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) [email protected]
Joe VolinAssistant Director of Alumni Relations(815) [email protected]