JU LY 2 6 , 201 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 doneWhat gets measured and fed back gets

done wellWhat gets rewarded gets repeated

Why Measure?Transparency inside the institutionROI (within Advancement team but also

with budget)Best practicesHelps to define success for fundraisersClarifies 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 MeasureThe Primary Goal: Raise more gifts nowWe 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 MeasureA 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 MeasureCollaborationEncourage 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 UniversityNorthwestern 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.

DIRECTORASST.

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

Major Gift Dollars Raised (pledges/gifts of $25K+) $ 4 million+ $ 2 million+ $

750,000+ $ 500,000+ $ 250,000+

Major Gift Metrics & Accountability

FY1989

FY1990

FY1991

FY1992

FY1993

FY1994

FY1995

FY1996

FY1997

FY1998

FY1999

FY2000

FY2001

FY2002

FY2003

FY2004

FY2005

FY2006

FY2007

FY2008

FY2009

FY2010

FY2011

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

4248

59 5665

73

4456 53 50 48

40 36

49

89

67

8290

150139

118

162

184

DePaul University Major Gift Summary: FY1989 - FY2011 Number of Gifts and Pledges of $25K+

July 2006: Full Implementation of new goals & accountabilities system

Major Gift Metrics & Accountability

FY1989

FY1990

FY1991

FY1992

FY1993

FY1994

FY1995

FY1996

FY1997

FY1998

FY1999

FY2000

FY2001

FY2002

FY2003

FY2004

FY2005

FY2006

FY2007

FY2008

FY2009

FY2010

FY2011

$-

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

$35,000,000

$40,000,000

$45,000,000

$50,000,000

DePaul University Major Gift Summary: FY1989 - FY2011 Gift/Pledge Dollars of $25K+

July 2006: Full Implementation of new goals & accountabilities system

Case Study: NorthwesternCurrent 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

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

Case Study: Northwestern

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20150

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

251296

250 247 241

309

375400 400

Number of Major Commitments of $100K+

Historical Giving Data

Projections

Cumulative Major Gift Totals Per Month

September October November December January February March April May June July August0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

309

276

AVG: FY06-FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 (as of 6-27-13)

Cumulative Major Gift $ Totals by Month

September

October

November

December

January

February

March AprilMay

JuneJuly

August $-

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

$300,000,000

$350,000,000

$400,000,000

AVG: FY06-FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 (as of 6-27-13)

The NU Accountabilities Grid

Position AVPExecutive Director of

Development

Regional Director of Major Gifts / Senior Director of Development

Director of Development /

Director of Major Gifts

Senior Associate Director of

Development

Associate Director of

Development

Assistant Director of

Development

Management Responsibilities 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

Dollars Raised (Commitments of $100K+)

$7M $5M $3.5M $4M $2.5M $3M $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

The ScorecardTENTATIVE

FY13 Score Card

Number of Major

Commitments

Number of Solicitations

Dollars Raised

Number of Qualifications Visits TOTALS

200% or more of Goal 39 38 30 15 12 133175-199% of Goal 36 35 26 14 11 122150-174% of Goal 33 32 24 13 10 112125-149% of Goal 30 29 22 12 9 102101-124% of Goal 27 26 20 11 8 92

100% (Achieve Goal) 25 24 18 10 7 8475-99% of Goal 23 22 16 9 6 7650-74% of Goal 20 19 14 8 5 6625-49% of Goal 17 16 12 7 4 561-24% of Goal 14 13 10 6 3 46

0% (No Activity) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Secondary Solicitations(Proposal Assists) TOTALS

>10 asks 108-9 asks 76-7 asks 53-5 asks 31-2 asks 2

No Activity 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 time-

management 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 semi-annually/annually

Build consensus from peers and leadership regarding establishment of formal program

Questions?Discussion

Thank You!

Contact Us:m-termolen@northwestern.edudavid.lively@northwestern.edu