Development Officer Handbook

U TAH

T ECH

U NIVER S IT Y

DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

HANDBOOK

TABLE OF

CONTENTS 03

THE HANDBOOKS PURPOSE

11

TIME ALLOCATION GUIDANCE

04

UTAH TECH AT A GLANCE

12

VISIT & CONTACT STANDARDS

05

CASE-ALIGNED GUIDING PRINCIPALS

13

DISCOVERY & QUALIFICATION QUESTIONS

06

ROLES OF THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

13

PROPOSAL STRATEGY

07

CENTRALIZED ADVANCEMENT MODEL

14

CAMPUS PARTNER ROLES

08

PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT

15

GIFT AGREEMENTS & DONOR INTENT

09

FUNDRAISING CYCLES

15

CENTRALIZED MODEL IN ATHLETICS

16

CORPORATE & FOUNDATION RELATIONS BASIC

22

INVOLVING A DEAN

17

STEWARDSHIP STANDARDS

22

INVOLVING A COACH

18

DOCUMENTATION & CRM DISCIPLINE

23

DEAN COACHES & PRESIDENT RECOMMENDED INVOLVEMENT

18

METRICS THAT MATTER

24

HOW MUCH CAN A DEAN REASONABLY ASK OF A DO?

19

WHAT NEW DOs SHOULD STOP DOING

25

WHO TO ENGAGE & WHEN

20

DEVELOPMENT OFFICERS FIRST 90 DAYS

26

FINAL OPERATING PHILOSOPHY

21

EXPECTATIONS & PORTFOLIO REVIEW

THE HANDBOOKS

PURPOSE

This handbook provides a practical operating guide for Development Officers (DOs) at Utah Tech University. It is designed for a centralized advancement model with a lean frontline team serving the full institution, including athletics. It draws on CASE-aligned principles for ethical fundraising, donor-centered practice, institutional coordination, sound portfolio management, stewardship, and gift accountability.

This is not meant to be a rigid script. It is a shared framework so that each DO works with consistency, discipline, and sound judgment while still adapting to donor readiness, institutional priorities, and the realities of a mid-sized university.

UTAH TECH

AT A GLANCE Utah Tech is a regional mid-sized public university with approximately 13,000 students. Our advancement operation is centralized, and we have a small number of frontline fundraisers supporting the whole campus.

THAT MEANS:

We must be selective

We cannot pursue every lead with the same intensity

We must focus on qualified relationships and institutional priorities

We must partner with deans, coaches, faculty, and campus leaders without losing clarity on fundraising roles

We must protect donor trust, institutional reputation, and internal alignment

04

CASE-ALIGNED

GUIDING PRINCIPLES OUR WORK SHOULD REFLECT THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES: •

Donor intent matters. Gifts must be used as intended and documented appropriately

•

The institution comes first. We raise support for Utah Tech’s mission and priorities, not for personal agendas or side arrangements

•

Ethics are non-negotiable. We do not misstate impact, pressure donors unfairly, promise things we cannot deliver, or allow donors to retain improper control over gifts

•

Relationships are long-term. Fundraising is not merely asking for money; it is building trust over time

•

Stewardship begins before the gift. Clear communication, realistic expectations, and strong follow-through are part of cultivation

•

Collaboration is essential. Development officers are coordinators, translators, and shepherds of opportunity across campus

•

Time is our scarcest resource. Portfolio focus and disciplined qualification are essential in a centralized model

05

ROLES OF THE

DEVELOPMENT OFFICER A Development Officer is responsible for identifying, qualifying, cultivating, soliciting, and stewarding philanthropic support for Utah Tech University.

IN PRACTICE, THAT MEANS A DO SHOULD: •

Build and manage a portfolio of qualified donors and prospects

•

Advance relationships through purposeful strategy and timely follow-up

•

Match donor interests with institutional needs

•

Facilitate visits, proposals, gift conversations, and gift closure

•

Coordinate campus partners appropriately

•

Ensure gift agreements and documentation are handled correctly

•

Maintain accurate CRM records and next steps

•

Practice thoughtful stewardship after every significant interaction and gift

A DO is not primarily an event manager, travel scheduler, administrative processor, or general campus errand-runner. In our office, everyone helps where needed, but the core value of a DO is frontline relationship management that leads to philanthropic outcomes.

