University of Chicago

Prospect Management Policy & Process Guidelines University of Chicago Prospect Management

April 2011 University of Chicago Alumni Relations & Development 401 N. Michigan Avenue Chicago, IL 60611 [email protected]

Prospect Management Policy & Process Guidelines Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 3 2. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 2.1. Guiding Principles of Prospect Management 2.2. Griffin: Database of Record 2.3. Prospect Management Policy and Process Governance 3. Electronic Data, Privacy, and the Law ............................................................................................................... 7 3.1. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) 3.2. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) 4. Roles and Responsibilities of Prospect Managers .......................................................................................... 9 4.1. Primary Prospect Management Roles [Under Review] 4.2. Prospect Contact Guidelines 5. Principal Gifts Prospect Management Program [Under Review] .............................................................. 13 5.1. Definitions of Principal Gift Prospects and Suspects 5.2. The University Principal Gifts Strategy Team 5.3. The University Principal Gifts Review Committee 5.4. Principal Gifts Prospect Identification 5.5. University Principal Gifts Tag Removal 6. Prospect Assignment (Newly Identified Prospects) ..................................................................................... 15 6.1. Prospect Assignment Criteria 6.2. Prospect & Entity Area Interest Assignment(s) 6.3. Prospect URM Assignment Process [Under Review] 7. Prospect Reassignment ...................................................................................................................................... 19 7.1. Common Reassignment Scenarios 7.2. Mutually Agreed Upon, Fundraiser-Prompted Reassignment 7.3. Portfolio Reassignments as a Result of Staffing Changes 7.4. Prospects Not Actively Managed [Under Review] 7.5. Principal Gifts Reassignment Process [Under Review] 8. Solicitation Clearance ........................................................................................................................................ 22 8.1. Solicitation Clearance Policy & Process 8.2. Clearance Process: Solicitations Over $25K 8.3. Principal Gifts Clearance Policy & Process [Under Review] 9. Portfolio Management ....................................................................................................................................... 25 9.1. Ideal Portfolio Distribution [Under Review]

1

9.2. Ideal Portfolio Size 9.3. Prospect Stages Overview 9.4. Disqualification (Stage 6) & Inactivation Guidelines 10. Management Metrics and Fundraising Credit [Under Review] ............................................................... 29 10.1. Overview of Primary Metrics 10.2. Primary Management Metrics Appendix A: Prospect Management Policy for Organizations [Under Review]......................................... 31 Appendix B: Prospect Management Keyword Terms ...................................................................................... 34

2

1. Executive Summary I. Vision and Principals The University of Chicago’s Prospect Management Policy & Process Guidelines set forth the institution’s guiding principles for managing prospective donors through the development cycle. Our constituency consists of alumni, parents, friends, trustees, faculty, and staff each with complex, multiple philanthropic interests, which may not reflect the areas of the University with which they were initially affiliated. Our responsibility as alumni relations and development professionals is to learn about and respect our prospects’ philanthropic passions, to find ways to match prospect interests with University priorities, and to engage them as partners in philanthropy to further the mission of the University. A transparent prospect management system is essential to the success of the University’s fundraising efforts. This can only be accomplished with the full participation of all staff across the University. It is the responsibility of every development officer to maintain all relationship data in the University’s relationship management database of record, Griffin. II. Key Roles & Responsibilities University Relationship Manager (URM) The URM is the development officer who maintains the primary personal relationship with the prospect or manages the actions of others who have personal relationships with the prospect. The URM is responsible for actively managing the prospects, which includes establishing and managing a comprehensive University fundraising strategy to maximize the prospect’s giving over time. The URM is also responsible for ensuring that all relevant prospect information in Griffin is both accurate and current. Team Manager (TM) [Under Review] All active and qualified prospects should have at least one active TM who is responsible for a specific Team Strategy. Prospects with multiple interests and/or relationships with the University will have multiple Team Strategies and TMs in addition to the primary URM assignment. The TM is responsible for partnering with the URM to build or enhance a comprehensive University Strategy and managing the implementation of that strategy. The TM is also responsible for ensuring that all team-specific prospect information in Griffin is both accurate and current. Solicitation Manager (SM) The SM is the development officer responsible for managing and driving a solicitation. All University solicitations (with the exception of some direct mail and telefund solicitations) should be tracked and managed in Griffin. The SM is responsible for coordinating and managing the planning of the solicitation with all involved staff (e.g., the URM, TM, and other staff), obtaining clearance if the solicitation is planned or expected at $25,000 or more, and ensuring that the solicitation data in Griffin is both accurate and current. III. Prospect Assignment & Reassignment Policy Initial assignments are made after determining if a prospect has a single identifiable philanthropic interest or multiple interests across the University. Degrees, significant giving, current parent relationships, significant involvement, and other existing university relationships are considered when identifying interest. If a prospect has none of the connections/affiliations listed above it is considered to have “Unidentified” interests; if the prospect has connections/affiliations to more than one area of the University, it is considered “multi-interest”. Unidentified and multi-interest prospects are recommended for initial assignment to a central/regional officer. A prospect with connections/affiliations to only one

3

area of the University is considered “single interest”, and is recommended for initial assignment to a gift officer from the area of interest. Reassignments are typically made when fundraisers mutually agree upon the reassignment, when there is a staffing change, or when a prospect is not being actively managed by its current URM. IV. Solicitation Clearance Clearance is required on all solicitations of $25K or more. Planned solicitations of $25K or more can be entered into Griffin but they must be cleared via the automated clearance process in Griffin before they are solicited. Clearance is not required in Griffin for solicitations under $25K. All solicitations should be a part of the University Strategy and coordinated with the URM and all active TMs. The Solicitation Manager (SM) is responsible for requesting clearance on their solicitation by updating the solicitation stage in Griffin to “Clearance Requested”. The SM must coordinate solicitation activity with the URM and/or additional volunteers/staff assigned to the prospect. Clearance provides a one-year window for solicitation. Fundraising staff may call into question any clearance for which the one-year window has passed with no action on the part of the SM holding the clearance. V. Principal Gifts and Trustee Prospect Management Policy Overview [Under Review] A Principal Gift Prospect is defined as any prospect with a University Rating of $5M or more or any Active University Trustee or Trustee Emeriti. A Principal Gift Suspect is defined as any prospect with a Capacity Rating of $5M or more, and a University Rating of “To Be Qualified”. Special “tags” in the prospect header clearly identify all University Principal Gift prospects and suspects in Griffin so they will be easily recognized by staff across campus and handled appropriately. These tags are visible to all staff with privileges to review prospect records in Griffin. Oversight of the Principal Gifts Prospect Management Program is provided by the University Principal Gifts Strategy Team and the University Principal Gifts Review Committee. The University Principal Gifts Strategy Team is largely composed of gift officers managing several PG prospects, and is responsible for collaborating with colleagues to manage the cultivation, solicitation, and stewardship of all Principal Gift prospects and suspects. This team works with the appropriate URMs to ensure that each prospect has an active and comprehensive University Strategy supporting the University’s strategic objectives. The University Principal Gift Review Committee is comprised of a small group of senior leadership and will, as needed, vote electronically or hold a meeting to review URM assignments/reassignments and solicitation clearance requests needing arbitration. Principal Gifts Prospect Assignments and Reassignments The University Principal Gifts Review Committee will review ALL URM assignments and reassignments for all Principal Gift prospects and suspects. In most cases, URMs for Principal Gift prospects will be members of the University Principal Gifts Strategy Team or represented by a member of the University Principal Gifts Strategy Team. Principal Gifts Clearance Policy and Process The Principal Gifts clearance process ensures that all solicitation requests on Principal Gift prospects are coordinated and that the comprehensive University Strategy is carried out smoothly over time. The URM is responsible for working with colleagues in advance of any formal clearance request so that this process moves quickly. All Principal Gift solicitation clearance requests are managed manually by Prospect Management staff.

