September's post is from Tania Drummond, Director, Prospect Research at NC State University, Raleigh, NC.

Most prospect research professionals probably describe their work to others something along the lines of this statement, which is part of the information presented about the prospect research office at my institution:

Prospect research professionals conduct research on people, companies and foundations. They collect, evaluate, analyze, organize and disseminate publicly available information in a way that maximizes its usefulness in making decisions for development operations.

Prospect Researchers have always been responsible for analyzing data in order to put it to practical use in fundraising efforts. One type of analysis might include sifting through large volumes of information, understanding what the data may be telling us and determining which pieces of information should be included in a report and which should not.  Another type of analysis might be applying the results of a predictive giving model to suggest potential new gift prospects for discovery pools or to inform development officer travel. But whatever the variety of projects on which prospect research professionals are asked to work, much – if not most - of our value lies in our ability to analyze data.

The availability of data to development personnel, free and purchased, and how easily we can get that data has changed tremendously in the last decade or so. It’s far more common now for nonprofit organizations to be able to purchase wealth screening data and predictive giving models from a wide choice of vendors. People who don’t do the work we do, however, often don’t understand that getting all this available data and using such tools as screening and modeling, while helpful and valuable, aren’t turn-key solutions to informing development strategy. The data gleaned from such projects as screening and modeling can’t be implemented and used effectively without having someone analyze that data in conjunction with the organization’s internal data, in context, and make sense of how it all can be used together and applied to the project or problem at hand. It’s the prospect research professionals who do this analysis, and who make sure that the organization is getting the highest return on the investments made into purchased data and data services.

I think those of us in prospect research should look for every opportunity to showcase and highlight that which is unique about the work we do and to display, in all the ways that we can, our ability to objectively analyze and evaluate information to come to an informed decision or judgment. We can do this not just in the prospect research work that we do, but also in the choices we make in our office operations, our budget proposals, and our project and staffing plans. Our critical thinking and problem solving abilities should be on display in everything we do, and we should always be able to answer the question of “why” – why we made that choice, why we made that decision, why we suggested that strategy. In doing so, perhaps we’ll better the odds that we’ll never have to answer the question, “why is prospect research important?”

Our August post is from Chris Nuckols, Senior Donor Identification Analyst at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center in Winston-Salem, NC.

In 2014, I completed a project which involved the “holding pool” prospects at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center.  These are prospects who were previously managed, but can still be reactivated.  Over the years, our holding pool gradually increased to over 1,300 prospects.  As a result, the size of the pool was becoming difficult to manage.  This increase was due to factors such as the following:

• Development officers determined that some of their managed prospects were too young
• Development officers determined that the circumstances were not ideal at the time
• A prospect had strong connections to our medical center, but a meeting could never be arranged

Since the holding pool had grown from a “kiddie pool” to an “Olympic size pool,” the prospect management team decided we needed to dive in and explore the situation.  I was chosen as the lead diver for this project and was ready to become the next Jacques Cousteau.  After carefully analyzing the background of the 1,300+ prospects, I resurfaced and divided the group into three new mini-pools:

• Ready to Assign Prospects: These are very worthwhile prospects, but have not yet been contacted by a development officer (portfolios are full).  This would be the equivalent of the kid who jumps into the neighborhood pool as soon as he arrives.
• Delayed Prospects: These prospects have been contacted by a development officer, but are not ready to give a major gift now.  They could become major gift prospects at some point in the future though (after they are more established in their career and/or when children have graduated from college, etc.).  This would be the equivalent of a young adult who goes to the pool on a 75 degree day, and the pool is a little on the cool side.  So, this person would take his good ‘ole time getting into the pool.  Additionally, the development officers provided review dates (typically 2-4 years out) which will prompt the prospect research team to evaluate for possible reassignment on that date.
• No Response Prospects: These are good prospects who were assigned to a development officer, but did not respond to multiple attempts to meet.  This would be the equivalent of a kid asking his mom or dad several times to jump into the pool, but the parents would rather sit poolside soaking up the rays and enjoying a beverage of their choice.  For these prospects, a one year review date was added for evaluating and possibly reassigning the prospect.     

In addition to the prospects who were placed into one of the three mini-pools, several prospects were deemed not viable and were subsequently removed from the holding pool.  Also, many were reassigned, reactivated, or marked as deceased. 

