1 / 16

Institutional Advancement Report to the Board of Regents

Institutional Advancement Report to the Board of Regents. Donald G. Rizzo. September 29, 2006. 53315. The 2005-2006 focus in Advancement: Capacity building. Capacity is influenced by four major factors: Disciplined, dedicated, well supported staff. Engaged and influential leadership.

skah
Download Presentation

Institutional Advancement Report to the Board of Regents

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. Institutional Advancement Report to the Board of Regents Donald G. Rizzo September 29, 2006 53315

  2. The 2005-2006 focus in Advancement:Capacity building • Capacity is influenced by four major factors: • Disciplined, dedicated, well supported staff. • Engaged and influential leadership. • A capable donor constituency. • A compelling case for support. The Advancement Office has worked on all four factors this past year. Special emphasis on the Staff and Leadership.

  3. 2005-2006 was a year for significant staff turnover: • Seven major gifts officers are new (less than 18 months tenure) including planned giving. • One of the two annual giving officers is new. • The Director of Advancement Services is new. • The Director of Alumni Relations is new. • The Executive Director of Development is new. • The Director of Institutional Partnerships and Sponsored Research is new: • Both Assistant Directors of Institutional Partnerships are new. • The Government and Private Grants offices were merged.

  4. Activity levels, a key indicator, are rising rapidly at the University. • The trend is decisively positive (yellow line equals linear regression of 2006) • Activity grew by 57% (587 calls to 961 calls) • Performance is somewhat uneven. • Oct and Feb were banner months. • April and June were weak months. • View this as an opportunity. There is room to continue to grow as staff come up to speed. • Total contacts grew by 109%. (1166 to 2433).

  5. Giving to the University of Hartford:Focus on process raised more money. • Activity levels (process) increased by a factor of 57% last year. • Gifts and pledges (product) increased by 20.4%. • The question: How can we bring production up alongside process? • Part of this is the lag time implicit in cultivation. • Part of this is to upgrade the quality of the activity. • Part of this is leadership and case. $11,236,947 $13,532,668 $10,584,266

  6. Planned Giving expectancies at the University of Hartford. (Illustrated in five-year cash flow segments. Data based upon documented commitments.)

  7. Significant FY 2006 facts: • Cash gifts increased by 26% ($7.6 million in 2005 - $9.6 million in 2006) • Faculty and Staff gifts grew by 17% 379 donors gave $198,248 • Unrestricted gifts totaled $760,694 The goal for 2006 was $1 million • The Campaign of Commitment reached $136.7 million in FY 2006

  8. Significant FY2006 facts: (cont.) University of Hartford Alumni participation: • Basic participation rates. The basic rate increased to 8.1% (vs. 7.0% for FY'05) 700 more alumni donors joined in support last year. • Alumni participation for alumni living in Connecticut grew to 9.6% • Participation for Greater Hartford rose to 10.16%

  9. The Silos are coming down: • In previous years, Major Gifts Officers were assigned to schools and focused exclusively on school projects and prospects. • Gift Officers now manage School Advisory Committees, but… • They work with ALL the Deans. • They work with Prospects across the University. • They collaborate on ALL campaign projects.

  10. Fundraising Expenses:Process improvements increased costs. • Total expenses grew from FY’05 to FY’06 by $181,681. • Operations costs (supplies, entertainment, etc.) were reduced. • Investments in people (salaries) were increased correspondingly. • Compensation levels were increased to market-competitive levels Operations Salaries

  11. Expense to revenue:Increased revenues grew much faster than costs. • Fundraising expenses grew by 5.7%. • Fundraising revenues increase by 20.4% • The cost-per-$ over the year declined by 3.4¢

  12. The cost-per-dollar declined to 24.5¢

  13. The Focus on Leadership: • Refocusing and expanding the Regents’ Campaign Steering Committee: • Defined prospect assignments. • Assigned relationships with professional staff. • New reporting process. • Deans’ Advisory Committees: • Professional staff partnerships assigned. • Skill development provided to the Deans and staff. • New process for Committee management added.

  14. The Focus on Leadership: • Alumni Board of Directors reorganized: • Summer strategic planning retreat. • Term limits put in place. • New committee structure in place. • New comprehensive programming: • On-line Community • Anchor Awards

  15. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 79% Desire to create value; make an impact, do something with lasting meaning. 69% Responsibility to share good fortune and build a better, more livable community. 63% To meet community’s critical needs and improve the world. 50% Give back; help organization that has benefited you or a friend. 46% Set example for children. 29% Fill gaps left by government cutbacks. 11% Tax benefits. 4% Respect and recognition. 2% Pressure from acquaintances. Why do major donors give? Source: U.S. Trust Survey of Affluent Americans; November 1998

  16. Questions? • On behalf of the hard working staff in Institutional Advancement, thank you for your support!

More Related