Transcript Effective Deployment and Communication

Session One – Advancement Data:
Metrics and Communication
Your data may be complete and thoroughly clean;
your metrics may be perfectly designed to measure
what matters; yet without a thoughtful approach to
getting that information into the right hands at the
right time with the right context, your efforts may
still fall short. This session will provide an
organizational framework and proven techniques for
success.
Advancement Data:
Metrics and Communication
Lisette Clem ‘85 ‘92MBA
Director of Advancement Services
Bryant University
Smithfield, RI
Agenda
 Define “internal constituents”
 Why share information?
 What advancement data/metrics do we share?
 When do we share?
 How is the information shared (in what format)?
Internal Constituents
 Outside of the Advancement division (be sure to
include those folks with whom you share
external constituents!):
 Controller’s Office
 President’s Office
 Other organizational divisions to whom donations are
being directed
Internal Constituents
 Within the Advancement division:
 Alumni/Constituent Relations
 Development
 Marketing/Communications
 Within Advancement Services:
 aka “the Cool group”
 aka “Team Awesome”
TODAY’S FOCUS: Using the Power of Information
Sharing in engaging and informing our divisional
constituents (and getting them to pay attention!)
Our Goal:
To CONSISTENTLY provide a Proactive vs. Reactive
approach to information sharing and analysis, focusing on
both detailed reporting (for Annual Fund managers) and
high-level summaries (for VPs) to accommodate everyone’s
needs*
*In this case study: without the benefit of a Business Intelligence
system or built-in dashboards (it’s coming!)…
WHY should we
proactively share
information/data?
(What does it matter?)
Why?
 Communication and analysis of the usefulness of
the data in fact justifies renewed investments in
technology
 Fewer data requests in to our Report Writing
staff; enables multi-tasking
 Enhanced stewardship (for soft credit gifts)
 More effective prospect management (air of
friendly competition at monthly PM meetings)
 Less chaos prior to Trustees’ meetings (!)
WHAT do we share?
 General Development Performance Reporting:
 Gift and Pledge Processing (daily transaction reports)
 Fiscal Year Status
 Campaign Reporting
 Prospect Management
 Annual Giving
 Fiscal Year performance and Trend data
 Alumni (Constituent) Participation Rate
 Data Mining model performance
 Definition/Results
 Strategy Recommendations
 Event Management
 Budget Reporting
 Expenses/Revenue
 Return on Investment
 Alumni Engagement Tracking
Campaign
Reporting
Prospect
Management
Prospect Management:
Key areas of reporting
1.
Prospect Pool
2.
Visit Reports
3.
Tickler Reports (to support Moves Management)
4.
Results Reports
 Pledges and Gifts
 Planned and Pending Solicitations
5.
Ongoing Program Management
Visit Report
Visits in FY14 vs. FY13 (as of X date)
Summary Results Report – Part I
Summary Results Report – Part II
Ongoing Program Management:
The “RED” Report
Annual Giving:
Fiscal Year performance
and Trend data
Fiscal Year Annual Giving
Fiscal Year Annual Giving
Fiscal Year Annual Giving
FY14 vs. FY15 New Pledges
Monthly Comparison
(Excludes Planned Gifts)
As of 5/31/15
Constituent Participation Rate
 The Politics of Participation
 One size does NOT fit all
 CASE , VSE, and US News have standards for their
comparisons


These standards may or may not be useful, or even accurate,
for your purposes
When submitting for them, make every attempt to
understand their standards, to preserve the value of
benchmarking with other institutions
Alumni Participation Rate
(at Bryant University)
 In both our external and our internal alumni participation rates, senior
giving donors are counted as alumni donors, as anyone who attends Bryant
for 2+ semesters has the option of calling themselves an alumnus/ae. The
entire senior class is included in the denominator.
 Our “lost” alumni percentage is approximately 5.5%, down from
approximately 10% four years ago. ALL NOT-LOST Alumni are
considered “of record” per CASE standards, regardless of giving history.
 In our internal donor count, all soft credit donors ARE included; however,
approx. half of these are alum/alum spouses, which CAN be counted per
CASE. (Counting the remainder of our soft credit donors accounts for
approximately +0.4% of our internal participation rate.)
 Our internal alumni participation rate excludes those on a “Do Not Solicit
(DNS)” code (approx. 650 DNS alums of our 36,500 alumni of record).
 Including ALL degree holders vs. only including UG degree holders
decreases our alumni participation rate by just 0.2%.
Data Mining:
Definitions/Results and
Strategy Recommendations
Current Models
 Affinity Insight Acquisition Scoring Model: The scores from this
model can be used to identify those never donors most likely to be
responsive to annual fund appeals.
 Predictive Affinity Retention Scoring Model: The scores from this
model can be used to identify and retain those alums who have
given in the past but have not made a gift in the current fiscal year.
 Predictive Affinity Donor Scoring Model: The scores from this model
can be used to identify alums most likely to make “leadership-level”
annual gifts, as well as new major giving prospects.
FY12 Results – Acquisition Model
Data Mining Acquisition Model
New donors in FY12
Scores of 1-16
48%
Scores of 17-20
52%
(Recall that each score, or decile, represents 5% of our alumni
population, so expected results would be 20% for four scores.)
FY12 Results – Donor Scoring Model
Data Mining Donor Scoring Model
Average Gift Size
$646
Scores of 1-16
$800
Scores of 17-20
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
Data Mining Strategy:
Recommendations
 Acquisition Model:
 “Acquisition Campaign” – New Donor Drive



