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 Board of Trustees of The University of North Carolina at Greensboro December, 2010  Core Group, Inc. December, 2010 1

Core Group Consortium Partners 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. Private Universities: Boston College, Brown, Canisius, Carnegie Mellon, Chicago, Clark, Columbia, Cornell, Creighton, Dartmouth, DePaul, Duke , 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 . 2

Cornerstones of Knowledge Membership Analysis of Gift Receipts & Investments Informs Strategy Productivity Growth and and Campaign Benchmarking Success Informs Tactics Informs Tactics Program Growth Program Growth Operational Operational Opportunity Maturity Investment in Most Generous the Operation Donors & the and Return Alumni Donor Relationship Resource Needs & Deployment Annual Program 3

Today’s Discussion • UNCG's Historical Success • Long Term Trends & Drivers of Success • Campaign Success • Productivity & Peer Benchmarking • Investment in Advancement and Consequent Gift Receipts • Investment and Return • Summary of Key UNCG Findings & Implications for Planning 4

Makes the point that Cash Gifts Trends - Growth Over Time we’ve grown over time and especially since ’04. Total 6.6% growth (compound annual growth rate) comprised of two growth cycles and one period of slight decline. UNCG Gift Support '86-'09 Total CAGR: 6.6% $18,000,000 $16,000,000 $14,000,000 t 2008 Dollars $12,000,000 $10,000,000 Constant 2 $8,000,000 +19.6% $6,000,000 -20.6% $4,000,000 +8.8% $2,000,000 $0 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Exceptional Gifts: Gifts $2Mil+ Excluding Exceptional Gifts Total Support Strength: Ability to achieve periodic high growth over time. Opportunity: Sustained growth. 5 Note: This shows cash gifts in constant dollars in each fiscal year over the period.

Gifts by Size - Emergence of Larger Gifts & Periodic Growth in Smaller Gifts Illustrates the growth by gift size and strength in the mid-tier – your major gift efforts, UNCG Gift Support '86-'09 Patti. $18,000,000 Growth in gifts Growth in Gifts of Decline in Growth $16,000,000 $1,000,000+ $25k-$250k & stable all sizes & gifts >$25k through ‘08 $500,000-999,999 smaller gifts emergence of $14,000,000 $250,000-499,999 $1M+ gifts 2008 Dollars $100,000-249,999 $12,000,000 $50,000-99,999 $10,000,000 $25,000-49,999 Constant 20 $10,000-24,999 $10,000-24,999 $8,000,000 $5,000-9,999 $2,500-4,999 $6,000,000 $1,000-2,499 $4,000,000 $1-999 $2,000,000 $0 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Strength: Stability & growth in bands <$25k. Opportunity: Continue to inspire largest gifts. 6 Note: This shows cash gifts by gift size in constant dollars in each fiscal year over the period.

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 $14,000,000 $13,316,492 First. +42.5% $12,000,000 Constant 2008 Dollars $10,000,000 $9,346,842 +9.5% $8,534,105 +40.9% $8,000,000 $6,056,539 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 '86-'93 Second Century '94-'99 '00-'04 Students First '05-'09 Strength: Campaign success. 7 Note: This shows cash gifts in constant dollars in an average year for Campaign and non-Campaign periods.

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. $14,000,000 Different growth dynamics for $2,556,747 $12,000,000 Second Century and +23% Students First, but Dollars $10,000,000 real strength in $3,169,986 -3% Constant 2008 D $2,080,664 building a base of building a base of +28% $8,000,000 +6% $1,619,212 Individual donors.. $6,000,000 $2,307,221 +19% $3,284,037 +42% $1,522,212 $4,000,000 $7,589,759 +91% $1,931,649 +77% -14% $4,607,671 $2,000,000 $3,982,141 $2,602,678 $0 '86-'93 Second Century '94-'99 '00-'04 Students First '05-'09 Individual Organization Realized Bequest Strength: Campaign increased gifts from, especially those from Individuals. 8 Note: This shows cash gifts in constant dollars in an average year for Campaign and non-Campaign periods by source of gift.

Example: Maturity Metric – Growth Across Gift Bands UNCG is an emerging operation, able to achieve periodic growth across most gift size bands. Contrasts us to a more mature UNCG Gift Support '86-'09 operation. $18,000,000 $16,000,000 $1,000,000+ $500,000-999,999 $14,000,000 UNCG’s gifts are $250,000-499,999 Constant 2008 Dollars $100,000-249,999 $12,000,000 becoming more $50,000-99,999 $10,000,000 $25,000-49,999 consistent, but growth $10,000-24,999 $8,000,000 $5,000-9,999 is periodic. $2,500-4,999 $6,000,000 $1,000-2,499 $4,000,000 $1-999 $2,000,000 $0 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 University Gift Support ’81- U . Va. G ift S upport '81-'04 University Gift Support: 24 $300,000,000 ’04 Year Trend This more mature $250,000,000 $1,000,000+ operation has Constant 2004 Dollars Constant Dollars $200,000,000 $500,000-999,999 $250,000-499,999 volatility in larger $100,000-249,999 $150,000,000 $50,000-99,999 gifts, but has more $25,000-49,999 $100,000,000 $10,000-24,999 consistent growth $5,000-9,999 $2,500-4,999 across lower bands. $50,000,000 $1,000-2,499 $1-999 9 $0 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Another example of maturity Example: Maturity – illustrating that we’re $14,000,000 $13,316,492 Metric: Campaign becoming more mature. +42.5% $12,000,000 Changes the Floor of Constant 2008 Dollars $10,000,000 $9,346,842 +9.5% Fundraising $8,534,105 +40.9% $8,000,000 $6,056,539 UNCG can inspire $6,000,000 growth during the $4,000,000 Campaign, and can retain $2,000,000 that new peak and grow $0 '86-'93 Second Century '94-'99 '00-'04 Students First '05-'09 gift level after the gift level after the Stanford's Campaigns Mature Operation: Campaign Mature Operation: Campaign Average Year Gift Support Spring-boarding campaign. $600,000,000 $530,510,061 A mature operation has $500,000,000 steady growth - strong +72% Constant 2004 Dollars $400,000,000 growth during +16% $308,257,090 Campaigns and continued $300,000,000 $265,502,806 +53% growth at a lower level $173,278,631 $200,000,000 after the campaign. $100,000,000 $0 10 '78-'86 Centennial Campaign Campaign Period '93-'99 Campaign Period Campaign for Undergraduate Education

Peer Group Peers are selected to be aspirational or to have a similarity in size or maturity. Universities included in the peer group are: Shifting into peer • Rutgers (maturity peer*) benchmarking • Temple University (maturity peer) section and calling out relevant peers, • UC Berkeley given our level of • UCLA maturity. • University of Florida • • University of Massachusetts (maturity peer) 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. 11