Advancement Audit January 2007

1. Advancement AuditJanuary 2007 Bruce W. Flessner John S. McConnell Bobbie J. Strand 62560

2. Message fromthe Study Team • Table of Contents • Overview Message • Executive Summary3 • Major Recommendation 10 • Additional Recommendations11 • Findings and Conclusions13 • Leadership 14 • Planning 18 • Management and Staffing 23 • Fundraising Programs 30 • Alumni Relations Programs 44 • Prospect Development/Prospect Management 49 • Information Services 54 • Advancement Resources 59 • Recommendations 61 • Major Recommendation 62 • Additional Recommendations 63 • Next Actions 90 • Appendices91 • In September 2006, Bentz Whaley Flessner was engaged by Ohio University to review its advancement programs. During our work we have been impressed by: • Dr. Roderick McDavis and his vision for Ohio University. • Ohio alumni pride in their alma mater. • Advancement staff members’ enthusiasm for their important work. • We appreciate the strong support of the University Advancement Office during the study, especially Howard Lipman and Margaret Sheskey. They have been extremely helpful while maintaining their own busy schedules. • This report highlights strengths and weaknesses of the current programs and makes recommendations for improvements. • BENTZ WHALEY FLESSNERBruce W. Flessner • John S. McConnell • Bobbie J. Strand

3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4. Advancement Audit: Purposes • Assess Ohio University’s senior leadership and involvement by the Ohio University Foundation Board of Trustees and Ohio University Alumni Association in fundraising and other external relations programs. • Review Vision Ohio, especially roles for development and alumni relations programs. • Evaluate the readiness of Ohio’s development, alumni relations, and related programs for a new comprehensive campaign.

5. Methodology, Process, and Timeline Background Material • Reviewed data, materials, and other information provided by University Advancement and the Ohio University Foundation. • Interviewed Ohio University senior administrators, advancement and other staff, and key volunteers. • Benchmarked Ohio against peers’ advancement programs. September 2006 Interviews and Benchmarking September 2006 Findings and Conclusions October 2006 Recommendations and Final Report November–December 2006

6. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Eight Areas Examined Leadership Planning

7. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Eight Areas Examined (cont.) Managementand Staffing Fundraising Programs

8. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Eight Areas Examined (cont.) Alumni Relations Programs Prospect Develop- ment/Prospect Management

9. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Eight Areas Examined (cont.) Information Services Advancement Resources

10. Major Recommendation • Ohio University should build a philanthropic agenda, structure and staff University Advancement to be productive and accountable, and position the president, senior administrators, and key volunteers to lead a new campaign.

11. Additional Recommendations • Build Ohio University’s philanthropic agenda and have President McDavis, Foundation Trustees, Vice President Lipman, deans, and other senior administrators play key roles in articulating it. • Structure and staff University Advancement to increase private giving and strengthen alumni engagement. • Create and implement an integrated University Advancement plan with specific, measurable objectives. • Increase cultivation and solicitation activities to generate significant increases in new major and planned gift commitments. • Continue to enhance the annual giving program to increase unrestricted and other current use restricted gifts and alumni giving participation rates.

12. Additional Recommendations • Focus alumni relations programs on measurable outcomes which complement University priorities. • Streamline prospecting and prospect research operations to focus on strategic leadership. • Plan and implement a sound prospect management discipline supported by systems-based tracking. • Have The Ohio University Foundation Board of Trustees determine roles to play in Ohio’s fundraising programs while they continue to focus on managing endowment growth. • Increase resources invested in University Advancement programs with clear expectations about return on investment.

13. FINDINGS ANDCONCLUSIONS

14. Leadership • Ohio University benefits from excellent leadership but has opportunities to engage academic leaders and key volunteers more in fundraising programs. • University and Foundation trustees and Alumni Association board members, academic deans, and others applaud President McDavis’ leadership. • There is widespread enthusiasm and optimism about Vice President Lipman’s arrival. • Academic deans, senior leaders, and Foundation trustees want to play more active roles in major gift fundraising.

15. Leadership University and Foundation trustees and Alumni Association board members, academic deans, and others applaud President McDavis’ leadership. • Impressed with his enthusiasm/passion for Ohio University, commitment to excellence, and ability to articulate key ideas. • Severe budget problems and negative publicity about data security issues and graduate student plagiarism have made presidential leadership challenging. • Praised Vision OHIO strategic plan.

