Strategic Plan for Excellence IV 2011-15
Theme 6. Resource Development
Sources:
Continuing & Global Education
Development
Foundation Financial Services
Office of Budget & Treasury Management
Research and Sponsored Programs
Strategies
 Generate additional revenue from sponsored activity.
 Generate additional revenue from donor development.
 Develop infrastructure support for faculty or staff who
provide services to the region.
 Generate additional revenue from self-supported and nonstate supported programs.
 Develop a culture that embraces creative approaches to
cost reduction in university operations.
Strategies
 Become a leader in environmental practices that promote
energy efficiency, green business operations, sustainable
practices, environmental education and alternative
transportation.
 Implement a broad campus-wide program that solicits and
adopts ideas for fiscal savings from faculty, staff,
administrators and students.
 Implement an exhaustive comprehensive program review
process that evaluates each program for efficiencies and
productivity in comparison to pre-established standards.
Strategies
 Identify rules and procedures that need to be changed to
maximize resource availability and identify 'champions' in
areas where significant change support Fresno State's mission.
 Create and implement a program that evaluates and potentially
reduces routine administrative support services in light of
technology innovations, opportunities for shared resources or
process improvement in each executive area.
 Develop incentives and recognition programs that support
campus wide initiatives to streamline operations or services,
reduce costs and promote efficiencies.
Performance Indicators
 Operating expenses per FTES.
 Increase in total revenue from diversified
sources (i.e., sponsored programs, indirect
cost recovery, donor support, continuing
education) with annual and three-year trend.
Operating
Expenses
per FTES
Operating Expenses per FTES
Operating
Expenses
$230,000,000
$12,500
$12,240
$12,274
$223,963,512
$225,000,000
$220,000,000
$223,744,673
$12,000
$220,375,822
$220,007,250
$11,581
$11,500
$11,489
$215,000,000
$11,000
$10,930
$210,000,000
$204,166,403
$205,000,000
$10,500
$200,000,000
$10,000
2007
2008
2009
Source: Office of Budget & Treasury Management
2010
2011
Level A (Without SUG)
& SUG Allocation Per FTES
$210,000,000
$12,000
$10,652
$10,772
$10,619
$10,299
$9,576
$160,000,000
$110,000,000
$9,000
$205,352,812
$196,365,773
$203,983,050
$6,000
$185,440,122
$178,861,203
$60,000,000
$837
$16,024,200
$962
2007
2008
$18,610,700
$1,355
$25,305,200
$1,502
$1,940
$3,000
$34,935,700
$27,378,900
$10,000,000
$0
Level A W/O SUG
2009
SUG
Level A W/O SUG per FTES
Source: Office of Budget & Treasury Management
2010
2011
SUG/FTES
Revenue from Continuing & Global Education
$4,000,000
$3,837,886
$3,500,000
$3,369,430
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
2009-10
Source: Continuing and Global Education
2010-11
Donor Support
Gift Percentage by Type of Committment
2005-06 to 2010-11
Outstanding Pledges &
Irrevocable Deferred Gifts
$9,735,271
5.8%
Cash Received
$128,555,104
76.5%
Philanthropic Grants
$10,683,911
6.4%
Gifts In Kind
$5,435,494
3.2%
Bequests & Revocable
Deferred Gifts
$13,570,285
8.1%
Source: Development
Donor Support
Combined Donor Support from All Sources
$60,000,000
$53,414,327
$50,000,000
$40,000,000
$32,563,361
$30,000,000
$28,315,660
$24,744,939
$20,000,000
$16,583,198
$17,174,240
2009-10
2010-11
$10,000,000
$2005-06
Source: Development
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
Donor Support
Cash Received
$50,000,000
$43,927,586
$40,000,000
$30,000,000
$23,011,318
$20,000,000
$13,155,832
$16,167,842
$17,573,217
$14,719,309
$10,000,000
$2005-06
Source: Development
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
Donor Support
Philanthropic Grants
$6,000,000
$4,986,544
$4,000,000
$2,814,248
$2,000,000
$1,234,995
$480,195
$725,639
$442,290
$2005-06
Source: Development
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
Donor Support
Outstanding Pledges & Irrevocable Deferred Gifts
$15,000,000
$10,883,002
$10,000,000
$7,006,464
$4,324,902
$5,000,000
$188,269
$2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
$(16,366)
$(5,000,000)
$(10,000,000)
$(12,651,000)
$(15,000,000)
Source: Development
Donor Support
Bequests & Revocable Deferred Gifts
$6,000,000
$5,231,099
$4,000,000
$4,878,505
$3,705,000
$2,000,000
$1,009,676
$2005-06
2006-07
$(865,000)
$(2,000,000)
Source: Development
2007-08
2008-09
$(388,995)
2009-10
2010-11
Revenue From Indirect Cost Recovery
$2,300,000
$2,206,664
$2,145,859
$2,100,994
$2,100,000
$2,050,984
$1,900,000
$1,700,000
$1,522,176
$1,500,000
2007-08
2008-09
Source: Foundation Financial Services
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
Revenue from Sponsored Programs
$37,000,000
$2,253,408
$2,278,345
$35,000,000
$1,897,195
$1,910,881
$2,010,151
$33,000,000
$34,510,871
$31,000,000
$33,248,491
$33,069,557
$34,107,138
$32,373,062
$29,000,000
2006-2007
2007-2008
Awarded Direct Cost
Source: Research and Sponsored Programs
2008-2009
Awarded Indirect Cost
2009-2010
2010-2011
Final Report: 1/27/12
Process Improvement Team
Administrative Services
Team: Medical Leave of Absence (MLOA)
Background
The process for requesting a Medical Leave of Absence
(MLOA) was unclear and inefficient. Notifications and
approvals were often received late, after a leave had
begun. These issues had adverse impacts on employee
benefits and pay.
