Board of Trustees of The University of North Board of Trustees of - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Core Group

Presentation of Findings:

Support for The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, & Investment in Development

Prepared for

Board of Trustees of The University of North

1

Board of Trustees of The University of North Carolina at Greensboro

December, 2010

 Core Group, Inc. December, 2010

Core Group Consortium Partners

Private Universities: Boston College, Brown, Canisius, Carnegie Mellon,

Chicago, Clark, Columbia, Cornell, Creighton, Dartmouth, DePaul, Duke,

Public Universities: Rutgers, Temple University, University of California at

Berkeley, UCLA, University of Florida, University of Massachusetts (Amherst, Lowell, Worcester, Dartmouth, Boston) University of Michigan, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, University of Texas at Austin, University of Virginia, University of Washington, Virginia Tech, Washington State University.

2

Chicago, Clark, Columbia, Cornell, Creighton, Dartmouth, DePaul, Duke, Fordham University, Georgetown, Harvard, John Carroll University, Johns Hopkins, Loyola Marymount, MIT, Northwestern, Princeton, Regis, Rice, Santa Clara University, Simmons, Stanford, Tufts, Penn, Xavier, Yale.

Liberal Arts Colleges: Amherst, Bates, Bowdoin, Carleton, Colby, Colorado

College, Connecticut College, DePauw, Holy Cross, Mount Holyoke, Franklin and Marshall, Haverford, Macalester, Pomona, Reed, Smith, Swarthmore, Vassar, Wabash, Wesleyan, Williams.

Cornerstones of Knowledge

Growth and Campaign Success

Operational

Productivity and Benchmarking

Program Growth

Membership Analysis of Gift Receipts & Investments

Informs Strategy Informs Tactics

3

Operational Maturity Program Growth Opportunity

Most Generous Donors & the Alumni Donor Relationship

Annual Program

Investment in the Operation and Return

Resource Needs & Deployment Informs Tactics

• UNCG's Historical Success
• Long Term Trends & Drivers of Success
• Campaign Success
• Productivity & Peer Benchmarking
• Investment in Advancement and Consequent Gift Receipts

Today’s Discussion

4

• Investment and Return
• Summary of Key UNCG Findings & Implications for Planning

$10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 $16,000,000 $18,000,000 UNCG Gift Support '86-'09 Total CAGR: t 2008 Dollars 6.6%

Cash Gifts Trends - Growth Over Time

Total 6.6% growth (compound annual growth rate) comprised of two growth cycles and one period of slight decline.

Makes the point that we’ve grown over time and especially since ’04. 5

$0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Excluding Exceptional Gifts Total Support Constant 2 Exceptional Gifts: Gifts $2Mil+

Strength: Ability to achieve periodic high growth over time. Opportunity: Sustained growth.

Note: This shows cash gifts in constant dollars in each fiscal year over the period.

+8.8%

• 20.6%

+19.6%

$10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 $16,000,000 $18,000,000 $1,000,000+ $500,000-999,999 $250,000-499,999 $100,000-249,999 $50,000-99,999 $25,000-49,999 $10,000-24,999 UNCG Gift Support '86-'09 2008 Dollars

Gifts by Size - Emergence of Larger Gifts & Periodic Growth in Smaller Gifts

Growth in Gifts of all sizes & emergence of $1M+ gifts Growth in gifts $25k-$250k & stable smaller gifts Growth through ‘08 Decline in gifts >$25k

Illustrates the growth by gift size and strength in the mid-tier – your major gift efforts, Patti. 6

$0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 $10,000-24,999 $5,000-9,999 $2,500-4,999 $1,000-2,499 $1-999 Constant 20

Strength: Stability & growth in bands <$25k. Opportunity: Continue to inspire largest gifts.

Note: This shows cash gifts by gift size in constant dollars in each fiscal year over the period.

$13,316,492 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 +42.5%

UNCG Campaign Success – Growth in an Average Year

The Second Century Campaign inspired a 41% increase in an average year from the pre Campaign period. This level of support was sustained and improved in the post Campaign period and the Students First Campaign increased +43% from that level.

