Docstoc

Business Meetings for Columbus Ohio Tba

Document Sample
Business Meetings for Columbus Ohio  Tba Powered By Docstoc
					Advancement Audit
January 2007

                    Bruce W. Flessner
                    John S. McConnell
                      Bobbie J. Strand
62560
            Table of Contents                                                Message from
Overview Message                                                            the Study Team
Executive Summary                            3         In September 2006, Bentz Whaley Flessner was engaged
   Major Recommendation                    10         by Ohio University to review its advancement programs.
                                                       During our work we have been impressed by:
   Additional Recommendations              11
                                                           • Dr. Roderick McDavis and his vision for
Findings and Conclusions                    13               Ohio University.
   Leadership                              14
   Planning                                18
                                                           • Ohio alumni pride in their alma mater.
   Management and Staffing                 23             • Advancement staff members’ enthusiasm for their
   Fundraising Programs                    30               important work.
   Alumni Relations Programs               44
   Prospect Development/Prospect Management 49
                                                       We appreciate the strong support of the University
                                                       Advancement Office during the study, especially Howard
   Information Services                    54
                                                       Lipman and Margaret Sheskey. They have been extremely
   Advancement Resources                   59         helpful while maintaining their own busy schedules.
Recommendations                             61
   Major Recommendation                    62
                                                       This report highlights strengths and weaknesses of the
                                                       current programs and makes recommendations for
   Additional Recommendations              63
                                                       improvements.
Next Actions                                90
                                                       BENTZ WHALEY FLESSNER
Appendices                                  91         Bruce W. Flessner
                                                       John S. McConnell
                                                       Bobbie J. Strand

Ohio University                                   January 2007                        Bentz Whaley Flessner     2
                  EXECUTIVE
                   SUMMARY




Ohio University     January 2007   Bentz Whaley Flessner   3
                  Advancement Audit: Purposes

     Assess Ohio University’s senior leadership and involvement by the
      Ohio University Foundation Board of Trustees and Ohio University
      Alumni Association in fundraising and other external relations
      programs.
     Review Vision Ohio, especially roles for development and alumni
      relations programs.
     Evaluate the readiness of Ohio’s development, alumni relations, and
      related programs for a new comprehensive campaign.




Ohio University                   January 2007            Bentz Whaley Flessner   4
           Methodology, Process, and Timeline

     Reviewed data,               Background
      materials, and other           Material
      information provided
      by University                September 2006
      Advancement and
      the Ohio University                     Interviews and
      Foundation.                             Benchmarking
     Interviewed                                   September 2006
      Ohio University
      senior administrators,                                    Findings and
      advancement and other                                     Conclusions
      staff, and key volunteers.
                                                                     October 2006
     Benchmarked Ohio
                                                                             Recommendations
      against peers’
                                                                                    and
      advancement programs.
                                                                                Final Report
                                                                               November–December 2006

Ohio University                       January 2007                           Bentz Whaley Flessner      5
  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  Eight Areas Examined
                                  Ohio University benefits from excellent leadership but has
        Leadership                opportunities to engage academic leaders and key
                                  volunteers more in fundraising programs.

  Does Ohio University have
  senior administrative leaders
  and volunteers who are
  committed to playing
  important roles in its
  fundraising programs?
                                  Ohio University’s mission is supported by a comprehensive
          Planning                strategic plan; however, negative publicity about data
                                  security and other matters have made it more difficult to
                                  make the case for philanthropy.
  Does Ohio University have a
  clearly defined mission,
  vision, and strategic plan to
  shape private fundraising
  priorities?


Ohio University                         January 2007                   Bentz Whaley Flessner   6
  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  Eight Areas Examined
                                                                                  (cont.)
                                     Advancement staff members are eager and
       Management                    experienced, but lack structure, performance plans,
       and Staffing                  accountability, and sufficient resources.

  Does the Ohio University
  have Advancement staff and
  organizational structures to
  support significant increases
  in private giving?
                                     Fundraising programs have achieved successes but
        Fundraising                  appear to have untapped potential and can benefit
         Programs                    from increased emphasis on donor stewardship.

  Are major outright, planned,
  and annual giving programs
  productive and ready to increase
  private gifts substantially?




Ohio University                       January 2007                  Bentz Whaley Flessner   7
  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  Eight Areas Examined
                                                                                    (cont.)
                                         Alumni relations programs are guided by a strategic
    Alumni Relations                     plan, focused on alumni connecting with alma
       Programs                          mater, but are not part of an overall integrated
                                         Advancement plan.
  Do alumni relations programs
  instill pride in alumni and provide
  opportunities for them to be
  engaged with Ohio University?
                                         Prospecting and research have produced some
    Prospect Develop-                    good work, but are not prepared in staff numbers
     ment/Prospect                       or planning to meet the demands of a significant
      Management                         campaign. Prospect management is inactive.

  Are prospect development programs
  and staff ready to support increased
  private fundraising and provide
  analysis and support for active
  prospect tracking and management?



Ohio University                          January 2007                 Bentz Whaley Flessner    8
  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  Eight Areas Examined
                                                                                      (cont.)
                                        The use of the BSR Advance system, policies and
        Information                     procedures for data enhancement, and automated
          Services                      processes in gift handling need further development.

  Are data management and
  information systems, and expertise
  in their varied applications, ready
  to meet increased fundraising
  expectations?
                                        By making strategic investments in its Advancement
      Advancement                       programs, Ohio University can significantly increase
       Resources                        private gifts.

  Has Ohio University made
  the investment in University
  Advancement staff and programs
  necessary to increase significantly
  private gifts?



Ohio University                          January 2007                   Bentz Whaley Flessner   9
                  Major Recommendation



  Ohio University should build a philanthropic agenda,
   structure and staff University Advancement to be
     productive and accountable, and position the
  president, senior administrators, and key volunteers
                to lead a new campaign.




Ohio University          January 2007    Bentz Whaley Flessner   10
                  Additional Recommendations

 1.   Build Ohio University’s philanthropic agenda and have President
      McDavis, Foundation Trustees, Vice President Lipman, deans,
      and other senior administrators play key roles in articulating it.
 2.   Structure and staff University Advancement to increase private
      giving and strengthen alumni engagement.
 3.   Create and implement an integrated University Advancement
      plan with specific, measurable objectives.
 4.   Increase cultivation and solicitation activities to generate
      significant increases in new major and planned gift
      commitments.
 5.   Continue to enhance the annual giving program to increase
      unrestricted and other current use restricted gifts and alumni
      giving participation rates.

Ohio University                 January 2007           Bentz Whaley Flessner   11
                  Additional Recommendations

 6.    Focus alumni relations programs on measurable outcomes
       which complement University priorities.
 7.    Streamline prospecting and prospect research operations to
       focus on strategic leadership.
 8.    Plan and implement a sound prospect management discipline
       supported by systems-based tracking.
 9.    Have The Ohio University Foundation Board of Trustees
       determine roles to play in Ohio’s fundraising programs while
       they continue to focus on managing endowment growth.
 10.   Increase resources invested in University Advancement
       programs with clear expectations about return on investment.



Ohio University                January 2007          Bentz Whaley Flessner   12
                  FINDINGS AND
                  CONCLUSIONS




Ohio University       January 2007   Bentz Whaley Flessner   13
                         Leadership

 Ohio University benefits from excellent leadership
 but has opportunities to engage academic leaders
 and key volunteers more in fundraising programs.
 1.   University and Foundation trustees and Alumni Association
      board members, academic deans, and others applaud
      President McDavis’ leadership.
 2.   There is widespread enthusiasm and optimism about
      Vice President Lipman’s arrival.
 3.   Academic deans, senior leaders, and Foundation trustees
      want to play more active roles in major gift fundraising.


Ohio University             January 2007        Bentz Whaley Flessner   14
  Leadership
  University and Foundation trustees and Alumni
  Association board members, academic deans, and
  others applaud President McDavis’ leadership.

     Impressed with his enthusiasm/passion for Ohio University,
      commitment to excellence, and ability to articulate key
      ideas.
     Severe budget problems and negative publicity about data
      security issues and graduate student plagiarism have made
      presidential leadership challenging.
     Praised Vision OHIO strategic plan.




Ohio University              January 2007        Bentz Whaley Flessner   15
  Leadership

  There is widespread enthusiasm and optimism
  about Vice President Lipman’s arrival.

     Campus has high expectations about his ability to increase
      private gifts in support of Ohio University’s strategic
      initiatives and priorities.
     Deans applaud his communication style and collaborative
      approach to decision making.
     Foundation Board members are especially supportive
      and confident.