06 05

CENTRALIZED

ADVANCEMENT MODEL BECAUSE UTAH TECH USES A CENTRALIZED ADVANCEMENT MODEL: •

Donor strategy is coordinated through Advancement, not independently by each college, unit, or coach

•

DOs represent the whole institution, even when assigned to particular units or priorities

•

We avoid fragmented donor outreach, duplicate asks, and competing campus messages

•

Deans, faculty, coaches, and staff are essential partners, but Advancement manages fundraising strategy, donor movement, and solicitation planning

•

Major donor relationships belong to the institution, not to an individual unit or employee

This requires strong communication and maturity. We must listen carefully to campus partners while also bringing discipline to the fundraising process.

GIVING PYRAMID

07

PORTFOLIO

MANAGEMENT At Utah Tech, portfolio discipline is essential. Each DO should carry a manageable set of prospects that reflects actual capacity to move relationships.

RECOMMENDED PORTFOLIO PHILOSOPHY •

Prioritize fewer, better-managed prospects over large inactive lists

•

Portfolio should only contain qualified prospects

•

Every assigned prospect should have a strategy, a next step, and a reason they remain assigned

•

Thoughtful effort, the prospect should be reviewed for reassignment, pause, or removal

SUGGESTED PORTFOLIO TIERS BECAUSE WE ARE SMALL, IT IS HELPFUL TO CLASSIFY PROSPECTS SIMPLY:

Top prospects with strong capacity, strong alignment, and active strategy. These require the greatest attention

Qualified prospects with real potential but less urgency, less readiness, or less clarity

Emerging prospects who merit some attention but should not consume disproportionate time

WORKING NORMS DO’S SHOULD REVIEW THEIR PORTFOLIO REGULARLY AND BE ABLE TO ANSWER: Why is this prospect assigned to me?

What is the philanthropic opportunity?

What is the next meaningful move?

What campus partner must be involved?

Is this prospect still qualified?

08

STANDARD

FUNDRAISING CYCLE IDENTIFICATION POTENTIAL DONORS ARE IDENTIFIED THROUGH:

•

Alumni and parent relationships

•

Event participation

•

Community connections

•

Wealth screening and prospect research

•

Volunteer engagement

•

•

Grateful patient or student/family pathways where relevant

Referrals from university leaders, board members, faculty, coaches, and existing donors

QUALIFICATION QUALIFICATION DETERMINES WHETHER A PROSPECT SHOULD BE ACTIVELY MANAGED IN A FRONTLINE PORTFOLIO. A QUALIFIED PROSPECT GENERALLY SHOWS EVIDENCE OF:

•

Philanthropic capacity

•

Interest that could realistically align with institutional priorities

•

Some connection to Utah Tech or its mission

•

A prospect is not qualified simply because they are wealthy, famous, friendly, or attended an event

•

Openness to engagement

CULTIVATION CULTIVATION BUILDS UNDERSTANDING, TRUST, AND ALIGNMENT. THIS MAY INCLUDE:

•

Discovery visits

•

Tailored updates

•

Campus tours

•

Proposal development

•

Faculty or student interaction

•

Involving senior leaders at the right time

•

Small gatherings

09

SOLICITATION SOLICITATION IS THE CLEAR INVITATION TO MAKE A GIFT. IT SHOULD INCLUDE:

•

A defined purpose

•

A rationale tied to donor interest and institutional need

•

A specific amount or range

•

Clarity around timing, payment schedule, naming or recognition if applicable, and any gift agreement requirements

STEWARDSHIP Stewardship includes acknowledgment, reporting, gratitude, recognition, and continued relationshipbuilding. It also includes ensuring the donor sees that the institution followed through.

Stewardship is not separate from fundraising performance. Strong stewardship drives future giving, referrals, and trust.

FUNDRAISING CYCLE

TIME ALLOCATION

GUIDANCE Given our size and staffing, Development Officer’s should protect time for high-value work.