I now act like David Hasselhoff (portrayed a lifeguard on Baywatch, for those a little younger) and monitor the three mini-pools on a regular basis.  When either a delayed or no response prospect comes up for review, I will reevaluate the prospect.  Depending on the circumstances, I will extend the review date, place the prospect into a different mini-pool, reassign the prospect, or permanently remove from the holding pool.

The goal for this project was to restructure the way prospects are assigned from our holding pool.  We now have much more reliable and useful categories of potential prospects when a development officer’s portfolio needs to be replenished or increased (for a new development officer).  With the completion of this project, the way we manage prospects has become more efficient and effective.      

July’s post comes from Tracy Martin, the Advancement Services Coordinator at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business

In the world of donors, of course, not all donors are created equal. However, using the savvy information included in this article you can capitalize on donors of any size. I hope you find it both entertaining and informative.  

You might be a student leadership donor if…….

You have influence over your classmates and can give a dollar!  Leveraging the information from student applications is helpful by reviewing engagement with non-profits and fundraising positions. Students in these roles already get the importance of philanthropy and therefore can help further spread the philanthropic mindset through peer solicitation. Oftentimes you can also capitalize on student leadership to ‘infect’ the rest of their classmates with their philanthropic spirit. With this group in particular, playing up participation rather than dollar amount is key.

You might be an annual fund donor if………

You can give a dime that you found on the ground to the organization of your choice. This is a tricky, yet simple, category of donors. The simple answer is, no matter what organization or capacity to give, everyone engaged with your organization should be an annual fund donor. By supporting your cause, program or school- each donor is saying with affirmation that they agree with your mission and they want you to continue to succeed in all you are doing.  Generally speaking, these are your first time donors, young donors and perhaps your aging donors. These are likely your donors that give more of their time and talent perhaps because they cannot give much past their annual gift. This only shows their passion for your organization!

However, it’s not as sexy as say naming a building or having a professorship named after you. What you can glean out of your annual fund donor lists are the following things. Trends in increased giving levels over time can indicate deeper engagement and loyalty. By examining the times of their giving, you can estimate the appropriate time to solicit them once instead of inundating them with continual solicitations and save your organization valuable dollars. Focusing on time and amounts can reveal that they may be a potential planned gift prospect also. This will be discussed in the planned gift segment. By combining this information with birthdates of their children, you can also anticipate increased giving as their children approach coming to your school or upon graduation from college.

Even when a donor is being solicited for a major gift, continue to keep them in your annual fund pool unless they have declared they are not interested. When you continue to keep them as an annual fund donor, you can also leverage their standing in your community to demonstrate to other annual fund donors their potential to grow.  This goes back to the old Fabergé shampoo commercial. “Then you tell two friends, and they tell two friends, and so on and so on…” (Yes, I realize I am dating myself greatly!)

You might be a major gift donor if……………………..

Your passion is matched by your capacity and inclination.  I’m sure everyone is well versed in how to identify a prospect with the potential and having given to similar organizations like yours. That’s the easy part.  But what else can a major gift donor do for you?

As mentioned in the section above, they have the potential to influence other annual fund donors and potential new major gift donors. Do they have a nice office space or second home or connections to an upscale country club? How about an interesting collection of art or cars? Have them host an event where they declare they are going to lead a challenge to assist you in securing new major gift donors. Let them throw down that gauntlet! If your organization gets 50 new donors giving at your major gift threshold, this leader will give a larger than usual gift to commemorate the occasion. Keep in mind that this is different from a matching opportunity in that no one that gives at the new level will receive any credit, soft or otherwise, from your leadership donor’s gift. This will keep the accounting simple on the backside.

Leverage these donors with higher capacity to host a small event to include potential new major gift level donors or assist in stewarding a circle of annual fund donors. Again, using awesome space can only enhance the mood.

You might be a planned gift donor if…………………

You are approaching the 72 year mark where gift planning can be counted in full. Many of them have been sitting quietly at the lower threshold of your annual fund pool for years without raising any eyebrows. However, their steadfast giving speaks for itself. Some may be your worker bees who have worked diligently beside your staff for many years in eager anticipation of the next time they can give of their time to your cause.   Still others will be those that made their money quickly and planning is essential to them while they still have a large sum.  This is another category of prospects that should be considered with all donors, at some point.