4

VI. Management Metrics & Fundraising Credit [Under Review] The University-wide, common method for tracking individual fundraising credit is designed to encourage collaboration while still recognizing individual contributions. One of our most important values as an institution is to recognize and reward outstanding collaborative fundraising work, while also providing managers the ability to hold their individual staff members accountable for specific quantifiable goals. At the end of each fiscal year, managers are asked to determine primary metrics for the next fiscal year with frontline staff based on a variety of factors, including the staff member’s experience, prospect pool, tenure with the University and other, non-frontline responsibilities. The primary metrics include: fiscal year dollars booked ($), fiscal year count of solicitations asked (#), and fiscal year count of visits completed (#). In addition to the primary metrics, managers can track dollars booked where the development officer is a solicitor, but not the manager, and dollars booked where the development officer has an active URM, TM, or other staff assignment to the solicited prospect. VII. Portfolio Management Ideal Portfolio Size and Distribution [Under Review] Full-time development officers should not carry more than the maximum portfolio size referenced in policy. If a development officer has a full portfolio and requests an additional prospect, he or she should first remove an existing prospect from his or her portfolio before the new assignment can be completed. Prospect Stages Tracking prospects through each stage of the development cycle is a strategic approach to fundraising that supports the implementation of a fully integrated “Moves Management” prospect management system. This significantly increases our ability to proactively track and move prospects from identification to solicitation at all levels. Prospect Stages are designed in the system to update automatically when key relationship data is entered on prospects (e.g. contacts, ratings, solicitations). VIII. Prospect Management Policy for Organizations “Organizations” is understood to mean corporations, foundations, and associations. Religious organizations, certain nonprofit organizations, and other higher education institutions can also be considered “organizations.” These definitions are guided by current Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) standards. Family foundations, estates, alumni-related organizations, and trustee-related organizations are considered as individual giving vehicles, and are managed by individual prospect managers, with solicitations and giving attributed to the linked individuals and counted in individual donor totals.

5

2. Introduction The University of Chicago’s Prospect Management Policy & Process Guidelines sets forth the institution’s guiding principles for managing prospective donors through the development cycle. It is intended to foster coordination and collaboration among the various fundraising offices within the University, and it assumes a mutual commitment on the part of all development staff to create the best possible match between a donor’s interests and the University’s stated needs. The Prospect Management Policy and Process Guidelines establishes the roles and expectations of gift officers who manage relationships with prospective donors.

2.1 Guiding Principles of Prospect Management 

We view alumni and friends as citizens of the University community and as individuals with complex, multiple philanthropic interests.



We believe that individuals will support the University to the fullest extent possible if we facilitate their long-term relationships with the University and with each other.



We recognize that the interests of our alumni and friends may or may not reflect the areas of the University they attended, from which they received degrees, or with which they were initially affiliated; thus, an effective donor-informed approach may involve multiple parts of the University and may evolve over time.



We understand that our responsibility as alumni relations and development professionals is to learn about and respect our prospects’ philanthropic passions, to find ways to match prospect interests with University priorities, and to engage them as partners in philanthropy to further the mission of the University.



Our prospect management program and our interactions with each other are guided by our common values of collaboration, transparency, and trust.

2.2 Griffin: Database of Record A transparent prospect management system is essential to the success of the University’s fundraising efforts. This can only be accomplished with the full participation of all staff across the University It is the responsibility of every University Relationship Manager (URM) to keep all Griffin data accurate and up-to-date. Areas or individuals needing Griffin training should contact the Department of User Relations, Database Access & Training. Additional information is available online at: http://griffinhelp.uchicago.edu.

2.3 Prospect Management Policy and Process Governance Prospect Management staff from Central, Chicago Booth, Medical Center Development, and University Foundation and Corporate Relations will convene to review policy and process issues. Issues that cannot be resolved by this working group will be elevated to Senior Leadership.

6

3. Electronic Data, Privacy, and the Law It is important for users to recognize that much of the information stored in Griffin is highly sensitive and that all data and reports obtained through the system are confidential and for use exclusively by authorized University of Chicago staff and volunteers. As is indicated in the Statement of Confidentiality broadcast on the Griffin user log-on screen: “Negligent or intentional misuse of data accessed via Griffin is an extremely serious violation of a staff member’s employment responsibilities and shall result in disciplinary action, which may take the form of immediate dismissal.” In addition, certain elements of information stored in Griffin are protected by federal laws governing the handling of patient and student information. It is the responsibility of all users to understand the applicability of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) to their work, and to handle this information accordingly.

3.1 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) was the first comprehensive federal law to create national standards to protect privacy of personal health information and records. In 2003, the Privacy Rule declared that sensitive personal health information can be shared for core health activities only, with safeguards in place to limit the inappropriate use and sharing of patient data. This requires healthcare professionals to secure patient permission prior to discussions with their related development office. In 2005, the Security Rule was enforced to ensure the confidentiality of electronic protected health information. The impact of both rules resulted in a series of policy decisions on how development professionals should interact with related healthcare professionals. These included decisions on how to electronically track the relationship between development professionals and patients. Griffin will track all patient relationships as “friends,” and will not differentiate between patients and other non-alumni relationships. Additionally, Griffin should not house any information related to patient treatment, diagnosis, physician, and/or treating department.

3.2 Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) is a federal law that protects the privacy of student records. It provides students and parents of minor students the right to review education records, to seek to amend those records, and to limit disclosure of information in those records. The law applies to all schools that receive funding under from the US Department of Education. FERPA mandates that schools must have written permission from the student, or minor student’s parent, before releasing information contained in the student’s education record. The school may disclose, without consent, directory information such as student’s name, address, telephone number, date and place of birth, honors and awards, and dates of attendance. If the student does not want this information publicly disclosed, the law stipulates he/she can opt-out in writing. Since student information will be available in Griffin upon matriculation, the system will provide an optout flag to capture students who requested that their directory information be kept private. The opt-out flag – or, “FERPA flag” – will remain in place until the student or alumnus/alumna requests that it be removed. Because the law does permit “school officials with legitimate educational interest” access to

7

student records – even where there has been a request for FERPA privacy – access to this information will be made available to the Office of Development and Alumni Relations. It is important to note, however, that in cases where a FERPA flag exists on a student or alumnus/alumna record, the use of student information is allowed for development and alumni relations staff only and must not be shared under any circumstances with volunteers or other unaffiliated individuals or organizations.

8

4. Roles and Responsibilities of Prospect Managers 4.1 Primary Prospect Management Roles University Relationship Manager (URM) A URM is the development officer who maintains the primary personal relationship with the prospect or manages the actions of others who have personal relationships with the prospect. The process for assigning URMs to prospects is explained later in this document. The role of the URM is to: 

Establish a comprehensive University fundraising strategy in coordination with all active Team Managers that considers multiple interests and all forms of giving (annual, reunion, major, and planned) to maximize the prospect’s giving during the campaign and over time to the University.



Manage the implementation of that strategy by keeping aware of and/or coordinating the timing of contacts and solicitations by colleagues, volunteers, University faculty, or other staff.



Assess, in collaboration with other University representatives, the prospect’s inclination/affinity for the University.



Identify and strategically increase the level of engagement between the prospect and the University community.



Ensure that all giving by the prospect is appropriately stewarded.



Ensure that all prospect information in Griffin is both accurate and current including, but not limited to, the University Inclination, Strategy, Campaign Ratings, and completed and planned activity (contacts, visits, solicitations, etc).

To “Actively” manage prospects a URM is expected to: 1.

Contact or coordinate contact with the prospect within 30 days of assignment. o

2.

Contacts must be entered in Griffin and may include a visit or an attempt to make a visit (email, phone call, etc...).

