Dear Friends and Colleagues:

At a recent CASE D2 Conference, Dr. Don Hasseltine, Vice President for College Advancement, Dickinson College, and his colleague Marjorie Klein, Vice President for Development and Alumni Affairs, Allegheny College, presented on the topic of measuring and managing fundraising performance. Dr. Hasseltine’s fascinating and innovative methodology is detailed in his recent monograph, “Performance Management Maturity Model: Raising the Bar of Fundraising Performance,” wherein he states:

“Higher education development professionals face increasing demand for greater levels of success. Finding a solution to increasing output and improving performance in an environment filled with short term presidents, persistent turnover, greater competition and higher board expectations is foremost in development leaders’ minds. The Performance Management Maturity Model provides a prescriptive solution to “Raising the Bar” of performance. This internally focused methodology can set you on a path to new levels of organizational output and improved staff productivity and morale.”

We found Dr. Hasseltine’s approach to this complex issue so compelling—and think that you will too—that we interviewed him for this month’s issue of Bright Ideas. Don’t miss it.

Another great challenge (always) facing Advancement professionals is how to increase Annual Fund participation among alumni. We asked several colleagues to respond to four questions on this topic. Their comments appear in the article “Alumni Participation: Six Perspectives.”

Let us know what you think of this month’s issue, and/or please send your recommendations for topics you would like to have us explore in upcoming issues of Bright Ideas. Send your ideas to: info@woolbrightgroup.com.

Thank you.
The Woolbright Group

Announcements

2010 CASE District 1 Breakfast Series

Date: Friday, May 21, 2010

Topic: "Forever Loyal: Making the Connection from Student to Alumnus"
Speaker: Lisa Lewis, University of Connecticut Alumni Association
Katherine Langmaid, The Loomis Chaffee School
Time: 8:30-10:00 a.m. (Registration and networking begins at 8:00 a.m.)
Location: Yale University, West Campus, Orange, CT (Building W-B25)

Date: Friday, June 4, 2010

Topic: "A Roundtable Discussion: Securing Principal Gifts"
Speaker: Christopher J. Menard, Boston University
Time: 8:30-10:00 a.m. (Registration and networking begins at 8:00 a.m.)
Location: Lasell College, 1844 Commonwealth Avenue, Newton, MA 02466

Date: Friday, June 18, 2010

Topic: "UP: The Essential Steps to Making a Successful Major Gift Ask From Start to Finish"
Speakers: Amy Wilson, The Catholic University of America (CUA) and Cynthia Woolbright, The Woolbright Group
Time: 8:30-10:00 a.m. (Registration and networking begins at 8:00 a.m.)
Location: Lasell College, 1844 Commonwealth Avenue, Newton, MA 02466


For more information or to register, please call the DI office at 781-647-8151 or go to casedi@camihq.com.  

The Performance Management Maturity Model
Interview with
Donald A. Hasseltine, Ed.D. 
Vice President for College Advancement, Dickinson College

In his monograph entitled ““Performance Management Maturity Model: Raising the Bar of Fundraising Performance,” Dr. Don Hasseltine, Vice President for College Advancement, Dickinson College, states:

“Higher education development professionals face increasing demand for greater levels of success. Finding a solution to increasing output and improving performance in an environment filled with short term presidents, persistent turnover, greater competition and higher board expectations is foremost in development leaders’ minds. The Performance Management Maturity Model provides a prescriptive solution to “Raising the Bar” of performance. This internally focused methodology can set you on a path to new levels of organizational output and improved staff productivity and morale.”

Following a CASE D2 Conference presentation on the topic, we asked to interview Dr. Hasseltine for Bright Ideas in order to gain a deeper understanding of his theory and his model, which he calls PMMM. The result is a two-part article that will appear in the current and June newsletter issues.

WG: How would you like to introduce the Performance management model to our audience?

DH: To get your head around the concept, try to think of the PMMM as a race car with 5 gears that is in a year-long race. You are the driver of this car. Each gear represents a phase in the performance management model (initiating, refining, managing, strategizing, and optimizing).  As the driver, your ability to shift gears to go faster depends on the conditions of the road and the placement of your car among the other race cars. The model works the same way: the conditions of your program (systems, processes and personnel) determine how fast or in our case, how productively, your program can move forward. If all the conditions are met at each phase, your program shifts to a new gear or phase and moves faster and becomes more productive. Similarly, if conditions change (i.e. staff turnover/ change in systems) you shift down into a lower phase of productivity and output. Conditions of your systems, processes and people determine how long you stay at each phase. The ultimate goal is to travel in fifth gear and produce at the optimizing level. The model therefore takes into account your current conditions, offers direct feedback, and helps you determine how fast you can go based on your conditions and what conditions need to change for you to accelerate your program’s productivity.

