Page 1

Philanthropy Study Committee

Evaluate and report on how to maximize private funding support UNM over the long term BENCHMARKING The Committee will benchmark other institutions, both peer and aspirational, and evaluate the size and scope of the peers’ development operations and funding mechanisms.

EVALUATING Drawing from the evaluation, the Committee will evaluate UNM’s philanthropic effort, encompassing staffing, funding, and design of philanthropic efforts going forward.

REPORTING A report with recommendations will be presented to the UNM Board of Regents and the UNM Foundation Board of Trustees by no later than June 30, 2012 (target date: mid-April 2012). (Amended target date: mid-March).


Philanthropy Study Committee

Review of Summary Points:

David Bass – AGB  The percentage of state provided support to public colleges and universities has dropped from 46% in 1980 to 27% in 2005 and is expected to continue to decline  Tuition has increased from 13% to 18%  Private support at an average of 8.5%  Private support is becoming more important as economic conditions change  Private fund raising of major gifts is a long term process  Foundation assets need to be around $750 million to $1 billion in order to produce income for the foundation to have reductions in institutional support


Philanthropy Study Committee

Review of Summary Points:

Paul Robell – University of Florida Foundation  The Foundation relationship with the Deans has been the key to successful fundraising  Our goal is for experienced development officers to raise at least an average of $2 million per year. . .it takes approximately 2 to 4 years to raise that level of funds  Investment in development officers includes not only their salaries, but also staff support, administration and other related costs


Philanthropy Study Committee

Review of Summary Points:

Paul Robell – University of Florida Foundation (cont.)  There is no direct relationship to funds raised and budgeted funds required to pay fundraising costs  University of Florida Foundation holds and invests “callable” funds to be distributed as does University of Colorado  The fee on endowment is 120 bps or 1.20%  There is no gift fee


Philanthropy Study Committee

Review of Summary Points:

Cara Quackenbush - Eduventures  There are 3 major groups of factors influencing return on investment: Institutional, Staff and Donors  Important metrics are cost to raise a dollar, dollars raised per frontline officer, dollars raised per budget dollar, department investment per area, ratio of frontline staff per services staff FTE, ratio of donors to alumni base, ratio of rated prospects to alumni base and average gift size  UNM falling in the $55 million to $99.9 million level. . . averages for this level were $70 million raised (annually) with a budget of $10.6 million. . .90 FTE advancement staff, 28 of those were frontline FTE


Philanthropy Study Committee

UNM Founda.on  Staffing   Infrastructure  

18 16  

UNM Found1on  Actual  FY10/11  FTEs  

16

Eduventures  2010  Survey  Median  FTEs  

Breakout of  UNMF's    "other  service  areas"  category    

14

Eduventures survey  currently  underway  .   UNM  Founda>on  FY11/12  data  will  be   included  to  provide  direct  comparisons.  

12 10  

10

7

6

6 4  

(see handout  for  addi/onal  informa/on)  

8

8

17

6

6.5

5 3  

3 2  

2

2

0 Marke.ng  

Research

Stewardship and  Events  

IT/Data Management  

Execu.ve Leadership  

Finance &   Accoun.ng  

Human Resources  

Opera.ons

Other Service   Areas  


Philanthropy Study Committee

UNMF – Comparing 2009 to 2012 Staffing

See Handout


UNMF Private  Support:    2003-­‐2011    $100,000,000      $90,000,000      $80,000,000      $70,000,000      $60,000,000      $50,000,000      $40,000,000      $30,000,000      $20,000,000      $10,000,000      $-­‐    


Philanthropy Study Committee

UNMF – 2012 Summary of Departments and Staff Population See Handout


Philanthropy Study Committee

2011 Institutional Advancement and Alumni Relations Compensation Survey McConnell 2012 Report See Handout


Philanthropy Study Committee

Review of Summary Points: Cara Quackenbush – Eduventures (cont.)

