Herding Cats: The Art of Prospect Management

Herding Cats: The Art of Prospect Management Ruthie Giles Senior Researcher for Prospect Management and Cat Herder Extraordinaire Keith Michel Executive Director of Leadership Giving CASE District I Conference March 16, 2018

Video Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_majdk3vne

How Things Began In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker s Guide to the Galaxy Image Source: http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/the_hitchhiker's_guide_to_the_galaxy_%28book%29

Endless Campaigns Image Source: http://www.healthyplace.com/blogs/breakingbipolar/2013/05/forced-multitask-bipolar-brain/

Mount Holyoke s Recent Campaign 2004-2012 WE HAD SOME ISSUES. An antiquated database Important campaign information could not be tracked Gift officers had bloated portfolios Prospect lists were all on paper No documented processes and procedures Gift officer metrics based solely on visits Did a database conversion

The End is Near Image Source: https://www.pinterest.com/jpamplomoreno/simpsons/

Reasons For Prospect Management at MHC Need to create order from chaos Need a common language for the team To document the processes and procedures To get all of the data into the database To report on the pipeline process To see progress/stagnation of prospects

Prospect Research and Management The old view that Prospect Research and Management are passive, reactive services needs to be challenged. My prospect research and management staff are my right hand strategic and tactical advisors. Prospect Research and Management are literally the oil of a smooth running machine. - Armando Zumaya www.armandozumaya.com

Desired Outcomes Manageable portfolios Being more strategic Streamlined process

Analysis of Existing System What works and what does not work Where are things falling through the cracks What are the needs for your process What are the needs for measurement What are the commonly used terms, are they well defined & understood Are there codes/categories/terms in place that do not make sense going forward What will you need to report out on

Analysis of Existing System Image source: http://dilbert.com/strip/1989-11-29

Analysis: MHC Portfolios - January 2014 MGO #1 MGO #2 MGO #3 MGO #4 MGO #5 MGO #6 Unassigned All other GOs TOTAL 400 prospects 385 prospects 360 prospects 358 prospects 339 prospects 135 prospects 387 prospects 715 prospects 3079 prospects

Tracking the Data You Need What can you track What do you need to track What are you already tracking What are you tracking that is no longer necessary What will you need to report out on (this is VERY important)

Name Coding the Data in Your Database Class Year Type of Prospect Rating Level Cultivation Level Inclination Bruce Wayne 1965 Principle Gifts $50,000,000 Proposal Out Medium Diana Prince 1975 Major Gifts $2,500,000 Advanced Cultivation High Harleen Quinzel 1980 Special Gifts $25,000 Evaluation Not Yet Rated Dick Grayson 1985 Major Gifts $500,000 Early Cultivation Low Selina Kyle 1990 Future Prospect Unrated Evaluation Not Yet Rated Oswald Cobblepot 2000 Major Gifts $250,000 Evaluation Medium Clark Kent 1945 Planned Giving $500,000 Stewardship Low

Defining Your Terms Image source: http://dilbert.com/strip/2004-05-04

Creating the Prospect Management System Proposal Image source: http://dilbert.com/strip/2012-12-05

Document The Process Image Source: http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3t24q3

Proposal Components PROSPECT CATEGORIES CULTIVATION STAGES RATINGS LEVELS INCLINATION RATINGS DATES

Prospect Categories at MHC Original New & Improved Principal Gifts Major Gifts Special Gifts Leadership Gift Special Gift Permanent Stewardship ****************************** Planned Gifts Annual Fund Art Museum ******************************* Gift Planning Annual Fund Art Museum

Cultivation Stages at MHC Original Evaluated Cultivation Ready to Solicit Proposal Out Stewardship Go Back Refused Permanent Stewardship Standby Closed Future Not Tracking New & Improved Evaluated Early Cultivation Advanced Cultivation Proposal Out Stewardship Closed (this one is ONLY used if the prospect is no longer a prospect for that particular category/track)

Ratings Levels at MHC Original New & Improved Not Rated $10,000 $15,000 $25,000 $50,000 $100,000 $250,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 $2,500,000 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $25,000,000+ Suspect Future Prospect In 2013 we temporarily added one more: Permanent Stewardship, but in 2015 we made it a prospect category. In the future, we should make Future Prospect a track (because it is a type of prospect, not a rating)

Inclination Ratings at MHC Original High Medium Low Nil New & Improved High Medium Low No Inclination Not Yet Rated

