Campaign Dynamics and Readiness: Campaign Dynamics and Readiness: - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Campaign Dynamics and Readiness: Campaign Dynamics and Readiness: Board of Trustees Presentation

Presented by:

December 2, 2010

Presented by:

Jennifer A. McDonough Partner jmcdonough@bwf.com

Today’s Agenda

 The Philanthropic Landscape

Today s Agenda

p p

 Strategies for Campaigns  Fundraising versus Advancement  Fundraising versus Advancement  Influences on UNCG’s Next Campaign

C f S

 Campaign Readiness: Requirements for Success  Role of Board Leadership  Campaign Planning and Feasibility  Key Campaign Outcomes

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 1 1 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 1 1

2009 Charitable Giving b R i i t T

Total = $303.75 Billion

by Recipient Type

International Affairs $8 89 Environment/Animals $6.15 2% Foundation Grants to Individuals* $3.51 1% Unallocated Giving** $28.59 10% Religion $100.95 33% Health Arts, Culture, and Humanities $12.34 4% $8.89 3% 1% 10% Education $40.01 13%

Gifts to Grantmaking Foundations* $31 00

Public-Society Benefit $22.77 8% Health $22.46 7% 13%

$31.00 10%

Human Services $27.08 9% 8%

$ in billions University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 2 2 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 2 2

Source: Giving USA Foundation/Giving USA 2010.

2009 Charitable Giving b D T

Total = $303.75 Billion

by Donor Type

Corporations Foundations $38.44 13% Bequests $23.80 8% Individuals $227.41 75% p $14.10 4%

$ in billions

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 3 3 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 3 3

Source: Giving USA Foundation/Giving USA 2010.

$

Key Findings: Overall Giving

 Total estimated charitable giving dropped 3.6 percent in

y g g

2009 (3.2 percent adjusted for inflation).

 Total giving has increased in current dollars every year

b t t but two.

 Individual giving essentially flat with a .4 percent decline

and no change adjusted for inflation and no change adjusted for inflation.

 Bequests dropped significantly. Reflects unusually high

level of bequest giving in 2008 level of bequest giving in 2008.

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 4 4 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 4 4

Key Findings: Overall Giving

 Individual, bequest, and estimated family foundation

y g g

giving combined are roughly $266.61 billion or 88 percent

• f the total.

F d ti i i d d b 8 9 t l

 Foundation giving decreased by 8.9 percent; less severe

than anticipated.

 Corporate giving rose 5 5 percent; takes giving to  Corporate giving rose 5.5 percent; takes giving to

within 1 percent of pre-recession level.

 Includes corporate foundations.

c udes co po ate ou dat o s

 Increases of in-kind donations.

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 5 5 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 5 5

Total Giving, 1969–2009 g,

$ in billions

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 6 6 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 6 6

Source: Giving USA Foundation™ /Giving USA 2010

Total Giving and Trends for T t l Gi i 1969 2009 Total Giving: 1969–2009

$ in billions $ in billions

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 7 7 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 7 7

Source: Giving USA Foundation /Giving USA 2010

Key Findings: Giving to Education

 Education the second highest share at 13 percent

y g g

• f the total.

 Giving to education declined 3.6 percent and 3.2 percent

adjusted for inflation adjusted for inflation.

 Two-year change represents a drop of 8.8 percent.

However, smaller decline in 2009.  On average, over the past

40 years, giving to education has increased faster than has increased faster than inflation with average annual growth of 2.7 percent

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 8 8 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 8 8

since 1969.

Giving to Education, 1969–2009 g ,

$ in billions

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 9 9 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 9 9

Source: Giving USA Foundation™ /Giving USA 2010

Dynamics Remain Mixed

 Amount contributed to donor-advised funds last year

y

increased by more than 2%—reaching a record $9.1

• billion. The number of new donors also increased

dramatically (by over 10%) reaching nearly 148,600 dramatically (by over 10%) reaching nearly 148,600 accounts holding more than $28 billion in assets.

 The rate at which private foundations were established

p slowed considerably. In 2009, the number of active foundations rose only a marginal 0 5%—the slowest annual rate 0.5%—the slowest annual rate

• f growth tracked since 1981.