Ohio University              January 2007        Bentz Whaley Flessner   16
  Leadership
   Academic deans, senior leaders, and Foundation
   Trustees want to play more active roles in major
   gift fundraising.
      Academic deans and other senior administrators are prepared to
       commit the time necessary to increase major gifts for their colleges
       and units.
          Scripps’ gift has whetted their appetites for major gift fundraising.
          Open to participating in major gift solicitation training and more partnering
           with University Advancement staff.
      Several Foundation Trustees want to be more involved in fundraising
       and external relations programs.
          Offer advice on specific major gift prospects.
          Serve as ambassadors to alumni and friends in their geographic areas.
          Find ways to support investing more resources in University Advancement.
          Confident that sub par investment performance issues have been
           addressed.

Ohio University                        January 2007                Bentz Whaley Flessner   17
                                Planning

 Ohio University’s mission is supported by a comprehensive
 strategic plan; however, negative publicity about data security
 and other matters have made it more difficult to make the
 case for philanthropy.
 1.   Vision OHIO contains strategic goals and initiatives to enable
      Ohio University to be a nationally prominent university.
 2.   Within the framework of Vision OHIO, colleges, and units have
      developed their own visions and strategic plans.
 3.   Some university, college, and unit philanthropic agendas have been
      developed; others are in process.



Ohio University                   January 2007             Bentz Whaley Flessner   18
  Planning
  Vision OHIO contains strategic goals and initiatives to enable
  Ohio University to be a nationally prominent university.
     President McDavis has articulated ambitious goals.
         Become a nationally prominent research university.
         Increase diversity of students, faculty, administrators.
         Strengthen and expand the base of financial support.
         Increase partnerships through the region, state, nation, and world .
     Several strategic initiatives are being launched.
         Expansion of graduate student and research programs.
         Appalachian Scholars and Urban Scholars Programs.
         Achieving significant increases in philanthropic dollars.
         Health awareness and literacy partnerships.




Ohio University                        January 2007                   Bentz Whaley Flessner   19
  Planning
        Negative publicity about data security and other matters
           have hampered making the case for philanthropy.
                          Negative           Positive

                                              DESIRED

                  High
                          CURRENT




                  Low



     Addressing public relations issues critical to new campaign.
     Very difficult to go directly from ―High Negative‖ to ―High Positive.‖
Ohio University                    January 2007             Bentz Whaley Flessner   20
  Planning
  Within the framework of Vision OHIO, colleges and units
  have developed their own visions and strategic plans.

     Colleges that have developed                   Other units and campuses that
      strategic plans:                                have developed strategic plans:
         College of Arts and Sciences                   University Libraries
         College of Business                            Center for International Studies
         Scripps College of Communication               Kennedy Museum of Art
         College of Education                           Division of Lifelong Learning
         Russ College of Engineering and                Voinovich Center for Leadership
          Technology                                      and Public Affairs
         College of Fine Arts                           Ohio University, Chillicothe
         College of Health and Human                    Ohio University, Eastern
          Services                                       Ohio University, Lancaster
         Honors Tutorial College                        Ohio University, Southern
         College of Osteopathic Medicine                Ohio University, Zanesville
         University College




Ohio University                        January 2007                    Bentz Whaley Flessner   21
  Planning
  Some university, college, and unit philanthropic agendas
  have been developed; others are in process.

     Appalachian Scholars and Urban Scholars Programs:
      defined and funding requirements specified.
     The Integrated Learning and Research Facility: impact on
      research and learning articulated; costs projected,
      and progress made on securing funding.
     Colleges, Units, and Campuses: some initiatives defined and
      impacts articulated; however, relatively few have endowment
      and/or operating costs specified.




Ohio University              January 2007         Bentz Whaley Flessner   22
                  Management and Staffing

 Advancement staff members are eager and
 experienced, but lack structure, performance plans,
 accountability, and sufficient resources.
  1.   Staff members are enthusiastic about their work on behalf
       of Ohio University.
  2.   Advancement’s structure, organization, and staffing levels
       limit operational effectiveness.
  3.   Staffing levels are below those required to achieve
       ambitious increases in private giving.


Ohio University                January 2007        Bentz Whaley Flessner   23
   Management and Staffing
     Staff members are enthusiastic about their work on behalf
     of Ohio University.
     Staff members bring experience and commitment to Ohio University
      and to their work.
         Eighteen staff members have worked over ten years in Advancement at
          the University.
         Another sixteen have at least five years of experience.
     ―Enthusiastic‖ and ―eager‖ are apt words to describe Advancement
      staff members.
         Real passion for their development and alumni relations work.
         Eagerly looking forward to advancement leadership to enable them to turn
          Vision OHIO’s dreams into realities.




Ohio University                        January 2007                 Bentz Whaley Flessner   24
  Management and Staffing

  Advancement’s structure, organization, and staffing
  levels limit operational effectiveness.
     Development is not structured optimally in terms of function and
      accountability.
         Too many fundraisng staff members—seventeen—report directly to the
          assistant vice president of development.
         Associate director of athletics—a major gift fundraiser—does not report to
          the assistant vice president of development.
         Senior director, donor relations, and gift administration reports to the
          executive director of development, who is primarily in charge of annual
          giving programs.




Ohio University                       January 2007               Bentz Whaley Flessner   25
                                 Advancement Management and Staffing
                                                                                  V.P., Advancement
                                                                                  President and CEO
                                                                                  The Ohio University
                                                                                      Foundation


                                                           Administrative                                   Administrative
                                                            Coordinator                                      Coordinator,
                                                            Foundation                                      Vice President




                       Asst. V.P.                                                   Assistant
                                                                                                                                           Asst. V.P.
                     Administration                                               Vice President                                                                   Administrative
                                                                                                                                        Alumni Relations
                      Chief of Staff                                              Development                                                                        Assistant



                                                                                       Sr. Director of                                 Dir., Campus
           Dir. Dev. Admin.          Manager,             Executive Director                                  Exec. Dir. of Dev.                               Associate
                                                                                       Development*                                     Relations
              and Events           Adv. Services           of Development                                    for Planned Giving                              Executive Dir.
                                                                                             (2)                                         Advocacy


          Dir. Dev. Research           Programmer         Sr. Director Donor             Asst. Dean,
                                                                                                               Assistant Dir. of     Dir., Outreach and
             and Prospect                Analyst            Relations and                Osteopathic                                                        Budget Manager
                                                                                                               Planned Giving           Engagement
             Management                    (2)            Gift Administration             Medicine


                                       Data Control
                                                           Assoc. Director            Dev. Coordinator                                Assistant Dir.,      Dir., Heritage, Trad.
               Research                Technician                                                            Sr. Director of Dev.,
                                                             of Athletics            University Libraries                              Outreach and         and Alumni Tours
                Analyst                     (5)                                                               Arts and Sciences
                                                                                                                                      Engagement (2)

                                                                                       Assistant Dean,
                                   Administrative          Director of Dev.                                                                                  Administrative
                                                                                      Scripps College         Assistant Dean,
                                     Assistant              for Athletics                                                                                      Assistant
                                                                                     of Communication        Engineering & Tech

                                                                                                                                     Dir., Marketing and
                                                             Director of                Dev. Coord.
                                                                                                               Assistant Dean,       Communications
                                                            Annual Giving              Scripps Col. of
     * Focus on all-university priorities and                                                                    Education
       initiatives and also serve as development                                       Communication
       officers for the College of Business and                                                                                        Assistant Dir.
       College of Fine Arts.                              Asst. Director of                                                            Marketing and
                                                                                                               Assistant Dean,
                                                           Annual Giving              Assistant Dean,                                 Communications
                                                                                                               Health & Human
          Major Gift Positions                                                       Regional Campus              Services
                                                                                            (5)
     Unfilled positions: Assistant Deans for Education,                                                                                Administrative
     Health and Human Services, Chillicothe Campus,          Director of
                                                           Communication                                                                 Assistant
     Eastern Campus, and Southern Campus; Executive                                                            Admin. Assistant
     Director Development–Major Gifts; Director of
     Communication; Admin. Assistant–Planned
     Giving; Research Analyst.                            Admin. Assistant
                                                                (2)



Ohio University                                                                 January 2007                                          Bentz Whaley Flessner                         26
  Management and Staffing

  Advancement’s structure and organization limits
  their operational effectiveness.
     Staff restructuring—planned and partially implemented during the
      past year—has created confusion inside and outside Development.
         Staff reductions and the importance of university-wide priorities
          (e.g., Appalachian Scholars Program) created a need for major gift staff
          to focus on these.
         Naming selected collegiate development directors as senior directors of
          development and moving them to McGuffey Hall has left some deans
          concerned about who will work with them on major gifts.
         Some development staff members are not exactly sure about their new
          responsibilities.
     Performance plans—overall, unit or individual level—with
      well-defined, specific, measurable objectives and reports to track
      and evaluate progress do not exist.