Key Findings  Increased investments over time in budget and staff produce higher fundraising totals  Despite budget constraints institutions are continuing to invest in advancement staff


Philanthropy Study Committee

Review of Summary Points:

Richard Lawrence – University of Colorado Foundation  UC made the decision to maintain investments in long term initiatives during tight budget periods  Planned giving is the most efficient fundraising initiative with a cost of $.08 to raise a dollar  UC holds monies to be distributed to the University until requested and earns a 3% short term interest rate on those “callable” funds  The fee on the endowment is 135 bps or 1.35%. University of Colorado does not have a gift fee


Philanthropy Study Committee

Evaluating Funding Sources See Handout:

UFFO Survey Pros and Cons of Key Revenue Sources (How Public College & University Foundations Pay for Fund- Raising – Royster C. Hedgepeth)


CAMPAIGN HISTORY “EMBRACE EXCELLENCE”

• T imeline: 1986-1990 • Development Officers: 25-30 • Goal: $200-$250 million • Result: $392.6 million


CAMPAIGN HISTORY “IT’S PERFORMANCE THAT COUNTS”

• 1997-2000 • Development Officers: 40 • Goal: $500 million - $750 million • Result: $850.4 million


CAMPAIGN HISTORY “FLORIDA TOMORROW” • 2005-2012 • Development Officers: 74 • Goal: $1.2-1.5 billion • Result: $1.45 billion to date- 10 months remaining


Philanthropy Study Committee

Minus Model  Reduc.on in  Development  Officers      

(from historically  low  performing  colleges)  

 minus  6  posi.ons  

 Reduc.on in  Propor.onate  Number  of     Administra.ve  and  Support  Staff        minus  6  posi.ons    Resul.ng  in  Budget  Reduc.on    

 $  720,000  

 Resul.ng in  Base  Fundraising  Capacity       Reduced  Annually  (approximately)                                $5  million    Resul.ng  in  Annual  Base                              Fundraising  Capacity          

   $45  -­‐  $55  million  


Philanthropy Study Committee

Model # 1  Current Budget  plus  Variance    ($500,000)    

(projected with  2%  infla.on  rate)  

 Current Staffing  Levels    

       (25  frontline  development  officers,  83.5  total  staff)  

 Budget (FY12/13)  

$                  9.8  million  

 Annual Base  Fundraising  Capacity        $50  -­‐  $60  million  


Philanthropy Study Committee Model # 2  Model #  1  Assump.ons  plus Adding  10  Staff  Over  5  Years                   Planned  Giving  Officer        

                                  Major  Gig  Officer                                             Regional  Officers  -­‐  East  and  West  Coast,  Central                                                 (to  be  assigned  based  on  evalua.on)                                           Total  Frontline  FTE    

 

   

 

 Budget (FY12/13)  

Support Staff     Total  New  Posi.ons    

             1                  1                  4                            

       

 6      4  

10

           (5th  year  -­‐  31  frontline  officers,  93.5  total  staff)  

$                    10  million  

 Annual Base  Fundraising  Capacity      

$62 –  $72  million  


Philanthropy Study Committee

Model # 3  Model #  1  and  Model  #  2  Assump.ons  plus Adding  10  More  Staff  (Total  20)Over  5  Years                   Addi.onal  Planned  Giving  Officer        

                Addi.onal  Unit  Based  Development  Staff                                    (assigned  to  historically  most  produc.ve  units)                         Total  Addi.onal  Frontline  FTE  

 

   

 

 Budget (FY12/13)  

Addi.onal Support  Staff     Total  Addi.onal  Posi.ons      

             1                  5                            

       

6 4  

                             10  

           (5th  year  -­‐  37  frontline  officers,  103.5  total  staff)  

$            10.3  million  

 Annual Base  Fundraising  Capacity      

$74 –  $84  million  


Philanthropy Study Committee

Evaluate and report on how to maximize private funding support UNM over the long term BENCHMARKING The Committee will benchmark other institutions, both peer and aspirational, and evaluate the size and scope of the peers’ development operations and funding mechanisms.

EVALUATING Drawing from the evaluation, the Committee will evaluate UNM’s philanthropic effort, encompassing staffing, funding, and design of philanthropic efforts going forward.

REPORTING A report with recommendations will be presented to the UNM Board of Regents and the UNM Foundation Board of Trustees by no later than June 30, 2012 (target date: mid-April 2012). (Amended target date: mid-March).

Profile for The University of New Mexico Foundation

UNMF Philanthropy February Committee Presentations  

Evaluate and report on how to maximize private funding support UNM over the long term.

UNMF Philanthropy February Committee Presentations  

Evaluate and report on how to maximize private funding support UNM over the long term.

Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded