a campaign readiness review: executive summary for new … › file › foundation-board ›...

Grenzebach Glier and Associates401 N. Michigan AvenueSuite 2800Chicago, Illinois 60611tel 312.372.4040

A Campaign Readiness Review: Executive Summary for New Mexico State University FoundationSeptember 15, 2014

Laurie MusgroveSenior Vice President and Managing Director

Grenzebach Glier and Associates | Consultants in Philanthropic Management

Confidential – Not for Duplication | Property of New Mexico State University Foundation and Grenzebach Glier and Associates

STUDY OBJECTIVES

In April 2014, the New Mexico State University (NMSU) Foundation (NMSUF) engaged Grenzebach Glier and Associates (GG+A) for a Campaign Readiness Review to analyze the University and Foundation’s fundraising operations to ensure staffing and other resources are optimally aligned for the anticipated campaign.

The key areas of analysis were configured to deliver the following outcomes:

1) Recommendations regarding organizational structure and deployment of University staff and resources

2) An assessment of the overall campus culture and environment and its level of readiness to support campaign activities

3) An evaluation of the capacity of the institution's internal financial and administrative processes to support management of financial resources, reporting requirements, and increases in gifts received


STUDY OBJECTIVES

4) Recommendations on successful and necessary fundraising strategies that will enable the University to reach its campaign goal, and identification of the resources necessary both within the Division of University Advancement and in other areas of the University

5) Identification of the challenges and opportunities facing NMSU in order to achieve its campaign goals


STUDYMETHODOLOGY

A team of GG+A consultants began the review process in April 2014. The Campaign Readiness Study contained the following elements:

– A comprehensive “self-study” process, guided by a Request for Materials, for the University’s fundraising programs currently in place

– An analysis of comparative benchmark data from a cohort of peer and aspirant peer universities mutually identified and agreed upon by NMSUF and GG+A

– A high-value analysis of the makeup, capacity, participation, and yield of NMSU’s prospect pool

– A series of 54 confidential interviews with select University leadership, Advancement leadership and staff, selected academic leaders, and key volunteers and donors (Appendix includes a full list of interviewees.)


INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT



Garrey Carruthers was named NMSU’s 27th and its first Aggie president in May 2013. Dr. Carruthers assumed the presidency after serving as Dean of NMSU’s College of Business for 20 years.

Since President Carruthers’ appointment at NMSU, the following has been accomplished:

– The University adopted the Vision2020 Strategic Plan, which sets out the pathway for new growth and direction for the University.

– Three transition teams were formed to provide an independent assessment of the Athletics department, University Advancement, and NMSU’s two-year community college system.

– As a result, the Athletics department was reorganized with the creation of the new post of Deputy Director of Athletics.

The New Mexico State University Foundation was established in 1959 to secure and manage private gifts to promote the educational purposes of and foster the personal and corporate philanthropy on behalf of the University.

The new Vice President for University Advancement, Cheryl Harrelson, was appointed in May 2014. Ms. Harrelson also serves as President of the NMSU Foundation.



In December 2010, NMSU completed the Doing What Counts campaign, having raised $257.5 million from 28,000 donors against the original goal of $150 million. As a result of this campaign, NMSU’s endowment doubled.

Planning has begun for NMSU’s third significant campaign, which will likely span a five-year period and raise funds for top University priorities, including support for students, faculty, research, programs, and a number of new and renovated facilities.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


FINDINGS:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Among those who participated in this project, there is recognition of the role that greater philanthropic support can play at New Mexico State University.

NMSU Deans are involved in the fundraising process as both investors in the development enterprise and as partners in fundraising. At the same time, the expertise and knowledge about fundraising among academic partners, particularly about major gift work, is uneven.

Private support at NMSU during the period of FY09 and FY13 was well below that of its academic peers ($11.3 million versus $30.1 million). Historically, NMSU has invested far less in Advancement than its peers.

GG+A found that productivity among the Major Gifts staff is significantly below that of the University’s peer institutions in dollars raised.

The Advancement program at NMSU has historically suffered from inconsistent leadership, which has prevented growth and the integration of effective practices across the program.


FINDINGS:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The new Vice President for University Advancement is bringing a fresh approach and a new level of professionalism to Advancement and NMSU’s strategies and operations. She is committed to introducing best practices into NMSU’s programs.

The Development staff in the units is relatively inexperienced in Advancement overall, and are generally very new to their current role. A number of those with whom GG+A spoke acknowledge they require and desire additional training.

GG+A also notes considerable organizational weaknesses across the Development programs, including staff without appropriate resources and training, a general lack of discipline and commitment to driving higher performance, a lack of productivity/performance metrics, and lack of goals.