A HEALTHY ALLOCATION GENERALLY LOOKS LIKE: •

Majority of time on donor strategy, outreach, visits, proposals, and stewardship

•

Limited time on internal meetings

•

Minimal time on low-yield activities that do not lead to donor movement

WHEN TRADE OFFS ARISE, PRIORITIZE:

Donor-facing strategy and follow-up

11

Proposal movement

Gift closure and stewardship

Internal coordination necessary to advance live opportunities

Lower-level administrative tasks

VISIT & CONTACT

STANDARDS Not every interaction is equally valuable. We should emphasize meaningful contact over activity for activity’s sake.

MEANINGFUL CONTACT MAY INCLUDE: •

A substantive face-to-face or virtual visit

•

A strategic phone call

•

A tailored message that advances a decision

•

An introduction to a university leader that deepens alignment

•

A proposal discussion

•

A stewardship meeting with clear donor relevance

Mass emails, generic invitations, and low-substance check-ins should not be mistaken for major gift progress.

Additionally, these low impact touches should NOT be included in weekly actions until the touches produce meaningful results.

12

DISCOVERY & QUALIFICATION

QUESTIONS

New DOs should become comfortable asking direct but respectful questions.

QUESTIONS SUCH AS: •

What first drew you to Utah Tech?

•

•

What part of the university matters most to you now?

What kind of impact do you hope your philanthropy has?

•

Have you supported similar causes before?

•

Would it be helpful if I shared a few priorities where support could make a difference?

•

How do you like to engage with causes you care about?

The goal is not interrogation. The goal is clarity. While the university will always have needs, remember that it is the donor who is giving their time, talent, or funds to make these things materialize. Always lead with the donor’s desired pathway to impact.

PROPOSAL

STRATEGY A proposal should not be sent merely because a donor asked for something in writing. A proposal should represent a thoughtful step in a live strategy.

A PROPOSAL SHOULD SHOW:

A STRONG PROPOSAL IS: •

Donor-centered

•

The need

•

Aligned with a real institutional priority

•

The opportunity

•

Specific in amount and purpose

•

The anticipated impact

•

Realistic in scope

•

Why this donor is a meaningful fit

•

Internally approved as needed

•

Paired with a plan for follow-up

13

CAMPUS PARTNER

ROLES

KEY CAMPUS PARTNERS MAY INCLUDE:

President

Cabinet

Faculty

Advancement Services

Deans and Academic Leaders

Athletics Leadership and Coaches

Donor Relations/

Finance and Legal *as needed

Stewardship Staff

CAMPUS PARTNERS SHOULD:

DO’S SHOULD:

•

Share leads and context

•

Keep partners informed

•

Help shape priorities

•

Not overuse leadership time

•

Engage with donors when strategically appropriate

•

Prepare campus partners well before donor interactions

•

Avoid making unsanctioned funding promises

•

Debrief after meetings

•

Translate donor conversations into actionable next steps

•

Coordinate with Advancement before solicitations

14

GIFT AGREEMENTS

& DONOR INTENT Every significant restricted gift should be documented appropriately. A donor’s wishes matter, but donor intent must be expressed in a way the university can actually administer.

GIFT AGREEMENTS AND DONOR INTENT

Clear

Specific but not overly rigid

Aligned with university policy

Durable enough to remain useful over time

Reviewed by the appropriate internal offices

DOs should avoid vague promises, side agreements, or language that gives donors ongoing control.

CENTRALIZED MODEL IN

ATHLETICS

Athletics can be a high-energy environment with many immediate needs and many engaged constituents. In a centralized model, that energy must still be coordinated.

ATHLETICS-RELATED FUNDRAISING SHOULD FOLLOW THE SAME STANDARDS AS ACADEMIC FUNDRAISING: •

Donor ownership belongs to the institution

•

•

Strategies should be coordinated through Advancement

Donor benefits must be handled ethically and lawfully

•

Athletics urgency should not crowd out institutional discipline

•

Gift documentation must be clear

15

CORPORATE & FOUNDATION

RELATIONS BASIC

Corporate and foundation partners require disciplined institutional coordination.