16. Leadership There is widespread enthusiasm and optimism about Vice President Lipman’s arrival. • Campus has high expectations about his ability to increase private gifts in support of Ohio University’s strategic initiatives and priorities. • Deans applaud his communication style and collaborative approach to decision making. • Foundation Board members are especially supportive and confident.

17. Leadership Academic deans, senior leaders, and Foundation Trustees want to play more active roles in majorgift fundraising. • Academic deans and other senior administrators are prepared to commit the time necessary to increase major gifts for their colleges and units. • Scripps’ gift has whetted their appetites for major gift fundraising. • Open to participating in major gift solicitation training and more partnering with University Advancement staff. • Several Foundation Trustees want to be more involved in fundraising and external relations programs. • Offer advice on specific major gift prospects. • Serve as ambassadors to alumni and friends in their geographic areas. • Find ways to support investing more resources in University Advancement. • Confident that sub par investment performance issues have been addressed.

18. Planning • Ohio University’s mission is supported by a comprehensive strategic plan; however, negative publicity about data security and other matters have made it more difficult to make the case for philanthropy. • Vision OHIO contains strategic goals and initiatives to enable Ohio University to be a nationally prominent university. • Within the framework of Vision OHIO,colleges, and units have developed their own visions and strategic plans. • Some university, college, and unit philanthropic agendas have been developed; others are in process.

19. Planning Vision OHIO contains strategic goals and initiatives to enable Ohio University to be a nationally prominent university. • President McDavis has articulated ambitious goals. • Become a nationally prominent research university. • Increase diversity of students, faculty, administrators. • Strengthen and expand the base of financial support. • Increase partnerships through the region, state, nation, and world . • Several strategic initiatives are being launched. • Expansion of graduate student and research programs. • Appalachian Scholars and Urban Scholars Programs. • Achieving significant increases in philanthropic dollars. • Health awareness and literacy partnerships.

20. Planning Negative publicity about data security and other matters have hampered making the case for philanthropy. Negative Positive • Addressing public relations issues critical to new campaign. • Very difficult to go directly from “High Negative” to “High Positive.” DESIRED High CURRENT Low

21. Colleges that have developed strategic plans: College of Arts and Sciences College of Business Scripps College of Communication College of Education Russ College of Engineering and Technology College of Fine Arts College of Health and Human Services Honors Tutorial College College of Osteopathic Medicine University College Other units and campuses that have developed strategic plans: University Libraries Center for International Studies Kennedy Museum of Art Division of Lifelong Learning Voinovich Center for Leadership and Public Affairs Ohio University, Chillicothe Ohio University, Eastern Ohio University, Lancaster Ohio University, Southern Ohio University, Zanesville Planning Within the framework of Vision OHIO, colleges and units have developed their own visions and strategic plans.

22. Planning Some university, college, and unit philanthropic agendas have been developed; others are in process. • Appalachian Scholars and Urban Scholars Programs:defined and funding requirements specified. • The Integrated Learning and Research Facility: impact on research and learning articulated; costs projected, and progress made on securing funding. • Colleges, Units, and Campuses: some initiatives defined and impacts articulated; however, relatively few have endowment and/or operating costs specified.

23. Management and Staffing Advancement staff members are eager and experienced, but lack structure, performance plans, accountability, and sufficient resources. • Staff members are enthusiastic about their work on behalf of Ohio University. • Advancement’s structure, organization, and staffing levels limit operational effectiveness. • Staffing levels are below those required to achieve ambitious increases in private giving.

24. Management and Staffing Staff members are enthusiastic about their work on behalf of Ohio University. • Staff members bring experience and commitment to Ohio University and to their work. • Eighteen staff members have worked over ten years in Advancement at the University. • Another sixteen have at least five years of experience. • “Enthusiastic” and “eager” are apt words to describe Advancement staff members. • Real passion for their development and alumni relations work. • Eagerly looking forward to advancement leadership to enable them to turn Vision OHIO’s dreams into realities.

25. Management and Staffing Advancement’s structure, organization, and staffing levels limit operational effectiveness. • Development is not structured optimally in terms of function and accountability. • Too many fundraisng staff members—seventeen—report directly to the assistant vice president of development. • Associate director of athletics—a major gift fundraiser—does not report to the assistant vice president of development. • Senior director, donor relations, and gift administration reports to the executive director of development, who is primarily in charge of annual giving programs.

