Pathway II: Financial Sustainability
Overview of Advancement
at the University of Maine
Pathway Members:
Eric Rolfson
Jeff Mills
Pat Cummings
December 11, 2012
Today’s Presentation
• Fundraising Partner Missions & Roles
• Campaign Maine at a Glance
• Preparing for the Next Campaign
–
–
–
–
Establishing Philanthropic Opportunity
Benchmarking Investments in Development
Investment and Resource Allocation Opportunities
Funding Models for Development Operations
• FY’ 12 Objectives in Review
• FY’ 13 Advancement Goals
Advancement Partner Roles—A Continuum
Younger…(smaller gifts)...........(larger gifts)…….Older
Older
Alumni Association
Development
Foundation
• Build Class Identity
• Build Interest Groups
• Interest, Inform, Involve
• Prepare for Philanthropy
• Network / Career Resource
•Advocacy
• Transition Students to Alumni
• Annual Giving
•
•
•
•
Major & Principal Gifts
Face-to-Face Relationships
Moves Management
Securing Investments
• Planned/Deferred Giving
• Stewardship
• Real Estate
• Manage Endowment
Overlap
Overlap
• Reunion Giving
• Prospect / Donor Engagement
• Stewardship
• Gift Planning
• Prospect / Donor Engagement
• Endowed Gifts
• Pre-Funding Bequests
• Stewardship
• Triple Crown
Campaign Maine
Campaign Maine at a Glance
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Comprehensive Campaign: 2006 – 2011
$150 million goal: $157.2 million raised
23,000 donors from all 50 states and 26 countries
18% participation among addressable alumni
39% of donors made first gift during Campaign Maine accounting for
21% of the money raised
Alumni donations accounted for 45% of campaign; Friends 24%;
Corporations 16%; Foundations 15%
17 donors gave $1 million or more; 32 gave $500,000+
Approx. 94% of the total came from 6% of the donors
Average annual increase of 68% over previous six-year period
Campaign Goals
Goal: $150M
Raised*: $157.8M
$60
Millions
$50
$50
$50
$47.8
$40
$30
$40
$38.9
$35.3
$25.9
$20
$10
$5 $9.9
$5
$0
Student Support Faculty Support Capital Projects
Endowed
Excellence Funds
Current
Operations
* Includes gifts, pledges, matching gifts, planned gifts, and bequest expectancies using campaign counting rules.
* Includes $10M + in countable ORSP grants
6
New Gifts and Commitments
Irrevocable
$7.0M
Revocable
$7.3M
Pledges
Outstanding
$12.0M
Outside
Advance
$19.8M
12.5%
4.4%
4.6%
Gifts and
Pledge
Payments
$111.9M
7.6%
70.9%
7
Campaign Goals
Student Support by Use - $47.8M
$10.9
$25.9
$9.9
Current
Operations
$47.8
$35.3
$38.9
$36.9
Endowment
8
Campaign Goals
Faculty Support by Use - $38.9M
Colleges
$2.3M
0.3
5.0
Current
Operations
$29.6
$25.9
$9.9
$35.3
$47.8
$38.9
8.6
4.2
0.5
18.0
Honors
Education & Human Development
Natural Sciences, Forestry &
Agriculture
Engineering
Liberal Arts & Sciences
Business, Public Policy & Health
Interdisciplinary / Research
Institutes
Endowment
$9.3
9
Campaign Goals
Capital Projects - $35.3M
Property &
Gifts in Kind
$8.6M
$25.9
Fieldhouse /
Memorial Gym
$6.6M
Collins Center for the Arts
$4.9M
Hutchinson Ctr.