Objectives
Create an efficient, accurate and timely process for
MLOA.
Team Members
Dr. Ellen Junn (Provost's Office) - Facilitator
Dave Moll (Risk Mgt) - Facilitator
Juanita Aguilar (HR) - Process Owner
Alliene Branch (Academic Personnel Services - APS)
Lor-Rae Raus (HR)
Nora Woods (Payroll)
Project Milestones
1. First team meeting (08/04/09)
2. Documented initial process (08/12/09)
3. Customer interviews & focus groups (10/29 to 1212/09)
4. Collected baseline data (11109)
5. Reviewed policies, procedures & regulations (11/09)
6. Designed solutions (12/09)
7. Implemented solutions (112010 through 412011)
8. Training schedule to campus community in different
forums (Began 4/2011)
9. Track & measure MLOA communication to confirm
effectiveness of new process (7/1/11 through 12/31111)
Findings
• Multiple conflicting sources of information on MLOA
(21 communication mechanisms being used) .
• Employees confused about who to contact for
information. Only 2 of 25 interviewed knew who to
contact.
• APS and HR maintained independent processes, each
with independent & redundant data logs.
• Duplicate notification letters sent to faculty - from HR
and Provost.
• Job data in PeopleSoft does not reflect accurate
employment history. (i.e. MLOA status not entered .)
• Absent employees not reporting absences timely; 5%
incorrect or retroactively entered.
Rev: 1-27- 12
Solutions
• Clarified and agreed to a consistent MLOA process.
• Centralized MLOA processing in one department (HR),
creating a one-stop-shop.
• Began entering MLOA information into PeopleSoft Job
Data. HR and AP can now run reports and easily
determine who is on MLOA.
• Created MLOA website, with online application , correct
information, FAQs, descriptions of leave types.
• Created communication mechanisms to raise
awareness within the campus community about the
MLOA process.
• HR took over performing Absence Management
entries for absent employees.
Results
• Eliminated duplicate MLOA tasks in APS and HR, and
eliminated a monthly APS/HR meeting saving valuable
time for employees.
• Employee on paid and unpaid MLOA status is now
available on PeopleSoft. Job Data now reflects
accurate employment history.
• Queries can be generated for MLOA status by APS
and HR for employee status.
Measure
Incorrect or retroactive entries
MLOA notification 5-days or
more late
Before
5%
14%
After
0%
7%
Recom mendations
The project team recommends that the following
documents be updated to reflect the process changes
the team has implemented. These updates will ensure
there are no conflicting communications related to official
policies and procedures.
• Manual of Administrative Policies & Procedures
(MAPP)
• Fresno State Staff Handbook
• Academic Policy Manual Policy Number 361
CAUFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO
Final Report: 09/08111
Process Improvement Team
Adm inistrative Services
Team: Facilities Mgt Customer Service
Background
•
•
•
•
•
Inconsistent communication between campus
customers and Facilities Management.
Difficulty tracking Work Order (WO) requests.
Backlog of WO requests related to lighting .
Difficulty prioritizing work load in all trades.
Inability to provide timely status reports to
management.
•
Inefficient use of trades personnel time, making
many trips from work locations to warehouse for
materials.
Solutions Implemented
•
•
Objective
•
Improve Customer Service Request and Work Order
process to enable efficient project completion and status
reporting.
•
Team Members
Devon Fullner (Facilities Mgt) - Facilitator
Susan Christensen (Library)
Thomas Gaffery (Admin)
Tracey Garza (HR)
Michele Janiel (Facilities Mgt)
Jeff Prickett (Facilities Mgt)
Robert Boyd (AVP for Facilities Mgt) - Sponsor
Results
•
Key Project Milestones
Team First Meeting: November 2010
Final Meeting: September 2011
Reviewed WO process and created baseline
process flow diagram .
2. Interviews with key customers to solicit input,
ideas and suggestions.
3. Reviewed policies and procedures.
4. Created ideal-state process flow diagram based
on findings and Lean concepts.
