MEASURING ENGAGEMENT

Presented by: Reggie BustinzaDirector of Alumni Relations

Lewis University

Metrics system by Reggie Bustinza and Joe Volin

Romeoville, IL Private Catholic institution 6,700 students (4,700 undergrad, 2,000

grad) 40,000 alumni – primarily in Chicago area Alumni Relations staff of 3 Database: Raiser’s Edge (“R/E”)

About Lewis

Why try to measure engagement? The Lewis System

◦ Process The Value in Metrics Results

Overview

Metrics can guide decision making◦ Spot trends◦ Identify opportunities◦ Abandon dead ends◦ Quantify program success

More efficiency & efficacy Justify our existence

Why Measure Engagement?

Established in 2012 Created in-house Created by Alumni Staff (Joe Volin and

Reggie Bustinza)

The Lewis System

Requirements◦ Work with existing data◦ Comprehensive◦ Searchable (integer data)◦ Valid as aggregate and/or individual data◦ Easy to understand

Not required, but nice to have…◦ Inexpensive to implement◦ Ability to run ourselves, as frequently as we want OR

dynamic◦ Option to exclude data to look for correlations◦ Simplicity

The Lewis System

Process1. Make sure database can handle it2. Identify what relevant data we track – “What

information do we have that shows some kind of engagement?”

3. Assign relative values4. Test5. Repeat until values are no longer questioned

The Lewis System

Creation Process Step 1: Can Database Handle It? Step 2: What do we Track?

Is it indicative of engagement? Is the data consistent and accurate? Will we keep tracking it?

Step 2: What do we Track?

• Event Attendance• Giving – how much

and how often• Valid email• Open emails• Social media• Valid address

• Valid business info• Board member• Award winner• Legacy parent• Campus visits• Interested volunteer• Active volunteer

Can we categorize?

Step 2: What do we Track?

EventsEvent Attendance

GivingGiving – how much and how often

CommunicationsValid emailOpen emailsSocial mediaValid addressValid business info

VolunteerismActive volunteerBoard memberInterested volunteer

OtherAward winnerLegacy parentCampus visitsEmployeeAffinity Partners

Challenges◦ Not all board members are equally engaged.◦ How stratified should we make giving levels?◦ Free events vs. Paid events◦ How long is an activity valuable?

Step 3: Assign Relative Values

6 scores are actually produced◦ 1 for each category◦ Overall Engagement Score (sum of each category)

Step 3: Assign Relative Values

Share values with colleagues for feedback Run the numbers, see what results are Spot check results Pull top 10, top 20, top 50, top 100 alumni

◦ Does it add up?◦ If not, why?

Step 4: Test

Tweak values, repeat test

Step 5: Repeat!

Run Quarterly (past 12 months) Exported each category to Excel where

values are assigned and coded SPSS is used to merge data Import integers back into Raiser’s Edge

Final Process

Lewis System: Strengths & WeaknessesStrengths Weaknesses Can run in house Values recent activity

over old activity Results are easy to

understand

Some data can be suspect (eg: acquired mailing lists)

Have to export, use two programs, then import for scores

As data points are added, historical scores are distorted

Metrics are half of the battle. The real question is: How will you use this tool?

◦ Whittle mailing lists We have re-allocated more than $15,000 in printing costs in the 3 years since we have

had metrics.

◦ Identify prospects that were under-the-radar Identified 550 top engaged alumni with high wealth scores that had not been

previously assigned through traditional prospect research Resulting in 170 portfolio assignments; and 45 initial visits during Fiscal Year 2015

◦ More efficient Annual Fund calling lists 118 new donors in the categories that utilized engagement metrics for further

segmentation (FY14 vs FY15)

◦ Identify potential affinity groups

◦ Evaluate programming

So What?

Advancement programming can create higher levels of engagement.

Higher levels of engagement lead to higher giving participation.

Results: Assumptions

Category Giving

Events

Comm.

Vol. Other TOTAL

All Alumni 1.36 0.19 9.52 0.06 0.22 11.08Young Alumni 0.99 0.24 10.56 0.07 0.09 11.95Athletes 3.68 .64 10.24 .10 .35 14.4Volunteers 9.42 4.83 16.31 4.82 1.15 36.54Aviation 0.84 0.1 8.72 0.07 0.19 9.92Law & Justice .90 .12 8.82 .04 .25 10.13

Results

Top X % Point Cutoff1% 48

5% 26

10% 19

25% 13

50% 8

75% 6

Results – With Giving

Top X % Point Cutoff1% 26

5% 19

10% 17

25% 11

50% 8

75% 6

Results – Giving Independent

Top X % Point Cutoff

Giving Participati

on

Giving Participati

on1% 48+ 402 / 402 100%

5% 26-47 1530 / 1621 94.4%

10% 19-25 1218 / 2540 48.0%

25% 13-18 735 / 5242 14.0%

50% 8-12 395 / 17701 2.2%

75% 6-7 17 / 6334 0.3%

100% 0-5 3 / 4736 0.06%

Results – With Giving

Top X % Point Cutoff

Giving Participati

on

Giving Participati

on1% 26 301 / 353 85.27%

5% 19-25 508 / 1113 45.64%

10% 17-18 652 / 2703 24.12%

25% 11-16 964 / 5944 16.22%

50% 8-10 623 / 6116 10.19%

75% 6-7 474 / 8202 5.78%

100% 0-5 284 / 11245 2.53%

Results – Giving Independent

2013 2015 Change

Engagement 9.81 11.08 +1.27

Giving-Independen

t Engagemen

t

8.425 9.72 +1.295

Giving Participatio

n6.7% 7.0% +0.3%

Results: Alumni Population

Total Population: 35536

2013 2015 Change

Engagement 8.92 10.13 +1.21

Giving-Independen

t Engagemen

t

8.05 9.23 +1.18

Giving Participatio

n4.1% 4.7% +0.6%

General Population 6.7% 7.0% +0.3%

Results: Law and Justice

Total Population: 3965

2013 2015 Change

Engagement 12.83 14.56 +1.73

Giving-Independen

t Engagemen

t

10.04 11.33 +1.29

Giving Participatio

n14.4% 16.4% +2.0%

General Population 6.7% 7.0% +0.3%

Results: Athletics Alumni

Total Population: 2809

2013 2015 Change

Engagement 8.56 9.92 +1.36

Giving-Independen

t Engagemen

t

7.72 9.08 +1.36

Giving Participatio

n3.9% 4.3% +0.4%

General Population 6.7% 7.0% +0.3%

Results: Aviation Alumni

Total Population: 3909

2013 2015 Change

Engagement 29.1 36.54 +7.44

Giving-Independen

t Engagemen

t

21.33 27.11 +5.78

Giving Participatio

n36.7% 44.0% +7.3%

General Population 6.7% 7.0% +0.3%

Results: Volunteers

Total Population: 400

There IS a correlation between Engagement and Giving

Its too early to tell if a general engagement push can lead to increased giving

Volunteerism is the individual engagement component that can lead most directly to increased giving

The surest way to get more gifts is to ask for them… but metrics can show you who to ask

TBD: Strength of correlations within engagement (volunteerism vs. communications vs. events)

TBD: Different engagement techniques within variable groups

Conclusions & Questions

Questions

More Information…Contact:

Reggie BustinzaDirector of Alumni Relations(815) 588-7542bustinre@lewisu.edu

Joe VolinAssistant Director of Alumni Relations(815) 836-5472volinjo@lewisu.edu