$4.8M
Alfond Arena
$3.9M
Bryant Pond
$2.3M
$1.8M
Open Pledges for Pre-Campaign Projects
Other Athletics - $1.0M
Mahaney Dome - $0.9M
Other Miscellaneous - $0.5M
$10.2
$47.5
$35.3
$38.9
10
Campaign Goals
Endowed Excellence Funds- $9.9M
Public Service &
Extension
$25.9
$4.0M
$47.8
$9.9
$35.3
Other
$2.7M
Physical Plant
$2.4M
Library
Athletics
$0.5M
$0.2M
$38.9
11
Campaign Goals
Current Operations - $25.9M
Unrestricted
$9.6M
$25.9
Restricted
$6.5M
$47.8
$9.9
$35.3
Athletics
$5.2M
Public Service & Extension
$3.3M
Physical Plant
Library
$38.9
$1.0M
$0.3M
12
In-State vs. Out-of-State Donors
United States
Outside US
99.13%
.87%
Top 10 States
(New England 75.15%, Maine 58.49%)
Number of
Addressable Alumni
(giving during campaign)
Maine
58.49%
44,263
Massachusetts
11.90%
6,534
New York
3.82%
2,207
Florida
3.78%
2,741
Georgia
3.03%
579
Hawaii
2.55%
91
California
2.12%
1,698
New Hampshire
2.00%
3,332
Rhode Island
1.61%
506
New Jersey
1.14%
1,079
Based on donor households
13
New Donors vs. Established Donors
21%
39%
New Donors
79%
61%
% of Donors
Established
Donors
% of Money Raised
14
Scale of Gifts
Gift Level
Number of
% of Donors
Donors
Cum. % of
Donors
Amount
Contributed
(rounded)
% of
Campaign
Cum. % of
Campaign
$5 million +
3
.01%
.01%
$ 24 M
15%
15%
$2.5 million +
5
.02%
.04%
19 M
12%
27%
$1 million +
11
.05%
.08%
15 M
9%
36%
$500k +
$250k +
31
40
.1%
.2%
.2%
11%
20 M
14 M
12%
9%
48%
57%
$100k +
107
.5%
1%
16 M
10%
67%
$50k +
133
.6%
2%
9M
6%
73%
$25k +
216
1%
2%
7M
5%
77%
$10k+
434
2%
4%
7M
4%
82%
$5k+
499
2%
7%
3M
2%
84%
$2.5k +
611
3%
9%
2M
1%
85%
1,474
7%
16%
2M
1%
86%
< $1,000
19,113
84%
100%
From Partners Not on Advance (# of Donors and
Individual Gifts Not Available)
$3M
2%
88%
$ 18 M
12%
100%
$1k +
15
New Gifts and Commitments
Campaign by Year
40
$37.5
35
Millions
30
$26.0
25
20
$22.0
$19.0
$18.3
$14.6
15
10
5
0
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
16
Campaign Impact on Fundraising
$25
$23
Millions
$20
$15
$14.6
$10
$5
$0
6 Years Prior
Campaign
17
Assessing Philanthropic Potential
Confidential Screening Process
University of Maine Estimated Giving Capacity
(Over five years, to combined charities, if motivated)
29
246
Note: All alumni, but only “friends” that are current contributors, are included in the
top two categories.
Raw Philanthropic Potential By College
College
CLAS
# Rated Alumni
4,185 > $100k
Potential
$710 million
Engineering
2,317 > $100k
$410 million
NSFA
2,272 > $100k
$360 million
Education
1,696 > $100k
$290 million
Business
1,383 > $100k
$230 million
Total Potential
$2 Billion
21
Current Major Gift Prospect Pool
Donors of Gifts
over $25,000
22
Prospective Major Gift Prospect Pool
P2G 1 &
EGC>=$100,000
23
Peer and Aspirant Development Operations
Benchmarks on Staffing and Budget
Comparison Institutions
Aspirant Institutions
Kent State University
Drexel University
Long Island University
Mississippi State University Foundation
Pace University
San Diego State University
Rochester Institute of Technology
Wichita State University
Dollars Raised: $40M to $50M annually
Alumni of Record: 70,000 to 180,000
Dollars Raised: $12M to $30M annually
Alumni of Record: 70,000 to 180,000
25
Comparison Group Fundraising Results Benchmark
Comparison institutions raise an average of approximately $20M and aspirant
institutions raise over $45M – creating a good results-based comparison group for
the University of Maine’s investment planning
Aspirant Institutions
Average: $45.5M
Total Dollars Raised from Fundraising Activities
$50,000,000
$45,000,000
$40,000,000
Comparison Institutions
Average: $19.5M
$35,000,000
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
$20,095,481
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$0
A
B
C
UMaine
D
E
F
G
Source: Council for Aid to Education, VSE FY2007 data, and submitted data from select institutions (2008 and 2009 data).