Volunteers with whom GG+A spoke are enthusiastic about NMSU and their engagement with the University. Yet, they seek greater clarity about their roles in a campaign and more definition as to the expectations for their involvement.


FINDINGS:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A challenge to the University’s ability to increase philanthropic support is a newly decentralized organizational structure. Multiple competing Development Offices across campus will make it increasingly difficult for NMSU to take full advantage of the fundraising potential that exists among its constituents unless strong protocols are implemented and adhered to across campus, without fail.

NMSU has had some success in securing principal gifts; however, GG+A saw little evidence of a consistent, methodical, and strategic approach to building the pipeline for such gifts, nor in identifying compelling gift opportunities at the level of $1 million and greater.

Major gifts at NMSU historically have been defined at a level well below that typically found in Advancement programs among public research universities. Steps have recently been taken to redefine this gift level, which should have a positive impact on staff productivity.

Annual Giving at NMSU is under-resourced and poorly staffed. As a result, the role Annual Giving can play in building the pipeline for major gifts is compromised.


FINDINGS:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Prospect portfolios among major fundraisers are populated with individuals, foundations, and corporations, a practice that is not consistent with best practices and has created the opportunity for competing solicitations of corporations, in particular.

NMSU uses BlackBaud’s Raiser’s Edge for its constituent database, a system widely used across the United States and Canada. Staff have not yet widely adopted its use, but have recognized the value of consistent documentation related to prospect work.

While progress has been made in reporting, much is left to do, especially in anticipation of a major campaign.

Fundraising within NMSU Athletics is highly transactional; Athletics relies heavily on revenue from the booster club, known as the Aggie Athletics Club, and two major fundraising events, which take a considerable amount of staff time and thus divert resources away from major and principal gifts.


FINDINGS:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

NMSU coaches have been tasked with raising 10% of their annual operating budget through individual and corporate philanthropy. Since NMSU coaches are not part of University Advancement, they operate– often inadvertently – outside of Advancement’s prospect management rules.

GG+A’s Wealth Screening and gift capacity analysis has identified 893 prospect households who have the capacity to make a 5-year pledge of $100,000 or more to their top philanthropic priorities.

Analysis also revealed 389 high value prospects who are not yet assigned to a Major Gift Officer for management.


RECOMMENDATIONS:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

We believe the University’s capacity to raise higher levels of philanthropic support is substantial and commensurate with many of its peers across North America.

Near-term acceleration and sustained growth will require, at minimum, the following:

– New investments in University Advancement and in the unit programs for staff and operating expenses.

– Development of a new funding model to allow greater investments in Advancement.

– A University-wide commitment to new operating disciplines around productivity, performance metrics, accountability for fundraising goals, and work with prospects.

– A new level of institutional, decanal, and staff collaboration in fundraising operations, planning, and priority setting.

– Continuing investment of time and energy from the President and University leadership in the Advancement process.

– Increased clarity and investments in building volunteer leadership and philanthropy.


RECOMMENDATIONS:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

We recommend the new decentralized model put into place in 2013 be modified to provide a solid line reporting to University Advancement and a dotted line to the Deans/Directors.

– Salary and operating expenses should be shared between the central office and each unit.

NMSU should invest in completing a predictive modeling and wealth screening on its entire database. Such a review will be most useful in identifying those constituents who are not currently known to the University, a process critical to growing fundraising results in preparation for the campaign.

NMSU should create a 12-month planning period to identify critical funding opportunities, add and align programming for optimal results, complete a thorough review of the constituencies, and conduct a subsequent review of all prospect portfolios.


RECOMMENDATIONS:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In order to maximize the results of work in the units, GG+A recommends that a review occur to identify a limited number of the most critical corporate and foundation prospects, which should remain under management by unit staff.

– The institutional prospects remaining with the unit officers should have as a “secondary” manager a member of the central Corporate and Foundation Relations staff.

Significant new investments are required in Annual Giving for new staff and program expenses, including an expanded Direct Mail Program, enhanced Telefund Program, Leadership Annual Giving staff, social media, etc.


BENCHMARKING


BENCHMARKING

GG+A has benchmarked New Mexico State University’s fundraising productivity and budgetary investment against those of peer institutions, using the following sources:

– Council for Aid to Education (CAE) Voluntary Support of Education (VSE) annual reports

– Data submitted by a cohort of peer institutions (Mississippi State University; Montana State University; University of Delaware; University of Idaho; University of Nevada, Reno; University of Vermont; and Utah State University) that have joined NMSU in deeper programmatic and quantitative benchmarking than that available from public sources

All benchmarking is conducted in terms of Total Private Support (cash receipts), following the national standards as defined by CAE. These figures report irrevocable planned gift agreements at net present value and do not include bequest commitments or a valuation of tangible gifts (for example, software).


