MATCHING GIFTS Latest and Greatest

Document Sample
MATCHING GIFTS Latest and Greatest Powered By Docstoc
Latest and Greatest

      Amy J. Phillips
       Gift Registrar
   Smithsonian Institution

• Basics of Matching Gifts
• Matching Gift Process
• Database Information - Integrity and
• Standard Practices and Protocols
• Challenges and Opportunities
• Survey results overview
• Enhancing your Matching Gifts Program
The Basics of Matching Gifts
The Basics of Matching Gifts

• GE Foundation first to define and implement
  matching gifts
   – 2004 marked 50th “anniversary” of matching gift programs

• Matching gifts are not an “entitlement”, but a
  “conditional grant” program
   – Many companies enforce a minimum match dollar amount
   – Most companies place a per annum cap on total matching

• Reasons corporations offer matching gifts
   – General philanthropic intent to support community
   – Encouragement of employee philanthropy
   – Tax incentives
The Basics of Matching Gifts

• Matching gift restrictions and parameters are
  program specific (by corporation)
   – Primarily match only IRS certified 501(c)(3) organizations
       • Certain restrictions related to religious organizations
       • More and more matching to arts and science institutions, public welfare
         or relief organizations, and health institutions
       • Some only match to educational institutions
            – some only to higher educational institutions, some only to public
               educational institutions, some only to US educational institutions

• Only match tax-deductible portion of charitable
  contribution (rare exceptions)
   – Certain companies will allow matching of membership fees to
     museums, zoos, and aquariums
   – The MG processor must be careful to account for any quid pro quo
The Basics of Matching Gifts

 • General move to paperless donor
   verification and organization matching
   request submission processes

 • Frequently require an initial or annual
   verification of qualification of
   recipient organization to be matched
   – Copy of IRS letter granting 501(c)(3) status
   – Copy of institutional mission statement
   – Copy of Annual Report or similar document
The Matching Gift Cycle

                                                                                 Employee makes a gift to a
          Company maintains a matching gift
                                                                                 charitable organization and submits
          program and encourages their employees to
                                                                                  a matching gift form with the donation.
          make donations to charitable organizations.

  Charitable organization processes the                                                    Charitable organization processes individual

  matching gift and thanks both individual donor                                           gift then verifies receipt of gift while requesting

  and matching gift company for their support.                                             matching gift from company.

                                     Company processes matching gift request,
                                     and sends matching fund disbursement to charitable organization.
Database Information – Integrity and
Database Information – Integrity and

 • Policies and procedures
    – Constituent gift entry
        • Solicit matching gifts in all appeals; consider reminders in
          receipt or acknowledgment letters
        • Completing the matching gift form or verifying gift amount via
          company web site
        • Review of matching gift guidelines to ensure eligibility of
          match request

 • How are you entering the matching institution
    – Setting up Foundations or third party distribution
      mechanisms as individual records?
    – Entering match ratios? Matching gift disbursement dates?
    – Establishing links between individual and corporate
Database Information – Integrity and

 • Are you running exception reports?
    – For example, periodic reports to check if any employees
      of a known matching gift company have made a gift for
      which a matching pledge has not been established
        • Sending reminders to both individual and corporate donors?

 • Constituent employment data
    – When and how do you collect employment information?
        • CASE/HEP Matching Gift brochures as inserts
        • Constituent surveys
    – How often do you generate a survey?
        • What triggers an individual update questionnaire vs. a large
          group data acquisition mailing?
        • Alumni directories?
Database Information – Integrity and

• What additional individual or corporate
  information would you like to capture?

   – Corporate
      • Industry type
      • Subsidiary sites

   – Individual
       • Employee position/title
       • Length of employment
       • Employment site
Database Information – Integrity and

• How do you determine parameters for institutional
   – Currently no inter/national standards, but some patterns are
       • Matching gift forms
       • Company website
       • Easymatch or JK Group

• What is the matching ratio - how important is it?
   – Never assume 1:1; verify match ratio for accuracy of match
     pledge processing
   – Entry of accurate matching ratios helps to predict with a fair
     amount of certainty how much matching gift income you can
   – Variations based on contribution amounts or individual
     employment status (current, retiree, spouse of employee, etc.)
Database Information – Integrity and

 • What are the minimum and maximum match
   amounts, and how important is this information?
    – Each company determines a minimum dollar amount per
      eligible donor they will match

    – Many companies enforce maximum per annum or per
      transaction match amounts for eligible individuals

    – Entry of accurate maximum dollar amount will prevent
      inflated matching pledge amounts and projected reports

    – Don’t forget, it is very important to make any QPQ
      adjustments as almost every program indicates only
      matching tax deductible portions of eligible contributions
Standard Practices and Protocols
Standard Practices and