Qualify and enter into Griffin a University Inclination Rating and University Strategy for the prospect within 90 days of assignment. o

A University Strategy, at its minimum, should contain a plan for how to move a prospect forward in the pipeline. Specifically, the URM should consider: 

A timeline



Cultivation and engagement objectives



Solicitation goals/plans

9

o



Identification of colleagues, volunteers, or senior level University officers who will play key roles in the cultivation and solicitation process



Appropriate cultivation and engagement activities (events, dinners, meetings w/ faculty, deans, president, etc)



Any additional detail to show the various steps to move the prospect toward the long-term objectives

The University Inclination Rating is the prospect’s current affinity for the institution, i.e. an assessment of how the prospect perceives the strength of his or her relationship/engagement with the University. This rating is determined by the URM in coordination with all university representatives. Inclination ratings can be High, Medium, Low, Disqualified, To Be Qualified, or N/A for Orgs (see Appendix B for detailed definitions).

3.

Enter into Griffin Campaign Target and Campaign Expected Ratings within 6 months of initial assignment.

4.

Contact or coordinate contact with the prospect at least once every 6 months after assignment.

Team Manager (TM) [Under Review] All active and qualified prospects should have at least one active Team Manager (TM) who is responsible for partnering with the URM to drive a specific Team Strategy. In some cases, the URM may also serve as the TM. Prospects with multiple interests and/or relationships with the University will likely have multiple Team Strategies and TMs in addition to the primary URM assignment. The role of a TM is to: 

Proactively communicate to the URM when the addition of the Team Strategy will strengthen the University’s relationship with a prospect and contribute to increased cultivation opportunities that will maximize a prospect’s giving over time to the University.



Partner with the URM to build or enhance a comprehensive University Strategy.



Manage the implementation of that strategy by keeping aware of and/or coordinating the timing of contacts and solicitations by colleagues, volunteers, University faculty, or other staff.



Serve as the point person responsible for coordinating team-specific activity within the Team Strategy and with the URM.



Ensure that all team-specific prospect information in Griffin is both accurate and current including, but not limited to, the Team Rating, Team Strategy, and completed and planned activity (contacts, visits, solicitations, etc).

Solicitation Manager (SM) The Solicitation Manager (SM) is the development officer responsible for managing and driving a solicitation. All University solicitations (with the exception of some direct mail and telefund solicitations) should be tracked and managed in Griffin.

10

The role of a SM is to: 

Ensure that the solicitation supports the University Strategy and increases the prospect’s level of engagement with the University.



Coordinate the solicitation with all involved staff (e.g., the URM, TM, and other staff).



Manage the planning and carrying out of the solicitation, including coordinating the timing of contacts by colleagues, volunteers, University faculty, or other staff.



Obtain clearance if the solicitation is planned or expected at $25,000 or more.



Ensure that solicitation data in Griffin is both accurate and current.

4.2 Prospect Contact Guidelines The following guidelines are intended to facilitate respectful and coordinated approaches to prospect engagement and solicitation. 1.

2.

Before a staff member initiates any contact with an individual who may be a prospect, he or she should consult Griffin to identify existing interests, affiliations, and relationships. o

If a prospect record does not exist, the staff member should contact University Prospect Management ([email protected]) to request the creation of a prospect record. The Prospect Management team can also add a URM assignment at this time. Once a new prospect record has been created and assigned, the URM is responsible for entering a University Inclination Rating and Strategy that accurately reflect the relationship between the University and the prospect.

o

If an Entity record does not exist, the staff member should contact Griffin Data ([email protected]) to request the creation of a new entity record. Once that entity record is created, the staff member can then contact University Prospect Management (see above).

Anyone wishing to add a new TM assignment and strategy to an existing prospect record must consult with the current URM. o

The URM is encouraged to approve the addition of new Team Strategies in most cases, viewing these as newly identified interests that can lead to an opportunity to strengthen the prospect’s level of engagement with the University. If the URM declines a request to add a Team Strategy, the TM may send the request to the Prospect Management team ([email protected]) to facilitate arbitration with Leadership.

3.

The URM and all TMs must consult one another in advance of visiting a prospect. This should be viewed as an opportunity to enhance collaboration and ensure that well-intended visits do not inadvertently compromise other active cultivation/solicitation strategies.

4.

Where multiple Team Strategies exist, the URM is responsible for developing a comprehensive University Strategy that accounts for all Team Strategies. The URM must coordinate a multiinterest approach to the cultivation, solicitation, and stewardship of that prospect.

11

5.

All URMs who manage principal gift prospects must develop a comprehensive University Strategy and coordinate all cultivation, solicitation, and stewardship activities with PG leadership.

6.

Copies of important correspondence (including e-mails, proposals, and stewardship reports) relevant to a prospect’s cultivation or solicitation strategy should be shared with all appropriate staff members who have an interest in the prospect. These documents should be archived for the University record. o

Hard copies of documents should be sent to the University’s Prospect Research team ([email protected]), where all materials are scanned and entered into Griffin. These materials are then available at any time as attachments to Prospect Actions or Research Reports on the relevant records.

All development officers should remember that all significant activity with a prospect must be recorded in Griffin. If no manager or contact information is found in Griffin, it will be assumed that no activity has taken place with that prospect.

12

5. Principal Gifts Prospect Management Program [Under Review] 5.1 Definitions of Principal Gift Prospects and Suspects A Principal Gift Prospect is defined as any prospect with a University Rating of $5M or more or any Active University Trustee or Trustee Emeriti. A Principal Gift Suspect is defined as any prospect with a Capacity Rating of $5M or more, and a University Rating of “To Be Qualified”.

5.2 The University Principal Gifts Strategy Team The University Principal Gifts Strategy Team is responsible for collaborating with colleagues to manage the cultivation, solicitation, and stewardship of all Principal Gift prospects and suspects. This team works with the appropriate URMs to ensure that each prospect has an active and comprehensive University Strategy supporting the University’s strategic objectives. The University Principal Gifts Strategy Meeting is comprised of senior fundraising staff representing areas of the University that manage a significant number of active Principal Gift prospects. The University Principal Gifts Strategy Team meets bi-weekly to: 

Review key metrics of the Principal Gift pool.



Review Principal Gift pipeline reports on various segments of the prospect and suspect pool.



Develop strategies and next steps for Principal Gift prospects and suspects.



Discuss upcoming Principal Gift cultivation and stewardship events.



Discuss upcoming and completed Presidential activity with Principal Gift prospects and suspects.

5.3 The University Principal Gifts Review Committee The University Principal Gifts Review Committee is comprised of senior leadership and will, as needed, vote electronically or hold a meeting to review URM assignments or reassignments and solicitation clearance requests needing arbitration. University Prospect Management staff will facilitate the electronic communication process as issues are identified. Face to face meetings will be convened as needed on an ad hoc basis only.

5.4 Principal Gifts Prospect Identification Special “tags” in the prospect header clearly identify all University Principal Gift prospects and suspects in Griffin so they will be easily recognized by staff across campus and handled appropriately. These tags are visible to all staff with privileges to review prospect records in Griffin. As with any prospect, staff members considering establishing new contact with a Principal Gift prospect or suspect must coordinate in advance with the URM. As new prospects are identified, the University Prospect Management team will apply the “Principal Gift Prospect” and “Principal Gift Suspect” tags.

13

5.5 Principal Gifts Tag Removal If a prospect no longer meets the criteria for inclusion in the Principal Gift prospect or suspect pools, the tag will be removed from the prospect record and an incidental action note will be entered by the University Prospect Management team to indicate why the tag was removed.

Principal Gift tags will be removed if: 

The prospect no longer has a Research Capacity Rating at a Principal Gift level (less than $5M) and the University Rating is already below the Principal Gift level.



The prospect is University Rated below the Principal Gift level (less than $5M) or has been disqualified.



The prospect made a one-time Principal Gift and has no inclination to make another gift at that level.

Principal Gift Tag removal process: 1.

The URM requesting the removal of the tag should email the University Prospect Management team ([email protected]) requesting removal of the tag, with the explanation included in both the email and recorded as an incidental action or in the University Strategy on the prospect record in Griffin.

2.