H
26
Benchmarking Overall Investments
University of Maine’s Office of University Development’s budget
and staff size are significantly lower than aspirant institutions*
Table 1. Overall Investments
University of Comparison Comparison
Maine & UM
Group
Group
Foundation
Median
Average
Aspirant
Group
Average
Total Development FTE
33
30
31
62
Total Frontline FTE
10
10
13
21
Percentage Frontline FTEs
33%
33%
42%
34%
Total Development Budget
$3,668,496
$3,354,157
$3,686,256
$5,441,374
Additional investments in the University of Maine’s fundraising program include $300,000 from the President’s
Office for annual giving operations and staff investments in planned giving and annual giving from independent
partner organizations of the University.
27
Benchmarking Opportunity
Despite a smaller alumni base, University of Maine’s focus on prospect
identification and qualification – as well as opportunities to increase
leadership annual giving – can build out a pipeline of future donors
Table 2. Scale of Operations
Total Dollars Raised
Comparison Comparison
Aspirant
University of
Group
Group
Group
Maine
Median
Average
Average
$20,095,481 $19,054,783 $19,532,719 $45,478,859
Percent of Total Dollars from Individuals
61%
61%
61%
39%
Percent of Total Dollars from Corporations &
Foundations
35%
35%
33%
55%
Total Number of Donors
9,045
11,433
14,176
31,527
Total Number of Alumni of Record
81,497
94,057
117,739
129,174
Total Number of Rated Prospects over $25K
2,000
2,523
6,488
5,938
Rated Prospects as Percentage of Alumni of
Record
2%
3%
6%
5%
Across all institutions in Eduventures data set, the number of rated prospects is comparable to a median of 7% of
alumni of record. The University of Maine’s currently identified 2,000 prospects represent 2% of alumni of
record. The capacity screening being conducted in 2010 will identify new individuals who will need qualification
and cultivation to build a larger pool of potential major gift donors.
28
Benchmarking Productivity
University of Maine has strong productivity per frontline officer,
despite a smaller development budget investment per alumnus
Table 3. Overall Productivity
Comparison Comparison
University of
Group
Group
Maine
Median
Average
Aspirant
Group
Average
Average Dollars Raised per Frontline Officer FTE
$2,009,548*
$1,797,486
$1,663,798
$2,388,622
Average Dollars Raised per Total Development FTE
$968,457**
$704,917
$660,617
$789,651
Average Dollars Raised per Development Budget
Dollar
$8**
$5
$6
$8
Development Budget per Alumnus
$30**
$32
$34
$48
*Frontline Officer FTE includes 3 planned giving officers employed and funded by the University of Maine Foundation
** Represents Office of University Development only FTE and Budget. Figures would be reduced when including partner organization staff
and budgets.
The University of Maine’s organizational structure for fundraising makes it difficult to calculate comprehensive
return on investment in fundraising activities. Dollars raised per frontline officer is an all-inclusive metric by
which to compare performance with peers.
29
Source: Council for Aid to Education, VSE FY2007 data, and submitted data from select institutions (2008 and 2009 data).
