Osborne Group Aggregate Comprehensive Campaign Assessment Summary of Findings

In January, 2010, the Osborne Group was engaged to conduct fund development assessments to help determine the Network’s readiness to begin a network-wide comprehensive campaign.

Scope of Engagement . Assess critical success factors needed to help lead a successful, network-wide comprehensive campaign, as well as those needed to achieve philanthropy success with or without a campaign. . Provide concrete recommendations for moving forward and positioning the organization and the network for philanthropic success. . Thirty-five Large and Mid-Large agencies signed up in addition to the National Office. Twenty-five agency assessments were completed in time for this report

Overall Score of Risk & Readiness: 67 Scale: 119-93 = Low Risk; 92-67 = Somewhat Risky; 66-41= Risky; 40-0 = High Risk . The average score of 67 is only one point over risky, so clearly we have a long way to go . The highest score (one agency) was 100 out of 119 . The next three highest scores were 81, 82, and 83 . The lowest score was 49

Building Blocks: . Of the 25 agencies participating, 22 responded to the question about vision and only 3 had what we would call a true vision. 73% reported having a vision statement “in progress.” . 4% of agencies reported having a written case for support; 52% reported having a case for support in progress but yet to be completed . Fund Development Plan Findings: One, we would expect every participating agency to score 3.5 or higher. The respondents in this assessment scored an average of 2.04 out of 4.

Board of Directors & Volunteer Leadership Capacity . Boards are engaged in fundraising: 14 of 22 responded that 76% or more of their board are involved with fund development, while only 2 responded that less than 25% are involved . Board Generosity: 20 out of the 23 agencies that responded to this question reported that their board contributes 25% or less of their total raised income. . Fewer Solicit Gifts: When asked the percentage of board that solicit gifts, 5 agencies responded that more than 76% solicit gifts, 6 agencies responded that 51% - 75% solicit gifts, 2 responded that 26% - 50% solicit gifts, 7 responded that fewer than 25% solicit gifts . Most are not Asking for High Level Gifts: When asked the percentage of boards that raise $10,000+ annually, 7 responded less than 25%; 5 responded 26% - 50%; 3 responded 51% - 75%; Zero responded more than 76% and 8 replied don’t know . Many are not bringing in a significant portion of philanthropic total: 12 of 19 that responded reported that their board is raising 25% or less than their philanthropic total. . Maximizing National Office Support: very few of the large agencies take advantage of the fund development toolkit. We did not ask about usage of the board development toolkit, however, we know that few large agencies participated in the board development webinars. Although these webinars were well attended by smaller agencies.

Fiscal Strength and Responsibility Cost per Dollar Raised is high: the average among the 18 respondents was 17.56 cents per dollar raised compared to an industry standard for organizations with a balanced portfolio and strong major gifts which averages between 8 and 12 cents per dollar raised.

Donor Pool – Size and Level of Engagement . When asked if they rate donors, 71% of respondents reported that they do not . Agencies do not know how many donor prospects they have or need – 21 of the respondents did not respond to the question regarding number of prospects . Most agencies gave themselves a poor rating in having “Enough engagement opportunities for major gift and alumni donors and prospective donors”

Research Program . Agencies do not develop research on board members: 71% of respondents reported that they do not develop research on board members. . 54% reported that they do not collect data on their donors . Number of prospective donors identified monthly is low

Major Gifts Overall, Major Gifts is Not an Agency Focus . Almost no agencies had a well thought out, implemented, focused major gift program . Without the building blocks in place, a rating system, and systematic efforts to fill the leadership and major gift pipelines, major gift programs languish and will continue to do so. . The average score self-reported on the Risk and Readiness Assessment for major gift program strengths: 1.6 of a possible maximum average of 4 . Red Flag – Only three agencies reported method of solicitations and only half reported the percentage of in-person solicitations

Annual Giving Average Annual Giving Self-Assessment Score is 189 out of a Possible 280 . Only 3 agencies responded for an average of 29% of leadership donors upgrading last year . Year to year upgrades received only two agency responses with an average of 21.50% . More than 50% of respondents do not track donor retention rate, a significant metric . Retention Rates Based on Number of Years of Giving – Very Poor: 22 agencies did not respond to the question. Of the three that responded, the average retention rate for new donors is 23.67% and 21% donors after two to four years. . Percent of Event Donors Giving Outright Gifts is Low – only eight agencies responded with an average of 22% . Percent of Event Donors Retained – Only Four Responded, Low Retention – only four agencies responded with an average of 43.25% . On the plus side, most (76%) achieved their goals in the middle of an economic downturn . Another plus, agencies reported that 65% of the annual goal comes from leadership annual donors. (This is within best practice.)

Stewardship Of the 16 agencies completing the self-reporting stewardship assessment tool: o Average score = 225 o Median score = 238 o Top possible score = 335 These scores are surprisingly high when one considers the very LOW donor retention rates.

Alumni Program . At the agency level, there is a not a commitment to this yet: 25 agencies responded to this question with 36 percent actively planning and/or implementing alumni programs. . The national office recognizes this is important and holds great promise for our future . Part of the new board development plan, is a plan for engaging former board members

Staffing . Average number of frontline fundraisers is positive: average of 4 per agency for the 22 agencies that responded . Number of staff with back office responsibilities is also good: average of 2.6 for the 21 agencies that responded . Every agency has someone responsible for data entry . The vast majority have assigned annual giving and stewardship as someone’s responsibility . Only 10 agencies responded to the researcher question, and of those only 42% have assigned research to someone. . Major Gifts is a concern: On one hand, it is excellent that 22 of the 25 agencies responded and 91% have someone on staff responsible for major gifts. What is troubling, if that is the case, why are major gift programs languishing?

Culture of Philanthropy & Organizational Will . Findings are good: Based on the Risk and Readiness self reporting, agencies scored an average of 3.3 out of a possible 5.0 o 22 agencies responded to the question o Two agencies reported 5 out of a possible 5. . What the national office, NLC, agencies and boards of directors do with this information will be a test of organizational will