04/10/2023 Footer 1

HIGHER EDUCATION FORUMBoston, MA

March 9, 2011

04/10/2023 Footer 2

TODAY ’S T HE M E : INNOVAT ION

04/10/2023 Footer 3

10:00 – 10:20 Intros

10:20 – 11:00 Peer to Peer Fundraising

11:00 – 11:30 New England Conservancy – Appeal Innovation

11:30 – 12:15 Higher Ed DonorCentrics

12:15 – 12:45 Lunch

12:45 – 1:30 Simmons College – Online Giving Success

AGENDA

04/10/2023 Footer 4

1. Active participation

GROUND RULES

04/10/2023 Footer 5

1. Name/Org/Role

2. Your experience with peer to peer and/or parent fundraising programs

INTRODUCTION

04/10/2023 Footer 6

Median Higher Ed Donor Participation Rates

14.6%

201

0

NEED A REASON TO INNOVATE?

04/10/2023 Footer 7

PEER TO PEER FUNDRAISING

NETWORK VS. NET WORTHINNOVATIVE FUNDRAISING WITH BLACKBAUD FRIENDS ASKING FRIENDS

Amy Braiterman

04/10/2023 Footer 8

ABOUT ME

04/10/2023 Footer 9

04/10/2023 Footer 10

ORGANIZATIONS UTILIZING P2P FUNDRAISING

04/10/2023 Footer 11

YOUR SCHOOL, YOUR STUDENTS, YOUR ALUMNI

Linkage• Direct, emotional

connection• Your mission serves

them

Interest• There is a demand• Want to match

passion with mission

Ability• Will give what they

can in time, treasure, or talent

04/10/2023 Footer 12

REVENUE AT LOW COST

• Staff ½ to 1 Full-time Employee• Online Fundraising Solution & Tools• Online transaction fees• Branded supplies (optional)

Resource Requirements

Comparing Costs to Other Fundraising Activities

Direct

Mail (acq

uisitions)

Galas/Benefits/

Specia

l Eve

nts

Traditional Fundraisin

g Event

Grant Seekin

g

Annual Fund (re

newals)

Planned Giving

Major Gifts/C

apital C

ampaigns

IFE Program

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50 $1.50

$0.50 $0.30 $0.25 $0.25 $0.20 $0.15 $0.15

Average Costs Per Dollar Raised

04/10/2023 Footer 13

CHALLENGES OF PEER-TO-PEER FUNDRAISING PROGRAMS

• Budgeting Revenue

• Justification of Costs

• Supplies and Giveaways

• Positive Online User Experience

• Reputation/Brand Risk

04/10/2023 Footer 14

PEER-TO-PEER BEST PRACTICES

1. Ensure Organizational-wide Support

2. Encourage Online Use

3. Provide a ‘Hand Up’

4. Standardize Tracking and Reporting

5. Create a Recognition Program

04/10/2023 Footer 15

1. ENSURE ORGANIZATIONAL-WIDE SUPPORT

• Executive buy-in• Treat like major gift donors

Top-down and Part of the Culture

• When possible, keep funds local• Respect the IFE donor base ‘territory’

Involve the Local Affiliates

• Less affected by economic state• Low cost of fundraising• Expanded reach for the organization• Building stronger, more loyal supporters

Communicate the Performance and Benefits

04/10/2023 Footer 16

2. ENCOURAGE ONLINE USE

• Efficient and reduces human error• Minimizes workload of IFE and organization

Consistent Data Collection is Important

• Must offer a positive online user experience• Include reading/e-signing an agreement of guidelines

Require Online Registration

• Ask for information, not money• Understand who and why• Offer opt-in/out option for further communication

Ask Participants to Encourage Online Donations

04/10/2023 Footer 17

BLACKBAUD FRIENDS ASKING FRIENDS

More than $1.3 billion raised

37,000 events and counting

17M participants & 31M donors

Average participant sends 27 emails1 in 4 FAF emails convert

FAF emails have a 90 percent greater open rateAverage online gift size: $60

American Heart Association, Alzheimer’s Association, Arthritis Foundation, Autism Speaks, Big Brothers Big Sisters USA & CA, Best Buddies International, Junior

Achievement, National Down Syndrome Society and The Salvation Army

04/10/2023 Footer 18

04/10/2023 Footer 19

04/10/2023 Footer 20

04/10/2023 Footer 21

3. PROVIDE A ‘HAND UP’

• …and is asking for guidance.