There has been a noticeable increasing trend of prospects in their mid-forties who have begun looking philanthropically at their estate planning. While you might be able to capitalize on the value, you can capitalize on the timing. Eventually this will pay off for your group.

Once they become a planned gift donor, no matter the age, treat them special from your annual fund donors. They can also be leveraged as you would your major gift donors by inviting their friends to special events, and so on and so on.

You might be a worker bee prospect if…………………

You just can’t resist when the call for help arrives. These are the steady Eddies that are always there for you, rain, shine, sleet or snow. They don’t mind pitching in by mentoring, helping with events, speaking at an information session or cheering for your leadership.

These are your core people who will give more when they can, but you should always value the fact they give of their time and themselves! They likely will have you in their will, speak kindly of your group to anyone they know and will be there when the chips are down.

They will give annual fund gifts; some even major gifts. These are the people for whom Distinguished Awards are created! Give the people what they want!

You might be a connector if……………………….

You are a mover and a shaker in your industry, circle of friends or community. These are the “who knows who of the who’s who.” They are seated on several boards, chairs of committees and can influence many with a few tweeted words. Use them to open doors that might otherwise remain closed.

Ask them to make introductions, host dinners whereby you may meet future prospects interested in your organization or even ask them to submit a list of friends they’d like to invite to something honoring their service to your organization.

You might be sour grapes if…………………………

You claim you’ll never give another dime unless they bend to your wishes or complain about everything the organization does even when they do get it right!

It’s hard to do, because we are ever hopeful. However, sometimes you just have to know when to quit. If they never take a call or meeting, or when they do- it’s to complain about something that was on Facebook or other social media about your organization; it’s time to just back off and leave them alone.  You can’t win them all.

I hope you’ve enjoyed this quick and dirty way of sorting your prospects into apples, oranges and pears.  May you enjoy the fruits of your labor and there be few sour grapes!

Joyfully submitted,

Tracey Martin

Last month we heard from USC about their experience in creating a model for donor affinity and this month we have the pleasure of hearing from Kathy Mills, Senior Donor Identification Analyst, at Baptist Medical Center who shares their approach for a similar project at Wake Forest.  

In 2013, our prospect management/development team here at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center embarked on a plan to create an affinity score for our non-managed prospects. The goal was to use this score as a tool to find lower-level donors who were shaping up to look like our major gift donors and who should be assigned to a major gift officer.

First, we brainstormed about characteristics of our major donors and criteria that would indicate someone had an affinity for our organization. An APRA Carolinas meeting where fellow member Patrick O’Toole presented on the topic further guided our methodology. After lots of conversation, we decided on the following:

•         Consistent giving
•         Gifts of stock
•         Gifts through a donor-advised fund or foundation
•         Planned gifts
•         Attended 10 or more events (lifetime)
•         Alum of the medical school
•         Alum of both Wake Forest University’s undergraduate and medical school
•         Current or former board member
•         Hospital volunteer

We knew that some of these characteristics should carry more weight than others, but we were not sure how to determine those weights, so we consulted with statisticians on our faculty. We sent them a list of 800 donors, including some of our very highest-level donors, and included their total household giving and which of the above characteristics they had.

The statisticians analyzed the file and made their score recommendations. After a little tweaking, we finalized the figures and determined the maximum score a prospect could obtain. We had our systems analysts overlay the scores on our sample file of 800 donors and analyzed the results. We were delighted to find that the donors we expected to have the top scores did indeed score very highly. The scoring system appeared to be working.

Next, we had our systems analysts overlay the scores on a file of about 29,000 unmanaged donors, with the data refreshing every night. As with our previous test, those with the highest scores also tended to have higher household giving levels and alerted us to those who were shaping up to look like major donors. What surprised us, however, was how few donors scored highly. We uncovered very few hidden gems that could be assigned immediately to major gift officers.

This exercise indicated to us that we needed to do a better job engaging our annual funds donors to help move them through the pipeline. We are currently looking at ways to do that, including digital communications, event invitations, better stewardship for annual giving donors, and other methods.