The University Prospect Management team will remove the tag and add an (additional) incidental action. All involved parties will receive a verification email from University Prospect Management.

14

6. Prospect Assignment (Newly Identified Prospects) 6.1 Prospect Assignment Criteria Assignments for newly identified prospects are made after determining if a prospect has a single identifiable philanthropic interest or multiple interests across the University. The following connections and affiliations are considered when determining if a prospect is single or multiple “interest”: 

Degrees



Significant Giving



Current Parent Relationships



Significant Involvement



Existing University Relationships

“Interest” considers the above information for all entities on the prospect record. If a prospect has none of the connections/affiliations above, then their interests are considered “Unidentified”. If a prospect has connections/affiliations to more than one area of the University, they are considered “Multiple Interest”. A prospect with connections/affiliations to only one area of the University is considered “Single Interest”. Examples of Single and Multi-Interest Prospects are as follows:

Single Interest Prospect 

Alumni Degree(s) from one unit, school or division, no significant giving elsewhere



Non Alum (aka grateful patient and/or “friend”) with significant giving to one area



Non Alum Current Parent with significant giving and or involvement to the child’s degree area Recommended Initial URM Assignment: Unit, School, or Division of Single Interest, with optional “opt-in” for Initial URM Assignment to a Regional Gift Officer Optional TM Assignment(s): Regional or other Central Teams

Multi-Interest Prospect 

Alumni Degree(s) from more than one school



Alumni Degree(s) from one school with volunteer involvement from another area



Non Alum with significant giving to more than one area

15

Recommended Initial URM Assignment: Regional or other Central Gift Officer. However, in some cases if a prospect has no record in Griffin of ever being contacted or qualified by a development officer, URM assignment to a specific unit/school/division may be considered to allow qualification activities to proceed. Optional TM Assignment(s): All Relevant Areas

NOTE: A donor must have given $1K or more for giving to be calculated as an interest. Significant giving is (1) $25K or more cumulative giving to a single area of the University or (2) 75% or more of a donor’s lifetime total giving to a single area of the University. Donors with $25K or more cumulative giving to more than one area of the University will be considered “Multiple Interest”.

6.2 Prospect & Entity Area Interest Assignments Griffin adds area interest assignments through an automated process using the criteria described in the section above. These values are stored at both the entity and prospect-levels. Area Interests: Entities Gift officers have the ability to access and review these area interests on the “Area Interest” screen for entities where there is no existing prospect record. The system will only store and display the area interests for that entity. Area Interests: Prospects Area interest assignments will be stored on the “Prospect Assignment” screen in Griffin for entities attached to active prospect records. The system will display the “Type” of prospect (single, multiple, or unidentified) on the Prospect Header. The “Type” will be hyperlinked to the “Prospect Assignment” screen to allow gift officers direct access to review all assigned area interests. The system will store and display the area interest assignments for all attached entities. Gift officers will have the ability to disqualify area assignments at the prospect level by submitting a request to the Prospect Management Team ([email protected]). Disqualification of area interest assignments should be done in coordination will all relevant University representatives. For unassigned prospects, the URM assignment will be “To Be Determined”, and the URM Office/Area will display the area that should receive the initial assignment. This information is viewable in the Prospect Header. For single-interest prospects, the URM Office/Area will be the unit, school, or division of single-interest. For multiple-interest prospects, the URM Office/Area will be “Univ Regional”. For prospects with unidentified interests, the URM Office/Area will be “University”.

6.3 Prospect URM Assignment Process [Under Review] Major Gifts Prospect Assignment Process: [New Proposal] 1.

The University Prospect Management (PM) team will run quarterly reports of unassigned prospects segmented by area assignment, and other portfolio criteria (TBD), and identify the top prospects for immediate assignment.

16

NOTE: Gift Officers will be able to identify prospects by area assignment and their own portfolio criteria and request that they be added to their portfolios on an on-going basis. 2.

PM will proactively assign prospects where gift officers’ portfolio criteria are known and gift officers have room in their portfolios.

3.

PM will produce a monthly report showing all newly assigned prospects over the last month.

4.

Managers and fundraisers will review the assignment report and decide if changes and/or TM additions are necessary.

5.

The newly assigned URMs will make initial contacts to qualify their prospects and identify the most appropriate strategy and/or other relationship manager 

A newly assigned URM may determine that another gift officer would be more suitable. The existing URM must discuss the reassignment with the proposed new URM and forward their agreement to the University Prospect Management team ([email protected]).

If assignment arbitration is needed, the manager or development officer may forward the request to Prospect Management, who will facilitate moving the conversation forward with leadership. Principal Gifts Prospect Assignment Process [Under Review]: The University Principal Gifts Review Committee will review all URM assignments for all Principal Gift prospects and suspects. In most cases, URMs for Principal Gift prospects will be members of the University Principal Gifts Strategy Team or represented by a member of the University Principal Gifts Strategy Team. Other units on campus may add Team Strategies on Principal Gift prospects and suspects by coordinating with the URM. 1.

New prospects are identified by the Research team or by the Frontline. If prospects are identified by the Research team, they will use gift capacity rating and all identifiable prospect interests to make assignment recommendations to the University PM team.

2.

The University PM team runs a bi-weekly query for new PG prospects and suspects and adds the appropriate tags.

3.

The University PM team will review appropriate development officer portfolios as well as all of the information provided by the Research team and make the final assignment recommendation.

4.

The University PM team will send URM/TM recommendations to the University Principal Gifts Review Committee via email. The University Principal Gifts Review Committee members will have 5 business days to request discussion before the University PM team finalizes assignments in Griffin.

5.

The University PM team will send the all development officers, manager, and senior leadership a monthly report of all newly assigned prospects over last month.

6.

Managers and their staff will review all assignment changes and decide if changes and/or TM additions are necessary.

7.

URMs will coordinate the University Strategy, update the University Rating, and add solicitations and next steps to determine the overall prospect cultivation strategy.

17

8.

URMs may request reassignment through the University PM team, where the reassignment request will be coordinated electronically.

9.

If arbitration is needed, the assignment will be placed on hold by the University PM team and sent to the University Principal Gifts Review Committee or scheduled for review at a University Principal Gifts Strategy Team meeting.

The URM, in coordination with the University Principal Gifts Strategy Team, will drive the development of a strategy for Principal Gift prospects and suspects and take responsibility for the coordination of all activity with the prospective donors. To ensure a comprehensive University Strategy, the University Principal Gifts Strategy Team will involve all interested units/schools/divisions in the development of an overall Principal Gifts University Strategy for the successful cultivation and solicitation of the prospect. All University Principal Gift prospect, suspect, and lead volunteer assignments/reassignments may only be entered into Griffin by University Prospect Management staff.

18

7. Prospect Reassignment 7.1 Common Reassignment Scenarios The following are the three most common scenarios by which prospects are considered for reassignment (listed in the following sections in greater detail): 1.

Mutually agreed-upon, fundraiser-prompted reassignment: These changes often happen as “oneoff” requests when one development officer requests the URM assignment from another (or offers the assignment to another), and both parties agree to the change.

2.

Portfolio reassignments as a result of staffing changes: This occurs when a development officer either moves to a different fundraising office or leaves the University altogether. As a result, their portfolio must be reassigned to either new or existing staff members so that prospects can continue being qualified and cultivated.

3.

Prospects are not being actively managed: When a prospect is not being actively managed according to the standards outlined in the Prospect Management Policy & Process Guidelines document, the existing URM assignment will be reviewed for possible reassignment to another development officer.

Note: The Principal Gifts Reassignment process differs slightly. Please see below for details.

7.2 Mutually Agreed Upon, Fundraiser-Prompted Reassignment 1.

The staff member requesting the role of URM on a prospect that has an existing URM should make their request directly to the current URM. OR

2.

The staff member who wants one of their prospects reassigned to a new URM should make their request directly to the recommended new URM.

3.