COMPOUND ANNUAL GROWTH RATES IN TOTAL PRIVATE SUPPORT

New Mexico State University’s Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of -2.5%, as measured from 2003 to 2013, lagged the growth rates achieved by the Public Higher Education Cohort (3.5%) and the Peer Benchmark Cohort (2.5%).

Over the last 40 years (1973–2013), NMSU’s CAGR of 8.8% surpassed the Peer Benchmark Cohort (8.1%), but lagged the Public Higher Education Cohort (9.7%).

1973-1983 1983-1993 1993-2003 2003-2013 1973-2013All Higher Education 10.1% 8.4% 8.3% 3.2% 7.5%

All Public Higher Education 14.2% 10.7% 10.7% 3.5% 9.7%

Mississippi State University 15.2% 18.8% 11.4% 1.1% 11.4%

University of Delaware 9.6% 8.3% 7.2% 0.1% 6.2%

University of Idaho ─ 11.9% 8.1% -1.0% ─

University of Nevada Reno ─ ─ -0.8% 6.1% 7.3%

University of Vermont 13.5% 7.1% 8.3% 0.5% 7.2%

Utah State University 9.9% 6.7% 7.8% 8.2% 8.2%

Mean 12.0% 10.6% 7.0% 2.5% 8.1%

New Mexico State University 17.6% 4.7% 16.7% -2.5% 8.8%

Notes: Each column represents the compound annual grow th rate (CAGR) for the respective time period; start/end-year data averaged over three years (e.g., 1973 represents an average of 1973/1974/1975 data; 1983 an average of 1982/1983/1984 data; 1993 an average of 1992/1993/1994 data; 2003 an average of 2002/2003/2004 data; 2013 an average of 2011/2012/2013 data)

Source: Council for Aid to Education (CAE) Voluntary Support of Education (VSE) annual survey


TOTAL PRIVATE SUPPORT

Over the last six years, NMSU’s mean Total Private Support ($11.3 million) was well below the Peer Benchmark Cohort mean of $30.1 million.

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 MeanMississippi State University $51.2M $38.3M $45.2M $43.2M $51.3M $65.9M $49.2M

Montana State University ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ $16.7M $16.7M

University of Delaware $28.7M $27.9M $31.7M $30.0M $45.8M $46.8M $35.2M

University of Idaho $19.5M $16.6M ─ ─ ─ $17.8M $18.0M

University of Nevada Reno $46.8M $26.0M $21.3M $23.1M $23.6M $28.4M $28.2M

University of Vermont $26.3M $26.7M $27.8M $29.1M $21.7M $37.0M $28.1M

Utah State University $27.4M $30.7M $64.5M $30.7M $27.7M $32.5M $35.6M

Mean $33.3M $27.7M $38.1M $31.2M $34.0M $35.0M $30.1M

New Mexico State University $12.6M $10.3M $9.7M $10.9M $12.1M $12.5M $11.3M

Source: Council for Aid to Education (CAE) Voluntary Support of Education (VSE) annual surveyNotes: Montana State did not report to CAE 2008 to 2012; Idaho did not report to CAE 2008 to 2012


TOTAL FUNDRAISING PROGRESS

Over the same period (2008–2013), NMSU’s mean Total Fundraising Progress of $16.8 million per year was less than half the Peer Benchmark Cohort mean of $38.1 million per year.


Montana State University ─ ─ ─ ─ $34.3M $12.4M $23.3M


University of Idaho $21.1M $21.6M $24.9M $22.8M $19.3M $23.7M $22.2M

University of Nevada Reno $39.3M $22.9M $19.8M $22.6M $22.6M ─ $25.4M


Utah State University $91.9M $29.2M $54.7M $41.1M $61.1M $58.1M $56.0M

Mean $42.4M $30.3M $38.1M $38.9M $43.9M $45.8M $38.1M


Source: Self-reportedNotes: Montana State did not self-report 2008 to 2011; UNV Reno did not report FRP 2013


TOTAL ADVANCEMENT EXPENDITURES

In terms of Total Advancement Expenditures, NMSU is the smallest advancement program within the Peer Benchmarking Cohort.

Over the last six years (2008–2013), NMSU’s Total Advancement Expenditures lagged the Peer Benchmark Cohort mean by more than $2.6 million per year.


Montana State University ─ ─ ─ ─ $4.0M $5.5M $4.8M


University of Idaho $8.7M $9.4M $9.6M $9.7M $9.8M $10.1M $9.6M

University of Nevada Reno ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─


Utah State University ─ ─ $6.8M $6.2M $5.3M $5.5M $5.9M

Mean $6.5M $6.8M $7.4M $7.9M $7.4M $7.9M $7.0M


Source: Self-reportedNotes: Montana State did not self-report 2008 to 2011; UNV Reno did not report expenditures data; Utah State did not report expenditures data 2008 & 2009


DISTRIBUTION OF ADVANCEMENT EXPENDITURES BY MAJOR AREA

In absolute terms, NMSU’s Development expenditures are less than nearly every other university in the Peer Benchmark Cohort; however, as a percentage of Total Advancement Expenditures, NMSU’s Development expenditures surpassed that of the Peer Benchmark Cohort.