We also realized the need to have special gift officers on our team to help move those with moderate scores to a higher level in which they would be ready to be assigned to a major gift officer. We are now in the process of hiring these gift officers.

We took a snapshot of what our unmanaged donors’ scores look like today. With the enhancements we will be making to our program, including increased engagement and special gift officers, we are hoping to see the overall scores increase over the next few years.

This month our blog comes from Vicki Williams and Abigail Mann; Prospect Research Analysts from The University of South Carolina.

At the University of South Carolina, we are creating a predictive behavioral model using attributes assigned to our constituents to predict the outcomes of future solicitations and identify high quality prospects with a strong affinity for our university.  

Our model came about from a simple question:  How does affinity influence a constituent’s giving?  We asked ourselves this deceptively innocuous question in Fall 2013, and it has morphed into a research project that has gone through several developmental stages as we have met challenges that had to be overcome in order to create a model that would work for us and meet our needs.  Over a year later, we are ready to test our model, but reaching this phase demanded a lot of time and hard work.  It also required us to meet with colleagues outside of our prospect research shop.  We learned early on that we could not build a strong, actionable model without our colleagues’ specialized knowledge and expertise.

To begin with, we defined the term “affinity.”  For our purposes, affinity came to be known as engagement with the university through involvement.  In our CRM, attributes are assigned to constituents for event attendance, participation in athletics, memberships in clubs, service organizations, and more.  We knew attributes were going to be the critical piece to creating our model, because they would be our way to measure affinity.  We proceeded to measure every attribute through assigning it a weight on a scale from 1 to 5, with one being the lowest level of involvement and five being the highest. Through this process, we essentially quantified involvement. 

There are over 1,400 attributes in our CRM, and, believe it or not, we weighted every attribute for level of involvement.  As we’re sure you have already guessed, this was by no means an easy process.  Due to the sheer volume of the data set, there were, understandably, gaps in our knowledge regarding the significance of many attributes. Not only was it necessary to conduct individual research, but also to collaborate with our donor relations team and development officers from several divisions in order to make sure that as many attributes as possible were clearly defined and weighted accordingly. There were debates and marathon meetings on what attributes warranted a five, what attributes warranted a one, and what some attributes were doing in our CRM in the first place. This led us to request Information Systems to generate reports of constituents with particular attributes to examine trends in total giving and other involvement with the university.  One example is our athletics teams. Each of the university’s twelve teams has its own attribute and all were initially given the same weight. We began to wonder, however if this was using too broad a brushstroke.  This motivated us to request a report of constituents with these attributes.  We found staggering differences in engagement and giving between the various teams.  Surprisingly, we found that constituents who had played golf for the university were more involved and gave more frequently than constituents with other athletics attributes.  As a result, we adjusted our weights for these attributes according to the data.  

With the attributes finally weighted, we will be working with Information Systems to integrate the weights into our CRM to enable us to generate datasets that show constituents’ affinity scores.  In the next month, we will be prepared to test the strength of our predictive behavioral model by running linear and multivariate regressions of a sample population to see how our attributes, coded by their weight value, can predict giving.  We are in the middle of choosing our first sample population for our test run.  It has been our experience that constituents who were members of a Greek organization during their college careers were also members of other organizations with some even serving in leadership roles, and, as a result, have a total weight of attributes that shows significant affinity. We have also witnessed trends showing that as constituents advance in age, their giving increases. Should we use this sample population, our goal will be to see how much giving increases as constituents with a membership in a Greek organization and high affinity score start to age.  Our results may reveal to us that giving by constituents who were members of a Greek organization and have a high affinity score increases by thousands of dollars from when they were fifty to the age of sixty. The strength of this relationship will have the power to help us make predictions about future giving.  We will then be able to consider increasing our solicitation amounts of constituents who were members of a Greek organization and have a high affinity score who are entering the retirement stages of their lives all based on the data results of the regression that the model enabled us to run.      

Another added bonus to the model is that we will be able to use it to fill our pipeline through identifying prospects that may have otherwise gone unnoticed, because we did not screen them through our customized model to see their predicted giving based on their affinity.    

Knowing the strength of the relationship between affinity and giving will help us to understand our donors better, and understanding our donors is most certainly one of the guiding principles of prospect research.  Our hope is that we will have persuasive statistical evidence that supports our empirical observations that affinity can predict giving.  We feel very strongly that we have created a predictive behavioral model which will enable our leadership to make data-informed decisions about our donors and future solicitation amounts.