WG: The model is based on a five-phase maturity hierarchy, starting with the initiating phase and ending with the optimizing phase, with the refining, managing and strategizing phases in between. You further state that the process begins with an internal performance assessment of each component of the program (annual fund, alumni relations, major gifts, corporate and foundation relations, planned giving etc.) to determine its place on the continuum. This sounds like a major investment of time and resources. For institutions where resources are already stretched, how might they begin to implement such a program without sacrificing in other areas? 

DH: The PMMM is something that I’ve developed based on experience, talking to people, and my own observations. It is a very practical but dynamic tool. The assessment survey that accompanies the monograph asks you to assess the maturity level of each of your departments (annual fund, major gifts etc.) and then asks you for an overall assessment of the maturity of your program. Most program leaders will be able to do this instinctively in a short period of time (under an hour). When completed, you can start looking at your strengths and weaknesses and what steps are necessary to improve performance. The PMMM asks you to think about your approach in a way that I hope brings enlightenment and opens up new possibilities for your program. I think you will raise the performance of your staff and improve the way your systems work—driving everyone to a higher level of maturity over time. It’s not prescriptive; you need to decide how to use the model and whether you have the will to make changes. It is important to note that the PMMM does not replace your need to do benchmarking or strategic planning. What the PMMM will do is define the current conditions so you can create more favorable conditions to improve your speed and productivity (think race car again).

WG: In your early search for a means to measure and thereby improve fundraising performance at colleges and universities, you found that the disparities between schools (age, size, mission, resources, location, alumni population, etc) made it almost irrelevant to draw comparisons to other schools’ metrics and outcomes. Rather than allow this obstacle to deter your search, you looked elsewhere for a solution. Tell us a bit about your discovery of the PMMM through the Performance Management Institute in Washington, D.C. 

DH: There were three key factors that came together over a period of a year. The first was the inability to  find a useful peer group for best practices and benchmark comparisons. The second was reading Jim Collins’ book Good to Great, where he admonishes us to measure outputs rather than inputs. The best example he gave was measuring how Stanford spends more money on their athletic program, but produces the most successful program in the country. Their goal is to be the best in the country, not necessarily to be efficient. Similarly in fundraising, the cost to raise a dollar tells you how efficient your program is, but does not inform you how productive your program is in your own institutional context. Collins offers that we should be paying attention to key outputs. In advancement, that would mean how many proposals are submitted, how many visits were made, how many front line staff do you have dedicated toward the output you seek. The third was attending the Performance Management Institute conference in Washington DC. It was there I found PMMM, which fostered the seeds of what has become this monograph.

WG: Your thinking about the fundamentals of raising money underwent a transformation.  You realized that the key was not how much a school could/should raise but rather how it might maximize capacity.  How are these two concepts different?

DH: The best place to start is with the term “maximum capacity.” How do you get to your goals? How might you optimize your output? And what are the steps to making sure that all elements of your program are functioning at the highest level?  Dollar goals are a short-term concern. Maximizing capacity is a long-term concern.  We think a lot about the external comparisons in our work—who raises how much. However, each of us works in a unique culture toward philanthropy. Since we all have different histories, cultures, and commitments to philanthropy, focusing on other comparisons does nothing to help improve our own institutional performance. However, if the focus moves to maximum capacity it will help align your team.  That alignment of effort and purpose will result in higher output

WG: You cite five key benefits to using the PMMM:

• Understanding of when and how to invest in people and programs
• Sequencing performance improvement activities
• Overcoming organizational roadblocks
• Identifying staff training and development needs
• Providing clarity about finding the right person for your positions

What would you say to an institution that does not utilize the PMMM, but insists that they are already addressing these goals?

DH: I would say: Terrific! Share your secrets! We all need greater support for working through the complexity of our programs and institutional cultures. The model helps you think through how to construct the best program possible for your institution. It gives you a framework of how to put all the pieces together, so the whole functions at a higher level than the individual parts. This includes how to think about sequencing strategic decisions, how to develop and train your staff, what type of skills are needed, and how to overcome organizational roadblocks to move your program forward. As your program matures, the model continues to help guide your thinking toward a new level of productivity. If you choose, it is always part of your inner thinking and guides how you pursue further growth for your program. 

WG: In discussing outcomes, you state that, “There is, however, no predetermined timeframe for each phase of maturity.” What expectation, then, should an advancement team set for itself and its leadership in terms of goal accomplishment? Surely this can’t remain an open-ended timeline when resources are being committed to the process?