In both absolute and percentage terms, NMSU spends more on Advancement Services than the Peer Benchmark Cohort; NMSU also spends less than the Cohort on both Alumni Relations and Advancement Communications.

$ % $ % $ % $ %Mississippi State University $2.1M 42.0% $1.5M 29.3% $0.3M 5.6% $1.2M 23.1% $5.0M

Montana State University $2.7M 56.7% $0.8M 17.3% $0.2M 5.2% $1.0M 20.7% $4.8M

University of Delaware $4.8M 57.6% $1.5M 18.1% $0.0M 0.4% $2.0M 24.0% $8.3M

University of Idaho $3.4M 35.1% $0.9M 9.8% $4.1M 43.0% $1.2M 12.1% $9.6M

University of Nevada Reno ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─

University of Vermont $4.2M 49.7% $1.6M 19.0% $0.4M 4.8% $2.3M 26.5% $8.5M

Utah State University $3.1M 51.9% $0.7M 12.2% $1.3M 21.3% $0.9M 14.6% $5.9M

Mean $3.4M 48.8% $1.2M 17.6% $1.1M 13.4% $1.4M 20.2% $7.0M

New Mexico State University $2.4M 53.7% $0.5M 11.7% $0.1M 1.4% $1.5M 33.2% $4.4M


TotalAdvancement Expenditures

DevelopmentAlumni

RelationsAdvancement

CommunicationsAdvancement

Services


TOTAL ADVANCEMENT FTE (2008–2013)

Over the last six years (2008–2013), NMSU had a mean of 55.4 FTEs per year, which is below the Peer Benchmark Cohort mean of 63.5 FTEs.

– In 2013, NMSU had a higher number of Advancement FTEs than several universities in the Peer Benchmark Cohort, including Mississippi State University; Montana State University; University of Nevada, Reno; and Utah State University.

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 MeanMississippi State University 46.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 45.0 46.0 44.3

Montana State University ─ ─ ─ ─ 40.0 53.0 46.5

University of Delaware 45.8 63.0 75.8 84.8 90.8 82.8 73.8

University of Idaho 78.5 87.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 104.5 94.8

University of Nevada Reno 62.0 53.0 53.5 57.8 53.3 61.3 56.8

University of Vermont 76.0 66.0 68.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 70.5

Utah State University ─ 75.0 65.3 47.4 50.8 49.8 57.6

Mean 61.6 64.6 67.5 67.2 64.3 66.9 63.5

New Mexico State University 53.3 53.3 51.0 55.0 57.5 62.5 55.4

Source: Self-reportedNotes: Montana State did not self-report 2008 to 2011; Utah State did not report FTE data 2008


DISTRIBUTION OF ADVANCEMENT FTE BY FUNCTION (MEAN 2008–2013)

From 2008 to 2013, NMSU had a mean of 14.5 frontline fundraisers, which is roughly equivalent to the Peer Benchmark Cohort mean of 15.0 FTEs.

Mississippi State University 1.0 0.0 13.3 1.0 3.0 1.0 19.3

Montana State University 1.0 8.0 6.5 2.5 1.0 7.0 26.0

University of Delaware 2.7 0.0 17.2 3.2 11.6 0.0 34.6

University of Idaho 0.9 2.2 22.9 3.2 6.5 1.0 36.6

University of Nevada Reno 0.8 3.0 12.7 0.9 6.5 10.5 34.4

University of Vermont 2.8 2.0 17.7 1.5 7.8 0.0 31.8

Utah State University ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ 21.8

Mean 1.5 2.5 15.0 2.0 6.1 3.3 29.2

New Mexico State University 2.0 0.0 14.5 1.5 7.5 0.0 25.5

Source: Self-reportedNotes: Montana State did not self-report 2008 to 2011; Utah State did not report FTE data 2008/did not fully break out FTE by function

SeniorManagement

OtherManagement

Total Development

FTEFrontline

FundraisersNon-FrontlineAnnual Giving

Admin.Assistants

OtherSupport


CENTRAL/UNIT FTE (MEAN 2008–2013)

Three of the seven advancement programs within the peer benchmark cohort are completely centralized, while only one program (Utah State) is completely decentralized.

When compared with the three hybrid advancement programs within the Peer Benchmark Cohort –University of Delaware, University of Idaho, and University of Nevada, Reno – NMSU has one of the highest ratios of Unit FTEs to Total Advancement FTEs.