In a couple of months, we will be excited to share the results of our project with you when we have precise numbers explaining the relationship between affinity scores and giving.  Stay tuned for another post about the outcome of our first application of the model as well as tips and tricks for how you can “DIY” your very own model. 

Our March blog post comes from Kristin Richardson, Director of Development Research Analysis at The University of South Carolina

Data analytics—it’s the buzzword that prospect research and management can’t seem to stop using.  But what does it really mean?  And is it something that is even possible for everyone?

Well, a lot of that depends on your shop.  If you are a bare bones shop using Office products to get your analysis done, you’re going to have a few more hurdles to clear.  Larger shops, with more software and staff, will certainly have an easier go of it.  But that doesn’t necessarily translate into robust data analytics output.  Regardless of the size of your shop, there are two key components that both need in order to succeed with data analytics: human resources and functional data.

To fully implement a strong data analytics strategy, you have to have the right staff.  Not everyone is comfortable with linear regressions, ANOVA, and all the other statistical formulas that are used in data analysis.  There are still plenty of us in prospect research who can barely use the basic functions available in Excel!  In order to build an analytics component in any size research shop you have to have the personnel with the requisite skills to make it happen.  For those shops without an existing data component, this will mean evaluating the strengths of your existing team and possibly rearranging daily functions.  Even though all team members may have the same title, not all will have the same skills.  In our shop, we have one researcher who is most proficient with the research and writing, updating the CRM, and identifying strong prospects that have already been prescreened or modeled.  Our other researcher, while having similar skills, is also very talented at statistical analysis; thus, her annual plan is weighted more heavily on the data side.  It’s also important to realize what duties make the members of your team most productive. If someone is a whiz kid at manipulating pivot tables, but enjoys writing profiles more, let them do more of that; it’ll make everyone happier and more productive.  If you are in the position to hire new staff, and don’t have someone with strong data skills in place, use this opportunity to rethink the job description.  By overlaying some of what you want data analysis outcomes to be for your shop onto the prospect research job description, you can try to find someone with both skill sets.  And if you’re really fortunate, you can make the case to leadership to hire a true data analyst, someone whose sole function will be to perform data analysis projects as part of your prospect research deliverables.

The other key component, functional, data is not necessarily within your sphere of control.  There are plenty of factors that keep data from being “clean”—the number of users for the CRM, training, data cleansing, report writing and gathering, and the list goes on.  What is working for us in getting better data into and out of the CRM actually happened as by-products of other initiatives.  A combination of in-person training with online tutorials is helping condition the CRM users in the proper way to input data into the system—what fields to use, when to use them, when not to use them, and the like.  By continual reinforcement from the prospect management and research teams of how the data is captured and utilized, we are finding that data is more functional now compared to 3-4 years ago. What has really made the biggest difference?  Getting better at articulating what we want the data to tell us and communicating that with the information services team members who are going to extract that data.  Filling out a request form with a simple statement such as “All donors with giving over $100,000 and ratings under $100,000” doesn’t really tell that data extractor much, does it?  But telling them you are looking to identify those donors who were rated lower than gifts received to help model future donors by looking at key indicators such as education, marital status, giving outside the institution, etc., will certainly help them build a better report.  And an added bonus is you’ll also get more data that you won’t have to pull out manually because they know which tables to pull this data from in the CRM. Additionally, forging a strong relationship with the information team will go far—never underestimate the power of respectful questioning of what they do and how they do it.  You know, the more you know!

Data analytics isn’t going anywhere—if anything, we are going to see more and more of it being expected from any size prospect research department.  Keeping in mind the key components which are under your control will help you get there with less stress.  Even if you don’t know the difference between a data set and a linear regression, remember this: human resources and functional data are all under your sphere of influence.  Even if you don’t know the difference between a data set and a linear regression, remember this: you can influence your human resource capital and work within your department and with the information systems team to improve your data.  Bringing data analytics to your institution can now be a reality keeping these key factors in mind.

Our February blog post comes from Lisa C. Ukuku, Director of Research at The Citadel Foundation.