5. Identified other opportunities to improve.
6. Implemented solutions.
7. Checked results.
•
1.
•
•
•
Did not have a consistent approach for project and
WO tracking and monitoring completion.
Paper-based system for WO tracking was inefficient,
cumbersome and costly.
Work load for lighting crew overwhelming,
attempting to change large volume of lights with
limited access to rooms during daytime class hours.
Rev: 1-27-12
Project Information: Board consistently used
within Facilities Management for communication
related to project tracking , identifying project
manager, actual and project dates and critical
project issues.
mDesk: Mobile WO system fully implemented.
In addition to improved communication of
priorities, tasks and response time, there is an
estimated time savings of 20 min per person per
day due to reduced paperwork. This is
equivalent to 10 hours of labor per day for
existing workforce.
Lighting: Significant improvement in WO
responsiveness for lighting . See table below:
Number fights
chanaedlweek
Days to complete light
WO
Lights out calls per
week
Labor cost
Findings
•
Established Project Information board listing
status of 25 most significant projects. Board
includes manager-on-call's name.
Implemented mDesk mobile WO system .
Enables trades personnel to receive WO
requests and to submit time, material and status
information.
Enabled custodial crew to replace lamps during
night shift, when classrooms are not being used
thus freeing skilled trades personnel for other
duties.
Expanded stock inventory on Plant Operations
service trucks to minimize trips to warehouse for
materials, thus improving completion time on
WO's.
•
Before
After
120
300
11
2
590
227
$361 hr for
electrician
$171 hr for
custodial
Truck stock: Reduced unnecessary trips to
warehouse. Saving 5 to 8 miles and 45 to 90
minutes per WO.
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO
Status Report: 7/12/11
Performance Improvement
Administrative Services
Team: Employee Clearance Form
Key Project Steps
Problem Statement
1. First team meeting (August 2009)
2. Documented initial process. (August 2009)
3. Interviews & focus groups. (September 2009)
4. Collected "before" data. (September 2009)
5. Reviewed policies, procedures and regulations.
(Sep-Nov 2009)
6. DeSigned & implemented solutions. (Nov 09-Jan 10)
7. Trained users. (January 2010)
8. Collected "after" data. (March 2010)
9. Project complete. (March 2010)
The Employee Clearance Form and process were
confusing and difficult to use. There were issues
validity of data, processing time, ownership and a
perception that it was not user friendly.
Mission Statement
Successfully establish and define products, roles and
responsibilities to ensure customer satisfaction with the
completed employee separation form at less cost and
complexity for Fresno State.
Team Members
Solutions
•
•
Tom Gaffery, Facilitator
John Briar, CIS
Beneza Chavez, Payroll
Brian Cotham, Procurement
Clint Moffitt, Financial Services
Monica Shackelton, Accounting Services
John Waayers, Academic Resources
•
•
•
Redesigned and automated the process,
. incorporated within PeopleSoft
Process is initiated as a part of the new
automated ETR
Eliminated paper form
Departments controlling assets are the ones
that clear items (for example, Procurement
cancels the ProCard)
Human Resources owns the process
•
Findings
Results
Baseline data
•
•
•
•
•
=
Sample set: January-August 2009 129
separations
93% of the forms were incomplete
59% were missing at least one signature
37% of employees did not submit a form
31 separated employees still had keys, systems
access or a parking permit
•
•
•
•
•
•
Travel
Application
wi Advance
Petty Cash
PeopJeSoft
Request 1-----:~....- ---1 Security
Request
Manager and employee are able to track
progress in PeopleSoft
Employee only has to return keys to Plant
Operations and turn in parking permit to their
manager
Validation that the process is actually
undertaken
Validation that access has been terminated and
assets have been returned
Processing time is reduced
Clearing departments face less interruptions
and can complete at their convenience
Employee
PS worklist
L..o
Separation f---o
task created
Initiated
J3\Cllon
Record
Taken
f-o cancellation
ie cancel
in worklist
Pro Card
\I
K.yCm'
Access ----­
Request
)'
ProCard
Application
~--'--~
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO
FRESNO STATE
Administrative Services ,
Performance Imorovement
POWERING TH E N EW C ALI FORNIA
«««« Problem Statement »»»»>
The Employee Transaction Form (ETF) and process
were confusing and difficult to use. There were
issues with delays in processing the forms and
with errors and incomplete documents.
««««Mission Statement »»»»»
Create an efficient, accurate and timely process
«««««« Key Steps »»»»»»>
1. Documented initial process.
2. Interviews & focus groups.
3, Collected "before" data,
4. Reviewed policies, procedures and regulations.
5. Designed & implemented solutions.
6. Trained users,
7. Collected "after" data.
for ETRs.