Shows strong Campaign growth, especially Students First. 7

$6,056,539 $8,534,105 $9,346,842 $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 '86-'93 Second Century '94-'99 '00-'04 Students First '05-'09 +40.9% Constant 2008 Dollars +9.5%

Strength: Campaign success.

Note: This shows cash gifts in constant dollars in an average year for Campaign and non-Campaign periods.

$3,169,986 $2,556,747 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 Dollars

• 3%

+23%

UNCG Campaign Success – Growth in Individual Gifts

Campaign growth was driven by growth in Individual gifts, but Organization gifts and Realized Bequests also increased. Individual gifts declined in the post Campaign period, but growth in Organization gifts and Realized Bequests grew to create the increase in an average year after the Campaign.

Different growth dynamics for Second Century and Students First, but real strength in building a base of 8

$2,602,678 $4,607,671 $3,982,141 $7,589,759 $1,931,649 $2,307,221 $3,284,037 $1,522,212 $1,619,212 $2,080,664 $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 '86-'93 Second Century '94-'99 '00-'04 Students First '05-'09

Individual Organization Realized Bequest

+42% Constant 2008 D +28% +91% +77% +19% +6%

• 14%

Strength: Campaign increased gifts from, especially those from Individuals.

Note: This shows cash gifts in constant dollars in an average year for Campaign and non-Campaign periods by source of gift.

building a base of Individual donors..

$4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 $16,000,000 $18,000,000 $1,000,000+ $500,000-999,999 $250,000-499,999 $100,000-249,999 $50,000-99,999 $25,000-49,999 $10,000-24,999 $5,000-9,999 $2,500-4,999 $1,000-2,499 $1-999 UNCG Gift Support '86-'09 Constant 2008 Dollars

Example: Maturity Metric – Growth Across Gift Bands

UNCG is an emerging operation, able to achieve periodic growth across most gift size bands. UNCG’s gifts are becoming more consistent, but growth is periodic.

Contrasts us to a more mature

• peration.

9

$0 $50,000,000 $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $200,000,000 $250,000,000 $300,000,000 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 $1,000,000+ $500,000-999,999 $250,000-499,999 $100,000-249,999 $50,000-99,999 $25,000-49,999 $10,000-24,999 $5,000-9,999 $2,500-4,999 $1,000-2,499 $1-999 U . Va. G ift S upport '81-'04 Constant 2004 Dollars University Gift Support ’81- ’04

Constant Dollars University Gift Support: 24 Year Trend

$0 $2,000,000 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

This more mature

• peration has

volatility in larger gifts, but has more consistent growth across lower bands.

$6,056,539 $8,534,105 $9,346,842 $13,316,492 $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 '86-'93 Second Century '94-'99 '00-'04 Students First '05-'09 +40.9% Constant 2008 Dollars +42.5% +9.5%

Stanford's Campaigns

Mature Operation: Campaign

Example: Maturity Metric: Campaign Changes the Floor of Fundraising

UNCG can inspire growth during the Campaign, and can retain that new peak and grow gift level after the

Another example of maturity – illustrating that we’re becoming more mature. 10

Average Year Gift Support $173,278,631 $265,502,806 $308,257,090 $530,510,061 $0 $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000 '78-'86 Centennial Campaign '93-'99 Campaign for Undergraduate Education Constant 2004 Dollars +53% +16% +72%

Mature Operation: Campaign Spring-boarding

Campaign Period Campaign Period

A mature operation has steady growth - strong growth during Campaigns and continued growth at a lower level after the campaign. gift level after the campaign.

Peer Group

Peers are selected to be aspirational or to have a similarity in size or

• maturity. Universities included in the peer group are:
• Rutgers (maturity peer*)
• Temple University (maturity peer)
• UC Berkeley
• UCLA
• University of Florida
• University of Massachusetts (maturity peer)

Shifting into peer benchmarking section and calling

• ut relevant peers,

given our level of maturity. 11

• University of Massachusetts (maturity peer)
• University of Michigan
• University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
• University of Texas at Austin
• University of Virginia
• University of Washington
• Virginia Tech (aspirational peer*)
• Washington State University (aspirational peer)

Note: Maturity Peers are institutions that are at a similar point in their maturity as UNCG, while Aspirational Peers are slightly more mature than UNCG and therefore suggest growth opportunities.