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 10 10 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 10 10

Dynamics Remain Mixed

 New study (Money for Good project;10/4/10) estimates the

y

potential market for investments that seek financial as well as social or environmental returns at $120 billion.

Good news for charities is that most said they would put money into

 Good news for charities is that most said they would put money into

such investments and draw funds from their investment portfolios rather than the money they have set aside for philanthropy.

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 11 11 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 11 11

2010 Bank of America High Net W th Phil th St d

 Change in Giving

Worth Philanthropy Study

 Strategic Philanthropy  Expect Effective and Transparent Nonprofits

Expect Effective and Transparent Nonprofits

 Use of Charitable Vehicles  Wealthy as Volunteers  Wealthy as Volunteers  Role of Advisors  Giving Partners and Children

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 12 12 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 12 12

Philanthropy is Remarkably Resilient

 Fundraising is the business of optimism.

py y

 Adjusted for inflation, giving typically increases in non-

recession years and stays flat or falls in recession years.

 The 2009 change of 3.2 percent is not as dire as seen in

earlier recessions. Many with pledges endeavored to sustain their commitments sustain their commitments.

 History suggests that giving will increase as the

economy recovers although growth is likely to economy recovers, although growth is likely to lag by a year or more.

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 13 13 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 13 13

Philanthropy is Remarkably Resilient

 Donors continue to give in bad times as well as in good

py y

times.

 Institutions that sustain focus and maintain and perhaps

i ff t ill b f l increase effort will be successful.

 No group was immune to the downturn. However, in 2009,

the number of millionaires bounced up sharply the number of millionaires bounced up sharply.

 After that decline and rebound, the millionaire class held a higher

percentage of the country’s wealth than it did in 2007. Japan and China were 2nd and 3rd in the growth of millionaires.

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 14 14 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 14 14

Philanthropic Agenda: Caveats

 UNCG and our colleges, schools, and programs are not

p g

entitled to philanthropic support—we must earn it.

 Must convince our donors and prospective donors of the impact

their gifts will have and why this impact is important their gifts will have and why this impact is important.

 Have to “sell” prospective donors on our priority projects.  Prospects and donors must be told—again and again—how

Prospects and donors must be told again and again how important they are.

 Remember—you are “competing” with many other valid “charities.”

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 15 15 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 15 15

Impact on Campaigns

 Highly competitive environment

p p g

 Harder to be added to the list  Donors are smart and expect specificity

Donors are smart and expect specificity

 Many give to more than one thing  Demographic and psychographic considerations  Demographic and psychographic considerations

 Women’s Philanthropy and the Six Cs  “A New Generation Reinvents Philanthropy” 

A New Generation Reinvents Philanthropy

 Minorities in Philanthropy  Millionaire Next Door

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 16 16 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 16 16

 Millionaire Next Door

Strategies for Campaigns

 Be specific about impact and opportunity costs.

g p g

 Challenging economy gives us license to do both.

 Focus on fewer priorities.

 We have all had to make adjustments.

 Pursue opportunities to leverage funding sources.

pp g g

 Act as if the prospective donor can make the gift until or

unless you learn otherwise.

 Position the ask amount appropriately. It is a means to an

end not the end itself.

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 17 17 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 17 17

Strategies for Campaigns

 Donors are more likely to give to (“invest in”) projects

g p g

if they:

 Help “shape the project” (scope, content, design, etc.).  Provide feedback about project’s expected outcomes

and impact.

 Feel “ownership”—talk about “our project.”

Feel ownership talk about our project.  Be prepared to negotiate timing.  Do not underestimate the power of your own story and  Do not underestimate the power of your own story and

rationale for involvement.

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 18 18 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 18 18

Strategies for Campaigns

 Articulate urgency

g p g

 Negotiate next step and keep it in your court

 Engage many within the University

 Senior leaders  Academic and programmatic leadership  Beneficiaries  Advancement staff  Other volunteers

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 19 19 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 19 19

Strategies for Campaigns

 Understand the differences between acknowledgement,

g p g

recognition, and stewardship.

 Be purposeful and personalized in stewardship.

 Reporting: Gift was used as donor intended;

Gift was used or invested wisely; Gift made a difference.