Ohio University                      January 2007                Bentz Whaley Flessner   27
  Management and Staffing

  Staffing levels are below those required to achieve
  ambitious increases in private giving.
     Development staffing levels are below those during The Bicentennial
      Campaign.
          Development staff who worked on major gifts from alumni and friends
           reached 23 during the campaign.
          Currently, the number of full-time major and planned giving staff stands
           at 16.
     Seven Advancement positions exist but are unfilled because of
      budgetary reasons.
          Over the past four years, University Advancement’s budget has decreased
           by $642,645 from $4,116,646 to $3,474,001.
     A seasoned major gift officer should generate at least $1,000,000 in
      new gift commitments annually; therefore, the loss of 10 major
      gift staff positions will be expected to adversely impact on
      Ohio University’s fundraising programs.

Ohio University                       January 2007                Bentz Whaley Flessner   28
  Management and Staffing

  Staffing levels are below those required to achieve
  ambitious increases in private giving.
     With 16 advancement staff engaged in major and planned giving
      cultivation and solicitation, Ohio ranks behind Buffalo (40),
      Miami (19), and Kent State (18) in the MAC.
     When compared with its peer universities, Ohio ranks ahead of only
      New Hampshire (10) and Delaware (8) in number of major gift staff
      and well behind UConn (21), Auburn (43), Missouri (53), and
      North Carolina (67).
     Appendix A contains additional comparative data on development staff
      sizes by function for Ohio, other MAC, and peer universities.




Ohio University                 January 2007            Bentz Whaley Flessner   29
                     Fundraising Programs

 Fundraising programs have achieved successes but
 appear to have untapped potential and can benefit
 from increased emphasis on donor stewardship.
   1.   The Bicentennial Campaign exceeded its goal, increased endowment
        commitments, and expanded the donor base.
   2.   Alumni appear to present the best potential for significantly
        increasing private gifts.
   3.   Most of the largest gift commitments have been deferred gifts.
   4.   Annual giving programs rely completely on phone and direct mail;
        no structured personal solicitation is involved.
   5.   Donor recognition and stewardship programs appear to have
        opportunities for enhancement.
Ohio University                    January 2007             Bentz Whaley Flessner   30
   Fundraising Programs
   The Bicentennial Campaign exceeded its goal, increased
   endowment commitments, and expanded the donor base.
     The Bicentennial Campaign (July 1997 to June 2004) secured
      $220.2 million in gift commitments against a $200 million goal.
             Foundations
                               Organizations
               $12.6M
                                  $6.8M
                 6%
  Corporations                     3%
     $25M                                                          Planned Gifts     Cash and Pledges
     11%                                                             $102.6M
                                        Alumni                                           $98.2M
                                                                       46%                 45%
Friends                                $142.6M
$33.2M                                   65%
 15%

                                                                               Gifts in Kind
                                                                                 $19.3M
      Source: Division of University Advancement (July 2004)                        9%



     Alumni made almost two-thirds of total campaign gift commitments.
     Planned gift commitments ($102.6 million) made up almost one-half of
      the campaign total—more than one would normally expect.

Ohio University                                     January 2007                   Bentz Whaley Flessner   31
     Fundraising Programs

     Alumni appear to present the best potential for significantly
     increasing private gifts.
                         Total Gift Commitments by Donor Type: FY2002 to FY2006 (in $millions)
                $60.0
                                                   $52.6
                $50.0
                                                                              $38.8
                $40.0
                                                                                             $28.3
                $30.0
                         $19.1          $19.6
                $20.0
                                                                 $11.6
                $10.0

                 $0.0
                          2002           2003       2004         2005         2006      Five Year Average
 Other Organizations      $1.2           $0.9       $2.7          $0.8         $1.1           $1.4
 Foundations              $1.1           $0.7       $2.3          $0.3        $11.1           $3.1
 Corporations             $1.6           $5.6       $4.9          $1.6        $16.3           $6.0
 Parents/Faculty/Staff    $0.2           $0.2       $0.3          $0.2         $0.2           $0.2
 Non-Alumni Friends       $3.9           $2.9       $15.9         $1.7         $2.7           $5.4
 Alumni                   $11.1          $9.2       $26.4         $7.0         $7.4          $12.2
Source: Ohio University Development Office

    Alumni have made more than 43% of total gift commitments over the
     past five years.
Ohio University                                 January 2007                    Bentz Whaley Flessner       32
  Fundraising Programs

                                       Total Gift Commitments by Gift Size: FY2002 to FY2006

               $60,000,000
                                                            $52,555,868
               $50,000,000
                                                                                         $38,776,891
               $40,000,000
                                                                                                        $28,327,274
               $30,000,000
                             $19,099,089     $19,558,399
               $20,000,000
                                                                          $11,646,108
               $10,000,000

                       $0
                                                                                                        Five Year
                                2002            2003           2004          2005           2006
                                                                                                         Average
  $1,000,000 and Larger      $2,025,000      $1,674,750    $24,219,000    $2,000,000    $26,000,000    $11,183,750
  $500,000 to $999,999       $4,750,000      $2,404,271    $5,005,099         $0             $0        $2,432,054
  $100,000 to $499,999       $5,387,016      $7,615,251    $12,791,392    $2,448,600    $4,277,933     $6,504,038
  $25,000 to $99,999         $1,992,131      $2,763,729    $3,391,063     $1,799,764    $2,743,010     $2,537,939
  <$25,000                    $4,944,943     $5,100,398    $7,148,433     $5,397,444    $5,755,948     $5,669,493
Source: Ohio University Development Office


    Gift Commitments include outright gifts, new pledges, and new documented deferred gift
     commitments; pledge payments and realized deferred gifts (when deferred gift
     commitments were counted previously) are excluded.
    Five-year average total gifts are dominated by $1,000,000+ gifts in FY2004 and FY2006.

Ohio University                                    January 2007                         Bentz Whaley Flessner         33
  Fundraising Programs

                                          Planned Gift Commitments: FY2002 to FY2006

                  $60,000,000
                                                            $52,555,868
                  $50,000,000

                                                                                          $38,776, 891
                  $40,000,000

                                                                                                         $28,327,274
                  $30,000,000

                                $19,099,089   $19,558,399
                  $20,000,000
                                                                          $11,646,108
                  $10,000,000

                          $0
                                                                                                         Five Year
                                   2002          2003          2004          2005            2006
                                                                                                          Average
  Planned Gifts: Revocable      $6,410,640    $5,052,900 $23,839,108      $3,160,900     $2,685,605      $8,229,831
  Planned Gifts: Irrevocable     $108,572      $928,774     $4,154,600     $389,992       $310,144       $1,178,416
  Outright Gift Commitments $12,579,877 $13,576,725 $24,562,160           $8,095,216 $35,781,142 $18,919,027
Source: Ohio University Development Office


    Planned gift commitments (revocable plus irrevocable) have averaged 33% of total gifts
     commitments over the past five years.
    Revocable planned gift commitments have averaged almost 30% of total gift
     commitments.

Ohio University                                 January 2007                            Bentz Whaley Flessner          34
  Fundraising Programs
  Total gifts over the past six years place Ohio in the middle of
  MAC universities.
                                              Ohio University and Other MAC Universities
                                  Total Gifts Received by Donor Type: FY2001 to FY2006 Average
                                                             (in $millions)
                 $40.0
                                  $36.8
                 $35.0

                 $30.0                                                                                         $28.1
                 $25.0
                                                                                           $20.5                         $20.7             $21.8
                 $20.0
                         $15.2                                                  $15.1               $15.0
                 $15.0                        $13.0     $12.0                                                                    $12.0
                 $10.0                                               $7.9
                  $5.0

                  $0.0
                                              Bowling   Central     Eastern                        Northern                               Western
                          Ohio   Ball State                                   Kent State   Miami               Buffalo   Akron   Toledo
                                               Green    Michigan   Michigan *                       Illinois                              Michigan
  Other Organizations     $1.6     $2.2        $0.4       $0.1       $0.5        $0.7       $0.6     $0.3       $3.6     $1.1     $0.3      $0.2
  Foundations             $1.3     $17.8       $1.8       $2.0       $0.8        $3.0       $2.5     $0.9       $7.2     $3.2     $0.6      $3.5
  Corporations            $3.1     $3.4        $1.3       $4.5       $4.3        $3.6       $3.0     $6.0       $6.5     $5.6     $2.8      $8.6
  Other Individuals       $2.9     $6.2        $3.5       $2.4       $1.2        $3.8       $2.3     $2.4       $2.7     $6.9     $3.1      $3.5
  Alumni                  $6.3     $7.2        $6.0       $3.0       $1.1        $4.6      $12.1     $5.4       $8.1     $4.9     $5.2      $6.0

