1 / 37

ADVIS Annual Development Retreat

Discover innovative solutions for identifying mid-level and major gift donors using the latest technology. Explore best practices and methods to assess fundraising performance and qualify prospects.

ramirezm
Download Presentation

ADVIS Annual Development Retreat

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ADVISAnnual Development Retreat February 13, 2018

  2. Finding Your Best Donor Prospects Through the Magic of Today’s Technology

  3. Presenters Pat Voigt Senior Consultant Kelly Grattan Senior Consultant

  4. Introductions Name, Position, School

  5. About Schultz & Williams National planning and consulting firm providing strategic and innovative solutions to the nonprofit sector. • Established in 1987 • Offices in: Philadelphia • Washington DC • San Francisco • Los Angeles • Nonprofit clients of all types and sizes • Creative solutions, multiple strategies – one size does not fit all

  6. S&W StaffSolutions™ Development Consulting Marketing S&W Direct Business & Strategic Financial Planning

  7. Objectives • Inventory ways in which you currently identify mid-level and major gift donors • Identify methods for: • Fully understanding current fundraising performance, including strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities • Qualifying individuals to determine if they are prospects and at what level • Explore ways in which schools are currently utilizing these methods and best practices

  8. First things first…How do we assess the performance of our operation to fully understand our strengths and weaknesses and our opportunities for growth?

  9. 360° view of how donors are engaging with the school, identifies recent and historic trends, and uncovers gaps in giving that may be relevant to potential major gifts and strategy. • Fosters a better understanding of the current state of the school’s prospect pool and the major donor pipeline, with a sharper eye towards metrics that relate to the potential for significant growth of the development program. • Returns a full set of data points relevant to growth opportunities and critical insights into fundraising trends. • Provides a foundation for data-driven decision-making. S&W ProFile™

  10. Case Study #1 • Independent school, grades 7-12 • Ran the ProFile™ as part of the internal assessment in a campaign planning study • DoD wanted confirmation of overall performance improvement • DoD also wanted to know any weaknesses in the development program

  11. Case Study #1 Approach & Findings • Analyzed 8 years of giving (cash only) • Only 32% of revenue comes from the top 10 donors  sign of donor pool health • Insignificant revenue is lost from donors who decreased giving  under $500k vs. nearly $1.5m in increased giving • Overall retention was only 57%  better than the national average of 41-43% across all non-profits, but not as high as the 60% rate for independent schools

  12. Development Program Overview

  13. Distribution by Gift Level

  14. Philanthropic Revenue from Individuals

  15. FY17 Donor Distribution by State

  16. In small groups… • How do you currently add individuals to the prospect pool? • How do you qualify these individuals, if at all?

  17. Finding Prospects

  18. But how do we know if these individuals are good prospects and at what level we should target them?

  19. Philanthropic Capacity Screening Also known as “wealth screening,” which focuses on capacity but not philanthropic inclination Critical 1st step in understanding who is in your universe Worth the investment! Many options on the market today  How do you choose? Run it every 2-3 years, or at least consider running new parents (if considered potential prospects) through each summer/fall.

  20. Who is currently using these tools?Which one(s)?

  21. Disclaimer • S&W receives no discount or benefits from any vendor… • Nor do we receive any sort of credit/compensation from any vendor to refer clients. • Our preferences stem from personal experience with and knowledge of the tools. • Please choose the tool(s) that work best for your organization.

  22. S&W’s Qualification Philosophy

  23. Screening Tools(S&W ranked) • DonorSearch • Strong match logic: confidence that the person screened is the person in our database • Constant review of the subscription databases the information is pulled from • Strong capacity and very robust philanthropy • WealthEngine & iWave • Strong capacity • Weak philanthropy • Iffy match logic • ResearchPoint (Blackbaud Target Analytics) • Strong match logic (though not as robust as DonorSearch) • Decent capacity • Weak philanthropy • Beware: will heavily weigh affinity as expressed through giving history in determining giving ranges (refer to Case Study #1)  We know these tools LOOK better, but don’t let that guide your decision.

  24. Case Study #2 • Independent school, grades 9-12 • About to conduct a campaign planning study to test a goal of $40 million for capital/endowment • First ran ResearchPoint screening during their transition to NXT • Unique scenario: The school knows its alums are extremely loyal and connected BUT up until last year, no one was asking them for anything more than a token annual gift.

  25. Case Study #2 Approach & Findings • S&W reviewed the ResearchPoint ratings (!!) • ResearchPoint factored in affinity which it measured by giving history. • The results indicated most alums were not in a position to make a major gift because affinity trumped capacity and philanthropic inclination. • Word of caution: When using ResearchPoint, do not provide giving history if you believe it is not an indicator of affinity, like in this scenario. • S&W then ran the full database through DonorSearch… extraordinary findings! • 250+ can give $500,000 or more! • 500+ can $250,000 or more!

  26. Case Study #3 • Independent school, grades pre-K through 8 • Conducted a mid-campaign assessment ($1.5 million capital campaign) to help raise the remaining 2/3 of the goal • Never screened their records

  27. Case Study #3Approach & Findings • S&W ran the full database through DonorSearch. • Results indicated the School’s database is not saturated with prospects at the very top levels of capacity. • Confirmed target ask amounts in line or higher than those the development team had in mind  gave the team confidence to proceed. • Results highlighted things like where parents are at in terms of their philanthropic lifecycle.

  28. Sample Finding • Note: DoD overheard a parent tell his spouse that he never really thought about giving to the school and wasn’t sure why; he seemed surprised that he didn’t realize the school needed charitable gifts each year. He indicated that he was giving to another school without much thought but should probably redirect the gift to their children’s school. • DS results showed this family has moderate capacity and could make a small campaign gift of approximately $25,000 over 3 years. • Current philanthropic activity in the results showed the couple’s only giving was to the father’s alma mater, which confirms the overheard conversation. • Based on the DS findings and what the DoD knows about this young couple, it’s clear they haven’t yet found their “cause” and are in the perfect position to be cultivated.

  29. What’s next?

  30. Prospect Identification Modeling • Finding the “next generation” of major gift donors (as defined by you) • Produces a list of very warm prospects who haven’t yet made a major gift or are underperforming at the major gift level • Includes only those poised to springboard to the major gift level • Only works if you have a history of giving

  31. Custom Algorithm(based on affinity: giving history & engagement) • Mapping out behavioral indicators of the school’s current major donors: • First gift amount & channel • How long it took to get to the major gift threshold • Any giving changes that set them on a trajectory toward a major gift • Etc. • Algorithm is then weighted 3. Modeling begins, focused on: • Those who are on a similar path of the current major donors • Current retention vs. maximum years of retention • Largest gift in relation to first gift amount • Increased giving (number of gifts and/or amount of gifts) • Attending events, advocacy efforts, membership (if applicable and recorded)

  32. Case Study #4 • Small university • Frustrated with plateaued giving • Haven’t screened records in many years

  33. Case Study #4 Approach & Findings • S&W ran the full database through DonorSearch, and then conducted Prospect Identification Modeling. • The DS results were used to qualify the capacity of the modeled donors. • A typical modeling effort yields 100-300 highly-qualified major gift prospects. • We found over 500 hot major gift prospects! • This confirmed what we already suspected from our work with the school: they haven’t been actively cultivating, soliciting and upgrading most of their constituents.

  34. Questions? Contact us anytime! pvoigt@schultzwilliams.com kgrattan@schultzwilliams.com

More Related