1. The 2003-2004 Caltech Alumni Fund September 11, 2004 FY2003-2004

2. The 2003-2004 Caltech Alumni Fund 2 Methods Overview Direct Mail – most gifts (by far) sent in response to mailings; mostly current and recently lapsed donors; have begun increased segmentation (specialized for different groups) E-mail – Most cost effective; have fewer valid addresses than direct mail; same donors (current/recent lapsed) Student Phone Program (SPP) – direct contact; best at converting non-donors; 30% direct (credit card) gifts; limited expansion possibilities

3. The 2003-2004 Caltech Alumni Fund 3 Alumni Contact Overview The “backbone” of the Fund (always) Key mode for direct contact At peak – 650 callers (plus 100 in other roles) making about 2,500 contacts Now – about 150 callers (plus 50 others) Most expansion potential

4. The 2003-2004 Caltech Alumni Fund 4 Alumni Contact Method* Three-Year Comparison (October 1 – June 30) FY2001-02 figures are estimates from full year figures. Note: FY2001-02 figures are estimates from full year figures. * Contact is attempted by phone. If the alum is not spoken to personally, a message can be left or an email or letter sent. Pledge Rate: 335 pledges from 861 contacts = 38.9% Pledge + “will give”: 486 of 799 = 60.8%

5. The 2003-2004 Caltech Alumni Fund Alumni Contact Gift Comparisons Q1-3 ‘03-04Q1-3 ’02-03Change Donors: 388 555-30.1% Dollars Raised:$73,610 $83,307-11.6% Q1-3 ’03-04FY03-04% of Goal Goal Attained Donors: 388 1,00038.8% FY03-04 Goal has been revised based on overall alumni donor goal of 5,370. Donors means a gift has been recorded by the end of the reporting period (as opposed to just a pledge being made as reported on the previous slide). As mentioned, alumni Associates making Current Use gifts are include in the number of donors, but their dollars are not included. Dollars Raised means the money has already been received. Notes: It must be recognized that these figures are based on the pledge form returned. THIS IS NOT AN EXACT MATCH WITH THE METHOD (i.e., an alum contact can lead to a gift being made, but if the donor uses the form from the previous mailing, the gift will appear under the Direct Mail method).

6. The 2003-2004 Caltech Alumni Fund 6 Summary Contacts have increased slightly over last year, but remain much lower than previous years Since only current and recently lapsed donors are called, the pledge rate is very low (last year it was 60-65%, pledge plus “will give” was 80%) – further analysis is needed Gift conversion is much lower than last year Staff vacancies affected pledge follow up Need to double contacts and improve pledge rate to achieve goal of 1,000 gifts by this method Will put more focus on specialized groups

7. The 2003-2004 Caltech Alumni Fund 7 Solicitation Callers We want to use the Class/Option system as a framework to evaluate needs for callers. Current analysis illustrates the need to recruit additional alumni solicitation callers. Prospects FallSpringSummer Undergraduate Pre 1940’s 300 1 0 1 1940’s and 1950’s - 1,697 40 24 4 1960’s and 1970’s – 2,582 24 9 3 1980’s, 90’s & 2000’s - 4,094 3 1 6 Undergraduate Reunion Reunions classes 1,685 14 5 1 Graduate E&AS – 3,886 12 1 2 Chemistry and ChemE – 1,566 4 1 0 Biology and GPS – 1,181 1 0 0 PMA and HSS - 1,312 6 4 2 Totals: 136 undergrad level callers, 33 graduate level Note: Some volunteers call more than once, so the number of volunteers is fewer than 150

8. The 2003-2004 Caltech Alumni Fund 8 Alumni Contact Comparison The Fall Solicitation Sprint showed an increase in callers: FY03-04: 105 callersFY02-03: 82 callers The Spring Solicitation Sprint showed a decrease in callers: FY03-04: 49 callersFY02-03: 54 callers The Summer Solicitation Sprint showed no change in callers: FY03-04: 15 callersFY02-03: 15 callers A Fall Appreciation Session was held, with 13 Appreciation Callers. A Spring Appreciation Session was held, with 17 Appreciation Callers. An ambitious goal of 10 callers for the Summer Appreciation Session was set. 15 callers have signed on to participate.

9. The 2003-2004 Caltech Alumni Fund 9 Preliminary Analysis of Volunteer Decline Responsibilities of Class/Option Chair too great – fewer and fewer accept Exceptions due to extraordinary Decade/Division Chairs Training issues – great variation; many callers only nominally trained Callers – not available in fall; non-donors too negative; takes more and more time to reach 12-15 prospects Response – decrease level of responsibility; increase flexibility No Chairs – 3 calling “sprints” – contact 6 alums BUT – NO IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Discovered people volunteer only if personally asked CONCLUSION – still need Class/Option framework Define BASIC responsibilities of a Chair Use Liaisons when no Chair

10. The 2003-2004 Caltech Alumni Fund Proposed Discussion Questions 1.What things under our control can we improve? 2.What things out of our control would we like improved in order to build a more efficient, effective and productive Alumni Fund program? 3.What new ideas do we have?