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