Benchmark:

10 Yr Avg Yr Support $0 $50,000,000 $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $200,000,000 $250,000,000 $300,000,000 Peer 9 Peer 6 Peer 10 Peer 1 Peer 7 Peer 3 Peer 4 Peer 8 Peer 5 Peer 2 Peer 13 Peer 12 Peer 11 UNCG Constant 2008 Dollars

Benchmark: Average Year Cash Gifts

Peers vary in average year

• gifts. UNCG is in the 14th

position, clustered with peers 11, 12 and 13.

Note: This aggregates the gifts over the last decade for UNCG and peers to create an average year of cash gifts raised.

Shows the derivation of the Productivity metric and how it shifts peers, creating different peer groupings. 12

10 Yr Avg Support Per Alumnus/a 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 Peer 6 Peer 9 Peer 1 Peer 7 Peer 10 Peer 4 Peer 2 Peer 3 Peer 5 Peer 13 Peer 8 Peer 11 Peer 12 UNCG Avg Support Per Alumnus/a

Benchmark: Productivity Metric

UNCG remains in the 14th position, but the peer group shifts. UNCG is clustered with peers 12, 11 and 8.

Note: This normalizes the average year by dividing by the number of Alumni in each institution over the decade to create a measure of “Productivity”.

10 Yr Avg Support Per Alumnus/a 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 $1,000,000+ $500,000-999,999 $250,000-499,999 $100,000-249,999 $50,000-99,999 $25,000-49,999 t Per Alumnus/a

Benchmark: Productivity by Gift Size Band

More productive peers have strong Productivity in all gifts sizes.

Provides a context for the differences between good, great and best – balance in Productivity across gift sizes (the result of a well balanced effort across all programs). 13

200 400 600 Peer 6 Peer 9 Peer 1 Peer 7 Peer 10 Peer 4 Peer 2 Peer 3 Peer 5 Peer 13 Peer 8 Peer 11 Peer 12 UNCG $25,000-49,999 $10,000-24,999 $5,000-9,999 $2,500-4,999 $1,000-2,499 $1-999 Avg Support P

Most productive operations create balance across all gift size bands.

Note: This shows Productivity by gifts size over the decade.

10 Yr Avg Support Per Alumnus/a 300 400 500 Per Alumnus/a

Relevant Peers Using the Productivity Metric

UNCG’s Productivity is most like peers 12, 11 and 8. These Maturity Peers are at a similar point in building maturity as UNCG. Peers 2 and 13 are Aspirational Peers, those having slightly higher Productivity than UNCG has today and a good benchmark for UNCG growth.

Sets up our peers. 14

100 200 Peer 2 Peer 13 Peer 8 Peer 11 Peer 12 UNCG Avg Support Pe

Maturity Peers Aspirational Peers

Note: Maturity Peers are Temple, Rutgers and University of Massachusetts. Aspirational Peers are Virginia Tech and Washington State.

10 Yr Avg Support Per Alumnus/a 200 300 400 500 $1,000,000+ $500,000-999,999 $250,000-499,999 $100,000-249,999 $50,000-99,999 $25,000-49,999 $10,000-24,999 $5,000-9,999 Support Per Alumnus/a

Benchmark: Productivity by Gift Size & Peer Segment

UNCG’s Productivity is 67% of Maturity Peers and 41% of Aspirational Peers and is closest to Maturity Peer Productivity in gifts under $250k.

55% 41% 49% UNCG is 67% of Peers UNCG is 41% of Peers

Compares us and maturity and aspirational peers – shows strength in the mid tier where we’re closest to Peers. 15

100 200 Aspirational Avg Maturity Avg UNCG $5,000-9,999 $2,500-4,999 $1,000-2,499 $1-999 Avg Su

Strength: Gifts under $250k. Opportunity: Larger gifts.

34% 75% 74% 55%

$250,000-499,999 $500,000-999,999 $1,000,000+ TTL

Productivity by Gift Size: UNCG Compared to Maturity Peers

Benchmark: Difference in Productivity by Gift Size UNCG & Maturity Peer Average

The biggest differences in Productivity are in largest and smallest gifts. UNCG has Productivity closest to the Peers in gifts between $1k and $50k and in gifts between $250k and $500k.

