Fundraising Programs

2010 Circle of Excellence Awards
Judges Report

Annual/Regular Giving Programs:
In general, the judges felt that the entries were good, but not many were noteworthy. All four judges agreed that four or five out of 17 entries were deserving of recognition. But there was a considerable gap between the best and those that didn't make the cut.

--The judges used the submitted financial figures to confirm campaign success. Some entries distorted or masked their results by using percentages or by combining numbers from multiple years. Other submissions were carelessly prepared, with questions unaddressed (or misunderstood), and, in some cases, what appeared to be fudging of figures.

--Many institutions defined something as "innovative" if it was new to them, even if the idea itself was not new. For example, some small schools, or those new to fundraising, described the idea that they were breaking new, often scary, ground. But other institutions seemed to rework the same approach year after year, with methods and practices passed on from institution to institution. The judges, universally, found themselves giving a little extra weight to innovation, especially when institutions were taking chances and/or looking for new ways and new approaches.

--Slowly, some institutions were beginning to explore the so-called new media, i.e., websites, online giving, social networking. Clearly, some institutions were embracing new media while others were dragging their feet a little-and the overall issue seemed to be: How does a campus embrace new media while preserving the personal touch, the human factor?

Common denominators: If there was one thread running through the entries, it was an emphasis on the people factor: keeping things personal, one on one, involving more students, more volunteers. The judges noticed a trend toward personalizing advancement efforts-matching students and alumni/ae, for instance (Marquette), trying to establish one-to-one donor/student relationships for four-year scholarship support (Morehouse), shifting the usual focus on how to convince donors to give more to explaining why their giving is important, and doing this through personal stories ("public narrative," Harvard) requiring introspection and personal reflection. Harvard, better than the others, articulated the risks of doing this when their donor pool is so accustomed to a more impersonal approach based on quantifiable factors. A number of the applicants are striving to broaden the donor base, several by targeting currently enrolled students (UC Berkeley, London Business School, Kent State, Nanyang Tech).

Innovations: London Business School's video, while short, was exceptionally well produced and blended serious content with human-interest photographs that really did give one a sense of the student body and the spirit of the place. It's hard to tell how innovative it is, but it seemed to do the job better than a lot of other entries from institutions that used five or six different means to achieve more or less the same result.

Negatives: Many of the submissions were slapdash-typos, grammatical errors, questions left unaddressed or answered minimally (in one case, an institution had actually omitted several questions entirely so they didn't even appear on the form submitted). A large number misread the question about supporting the mission of the institution and simply repeated the mission of the advancement project. In general, the judges were disappointed with the design of printed materials-only a few stood out (Marquette's being one). Along those lines, it was a bit difficult to compare a student telethon with a major, fully-staffed and heavily funded advancement program

Reading the entry statements first, the judges often found fresh concepts and innovative ideas, only to discover that the final pieces had weak writing and/or design. There was "good concept/bad design" in several cases, and in one case "bad concept/good design."

Overall: Many institutions did a nice job of branding their campaigns-establishing slogans and design themes for use across a wide range of applications. The four medal winners were able to bring many elements-planning, concept, writing, design-together successfully.

Comprehensive analysis seemed to be another winning factor. All of the medal winners described a well-structured overall approach (Berkeley and Harvard stood out). Rather than updating the previous year's effort, they examined all aspects in detail, questioning and rethinking everything. This process opened new doors and made elements of innovation and even fun possible (London Business School's web slideshow with music is a good example).

Principal, Major or Special Giving Programs

Seven entries were received. Limited to giving awards to only 10 percent of the category, we made only one award - and it was a standout. We had a couple of international entries in this category and carefully considered them, but none of the contenders came close to our winner in terms of the criteria.