• Do matching gift companies need receipts?
   – Most companies do not require receipt or acknowledgment
   – Best practice to recognize corporate contributions
       • Send an annual letter of summary and appreciation for matching
         gifts received
       • List matching companies in donor recognition rolls

• Are matching gifts allowed to be counted for donor
   – Site specific (check your policies and procedures)
   – Donor cultivation
       • Allowing matches to qualify donor for recognition societies
         typically increases match participation by constituents
Standard Practices and

• Can gifts made through donor advised funds
  qualify for a corporate match?
   – Sometimes, but not very often
       • Make sure you can provide a direct link to the eligible donor

• Do contributions made through family or private
  foundations qualify for matching?
   – Occasionally (check with company for verification)
       • Different companies have different allowances for matching
         this type of gift

• Certain common restriction related to purpose
       • Anything related to athletics
       • Certain types of scholarships
       • Some not to any building construction or maintenance
Standard Practices and Protocols

 • When should a matching gift request not be

    – Never, never, never submit matching requests if you are
      certain the individual gift doesn’t meet the matching gift
      parameters of the corporation/foundation

    – Never, never, never submit matching requests if you are
      certain your organization doesn’t meet the matching gift
      parameters of the corporation/foundation

    – “When in doubt, check it out!”

  Disasters and donor fatigue

  Declining or flat organizational budgets

  More competition among non-profits

  Corporate move towards naming and
  sponsorships rather than “true” philanthropy

  Ongoing increases in customer expectations

   MG are one of the great sources of “free money”
   and great ways to encourage greater donor

   Marginal costs of raising matching gifts may be
   less than some of our other fundraising such as
   major gifts

   No matter how good we are, we can all be
   better at what we do!

     Fourth annual survey on
    matching gifts hosted through
Survey Considerations

   Hindsight is always 20-20 (even the fourth time
   around) - we continue to add/modify some of the
   questions to provide more/robust data.

   No survey is perfect, but a formal survey is better
   than ad-hoc queries

   Balance between collection of robust data, and
   participants willingness to fill out

   Creates as many questions as answers

   Increased participation each year

   This year, even more improvements and changes …
Participants & Programs

  75.1% Academic (78% last year)
   56.2% Higher Ed (63% last year)
   18.9% “Other” (13% last year)

  Database size 1 – 5,000,000
   Average 157,552 (132,744 last year)

  60% - Defined Matching Gifts Program in
  place (67% last year)
   9.6% - Planning Within 1-2 Years (6.8% last year)
   23.4% - No program in place (20.6% last year)
Revenue Profiles

  Write-offs appear to be fairly low in relation to

  Are we not monitoring, or are our collection
  procedures so good that we’re not writing any

  Are we not initially recording?
MG Revenue Trends

Trends in Matching Gift Revenue
over the Last 3 Years

Increase (4% lower than 2008)                        45.8%

Same (6.5% increase from 2008)                       20.7%
                                         CAUSE FOR
Decrease (2.5% drop from 2008)                       12.5%

No Answer (Not even curious?)                        21.3%

  Environmental? Organizational issues? Corporate limits?
What We Do For A Living
Roles & Responsibilities

                               Responsibility   Fiscal Credit

 Advancement Services                 38.0%           20.3%

 Annual Giving                        67.6%           63.4%

 Corp/Foundation Relations            11.8%           14.9%

 Membership                            4.5%            5.6%

 Other (Variety of Answers.)          14.4%           22.3%
It’s Easy to Mix Up Your Hats!

   Accountability for revenue is key

   Separated and clearly defined roles and

   Coordinated team approach works best
   for matching gifts since not one
   program area can manage all

   Audit your program for inefficiencies

                          2009   2008 2007   2006
Average # of positions     .48   .61   .45    .72

# of positions reported down:

Are we more efficient?
Are we using more of a team approach?
Are we becoming more automated?

   No correlation necessarily between
   staffing and program success

   Most numbers were a combination of
   positions as opposed to dedicated staff

   Re-emphasis of coordinated team
Employment Information

 Number of Living Constituents
 with valid employment record:
                                 2009      2008     2007     2006
 Greater than 75%                 7.00%    6.40%    1.70%   12.70%
 50 - 75%                        12.80%   17.80%   21.20%    6.40%
 25 - 49%                        21.60%   26.70%   33.10%   26.80%
 10 - 24%                        23.30%   24.30%   18.60%   28.00%
 0 - 10%                         18.50%   18.30%   17.80%   16.60%
 No answer                       16.70%    6.40%    7.60%    9.60%

     Cause for concern? Relative numbers?
     How many monitor this statistic?
Employment Information
                                                                                  2009      2008       2007       2006

                                                                                                     Not       Not
A dmission Applications or Enrollment Forms                                     3 4 .3%   3 0 .7%
                                                                                                    A sked    A sked

A lumni directory survey                                                        5 7 .1%   6 5 .6%   7 3 .0%    5 9 .2%