 **   No 2004 and 2006 numbers. Only a 4-year average.


 Source: Voluntary Support of Education/CAE Reports


Ohio University                                                    January 2007                                     Bentz Whaley Flessner            35
  Fundraising Programs
  When compared against its academic peers, Ohio’s total
  gifts exceed only the University of New Hampshire.
                          Total Gifts by Donor Type to Ohio and Peers: FY2001 to FY2006 Averages
                                                        (in $millions)
             $100.0
                                                                                                                      $91.4
              $90.0
              $80.0
                                                                                                $71.6
              $70.0
              $60.0
                                       $50.3                      $46.9                                                            $46.6
              $50.0
                                                    $40.6                       $42.7
              $40.0
              $30.0
                          $15.6
              $20.0                                                                                      $13.6
              $10.0
                 $0.0
                          Ohio        Auburn *     Clemson *      UConn       Delaware      Missouri *    UNH        Tennessee   Wash. State
  Other Organizations      $1.3         $2.4         $14.3         $3.0          $2.4           $13.8     $0.1         $6.6         $2.1
  Foundations              $1.5         $5.2          $3.4         $7.6         $13.8            $4.5     $1.7         $9.4         $5.7
  Corporations             $3.1         $10.7         $9.0         $15.2        $13.6           $17.8     $1.8         $33.8        $17.5
  Other Individuals        $2.9         $10.3         $4.1         $9.4          $4.8           $11.2     $2.7         $21.4        $12.5
  Alumni                   $6.8         $22.4         $9.4         $11.1         $7.5           $24.5     $6.5         $22.0        $9.4

 * No 2006 numbers. Only a 5-year average. Source: Voluntary Support of Education/CAE Reports


    Indiana University’s five-year average is $256.4 million and University of North
     Carolina–Chapel Hill’s is $173.7 million.
Ohio University                                                January 2007                                      Bentz Whaley Flessner         36
  Fundraising Programs
  Most of Ohio’s largest gift commitments have been deferred
  gifts.
                                             Largest Single-Gift Commitments
    Bequest intentions and other
                                           Gift             Donor                 Gift
     deferred gift commitments make       Amount             Type                 Type
     up eight of Ohio’s largest single    $20 million    Alumni             Bequest *
     gift commitments.                    $16 million    Alumni             Bequest

    Alumni make up ten of the            $15 million    Corporation        Multi-Year Pledge

     fourteen largest commitments         $11 million    Alumni             Bequest *

     (excluding anonymous                 $10 million    Alumni             Trust *

     commitments).                        $5 million     Alumni             Multi-Year Pledge

    Ohio has secured six outright        $4 million     Alumni             Charitable Trust
                                          $4 million     Non-Alumni         Bequest *
     gift commitments of $1,000,000
                                          $3 million     Anonymous          Life Insurance *
     and higher from individuals
                                          $2.5 million   Anonymous          Supporting Org.
     —four from alumni.
                                          $2 million     Alumni             Bequest *
                                          $1 million     Alumni (3)         Multi-Year Pledge
                                          $1 million     Non-Alumni (2)     Multi-Year Pledge

                                         * Revocable

Ohio University                   January 2007                        Bentz Whaley Flessner     37
  Fundraising Programs
  Successful major gift programs emphasize making
  intentional face-to-face visits with prospective donors.
                                                                      Face-to-Face Visits:
     Development staff who do major gift                        Three-Year Average, 2002-2004
                                                     160
      work are expected to make at least                                         151
      90 visits with major gift prospect and         140
      donors each year.
          Four who have been in their positions
                                                     120
      
          at least two of the last three year        100            93     92
          achieved this objective.                                                       90
                                                                                                 80
         A goal of 90 visits a year is modest        80
          by major gift program standards.                  61
                                                      60
     Major gift staff should be expected to
      have at least 180 intentional face-to-          40
      face meetings with prospective major
                                                      20
      gift donors each year.
                                                       0
                                                           Dev01 DevO2 DevO3 DevO4 Dev05 Dev06

                                                                  Source: Ohio Advancement Office
Ohio University                       January 2007                        Bentz Whaley Flessner       38
  Fundraising Programs
  Alumni appear to represent untapped major gift potential.

                                                                                        
             Chicago                                                             Metro New York
             (2,967)                                 Greater Cleveland                (4,361)
                                                          (8,676)

                                                          
                                                     Akron/Canton
                                                       (12,774)
                                           
                                       Columbus/
                                      Central Ohio
                                        (25,013)
                          Greater
                         Cincinnati
                          (8,651)             
          
                                        Southeastern
      California
       (4,366)                               Ohio
                                           (18,604)                                      
                                                                                      Florida
                                                                                      (4,605)


     Almost one-half of all living alumni reside in Ohio; some 80% of alumni living
      in Ohio are in one of five geographic areas.
     Untapped opportunities appear to exist to focus more major gift work in Ohio
      and other key cities/regions.
Ohio University                       January 2007                       Bentz Whaley Flessner   39
  Fundraising Programs
  Annual giving programs rely completely on phone and
  direct mail; no structured personal solicitation is involved.
                                      Phonathon and Direct Mail Gifts: FY2002 to FY2006
           $2,500,000


           $2,000,000


           $1,500,000


           $1,000,000


            $500,000


                   $0
                           2002              2003           2004          2005              2006*
           Direct Mail   $1,448,121        $1,064,965     $1,005,823    $1,042,783        $915,145
           Phonathon     $537,000           $542,000      $670,000      $848,000          $833,000

    *No direct mail or phone solicitations in May and June 2006 because of data-security issues.
       Phone program was outsourced starting 2005; yearly costs increased $265,000.
       Phone program staff reassigned to the senior class gift program ($5,000 per
        year) and to soliciting gifts by phone for the Cutler Scholars Program.

Ohio University                                 January 2007                       Bentz Whaley Flessner   40
    Fundraising Programs
    Ohio’s alumni giving percentage compares favorably with
    other MAC universities.
                                                   Alumni Giving Participation:
                                             Ohio and Other MAC Universities, FY2005
       20%

                                   15.5%
                      14.9%
       15%    13.3%                                                              13.5%
                                                                                                      12.6%

                                               10.1%                                      9.7%
       10%                                                                                                      8.4%
                                                                     6.4%                                                          6.7%
                                                                                                                         5.9%
        5%                                               2.9%


        0%
               Ohio   Ball State   Bowling    Centr al   Easter n   Kent State   Miami   Nor ther n   Buffalo   Akr on   Toledo   Wester n
                                   Gr een     Michigan Michigan                           Illinois                                Michigan
          Source: Voluntary Support of Education/CAE Reports

   Ohio ranks fourth among twelve MAC universities.
   No MAC institutions are close to 20% alumni participation.
   Ohio’s alumni participation has increased from 11% (FY2001) to over 13% in (FY2006).
Ohio University                                              January 2007                                       Bentz Whaley Flessner        41
  Fundraising Programs
  Only three peer universities have alumni participation rates
  higher than Ohio’s.
                                                Alumni Giving Participation:
                                          Ohio and Other Peer Universities, FY2005
   25%

                                19.3%               19.4%
   20%

           13.3%                           14.5%
   15%                                                          12.4%                                              12.8%
                      10.9%                                             11.0%                   11.1%    11.3%
                                                                                     9.5%
   10%


     5%


     0%
             Ohio     Aubur n   Clemson   Indiana    Nor th     Uconn   Delawar e   Missour i    UNH    Tennessee Washington
                                                    Car olina                                                        State
          Source: Voluntary Support of Education/CAE Reports


    Only North Carolina, Clemson, and Indiana have higher alumni participation rates.
    Except for North Carolina and Clemson, no peers are close to 20%.

Ohio University                                     January 2007                                Bentz Whaley Flessner        42
  Fundraising Programs
  Donor recognition and stewardship programs are
  working but have opportunities for enhancement.
     The basic receipting and acknowledgement process appears to work in
      an acceptable and timely way.
     Stewardship for scholarship donors is more fully developed than other
      donor stewardship programs.
     Some stewardship events are planned and implemented, particularly
      for planned gift donors.
     Web-based recognition has not been a point of focus and, in fact, the
      capacity of both the web page and global email need to be developed
      to be used effectively in stewardship.
     Compliance with current giving guidelines and tax rules is meeting
      basic standards.




Ohio University                  January 2007            Bentz Whaley Flessner   43
                        Alumni Relations
                           Programs

Alumni relations programs are guided by a strategic plan,
focused on alumni connecting with alma mater, but are
not part of an overall integrated Advancement plan.
   Vision OHIO Alumni contains numerous strategic initiatives for alumni
    relations programs.
   Alumni staff have more programs and activities to deliver than time to
    do so.
   Metrics to link alumni programs and activities to other advancement
    goals and objectives do not exist.




Ohio University                  January 2007             Bentz Whaley Flessner   44
  Alumni Relations Programs
  Vision OHIO Alumni contains numerous strategic
  initiatives for alumni relations programs.
     Vision OHIO Alumni contains important initiatives and programs in
      support of the Alumni Association’s mission and vision.
         Mission: inform, engage, and serve the University’s current and
          future alumni.
         Vision: every alumnus is a partner in the life of Ohio University.
     Strategic initiatives focus on achieving important goals.
         Participation and Engagement
         Student Recruitment and Retention
         Leadership and Mentoring
         Philanthropy, Volunteerism, and Advocacy
         Business and Community Development
         Evaluation and Assessment
     Clearly defined outcomes to answer ―How do we know when we have
      achieved a goal?‖ are generally absent.