If both development officers agree to the reassignment, electronic communication will serve as documentation of their agreement and should be sent to the University PM team ([email protected]). Please note: When communicating reassignment requests, please make sure to include the following in your correspondence: 

Prospect Name and ID



Existing URM and New URM



The existing and proposed new URM should be included and copied on the e-mail to the University PM team.



Answer the question: “Should the existing URM maintain their Team Strategy and Team Manager assignment?”

7.3 Portfolio Reassignment as a Result of Staffing Changes 19

1.

A staff member who is leaving the University should contact and discuss all active strategies and assignments with all other active assigned staff member(s) assigned to prospects in their portfolio (for example, other active Team Managers).

2.

Following those initial conversations, the departing development officer should discuss their reassignment recommendations with their manager to ensure that the portfolio will be assigned and managed by the appropriate new development officers. These discussions should occur prior to contacting University PM staff.

3.

The departing development officer and their manager should then contact the University PM team. University PM staff will have 2 weeks to review the portfolio with the exiting fundraiser and their manager (ideally, a manager should contact the Prospect Management Team in a timely manner that will allow them ample time to work with the departing fundraiser prior to their leaving the University). The University PM team will also review the portfolio and make additional reassignment suggestions based on assignment policy included in the Prospect Management Policy & Process Guidelines document.

4.

The University PM team will then send the final reassignment recommendations to the staff member’s manager for review. The manager will have 30 days to review the suggested reassignments and either confirm or dispute the suggested reassignments.

5.

If the University PM team does not hear from the manager within 30 days, all prospects in the portfolio will receive a URM assignment of “To Be Determined”. The PM team will assume reassignment consent and move forward with making the recommended reassignments.

6.

Note: In circumstances where the above policy does not meet the needs of the manager and/or prospects, the manager should contact the University PM team ([email protected]) to discuss alternative solutions.

7.4 Prospects Not Actively Managed [Under Review] REMINDER: Per existing prospect management policy, to “Actively” manage a prospect a URM is expected to: 

Contact or coordinate contact with the prospect within 30 days of assignment. o

Contacts must be entered in Griffin and may include a visit or an attempt to make a visit (email, phone call, etc...).



Qualify and enter in Griffin a University Inclination Rating and University Strategy for the prospect within 90 days of assignment.



Enter into Griffin Campaign Target and Campaign Expected Ratings within 6 months of assignment.



Contact or coordinate contact with the prospect at least once every 6 months after assignment.

The following process occurs to identify and resolve situations when prospects are not actively managed:

20

1.

The University PM team will e-mail a monthly report showing management activity on prospects that have been assigned for more than 30, 90, and 180 days, but have not been actively managed during that period. o

This report will be part of a monthly suite of prospect management reports sent to all senior leadership, managers, and development officers at the end or beginning of each month to allow URMs and their managers to identify where contacts, strategies, or ratings are overdue. Upon request, the University PM team can provide managers with an additional strategy detail report to facilitate the review of ratings and strategies qualitatively.

2.

The manager will then have an additional month until the next report is generated to work with their staff member to boost activity on the prospect.

3.

If a prospect appears in the 180-day report (indicating that there has been a lack of activity for 180 days), the PM Committee and relevant managers will be invited to discuss the prospect and agree on next steps. If agreement is not reached, the prospect will be referred to the Vice President for Development, in consultation with the appropriate AVPs and Deans.

7.5 Principal Gifts Reassignment Process [Under Review] 1.

The staff member requesting the role of URM on a Principal Gift prospect that has an existing URM should first make their request directly to the current URM. If a reassignment agreement is reached, the requesting URM should contact the University PM team ([email protected]) or the University Principal Gifts PM liaison.

2.

The current URM for a Principal Gift prospect who wants one of their prospects reassigned to a new URM should make their request directly to the recommended new URM. If a reassignment agreement is reached, the requesting URM should contact the University PM team ([email protected]) or the University Principal Gifts PM liaison.

3.

The University Principal Gifts PM liaison will forward reassignment requests directly to the University Principal Gifts Review Committee. The Principal Gifts Review Committee will have five (5) business days to object/approve of a reassignment request. After five business days, the University Principal Gifts PM liaison may consider silence as consent and the reassignment will be updated in Griffin..

4.

The University Principal Gifts PM liaison will add an incidental action to Griffin to document the agreement between the requesting URM and current URM as well as the approval of the University Principal Gifts Review Committee. The University Principal Gifts PM liaison will then make URM/TM updates in Griffin and notify the URM that the reassignment is approved and updated in Griffin.

Monthly assignment reports that are part of the University PM team’s suite of standard reports will show all Principal Gifts URM assignment and reassignment changes.

21

8. Solicitation Clearance 8.1 Solicitation Clearance Policy & Process Clearance is required on all solicitations of $25K or more. Planned solicitations of $25K or more can be entered into Griffin for any amount, but they must be cleared via the automated clearance process in Griffin before they are solicited. Clearance is not required in Griffin for solicitations amounts under $25K or for solicitations on Organization prospects. All plans for the solicitation of managed prospects, regardless of the planned ask amount, should be entered and tracked as a solicitation record in Griffin. Furthermore, ALL solicitations should be a part of the University Strategy and coordinated with the URM and all active TMs. The Solicitation Manager (SM) is responsible for requesting clearance on their solicitation by updating the solicitation stage in Griffin to “Clearance Requested”. The SM must then coordinate solicitation activity with the URM and/or additional volunteers/staff assigned to the prospect. Clearance provides a one-year window for solicitation. Fundraising staff may call into question any clearance for which the one-year window has passed with no action on the part of the SM holding the clearance. Concerns may be sent to: [email protected] and will be reviewed by Leadership. There are distinct procedures for clearance requests based on the type of solicitation: 

Solicitations for all prospects with a “Principal Gift Prospect” tag are reviewed by the Principal Gifts Leadership and any other active staff on the prospect. Please see “Principal Gifts Clearance Policy and Process” below.



Foundation and Corporation (organization) solicitations do not require clearance in Griffin. Foundation and Corporation solicitations should be coordinated with the University Foundation & Corporate Relations team (see Appendix A for additional details).

If solicitation clearance disputes arise, they will first be reviewed by all involved parties. If an agreement cannot be reached, the dispute will be reviewed by Leadership. If consensus cannot be reached on the timing and/or strategy of a solicitation, the Vice President for Development will make the final determination. NOTE: The University of Chicago emphasizes an integrated solicitation approach. Solicitation strategies should consider the entire spectrum of giving opportunities. Major Gift solicitations should acknowledge the ongoing need for annual support. Annual Giving requests should be coordinated with the URM as part of the University Strategy. When appropriate, deferred giving proposals and bequests should also be considered. During the cultivation of a prospect, every effort should be made to personally solicit an annual gift at an appropriate time.

8.2 Clearance Process: Solicitations over $25K 1.

Overnight, Griffin will identify all solicitations with a current stage of “3A. Clearance Requested.”

2.

An email notification will be sent for three consecutive mornings to the URM, active TMs, and the SM until the managers document their responses in Griffin. Each e-mail recipient will have three business days to respond to the clearance request directly in Griffin. Each manager will receive only ONE email per day listing all solicitations needing review.

22



NOTE: If the solicitation is identified as a Principal Gift solicitation, then it is placed on hold and reviewed by the University Principal Gifts Leadership. The process is outlined in detail below.

3.

After the three days, any non-response will be automatically changed to an approval.

4.

If the three days conclude without a “discussion required” response, the solicitation stage will automatically change to “5. Solicitation Cleared.”

5.

If at any point a “discussion required” response is entered, no further responses are necessary and the solicitation stage will change to “4. Clearance Tabled.”

6.

If the stage changes to “4. Clearance Tabled,” the University PM team will help to facilitate the necessary communication among interested decision makers. Disputes will be reviewed by Leadership.

7.