DO’S SHOULD: •

FOR FOUNDATIONS, PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO:

Understand whether the opportunity is philanthropic, sponsorship, marketing, or transactional (see UT Policy 262)

•

Proposal deadlines

•

Restricted-use requirements

•

Coordinate with Advancement leadership and relevant policy owners

•

Reporting obligations

•

Avoid presenting sponsorship revenue as charitable if it does not meet standards

•

Faculty and program partner readiness

•

Ensure the institution speaks as one

16

STEWARDSHIP

STANDARDS GOOD STEWARDSHIP INCLUDES: •

Prompt thanks

•

Accurate gift receipting

•

Timely notification to internal partners

•

Impact reporting when promised

•

Recognition handled as agreed

•

Continued relationship management after the gift

Larger gifts stewardship plan should be documented.

THIS MAY INCLUDE: •

Who thanks the donor

•

When updates will be sent

•

What reports are required

•

What events or student touchpoints are appropriate

•

When the next meaningful engagement should happen

17

DOCUMENTATION & CRM

DISCIPLINE

If it is not documented, it is difficult to manage, transfer, or steward well. Every DO is expected to maintain timely and useful CRM records.

INCLUDING: •

Contact reports

•

Proposal status

•

Strategy notes

•

Solicitor assignments

•

Next steps

•

Gift conversation context

•

Stewardship obligations

CRM notes should be professional, factual, and helpful to a colleague who may inherit the relationship.

METRICS THAT

MATTER Given the size of our development team, metrics should drive good behavior rather than busyness.

USEFUL INDICATORS INCLUDE: Number of qualified prospects in portfolio

Percentage of prospects with a documented next step

Number of substantive visits

Proposals submitted

Proposals pending

Dollars asked

Dollars closed

Stewardship actions completed

Qualification outcomes

Pipeline health by stage

Metrics should be interpreted in context. Quality matters. A Development Officer should not chase visit counts at the expense of strategy.

18

WHAT NEW DOs

SHOULD STOP DOING New DOs often waste time in predictable ways.

AVOID THE FOLLOWING: •

Carrying too many unqualified names

•

Over-relying on email

•

Confusing friendly contacts with philanthropic prospects

•

Letting every internal request become a fundraising priority

•

Sending proposals too early

•

Failing to document next steps

•

Waiting too long to make a clear ask

•

Promising outcomes before internal approval

•

Operating independently from campus partners

•

Treating stewardship as an afterthought

19

DEVELOPMENT OFFICERS

FIRST 90 DAYS •

•

Learn institutional priorities and campaign/funding priorities Understand gift processing, gift agreements,stewardship, and naming procedures

•

Meet key campus partners

•

Review assigned portfolio and remove obvious dead weight

•

Shadow donor meetings where possible

•

Begin qualification outreach

•

Advance qualified prospects into active cultivation

•

Conduct discovery visits

•

Build simple written strategies for top prospects

•

Identify early proposal opportunities

•

Learn how leadership is used in donor strategy

•

Present portfolio review to supervisor

•

Coordinate with advancement services and stewardship colleagues

•

Demonstrate consistent CRM documentation

•

Build a rhythm of outreach, follow-up, and internal coordination

EXPECTATIONS &

PORTFOLIO REVIEW SUPERVISORS SHOULD REGULARLY REVIEW:

Portfolio composition

Stalled prospects

Proposal pipeline

Leadership strategy

Stewardship follow-through

Time allocation and obstacles

Reviews should be candid and useful. The purpose is not surveillance. It is sharpening judgment and outcomes.

21

INVOLVING A

DEAN

Deans are expected to contribute to fundraising by helping articulate vision, build the case for support, listen to donors, and collaborate with development officers across the donor cycle. But the emphasis is collaboration with advancement, not parallel fundraising operations.

THAT MEANS DEANS SHOULD:

Help define funding priorities

Help identify and warm up relationships

Join selected visits where academic credibility matters

Assist with stewardship and impact reporting

Avoid independently directing DO activity without advancement approval

INVOLVING A

COACH Coaches are valuable partner-participants, but fundraising strategy should remain coordinated through Advancement and in conjunction with the Athletic Director.

THAT MEANS COACHES SHOULD:

Identify prospects

Deepen authenticity with athletics donors

Help host or attend visits

Thank and steward donors

They should not independently solicit major gifts, negotiate terms, or pull DOs into constant reactive activity.

Remember, development officers are supervised by Advancement, not by deans, coaches, or department chairs. Deans and coaches are essential fundraising partners, but requests for DO time, travel, donor meetings, proposals, and strategy must be prioritized through Advancement leadership according to institutional priorities, prospect readiness, and portfolio capacity.

22

DEAN, COACH, & PRESIDENT

RECOMMENDED INVOLVEMENT ADVANCEMENT OWNS THESE DECISIONS THESE RESPONSIBILITIES SIT WITH ADVANCEMENT LEADERSHIP AND/OR THE ASSIGNED DO: •

Portfolio assignment

•

Proposal development

•

Gift agreement routing

•

Prospect qualification

•

Visit strategy

•

Stewardship plan

•

Timing of outreach

•

•

Who makes the ask

Whether the president or dean should attend

DEANS AND COACHES MAY REQUEST, BUT NOT DIRECT A DEAN OR COACH MAY:

A DEAN OR COACH MAY NOT:

•

Suggest a prospect

•

Assign a prospect immediately

•

Request help on a funding priority

•

Promise donor meetings

•

Ask to join a visit

•

Bypass guidelines

•

Flag urgency

•

Offer donor terms or benefits

•

Provide content expertise

•

Decide major-gift readiness

23

DEAN & COACH SERVICE STANDARDS ADVANCEMENT COMMITS TO: •

DEANS/COACHES COMMIT TO:

Quarterly strategy meetings with each dean/ unit leader

•

Funneling requests through the assigned DO

•

Limiting “special asks” to high-value opportunities

•

A shared list of top priorities per unit

•

A regular prospect review cadence

•

•

Clear thresholds for when a dean, coach, or president is brought in

Providing timely follow-up and content when they ask Advancement for support

•

Not creating donor expectations before Advancement review

TRIGGER POINTS FOR INVOLVEMENT INVOLVE A DEAN WHEN:

INVOLVE A DEAN WHEN:

•

Academic/programmatic credibility is necessary

•

Athletics identity is central to the relationship

•

The donor wants content expertise

•

The donor has a strong affinity to a team

The prospect is being cultivated for a major restricted gift tied to the dean’s unit

•

•

•

Stewardship would be more meaningful coming from the dean

•

The relationship necessitates a dean’s involvement (such as a named dean suite)

Coach presence materially strengthens trust or stewardship

INVOLVE A DEAN WHEN: •

Prospect is top-tier

•

The gift would be transformational

•

Institutional alignment or prestige matters

•

The relationship needs executive validation

•

Closing the gift will likely benefit from presidential presence

24

HOW MUCH CAN A

DEAN REASONABLY ASK OF A DO? A dean should not think of a DO as “their” fundraiser.

IN A CENTRALIZED SHOP, THE DEAN SHOULD RECEIVE: •

One regular strategy meeting per month or quarter

•

Partnership on a small number of highpotential visits

•

Support for a limited number of priority prospects

•

Proposal support only for vetted opportunities

Each dean may bring forward priorities freely, but Advancement will actively manage only the top three–five philanthropic opportunities per dean at a time, depending on gift potential and DO capacity.

WHO TO

ENGAGE & WHEN PRESIDENT-LEVEL OPPORTUNITIES

DEAN/COACH PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES

ADVANCEMENT-ONLY OPPORTUNITIES

Managed by Advancement with

Managed by Advancement with

president involvement only for

dean/coach involvement when

high-value opportunities where

expertise, donor connection,

partnership strengthens the gift

or a qualified relationship is

Handled by the DO without dean/president involvement unless and until the strategy changes.

potential.

important.

The most important sentence to tell Deans “Your role is to help open doors, deepen meaning, and represent the academic vision. Advancement’s role is to manage the relationship, prioritize time, and move the gift.”

25

FINAL

OPERATING PHILOSOPHY At Utah Tech, our development work must be disciplined, ethical, donor-centered, and realistic about capacity. We are not a large advancement shop, which means we cannot win by volume alone. We win by clarity, coordination, credibility, and follow-through. A strong DO at Utah Tech does not try to do everything. A strong DO focuses on the right relationships, advances them with consistency, and represents the institution well at every step.