Defining Key Terms Leadership Level Gift Rating Level Non-Monetary Rating Levels Solicitation Tracks Inclination Ratings (define each one) Cultivation Stages (more on this next) Removing a prospect from their prospect category Database Screening Scores/Modeling Scores

Defining Cultivation Stages Name of Stage Definition of that Stage How to Exit this Stage Timeframe how long a stage should be Data Entry/Data Updating that goes with moving a prospect into this stage

Name of Stage: EVALUATED Definition: The prospect has been researched and determined to have the financial means to make a Leadership level gift to Mount Holyoke College, based on their wealth, career, philanthropy and/or lifetime giving to Mount Holyoke College. Prospects in Evaluated have a ratings level of $100K+, Suspect, or Future Prospect. No one rated Permanent Stewardship has a cultivation stage of Evaluated. How to Exit this Stage: When the Gift Officer has met with the prospect for an initial visit. Prospect is either moved into Early Cultivation, or is released from the Leadership Giving track. On occasion a prospect can move to Advanced Cultivation or Proposal Out directly from this stage. Timeframe: Prospects in this stage are reviewed quarterly to confirm the progress of the Gift Officer in making these initial visits. When a Gift Officer is having difficulty securing an initial visit, the prospect is reviewed to determine if they should remain in Evaluated, move to a different Gift Officer, or be released from the Leadership Giving track. Thirty percent of prospects in this stage should be visited each year at a minimum. Optimally, Evaluated prospects are moved out of Evaluated after one year (for parents, after 6 month). Data Entry/Data Updating: 1. Enter Rating Level and & date of rating in the MD Status/Date field (research) 2. If prospect was screened, there will be a N or Y in the WE reviewed field (research) 3. If prospect went through the WE analytics model, there will be a number in the MG_Score field (research) 4. Enter Inclination Rating into the ContrMeth field (research) 5. Enter the appropriate GO name into the Primary Staff field (research) 6. Enter an L in the Top Prospect field if the GO intends to move the prospect to the next stage within the current fiscal year (research) 7. Create a Solicitation Track with a Cultivation Area of Leadership Gifts (LG) (research) 8. Enter Evaluated in the progress level of the Solicitation Track screen (research) 9. Enter GO as Solicitor in the Solicitation Track screen, with the Roles specified as Staff (research) 10. Financial and philanthropic research is entered on the MDFN screen (research) 11. Biographical research and Rating Level summary is entered on the CREM screen (research)

Proposal of New/Revised Prospect Management System Get buy-in from the top Get feedback from key players Revise your proposal based on feedback from key players Present finalized proposal to the full team And then IMPLEMENTATION BEGINS!

Image source: https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/arts/filmtv/blog/13076218/the-stages-of-star-wars-grief Implementation: Change is Hard

Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelgoodin/3256925948

Regional Assignment Breakdown Title Associate Director, Leadership Giving Associate Director, Leadership Giving Senior Leadership Giving Officer Senior Leadership Giving Officer Senior LGO: International Leadership Giving Officer Former # of States 14 19 16 Former States CA, CO, CT, DC, FL, GA, IA, MD, NC, NJ, NY, SC, VA, WV CA, CO, FL, IL, IN, KY, MA, MI, MN, MT, NY, OH, PA, RI, TN, TX, WA, WI, WY AZ, CA, CT, FL, HI, ID, IL, MA, MI, MT, NJ, NM, NV, NY, UT, WY NEW # of States N/A N/A 7 N/A N/A NEW States Former Portfolio L1s-L4s Size NEW Core Portfolio L1s-L3s Projected Size Proposed Expanded L1s-L4s Projected Size 3 CT, NJ, NY 233 ~150 199 7 6 International +1 N/A N/A 19 FL, MA, ME, NH, RI, TX, VT AZ, CA, CO, NM, OR, WA DC, MD, VA, PA, DE, MT, WY International +NYC Int l GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, KY, LA, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, NV, OH, SC, TN, UT, WI, WV 205 ~150 203 280 ~150 210 N/A ~150 200 N/A N/A ~150 ~150 TBC 203

Prospect Prioritization Highest Priority (L1) (core portfolio) Priority (L2) (core portfolio) Investment Prospects (L3) (core portfolio) Suspects and Holding Pool (L4) (outside of core portfolio)

Anchor or potential anchor players (L1) These prospects deserve outsized effort and attention over the next 3-6 months These prospects represent the top 20-25% of a gift officer s portfolio Capacity and/or readiness are biggest factors Proven, repeat performers live here Can include urgently-sought qualification prospects with high-end potential Because the solicitation goals for this group are more ambitious, average duration of cultivation is longer (potential for higher visit:gift ratio)

Emerging stars and urgently-sought positional players (L2) These prospects deserve effort and attention over the next 6 months to 1 year These prospects represent the middle 37.5-40% of a gift officer s portfolio Strongly guided by capacity and/or readiness, but with more flexibility than category 1 in order to account for gift officer instinct and for some mid-pyramid prospects with high readiness Choice of prospects in this category can accommodate short-term individual or team goals, such as priority qualification work, campaign preparation, affinity focus, etc.

Future stand-outs and steady LG contributors are cultivated here (L3) Strong capacity/low engagement prospects or lower capacity/strong engagement prospects and everything in-between; Potential is cultivated here ; Steady leadership giving is appreciated here These prospects deserve steady persistent effort over the next 1 year-plus These prospects represent 37.5-40% of a gift officer s portfolio There is less definitional cohesion for prospects in this category, but these prospects all need attention from a major gift officer because of the real or suspected potential to make a major gift This is where you ll find your future anchors and emerging stars This is the yeoman s work of the road warrior major gifts officer; These prospects are often lower-rated and often not yet qualified in person; Sometimes they re qualified but challenging; Sometimes they re wonderfully loyal but static in giving; Our most surprising and most satisfying breakthroughs and discoveries are likely to be made here This category is likely to be refreshed and restocked in the future by rising category 4 prospects, holding pool prospects, new research discoveries, etc.

Trust the system, but keep em close! (L4) This category includes legitimate, rated prospects within the assigned region who have NOT been selected within the top 150 prospects in the core portfolio of the gift officer These prospects remain accessible to the gift officer and are pulled with his/her prospect list, but they are technically outside the core portfolio for which the gift officer is held highly accountable Upward mobility is common within this group, as prospects are frequently promoted to core portfolios through newly identified research, the special gifts program, alumnae intel, gift officer contact, etc. This group is critical to the segmentation and prioritization of prospects in order to allocate resources effectively, track prospects over the long-term and continually refresh portfolios

Mount Holyoke College is not the University of Texas: Close Analysis vs. Hard Metrics

The Wheel of Leadership Giving Portfolio Progress Comprehensive, Semi-Annual Portfolio Review Monthly Prospect Strategy Sessions Portfolio/Positionadjusted metrical guidelines

We are Prospect Management. You Will Be Assimilated. Resistance is Futile. Image source: http://startrek.com/database_article/borg-cube

Outcome #1 Manageable Portfolios January 2014 March 2015 October 2016 MGO 1 400 285 243 MGO 2 385 215 219 MGO 3 360 258 222 MGO 4 358 193 191 MGO 5 339 183 64 MGO 6 135 133 46 Unassigned 387 120 200 All Other GO s 715 335 270 TOTAL 3,079 1,722 1,455

Outcome #1 Manageable Portfolios As of 3/2/2018 Assoc. Dir. Leadership Giving 199 Assoc. Dir, Leadership Giving 203 Senior Leadership Giving Officer 210 Senior Leadership Giving Officer 200 Leadership Giving Officer 203 Senior Leadership Giving Officer - International TBD TOTAL 815 +

Outcome #2 Being More Strategic Spending more time on the best prospects. Clear parameters on how to move prospects through the pipeline in a timely manner. Know where all of our prospects are in the pipeline. Creating strategies for all prospects. Allows for more accurate goal setting. A strategic partnership between MGOs and prospect research/management.

Outcome #3 Streamlined Process Data in the database is more accurate. Portfolio sizes are manageable. Actual Moves Management!!!!! Detailed process for how & when to move prospects. Prospects are not falling through the cracks. Prospects are not stalled/lost in the pipeline. Know exactly what we have out in proposals, and when we expect to close them. Team working collaboratively.

Ongoing Prospect Management Continue to right-size the portfolios. Keep team in compliance with the prospect management system. Act as a neutral sounding board for the GO team when they need advice on creating strategies for cultivation, solicitation, and stewardship. Train, remind and re-train MGOs on how the prospect management process works. Constantly review the data for data entry issues. Use data analysis to guide quarterly portfolio reviews. Review the prospect management process annually. DOCUMENT THE PROCESS and save former versions!

Image source: http://personalpages.tds.net/~rb/dis/herdingcats1.jpg

CONTACT INFORMATION Ruthie Giles Senior Researcher for Prospect Management Mount Holyoke College rgiles@mtholyoke.edu (413) 538-2521 Keith Michel Executive Director of Leadership Giving Mount Holyoke College kmichel@mtholyoke.edu (413) 538-2633