«««««« Solutions »»»»»»>
«««««<Team Members»»»»»
Tracey Garza (HR) - Facilitator
Robert Guinn (Technology Services) - Facilitator
Linda Brase (HR)
Mike Dunn (HR)
Cindy Eastin (Payroll)
Diane Volpp (Academic Personnel)
Redesigned and automated the process,
incorporated within PeopleSoft
23-step manual form ~ 5-step on-line form
Eliminated unused fields
New Process
­
I' RlM"
a :lOll:ry
...
««««««< Findings »»»»»»»
/"
---
Rt' ;J Of L ~ ~b ·..
.........
f ""'~~lld
Baseline data
-
15 days average time to process.
85% of forms processed after effective date.
118 fields on form , 75% not used.
Confusing form resulted in frequent incorrect
information being supplied.
- Approval authority not clearly defined
- Typical request required 5 signatures
- Redundant information and processing steps
(Back and forth between paper and
PeopleSoft.)
Initial Process {Yellow boxes have 3 sub-steps}
«««««« Results »»»»»»>
Eliminated need for multiple copies.
Able to track where ETF is in approval process.
5 days average time to process.
(Comparing same transactions before versus after
showed a decrease from 20 to 5 days. N-before =
45, N-after 148)
=
Results: Red - Before. Blue - After
Results from On·tine ETR Systtm
--.
... -....
f
0..
•... _-_'"
...... :ao.:.
rM_...........
~ -
t
t
~ "' ----
. Pre • Post
--
,
..-
-,-­
!:
: :
: :
,,
,
J
Draft Report Formatlor Admin. Review
j
Status Report: July 2011
Process Improvement Team
Administrative Services
Team: Temp Faculty Appointment Notices
Solutions
Problem Statement
• New spreadsheet that provides appointment was
generated and manually distributed to all departments
• New form for department to notify APS when new
temporary faculty - help with 1-9 deadlines
• Print appointment notices in APS for pilot colleges,
send to college for final processing
• Created "shell" for all departments that will decrease
errors and increase reporting functions
The process required to review and approve lecturer
appointments is a paper process with review, signature,
and logging at 3 different levels. Late paperwork
frequently results in late 1-9's and late pay.
Mission Statement
Streamline and simplify the part-time contract process
in order to decrease the time invested by 80% and
decrease the number of appointments with errors.
Team Members
Dennis Nef, Team Sponsor
Steven Walker, Facilitator (retired Fall 2010)
Anne Burkholder, Scheduling
Laura Gribben, MCCL
Teresa Moreno-Aguallo, Academic Personnel
Lorraine Phelps, HR
Ethan Jones, CIS (resigned Fall 2009)
Findings
Situation & Baseline Data
• Schedule is finalized two months too late to get
contracts done in a timely fashion.
•
Process has too many steps and verifications.
• Faculty have too many steps after signing contract
• The Faculty Activity Detail (FAD) report does not
match the contracts 25% of the time.
• Exceptions are the norm resulting in many revisions
Key Project Steps & Milestones
Completed as of 71112011
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Initial team meeting
Documented initial process
Interviews and focus groups
Collected data
Designed solutions and gave report to APS
2 pilot and 2 control colleges (A Y 10-11)
Reviewed data (May 2011)
Revised Plan & Training (May-June 2011)
4 pilot and 2 control colleges (AY 11-12)
In work as of 71112011
10.
11.
12.
13.
Collect data for the four pilot colleges 2011-12
Need to improve from 48% late 1-9's to 0% late.
Additional staff in APS when all colleges move
Review other methods, ie. Long Beach model
Results
•
•
•
Error rate: Achieved 2.56% error overall.
Late 1-9's: Did not achieve
Workload reduced: Unknown-no data collected
This ongoing project will not be complete until after the
HR common data project is complete. APS was not
able to reproduce the data provided by the team;
therefore, a new method of comparison was
developed. The 2010-11 data showed that doing
appointment notices early and for an academic year
increased errors or revisions. In addition, most errors
were not from bad data; they were from changing
assignments. For 2011-12 appointment notices will be
done by semester and with "shells" created by APS;
we have already received positive feedback about
these changes form a few of the non-pilot
departments. Since errors (as originally defined)
appear to be a scheduling issue, focus will be on
processes that reduce paperwork and time spent on
appointment notices; as well as meeting 100% of 1-9
deadlines.
2010-2011
Data Review
Avg # days cntrct
rcvd before
appt date
All Colleges
Pilot: Social Science
Pilot: Craig School of Bus.
Cntrl: Arts and Humanities
Cntrl: Jordan College of Ag
10
22
19
13
5
1-9 Complete on-time All Colleges
Error
Rate
% cntrcts
that are not
TB changes
26%
36%
13%
29%
11%
2.6%
0.8%
1.3%
3.9%
1.5%
Pilot & Control Colleges
Pilot & Control Gro,",p
Pilot & Control Group
Ne\N Lecturers
t
1
.
~
....'