Targeted DM to scores 15-20 – “flyer” format (not letter!)
Telefund focus on scores 15-20
Targeted e-solicit messages to scores 15-20
 Retention Model:
 “Retention Campaign” – Save a Donor


Intense Telefund and E-Solicit focus to scores 15-20
Follow up with personal outreach to all those not yet renewed by 5/31/13 –
Firm Goal is 100% renewal for scores 15-20
 Donor Scoring Model:
 Leadership Giving Campaign – Raising Sights


Assign scores 17-20 to Bryant Fund Leadership Giving officer
Personal Outreach
Data Mining: Coming Soon!!
 Predictive Affinity Discovery Scoring Model:
This model will focus on those alums who are most
likely to accept a Discovery Visit invitation. The model
will be built from alums who have been asked to accept
a Discovery Visit. The focus of the model will be on
alumni database variables that discriminate between
those alums who accepted a Discovery Visit and those
who didn’t. The result of the modeling process will be a
score for each reachable alum in the database.
Event
Management
Budget Reporting:
Expenses/Revenue and
Return on Investment (ROI)
Cost per dollar raised:
Revenue basis
Benchmarking: ROI
Alumni Engagement
Tracking
Framework for Alumni Engagement - Tracking - updated August 2013
1
2
3
Category
Description
Giving
Gifts or pledge payments (hard/soft) from
alumni for any purpose (within the current
fiscal year)
Cash: hard/soft by fiscal year
Total FY giving (hard/soft) > $0 (not to include
SCG).
Feedback/ Feature
Direct feedback offered to the University
regarding a communication, alumnus/a
featured in University publication or
communication, or alumnus/a featured in
web content.
Communication from alum, either via in-person
conversation, phone converation or email
offering feedback re: a University publication or
web posting. Also, alumnus/a serving as a
subject of a profile in a publication or via web
content.
Contact report with type: FEA. Also, entry in
Comments with a subject code of XALPRO or
CHAIR.
Attendance, participation or hosting of
events on and off campus.
Event attendee code (excluding SAA dinner and
Alumni/Student networking dinners); also,
contact code indicating that an alum was a
featured speaker or invitee to a campus event.
Event attendee code on APASPUR, date driven.
(Some exclusions apply.) Also, contact code of
IPS or HST.
Activity codes and event attendee codes.
APAACTY codes associated with Alumni
Admission Associates (year indicator required),
Career Link (VCareer - any year), and/or Career
Shadowing program (year indicator required);
APASPUR codes associated with attendees to
Alumni/Student networking events and the SAA
dinner.
Events
Source of data
Reporting criteria
Alumni/ Student Engagement
Alumni/student related activities including
Alumni Admission Associates, Career
Center volunteers, and others.
5
Alumni Leadership Activities
Traditional alumni volunteer roles
including NAC and RAN groups, as well as
class steering committees, alumni trustees,
Senior Advisory Committee members,
trustees, etc.
Activity codes.
APAACTY codes for NAC, RAN, Dean's Advisory
Committee, Class Steering committees, trustees,
and immediate past Senior Advisory Committee
members. NOTE: Activity codes for these
activities MUST be consistently coded by fiscal
year.
6
Prospect Visits
Alumnus/a participated in a Discovery
and/or Cultivation visit(s)
Visit codes.
Contact codes of VDI, VSO, VST and/or VCU.
7
BLC Member Y/N
BLC ($1,000+) member current fiscal year
(Y/N)
Gift Society member status
Gift Society level current FY at BLC level +.
8
Linked-In and/or OLC
Member Y/N
Participation in Bryant's Linked-In
community or the iModules online
community
Activity code indicating status as a member of
Bryant's Linked-In community or the iModules
OLC
APAACTY code associated with Linked In
("LINKED") and APAACTY code indicating OLC
member status. Year indicators not needed.
Is an alum parent with a child who either
is currently matriculating at Bryant or is
an alum of Bryant
Constituent codes
APACONS codes of PART/PARF AND
ALUG/ALND/ALUG.
4
9
Legacy
WHEN do we share?
“when it happens”
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Quarterly
Annually
HOW do we share the information?
Paper
Email
(Internal) Web site
Regular Meeting
Common drive
Other?
(Soon: Dashboard!)
Other Useful Examples:
 Advancement Services Information, Reference
and Forms Guide
 Advancement Services Information and
Resources Web page (live quick links)
 Advancement Services Annual Report
 Fails 
 TOO MANY prospect management reports –
negative impact on perceived relevance
 Don’t save copies of everything (maxed out our
server allotment!)
 Edits/customization by person will be requested –
saying no is OK! (unless it’s the VP)
Other suggestions/ideas,
management tips, best practices -what works for you to keep
colleagues, constituents and staff
informed?
Thank you!
Have a great day!

Lisette Clem, Bryant University
[email protected]
401-232-6805