New Models of Fundraiser Accountability and Prospect Pools

Dave Scott, Development Services ManagerGlasgow Caledonian University

Glasgow Caledonian University Prospect Pool Review Meeting

What’s your pool like?

Big and rich?

What’s your pool like?

Small but rich?

What’s your pool like?

Small and rubbish?

Or just underdeveloped?

4 years ago…

• A handful of donors with a handful of dollars

• 4 fundraisers in need of prospects

• Someone new to prospect research as the sole resource

• A database with little or no details with lots of missing information

• No fundraising projects or ‘case for support’

• Main aim = as many high wealth donors in front of fundraisers as possible

• As a result = bag and tag as many suspects/prospects as possible

As a result…

• Good working and intelligent prospect pipeline tool

• A number of high level donors met giving within a short period of time

However…

• Focus on new donors with not enough focus on progressing new prospects

• Pipeline blocked resulting in issues with fundraisers moving prospects along

Models of prospect pools

How many prospects do your (full-time) fundraisers have allocated to them on average?

100?

150?

200?

250+?

Models of prospect pools

What are the benefits of a large pool versus a smaller pool?

• More prospects to see

• Better chance of hitting targets by seeing more people

• Higher targets from estimated wealth of pool

Models of prospect pools

What are the negatives of having a large pool versus a smaller pool?

• Ability to prioritise prospects

• Focus on higher wealth individuals

• Ability to meet as many prospects as possible - only 250 working days in a year so time is tight

• Ability to build a meaningful relationship with a prospect

• Hoarding of prospects by fundraisers or a reluctance to let go

Example: Pool Size –v– Contact

Pool No

Size Contact in the last year

Last contact 1-2 years

Last contact >2 years

No personal contact

1 112 88% 8% 3% <1%

2 349 65% 17% 8% 10%

3 127 98% 2% - -

4 140 67% 25% 5% 3%

5 91 85% 12% - 3%

n.b. personal contact judged as face-to-face, telephone call, email (Source: University Of Strathclyde)

North American models

DePaul University – Chicago (2010)

University of Chicago (2010)

Northwestern University – Chicago (2010)

Loyola University – Chicago (2010)

Illinois Institute of Technology – Chicago (2010)

University of Texas, Austin (2011)

Majority had the pressure of researchers populating pools of 150 – 300+ active prospects

Apart from DePaul University

DePaul University - Chicago

• 6 years into their first ever campaign, target of $250M over 8 years

• After two years decision made to reassess how their fundraisers worked and the best way of utilizing their prospect pools

• Poll of other universities showed pools ranging from 150 to 300+

• Decision taken to review Major Gift productivity

DePaul University - Chicago

• All 40 fundraisers now have a pool of 75 split into Top 50 and Hot 25

• An ask to be made of their Hot 25 within that financial year

• Top 50 filtered to identify the prospects to take up the spots in the Hot 25 the following year

• Monthly targets now based on a monetary basis rather than on number of meetings alone

DePaul University - Chicago

• Targets set for each fundraiser across the year with quarterly breakdowns based on productivity:

Contacts

Face to face

Solicitations

Proposals

Major Gifts

Additional fundraising support

DePaul University – Chicago

As a result:

• Each fundraiser a ‘project manager’

• Freedom for researchers

• Full accountability

• Increased productivity and development

• Greater levels of co-operation amongst fundraisers

• Identifies goals and sets a structure to help measure success for all fundraisers

• $250M raised after 6 years, 2 years ahead of target

DePaul University - Chicago

Fundraiser Level

ContactsGoal/Count

Face2FaceGoal/Count

ProposalsGoal/Count

Major GiftsGoal/Count

Gift AmountsGoal/Count

Leadership 1) 20 / 442) 20 / 513) 20 / 884) 20 / 2480 / 207

1) 12 / 92) 11 / 83) 11 / 144) 11 / 1545 / 46

1) 3 / 112) 3 / 13) 3 / 14) 3 / 412 / 17

1) 2 / 22) 1 / 13) 2 / 04) 1 / 16 / 4

1) $1,000,000 / $2,050,0002) $1,000,000 / $800,0003) $1,000,000 / $04) $1,000,000 / $1,000,000$4,000,000 / $3,850,000

Senior Fundraiser

1) 45 / 111

2) 45 / 493) 45 /

2894) 45 / 51180/500

1) 25 / 122) 25 / 133) 25 / 194) 25 / 29100 / 73

1) 5 / 32) 5 / 23) 5 / 34) 5 / 420 / 12

1) 2 / 12) 2 / 23) 2 / 04) 2 / 08 / 3

1) $500,000 / $100,0002) $500,000 / $400,0003) $500,000 / $04) $500,000 / $0$2,000,000 / $500,000

Fundraiser 1) 60 / 118

2) 60 / 983) 60 /

1444) 60 / 86240 / 446

1) 35 / 152) 35 / 253) 35 / 224) 35 / 20140 / 82

1) 5 / 142) 5 / 43) 5 / 54) 5 / 720 / 30

1) 2 / 42) 2 / 23) 2 / 34) 2 / 28 / 11

1) $125,000 / $335,0002) $125,000 / $61,0003) $125,000 / $115,0004) $125,000 / $121,000$500,000 / $632,000

New Fundraiser

1) 60 / 702) 60 / 973) 60 /

1054) 60 /

245240 / 517

1) 35 / 112) 35 / 143) 35 / 184) 35 / 24140 / 67

1) 5 / 12) 5 / 13) 5 / 44) 5 / 620 / 12

1) 2 / 02) 2 / 03) 2 / 04) 2 / 08 / 0

1) $75,000 / $02) $75,000 / $03) $75,000 / $04) $75,000 / $0$250,000 / $0

Fundraiser accountability and effectiveness

How are your fundraisers measured in terms of their success and effectiveness?

• Cold hard cash?

• Number of asks?

• Number of proposals?

• Number of meetings?

• Number of contacts with prospects?

• Number of progressions through the cultivation cycle?

The challenge...

Breakout group discussion

Future prospect review meetings?