Ohio University                       January 2007                 Bentz Whaley Flessner   45
  Alumni Relations Programs
  Ohio’s alumni relations staff size compares favorably with
  other MAC universities and less so with Ohio’s peers.
     Ohio’s alumni relations staff size and alumni per program staff
      member compares favorably with other MAC universities.
         Ball State (12) and Miami (11) have more program staff than Ohio (9).
         Alumni per program staff member is lowest at Ball State (11,877) and
          Miami (14,534) with Ohio third (16,379).
     Ohio’s peer universities have larger staff and lower alumni per
      program staff member than Ohio.
         Ohio’s alumni relations staff (9) is larger than only Delaware (5),
          Clemson (8) and UConn (8).
         Alumni per program staff member is lowest at New Hampshire (10,377),
          Clemson (11,589), and North Carolina (11,951).
         Only UConn (21,499), Delaware (25,571), and Missouri (19,479) have
          more alumni per program staff member than Ohio.
     Appendix B contains more comparative data about alumni staff sizes
      and alumni per program staff member at MAC and peer universities.
Ohio University                      January 2007              Bentz Whaley Flessner   46
  Alumni Relations Programs
  Alumni staff have more programs and activities to
  deliver than time to do so.
     Alumni staff members are eager to increase the number of
      opportunities to connect Ohio alumni with alma mater.
         Respond to requests to work with alumni to start new chapters and
          societies.
         Committed to engaging current students to build their alumni loyalty.
     Clear criteria to decide when it makes sense ―not to do or continue
      with an alumni program or activity‖ do not exist.
     Opportunities to enable alumni volunteers to set up more of their
      own societies and chapters through web-based tools do not appear
      to be fully developed.




Ohio University                      January 2007               Bentz Whaley Flessner   47
  Alumni Relations Programs

  Metrics to link alumni programs and activities to other
  University goals and objectives do not exist.
     Alumni programs lack well-defined metrics to help evaluate their
      outcomes and success in terms of their impact on other
      University priorities.
         Student recruitment
         Alumni giving
         Career development
         Public relations and advocacy
     Having metrics stated in terms of specific, measurable outcomes
      could help link alumni programs to these goals and priorities.
         Provide ways to emphasize the importance of alumni programs.
         Help evaluate whether to expand, scale back, or discontinue
          selected programs.


Ohio University                      January 2007              Bentz Whaley Flessner   48
                      Prospect Development/
                      Prospect Management
Prospecting and research have produced some good work,
but are not prepared in staff numbers or planning to meet the
demands of a significant campaign. Prospect management
is inactive.
1.   Prospecting and research are understaffed, with current day-to-day
     research needs met by an off-campus researcher.
2.   Talented leadership for the area is creative, but has not been strategic.
3.   A prospect management discipline and prospect tracking structure are
     inactive.




Ohio University                    January 2007             Bentz Whaley Flessner   49
  Prospect Development/Prospect Management
  The number, focus, and daily operations of prospecting
  staff are inadequate for a significant campaign.
     Prospect Research is currently understaffed with
      daily research needs dependent on a remote
      staff member.
          In spite of limited staff, assignments have been
           narrowly focused.
          With two professionals, there is little need for
           stratification of tasks.
     Staff is experienced, knowledgeable about the
      process, and skilled in individual tasks.



Ohio University                January 2007         Bentz Whaley Flessner   50
  Prospect Development/Prospect Management
  The number, focus, and daily operations of prospecting
  staff are inadequate for a significant campaign.  (cont.)


     There is an abundance of creativity coupled with
      a lack of strategic leadership.
          Valid resources have been acquired and potentially
           powerful processes designed.
          Frequently, there is a lot of information that, without
           strategic focus, lacks clarity and effectiveness;
           however, this has improved in recent months.
     Both providers and users of prospect information
      need guidance to work together to enhance
      prospect development.

Ohio University                 January 2007         Bentz Whaley Flessner   51
  Prospect Development/Prospect Management
  A prospect management discipline and a prospect
  tracking structure are inactive.

    BSR Advance system is designed to provide
     excellent support for prospect tracking and some
     reports are in place.
    There is a basic understanding of prospect
     management by research and major gifts
     leadership.
    Some tracking style reports have been developed
     and are available on request.



Ohio University          January 2007        Bentz Whaley Flessner   52
  Prospect Development/Prospect Management
  A prospect management discipline and a prospect
  tracking structure are inactive.                               (cont.)


    There is no current evidence of the effective
     implementation and operation of prospect tracking
     and management.
        There is a lack of major gifts leadership in prospect
         management.
        Therefore, research cannot play an effective role in
         tracking prospects and supporting management.
        BSR Advance staff currently has no clear mandate to
         produce a given set of reports within any set timeline to
         track major gifts officers’ activity with prospects on a
         regular basis.

Ohio University               January 2007         Bentz Whaley Flessner   53
                   Information Services

The use of the BSR Advance system, policies and procedures
for data enhancement, and automated processes in gift
handling need further development.
1.   The system is currently underutilized due to both limited
     staffing and inadequate experience and knowledge.
2.   Both the quality and quantity of BSR data are questioned
     by a number of users.
3.   Management and operations plans, as well as a plan for
     continuing education and interaction with other BSR users,
     need to be addressed.


Ohio University              January 2007         Bentz Whaley Flessner   54
  Information Services
  There is a need to control the quality and quantity of
  data entered into BSR while addressing various shadow
  databases currently in use.
     Some development officers mistrust the quantity
      and quality of information in the system.
          The lack of a clear plan to update, quantify, and
           enhance BSR data on a regular basis creates a lack
           of confidence.
          Information garnered by units is not always shared;
           therefore, shadow databases are often more accurate
           than BSR data.
          An interactive, shared system for information updating
           has not been fully developed.

Ohio University                January 2007        Bentz Whaley Flessner   55
  Information Services
   Confidence of information services staff and users is
   undercut by the lack of internal and external education
   and exchange with other BSR users.
     Cost constraints limit the investment in continuing
      education and interchange with BSR user groups.
          BSR staff does not have a budget or plan for continuing
           education in this very dynamic area of expertise.
          Staff lacks the benefit of learning from other users.
     Leadership in neither major gifts nor research have
      outlined clear expectations for systems support of
      their programs.
          BSR is expertly designed to support advancement
           programs.
          BSR is a complex system which demands expert
           leadership for full realization.
Ohio University                January 2007         Bentz Whaley Flessner   56
  Information Services
  Gift processing is adequate, but is not designed to
  promote effectiveness in creative stewardship.
     The gift processing staff is a dedicated group
      combining gift assignment, data processing,
      updating, gift acknowledgement, and technical
      procedures.
          Staff needs continuing education and more complete
           cross training.
          Staff should be enhanced by replacing a member
           working remotely with an on-site, full-time person.




Ohio University               January 2007        Bentz Whaley Flessner   57
  Information Services
  Gift processing is adequate, but is not designed to
  promote effectiveness in creative stewardship. (cont.)
     Operations need to be improved in several ways.
          Heightening communication—perhaps an online
           calendar—concerning mailings and other activities that
           increase the gift processing load.
          Automating and streamlining manual procedures.
          Establishing ―best practices‖ with relevant
           benchmarking.
     Data updating, quality, and quantity control need
      a radical overhaul involving internal and external
      data sources.

Ohio University               January 2007         Bentz Whaley Flessner   58
                   Advancement Resources

 By making strategic investments in its advancement
 programs, Ohio University can significantly increase
 private gifts.
  1.   Ohio’s cost-to-raise a dollar of $0.16 is within the national
       average of $0.16 to $0.18.
  2.   Ohio nets $0.84 cents for every $1.00 raised.
  3.   Ohio University is under investing in its advancement
       programs.




Ohio University                January 2007          Bentz Whaley Flessner   59
  Advancement Resources
  By making strategic investments in its advancement programs,
  Ohio University can significantly increase private gifts.

     Ohio’s cost-to-raise-a-dollar of $0.16 cents is within the national
      average of $0.16 to $0.18.

      Total Gift Commitments                  Development Budget
         Five-Year Average                     Five-Year Average       Cost to
         (FY2002-FY2006)                       (FY2002-FY2006)      Raise-a-Dollar
           $28,327,274                           $4,513,810              $0.16
 Source: Ohio University Advancement Office


     For every $1.00 Ohio invests in its fundraising programs it is netting
      $0.84 cents in new gift commitments.
     With a cost-to-raise a dollar of $0.16, this would indicate opportunities
      for productive resource investment in Ohio’s fundraising programs.