"
CALIFORN IA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO
Status Report: July 13, 2011
Advancement Database Project
Administrative Services
Problem Statement
The users of the Advancement Database (Advance) are experiencing data update and outpuUreport delays due to
insufficient data entry operators to handle the volume of information processed. There is a perception that data
contained within the database has anomalies like historical data gaps, duplication, and inconsistency. This has caused
the development and use of multiple "shadow" databases of duplicative data throughout the campus. In addition, the
current operating platform (Sybase) has reached end-of-life status and is not upgradeable or supported.
Mission Statement
The team was charged with reviewing and improving the process of capturing, entering, maintaining , and developing the
data contained in Advance for donors, friends, and alumni of the University. This database system is used by the
University community to track and cultivate relationships that ultimately lead to the receipt of gifts to the University.
Through this project, we were expected to:
• Reduce the time between data capture and data entry
• Reduce the duplication of data and other anomalies contained in Advance
• Increase engagement and confidence in the Advance, thus reducing the use of "shadow" databases
Team Members
•
•
•
•
•
•
Helen Bailey (Central Development)
Theresa Eurich (Auxiliary MIS)
Katie Johnson (University Communications)
Michelle Melikian (Office of the President)
Alex Perez (Central Development)
Russel Statham (Auxiliary Services) - Facilitator
Findings
•
Work orders and responses for data updates and/or reports were created manually. This resulted in an additional 15
minutes of work per update/report (250 hours of labor per year) for Central Development staff.
•
Data entry is centralized and, as a result of recent layoffs, has a significant backlog of work.
•
Alumni and friends of the University have an opportunity to self-update their contact information through a tool
called HarrisConnect; however, due to the way the tool was implemented, a majority of alumni and friends are not
able to authenticate and thus cannot use it. This results in lost opportunities for data updates.
•
NCOA verifications of all data in Advance occur every quarter; unfortunately, this method of verification and data
updates does not handle multiple addresses well, and as a result the records of many high-end donors/prospects
who have multiple properties have been corrupted in Advance.
•
Requests for data outputs/reports are supposed to be sent via the Advancement Data Request Form; however, the
form is exceptionally complex and very few staff use it. Instead, they call Central Development for each request,
resulting in a great deal of added labor costs for each transaction .
•
While training for the system has been available, many staff have not taken advantage of it. A majority of the
concerns raised through the review process have functions in the system that adequately address the issues raised ,
but many staff are not aware of these functions due to a lack of training.
•
The campus lacks an effective method to control the use of donor/prospect e-mail addresses. This has resulted in
the use of shadow databases, an inconsistent internet brand, and a lack of timely e-mail updates in Advance.
FRESNO STATE
California State University, Fresno
Status Report: July 13, 2011
Advancement Database Project
Adm inistrative Services
Key Project Steps & Milestones
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Initial Team Meeting (11/5/10)
Current State Diagram Completed (11/16/10)
Future State Diagram Completed (1/14/11)
Initial Survey of Training Needs Completed (5/27/11)
Redesign of New Data Request Form (6116/11)
Presented New Record Research Process Pricing to AVP - Not Approved (6/20111)
Implementation of New HarrisConnect Connector Tool (ECD Week of July 18)
Implementation of New Data Request Form (ECD 8/1/11)
Present Quotes for E-Mail Marketing Tool (ECD 8/15/11)
Full Survey of Training Needs Completed (ECD September 2011)
Implementation of Automated Work Order System (ECD Fall 2011)
Training Developed and Implemented (ECO Fall 2011)
Implementation of E-Mail Marketing Tool (ECD Unknown Due to Budget Constraints)
Solutions
•
Implementation of an automated work order system for data updates and report requests
•
Decentralization of data entrylupdate abilities, allowing DOD's and their support staff to balance the burden of
updating records in Advance and eliminating a portion of the backlog - Not Approved
•
Implementation of a new connector for HarrisConnect that transfers additional data from Advance
•
Implementation of new record research processes that would reduce contamination of high-profile donor records by
eliminating the use of NCOA verifications - Not Approved
•
Redesign of the Data Request Form
•
Development of new training opportunities for staff that highlight system capabilities that address complaints
•
Implementation of a new enterprise e-mail marketing tool that will allow University Advancement to control the use
of e-mail communications, and ensure that all e-mail addresses in Advance are up to date and accurate
Results
250
Hoors Sa ed Each Year
•
Expected savings of 250 hours of labor per year as a result of the implementation of an
automated work order system.
•
Expected increase in up-to-date data in Advance as a result of expanded ability for alumni
and friends of the University to update their information online through HarrisConnect.
•
Expected increase in confidence and use of the system as a result of newly developed training programs.
•
Expected decrease of staff time spent in follow-up on Advance data output requests by 50% per
request as a result of the new Data Request Form. Central Advancement receives
approximately 40 requests per month and currently has 3-4 follow-up phone calls per request.