 Accountability  Accountability  Impact  Outcomes  Outcomes

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 20 20 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 20 20

Fundraising vs. Advancement

Fundraising:

g

g

 Focuses on known donors  Moves quickly to solicitation  Moves quickly to solicitation  Assumes familiarity with case

Sh i t l i

 Shows incremental gains  Finishes in months  Examples: United Way, politics

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 21 21 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 21 21

Fundraising vs. Advancement

Advancement:

g

 Focuses on donors and prospects  Builds long-term relationship and involvement  Builds long-term relationship and involvement  Makes the bigger case

S k i ifi t i th h hil th i l

 Seeks significant gains through philanthropic plans  Takes years  Examples: education, healthcare

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 22 22 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 22 22

Characteristics of Highly Effective Ad t P

 Campaign fuels strategic plans.

Advancement Programs

 Long-term commitment to a  Strong leadership and support

from chancellor and key academic leaders. consistent advancement plan.

 Creation of institution-wide

advancement culture. academic leaders.

 Active volunteer leadership.  Transformational asset-based

advancement culture.

 High professional standards for

performance. giving in addition to responsible income-based giving.

 Emphasis on relationship  Sufficient staff-to-alumni ratios.  Investment in major and

principal gifts

 Emphasis on relationship

building.

 Broad, growing base of support

ia a strong ann al f nd principal gifts.

 Investment in prospect

research, stewardship, and IT s stems

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 23 23 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 23 23

via a strong annual fund. systems.

Motivations for Making Major C i Gift Campaign Gifts

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 24 24 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 24 24

Campaign Case-Stating Primer: A ti l ti Y C Articulating Your Case

Institution Institution Vision Strategic Plan Goals/Objectives Goals/Objectives Outcomes and Impact Campaign Projects and Priorities C i C

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 25 25 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 25 25

Campaign Case

Influences on UNCG’s N t C i

 New University leadership

Next Campaign

 Connections with UNCG’s strategic plans  Use of campaign in advancing public/constituent

Use of campaign in advancing public/constituent awareness and appreciation of UNCG as asset

 Communication on evolution of institution and programs

p g

 Dollars raised and donors secured during and since the

close of the last campaign

 Degree of stewardship of donors at all levels  Expansion of prospect pool

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 26 26 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 26 26

Expansion of prospect pool

Campaign Readiness: R i t f S

 Visionary institutional planning, leaders

Requirements for Success

 Robust advancement infrastructure  Strong volunteer engagement

Strong volunteer engagement

 A deep prospect pool; solid prospecting  A compelling case; pre selling the campaign rationale  A compelling case; pre-selling the campaign rationale  Effective, persistent communications and cultivation

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 27 27 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 27 27

Leadership by the University h ll d k l d i iti l

 Provides the institutional commitment needed to validate

chancellor and key leaders is critical

fundraising priorities

 Guides the visioning and priority-setting processes  Serves as primary solicitors for pace-setting gifts  Empowers, encourages, and recognizes exemplary

p , g , g p y service across the University

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 28 28 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 28 28

Leadership by committed l t i iti l

 Passionate advocates of the University and its

volunteers is critical

philanthropic priorities

 Catalytic leadership that inspires and galvanizes the

t d d l t f il extended volunteer family

 Reliable, persuasive, and effective solicitors and stewards  Trusted linkages between the chancellor and key

academic and programmatic leaders

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 29 29 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 29 29

Importance of the Board p

TRUSTEES LEAD DONORS VOLUNTEER LEADERS

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 30 30 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 30 30

Best Practices of Successful Boards

 The leadership of passionately committed board members

is evident.

 Board members—key volunteer leaders—are involved in

ll h f i ti it all phases of campaign activity.

 Board members set the example through their own giving.  Money is impersonal and is a means to an end.

 Volunteers have the power to personalize money by talking about

what it can do for UNCG its students and faculty and the what it can do for UNCG, its students and faculty, and the community.

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 31 31 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 31 31

Best Practices of Successful Boards

 The campaign steering committee and/or the board

development committee demonstrate leadership.

 Board members are recruited and their campaign

i t d i f d b i ifi assignments are made informed by campaign-specific characteristics—affluence, influence, and special expertise being central. g

 The advancement staff provides exceptional support for

the campaign efforts.