Ohio University                               January 2007         Bentz Whaley Flessner   60
                  Recommendations




Ohio University        January 2007   Bentz Whaley Flessner   61
                      MAJOR
                  RECOMMENDATION
               Ohio University should build a
         philanthropic agenda, structure, and staff
          University Advancement to be productive
        and accountable, and position the president,
         senior administrators, and key volunteers
                  to lead a new campaign.




Ohio University           January 2007     Bentz Whaley Flessner   62
                     ADDITIONAL
                  RECOMMENDATIONS




Ohio University         January 2007   Bentz Whaley Flessner   63
  Recommendation One
  Build Ohio University’s philanthropic agenda and have President
  McDavis, Foundation Trustees, Vice President Lipman, deans, and
  other senior administrators play key roles in articulating it.
      Take Vision OHIO and determine which strategic initiatives/projects
       can benefit from philanthropic support.
           University-wide initiatives
           College/unit/regional campus initiatives
           New buildings and other facilities
      Determine the priority of seeking philanthropic support for each
       strategic initiative/project.
           Engage the president, vice presidents, deans, and other senior university
            leaders in this process.
      Prepare case-stating materials for each strategic initiative/project.
           Focus on each strategic initiative/project’s impact on Ohio, the region,
            and beyond.
           Use these case-stating materials to increase awareness among alumni
            and friends about the importance of philanthropic support.

Ohio University                       January 2007                Bentz Whaley Flessner   64
  Recommendation One                                                            (cont.)


      Have President McDavis play the key role in increasing awareness
       about this philanthropic agenda among Ohio’s top alumni and friends.
           Invite small groups of top donors and prospective top donors for special
            campus weekends.
           Facilitated by Foundation Trustees, hold small, focused meetings in
            Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, etc., and other U.S. cities where top
            donors and prospective donors reside.
           Position President McDavis to present key initiatives and projects in
            meetings with top prospects.
           Engage deans and other senior leaders when appropriate.




Ohio University                       January 2007                Bentz Whaley Flessner   65
  Recommendation Two
  Structure and staff University Advancement to increase
  private giving and strengthen alumni engagement.

     Organize and structure Development, Advancement Services, Alumni
      Relations, and Advancement Administration based on three principles.
         Increase focus on alumni as the best prospects to increase private giving.
         Expand contacts in geographic areas with concentrations of alumni.
         Use planning and accountability to increase productivity.

                                 University Advancement
                    The Ohio                 VP, Advancement
                    University               President and CEO
                   Foundation          The Ohio University Foundation




                                                                          Alumni Relations
           Advancement             Advancement             Development
                                                                                and
           Administration            Services
                                                                         Alumni Association




Ohio University                             January 2007                 Bentz Whaley Flessner   66
  Recommendation Two                                                                                                        (cont.)

                                                   Development
                                                  Assistant Vice President
                                                       Development


                                                                                           Executive Director           Director of
Executive Director    Executive Director     Executive Director     Executive Director
                                                                                               Planned                 Corporate and
  Annual Giving        of Development         of Development         of Development
                                                                                                Giving               Foundation Giving

         Assistant            Dir. of Dev.           Dir. of Dev.           Dir. of Dev.           Assistant
          Director               Colleges               Colleges               Colleges             Director                Assistant
                (1)               & Units                & Units                & Units                   (1)               Director
                                       (1)                    (1)                    (2)                                       (1)
  Director &            Dir. of Dev.           Dir. of Dev.           Dir. of Dev.
  Assistant             Colleges               Colleges               Colleges               Assistant
  Director (2)          & Units (2)            & Units (2)            & Units (1)            Director (1)



                                                                                                                Existing/Filled Positions

                                                                                                                New/Unfilled Positions


     Executive Directors of Development will also be responsible for major gift work in
      designated geographic regions and university-wide priorities and initiatives.
     Some directors of development will work with more than one college or unit.
     One director of development will support major gift work on the regional campuses.
Ohio University                                           January 2007                               Bentz Whaley Flessner               67
  Recommendation Two                                                            (cont.)

      Structure each executive director of development’s responsibilities to
       include:
           Leading fundraising for a university-wide priority and initiative
            (e.g., Urban and Appalachian Scholars Programs and the Integrated
            Learning and Research Facility.
           Spearheading major gift work in specific geographic regions
            (e.g., Cleveland, Columbus, East Coast, Southeast, etc.).
           Providing oversight for three college/unit/campus directors of
            development.
      Assign full-time directors of development to colleges and units that
       can generate at least $1,500,000 a year in new gift commitments.
           Assign centrally located directors of development to work with other
            colleges and units on major gift prospects.
           Achieve consistency in titles for development positions in colleges and
            units (e.g., director of development).




Ohio University                       January 2007                Bentz Whaley Flessner   68
  Recommendation Two                                                         (cont.)

     Combine five regional campus development officers into one director
      of development for regional campuses.
         Work with regional campus deans and others on securing major gifts.
         Together with the deans, supervise the half-time regional campus
          advancement staff.
     Add one assistant director of planned giving to help more alumni and
      friends provide for Ohio in their estate plans.
     Hire a director of corporate and foundation relations to solicit more
      private support from corporations and foundations and an assistant
      director to focus on proposal preparation and writing.
     Add an assistant director of annual giving to help renew and upgrade
      $1,000 and larger annual giving donors.
     Achieve consistency in titles for major gift staff assigned to colleges
      and other units (e.g., director of development).



Ohio University                     January 2007               Bentz Whaley Flessner   69
  Recommendation Two                                                                                         (cont.)

                                       Advancement Services


                                               Assistant Vice President
                                                Advancement Services




                   Senior Director                     Director                       Director of
                  Donor Relations                    of Prospect                     Advancement
                  and Stewardship                   Development                        Services



                                                     Prospect                   Database
                                                     Researcher                 Manager           Data
                   Existing/Filled Positions         (2)                              (1)        Control
                                                                                               Technicians
                   New/Unfilled Positions                                                          (5)
                                                          Prospect
                                                        Researcher        Programmer
                   Reassigned Positions                         (1)       Analysts (3)




Ohio University                                   January 2007                           Bentz Whaley Flessner         70
  Recommendation Two                                                           (cont.)


     Organize prospect research and management under Prospect
      Development.
         Add two prospect research staff and realign for best results.
         Enhance strategic leadership for prospect development.
         Expand capacity for prospecting, research, and prospect tracking.
     Add a database manager with in-depth knowledge of the BSR Advance
      information system.
         Benefit from the assistance of a trained and experienced BSR Advance user
          to expand current support.
         Realize the full range of BSR Advance’s capabilities to support fundraising
          and alumni relations programs.
     Re-assign the senior director, donor relations and stewardship to the
      advancement services team.
         Integrate donor relations and stewardship more fully with the advancement
          services.
         Provide opportunities to streamline gift processing and acknowledgement.


Ohio University                       January 2007               Bentz Whaley Flessner   71
  Recommendation Two                                                                          (cont.)



                                Advancement Administration


         The Ohio University               Assistant Vice President
             Foundation                        Administration




                            Director of
Administrative                                    Director of                              Advancement
                           Development                                Advancement
 Coordinator                                     Development                                  Budget
                          Administration                               Coordinator
 Foundation                                     Communications                              Coordinator
                            and Events



         Existing/Filled Positions
         New/Unfilled Positions


    Fill the development communications position and locate it as part of the
     Administration team.
    Involve the assistant vice president of administration more in the Foundation.
Ohio University                                 January 2007                    Bentz Whaley Flessner     72
  Recommendation Two                                                                                      (cont.)

       Alumni Relations and Ohio University Alumni Association
                                              Assistant Vice President
                                                 Alumni Relations
                                              and Executive Director


                                  Assoc. Executive               Director
                                      Director                 Marketing and       Director–Budget
                                    Operations                Communications


                      Director                Director        Assistant Director
                                                                                      Budget
                    Outreach and          Campus Relations     Marketing and
                                                                                      Manager
                    Engagement              and Advocacy      Communications

                          Asst. Dir.
                        Outreach &
                           Engage-
                  Asst. Dir. ment                                                       Existing/Filled Positions
                  Outreach & (2)
                  Engagement
                                                                                        New/Unfilled Positions
                  (2)



     Focus the associate executive director–operations on managing outreach,
      engagement, and campus advocacy; add two assistant directors of outreach
      and engagement to connect and involve more alumni in productive ways.

Ohio University                                      January 2007                      Bentz Whaley Flessner        73
  Recommendation Three
  Create and implement an integrated University
  Advancement plan with specific, measurable objectives.