Your audience…cares…is motivated…is volunteering…

• Personal Customer Service (name, number, and email)• Fact Sheet• Basics of Fundraising• Basics of Hosting an Event• Online Tools for invitations, communication, and money collection• Instructions for Online Tools • Approved Logos and Letters of Support• “Ask” and Press Release Templates• Online recognition

Educate, Empower, Encourage

04/10/2023 Footer 22

4. STANDARDIZE TRACKING & REPORTING

• Number and Date of registered events• Location of events, organizers, participants, donors• Number of participants• Number of repeat vs. new (events and participants)• Designation for event organizers and individual fundraisers• Overall fundraising by event and fiscal year• Fundraising per participant• Number of gifts per participant

Minimum Standard Metrics

• Data integrity• Analysis will aid forecasting• Follow progress of events

Scheduled reporting

• How else are participants and donors involved in the organization?

Track engagement

04/10/2023 Footer 23

5. CREATE A RECOGNITION PROGRAM

• Want to belong• Want to feel good• Want to be acknowledged

Reasons for giving of time, talent, or treasure

• Honor Roll – home page and participant pages• “Legacy” or “Super Star” program• Experiential reward• Tribute postings

Website Recognition

• E-Communications, at least regionally if not nationally• Social Networking (FB, Twitter, Blogspot, MySpace)• Message Board or Blog

Success stories

Don’t Forget to Send Thank You’s!

04/10/2023 Footer 24

BENEFITS OF PEER-TO-PEER FUNDRAISING

• Reach donors otherwise unattainable• Provides awareness beyond the reach of the organization• Allows someone who perhaps is unable to give to be involved

Supplementary, not Competitive, to the Development Portfolio

• On-line giving as a percentage of the whole is growing• Generates interest in the organization at little to no cost• More tolerant of economy because the give is very personal

Low Cost of Fundraising

• Students become connected and begin a tradition of giving• Alumni an opportunity to stay connected and give back

Provides Community and Engagement Opportunities

04/10/2023 Footer 25

WANT TO LEARN MORE? BE SURE TO CHECK OUT…

Blackbaud Blogs

http://www.FriendsAskingAmy.com

http://www.NPTrends.com

http://www.ProspectResearch.com

http://www.NetwitsThinkTank.com

04/10/2023 Footer 26

NEW ENGLAND CONSERVATORY OF MUSIC

CREATIVE YEAR END APPEAL

04/10/2023 Footer 27

04/10/2023 Footer 28

• Goals:- Raise 800K in December- Raise awareness of NEC accomplishments

• Intended Audience/Segmentation:- Entire NEC Community (students, alums, board, etc)

• Associated Marketing Efforts/Channels:- Facebook & Twitter coordination

• Performance:- Raised 3% more than Dec ’09- 4X increase in web traffic to annual fund pages

CREATIVE YEAR END APPEAL – NEC MUSIC

04/10/2023 Footer 29

FUNDRAISING TRENDS How do you compare?

Jenny Cooke

Account Manager, donorCentrics Higher Education

04/10/2023 Footer 30

AGENDA

• Overview of donorCentrics• FY 2009 donorCentrics Fundraising Index for Higher Education- Highlights and Lowlights - Preliminary findings for FY2010

• Key Performance Indicators based on Parent Giving for FY2010

• Online Giving Statistics• How benchmarking can help improve your Annual Fund

04/10/2023 Footer 31

WHAT IS DONORCENTRICS?

A benchmarking service that evaluates your giving data over a nine year period of time and to review it both:

Internally – comparing your organization’s performance from year to year and

Externally – by facilitating peer organization comparison of donor lifecycle behavior and fundraising program performance, and provides a forum for cross-organizational collaboration and the sharing of best practices in fundraising.

04/10/2023 Footer 32

DONORCENTRICS SERVICE

In-depth comprehensive reporting to measure your school’s annual fund

Benchmarking with peer schools

Results of all schools participating in donorCentrics are aggregated in the annual Fundraising Index for Higher Education

04/10/2023 Footer 33

W HO PART IC IPAT E S IN DONORCE NT RICS ?