After a solicitation is tabled and the discussion takes place, the SM must change the solicitation stage back to “3A. Clearance Requested.” This will set the solicitation clearance request process back in motion, giving all managers a new opportunity to approve the solicitation.

As part of the monthly suite of prospect management reports, the results of all solicitations clearance requests will be reported on and sent to all campus development officers. If you have questions regarding specific solicitations, please contact the University PM team by emailing [email protected].

8.3 Principal Gifts Clearance Policy and Process [Under Review] The Principal Gifts clearance process ensures that all solicitation requests on Principal Gift prospects are carefully coordinated and that the comprehensive University Strategy is carried out smoothly over time. In most cases, Principal Gift solicitation clearance will be handled by the process outlined below, with a five-day turnaround. In other cases, the process may require more consideration and will take longer. If the Principal Gifts Strategy Team cannot reach consensus on the timing and/or strategy of a solicitation, senior leadership, in consultation with the Vice President for Development and the President of the University, will make the final determination. The URM should take responsibility to work with colleagues in advance of any formal clearance request so that this process moves quickly. Because solicitation plans for Principal Gift prospects requires coordination with multiple development officers, Deans, and the President, some clearance discussions may require longer than the 5-day window specified below. Clearance Process: Principal Gifts 

Principal Gift solicitations are excluded from the fully automated Griffin clearance system in favor of a partially automated process. This process ensures Principal Gift clearance requests are managed daily, granting solicitation clearance requests between bi-weekly University Principal Gift Team meetings.



University PM staff receive an automated daily email listing all Principal Gift solicitations requested the previous day.

23



The solicitation is automatically “tabled” and an email is sent to the SM, TMs, URM and all members of the Principal Gifts Strategy Team. Each email recipient has five days to answer this email before the solicitation is cleared in Griffin. If no response is received, consent for clearance is implied.



If any member of the Principal Gifts Strategy Team requests further discussion, the solicitation request is tabled for discussion until the necessary communication has occurred or until the biweekly Principal Gift Strategy Team meeting convenes.

24

9. Portfolio Management 9.1 Ideal Portfolio Distribution (Size & Prospect Stages)* [Under Review] % Identified*

% In Qualification

% In Cultivation

% In Solicitation

% In Stewardship

Ideal Portfolio Size

PG Officer

N/A

75-125

MG Officer

N/A

125-200

Regional Director

N/A

50-75

Division/School/Unit N/A Officer Division/School/Unit N/A Director * Note: Ideal Portfolio Distribution by Size & Prospect Stage requires additional Leadership discussion.

75-100 50-75

9.2 Ideal Portfolio Size Full-time development officers should not carry more than the maximum portfolio size referenced above. If a development officer has a full portfolio and requests an additional prospect, he or she should first remove an existing prospect from his or her portfolio before the new assignment can be completed. To move a prospect out of a portfolio, a fundraiser should first: 1.

Review the prospect for possible inactivation or disqualification, and coordinate the update with the University PM team and other relevant managers working with the prospect; OR

2.

Review the prospect’s University Strategy, University Inclination Rating, and the Campaign Target and Expected ratings and recommend that the prospect be managed by a new fundraiser and/or in another prospect pool (e.g. Principal Gifts, Major Gifts, Alumni Relations/Annual Fund etc…). The current URM should communicate this recommendation directly with the proposed new URM, and once an agreement is reached the current URM should send the request and relevant communication to the University PM team ([email protected]).

Fundraising managers who have non-frontline management responsibilities should work towards reducing the size of their portfolios to balance active management of their portfolios with their additional programmatic responsibilities. For example, if a development officer has both management and project responsibility that allows him or her to spend 50% of his or her time on frontline activity, then his or her portfolio size should be 50% of a full-time development officer’s portfolio.

9.3 Prospect Stages Overview Tracking prospects through each stage of the development cycle is a strategic approach to fundraising that supports the implementation of a fully integrated “Moves Management” prospect management system. This significantly increases our ability to proactively track and move prospects from identification to solicitation at all levels. Prospect Stages are designed in the system to update automatically when key relationship data is entered on prospects (e.g. contacts, ratings, solicitations).

Prospect stages defined as follows:

25

0.

Pre-Identified/Active Constituent: This stage is intended to categorize all prospects that are not in any of the stages below. Criteria for this stage are currently under review, and no prospects will remain in this stage until prospect pool criteria are defined.

1.

Identified: This stage is considered the entry point at which an individual becomes a prospect in Griffin. Criteria for this stage are currently under review. At this point, all prospects will move through “Pre-Identified/Active Constituent” into this stage. Prospects in this stage are active, unassigned, and have a “To Be Qualified” University Inclination rating.

2.

In Qualification: A prospect moves to this stage once a development officer is assigned as URM or TM. It is the responsibility of the assigned development officer to make the initial substantive contacts with the prospect in order to gauge the prospect’s inclination and affinity to the University (qualification). Qualification is indicated by the presence of a URM working towards providing a University Inclination Rating and Strategy. Per Prospect Management Policy & Process Guidelines regarding actively managing a prospect, a newly assigned prospect should not stay “In Qualification” for more than 90 days.

3.

In Cultivation: A prospect progresses to this stage once there is at least one completed visit action (or any other type of action with the purpose of “Qualification”) on the prospect record, and the URM has provided a University Inclination Rating (the Inclination rating cannot be “To Be Qualified” or “Disqualified”). A planned solicitation can be entered while the prospect is in cultivation.

4.

In Solicitation: A prospect enters this stage when clearance is requested on an open solicitation (or, in the case of solicitations below $25K, the solicitation enters the stage of “Clearance Not Required”). This indicates that the prospect is about to be solicited for a gift. Once the solicitation has been asked, the prospect will stay in this stage until the solicitation is closed (or until all open solicitations on the record are closed). If the prospect declines the solicitation, the prospect will return to the “In Cultivation” stage. Note: In the case of a declined solicitation, the fundraiser may also ask the University PM team to remove the prospect from the development cycle (see below: Disqualification/Inactivation).

5.

In Stewardship: A prospect enters this stage once the gift is booked and the solicitation has been closed (or any other open solicitations have been closed). At this point, the assigned development officer needs to determine whether the prospect remains in perpetual stewardship (if it is the last gift the prospect will make to the University), or if the prospect has the potential to make another gift in the future. If the prospect has the potential to make another gift and a planned solicitation has been entered, the prospect is automatically reintroduced into the “In Cultivation” stage of the development cycle.

9.4 Disqualification (Stage 6) and Inactivation Guidelines After an individual has been “Identified” and officially becomes part of the University of Chicago prospective donor pool, there are two options for removing that individual from the prospect pool: Disqualification (not a prospect now) and Inactivation (not a prospect ever). Disqualification (not a prospect now): Disqualification may be considered in two instances:

26

1.

When a development officer determines that a prospect has no affinity for the University and has indicated that he/she does not want to be engaged in a relationship with the University at this time.

2.

When a gift officer is unable to successfully contact the prospect. 

Before a prospect is disqualified due to a development officer’s or volunteer’s inability to make contact, a staff member should attempt contact (via visit, letter, e-mail, or phone) at least three times within a three month period.

The following steps should be taken to properly “Disqualify” a prospect: 1.

The assigned URM should update the University Inclination Rating to “Disqualified”, add a “revisit date” indicating when the prospect should be reassigned to a development officer, and update the University Strategy to indicate why the prospect was disqualified.

2.

The assigned URM should then contact all other active staff assigned to the prospect, confirming that the prospect should be disqualified for all areas at the University.

3.

The assigned URM must then contact the University PM team ([email protected]) and request that all assignments be inactivated and that the prospect stage be updated to “Disqualified”. This communication must include confirmation that all assigned staff members are aware of the disqualification.

4.

The University PM Team then completes the disqualification process by updating the stage and adding an incidental action note to the prospect record indicating the stage change.

Inactivation (not a prospect ever): Inactivation may be considered in three instances: 1.

When a development officer determines that a prospect has no inclination to ever be engaged by the University.