C ollection of business cards at events                                         4 8 .6%   4 7 .9%   4 9 .5%    4 4 .0%

Individual surveys ( follow up to address changes, etc.)                        3 9 .5%   4 4 .8%   4 1 .4%    4 9 .7%

P r ofessional and other specialized directories                                1 1 .0%   1 0 .9%   1 3 .5%    1 2 .7%

P honathon staff asking for employment information                              6 0 .5%   6 8 .2%   7 3 .9%    6 1 .8%

Buck slips and information update cards in all publications                     1 8 .6%   1 8 .8%   1 9 .8%    2 2 .3%

A dvertisements in publications to collect information                          1 2 .4%    7 .8 %   1 3 .5%    1 2 .7%

Infor mation update form or other data harvesting mechanisms on your web site   4 4 .3%   4 4 .3%   4 7 .7%    4 0 .8%

Wor king with your career center                                                1 2 .4%    9 .4 %    9 .0 %     8 .9 %

C ar eer networking within your online alumni community                         2 2 .4%   1 0 .4%   1 7 .1%    1 6 .6%

Inter net searches                                                              3 8 .1%   3 0 .2%   3 3 .3%    3 0 .6%

Running your database through screening services                                2 2 .9%   2 4 .0%   2 9 .7%    2 3 .6%

Other                                                                            10.0%      8.3%      14.4%      8.9%
Employment Information

   Employment records should ideally track
   career progression and/or flag major
   career changes

   Don’t forget about Major Gifts
    Major donors often have more preferential
    matching ratios

   Laminated luggage tags, other creative
   collection methods?
Educating Donors

   What products do we use?

   How effective have they been?

   How are we tracking the use of these

   Why have we stopped using them?
What are we tracking?

   Do we do adequate split testing to
   determine effectiveness?

   Do we focus on trends in our reporting
   rather than snapshots?

   Is our reporting sophisticated enough to
   integrate and correlate the various

  If you don’t measure, it won’t get done.
Why We Stopped Using

                                                           2009    2008    2007    2006

  Too expensive                                            46.0%   42.6%   39.7%   12.7%

  Ineffective                                              5.6%    8.9%    10.3%   4.5%

  No real return on investment                             16.1%   18.8%   19.0%   8.3%

  Donors asked not to receive inserts or other materials   2.4%    1.0%    0.0%    0.6%

  Can do in house more effectively                         18.5%   13.9%   22.4%   10.8%

  Unsure of potential benefits                             36.3%   37.6%   29.3%   12.7%

  Other reasons                                            15.3%   18.8%   22.4%   5.7%
More Tools We’d Like

   Faster updates and more organizations on
   vendor matching gift databases

   Better integration with our fundraising

   More responsiveness from vendors

   Turnkey solutions for MG program
   management for smaller organizations that
   don’t have the resources or expertise to
   manage a program effectively
Pledge Collection

                                         Reminder Schedule      Reminder Schedule
                                         to Corp/Foundation     to Individuals

                                             2009     (2008)       2009      (2008)

Monthly                                       2.5%     (2.9%)       16.8% (15.2%)

Quarterly                                     10.6%    (8.1%)        7.2% (15.9%)

Semi-Annually                                  6.3%    (6.6%)         1.2%    (2.8%)

Annual - before close of fiscal year           5.0%    (8.8%)         3.0%    (3.5%)

Annual - before close of calendar year         1.3%    (2.2%)         1.2%    (1.4%)

Random as required                            56.3% (58.8%)          56.3% (46.9%)

Other                                         18.1% (12.5%)          14.4% (14.5%)

Bigger question: How many don’t send any reminders?
Pledge Collection

   Is randomness a function of the way we
   collect all of our pledges?

   Is randomness a function of the way we
   record matching claims?

   Is randomness inherent to matching
   gifts specifically?
MG & Recognition

   66.7% allow MG to count in donor
   recognition societies (72.4% last year)

   24.3% do not… (21.6% last year)

      One area where change could be
   beneficial if you’re not doing it already.
Enhancing Your Matching Gift Program
Enhancing Your Matching Gift

 • What is a corporate agent?
    – Link between matching gift corporation and charitable
        • Charitable institution board member
        • Alumnus
        • Other major or influential donor

 • How do you plan a mini-campaign?
    – Work with corporate contact to establish goals and
      communication strategies
    – Consider campaign themes and cultivation techniques
      appropriate to work environment
    – Stewardship – Individual and Corporate

   HEP/CASE Matching Gifts Network
   Blackbaud Matchfinder
   SAGE Millennium GM
   Matching Gifts Examining the Evolving World of
   Matching Gifts (CASE, 2005)
    Now available through HEP/CASE Matching Gift
  Web sites
   CASE Matchlist-L (listserv)(listserv)

Shared By: