LEADERSHIP ANNUAL GIVING 2.0: THE MAJOR GIFT ACCELERATOR Indiana University Foundation Caitlin Callahan, Sr. Director of Regional Development Jonathan Purvis, Vice President for Development, Regional Campuses

WELCOME! Jonathan Purvis Vice President for Development, Regional Campuses Caitlin Callahan Sr. Director of Regional Development

PREVIEW 1.Incorporate an intentional focus on major gift identification into a traditional leadership annual giving program 2.Align development officer performance metrics with desired program outcomes 3.Utilize wealth screening and predictive modeling to best achieve program outcomes 4.Navigate internal relationships with unit development officers 5.Create a talent pipeline to feed development staffing needs across the university

A BRIEF HISTORY OF LEADERSHIP ANNUAL GIVING AT INDIANA UNIVERSITY AGE DOLLARS Annual Giving Special Gifts Major Gifts Planned Giving First Gift 20’s30’s 40’s50’s 60’s70’s80’s

A BRIEF HISTORY OF LEADERSHIP ANNUAL GIVING AT INDIANA UNIVERSITY

Special Gifts & Annual Giving Major Gifts

AND ANOTHER THING…. Comprehensive development audit exposed success in mega gifts and annual giving…but weakness in $1m gifts Planning for campaign with an unprecedented goal Resulting recognition of need to fundamentally restructure our approach to major gift pipelining

VERSION 1.0: REGIONAL ADVANCEMENT TEAM

A CALL TO ACTION

THE LAUNCH OF THE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT TEAM And so... we launched “Regional Development 2.0” with a refocused three-part mission: 1.Identify and qualify new major gift prospects for the current campaign, and beyond. 2.Provide strategic assistance to units with university-wide development priorities. 3.Establish a talent pipeline to produce future development professionals across the University.

QUALIFYING MAJOR GIFT PROSPECTS 1.Heavy emphasis on ‘fast-tracking’ major gift qualification Focus on ~5,300 “High-Value Unassigned” (HVU) prospects $1M+ household net worth, MGI 95+ AND unassigned to development officer No personal communication with IU in past two years Each responsible for qualifying 100 HVU donors this CY (=1,200 total) Using targeted campaign engagement survey and gift range chart Placing equal value on ‘disqualification’ and ‘qualification’ 2.Well House Society (unrestricted gifts) as intentional tool

COLLABORATION WITH UNITS 1. As central development staff, collaboration is KEY to success Importance of proactive communication and relationship building Ongoing information sharing and regular in-person meetings 2. Promoting a service model: “We’re here to help!” Sharing quarterly travel schedules Formal strategic partnerships, serving as extension of unit team Partnership intake form to set expectations and determine unique goals 3. Incentivizing ‘hand-off’ of qualified major gift prospects to MGO Process looks different for each individual donor

CREATING A TALENT PIPELINE Significant reorganization of team’s structure in order to: 1.retain talent within IU system 2.recognize and incentivize high-achieving performers 3.enhance quality of management and, therefore, development activity Former structure:

2.0 STRUCTURE Sr. Director, Regional Development Director, Regional Development Sr. Associate Directors, Regional Development Associate Directors, Regional Development Director, Regional Development Sr. Associate Directors, Regional Development Associate Directors, Regional Development Sr. Director, Regional Development High-level program supervision and administration Direct management of two Directors Focus on major gift portfolio and campaign initiatives Director, Regional Development Direct management of 5 team members Maintain same contact goals and territories Continued cultivation of relationships in territories Sr. Associate Director, Regional Development Recognition & retention in title and salary bump Opportunity for focused unit partnership Continued cultivation of relationships in territories Associate Director, Regional Development Goal of 140 contacts/year in assigned territories After two years and met metrics, eligible for promotion

ALIGNING PERFORMANCE METRICS WITH DESIRED OUTCOMES Metric Gift Officer Wt. Contacts Major Gift Prospects Top 200 Plan Management Qualitative Contributions Weighted Scores 30

CriteriaDefinition Contacts Face to face visits and proactive phone calls with donors. Goal: 140 total, with minimum 100 face-to-face. (3= 141+, 2= , 1=Below 120) Major Gift Prospects Newly-identified prospects who can potentially give $50,000 within the current campaign cycle. Goal: 11/year (3=12+, 2=10-11, 1=9 or below) Plan Management Did the Regional Development team member fully engage Crimson to create and execute 200 prospect plans for the year (qualification of 100 Reeher high-value unassigned prospects; solicitation/stewardship of 50 Well House prospects and donors; 50 visits on behalf of units or special projects)? (3-Pass / 0-Fail) Qualitative Contributions Does team member adhere to and exemplify IUF's core values and competencies? Serve as a collaborative partner and ambassador to units, donors, and friends of the University? Seek out stretch assignments, and take full advantage of professional development opportunities? Serve as a leader or mentor to other team members? (3-Exceeds expectations, 2- Meets expectations, 1- Needs Improvement) ALIGNING PERFORMANCE METRICS WITH DESIRED OUTCOMES

SUCCESS TO DATE 1.Major Gift Identification Number of newly identified, qualified major gift prospects Recent $1M+ gift as a direct result of program ~$3.3M ‘touched’ by Regional Development team in FY16 2.Unit collaboration Continued refinement and implementation of partnerships 3.Talent Pipeline Directors successfully promoted and trained Senior Associate Directors promotions effective with new FY Recent hiring of three new Associate Directors into new structure

QUESTIONS? Jonathan Purvis Vice President for Development, Regional Campuses Caitlin Callahan Sr. Director of Regional Development