# % # %Mississippi State University 44.3 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 44.3

Montana State University 46.5 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 46.5

University of Delaware 72.5 98.2% 1.3 1.8% 73.8

University of Idaho 80.9 85.4% 13.9 14.6% 94.8

University of Nevada Reno 41.0 72.2% 15.8 27.8% 56.8

University of Vermont 70.5 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 70.5

Utah State University 0.0 0.0% 57.6 100.0% 57.6

Mean 50.8 79.4% 12.7 20.6% 63.5

New Mexico State University 45.1 81.4% 10.3 18.6% 55.4

Source: Self-reportedNotes: Montana State did not self-report 2008 to 2011; Utah State did not report FTE data 2008/did not break out FTE by central/unit

Central UnitTotal

AdvancementFTE


TOTAL PRIVATE SUPPORT PER FTE (MEAN 2008–2013)

New Mexico State University raises roughly $780,000 per frontline FTE, which is roughly one third that of the Peer Benchmark Cohort mean of $2.1 million.

Advancement Development FrontlineMississippi State University $1.1M $2.5M $3.7M

Montana State University $0.4M $0.6M $2.6M

University of Delaware $0.5M $1.0M $2.0M

University of Idaho $0.2M $0.5M $0.8M

University of Nevada Reno $0.5M $0.8M $2.2M

University of Vermont $0.4M $0.9M $1.6M

Utah State University $0.6M $1.6M ─

Mean $0.5M $1.1M $2.1M

New Mexico State University $0.2M $0.4M $0.8M

Source: Self-reportedNotes: Montana State did not self-report 2008 to 2011; Utah State did not report FTE data 2008


FUNDRAISING HISTORY


FUNDRAISING HISTORY

From FY09 to FY13, NMSU’s Total Fundraising Progress was relatively flat; with the exception of FY11, a year in which the University secured a $27.5 million in-kind grant, fundraising results ranged from a low of $9.8 million in FY10 to a high of $13.9 million in FY12.

From FY09 to FY13, NMSU had relatively limited activity at the major and principal gifts level.

– Over the last five fiscal years, the University secured a total of ten gifts of $500,000 or more. With such limited activity at the highest gift levels, significant fundraising growth will be difficult.

By contrast, NMSU experienced significant growth in both dollars raised and overall donor counts at lower gift levels.

– From FY09 to FY13, Total Fundraising Progress and overall donor counts among gifts of less than $1,000 increased by 11.7% and 24.9%, respectively.


TOTAL FUNDRAISING PROGRESS BY GIFT LEVEL: FY09–FY13

FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY135-Year

Average5-Year % Change

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$1,000,000 or more $0 $1,250,000 $30,799,280 $2,060,000 $1,000,000 $7,021,856 N/A

$500,000 to $999,999 $500,000 $500,000 $597,687 $1,832,000 $0 $685,937 -100.0%

$100,000 to $499,999 $2,569,348 $1,772,500 $3,007,137 $2,906,047 $3,100,673 $2,671,141 20.7%

$50,000 to $99,999 $1,468,097 $715,565 $887,006 $825,493 $845,883 $948,409 -42.4%

$25,000 to $49,999 $950,039 $866,621 $840,683 $641,070 $590,974 $777,877 -37.8%

$10,000 to $24,999 $1,376,891 $999,204 $1,290,979 $1,446,060 $1,131,332 $1,248,893 -17.8%

$5,000 to $9,999 $975,163 $725,330 $839,784 $913,594 $732,408 $837,256 -24.9%

$2,500 to $4,999 $709,270 $667,088 $659,935 $666,356 $755,888 $691,707 6.6%

$1,000 to $2,499 $739,613 $757,983 $781,288 $762,585 $720,134 $752,321 -2.6%

Less than $1,000 $1,615,173 $1,560,617 $1,586,558 $1,855,794 $1,804,008 $1,684,430 11.7%

Total $10,903,594 $9,814,908 $41,290,337 $13,908,999 $10,681,300 $17,319,828 -2.0%

Gift Level

Source: Self-reported.

Total Fundraising Progress includes new cash (outright gif ts made during the f iscal year) and new pledges (unconditional pledges made during the f iscal year).