Here at The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina, we have a unique solicitation strategy that has worked very well for several years. It’s called CRC, which stands for the Class Reunion Campaign. The idea is for classes to hold a mini-campaign and have an immediate impact on campus as a collective group. The milestone reunion classes, those celebrating their 10th, 25th, 40th, and 50th class reunion, are assigned to a CRC officer, who is responsible for both major gift and annual gift donations made as part of the CRC.

The CRC officer begins the process by recruiting a committee of volunteers, who determine a project and monetary goal for the CRC. Once the project and goal are approved, the CRC officer presents them to the class. Then, the CRC officer meets with class members whom the Research Office has designated as the class’ top prospects. The campaign includes gifts and pledges made two years before and pledge payments made up to three years after the reunion year.

The process for selecting the top prospects of each class is very precise and is done twice a year for each reunion class. This report can be a bit of a “beast” to format. However, the data is very helpful to the CRC officers, because it assists them in determining the giving history/pattern of the class members. The Research team creates a query from the Raiser’s Edge database and exports it into an MS Office Excel spreadsheet. The following material is retrieved:

1. Contact information
2. Employment
3. Spouse
4. Company
5. Class year
6. Total giving for last three years
7. Cumulative lifetime total giving
8. Number of gifts
9. Date of first gift
10. Date of last gift
11. Name of fund to which last gift was made
12. Date of last action (i.e. touch)
13. Target gift dollar range (for an annual gift)
14. Major giving likelihood score (MGL)
15. Solicitation code

This data is then sorted three ways and saved on separated tabs of the spreadsheet; the tabs are labeled as follows:

MGL: MGL score (Major Gift Likelihood) ranging from 1-1000 based on the constituent’s ability to make a major gift to The Citadel Foundation.

Company: The name of the barracks where the cadet lived while he/she was a
student at The Citadel

Total Giving: The cumulative lifetime giving amount, sorted from highest to lowest amounts

To further segment the MGL group, the list is sorted from the highest to the lowest scores and divided into three tiers, based on the MGL score and total lifetime giving of $25,000 or greater.

After the list is compiled, it is sent to the Director of Development for Annual & Reunion Giving and copied to each of the corresponding CRC officers. The Research team saves each class list in a folder on the network so that all CRC officers and staff have access to this information.

The benefit of the CRC is that the Foundation is educating alums on reunions and preparing them for capital campaigns, board memberships, etc. The alums who give are actually being cultivated to become the next annual and major gift donors to The Citadel. Once their class campaign is over, the CRC officer meets with the Research department and discusses the donors individually and recommends if they should be assigned to Major Gift Officers or to Annual Gift Officers. Another option is that if the CRC officer and the alum have formed a good relationship, the CRC officer can choose to remain assigned along with an Annual Gift Officer or Major Gift Officer. The team assignment offers continuity of the class reunion experience and gently upgrades the alum to the next step in philanthropy.

The “beauty” of the CRC is that it enables graduates, who formed strong unions as cadets, to continue to challenge and support each other after graduation. It also plants the seed of giving and provides much needed funds to special projects, programs, and scholarships for future cadets.

Our first blog post of 2015 comes from Patrick O’Toole, Principal Consultant of Prospira Consulting, LLC.

Early in my career as a prospect researcher, I read Cecilia Hogan’s book Prospect Research: A Primer for Growing Nonprofits. I learned a great deal from this book, and I still have a dog-eared copy in my bookshelf. It is filled with book marks and Post-It notes pointing the way to information I still find useful a decade later.

I have always had a keen financial sense, and I learned quickly how to accurately assess a prospect’s wealth. And this area is where I always had difficulty with Hogan’s suggestions. In writing about philanthropic capacity based on annual income, she wrote:

Frankly, we cannot discover the annual income for most of our potential prospects. The only compensation figures available to us are the ones we find in proxy statements. … Although salary surveys have value for placing an individual within your vision for further research, they are speculative, not real. With that in mind, my philosophy includes quickly leaving the capacity formulas based on income behind.

I could understand Hogan’s reluctance to use estimates of annual income. By using a salary estimation, you were engaging in a bit of speculation. But by doing so in a logical and carefully researched manner, I thought, wouldn’t you bring something of value to your assessment of a prospect’s gift capacity?