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 32 32 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 32 32

Volunteer leaders play a variety of i f d i i l

 Identify and qualify prospective donors (philanthropic

campaign fundraising roles

interest and giving capacity).

 Arrange and/or host cultivation activities for prospective

donors.

 Contribute to long-term stewardship relationships with

significant donors significant donors.

 Plan solicitation strategies and provide information that

help the institution prepare more effective proposals help the institution prepare more effective proposals.

 Make calls either individually or in tandem with University

leaders and key advancement staff.

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 33 33 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 33 33

leaders and key advancement staff.

The Development Process: One View p

Identification I f ti Information Interest

UNCG

Interest Involvement Involvement Investment

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 34 34 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 34 34

Investment

The Development Process: A th Vi Another View

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 35 35 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 35 35

Campaign Feasibility and Planning p g y g

Internal Readiness Assessment External Assessment Report and Decisions Campaign Strategies and Planning

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 36 36 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 36 36

I t l R di Internal Readiness Assessment

• 1. Project organizational meeting or call

2 Worksheets and background data questionnaires

• 2. Worksheets and background data questionnaires
• 3. Data analysis

4 S d ti ith U i it

• 4. Surveys and meetings with University

advancement staff 5 Interviews with key academic administrative and

• 5. Interviews with key academic, administrative, and

Board leaders

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 37 37 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 37 37 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 37 37 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 37 37

External Assessment

• 1. Development of draft campaign prospectus

2 Study task force recruitment and orientation

• 2. Study task force recruitment and orientation
• 3. Consultant-led confidential interviews

4 S f b d di

• 4. Surveys of broader audiences
• 5. Environmental analysis: philanthropic and

campaign trends campaign trends

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 38 38 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 38 38

R t d Report and Decisions

• 1. Findings and Conclusions

 Confidence  Leadership  Campaign Prospectus  Prospective Donors Prospective Donors  Readiness  Fundraising Climate

2 R d ti

• 2. Recommendations
• 3. Decisions on campaign (priorities, goals, timelines)

4 B id t i d “l h”

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 39 39 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 39 39

• 4. Bridge to campaign and “launch”

Campaign Strategies and Planning

• 1. Goals—Financial and programmatic

2 Infrastructure

• 2. Infrastructure
• 3. Structure and organization

4 R l d ibiliti Skill b ildi

• 4. Roles and responsibilities; Skill building
• 5. Volunteer leadership, training, and support
• 6. Budgets and timelines

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 40 40 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 40 40

Campaign Strategies and Planning (continued)

• 7. Case for support and communications

8 Prospect and donor development:

• 8. Prospect and donor development:

cultivation, solicitation, recognition, and stewardship strategies

• 9. Gift policies and procedures

10.Management tools and reports g p

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 41 41 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 41 41

Campaign Implementation Timetable p g p

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 TASKS Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2011 2012 2013 2014 Campaign Implementation

1

 Campaign Case Development

2

 Readiness Assessment Study Task Force

3

 Study Task Force Recruitment

4

 External Interviews

5

 Study Report Development y p p

6

 Study Report Delivery

7

 Campaign Leadership Phase  C i P bli Ph

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 42 42 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 42 42 8

 Campaign Public Phase

Key Campaign Outcomes: Fi i l

 Reaching the overall and individual financial targets; gifts

Financial

• f impact and consequence

 Fulfilling key levels of the gift pyramid; first-time and

i d ift increased gifts

 Giving by volunteer leadership  Providing opportunities for “everyone” to have the

• pportunity to participate

 Strengthened profile of annual, major, and planned gifts

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 43 43 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 43 43

Key Campaign Outcomes: O hi

 Increased volunteer engagement

Ownership

 Expanded faculty and academic partner engagement  Higher alumni participation

Higher alumni participation

 Higher “friends” participation  More prospect potential  More prospect potential  Evolution of volunteer leadership opportunities

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 44 44 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 44 44

Key Campaign Outcomes: C it

 Evolution and integration of infrastructure: development,

Capacity

alumni, and communications

 Stronger understanding of the importance of philanthropy  Positioning or pre-selling of subsequent philanthropic

agendas

 Increased awareness and pride

University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 45 45 University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of North Carolina at Greensboro Bentz Whaley Flessner Bentz Whaley Flessner 45 45

93701:JAM:jub