Materials from March 2011 higher ed forum in Boston; hosted by Simmons College. Peer to peer fundraising and Higher Ed donorCentrics covered.

1. Higher education forum Boston, MA March 9, 2011

2. Today’s theme: Innovation

3. 10:00 – 10:20 Intros 10:20 – 11:00 Peer to Peer Fundraising 11:00 – 11:30 New England Conservancy – Appeal Innovation 11:30 – 12:15 Higher Ed DonorCentrics 12:15 – 12:45 Lunch 12:45 – 1:30 Simmons College – Online Giving Success Agenda

4. Active participation Ground rules

5. Name/Org/Role Your experience with peer to peer and/or parent fundraising programs Introduction

6. Median Higher Ed Donor Participation Rates 14.6% 2010 Need a reason to innovate?

7. Peer to peer fundraising Network vs. net worthinnovative fundraising with blackbaud friends asking friends Amy Braiterman

8. About me

10. organizations utilizing P2P fundraising

11. Your School, Your Students, your alumni

12. Revenue at Low Cost

13. Challenges of Peer-to-peer fundraising Programs Budgeting Revenue Justification of Costs Supplies and Giveaways Positive Online User Experience Reputation/Brand Risk

14. Peer-to-peer Best Practices Ensure Organizational-wide Support Encourage Online Use Provide a ‘Hand Up’ Standardize Tracking and Reporting Create a Recognition Program

15. 1. Ensure Organizational-wide Support

16. 2. Encourage Online Use

17. blackbaud Friends Asking Friends More than $1.3 billion raised 37,000 events and counting 17M participants & 31M donors Average participant sends 27 emails 1 in 4 FAF emails convert FAF emails have a 90 percent greater open rate Average online gift size: $60 American Heart Association, Alzheimer’s Association, Arthritis Foundation, Autism Speaks, Big Brothers Big Sisters USA & CA, Best Buddies International, Junior Achievement, National Down Syndrome Society and The Salvation Army

21. 3. Provide a ‘Hand Up’

22. 4. Standardize Tracking & Reporting

23. 5. Create a Recognition Program Don’t Forget to Send Thank You’s!

24. Benefits of peer-to-peer fundraising

25. Want to learn more? Be sure to check out… Blackbaud Blogs http://www.FriendsAskingAmy.com http://www.NPTrends.com http://www.ProspectResearch.com http://www.NetwitsThinkTank.com

26. New England Conservatory of MusicCreative Year End Appeal

28. Goals: Raise 800K in December Raise awareness of NEC accomplishments Intended Audience/Segmentation: Entire NEC Community (students, alums, board, etc) Associated Marketing Efforts/Channels: Facebook & Twitter coordination Performance: Raised 3% more than Dec ’09 4X increase in web traffic to annual fund pages Creative Year end appeal – NEC Music

29. Fundraising Trends How do you compare? Jenny Cooke Account Manager, donorCentrics Higher Education

30. Agenda Overview of donorCentrics FY 2009 donorCentrics Fundraising Index for Higher Education Highlights and Lowlights Preliminary findings for FY2010 Key Performance Indicators based on Parent Giving for FY2010 Online Giving Statistics How benchmarking can help improve your Annual Fund

31. What is donorCentrics? A benchmarking service that evaluates your giving data over a nine year period of time and to review it both: Internally – comparing your organization’s performance from year to year and Externally – by facilitating peer organization comparison of donor lifecycle behavior and fundraising program performance, and provides a forum for cross-organizational collaboration and the sharing of best practices in fundraising.

32. donorCentrics Service In-depth comprehensive reporting to measure your school’s annual fund Benchmarking with peer schools Results of all schools participating in donorCentrics are aggregated in the annual Fundraising Index for Higher Education

33. Who participates in donorCentrics? ~ 100 Higher Education Institutions participate annually in the Target Collaborative Benchmarking forums Law Schools new Medical Schools new Private College Consortium Large Summit Small Summit Big 10/Big 12 Business Schools Canadian Schools The Directors Faith-Based Schools new Ivy League Possible Groups for FY 2011 include Arts Colleges, Science and Technology Schools, Women’s Colleges and a Parents Benchmarking Group

34. 2009 Fundraising Index for Higher Education

35. Index Methodology 28 public and 33 private institutions Actual donor transactions, not survey responses Cash payment basis, not pledges Gift caps are used (vary but typically around $50,000) Does not include: Soft credits Matching gift payments