OVERALL DONOR COUNTS BY GIFT LEVEL: FY09–FY13



# # # # # # #

$1,000,000 or more 0 1 1 1 1 1 N/A

$500,000 to $999,999 1 1 1 3 0 1 -100.0%

$100,000 to $499,999 14 9 13 14 12 12 -14.3%

$50,000 to $99,999 21 9 13 13 11 13 -47.6%

$25,000 to $49,999 25 26 20 20 16 21 -36.0%

$10,000 to $24,999 86 68 87 85 68 79 -20.9%

$5,000 to $9,999 123 98 113 125 93 110 -24.4%

$2,500 to $4,999 182 180 176 174 195 181 7.1%

$1,000 to $2,499 409 426 454 440 410 428 0.2%

Less than $1,000 8,426 7,950 8,585 11,278 10,524 9,353 24.9%

Total 9,287 8,768 9,463 12,153 11,330 10,200 22.0%

Gift Level




FUNDRAISING HISTORY

While the University’s Total Fundraising Progress remained relatively flat, support from NSMU alumni varied greatly over the last five fiscal years, ranging from a low of $1.8 million in FY10 to a high of $5.7 million in FY12.

Despite year-over-year volatility in alumni support, alumni donor counts increased by nearly 63% between FY09 and FY13.

During this period, non-alumni donors were arguably the most consistent source of fundraising support – both in terms of number of gifts and total dollars raised.

Despite declines in overall gift counts, corporations and foundations remain an important – albeit volatile – source of fundraising progress.


TOTAL FUNDRAISING PROGRESS BY SOURCE: FY09–FY13



$ $ $ $ $ $ $

Alumni $2,811,661 $1,807,075 $2,787,972 $5,695,168 $2,751,145 $3,170,604 -2.2%

Parents $168,997 $240,783 $131,063 $187,597 $133,665 $172,421 -20.9%

Other Individuals $2,198,938 $3,103,268 $3,485,247 $2,813,097 $2,647,184 $2,849,547 20.4%

Corporations $3,873,166 $1,791,656 $33,597,564 $2,864,931 $3,130,995 $9,051,662 -19.2%

Foundations $1,619,617 $2,695,637 $1,092,252 $2,057,631 $1,641,799 $1,821,387 1.4%

Other Organizations $231,215 $176,489 $196,239 $290,575 $376,512 $254,206 62.8%

Total $10,903,594 $9,814,908 $41,290,337 $13,908,999 $10,681,300 $17,319,828 -2.0%

Source




OVERALL DONOR COUNTS BY SOURCE: FY09–FY13



# # # # # # #

Alumni 3,614 3,232 3,958 6,484 5,889 4,635 62.9%

Parents 232 195 223 202 353 241 52.2%

Other Individuals 4,215 4,274 4,286 4,356 4,030 4,232 -4.4%

Corporations 971 852 790 872 849 867 -12.6%

Foundations 109 99 96 108 101 103 -7.3%

Other Organizations 146 116 110 131 108 122 -26.0%

Total 9,287 8,768 9,463 12,153 11,330 10,200 22.0%

Source




GROWTH SCENARIOS


ROADMAP FOR GROWTH:

GROWTH SCENARIOS

GG+A considered the following factors in projecting growth for fundraising progress for New Mexico State University:

– Benchmarks against a Peer Benchmark Cohort (Mississippi State University, Montana State University, University of Delaware, University of Idaho, University of Nevada Reno, University of Vermont, and Utah State University);

– The potential capacity of New Mexico State University’s prospect pool as identified through internal and external ratings processes; and the

– Potential to improve fundraising productivity through strategic enhancements and organization of University Advancement.

The projected growth is contingent upon building a performance-oriented management structure at the campus and college levels; strengthened principal, major, and annual gift programs; and an infrastructure that supports best practices.

The growth model summarized in this report has been developed without consideration or prediction of economic trends, with the exception that baseline figures for Total Fundraising Progress and Total Advancement Expenditures have been adjusted to a level that reflect NMSU’s average results from FY08–FY13.


ROADMAP FOR GROWTH:

GROWTH SCENARIOS

New Mexico State University has an aspirational campaign goal of $125 million.

– To achieve this goal in five years, Total Fundraising Progress will need to grow at roughly 13.5% per year, a rate which exceeds most historical growth rates in Public Higher Education (see Benchmarking section); GG+A believes that this is an aggressive, yet achievable target, particularly if NMSU can cultivate the prospect opportunities that currently exist among its alumni.

– Over the proposed five-year campaign, GG+A expects NMSU’s Cost Per Dollar Raised (CPDR) to remain in line with the Benchmark Cohort mean of $0.27.

– To reach a goal of this size, NMSU will require new personnel and programmatic expenditures. GG+A expects NMSU’s total Development expenditures to increase to $8.6 million per year by the final year of the campaign – an increase of roughly $3.8 million from the University’s FY13 expenditures.