Grand Gold Award: The Culver Academies - "The Batten Leadership Challenge"
The Batten Challenge blew us away. Announced in December 2008 when everyone in education was worried about huge losses to our endowments and concerned that our major donors might turn away from this critical gift priority, Culver Academies' brave, counter-cyclical initiative succeeded in building the institution's endowment from $152 million to $280 million in just over one (economically tumultuous) year. The Batten Challenge embodies one of the key elements of Culver's stated mission: leadership. The donors were visionary and extraordinarily generous, inspiring the staff to press the community forward to stunning success. With a wisely conceived, well-executed, time-limited, broad-based challenge grant, Culver did something truly transformational that will strengthen the institution for generations. We were impressed not only by the donor's generosity, but also by the multi-channel, constituency-wide fundraising effort. It impressed us that every portion of the institution would benefit from the rising tide of increased endowment - and that, to qualify, gifts had to be paid (not just pledged) by the deadline. The Batten Challenge stands out as a tremendous model for educational fundraising campaigns. Indeed, at least one judge vowed to share the story and materials with our most capable donor/trustees when the time is right. We may not all have a Mr. and Mrs. Batten, but the success of this effort could be replicated other places even if the lead gift sported a different number of zeros. The tagline says it all: "An extraordinary gift deserves and extraordinary response."

Campaigns

Of the 25 total entries, six rose to the level of award-worthiness in the judges' opinion, so we examined them closely. Innovation was the category's weakness; many of the strategies had been seen before, and some initiatives required more staff time and investment than would seem to justify the dollars raised. Our winners stood out for their relevance, urgency and cost-effective execution.

Gold Award: Syracuse University - "Keep ‘em ‘Cuse"
We were very impressed with the innovative, short, and very intensive "Keep ‘em ‘Cuse" campaign. Responding to a difficult economic climate, the "Syracuse Responds Initiative" helped many students whose families at the end of 2008 faced sudden increased job losses, record home foreclosures, escalating costs of living, shrinking college funds and a tightening credit market by raising more than $1 million in mere seven weeks to provide increased scholarship funds for students impacted most by the economic downturn. We were impressed by the campaign materials and by the fact that, excluding salaries, the cost of executing the campaign was less than five cents on the dollar. Perhaps even more significant, 26 percent of donors were first-time donors to the university and one first-time donor was inspired to make a $50,000 gift.

The planning and execution of the "Keep ‘em ‘Cuse was exemplary and demonstrated that strategic, bold thinking and efficient campaign implementation can make a significant difference. By addressing a burgeoning student need with an immediate, targeted and innovative fundraising solution, Syracuse created a model that other institutions can replicate as they seek to respond to immediate crises impacting their students.

Silver Award: Emory University - MyEmory Employee Campaign
Emory University's MyEmory poster and e-mail solicitations are the product of an ingenious strategy to engage faculty and staff in giving, and to demonstrate the breadth of engagement and ownership of the university by faculty and staff constituents. The results is an appeal that is inspirational and that indubitably motivates faculty and staff support toward Emory's aggressive campaign goals. Nineteen percent of those solicited supported the effort in the measurement period and the program has raised nearly $42.5 million in less than five years, toward a goal of $50 million in seven. The creative multi-media approach, while not inexpensive, is an example of how employee support should be garnered; but the emotional connection inspired by the use of faculty and staff testimonials is what moves this panel of judges. MyEmory made us want to work at Emory, if not just plain give to it.

Bronze Award: Flagler College - Five-Year Project Campaign
We were extremely impressed with the Flagler College Five-Year Campaign for several reasons, chief among them, Flagler's ability to transform its fundraising activities from what was described in its application as rudimentary to a successful, comprehensive program that garnered unprecedented support from new and diverse constituencies in a short time span of five years. The decision to focus on a project-based campaign versus a more traditional capital campaign led to a focused effort through which Flagler was able to galvanize enthusiasm for its new student center and the renovation of its art building, enabling it to raise $30 million dollars - surpassing its goal of $17 million. These efforts were supported by the first-time creation of an extensive advancement infrastructure, which included (but was not limited to ) the development of comprehensive campaign materials, a travel program for its fundraisers, a philanthropic naming opportunity system, a senior class gift program, a family giving program and a faculty giving program. This essential, behind the scenes work enabled Flagler to reach out to new, untapped donor groups including faculty, students, young donors, parents and families at a cost to dollars raised of $0.16 and to grow its alumni giving rate from 17.5 percent in 2005 to 26 percent in 2009. It is also not lost on us that the college faced a very challenging economic climate during the final year and a half of its campaign. Given the victories noted above and Flagler's growth of total donors from 800 to 4,000, we believe that the Five-Year Project Campaign positions this young institution well to establish a culture of philanthropy. It stands as a model from which other institutions with emergent fundraising program may certainly benefit.