Fundraising Programs

Overall the entries seemed less exciting this year. While there were some very professional examples of best practice, there seemed to be fewer applications that were truly ground breaking or where the creative level caused the judges to be excited or awed by those making applications.

Annual and Regular Giving Programs (2A)

21 entries

This subcategory was considered by the judges to be the strongest of the six subcategories they viewed.

Gold Medal 

The College of New Jersey, (Target 10000)

• Common goal (alumni participation) packaged and marketed in a compelling fashion; engaging Web site.

Silver Medal 

Trinity College, (One: Two Challenge)

• A well-presented application; innovative challenge program; makes excellent use of key donors and volunteers.

Bronze Medal 

Carleton University, (Campus Community Campaign)

• Strong and well-organized entry; campus campaign sculpted to allow community to give input into what their values are; gave the community a voice; good use of resources; great branding.

---

Principle, Major, or Special Giving Programs (2B)

9 entries

This category was considered by the judges to be the weakest of the six subcategories they viewed.

Gold Medal 

University of Hong Kong, (Stanley Ho Alumni Challenge – “One Heart, One Family”

• Extraordinary; generous challenge ($64 million); donor knew what it meant to be giving in new ways that are not embedded in the culture; He knew he had to develop a spirit of giving; description of program is thorough; lots of participation; involvement constant and steady. Judges also thought that it would be hard to replicate at other institutions because of the size of the gift.

Silver Medal 

Berry College, (Leave a Legacy)

• Good revitalization when not at goal; good idea in a crunch situation but not a lot of innovation in increasing the number of solicitations.

Bronze Medal 

University of California, Irvine, (Principal Gifts: Fundraising Soars to All-Time High)

• Speaks to a solution; clear on impact; didn’t really connect to mission; very well-designed; analytic, benchmarked; well-organized; great homework; embedded a teaching process as well as a fundraising process; well-focused with good results over four years.

---

Corporate and Foundation Programs (2C)

No entries

---

Campaigns(2D)

11 entries

The judges were disappointed overall in the entries.

Gold Medal

University of California, Irvine, (Building the Foundation for a Successful Fundraising Campaign from Request for Information to “BIG IDEAS”)

• All about big ideas and priorities; excellent well-stated application; good teaching and planning tool; very inclusive and strategic.

Bronze Medals

Colgate University, (Trustee Challenge)

• An innovative and serious challenge; very aggressive; got campaign rolling; raised level of thinking; good use of a wonderful opportunity.

Tufts University, (Tufts Alumni Council Campaign)

• Terrific inclusivity with alumni board and leadership in a university effort that can be challenging; alumni council had never been involved in a fundraising effort before; looked at full circle of relationship; bold.

---

Stewardship(2E)

6 entries

The judges were disappointed overall in the entries

Gold Medal

St. Mary’s College, (Recognition Weekend)

• Well organized weekend activities devoted to stewardship; good focus on women’s philanthropy and education; placed college mission statement front and center (often reserved for elite women’s’ colleges) making it more remarkable.

Silver Medal

University of California, Irvine, (Our Best Prospects Are Our Well-Stewarded Donors)

• Terrific planning aspect; annual plan; model program; very thorough; loved checklist; cross-teamed; very detailed; based on philanthropy tenet that well-stewarded donors are future donors.

Bronze Medal

Carleton University, (Stewardship Program for the Henry Marshall Tory Society)

• Nicely done; good use of historic figure knitting the past; thoroughly branded; good follow through; maintained contact by using update letters; good results; a huge increase in the Tory Society; good bang for the buck.

---

Technology(2F)

2 entries

No awards given

The judges thought the nothing was truly innovative; boring; not impressive; mediocre presentations; using outside vendors diluted impact/results.