50 %
Reduction in Follow-up
•
Expected decrease of shadow databases, increase of updated e-mail information in Advance, and streamlining of
University electronic communications to alumni and friends of the University as a result of the implementation of an
enterprise e-mail marketing tool.
CALI FORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRE S(I!O
Status Report: 7/12/11
Gift AcceptanceTeam
Team: Gift Acceptance
Problem Statement
The perception that the gift agreement process is slow, status information is lacking, and roles and
responsibilities are unclear.
Mission Statement
The team's goal is to reduce time to complete gift agreements and supporting documents, design and
implement a system that tracks documents/process and clarify roles and responsibilities.
Team Members
Gwen Burks (University Advancement)
Ellen Jamra (University Development)
Keith Kompsi (Foundation Financial Services)
Greg Varela (Scholarship Office)
Christy Melvold Baloian (Ag One/JCAST College Development) - Facilitator
Findings
Situation & Baseline Data
• Need to reduce time to complete gift agreements and supporting documents.
•
Design and implement a system that tracks documents/process
•
Clarify roles and responsibilities
Key Project Steps & Milestones
Completed as of 7/12/11
1. Initial team meeting (afternoon November 8-10,2010)
2. Documented initial value stream map
3. Reviewed current policies and procedures
4. Identified pain points in process (places where there is delay, confusion, frustration)
5.Suggested improvements or changes where applicable
VVork in Progress
1. Analysis to quantify baseline - obtained historic data
2. BizFlow automation
First in-line, completed detailed future-state map, streamlined process steps, final specification
and programming work starting in mid-June. Finalizing and training in August.
FRESNO STATE
California State University, Fresno
Status Report: 7/12/11
Gift AcceptanceTeam
Solutions
•
•
•
•
•
•
Clarified process, roles and responsibilities
Established regular meetings between Development and Foundation Financial Services
Improved Account Set-up Form
Established monthly report for scholarship office
Began using electronic (PDF) copies
ldentified methods to reduce error rate when entering gifts into Advance database
Results
After meeting and going through the process of mapping this project, the team members all got a much
better understanding of what each person and department does, their challenges and strengths. This
created an increase in transparency and better long term communication. We hope tracking gift
agreements in BizFlow will enable us to decrease the amount of time to complete a gift agreement.
Cjl.U FO fl N I~\
ST},TE U IV ERSITY, FRESNO
RESNG
ST.I\JE
Discovery
Diversity
Distinction
Report to the Strategic Planning Committee
Theme 6
University Advancement
May 2012
RESNG STATE
University Advancement
5200 MIl-lOON
.~
Fresno State
Campaign Monthly Hash Report
SI186 Mll.UON
As of April lO. 2012
ACtual
Date
2011-12 Funds
2011-12 Funds
Raised by Month
Ra"isedYTO
- - - - - - -
Ct.mlUlaIive
Cam~aiDn
Total
Qtr
713t1KJlt $
728.6.f7 $
728,647 i
168,1{l8.712
Q1
8I3tl20 11 $
673.436 $
1.4m,Da3 S
169.332. 148
Q1
4.74{),845 ,
172.720-'110
Q1
1.270.457 S
175,25.0,522
Q2
9.542.862 $
177.522JTfl
Q2
S
179,6Q5,03 1
Q2
13.155.472 S
18 1.135.537
Q3
13.856,187 S
18 , ,836.252
Q3
16.573.240 S
184,553.305
Q3
11.9SfJ,09S S
185,goo. 163
Q4
S
17,986,098 S
185.956.163
Q4
S
17,986,098 S
185.~.1 63
Q4
1113000 n $
2.2n.405 S
11.7 1~.866
2J2t112{l12 $
6130121112
700.715 5
Year to Date Tobis
Cumulafiot.e ToWs
Goal
-----
-
Actual by
Goal by
Quarter
Quarter
4.7~{t , B4E
S
4.14!1,B45 S
S
6.975.02 1 S
S
1.412..858 S
14,1i5f4,538
S 17.98&,098 S
32.CItS,935
$ 185,9S6.163 S
200.00'0,000
2
· ~-:tWr:llll
I,' n.F
~..... ~ .
1,.--'
RESN@STATE
University Advancement
The Campaign for Fresno State
• $186 million raised
93% of goal
ri
119,150 gifts from 29,435 donors*
*As of March 31, 2012
3
FRESN@STATE
University Advancement
)1 E.;i w '" 1:"Jk
N ..csinQ Sci-.:,jar';-ti r';.
$1 m &..cn
C<i-:",t€'l ': :I f Cc,rr"TJur.t'\'
'1
'. bk Mc.s,t
m ll'';)I'
,l l)t;hr
hi ;;r~F!
Sd ,:·Gr hip.
$ ' ,S rr ll~x
N T( ,..... r it
tr"
E ngzgem ~nt and '
5t! ~. ,,~-l !,J rI "1g.
S2. S ""'lIi,_..
Her ...· r·.Isdd<ll lito",r}!,.