36. Participating Public Institutions Colorado School of Mines Indiana University Foundation Iowa State University McMaster University Michigan State University Ohio University The Ohio State University Oklahoma State University Oregon State University Pennsylvania State University Purdue University Queen's University Ryerson University University of Alberta University of Arizona University of California, Santa Barbara University of Georgia University of Houston University of Iowa University of Maryland University of Miami University of Michigan University of Oklahoma University of Texas at Austin University of Toronto University of Virginia University of Virginia - Darden Graduate School of Business Administration University of Wisconsin, Madison

37. Participating Private Institutions Bentley University Brown University Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business Clark University College of St. Benedict Concordia University St. Paul St. Catherine University The College of William and Mary Cornell University Dartmouth College GustavusAdolphus College Hamline University Holderness School Illinois Institute of Technology Johns Hopkins University Luther Seminary Massachusetts Institute of Technology Niagara University Northwestern University - Kellogg Graduate School of Management The Principia Rhodes College Rice University Salve Regina University Smith College Southern Methodist University Syracuse University Tulane University University of Chicago - Booth School of Business University of Notre Dame University of Pennsylvania University of Richmond Vanderbilt University Wellesley College

38. Overall Giving

39. Median Donor Participation Rates 14.6% 2010 * Target Participation Rate is calculated as the percentage of the most recent year active alumni population who gave below the gift cap within a fiscal year

40. Median Change in Revenue 4.9% 2010

41. Median Revenue per Donor $719.64 2010

42. Median Change in Donor Counts 0.1% 2010

43. Overall Giving – Index of National Fundraising Performance Revenue and Donor Trends

44. Acquisition

45. Median Change in New Donors $2.9% 2010

46. Median Revenue per New Donor $188.14 2010

47. Median New Donor Retention Rate 30.4% 2010

48. Acquisition – Index of National Fundraising Performance New Donor Trends

49. Retention

50. Median Donor Retention Rates 69% 2010

51. Median Change in Retained Donor Revenue 2.3% 2010

52. Median Multi-Year Donor Retention Rates 72.7% 2010

53. Reactivation

54. Median Donor Reactivation Rates 18% 2010

55. Median Change in Reactivated Donor Revenue 6.7% 2010

56. Parent Giving Based on aggregate data from schools purchasing Parents Reports in FY 2010

57. Median change in overall parent donor counts

58. Median Revenue per parent donor

59. Median Change in new parent donor counts

60. Median Revenue per New parent Donor

61. Median parent Donor Retention Rate

62. Revenue per retained parent donor

63. Median donor parent reactivation rate

64. Median revenue per reactivated parent donor

65. donorCentrics Lifecycle Analysis - Questions Are retention rates increasing or decreasing? Which donor segments have the best retention? Is my donor upgrade strategy working? For particular lifecycle stages, are my donors giving more today than in past years? What is the lifetime value of donors acquired through the web versus those acquired through direct mail? Are increases in average gift having a negative effect on donor retention? What is the impact of a sub-par acquisition year on future years’ revenue? How have my heavy lapsed reactivation efforts impacted my donor portfolio and affected retention and donor value?

66. Benefits of Benchmarking Benchmarking helps institutions: Identify strengths and weaknesses Consider new methods, ideas and tools to improve effectiveness Crack through resistance to change Set higher standards Accelerate learning Make better decisions Improve allocation of scarce resources Justify fundraising investments Demonstrate efficiency to stakeholders/donors Preserve institutional memory through staff transitions Raise more money for your school!

67. Target Analytics invites you to join Shaun Keister, PhD, Vice President of Development at Penn State University for our online presentation of the 2010 Index of Higher Education Fundraising Performance. April 19 3:00 PM ET Registration Link: https://www124.livemeeting.com/lrs/1100003672/Registration.aspx?pageName=dhq2sb9sbxkr6gzp You’re invited

68. Questions & Comments

69. Helpful Resources Read the 2009 Index of Higher Education Fundraising Performance: http://www.blackbaud.com/files/resources/downloads/cam/TargetHigherEdIndex2009.pdf (the new Index will be published by April 2011) Review donorCentrics products available: http://www.blackbaud.com/files/resources/downloads/cam/donorCentricsProductsHE.pdf Learn about how Oregon State used donorCentrics to raise acquisition rates: http://www.blackbaud.com/files/resources/downloads/CaseStudy_OregonStateUniversity.pdf

70. Contact: Jenny Cooke Account Manager, Higher Education Target Analytics Jenny.cooke@blackbaud.com Office: (843)654-3762 Thank you!