     Base the integrated plan on Ohio University’s philanthropic agenda
      and constituencies.
         Emphasize Ohio alumni as prospective major gift donors.
         Take into account concentrations of Ohio alumni in Cleveland, Columbus,
          Cincinnati, Akron/Canton, Chicago, New York, California, and Florida.
     Establish specific, measurable, yearly development objectives.
         Major Outright Gifts: new gift commitments from alumni, non-alumni
          friends, foundations, corporations, and other organizations.
         Annual Giving: dollars and numbers of donors (new, renewed, upgraded)
          and alumni participation rates.
         Planned/Deferred Gifts: new documented bequest intentions, charitable
          annuities, trusts, etc.
         Major Outright and Planned Giving Prospects: new prospects identified and
          qualified through personal visits.


Ohio University                      January 2007              Bentz Whaley Flessner   74
  Recommendation Three                                                         (cont.)


     Establish specific, measurable, yearly Advancement Services objectives.
         Prospect Development: numbers of new major gift prospects identified
          and financially qualified.
         Database Integrity: percentage of alumni with good contact information
          (mail, telephone, and email).
         Donor Relations and Stewardship: timeliness and accuracy in generating
          gift receipts and acknowledgements, stewardship reports, and donor
          recognition.
     Use Vision OHIO Alumni to establish specific, measurable, yearly
      objective for Alumni Relations.
         Alumni Engagement: number of alumni actively engaged with Ohio
          University’s student recruitment, career services, and advocacy/public
          relations programs.
         Alumni Events: number of alumni who attended an on-campus or
          off-campus alumni event who made a first gift and/or renewed or
          upgraded gift.



Ohio University                      January 2007                Bentz Whaley Flessner   75
  Recommendation Three                                                         (cont.)


         Develop monthly reports for Development, Advancement Services,
          and Alumni Relations.
          Use these reports to evaluate progress against specific, measurable
           objectives.
          Share executive summaries with senior administrators, Ohio University
           Foundation, and Ohio University Alumni Association boards.
          Use data and information in the BSR Advance database system for
           these reports.
     Establish yearly performance plans with specific, measurable objectives
      for each staff member, based on University Advancement’s measurable
      objectives and strategies.
          Expect all staff to enter all pertinent data related to these performance
           objectives into BSR Advance.
          Use data and information entered into BSR Advance to evaluate progress
           against individual performance plans and objectives.
          Review progress against these plans and objectives at least quarterly.


Ohio University                       January 2007               Bentz Whaley Flessner   76
  Recommendation Four
  Increase cultivation and solicitation activities to
  generate significant increases in new major and planned
  gift commitments.
     Establish yearly measurable objectives for development staff engaged
      in major gift solicitations to achieve during the 2007-08 year.
          New cash gift commitments based on Ohio University experience:
              Year 1: $300,000
              Year 2: $600,000
              Year 3: $800,000
              Years 4 and Following: $1,200,000
          Intentional face-to-face meetings to qualify, cultivate, and solicit prospects
           for gifts of at least $25,000:
              Vice President, University Advancement:       100
              Assistant Vice President, Development:        125
              Executive Directors of Development:           150
              Directors of Development:                     180
              Executive Director and Assistant Directors,
               Planned Giving                                100
Ohio University                            January 2007              Bentz Whaley Flessner   77
  Recommendation Four                                                              (cont.)


           New prospects with financial abilities plus inclinations to make $25,000
           and larger gift commitments qualified through personal visits:
                 Assistant Vice President, Development:        20
                 Executive Directors of Development:           25
                 Directors of Development:                     50
                 Executive Director and Assistant Directors,
                  Planned Giving:                               25

    Provide development staff, deans, and other senior administrators with
     coaching and training in effective major gift work.
          Making cultivation, solicitation, and stewardship visits and reporting on
           these visits.
          Engaging prospective major gift donors in productive and efficient ways
           through advisory councils, task forces, etc.
          Working as teams to solicit and close major gifts.




Ohio University                              January 2007            Bentz Whaley Flessner   78
  Recommendation Five
  Continue to enhance the annual giving program to
  increase unrestricted and other current use restricted
  gifts and alumni giving participation rates.
    Develop and implement a personal solicitation program to
     renew/upgrade selected annual giving donors.
         Focus on $1,000 and up donors.
         Use primarily face-to-face solicitations made by executive director,
          director, and assistant directors.
         Gain valuable information to determine which donors are major
          gift prospects.
    Monitor the recently outsourced phone solicitation program to evaluate
     the return on investment.
         Are additional revenues covering additional expenditures by an
          acceptable amount?
         Are the increases in phone donors going to continue to offset the
          recent decline in direct mail donors?

Ohio University                       January 2007                Bentz Whaley Flessner   79
  Recommendation Five                                                          (cont.)


     Evaluate whether the senior class gift program should be continued
      or dropped.
         Are there cost-effective ways to increase percentage participation above
          2.5 to 3.0 percent and revenue above $5,000?
         Could staff time be used more productively elsewhere (e.g., personal
          solicitation of $1,000 and larger donors)?
     Continue, even expand, the emphasis on electronic solicitation and
      annual giving stewardship with alumni, parents, and friends.
         Increase ―flash emails‖ for solicitations and stewardship.
         Redesign online giving to make it more ―user friendly;‖ put ―unrestricted‖
          as the first option; offer specific gift amounts.
     Consider establishing annual giving recognition levels at $5,000
      and $10,000.




Ohio University                      January 2007                Bentz Whaley Flessner   80
  Recommendation Six
  Focus alumni relations programs on measurable
  outcomes which complement University priorities.

     Based on Vision OHIO Alumni, establish yearly objectives which are
      specific, measurable, and achievable.
         Annual Giving: number of alumni who attend alumni events who make
          gifts/increase their gifts to the annual fund.
         Student Recruitment: number of alumni who become involved in student
          recruitment programs.
         Placement and Internships: number of alumni who facilitate employment
          for recent graduates and internship opportunities for current students.
         Advocacy and Public Relations: number of alumni involved in advocating for
          Ohio in state and federal government and in opening up opportunities for
          Ohio to ―get its story out‖ through print and electronic media, speeches,
          and other presentations.




Ohio University                      January 2007              Bentz Whaley Flessner   81
  Recommendation Six                                                            (cont.)


     Initiate a program to evaluate results against stated objectives for
      each alumni event, program, and activity.
         Have clearly stated, measurable objectives for each on-campus and off-
          campus alumni event.
         Evaluate each event against its stated measurable objectives.
         Make sure plans to follow up and engage alumni participants are in place
          before the event.
         Evaluate the use of staff and other resources to plan and hold each
          event.
         Use this evaluation to make decisions about alumni relations staff
          involvement in holding such events in the future.




Ohio University                       January 2007                Bentz Whaley Flessner   82
  Recommendation Six                                                           (cont.)


    Explore opportunities to provide more information for alumni clubs and
     societies on the Alumni Association website.
           Steps in organizing an alumni event.
           Templates for event invitations, etc.
           Other useful information.
    Explore opportunities to partner more with Communications and
     Marketing on alumni print and electronic communications.
           Are there cost efficiencies to having Communications and Marketing
            provide more design, copy, and production services?
           Should the ―The [college] Gate‖ be produced and distributed only
            electronically?
    Consider using more web-based alumni surveys to:
           Gain feedback on alumni programs and services.
           Learn about alumni perceptions of Ohio University.




Ohio University                       January 2007               Bentz Whaley Flessner   83
  Recommendation Seven
  Streamline prospecting and prospect research
  operations to focus on strategic leadership.
     Reconfigure staff to meet demands for prospect development including
      the following.
         Strategic leadership to design and implement a powerful prospect
          development program in concert with the integrated University
          Advancement plan.
         Skilled research using cutting-edge tactics to secure prospect information.
         Experienced analysis applying new techniques.
         Superb guidance for prospect development staff performance.
     Align prospecting and research production with fundraising goals and
      timelines and the specific prospect assignments of major gift officers.
         Strengthen the liaison with major gifts leadership to coordinate the work.
         Structure prospect-related goals to match fundraising expectations.
     Employ metrics-based prospecting with the application of new tools,
      such as datamining and predictive modeling.

Ohio University                       January 2007               Bentz Whaley Flessner   84
  Recommendation Seven                                                         (cont.)


     Recognize prospect development as a ―service‖ to fundraisers.
         Prospecting and prospect research must be responsive to a dynamic
          fundraising plan.
         Research ―serves‖ the implementer of that plan.
     Create a seamless operation from prospect identification to gift
      acknowledgement, recognizing each critical role in the process.
     Charge prospect development with the coordinating role in prospect
      tracking.
         Research should play a prime role in identifying the data required to track
          prospect activity effectively.
         Prospect information specialists should also assist in designing prospect
          tracking reports.
         Research should assist in translating prospect activity to BSR staff to
          assure that reports are targeted for support of fundraisers.




Ohio University                       January 2007               Bentz Whaley Flessner   85
  Recommendation Eight
  Plan and implement a sound prospect management
  discipline supported by systems-based tracking.