$250k-$500k

Compares our Productivity to Maturity peers in each gift size band – again, we’re strongest in gifts $1k-$50k. 16

• $100
• $90
• $80
• $70
• $60
• $50
• $40
• $30
• $20
• $10

$0 $10 $20 $1-999 $1,000-2,499 $2,500-4,999 $5,000-9,999 $10,000-24,999 $25,000-49,999 $50,000-99,999 $100,000-249,999 $250,000-499,999 Support Per Alumnus/a Difference

Strengths: Mid-tier Gifts. Opportunities: Largest and smallest gifts.

$1k-$50k

• $100
• $90
• $80
• $70
• $60
• $50
• $40
• $30
• $20
• $10

$0 $10 $20 $1-999 $1,000-2,499 $2,500-4,999 $5,000-9,999 $10,000-24,999 $25,000-49,999 $50,000-99,999 $100,000-249,999 $250,000-499,999 $500,000-999,999 $1,000,000+ TTL Support Per Alumnus/a Difference

Individual Productivity by Gift Size: UNCG Compared to Maturity Peers

Benchmark: Individual Productivity Compared to the Maturity Peer Average

UNCG has Productivity that is ahead of or equal to peers in gifts between $1k and $250k.

Note: This shows UNCGs Individual and Organization Productivity compared to the maturity peer average by size band.

Ahead of or equal to peers

Breaks productivity by donor source and shows our strength in Individual

• fundraising. Patti – this argues for

keeping the team / practices that are making us successful in major gifts, need to work on the Annual Fund and high end.. 17

Benchmark: Organizational Productivity Compared to the Maturity Peer Average

UNCG lags peers in all gift sizes, but is closest to the peer average in smaller gifts.

• $100
• $90
• $80
• $70
• $60
• $50
• $40
• $30
• $20
• $10

$0 $10 $20 $1-999 $1,000-2,499 $2,500-4,999 $5,000-9,999 $10,000-24,999 $25,000-49,999 $50,000-99,999 $100,000-249,999 $250,000-499,999 $500,000-999,999 $1,000,000+ TTL Support Per Alumnus/a Difference

Organization Productivity by Gift Size: UNCG Compared to Maturity Peers

Strength: Individual gifts. Opportunity: Organization gifts.

Suggests that we should consider

• pportunity for growth in

Organization gifts.

Peers in the Investment Study

All Public Universities are included in the peer group in order to track evolution over time:

• Rutgers
• Temple University
• UC Berkeley
• UCLA
• University of Massachusetts

Introduces Investment Study 18

• University of Massachusetts
• University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
• University of Virginia
• University of Washington
• Virginia Tech University
• Washington State University

200 250 300

Peer 9 Peer 1 Peer 7 Peer 10 Peer 12

Fundraising Productivity 4 Yr Avg

ised Per Alumnus/a)

Determine the Dynamics of Investment – Range of Productivity Among the Group

High to low range of productivity measure – Average year level of gift receipts raised per Alumnus/a

Shows Productivity as an index and absolute dollars raised in circle size. 19

50 100 150

Peer 2 Peer 8 Peer 13 Peer 11 UNCG Peer 6 Circle Size is Avg. Yr Support Dollars Productivity Index ($Raise

receipts raised per Alumnus/a . UNCG’s Productivity is below the average (index of 100).

120 140 160 180 ised Per Alumnus/a)

Fundraising Productivity & Related Measure

Determine the Dynamics of Investment – What correlates to “Productivity”?

Sets up methodology for Investment study . 20

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Alternate Measure Index 20 40 60 80 100 Productivity Index ($Raise

140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 Peer 1 Peer 9 Peer 7 Peer 10 Peer 12

Fundraising Productivity & Efficiency Matrix: 4 Yr Avg Performance

aised Per Alumnus/a)

Peer 6 spends 88%

• f Peer 8 on a

cents per dollar raised basis and raises 483% more

Our Traditional Metric – Cents Per Dollar Raised - and Productivity

Note: This analysis shows an index of Productivity (vertical axis) and an index of the cents pre dollar raised so that the lowest cents per dollar raised are on the right hand side of the matrix (horizontal axis).