DH: The PMMM does not require a financial commitment to start using the model. It simply asks you to think differently in terms of maximum capacity and creating conditions for improved performance—how you organize resources, make decisions and invest your time. Boards and presidents are interested in outcomes, so the model gives you a special tool that will lead to better outcomes. That makes my board happy, anyway. Like the sports car analogy, you can only shift to a higher gear under certain conditions; you only accelerate when the various external & internal conditions are met. So the timeframe in any particular phase of the maturity process is dependent on meeting the conditions of each phase in the process.

WG: You state that, “As an organization climbs the pyramid, sustaining the momentum of growth and maturity requires consistent leadership at the top of the organizational chart…” Does this imply unified support at the Board/presidential/head of school level?  How does turnover factor in to the equation? 

DH: Turn over factors in a variety of ways and depends on the characteristics of each advancement program. If a program is in the Initiating phase*, then this is a major factor. If staff leaves, you may have to start over again. At a higher maturity level, such as the managing phase, turnover might be necessary to hire a new skill set to help move the program forward to the strategizing phase. And for historically high performing advancement programs, such as a Harvard or Yale, turnover is likely to have less impact. The more mature programs have history, tradition and a culture of philanthropy that can overcome turnover, while a newer or less mature program will feel turnover more directly. This model encourages less dependency on the heroics of any individual and the reliance on strong systems, processes and institutional culture to improve long term productivity.

• Initiating Phase: Processes are usually ad hoc; organization does not provide stable environment, generally chaotic; success dependent on the competence of people and not on use of proven processes.

WG: You state, “To be an effective tool, the model requires only an honest assessment of current circumstances "meaning that the PMMM requires that an institution identify what level of maturity they have achieved. Describe the “scoring” process that insures an accurate assessment of current status. 

DH: The scoring process is survey based. Each area of your program is assessed, i.e., “scored” on a scale of 1-5.  It is not about being “accurate,” but about being honest in placing yourself on the continuum. You might find that different elements of your program are in different phases of the model. Scoring is subjective – I don’t think that matters.  The value is that there are criteria that will give you a clear sense of where you are and gives you a window on your program in a very short time frame.

WG: Does the PMMM make sense for all institutions, regardless of age, size, skill level, budget, leadership commitment, state of disequilibrium, etc? Are there any exceptions?

DH: I have used the model primarily in the liberal arts setting. My instinct is that it should work for all types and sizes of advancement shops. 

WG: You state that the model “provides a prescription for staff development but leaves the ‘how to’ to each leader to define how best to accomplish the development of talent within the limits of that particular organization.”  Obviously, leadership skills at the upper management levels are critical. Does the model’s success depend on having the right people in those positions from the outset?

DH: Yes, the model falls apart if leadership is not interested, skilled, committed, and thoughtful. If a VP does not or cannot take the model beyond the Managing phase, then the program will never reach maximum capacity. Leadership cascades down through the organization and builds upon itself, so if it is lacking, regardless of whether you adopt the model or not, the program will struggle.

WG: The PMMM is described as a self-administered program. Is there such a thing as an expert trained in the implementation of the model?  Or, once adopted, is an institution on its own?

DH: There is no team out there training people to use this. I’ve used it for three years to help build our program at Dickinson. Now I want to share it. CASE is going to run it as a white paper in the next few months. I presented it at the CASE DII Conference. It’s been well-received. I would like to send the model and assessment survey to a group of VPs and begin to understand how various programs look under the microscope of the model- and how well does it offer solutions to the challenges of these institutions. My intention now is to be thought-provoking at this stage with the desire for this to model to evolve into an accepted tool of the profession. I encourage people to think about it and ask questions of it, and help make this a useable and valuable model for advancing the advancement field.

Please look for Part II of the Hasseltine interview in the June issue of Bright Ideas.

Alumni Participation: Six Perspectives

Early this year, The Woolbright Group posed a series of questions on alumni participation to Advancement staff at several public and private institutions. Our goal was to find out what people are thinking about and doing to sustain and increase alumni participation. Robert Caldwell, Executive Director of Advancement and External Relations, from Holderness School (New Hampshire) and Barbara Martin, Executive Director, Advancement Services, at Simmons College (Boston) shared their thoughts (below). Four other colleagues also provided thoughtful comments, which you will find collected here.

Robert Caldwell, Holderness School (New Hampshire)

Here are my thoughts on participation:

Donor retention is the cornerstone to positive participation. It's where we should be spending our first dollar - stewarding those who have already made gifts...making them feel so good about what they have done that they'll want to do it again. Be personal. Be timely.