26. V.P., Advancement President and CEO The Ohio UniversityFoundation Administrative Coordinator Foundation Administrative Coordinator, Vice President Asst. V.P. AdministrationChief of Staff Assistant Vice President Development Asst. V.P.Alumni Relations Administrative Assistant Executive Director of Development Sr. Director of Development* (2) Exec. Dir. of Dev. for Planned Giving Dir., Campus Relations Advocacy AssociateExecutive Dir. Dir. Dev. Admin. and Events Manager, Adv. Services Dir. Dev. Research and Prospect Management Programmer Analyst (2) Sr. Director DonorRelations and Gift Administration Asst. Dean, Osteopathic Medicine Dir., Outreach and Engagement Budget Manager Assistant Dir. of Planned Giving Data Control Technician (5) Assoc. Director of Athletics Dir., Heritage, Trad. and Alumni Tours Dev. Coordinator University Libraries Sr. Director of Dev., Arts and Sciences Assistant Dir., Outreach and Engagement (2) Research Analyst Assistant Dean, Scripps College of Communication AdministrativeAssistant AdministrativeAssistant Director of Dev. for Athletics Assistant Dean,Engineering & Tech Dir., Marketing and Communications * Focus on all-university priorities and initiatives and also serve as development officers for the College of Business and College of Fine Arts. Director ofAnnual Giving Dev. Coord. Scripps Col. of Communication Assistant Dean,Education Major Gift Positions Assistant Dir. Marketing and Communications Asst. Director of Annual Giving Assistant Dean, Health & HumanServices Unfilled positions: Assistant Deans for Education, Health and Human Services, Chillicothe Campus, Eastern Campus, and Southern Campus; Executive Director Development–Major Gifts; Director of Communication; Admin. Assistant–Planned Giving; Research Analyst. Assistant Dean, Regional Campus (5) Administrative Assistant Director of Communication Admin. Assistant Admin. Assistant (2) Advancement Management and Staffing

27. Management and Staffing Advancement’s structure and organization limits their operational effectiveness. • Staff restructuring—planned and partially implemented during the past year—has created confusion inside and outside Development. • Staff reductions and the importance of university-wide priorities (e.g., Appalachian Scholars Program) created a need for major gift staff to focus on these. • Naming selected collegiate development directors as senior directors of development and moving them to McGuffey Hall has left some deans concerned about who will work with them on major gifts. • Some development staff members are not exactly sure about their new responsibilities. • Performance plans—overall, unit or individual level—with well-defined, specific, measurable objectives and reports to track and evaluate progress do not exist.

28. Management and Staffing Staffing levels are below those required to achieve ambitious increases in private giving. • Development staffing levels are below those during The Bicentennial Campaign. • Development staff who worked on major gifts from alumni and friends reached 23 during the campaign. • Currently, the number of full-time major and planned giving staff stands at 16. • Seven Advancement positions exist but are unfilled because of budgetary reasons. • Over the past four years, University Advancement’s budget has decreased by $642,645 from $4,116,646 to $3,474,001. • A seasoned major gift officer should generate at least $1,000,000 in new gift commitments annually; therefore, the loss of 10 major gift staff positions will be expected to adversely impact on Ohio University’s fundraising programs.

29. Management and Staffing Staffing levels are below those required to achieve ambitious increases in private giving. • With 16 advancement staff engaged in major and planned giving cultivation and solicitation, Ohio ranks behind Buffalo (40), Miami (19), and Kent State (18) in the MAC. • When compared with its peer universities, Ohio ranks ahead of only New Hampshire (10) and Delaware (8) in number of major gift staff and well behind UConn (21), Auburn (43), Missouri (53), and North Carolina (67). • Appendix A contains additional comparative data on development staff sizes by function for Ohio, other MAC, and peer universities.

30. Fundraising Programs • Fundraising programs have achieved successes but appear to have untapped potential and can benefit from increased emphasis on donor stewardship. • The Bicentennial Campaign exceeded its goal, increased endowment commitments, and expanded the donor base. • Alumni appear to present the best potential for significantly increasing private gifts. • Most of the largest gift commitments have been deferred gifts. • Annual giving programs rely completely on phone and direct mail; no structured personal solicitation is involved. • Donor recognition and stewardship programs appear to have opportunities for enhancement.

31. Foundations $12.6M 6% Organizations $6.8M 3% Corporations $25M 11% Planned Gifts $102.6M 46% Cash and Pledges $98.2M 45% Alumni $142.6M 65% Friends $33.2M 15% Gifts in Kind $19.3M 9% Fundraising Programs The Bicentennial Campaign exceeded its goal, increased endowment commitments, and expanded the donor base. • The Bicentennial Campaign (July 1997 to June 2004) secured $220.2 million in gift commitments against a $200 million goal. Source: Division of University Advancement (July 2004) • Alumni made almost two-thirds of total campaign gift commitments. • Planned gift commitments ($102.6 million) made up almost one-half of the campaign total—more than one would normally expect.