2.

When a development officer deems it inadvisable for the University to continue a relationship with or receive gifts from a prospective donor.

3.

When a parent has an active prospect record with no giving or activity in the past five years.

The following steps should be taken to properly “Inactivate” a prospect: 1.

The assigned URM should update the University Inclination Rating to “Disqualified” (in cases where the prospect has no affinity for the University and has indicated that he/she does not want to be engaged in a relationship with the University) and update the University Strategy to indicate why the prospect should be inactivated.

2.

The assigned URM should then contact all other active staff assigned to the prospect, confirming that the prospect should be inactivated.

27

3.

The assigned URM must then contact the University PM team ([email protected]) and request that the prospect record be inactivated. This communication must include confirmation that all assigned staff are aware of the inactivation.

4.

The University PM team then completes the inactivation process by adding a stop date to the prospect record and adding an incidental action to the prospect indicating why the prospect was inactivated.

When a prospect is disqualified or inactivated, the attached entity record(s) remain active and are included in future prospect identification and modeling projects.

28

10. Management Metrics and Fundraising Credit [Under Review] 10.1 Overview of Primary Metrics The University-wide method for tracking fundraising credit is designed to encourage collaboration while still recognizing individual contributions. The overriding principle guiding this system is to be generous with credit. We believe that minimizing competitiveness and zero-sum thinking among colleagues and maximizing incentives to work cooperatively fosters the true interests of the prospect and maximizes their support of the University. One of our most important values as an institution is to recognize and reward outstanding individual fundraising work, while also providing managers the ability to hold their staff members accountable for specific, individual goals.

This system is intended to encourage fundraising staff to be: 

Motivated to see and solicit prospects.



Accountable for individually set goals.



Helpful and generous in working together to maximize the value of a prospect’s giving to the University.



Invested in achieving their own team goals and unit goals as well as broad priorities of the University's academic leadership.



Valued and rewarded for their work, including work that is done in support of another development officer’s cultivation and solicitation activities.

Managers should reference the following guidelines when setting goals for their staff members. All development officer goals should be confirmed and submitted by fundraising managers directly to the University PM team by e-mailing [email protected] before the beginning of each fiscal year. FY Visits Completed

FY $ Booked

Ideal Portfolio Size

Action Lead/Participant

FY Solicitations Asked Solicitation Manager

Solicitation Manager

URM Assignments

PG Officer

50-75

8-10

$10M-$20M+

75-125

MG Officer

125-150

20-25

$1M-$5M

125-200

Regional Director Division/School/Unit Officer Division/School/Unit Director

75-100

12-15

$1.5M-$5M

50-75

100-125

15-20

$1M-$5M

75-100

50-75

12-15

$2.5M-$5M

50-75

29

10.2 Primary Management Metrics At the end of each fiscal year, managers should set goals for the next fiscal year with frontline staff based on a variety of factors, including the staff member’s experience, prospect pool, tenure with the University and other, non-frontline responsibilities. In partnership with all fundraising managers, the University PM team will ensure that goals are updated and accurate in Griffin. The following lists the primary metrics that are used to measure frontline success toward individual goals: 1.

GOAL #1: Fiscal Year Dollars Booked o

2.

GOAL #2: Fiscal Year Count of Solicitations Asked o

3.

Total Solicitations Asked (#) by the SM. Only one person may receive primary solicitation credit. Regardless of the outcome of the solicitation, the SM will receive credit for any solicitations that are entered into the “Asked, Awaiting Response” solicitation stage.

GOAL #3: Fiscal Year Count of Visits Completed o

4.

Total Dollars ($) of all booked solicitations where the development officer is the SM. This total will be pulled directly from the actual amount of booked solicitations in Griffin where the specific development officer is the SM. Only one person may receive primary solicitation credit.

Total Visits Completed (#) by Action Lead or Action Participant. Credit for visits completed will be assigned to the Action Lead and all Action Participants based on the total number of “Done” visits in Griffin, where the Action Date is in the current fiscal year. In the case of multiple Participants on the same action, one visit should be entered in Griffin with the Action Lead and all Participants. The Lead and all Participants will receive full and equal credit.

GOAL #4: Fiscal Year Qualification Activity o

To Be Determined.

The following lists the criteria used to track “Assist Credit” for measuring additional fundraiser participation: 1.

Solicitation Assist: Dollar amount ($) of all Solicitations successfully booked where the development officer is a Solicitor or Staff on the solicitation record. The Solicitor or Staff will receive full “Solicitation Assist Credit” for all booked solicitations with which he/she was involved. The Solicitation Manager is responsible for reviewing the active Staff and Solicitor assignments, ensuring that all individuals receiving credit have assisted with the solicitation.

30

Appendix A: Prospect Management Policy for Organizations For the purposes of this appendix, “organizations” is understood to mean corporations (corporations, corporate foundations, and most partnerships), foundations (independent grant-making foundations), and associations (groups and associations). Religious organizations, certain nonprofit organizations (zoos, historical trusts), and other higher education institutions (colleges, universities) can also be considered “organizations.” Giving relationships resulting from our interaction with these other organizations are generally tracked as “associations and other organizations” for leadership reporting. These definitions are guided by current Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) standards. Family foundations, estates, alumni-related organizations, and trustee-related organizations are considered as individual giving vehicles, and are managed by individual prospect managers, with solicitations and giving attributed to the linked individuals and counted in individual donor totals. The Office of Foundation and Corporate Relations (FCR) can assist in distinguishing prospects that should be handled under organization prospect management guidelines.

Creation of Organization Prospect Records When a potential organization prospect is identified, the initial identifier should contact the Office of Organization Research and Prospect Management for promotion of the best entity record to prospect status.* This process reduces the possibility of duplicate prospect records and the need for a future merge. The identifier should provide: 1. 2. 3.

Name of the Organization Name of the potential University Relationship Manager Name of the potential Team Manager

University Inclination Ratings will be set by Foundation and Corporate Relations (FCR) as outlined by the current policies (generally “N/A for Orgs” except where noted otherwise). After the record is created, the identifier will be notified, and will then be responsible for establishing Team Strategy assignments and texts. *If it is determined that the identified potential prospect organization would have an exclusive relationship with a school or independent unit (Booth, Medical Center, etc.), prospect managers with research privileges may use their discretion in creating their own prospect in consultation with the Office of Foundation and Corporate Relations to avoid duplicate entries.

University Relationship Managers (URMs) The University Relationship Manager for an organization should generally be the Director of Foundation Relations for foundations and associations, and the Director of Corporate Relations for corporations (including corporate foundations and partnerships). If relationships with an organizational prospect are seen to be exclusive to a particular division or team, or if a given team fundraiser has an exceptional relationship or knowledge of a given organization, a University Relationship Manager can be assigned from the appropriate team. Please consult the Office of Prospect Management by contacting [email protected] to resolve any assignment issues that arise.

31

University Relationship Managers for organizations have the same responsibilities and rights as those for individuals. Due to the complex nature of some organizations, it is recommended that URMs frequently update the University Strategy field to map the points of contact and goals for an organization, providing a date as the first item in the freeform text field.

University Inclination Ratings [Under Review] University Inclination Ratings will, in most cases, be entered and maintained as “N/A for Orgs.” Association and Corporation University Inclination Ratings will not be maintained by FCR because their assets, priorities, and governance change more rapidly than can be usefully modeled in a 5-year or campaign (currently 8-year) analytic window, and are especially hard to project in the current recessed economy.

Team Managers (TMs) Team managers for organizations have the same assignment process, responsibilities, and rights as team managers for individuals. Team Ratings For organizations, no team ratings are necessary (or recommended). The Office of Foundation and Corporate Relations will not maintain any ratings at the team level for organizations.