• Big 10/Big 12 • Business Schools• Canadian Schools• The Directors • Faith-Based Schools new• Ivy League

• Law Schools new• Medical Schools new• Private College Consortium• Large Summit• Small Summit

~ 100 Higher Education Institutions participate annually in the Target Collaborative Benchmarking forums

Possible Groups for FY 2011 include Arts Colleges, Science and Technology Schools, Women’s Colleges and a Parents Benchmarking Group

04/10/2023 Footer 34

2009 FUNDRAISING INDEX FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

04/10/2023 Footer 35

INDEX METHODOLOGY

• 28 public and 33 private institutions• Actual donor transactions, not survey responses• Cash payment basis, not pledges• Gift caps are used (vary but typically around $50,000)• Does not include:- Soft credits- Matching gift payments

04/10/2023 Footer 36

PARTICIPATING PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS

Colorado School of Mines

Indiana University Foundation

Iowa State University

McMaster University

Michigan State University

Ohio University

The Ohio State University

Oklahoma State University

Oregon State University

Pennsylvania State University

Purdue University

Queen's University

Ryerson University

University of Alberta

University of Arizona

University of California, Santa Barbara

University of Georgia

University of Houston

University of Iowa

University of Maryland

University of Miami

University of Michigan

University of Oklahoma

University of Texas at Austin

University of Toronto

University of Virginia

University of Virginia - Darden Graduate School of Business Administration

University of Wisconsin, Madison

04/10/2023 Footer 37

PARTICIPATING PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS

Bentley University

Brown University

Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business

Clark University

College of St. Benedict

Concordia University St. Paul

St. Catherine University

The College of William and Mary

Cornell University

Dartmouth College

Gustavus Adolphus College

Hamline University

Holderness School

Illinois Institute of Technology

Johns Hopkins University

Luther Seminary

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Niagara UniversityNorthwestern University - Kellogg Graduate

School of ManagementThe PrincipiaRhodes CollegeRice UniversitySalve Regina UniversitySmith CollegeSouthern Methodist UniversitySyracuse UniversityTulane UniversityUniversity of Chicago - Booth School of

BusinessUniversity of Notre DameUniversity of PennsylvaniaUniversity of RichmondVanderbilt UniversityWellesley College

04/10/2023 Footer 38

OVERALL GIVING

04/10/2023 Footer 39

Median Donor Participation Rates

* Target Participation Rate is calculated as the percentage of the most recent year active alumni population who gave below the gift cap within a fiscal year