Benchmarking Fundraising Investments
University of Maine may need to invest in nearly all fundraising
areas to achieve the fundraising performance of aspirant
institutions
Table 4. Fundraising Area Investments
Annual Giving Total FTE
Annual Giving Frontline
Major Gifts Total FTE
Major Gifts Frontline
Principal Gifts Total FTE
Principal Gifts Frontline
Corporate and Foundation Relations Total FTE
CFR Frontline
Planned Giving Total FTE
Planned Giving Frontline
Unit-Funded Frontline FTE
University of
Maine
2.0*
0.0
8.8
5.8
n/a
n/a
0.3
0.3
3,5**
3.0**
1.0
Comparison
Group Median
2.0
1.0
9.9
6.6
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.3
3.0
1.6
0.0
Comparison
Group Average
4.0
2.4
12.3
8.6
0.5
0.5
0.9
0.5
2.4
1.8
0.8
Aspirant
Group
Average
6.0
4.0
16.7
13.0
0.7
0.3
1.3
0.7
2.0
1.3
1.0
* Includes 0.75 FTE in Office of University Development, 1.0 FTE in Alumni Association and 0.25 FTE in Athletics
**Employees of the University of Maine Foundation
University of Maine employs more planned giving frontline officers than other institutions. Do University
Development gift officers have the tools and support to engage with prospective donors around planned giving
opportunities in order to maximize a potential gift?
30
Benchmarking Support Staff Investments
University of Maine employs considerably fewer support staff
than peers but maintains industry norm ratios of services
staff to frontline officers
Table 5. Services Area FTE Investments
Total Service Area FTE
Ratio of Non-Frontline FTEs per Frontline Officer
Comparison Comparison
University of
Group
Group
Maine
Median
Average
11
16
15
Aspirant
Group
Average
37
2.07
2.07
1.88
1.98
4
6
6
16
Communications and Events
1
2
2
9
Research and Stewardship/Donor Relations
3
4
5
8
Total Data Management/IT FTE
2
2
3
10
Total Advancement Administration FTE
5
6
6
11
Total Frontline Services FTE
In what ways do Office of University Development services areas provide support to fundraising partners in the
Foundation or Alumni Association?
31
Opportunities to Increase Fundraising Results
The University of Maine is productive with current resources, and
should focus on raising donors’ sights to achieve desired growth
Factors Impacting
Productivity
Tenure
Grand Total Dollars Raised per Frontline FTE
$3,000,000
Job design
$2,500,000
Administrative and services
support
$2,000,000
Prospect readiness/
portfolio maturity
$2,388,622
$2,009,548
$1,663,798
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$University of Maine Comparison Group
Gift Thresholds
Benchmark Institutions
Major Gifts
Principal Gifts
32
Most often $50,000
Most often $1,000,000
Aspirant Group
When considering raising gift thresholds:
• Review the expectations, returns, or impact of
gifts at the current levels
• Determine the cost/benefit for staff hours (i.e.,
number of individuals or FTE needed to identify,
cultivate, close, process, and steward gifts at these
levels)
Factors Impacting Success
Factors that determine fundraising success help inform
attention & investment
Unit
Institutional
Institutional
Unit-Level
priorities
priorities
Factors Development
Factors
Academic
leader
CULTURE OF
priorities
involvement in
PHILANTHROPY
fundraising
Campaign
Fundraising
Faculty
cycle
Success
priorities
PROSPECT
Program
Portfolio
READINESS
maturity
% of time
Activity
size and
reporting
fundraising maturity
Tenure in
role
Fundraising
background
Preferred job
aspects
Individual Factors
33
Reinventing to Continue Growth
To address institutional challenges to growth in giving, ask: is this . . .
•
A leadership issue?
•
A strategy issue?
•
A marketing or messaging issue?
•
A prospect maturity issue?
•
A data issue issue?
•
A process issue?
•
A staffing or training issue?
•
An organizational structure issue?
34
Funding UM Advancement
How Public Institutions Fund Development
• 92% of public institutions use at least one gift source in
funding development operations
– At these institutions, gift/endowment fees have been in effect for
an average of almost 19 years, and now contribute between 18%
and 80% of development budgets
• The two most commonly used gift sources, each used by
85% of public institutions, are:
– Income earned on an ongoing basis on unexpended fund balances
– Endowment-management or cost-recovery fee charged on current
market value of endowed funds
36
Private and public institutions reported very different funding models.
