UTAH TECH UNIVERSITY
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HANDBOOK
DISCOVERY
PROPOSAL
INVOLVING A DEAN
INVOLVING A COACH
DEAN COACHES & PRESIDENT RECOMMENDED INVOLVEMENT
HOW MUCH CAN A DEAN REASONABLY ASK OF A DO?
WHO TO ENGAGE & WHEN
FINAL OPERATING PHILOSOPHY
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
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
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.
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
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
• Every assigned prospect should have a strategy, a next step, and a reason they remain assigned
SUGGESTED PORTFOLIO TIERS
• Portfolio should only contain qualified prospects
• Thoughtful effort, the prospect should be reviewed for reassignment, pause, or removal
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
WORKING NORMS
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
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?
STANDARD FUNDRAISING CYCLE
IDENTIFICATION
POTENTIAL DONORS ARE IDENTIFIED THROUGH:
• Alumni and parent relationships
• Community connections
• Volunteer engagement
• Grateful patient or student/family pathways where relevant
QUALIFICATION
• Event participation
• Wealth screening and prospect research
• Referrals from university leaders, board members, faculty, coaches, and existing donors
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
CULTIVATION
• A prospect is not qualified simply because they are wealthy, famous, friendly, or attended an event
• Openness to engagement
CULTIVATION BUILDS UNDERSTANDING, TRUST, AND ALIGNMENT. THIS MAY INCLUDE:
• Discovery visits
• Campus tours
• Faculty or student interaction
• Small gatherings
• Tailored updates
• Proposal development
• Involving senior leaders at the right time
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
STEWARDSHIP
• Clarity around timing, payment schedule, naming or recognition if applicable, and any gift agreement requirements
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
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.
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?
• How do you like to engage with causes you care about?
• 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?
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 STRONG PROPOSAL IS: A PROPOSAL SHOULD SHOW:
• Donor-centered
• Aligned with a real institutional priority
• Specific in amount and purpose
• Realistic in scope
• Internally approved as needed
• Paired with a plan for follow-up
• The need
• The opportunity
• The anticipated impact
• Why this donor is a meaningful fit
CAMPUS PARTNER ROLES
KEY CAMPUS PARTNERS MAY INCLUDE: President Faculty
CAMPUS PARTNERS SHOULD: DO’S SHOULD:
• Share leads and context
• Help shape priorities
• Engage with donors when strategically appropriate
• Avoid making unsanctioned funding promises
• Coordinate with Advancement before solicitations
• Keep partners informed
• Not overuse leadership time
• Prepare campus partners well before donor interactions
• Debrief after meetings
• Translate donor conversations into actionable next steps
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
• Gift documentation must be clear
• Donor benefits must be handled ethically and lawfully
• Athletics urgency should not crowd out institutional discipline
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)
• Coordinate with Advancement leadership and relevant policy owners
• Avoid presenting sponsorship revenue as charitable if it does not meet standards
• Ensure the institution speaks as one
• Proposal deadlines
• Restricted-use requirements
• Reporting obligations
• Faculty and program partner readiness
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
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
• Strategy notes
• Next steps
• Proposal status
• Solicitor assignments
• 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:
of prospects with a documented next step
Metrics should be interpreted in context. Quality matters. A Development Officer should not chase visit counts at the expense of strategy.
WHAT NEW DOs SHOULD STOP DOING
New DOs often waste time in predictable ways.
AVOID THE FOLLOWING:
• Carrying too many unqualified names
• Confusing friendly contacts with philanthropic prospects
• Sending proposals too early
• Waiting too long to make a clear ask
• Operating independently from campus partners
• Over-relying on email
• Letting every internal request become a fundraising priority
• Failing to document next steps
• Promising outcomes before internal approval
• Treating stewardship as an afterthought
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
• Conduct discovery visits
• Build simple written strategies for top prospects
• Learn how leadership is used in donor strategy
• Coordinate with advancement services and stewardship colleagues
• Advance qualified prospects into active cultivation
• Identify early proposal opportunities
• Present portfolio review to supervisor
• Demonstrate consistent CRM documentation
• Build a rhythm of outreach, follow-up, and internal coordination
EXPECTATIONS & PORTFOLIO REVIEW
SUPERVISORS SHOULD REGULARLY REVIEW:
Reviews should be candid and useful. The purpose is not surveillance. It is sharpening judgment and outcomes.
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
INVOLVING A
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
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.
DEAN, COACH, & PRESIDENT RECOMMENDED INVOLVEMENT
ADVANCEMENT OWNS THESE DECISIONS
THESE RESPONSIBILITIES SIT WITH ADVANCEMENT LEADERSHIP AND/OR THE ASSIGNED DO:
• Portfolio assignment
• Prospect qualification
• Timing of outreach
• Who makes the ask
• Proposal development
• Visit strategy
• Whether the president or dean should attend
• Gift agreement routing
• Stewardship plan
DEANS AND COACHES MAY REQUEST, BUT NOT DIRECT
A DEAN OR COACH MAY:
• Suggest a prospect
• Request help on a funding priority
• Ask to join a visit
• Flag urgency
• Provide content expertise
A DEAN OR COACH MAY NOT:
• Assign a prospect immediately
• Promise donor meetings
• Bypass guidelines
• Offer donor terms or benefits
• Decide major-gift readiness
DEAN & COACH SERVICE STANDARDS
ADVANCEMENT COMMITS TO:
• Quarterly strategy meetings with each dean/ unit leader
• 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
DEANS/COACHES COMMIT TO:
• Funneling requests through the assigned DO
• Limiting “special asks” to high-value opportunities
• 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: INVOLVE A DEAN WHEN:
• Academic/programmatic credibility is necessary
• The donor wants content expertise
• 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)
• Athletics identity is central to the relationship
• The donor has a strong affinity to a team
• Coach presence materially strengthens trust or stewardship
• 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
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
• Support for a limited number of priority prospects
• Partnership on a small number of highpotential visits
• 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
Managed by Advancement with president involvement only for high-value opportunities where partnership strengthens the gift potential.
DEAN/COACH PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES
Managed by Advancement with dean/coach involvement when expertise, donor connection, or a qualified relationship is important.
ADVANCEMENT-ONLY OPPORTUNITIES
Handled by the DO without dean/president involvement unless and until the strategy changes.
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.”
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.