) J YCi' M ... G ~) r;
$. 10 mi n n
Grft ~;l F 16"C. 5t at~
Farm
p,;:.,ita Ii:!<)t':>
S1 ITo !Ie.r,
M~'lfl ~n d
.; t~"'
[q" "e ~tlJ'j.~ .
'" ;,w"cf'd ~Qun:latIJn
~Z 11),<) ('1()
i~ rr.IliCt!
$1 mill :·r,
f'l lHy
....:.ro u t C,,11E<
$ 1 mi1t:,r,
[ "rod,: .,. C;;.. ,ter fe-r
Elr"""n UbeI,l
,'; rI!
5d ltlar:Hp.
~1
~ ." itr':,il lll J:
:por'O Moe-J i::ij' ,
C.. rot. ..... S1 S fY .' ~ N'
brLl m C) li f gil .:.f
F'n::"I r;;.m in
En g.n~ri n Cl,
M~~': I'l
;;.,
E. :c ~II ~...
S875.0Ct
w li c>f
::; ,ln t~~
Gift. f ~ f
!~gri .: l ltu ,,1 Sc~rr:"""
aM I~~ nc/w g:i'
g,OT :c. \\i..... ":h"
J 1 r' ,IIiCO
;. nne OuPr.rot i:lice
l'" let. Cell •.,,?" vi
SO':u l s ~
SSO fl .1V,·
I i mt.l i '· l ~-" ~ 1 rd lir-r
Ecbe n [our :"r,llicc
E. ndJ~"':! C ~, ,, ir ' 1 th=
,.\ \1
)11 l"U l <I) " ' ) .
~\ i c- S 1 2 III '!i.;,n
~ i ~} ,t i:' a!cl-:
I ~ 11'\' 0(0) ,
4
FRESN@STATE
University Advancement
Campaign Progress Report
Results by Unit
Inception to Date
7/1/05 to 3/31/12
Gift $
01'",
' 000
'000
01'0
01'''0
'000
' 000
~
Arts & Humanities
Health & Human Services
Jordan College of Agricultural Sciences & Technology
Kremen School of Education
1
i
~'"'000
'000
01'''0
'000
'000
-v''000
"
' 000
'000
01'17
0
'000
'000
0I'%-
01''''0
'000
'000
'000
'000
$ 2,982,731
'
~L==~~~==~~~--~~~
S~.384
,
.,D
Social Sciences •
l " '
Student Affairs +
$15,33 ,555
I
H3,368,06
I
I
$1,S 26,524
'
$1 ,358,108
t,!c.~'I.::lt., ...,;. r~'
~
Save Mart Center
640,361
1
$1,! 30,106
Other Academics }
~
$15,43 ,244
_
1
Madden Library ..
Intercollegiate Athletics
'
$7·f30.829
Lyles College of Engineering .,L
Science & Math
'000
'000
:T
L,
Craig School of Business. 1 -'--
~o
01''''''
' 000
•
$2,.81,175
"
I-c
$10,7Q9,574
< ~.
1
•
~.
1
~~::::.,
I
.,'
,
I' -
l· '·' 1'~'I
~ $~8,099.647
5
FRESNG STATE
University Advancement
Campaign Progress Report
Gift Percentage by Type of Commlbnent
Inception to Date
7/1/05 to 3131112
• 0utat.ncIIng
Pledge. &
In'evoc:abIe
Oafened
GIlls 6.4%
BequellS&
Revocable
Campaign Progress Report
Gift Percentage by Record Type
Inception to Date
7/1/05 to 3/31/12
o.ten.d
Gllls9.K
I
Phlanlhrapic
Granllvta
ORSP6.4% _
Friends
37.6%
• Gins In Kind
Received
3.2%
•
Cash
Received
74.1%
Campaign Progress Report
Academica, Athletlca & Other Comparison
FOUndadons
20.5%
Alumni
20.8%
Olher
OrganlullooS
1.2"A.
Inception to Date
7/1/06 to 3131/12
Other
1.1%
Academic
78.2%
6
FRESN@STAT
University Advancement
Gift Commitments Including Goals & Performance: CSU
D Actual
tJ)
Goal
$400
.­-§ $350
~
-
$300
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0
-
-
-
-
-
- -­ -
--­
-
-
,-
-
i
-
---------.--.­
-
-
-
I
-
-
-
-
-
1-
-
-
-
-
-
-­
~
--
.
-
-
-
-
,
3YrAve*
08/09
10/11
12/13
09/10
11/12
wTestamentary $69,052,373 $91,946,068
$55,555,435 $59,655,616
--- ­
.
--­
OCurrent Gifts $253,382,312 $269,311,045 $207,678,436 $283,157,457
--­
- Goal
$320,976,746 $330,007,563 $311,945,929 $316,511,310 $340,351,517 $335,461,217
Performance
100%
109%
84%
108%
I
_*1 11 The Califoll1ia
',.