In constructing our retention strategies, we must keep the priorities of our donors in mind. Donors want to know three things:

1. That we received their gift and it is appreciated (send a receipt and personal note).
2. That their gift was put to use for the purpose intended (make certain the receipt carries the designation).
3. That their gift is having impact (students call to thank EVERY donor. Trustees call all $5,000+ donors. They talk about impact).

Oftentimes, we focus on donor acquisition before donor retention. It costs more to acquire a donor, less to keep a donor. I've observed programs that spend lots of dollars on cute and sometimes effective donor acquisition programs but still fail to improve their long-term participation numbers because of equal or greater lapsing donors. Twenty new donors + twenty lapsed donors = no increased participation. This usually happens because of poor retention strategies. Again, it's less expensive to keep a donor than it is to acquire a new donor. We also know that the lifetime value of a retained donor has significant and increasing affect on the bottom line.

Consider donor participation like water in a bucket. We measure how much water is in the bucket each year relative to how much water is required to fill the bucket. Ideally, each drop of water that we add to the bucket represents an additional donor and increases participation. But what happens if that bucket has holes (a.k.a. lapsing donors)? We must concentrate first on plugging the holes in the bucket before trying to turn on the tap.

We also know that involvement is the precursor to giving. The more that people are meaningfully and currently involved in the life of your institution, the greater the propensity is for their giving. We know that 89 percent of graduates who return to campus for reunion give. We know that 83 percent of people who participate in regional events give. Ninety five percent of volunteers are donors. Ergo, participation is about getting people involved first so that the results from asking are more favorable. So, your alumni and parent relations programming – in all that it can be - plays a significant role in donor retention and participation.

As for Holderness, we are becoming very focused on efforts to increase donor retention. We start with enhancing our parent and alumni relations programming. The next layer is a higher level of personal care for those donors who already give. We want them to feel like giving to Holderness is an experience like no other. It's personal. It is about treating them like they just changed the world with their gift. If we do this consistently well, then we will see them again and again and again. The next layer of attention is acquisition.

One of the best studies I was ever involved in was when $1000 was divided amongst ten staff members; $100 each. I asked each of them to take that $100 and pledge $25 each to four charities of their choice. I asked them to pledge first, ride the pledge for at least two months then, make payment. Some did payment on line, others by mail. I asked them to keep and record any and every interaction that they had with each of the four charities they supported. Eight months later we all met - ten staff who brought the experience of supporting 40 charities collectively. We threw everything on the table and worked around the room discussing our experiences. Then we voted on what charity we thought made us feel most appreciated as a $25 donor. We looked deeply at the details of how that charity communicated, how they treated us and how we felt, compared to how our own institution treated our $25 donors. The lesson was profound. The winning charity was public radio/television.

Overall, I think the participation game is a farce. It's simply the measurement of the number of people who give within a year divided over a "solicitable base". I don’t look at participation as a measure for alumni loyalty and because institutions count differently, it is not a meaningful benchmark. A number of years ago two colleagues and I did a study of 50 schools and colleges wherein we tested each institution on 13 different variables for how they counted their "solicitable base". The results were all over the map. Rarely did two institutions count participation the same way, therefore the standard is a farce. CASE has guidelines, but the measurements within those guidelines don't go deep enough. We simply don't count the same way across the industry!

Retention is where it's at. After all, the true measurement of donor loyalty is how many of your donors give every year. If I run a business...say a shirt store - my measurement of customer loyalty is how many customers come in my store to buy a shirt regularly. I don't consider a customer who comes in my store every five years loyal. Those types of infrequent customers (donors) are counted in participation. Then they lapse and are hopefully replaced with a renewed or newly acquired donor. Participation is not a true measurement of donor loyalty. Donor retention - the donors who give every year - is true loyalty. Participation is an old and unorthodox view of loyalty.

So, those are my thoughts on that old game word participation.

I wish we could change our industry to measure and focus on retention. It is, after all, the truer measurement of donor loyalty.

Barbara Martin, Simmons College (Boston)

Young alumnae are our fastest growing cohort, with 17.4% of our total undergraduate alumnae/i base having graduated between 2000 and 2008. The low participation among young alumnae coupled with their disproportionately high percentage of the base is driving our overall participation down.

What have we done to address decreasing participation? In FY08 and again last year, we used donor challenges to increase participation with this group. Challenges seem to work best with churning donors (churning is another pesky issue we've observed, especially with younger alums). We decided to increase personal outreach this year to compare results. Last year we changed our acknowledgement processes so more attention is paid to donors who make smaller gifts. We are also trying to better promote automatic recurring payments.