FIVE-YEAR GROWTH SCENARIO

Compound Annual Growth Rate

Baseline(FY08-13) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Five-Year Total

Total Fundraising Progress $16.8 $19.1 $21.7 $24.6 $27.9 $31.7 $125.0

Total Development Expenditures $4.4 $5.0 $5.7 $6.6 $7.5 $8.6

Net Yield $12.4 $14.1 $15.9 $18.0 $20.4 $23.1

Cost Per Dollar Raised $0.26 $0.26 $0.27 $0.27 $0.27 $0.27

Baseline f igures are self-reported.Total Fundraising Progress includes new cash (outright gifts made during the f iscal year) and new pledges (unconditional pledges made during the f iscal year).

13.5%


PROSPECT POOL ANALYSIS


PROSPECT POOL ANALYSIS

GG+A evaluated 152,131 prospect households, which were comprised of:

– 169,355 living individuals

– 128,094 alumni households (84.2% of all households)

Using conservative gift capacity estimates derived from GG+A’s Wealth Screening and gift capacity analysis, GG+A has identified:

– 893 prospect households capable of gifts of $100,000 or more over the next five years to their top philanthropic priorities.

– Those figures swell to 9,298 prospect households for capacity to give $25,000 or more.


PROSPECT POOL ANALYSIS – ALL INDIVIDUALS


ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND RESOURCES


FINDINGS:

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND

RESOURCES

In 2013, NMSU put into place a decentralized structure for its Major Gifts program. Major Gifts positions assigned to the units began reporting directly to the Deans, with the exception of the College of Agriculture, where the fundraising staff continues to report to University Advancement.

As part of this reorganization, the responsibility for funding personnel and operating expenses associated with Development was transferred to the units.

The objective of the 2013 reorganization was to more fully engage academic leaders in fundraising, provide more direct influence by academic leaders on fundraising goals and priorities, and increase unit responsibility and accountability for fundraising outcomes.


FINDINGS:


RESOURCES

GG+A is concerned, however, that the organizational disconnect between the unit fundraisers and University Advancement is having a negative impact on results.

– The Deans have full responsibility for managing areas where they may or may not have sufficient knowledge and experience.

– Fundraising staff may not fully benefit from the mentoring and coaching available from the central office.

– Collaboration between the units in work with prospects and in developing proposals is more difficult.


FINDINGS:


RESOURCES

Salaries in University Advancement are generally competitive. However, the University may find that recruiting new, more senior staff over time may required additional resources.

Operating expenditures at NMSU compared to the benchmarking cohort are low at 17.9% versus 33.4%.

Annual Giving requires a significant infusion of operating expenses to expand its ability to grow results.

Distribution of expenditures between Personnel costs and operation is disproportionate to that GG+A would expect to find in an Advancement program (82.1% at NMSU compared to the benchmark mean of 66.6%).


DISTRIBUTION OF ADVANCEMENT EXPENDITURES (MEAN 2008–2013)

When compared to the Peer Benchmark Cohort (2008–2013), NMSU spends a much smaller percentage of its Total Advancement Expenditures on program costs.

$ % $ %Mississippi State University $3.0M 60.9% $2.0M 39.1% $5.0M

Montana State University $3.2M 66.3% $1.6M 33.7% $4.8M

University of Delaware $5.5M 66.9% $2.7M 33.1% $8.3M

University of Idaho $6.0M 62.3% $3.6M 37.7% $9.6M

University of Nevada Reno ─ ─ ─ ─ ─

University of Vermont $6.2M 72.5% $2.3M 27.5% $8.5M

Utah State University $4.2M 70.8% $1.7M 29.2% $5.9M

Mean $4.7M 66.6% $2.3M 33.4% $7.0M

New Mexico State University $3.6M 82.1% $0.8M 17.9% $4.4M


Personnel(Salary & Benefits) Program

Total Advancement Expenditures


RECOMMENDATIONS:


RESOURCES

Any discussion of Advancement staffing and staffing structures at New Mexico State must include the imperative of increasing productivity.

Analysis shows that productivity among the front-line fundraisers is one-third that of the benchmarking cohort. There is a clear need to identify strategies and programs to increase productivity.

The strategies should include the following:

– Ongoing training and mentoring of staff and Deans

– Well-constructed funding opportunities

– Discipline and focus on development and executing effective cultivation and solicitation strategies

– Enhanced accountability for progress against metrics among University Advancement, academic partners, and development officers


RECOMMENDATIONS:


RESOURCES

While GG+A supports the newly reorganized structure of University Advancement, we recommend a modification in the structure to create a hybrid organization with a solid reporting line to University Development for the unit fundraisers with a dotted line reporting relationship to the Deans.

– University Advancement and the academic units should share the cost of the units’ staff and expenditures directly associated with fundraising and advancement communications.

– GG+A is withholding recommendations regarding any Alumni Relations staffing or expenditures in the units until the Alumni Relations review is completed later this fall.