State Universitv
I
• I t J _ j _'II
".l 1 _ It
I
7
FRESN@STATE
University Advancement
Gift Commitments Including Goals & Performance: Fresno
L.
0 Actual
-
Goal
I
(/) $60.0
c::
o
~ $50.0
~
$40.0
$30.0
$20.0
$10.0
$0.0
3 Yr Ave*
11/12
12/13
I
Testamentary
$53,668 I $161,005
$160,000
$1,420,000
Cl CurrentGifis $27,203,152 $50,553,102 $15,350,698 $15,705,657
- Goal $25,000,000 $29,000,000 I $25,000,000 1$21,000,000 I $26,089,425 I $20,000,000
Performance
109%
175%
61%
75%
I
m
I
Ttlt:
Califoruia State University
~ .
_ ! . ,_1.
_ I . I.
'"
\ _ I I " I ."
8
RESN@STAT
University Advancement
FTE Fundraising Professionals: CSU
~
$450
450
c
o
~
---------------------------------+1 400
$400 -1--"
$350 +1
--------------------------~I
----j
.
$300
$250 I
300
~
'
..
250
•
$200 + 1 - - ­
200
$150 + 1 - - - - ­
150
$100
100
'1-1- - - ­
$50
50
$0 1 • - -. 1­
--<
07/08
-
1m The California Stale University
" J'O,
350
If4
I
11
""., 1 I
P", I
08/09
FR Expenditures
09/10
Gift Commitments
0
10/11
--- FTE Pro FR
9
FRESNG STATE
University Advancement
FTE Fundraising Professionals: Fresno
,I
'-------,
$60
i
-
III
- - - - - , - 60
C
o
:!
$50 ~I--------
------------------------------~I
50
$40 + 1 - - - - - - - - - - - ­
-------------------,1
40
$30 -1' - - - - - - - - - - ­
--------------------------------+1 30
$20
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + 1 20
-1,-----­
••
$10 + 1 - - ­
$0 I
FR Expenditures
-
The California State University
':." I
til .
!
., j ;
_ /', 1
O
1 _ _ _ _- - , - _
L' c, -
07/08
m
•
•
L
\ ....
08/09
09/10
Gift Commitments
10/11
.J:
--- FTE Pro FR
10
RESNG STATE
University Advancement
Dollars Raised to Fundraising Dollars Invested
'" $80 II
.§Three
Year Average
::E $70
,,
$60
~
c
E
......
E
E
Cl>
­
. "
$50
.­C>
==
• Campus
11--- Trendline
/ '/
$40
0
0
,,
"
$30
$20
"
Fresno
$10
$0
$0
$5
$10
$15
Millions
m
Fundraising Investment
Tile California State University
." _ II
~ I I
I . ~II
r r I
!
r
11
FRESN@STATE
University Advancement
Cost to Raise a Dollar
$0.25 1----;================;-- - - - - - - - - 1
iThree Year Average i
$0.20
I
$0.18
• Three Year
Average
• Campus
Median
$0.15
$0.10
$0.05
$0.00
csu
D!J The Califofilia State University
.
,
II, . 1
'"
,
I
II
I '
Group 1
Group2
Group3
Fresno
12
FRESN@STATE
University Advancement
Return on Investment
$16.00
$14.67
$14.67
$14.00 +1-­
__1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - ­
$12.00 +1- ­
-1-----------------+----------­
$10.00
$8.00
I
-
I
I_
I:=::.i
$9.78
I
1-..
$6.00
$8.46
$7
$5.74
,!
$4.00
I
I ·'
$2.00
$2.73
$2.73
+-/--------------------
IThree Year Average I
$~
csu
_1-'11 ' The California State Ulliversily
I'
I
~ tI .
r ~" ~
0" .
t ,
I; "_ I ..
Group 1
Group2
Group3
13
FRESN@STATE
University Advancement
The Future of Advancement:
Engaging Our Communities
• Engagement is part of the Fresno State Strategic Plan
• The Campaign for Fresno State has successfully engaged
our alumni and friends
• Nearing the completion of the campaign, we pause to
consider where to go next with our Advancement program
• The Commission on the Future of Development
14
FRESN@STATE
University Advancement
Vision for Advancement
The Engagement Model
• A lifetime of engagement, leading to:
~ Campus
pride
~ Advocacy
r Community service
~ Financial
support
15
FRESN@STATE
University Advancement
Vision for Advancement
The Engagement Model
• The Engagement Model Includes
~ Students
~ Parents
~ Alumni
~ Employees
~ Retirees
~ Friends
16
RESN@STATE
University Advancement
Continuum of Philanthropy Model
High
.-n;;;;;;;:::_==;;;:;;;;;;;;;;
rn
.~
Q)
(5
Cl..
>..
Q..
o
.....
J::
C
rn
J::
Cl..
Low
Alumni Life Cycle
17