Source: Eduventures, Inc. Funding Mechanisms for Development Operations: FY2009 Update, April 2009
Executive Summary: Public Institutions
Public institutions commonly use gift sources, generating flexibility
and greater autonomy in funding development operations
92%
of public institutions
use at least one gift source in
funding development
operations *
At these institutions, gift and/or
endowment fees have been in
effect for an average of 19
years and now contribute
between 18% and 80% of
development budgets.
94%
43%
of foundations use a
of foundations use a
management fee on
gift fee (one time
endowed funds to
fee) to help fund
help fund operations,
operations, which
which contributes to
contributes to 5% of
40% of their
their operation
operation budget **
budget**
* Source: Eduventures, Inc. Funding Mechanisms for Development Operations: FY2009 Update, April 2009
** Source: CASE, Emerging from the Recession, Results of the 2010 Institutionally Related Foundation Fund Survey, for
Doctoral affiliated institutions.
Private and public institutions reported very different funding models.
Source: Eduventures, Inc. Funding Mechanisms for Development Operations: FY2009 Update, April 2009
37
Proposed Two-Part Gift Reinvestment Fee
 To permit UM and USM to charge a one-time gift
reinvestment fee of up to five percent on all
private outright gifts (not endowed gifts) to fund
expansion of Advancement staff and programs.
• To permit UM and USM to assess an annual
management fee equal to 1.25 percent of the market
value of its endowments held by the University of
Maine System in addition to the annually determined
pay-over which is 4.75 percent for FY12.
Revenue & ROI Resulting From Proposed Fee’s
Potential Fee Revenue
Gift Purpose
Gift Fee
Current
Gift Fee
Proposed
Endowment
Fee
Current
Endowment
Fee
Proposed
Current
Operations
0%
3%
n/a
n/a
Endowment
0%
0%
0.25%
1.25%
Capital
0%
3%
n/a
n/a
$255,000
$158,000
$712,000
Estimated
Annual Fee
Revenue
•
•
$0
Based on cash gifts to UMaine in FY12 and on endowment value of $63,262,000 on 6/30/2012 for
UMaine funds held by the System.
Assumes 10% discount factors on both fees to account for gifts excluded from the fees.
Return on Investment for Frontline Fundraisers
All records with Major Gift Modeling Scores 800+
Predicted
Potential
Currently
Assigned
Not
Assigned
Number of
Expected Gifts
5 MGOs
$10M +
10 MGOs
Estimated
Dollars Raised
5 MGOs
3
6
0
0
$5.0M–$9.9M
12
11
1
1
$5 M
$5 M
$1.0M–$4.9M
267
131
14
14
$14 M
$14 M
$500K–$999K
225
340
38
38
$19 M
$19 M
$100K–$499K
1,321
7,173
74
$1.2 M
$7.4 M
$39.2M
$45.4M
12
$0
10 MGOs
$0
FY ‘12 & FY ‘13 Advancement Goals
FY ’12 Advancement Focus
o Helping coordinate President’s Listening and Engagement tour
o Establishing Presidential relationships
o Building the Board of Visitors
o Building internal collaboration among fundraising partners
o Enhancing cultivation and stewardship
o Restructuring to increase revenues and decrease expenditures
FY ’13 Advancement Focus
• Develop guidelines, opportunities and protocols for
working together as independent partners in order to
maximize resources, efficiencies and return on
investment (ROI)
• Organize to be pro-active rather than reactive
regarding constituent ideas and demands
• Develop, where appropriate, fundraising and
communications strategies in alignment with the
Blue Sky, including a parents program
FY ‘13 Advancement Goals Cont’.
• Partner with campus leadership to identify and develop
engagement strategies for principal ($1 million +) and
transformational ($10 million +) donors and prospects
• Enhance culture of philanthropy internally and externally
• Define policies in preparation for next campaign
• Present a more united image to internal and external
constituents
• Lay groundwork for longer-term aspirational
collaborations
Questions and Discussion