14.6%

201

0

04/10/2023 Footer 40

M E DIAN CHANGE IN RE V E NUE

20

10

4.9%

04/10/2023 Footer 41

M E DIAN RE V E NUE P E R DONOR

2010

$719.64

04/10/2023 Footer 42

M E DIAN CHANGE IN DONOR COUNT S

2010

0.1%

04/10/2023 Footer 43

OVERALL GIVING – INDEX OF NATIONAL FUNDRAISING PERFORMANCE REVENUE AND DONOR TRENDS

04/10/2023 Footer 44

ACQUISITION

04/10/2023 Footer 45

M E DIAN CHANGE IN NE W DONORS

20

10

$2.9%

04/10/2023 Footer 46

M E DIAN RE V E NUE P E R NE W DONOR

2010$188.14

04/10/2023 Footer 47

M E DIAN NE W DONOR RE T E NT ION RAT E

201

0

30.4%

04/10/2023 Footer 48

ACQUISITION – INDEX OF NATIONAL FUNDRAISING PERFORMANCE NEW DONOR TRENDS

04/10/2023 Footer 49

RETENTION

04/10/2023 Footer 50

M E DIAN DONOR RE T E NT ION RAT E S

201

069%

04/10/2023 Footer 51

Median Change in Retained Donor Revenue

2010

2.3%

04/10/2023 Footer 52

Median Multi-Year Donor Retention Rates

201

072.7%

04/10/2023 Footer 53

REACTIVATION

04/10/2023 Footer 54

M E DIAN DONOR RE ACT IVAT ION RAT E S

201

0

18%

04/10/2023 Footer 55

Median Change in Reactivated Donor Revenue

2010

6.7%

04/10/2023 Footer 56

PARENT GIVING

Based on aggregate data from schools purchasing Parents Reports in FY 2010

04/10/2023 Footer 57

MEDIAN CHANGE IN OVERALL PARENT DONOR COUNTS

FY08-09 FY09-10

-12.00%

-10.00%

-8.00%

-6.00%

-4.00%

-2.00%

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

-10.88%

2.22%

04/10/2023 Footer 58

MEDIAN REVENUE PER PARENT DONOR

FY 2008 FY2009 FY 2010$0.00

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00

$193.73

$218.86 $237.76

04/10/2023 Footer 59

MEDIAN CHANGE IN NEW PARENT DONOR COUNTS

FY08-FY09 FY09-FY10

-20.00%

-10.00%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

-10.26%

51.36%

04/10/2023 Footer 60

MEDIAN REVENUE PER NEW PARENT DONOR

FY 2008 FY2009 FY2010$169.50

$170.00

$170.50

$171.00

$171.50

$172.00

$172.50

$170.65

$172.04 $172.04

04/10/2023 Footer 61

MEDIAN PARENT DONOR RETENTION RATE

FY2008 FY2009 FY201055.00%

55.50%

56.00%

56.50%

57.00%

57.50%

58.00%

58.50%

59.00%

59.50%

60.00%

59.18%

56.68%

59.32%

04/10/2023 Footer 62

REVENUE PER RETAINED PARENT DONOR

FY2008 FY2009 FY2010$0.00

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00

$300.00

$214.54 $228.32

$265.81

04/10/2023 Footer 63

MEDIAN DONOR PARENT REACTIVATION RATE

FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 20100.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

8.00%

9.00%

10.00%9.46%

6.54%

8.92%

04/10/2023 Footer 64

MEDIAN REVENUE PER REACTIVATED PARENT DONOR

FY2008 FY2009 FY2010$0.00

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00

$300.00

$149.95

$263.01

$220.96

04/10/2023 Footer 65

DONORCENTRICS LIFECYCLE ANALYSIS - QUESTIONS

• Are retention rates increasing or decreasing?  Which donor segments have the best retention?

• Is my donor upgrade strategy working?  For particular lifecycle stages, are my donors giving more today than in past years?

• What is the lifetime value of donors acquired through the web versus those acquired through direct mail?

• Are increases in average gift having a negative effect on donor retention?

• What is the impact of a sub-par acquisition year on future years’ revenue?

• How have my heavy lapsed reactivation efforts impacted my donor portfolio and affected retention and donor value?

04/10/2023 Footer 66

BENEFITS OF BENCHMARKING

Benchmarking helps institutions:• Identify strengths and weaknesses• Consider new methods, ideas and tools to improve effectiveness• Crack through resistance to change • Set higher standards• Accelerate learning• Make better decisions• Improve allocation of scarce resources • Justify fundraising investments • Demonstrate efficiency to stakeholders/donors• Preserve institutional memory through staff transitions

Raise more money for your school!

04/10/2023 Footer 67

Target Analytics invites you to join Shaun Keister, PhD, Vice President of Development at Penn State University for our online presentation of the 2010 Index of Higher Education Fundraising Performance.

April 19

3:00 PM ET

Registration Link: https://www124.livemeeting.com/lrs/1100003672/Registration.aspx?pageName=dhq2sb9sbxkr6gzp

YOU’RE INVITED

04/10/2023 Footer 68

QUESTIONS & COMMENTS

04/10/2023 Footer 69

HELPFUL RESOURCES

• Read the 2009 Index of Higher Education Fundraising Performance: http://www.blackbaud.com/files/resources/downloads/cam/TargetHigherEdIndex2009.pdf (the new Index will be published by April 2011)

• Review donorCentrics products available: http://www.blackbaud.com/files/resources/downloads/cam/donorCentricsProductsHE.pdf

• Learn about how Oregon State used donorCentrics to raise acquisition rates: http://www.blackbaud.com/files/resources/downloads/CaseStudy_OregonStateUniversity.pdf

04/10/2023 Footer 70

Contact:

Jenny Cooke

Account Manager, Higher Education

Target Analytics

Jenny.cooke@blackbaud.com

Office: (843)654-3762

Thank you!