32. Fundraising Programs Alumni appear to present the best potential for significantly increasing private gifts. $52.6 $38.8 $28.3 $19.1 $19.6 $11.6 Source: Ohio University Development Office • Alumni have made more than 43% of total gift commitments over the past five years.

33. Fundraising Programs $52,555,868 $38,776,891 $28,327,274 $19,099,089 $19,558,399 $11,646,108 Source: Ohio University Development Office • Gift Commitments include outright gifts, new pledges, and new documented deferred gift commitments; pledge payments and realized deferred gifts (when deferred gift commitments were counted previously) are excluded. • Five-year average total gifts are dominated by $1,000,000+ gifts in FY2004 and FY2006.

34. Fundraising Programs $52,555,868 $38,776, 891 $28,327,274 $19,558,399 $19,099,089 $11,646,108 Source: Ohio University Development Office • Planned gift commitments (revocable plus irrevocable) have averaged 33% of total gifts commitments over the past five years. • Revocable planned gift commitments have averaged almost 30% of total gift commitments.

35. Fundraising Programs Total gifts over the past six years place Ohio in the middle of MAC universities. $36.8 $28.1 $21.8 $20.7 $20.5 $15.1 $15.0 $15.2 $13.0 $12.0 $12.0 $7.9 ** No 2004 and 2006 numbers. Only a 4-year average. Source: Voluntary Support of Education/CAE Reports

36. Fundraising Programs When compared against its academic peers, Ohio’s total gifts exceed only the University of New Hampshire. $91.4 $71.6 $50.3 $46.6 $46.9 $42.7 $40.6 $15.6 $13.6 * No 2006 numbers. Only a 5-year average. Source: Voluntary Support of Education/CAE Reports • Indiana University’s five-year average is $256.4 million and University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill’s is $173.7 million.

37. Fundraising Programs Most of Ohio’s largest gift commitments have been deferred gifts. • Bequest intentions and other deferred gift commitments make up eight of Ohio’s largest single gift commitments. • Alumni make up ten of the fourteen largest commitments (excluding anonymous commitments). • Ohio has secured six outright gift commitments of $1,000,000 and higher from individuals—four from alumni. * Revocable

38. Face-to-Face Visits: Three-Year Average, 2002-2004 Fundraising Programs Successful major gift programs emphasize making intentional face-to-face visits with prospective donors. • Development staff who do major giftwork are expected to make at least90 visits with major gift prospect anddonors each year. • Four who have been in their positions at least two of the last three year achieved this objective. • A goal of 90 visits a year is modest by major gift program standards. • Major gift staff should be expected to have at least 180 intentional face-to-face meetings with prospective major gift donors each year. Source: Ohio Advancement Office

39. Fundraising Programs Alumni appear to represent untapped major gift potential. Chicago (2,967) Metro New York (4,361)  Greater Cleveland(8,676)  Akron/Canton(12,774)  Columbus/Central Ohio(25,013) GreaterCincinnati(8,651)  California (4,366)  SoutheasternOhio(18,604) Florida (4,605) • Almost one-half of all living alumni reside in Ohio; some 80% of alumni living in Ohio are in one of five geographic areas. • Untapped opportunities appear to exist to focus more major gift work in Ohio and other key cities/regions.

40. Fundraising Programs Annual giving programs rely completely on phone and direct mail; no structured personal solicitation is involved. Phonathon and Direct Mail Gifts: FY2002 to FY2006 • *No direct mail or phone solicitations in May and June 2006 because of data-security issues. • Phone program was outsourced starting 2005; yearly costs increased $265,000. • Phone program staff reassigned to the senior class gift program ($5,000 per year) and to soliciting gifts by phone for the Cutler Scholars Program.

41. Fundraising Programs Ohio’s alumni giving percentage compares favorably with other MAC universities. Alumni Giving Participation: Ohio and Other MAC Universities, FY2005 Source: Voluntary Support of Education/CAE Reports • Ohio ranks fourth among twelve MAC universities. • No MAC institutions are close to 20% alumni participation. • Ohio’s alumni participation has increased from 11% (FY2001) to over 13% in (FY2006).