21

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 Efficiency Index (Spent Per Dollar Raised - Reverse Index) Peer 13 Peer 8 Peer 11 UNCG Peer 6 Peer 2 Circle Size is Avg. Yr Support Dollars Productivity Index ($Rai

raises 483% more in Productivity.

Cents per Dollar Raised is not a good strategic planning metric.

Low Cents per Dollar Raised Higher Cents per Dollar Raised No correlation between Productivity and cents per dollar raised.

140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 Peer 1 Peer 9 Peer 7 Peer 10 Peer 12 Peer 8

Fundraising Productivity & Investment Matrix: 4 Yr Avg Performance

Raised Per Alumnus/a)

Total Investment and Productivity on a Per Alum Basis Move Together

Higher Investment Higher Productivity

Introduces the Investment – Productivity correlation. 22

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 Investment Index ($Spent Per Alumnus/a) Peer 8 Peer 2 Peer 13 Peer 11 UNCG Peer 6 Circle Size is Avg. Yr Support Dollars Productivity Index ($Ra

UNCG’s Productivity is slightly lower than investment would suggest. Lower Investment Lower Productivity

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Private 2 Private 1 Private 5 Private 8 Private 7 Private 11 Private 15 Private 3 Private 4 Private 21 Private 6 Private 9 Private 23 Private 25 Private 10 Private 22 Private 37 Private 13 Private 38 Private 34 Private 32 Private 33

Fundraising Productivity & Related Measure: 4 Yr Avg Performance

ex ($Raised Per Alumnus/a) Private Public LAC

This Correlation Exists for All Types of Institutions

Shows correlation across the consortium. 23

• 150
• 100
• 50

50

• 100
• 50

50 100 150 200 250 300 Investment Index ($Spent Per Alumnus/a) Private 33 Private 40 Private 39 Private 36 Public 6 Public 9 Public 1 Public 10 Public 7 Public 5 Public 8 Public 2 Public 13 Public 11 LAC 14 LAC 2 LAC 19 LAC 13 LAC 7 LAC 18 LAC 5 LAC 17 Circle Size is Avg. Yr Support Dollars Producticvity Index

UNCG

Critical Mass Analysis

$900 $1,000 $1,100 $1,200 $1,300 $1,400 mnus/a

+$468

Critical Mass – Return Accelerates with Investment

UNCG generated $3.76 for each invested dollar per Alumna/us in FY ‘08. More Productive Peers generated a higher return on investment than moderate Productivity Peers.

Note: This analysis shows Productivity (vertical axis) and total investment on a per Alumna/us basis (horizontal axis). $6.99:$1 $3.76:$1

Shows dollars returned for each dollar raised and that there is not yet a diminishing return. 24

$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900 $0 $25 $50 $75 $100 $125 $150 $175 $200 Dollars Spent Per Alumnus/a Dollars Raised Per Alumn UNCG

+$297 +$57 +$23 +$468

The critical mass is moving beyond $125 per Alumna/us.

$6.99:$1 $4.34:$1 $3.50:$1

Summary of Investment Findings

• Investment in Development provides a return that accelerates after

reaching a “critical mass”.

• There is not yet a “diminishing return”. Hypothesis - expanding market.
• Investment in Front Line Fundraisers correlates with productivity
• Investment in Support of those Fundraises also correlates with

productivity

Summary of Investment Study findings. 25

productivity

• Some of the most productive operations have also made the highest

investment in Communications and Alumni Relations. Most productive operations are balanced in their investment in the front line, support of those fund raisers and Alumni Relations. It is likely that investment in Communications also will correlate with productivity as that function matures.

Strategic Planning Implications

• UNCG is an operation emerging into maturity – able to sustain growth and

with support across gift sizes.

• Individual gifts are driving success, especially gifts $50k-$250k.
• In the Campaign, UNCG was building donors until ’09.
• UNCG’s Productivity is commensurate with investments made.
• Opportunities exist in:

Planning Implications. 26

• Building smaller and larger gifts from Individuals.
• Arresting the decline in small gift donors.
• Building Alumni donors.
• Building the Corporate and Foundation gift base.

The Productivity metric and peer benchmarking can assist in quantifying growth opportunities. The Investment and Return metrics can be used to assist in forecasting needed to realize growth.