Solicitations Organization solicitations can be created by any team. All teams are encouraged to enter solicitations to track incipient or ongoing funding conversations with organizations. Any staff member can be entered as a Solicitation Manager (SM). Organization solicitations should be started at Solicitation Stage 2 (Clearance Not Required) in order to facilitate updating. Organization solicitations are not currently vetted through the Automated Clearance process; however, solicitation plans should always be reviewed in advance with the URM. Solicitation managers take responsibility for advancing solicitations through to the ask (Stage 7) and to the oral pledge (Stage 8), where applicable. When paperwork for a gift has been received (Stage 9), the solicitation manager should attempt to Link to Gift, which automatically closes the solicitation (Stage 10 – Gift Booked). The Office of Foundation and Corporate Relations will also review Stage 9 solicitations monthly and attempt to Link to Gift where sufficient information is available. For assistance with the Link to Gift process, please consult Griffin Training staff or FCR. If a proposal is refused, the stage should be manually updated to Donor Refused (Stage 12), which will close the solicitation. Organization solicitations that have been withdrawn or cancelled should be updated as Cancelled (stage 14), which is only maintainable through the Clear-Cancel screen. The Associate Director for Organization Research and Prospect Management (FCR) can facilitate this cancellation if clear-cancel permission is not immediately available to a given team.

32

Periodically, the Office of Foundation and Corporate Relations will review projects in TRACS (University Research Administration’s project database), and lists of gifts received in Griffin, and will retroactively create solicitations in order to provide a narrative context for gifts and projects with strategic importance. For projects that are faculty driven without development staff input, the solicitation manager will be set to “Manager Will Not Be Assigned.”

33

Appendix B: Prospect Management Keyword Terms Prospect Management – The planning, recording, and tracking of relationship development between a prospect and the University, as the prospect moves through the development cycle. Griffin - The official University-wide development database of record for biographical, relationship, and giving information about university constituents. Entity - A person or an organization for which biographical and giving information is recorded and stored in Griffin. Prospect - One or more entities (e.g. an individual, household, family, or organization) for whom a strategy is developed and relationship information is tracked, typically with the purpose of cultivating towards a gift. University Relationship Manager (URM) - The development officer who manages and maintains the primary personal relationship with the prospect and coordinates the actions of other staff and volunteers who have relationships with the prospect. There can only be one URM on each prospect record. Team Manager (TM) - A development officer who, in coordination with the URM, contributes to the overall University Strategy with a specific focus on the program or area he/she represents. There can be multiple TMs on each prospect record. Solicitation Manager (SM) - The development officer responsible for managing and maintaining a solicitation in coordination with the URM and all TMs. Area Interest Assignment(s) - The unit, school, division, program, or team recommended for initial URM assignment based on data available in Griffin, per University of Chicago Prospect Management Policy. Area Interest assignments are automatically maintained in Griffin and can be found on the “Prospect Assignment” screen for prospects and on the “Area Interest” screen for entities. Campaign Target – This rating will be entered and maintained by the URM in coordination with all other staff affiliated with the prospect. The rating should represent the total dollar amount that the University plans to ask from the prospect during the current campaign. Campaign Expected - This rating will be entered and maintained by the URM in coordination with all other staff affiliated with the prospect. The rating should represent the total dollar amount that the University expects to receive from the prospect during the current campaign. University Inclination Rating – This rating is intended to represent the prospect’s current affinity for the institution, i.e. an assessment of how the prospect perceives the strength of his or her relationship/engagement with the University. This rating is determined by the URM in coordination with all university representatives. Inclination ratings can be any of the following: 

High: The prospect has significant affinity for the University and considers the University a key philanthropic priority. They may have an established relationship with the University, and a strong interest and/or involvement in one or more programs. o Note: The University representatives, in collaboration with the URM, should maintain this level of inclination through continued cultivation and regular assessment of engagement strategies.



Medium: The prospect has known affinity for the University, may consider the University a philanthropic priority, and may have the potential for strengthening their inclination. They

34

may have already have a relationship with the University, and a potential interest and/or involvement in one or more programs. o Note: The URM, in collaboration with other University representatives, should attempt to increase inclination through additional or continued cultivation. If the URM assesses that the prospect is unlikely to increase their inclination, they should maintain current levels of cultivation and add a revisit date indicating when the prospect’s inclination and potential engagement strategy should be re-assessed. 

Low: The prospect has some known affinity for the University but may not have been cultivated by a University representative, OR a University representative has confirmed that the prospect has low affinity and does not wish to deepen their relationship with the university. o Note: The URM should assess if additional cultivation is likely to increase the inclination of the prospect, or if the prospect should be revisited and re-assessed at a later date (via the addition of a revisit date completed by the URM).



To Be Qualified: Inclination is unknown and needs to be assessed by the URM and other University representatives working with the prospect. This is the default value for newly created prospects (individual, joint, and hybrid).



Disqualified: The prospect has no affinity for the University and has indicated that he/she does not want to be engaged in a relationship with the University at this time. o Note: an inclination rating of “Disqualified” should be accompanied by an updated “Revisit Date” which indicates when, if ever, a University representative should attempt to re-assess the prospect. If the constituent(s) will never be a viable prospect for the university and should not be re-assessed in the future, the URM should alert Prospect Management to have the prospect record inactivated.



Under URM Review: This value is intended for one-time use when University Inclination is rolled out to the frontline. This value indicates that a prospect has previously been qualified by a University representative (i.e. had a “University Rating”) and as such, needs to be immediately reviewed by the URM to apply a new Inclination rating.



N/A for Orgs: Organization prospects will not be required to be assessed for inclination. All organization prospect records will default to this inclination value.

Team Rating - The gift range in which a prospect is likely to give to the University, over the current campaign period, to the fundraising program or area represented by the Team Manager. This rating is determined by the Team Manager and should be used to inform the University Rating. Research Gift Capacity Rating - An estimation of the total amount that a prospect could give over a fiveyear period. It is based on publicly available information about personal wealth, assets, and philanthropy, and may be surmised by information about career history or family wealth. This rating is provided by the Prospect Research Team. Modeled Capacity Rating – A statistically generated gift capacity estimate based on a combination of vendor wealth screening data and internal University of Chicago biographic and relationship data. Screened Capacity Rating (aka electronic wealth screening) – Electronic wealth screening is the process by which wealth information is collected from financial and biographical data sources in order to develop a gift capacity rating. Constituents are assessed via a number of data sources and appended with information that seems to be a likely match. This data then informs an estimated screened gift capacity rating.

35

University Strategy - A comprehensive strategy developed by the URM in coordination with all active TMs that considers multiple interests and all forms of giving (annual, reunion, major, and planned) to maximize the prospect’s giving during the current campaign. Team Strategy – A strategy developed by the TM that considers the prospect’s interest in the program or area represented by the TM to maximize the prospect’s giving to that program or area during the current campaign. Prospect Action – Significant information recorded on the prospect record that supports the development of the prospect’s relationship with the University. This may include visit activity, other correspondence, and incidental notes. Solicitation – A proposal managed and maintained in Griffin with the purpose of engaging a donor in giving to a specific program or area of the University. Solicitations are tracked from the planning stages through the receipt of a gift. Clearance Process - Solicitations of $25K or more must be cleared via the automated clearance process in Griffin before they are asked. Solicitations over $5M or on any Principal Gift prospects are excluded from the automated clearance process. These solicitations are manually reviewed by Senior Leadership. Clearance is not required for solicitations under $25K. Principal Gift Prospect [Under Review] – A prospect with a University Rating of $5M+ or an Active University Trustee or Trustee Emeriti. These prospects receive a “Principal Gift Prospect” tag in Griffin. Principal Gift Suspect [Under Review] – A prospect with a Capacity Rating of $5M+ and a University Rating of “To Be Qualified”. These prospects receive a “Principal Gift Suspect” tag in Griffin. Major Gift Prospect [Under Review] – A prospect with a University Rating of $100K - $4.9M. Major Gift Suspect [Under Review] – A prospect with a Capacity Rating of $100K - $4.9M and a University Rating of “To Be Qualified”.

36