     Adopt a prospect management discipline.
         Provide leadership oversight for the prospect management ―discipline‖ to
          be practiced with strict guidelines and accountability.
         Identify the elements involved in an effective prospect management
          discipline.
             Develop clear timelines and requirements.
             Require that all prospect actions be planned and reported regularly.
             Introduce specific consequences for the lack of action or reporting.
     Re-establish tracking procedures dependent on BSR Advance and
      involving all major gift fundraisers.
     Design reports to monitor the flow of prospect tracking information in
      two directions, input from managers and output from the database to
      managers.


Ohio University                        January 2007               Bentz Whaley Flessner   86
  Recommendation Nine
  Have The Ohio University Foundation Board of Trustees
  determine roles to play in Ohio’s fundraising programs while
  continuing to focus on managing endowment growth.

     Based on the board’s 60-Year Review: Recommendations and Actions,
      hold a Trustees’ retreat to focus on:
         Models to fund the costs of fundraising programs (see Appendix C).
         Trustees’ roles in partnering with advancement to identify, cultivate,
          solicit, and steward major donors (see Appendix D).
         Ways Trustees can work with University leaders, faculty, staff, and
          students to raise Ohio University’s profile among alumni and friends.
     Enlist a campaign planning task force that includes Foundation and
      University trustees, major donors, and University leaders.
         Guide and oversee a feasibility study for a new comprehensive campaign.
         Make recommendations about the new campaign, including dollar goal and
          volunteer leadership.
         Serve as a bridge to the campaign steering committee.

Ohio University                     January 2007              Bentz Whaley Flessner   87
  Recommendation Nine                                                   (cont.)


     Make sure endowment investment and spending policies are in concert
      with donor intent and university needs.
         Consider the importance of investing in Advancement staff and
          programs.
         Make sure endowment investment and spending policies are
          communicated clearly—internally to deans and other senior
          administrators and externally to donors and prospective donors.




Ohio University                   January 2007            Bentz Whaley Flessner   88
  Recommendation Ten
  Increase resources invested in University Advancement
  programs with clear expectations about return on investment.

     Commit to investing new resources for staffing and programs in
      Development, Advancement Services, and Alumni Relations over the
      next three years.
         FY2006–07: $622,000
         FY2007–08: $1,300,400
         FY2008–09: $364,697
     Measure the ―return on investment‖ against fundraising and alumni
      engagement results.
         Expect total new gift commitments to reach at least $40,000,000 by
          FY2009–10.
         Continue to achieve a cost-per-dollar-raised of $0.16 in FY2009–10.




Ohio University                      January 2007               Bentz Whaley Flessner   89
                            NEXT ACTIONS

                          Restructure and Staff
                        University Advancement;
                           Create an Integrated
                          Development, Alumni
                       Relations, and Advancement
                              Services Plan


                       Build Ohio’s Philanthropic         Enlist Task Force
                                                                                          Make Decision
 Receive and Take        Agenda and Increase                and Conduct
                                                                                             About
Action on the Report       Awareness about                   Campaign
                                                                                          New Campaign
                          Strategic Initiatives           Feasibility Study



                                                          Hold Foundation Board
                                                          Retreat on Roles to Play
                                                           In Ohio’s Fundraising
                                                                 Programs


      November to          January to June           July to December                January 2008 to
     December 2006              2007                       2007                      December 2008

Ohio University                            January 2007                        Bentz Whaley Flessner      90
  Appendix A
  Development Staff Sizes: Ohio and Other MAC Universities:
  FY2006-07

                            Major and       Annual   Donor Relations/     Prospect           Other
                         Planned Giving     Giving     Stewardship      Development    Development Staff

  Ohio                         14              4              2             2                  6
  Ball State                   16              2              3             2                  5
  Bowling Green                10              2              1             2                  2
  Central Michigan             16              2              1             1                  3
  Eastern Michigan             10              2              1             1                  2
  Kent State                   18              4              2             5                  3
  Miami                        19              4              3             NA                 2
  Northern Illinois            10              1              2             1                  5
  Buffalo                      40              5              5             5                  21
  Akron                        15              1              1             2                  2
  Toledo                        8              2              2             1                  2
  Western Michigan              9              2              1             1                  2

   Source: Staff rosters on universities’ websites

Ohio University                                January 2007                      Bentz Whaley Flessner   91
  Appendix A
  Development Staff Sizes: Ohio and Peer Universities:
  FY2006-07                                                                                   (cont.)

                           Major and       Annual   Donor Relations/     Prospect           Other
                        Planned Giving     Giving     Stewardship      Development    Development Staff

  Ohio                         14             4               2            2                  6
  Auburn                       43             5               8            6                  29
  Clemson                      20             3               3            2                 TBA
  Indiana                      47             8               6            4                  9
  North Carolina               67             8               8            6                  6
  UConn                        21            10               9            6                  17
  Delaware                     8              5               2            2                  2
  Missouri                     53             9           19               5                  8
  New Hampshire                10             3               2            2                  2
  Tennessee                   TBA           TBA           TBA             TBA                TBA
  Washington State             30             8               3            3                  9

  Source: Staff rosters on universities’ websites



Ohio University                                January 2007                     Bentz Whaley Flessner   92
  Appendix B
  Alumni Staff Sizes and Alumni of Record: Ohio and
  Other MAC Universities: FY2006-07
                             Program            Support        Alumni               Alumni/
                               Staff             Staff        of Record          Program Staff

   Ohio                          9                  4         147,411*              16,379
   Ball State                   12                  4         142,521               11,877
   Bowling Green                 4                  3         139,514               34,878
   Central Michigan              4                  NA        157,859               39,465
   Eastern Michigan              5                  1         125,525*              25,105
   Kent State                    6                  3         168,784               28,131
   Miami                        11                  4         161,092               14,645
   Northern Illinois             4                  3         143,670               35,918
   Buffalo                       8                  5         171,790               21,474
   Akron                         3                  2         149,273               49,758
   Toledo                        6                  4         112,629               18,772
   Western Michigan              4                  3         209,962               52,491
   *FY2005-06 data
  Source: Staff rosters on universities’ websites
Ohio University                                January 2007               Bentz Whaley Flessner   93
  Appendix B
  Alumni Staff Sizes and Alumni of Record:
  Ohio and Peer Universities: FY2006-07                                                 (cont.)

                                  Program           Support    Alumni                Alumni/
                                    Staff            Staff    of Record           Program Staff

  Ohio                               9                 4      147,411*               16,379
  Auburn                             12                7      191,420*               15,942
  Clemson                            8                 3       92,713                11,589
  Indiana                            33               10      417,680                12,657
  North Carolina                     22                8      263,152                11,961
  UConn                              8                 6      171,992                21,499
  Delaware                           5                 6      127,855                25,571
  Missouri                           10              TBA      194,790                19,479
  New Hampshire                      11                7      114,149                10,377
  Tennessee                         TBA              TBA      202,893                  NA
  Washington State                   10                3      144,710                14,471
  *FY2005-06 data
 Source: Staff rosters on universities’ websites


Ohio University                                January 2007               Bentz Whaley Flessner   94
  Appendix C

  Campaign Financing Options
 1.   Pay for the campaign out of the university’s or foundation’s
      operating budget.
 2.   Assess all campaign gifts a percentage fee to help fund the campaign.
 3.   Capture short-term earnings, including those on gifts made for buildings
      until they are expended and earnings on gifts to endowment for a
      period of time (e.g., one year).
 4.   Solicit gifts from selected donors early in the campaign specifically to
      help pay for campaign costs.
 5.   Use unrestricted, current-use gifts generated through the annual
      giving program.
 6.   Increase the spending rate on the endowment’s market value or keep
      the same overall spending rate, but reduce, say, by a percentage
      point or two, the net spending rate the endowment pays out to
      account holders.
 More information about each option, along with advantages and
 disadvantages, can be found in Bentz Whaley Flessner’s Campaign Financing.

Ohio University                    January 2007            Bentz Whaley Flessner   95
  Appendix D

  Foundation Boards: Campaign Best Practices
 1.   Foundation board members—as key volunteer leaders—are involved in
      all phases of campaign activity.
 2.   Foundation board members solicit key prospects either individually or
      in tandem with the university president, advancement vice president,
      and other senior university leaders.
 3.   Advancement staff provides exceptional support for the campaign
      efforts of the foundation board.
 4.   Leadership by the institution’s president is evident.
 5.   Foundation board members set the example through their own giving.
 6.   The leadership of two or three passionately committed board members
      is evident.
 7.   Foundation board members open doors to prospective donors, help
      plan cultivation and solicitation strategies, and take the lead in
      activities that cultivate the interests of potential donors.
 Source: How Public College and Foundation Boards Contribute to Campaign Success, AGB

Ohio University                                   January 2007                          Bentz Whaley Flessner   96

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Business Meetings for Columbus Ohio Tba document sample