To ensure our young alumni stay engaged, we have just convened a working group here at Simmons to look at our online and social media strategies. We are struggling to understand what our alumni really want from a College-sponsored online community and, correspondingly, the levels of resources we should devote to ours. We're also trying to strike the right balance with social media. We *know* we need to invest in this stuff (especially for our elusive young alumni), but we wonder how in the world we'll be able to measure ROI to prioritize our dollars/resources most effectively.

The Reading File: Reader's Recommendations and Reviews

Welcome to The Reading File, a regular feature of Bright Ideas where our readers share their reading recommendations. We invite you to share the title of something you found worthwhile. It doesn’t have to be a book and it doesn’t have to be strictly work related! Feel free to submit just the basics (title, author), or include a brief review. We’d love to hear from you–thank you in advance for your participation!

“Mistborn”
By Brandon Sanderson

Mistborn, written by Brandon Sanderson, published 2006. Fantasy genre. Book 1of a 3-book series. This should appeal to readers of all ages, with some characters in their mid- to late-teens ranging up to millennia-old (the chief villain). (My son loaned me the series, as we often share books.)

Not a light read, but a quick one as you are drawn deeply into the characters and their ideals as they work together to overcome an oppressive society and government. As in many societies, there is a clear hierarchical structure, yet within each level, there are additional hierarchies, each with its own complexities, issues, and constraints.

Typical of this genre, there are sources of magic; however a different source than most other fantasy books. The society and culture are also well-described and realistic depictions of the upper hierarchy as well as the lowest societal groups.

The main characters evolve and change, realizing and increasing their strengths, questioning their goals, recognizing their weaknesses, and inspiring others to action based on words and actions. Honesty, trust, and caring for one’s colleagues, friends, family and working for the greater good are among the themes emphasized. Beyond the main characters, there is realization and celebration of some of the small freedoms that are gained by the lowest groups.

If you have ever wondered about how you might be affected or react to physical and personal violence, if you have ever felt like an underdog, volunteered your services to benefit others, or experienced the joy of living and personal satisfaction, you should enjoy the characters, concepts, and outcomes (especially if you read the series! I’ve now finished the 2nd book, The Well of Ascension, and begun the 3rd, The Hero of Ages).

Deborah Baker
Senior Director of Development
Elms College, MA

---

“Building Donor Loyalty, The Fundraiser's Guide to Increasing Lifetime Value”
By Adrian Sargeant and Elaine Jay
 
I heard Adrian speak at a recent webinar and was so intrigued with his research on this subject that I bought his book.  I am still working my way through it, but am struck by many of the findings and suggestions of this book.  In some ways, its suggestions are quite radical.  Allocating resources towards acquiring and keeping donors is not new, but urging organizations to spend more time and energy on building loyalty and seeking new donors who are most inclined to be loyal is a departure from general mass mailings and higher education's obsession with alumni participation.  Sargeant and Jay also urge organizations to consider their donors in terms of "lifetime value" rather than more immediate considerations.  This book challenges some fundamental assumptions of our work.

Philip T. Ellmore, Ph. D., CFRE
Assistant Vice President of Development
Muhlenberg College, PA

---

“The Vegetarian Myth”
By Lierre Keith

After approximately 16 years of vacillating between vegetarian and vegan diets, I got my hands on Lierre Keith’s The Vegetarian Myth. As an ex-vegan, Keith critically examines the reasons vegetarians and vegans choose to eat the way they do. In her book, she divides vegetarians into three categories: Moral Vegetarians, Political Vegetarians and Nutritional Vegetarians; in her view, all three are misguided. Though she is careful to admit that there is not easy solution, no one way of eating or living that will save the world and allow us to achieve perfect health, she highlights the evolution of agriculture as one of the most ecologically destructive practices humans have employed. When we started farming, we abandoned the active lifestyle of hunter-gatherer, focusing instead on doing the least amount of work for the greatest yield. Increased efficiency, particularly in farming practices, has led to our becoming severely out of touch, both with our food, and with our natural environment. Keith urges us to examine the impact, not only of what we eat, but how we eat. Where was our food grown? In what climate? Was it harvested by fossil-fuel-burning machine from a thousand-acre monocrop? Or by hand from a half-acre family garden? Why does it matter? No matter if you’re a vegetarian now, have been one in the past, or if you hate vegetarians, Keith’s book will challenge the way you think and leave you inspired—and also perhaps mildly depressed.

Abigail Kraai '04
Alumni Relations Coordinator
The Harley School, NY