaign, target of $250M over 8
years
• After two years decision made to reassess how their fundraisers
worked and the best way of utilizing their prospect pools
• Poll of other universities showed pools ranging from 150 to 300+
• Decision taken to review Major Gift productivity
DePaul University - Chicago
• All 40 fundraisers now have a pool of 75 split into Top 50 and
Hot 25
• An ask to be made of their Hot 25 within that financial year
• Top 50 filtered to identify the prospects to take up the spots in
the Hot 25 the following year
• Monthly targets now based on a monetary basis rather than on
number of meetings alone
DePaul University - Chicago
• Targets set for each fundraiser across the year with quarterly
breakdowns based on productivity:

Contacts

Face to face

Solicitations

Proposals

Major Gifts

Additional fundraising support
DePaul University – Chicago
As a result:
• Each fundraiser a ‘project manager’
• Freedom for researchers
• Full accountability
• Increased productivity and development
• Greater levels of co-operation amongst fundraisers
• Identifies goals and sets a structure to help measure success
for all fundraisers
• $250M raised after 6 years, 2 years ahead of target
DePaul University - Chicago
Fundraiser
Level
Contacts
Goal/Count
Face2Face
Goal/Count
Proposals
Goal/Count
Major Gifts
Goal/Count
Gift Amounts
Goal/Count
Leadership
1) 20 / 44
2) 20 / 51
3) 20 / 88
4) 20 / 24
80 / 207
1) 12 / 9
2) 11 / 8
3) 11 / 14
4) 11 / 15
45 / 46
1) 3 / 11
2) 3 / 1
3) 3 / 1
4) 3 / 4
12 / 17
1) 2 / 2
2) 1 / 1
3) 2 / 0
4) 1 / 1
6/4
1) $1,000,000 / $2,050,000
2) $1,000,000 / $800,000
3) $1,000,000 / $0
4) $1,000,000 / $1,000,000
$4,000,000 / $3,850,000
Senior
Fundraiser
1) 45 / 111
2) 45 / 49
3) 45 / 289
4) 45 / 51
180/500
1) 25 / 12
2) 25 / 13
3) 25 / 19
4) 25 / 29
100 / 73
1) 5 / 3
2) 5 / 2
3) 5 / 3
4) 5 / 4
20 / 12
1) 2 / 1
2) 2 / 2
3) 2 / 0
4) 2 / 0
8/3
1) $500,000 / $100,000
2) $500,000 / $400,000
3) $500,000 / $0
4) $500,000 / $0
$2,000,000 / $500,000
Fundraiser
1) 60 / 118
2) 60 / 98
3) 60 / 144
4) 60 / 86
240 / 446
1) 35 / 15
2) 35 / 25
3) 35 / 22
4) 35 / 20
140 / 82
1) 5 / 14
2) 5 / 4
3) 5 / 5
4) 5 / 7
20 / 30
1) 2 / 4
2) 2 / 2
3) 2 / 3
4) 2 / 2
8 / 11
1) $125,000 / $335,000
2) $125,000 / $61,000
3) $125,000 / $115,000
4) $125,000 / $121,000
$500,000 / $632,000
New
Fundraiser
1) 60 / 70
2) 60 / 97
3) 60 / 105
4) 60 / 245
240 / 517
1) 35 / 11
2) 35 / 14
3) 35 / 18
4) 35 / 24
140 / 67
1) 5 / 1
2) 5 / 1
3) 5 / 4
4) 5 / 6
20 / 12
1) 2 / 0
2) 2 / 0
3) 2 / 0
4) 2 / 0
8/0
1) $75,000 / $0
2) $75,000 / $0
3) $75,000 / $0
4) $75,000 / $0
$250,000 / $0
Fundraiser accountability and effectiveness
How are your fundraisers measured in terms of their success and
effectiveness?
• Cold hard cash?
• Number of asks?
• Number of proposals?
• Number of meetings?
• Number of contacts with prospects?
• Number of progressions through the cultivation cycle?
The challenge...
Breakout group discussion
Future prospect review meetings?