42. Fundraising Programs Only three peer universities have alumni participation rates higher than Ohio’s. Alumni Giving Participation: Ohio and Other Peer Universities, FY2005 • Only North Carolina, Clemson, and Indiana have higher alumni participation rates. • Except for North Carolina and Clemson, no peers are close to 20%. Source: Voluntary Support of Education/CAE Reports

43. Fundraising Programs Donor recognition and stewardship programs are working but have opportunities for enhancement. • The basic receipting and acknowledgement process appears to work in an acceptable and timely way. • Stewardship for scholarship donors is more fully developed than other donor stewardship programs. • Some stewardship events are planned and implemented, particularly for planned gift donors. • Web-based recognition has not been a point of focus and, in fact, the capacity of both the web page and global email need to be developed to be used effectively in stewardship. • Compliance with current giving guidelines and tax rules is meeting basic standards.

44. Alumni RelationsPrograms • Alumni relations programs are guided by a strategic plan, focused on alumni connecting with alma mater, but are not part of an overall integrated Advancement plan. • Vision OHIO Alumni contains numerous strategic initiatives for alumni relations programs. • Alumni staff have more programs and activities to deliver than time to do so. • Metrics to link alumni programs and activities to other advancement goals and objectives do not exist.

45. Alumni Relations Programs Vision OHIO Alumni contains numerous strategic initiatives for alumni relations programs. • Vision OHIO Alumni contains important initiatives and programs in support of the Alumni Association’s mission and vision. • Mission: inform, engage, and serve the University’s current and future alumni. • Vision: every alumnus is a partner in the life of Ohio University. • Strategic initiatives focus on achieving important goals. • Participation and Engagement • Student Recruitment and Retention • Leadership and Mentoring • Philanthropy, Volunteerism, and Advocacy • Business and Community Development • Evaluation and Assessment • Clearly defined outcomes to answer “How do we know when we have achieved a goal?” are generally absent.

46. Alumni Relations Programs Ohio’s alumni relations staff size compares favorably with other MAC universities and less so with Ohio’s peers. • Ohio’s alumni relations staff size and alumni per program staff member compares favorably with other MAC universities. • Ball State (12) and Miami (11) have more program staff than Ohio (9). • Alumni per program staff member is lowest at Ball State (11,877) and Miami (14,534) with Ohio third (16,379). • Ohio’s peer universities have larger staff and lower alumni per program staff member than Ohio. • Ohio’s alumni relations staff (9) is larger than only Delaware (5), Clemson (8) and UConn (8). • Alumni per program staff member is lowest at New Hampshire (10,377), Clemson (11,589), and North Carolina (11,951). • Only UConn (21,499), Delaware (25,571), and Missouri (19,479) have more alumni per program staff member than Ohio. • Appendix B contains more comparative data about alumni staff sizes and alumni per program staff member at MAC and peer universities.

47. Alumni Relations Programs Alumni staff have more programs and activities to deliver than time to do so. • Alumni staff members are eager to increase the number of opportunities to connect Ohio alumni with alma mater. • Respond to requests to work with alumni to start new chapters and societies. • Committed to engaging current students to build their alumni loyalty. • Clear criteria to decide when it makes sense “not to do or continue with an alumni program or activity” do not exist. • Opportunities to enable alumni volunteers to set up more of their own societies and chapters through web-based tools do not appear to be fully developed.

48. Alumni Relations Programs Metrics to link alumni programs and activities to other University goals and objectives do not exist. • Alumni programs lack well-defined metrics to help evaluate their outcomes and success in terms of their impact on other University priorities. • Student recruitment • Alumni giving • Career development • Public relations and advocacy • Having metrics stated in terms of specific, measurable outcomes could help link alumni programs to these goals and priorities. • Provide ways to emphasize the importance of alumni programs. • Help evaluate whether to expand, scale back, or discontinue selected programs.

49. Prospect Development/Prospect Management • Prospecting and research have produced some good work, but are not prepared in staff numbers or planning to meet the demands of a significant campaign. Prospect management is inactive. • Prospecting and research are understaffed, with current day-to-day research needs met by an off-campus researcher. • Talented leadership for the area is creative, but has not been strategic. • A prospect management discipline and prospect tracking structure are inactive.

50. Prospect Development/Prospect Management The number, focus, and daily operations of prospecting staff are inadequate for a significant campaign. • Prospect Research is currently understaffed with daily research needs dependent on a remote staff member. • In spite of limited staff, assignments have been narrowly focused. • With two professionals, there is little need for stratification of tasks. • Staff is experienced, knowledgeable about the process, and skilled in individual tasks.