RECOMMENDATIONS:


RESOURCES

GG+A recommends the following organizational and staffing changes:

– Annual Giving:

• GG+A recommends that NMSU create a position of Executive Director of Annual Giving to oversee the program and staff

• The addition of one to two new Leadership Annual Giving Officers

• The Telefund manager should become a full-time position

• The addition of a Business Analyst, a Direct Mail Manager, and a Social Media Manager

– Planned Giving:

• An Executive Director of Planned Giving to manage the overall program

• One FTE Administrative position


RECOMMENDATIONS:


RESOURCES

– Stewardship

• The Director of Scholarships and Stewardship should become the Director of Stewardship

• The addition of a Stewardship Coordinator to oversee the Director’s scholarship portfolio.

– Advancement Communications

• Associate Vice President for Advancement Communications to build the strategic communications infrastructure


RECOMMENDATIONS:


RESOURCES

The University should begin now to identify funding for expenditures associated with a comprehensive campaign. These expenditures will include, but are not limited to, the following:

– Events

– Travel

– Collaterals

– Recognition and stewardship of donors

– Professional services including wealth screening


CAMPAIGN PREPARATION


CAMPAIGN PREPARATION

In the view of GG+A, campaign readiness will require at least 12 months of planning and preparation before launching the quiet phase of the campaign.

A timetable for the next year should be created addressing the following topics:

– Identification of funding priorities

– Development of the Case for Support

– Commencement of training initiatives for fundraising staff, academic partners, and volunteers

– Analysis of major gift portfolios to assure highest value prospects are under management

– Creation of the Campaign Operating Plan

– Determination of the campaign volunteer structure

– Implementation of the recommendations contained in this report


APPENDIX:LIST OF INTERVIEWEES


LIST OF INTERVIEWEES

Tilahun Adera, Dean, College of Health and Social Services

Dora Almanzar, Senior Fiscal Assistant

Kevin Boberg, Vice President, Economic Development

Eddie Binder, Director, Public Relations and Development, Dona Ana Community College

McKinley Boston, Director of Athletics

Kathleen Brook, Interim Dean, College of Business

Tina Byford, Senior VP, Finance and Administration and Associate VP, Advancement

Diane Calhoun, Director, Scholarship and Stewardship

Tammie Campos, Executive Director, Alumni Relations

Cecilia Carrasco, Development Research Specialist

Garrey Carruthers, President, NMSU

Anthony Casaus, Assistant Dean, Development, College of Business

Lowell Catlett, Dean, College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences

Jennifer Cervantes, Assistant Dean for Advancement and Alumni Relations, College of Health and Social Services



Vimal Chaitanya, Vice President, Research

Nancy Clein-Tafoya, Database Analyst

Kelley Coffeen, Director of Development, College of Education

John Cordova, Board Chair

MaryLou Davis, Governance Committee Chair

Randy Frye, Director, Gift Accounting; Foundation Controller

Louie Gamon, Senior Technology Support Tech

Leslie Gascoigne, Assistant Director, Gift and Foundation Accounting

Cheryl Harrelson, President, NMSU Foundation and VP, Advancement

Fred Heinrich, Associate AD, Development

Stephanie Hernandez, Senior Accountant

Heather Hesse, Senior Data Entry Operator

James Hoffman, Dean, College of Business

Nigel Holman, Director, Annual Giving



Dan Howard, Executive Vice President and Provost

Maureen Howard, Associate Vice President for University Communications

Julie Hughes, Director, Public Affairs

Ricardo Jacquez, Dean, College of Engineering

Mike Johnson, NMSUF Board Member

Patrick Knapp, Director of Development, College of Arts and Sciences

Nancy Meyers, Senior Prospect Research Coordinator

Desma Montellano, Senior Fiscal Assistant

Bernadette Montoya, Vice President, Student Affairs & Enrollment Management

Michael Morehead, Dean, College of Education

Darlene Muguiro, Associate Director, Corporate and Foundation Relations

Lidia Paez, Senior Accountant, Investments

Ann Palormo, Writer

Robert Peterson, Director, Planned Giving



Warren Plante, Administration System Support

Louie Reyes, Dean, Graduate College

Cindy Robbins, Director, Research and Prospect Coordination

Amy Robinson, Senior Accountant, NMSU SE Inc

Bill Sheriff, NMSUF Board Member

Christa Slaton, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

Elaine Stachera, Major Gifts Officer, Sr.

Charlotte Tallman, Communications Director

Andrea Tawney, Director, Presidential Donor Relations and Development

Herb Taylor, Senior Associate AD, Development

Elizabeth Titus, Dean, Library

Debbie Widger, Associate VP, Development

Terra van Winter, Major Gifts Officer, Sr., College of ACES

Barbara Wise, Director, Major Gifts

Sandy Zane, NMSUF Board Member

a campaign readiness review: executive summary for new … › file › foundation-board ›...

Documents