I then read the white paper “Prospect Research for the Non-Researcher” by David Lamb in 2010. In this brief but helpful document, Lamb wrote:

Unless your prospect is an insider officer in a public company, you will almost certainly not find a definitive report of his or her salary. In some case, however, it is possible to estimate constituents’ income based on what else you know about them. Salary surveys abound and are easy to access over the Internet.

This buoyed my spirits greatly. I read extensively on the topic of annual compensation. I experimented with several salary survey websites and learned their idiosyncrasies. Before long, I felt confident enough in estimating annual income that I began including such an estimate in most of my asset assessments.

In speaking with other prospect researchers, I believe I am in the minority with this decision. By not providing even an estimate of a prospect’s annual income, however, I believe we do a disservice to our clients. To be clear, I would never consult a salary survey website and attempt to mislead a gift officer. I would never obtain an estimate of a prospect’s annual income and state anything like:

Mr. John Smith earns an annual income of $117,650.

Rather, I am fully open and honest by stating, “I am providing an estimate.” When providing an estimate of a prospect’s income, I always write something like:

According to Salary.com, a mechanical engineer living in High Point, North Carolina, with an education and job experience similar to Mr. John Smith, can expect to receive base annual income of approximately $117,650.

I then footnote my estimation and provide a link to my search.

I have found the inclusion of an estimated annual income to be incredibly helpful to gift officers. The gift officers I have supported speak with individuals from all walks of life. They speak with cosmetologists. They speak with veterinarians. They speak with financial advisors. They speak with plumbers. By providing an estimated annual income, I am helping them to better understand the individual with whom they are building a relationship. Income often determines life outcomes, and the estimate I provide gives gift officers a tiny bit more insight into their prospects’ lives.

Whenever possible, I determine an estimated annual income based on a prospect’s occupation, education, and location. I have found Salary.com http://www.salary.com/ to be a very helpful tool in this process. There are other salary surveys, and I use them regularly; however, Salary.com is my most-used tool. By using the U.S. Salary Wizard, and following on-screen prompts, you can determine the salary distribution for an occupation, skill level, and location. The wizard prominently displays the median annual base salary, but you can adjust your estimate using the 10^th, 25^th, 75^th, and 90^th percentiles. In other words, you can further customize an estimate to better fit the prospect you are researching.

When I do not know a prospect’s occupation, I sometimes provide a broad ZIP Code-based estimate of income. Trust me, I use this estimate with great caution. Summarizing economic information by ZIP Code can produce decidedly bad results. Used with caution and care, however, a ZIP Code-based estimate can provide a generalized sense of the prospect’s environment.

The United States Census Bureau offers a wonderful tool for this process with the American FactFinder http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml. The FactFinder can use five-digit ZIP Codes to gather data. You can also use cities, counties, and states. For this purpose, ZIP Code is the smallest tract possible. When reviewing the results for a ZIP Code, the FactFinder provides numerous tabs, such as Education, Housing, and Income. Under the Income tab, the median household income is prominently displayed. Should you wish to research further, there is a wealth of more detailed information contained in linked Census Bureau reports.

And so I return to my original affirmation: Estimated annual income is an underutilized wealth indicator. Cecilia Hogan and David Lamb are both correct: We cannot know the annual income for the majority of prospects we research. I strongly believe, however, that we can provide an accurate estimate of annual income. To do so, skilled prospect researchers must remain mindful of the prospect and fully understand the tools they employ. And they must make it perfectly clear that they are providing an estimate of someone with education, experience, and location similar to the prospect. This extra bit of information, albeit just an estimate, can provide gift officers with a keener insight to the potential donor they are going to meet. And this insight can lead to larger gifts that close more quickly.

Our final blog post for 2014 comes from Nancy Hillsman, Assistant Director of Research and Stewardship for Duke University Foundation Relations. Happy Holidays from APRA-Carolinas!

Realizing you’re the odd man out is difficult to swallow. But sometimes it’s the only remedy. Having worked in Corporate and Foundation Relations research at Duke University for 13 years, I’ve often had to swallow that fact that corps and founds are definitely the “odd man out.” And trying to explain the differences to individual fundraisers reminds me of trying to explain to my husband that Girl Scouts are not female Boy Scouts! It’s an entirely different group with entirely different goals and concerns. Likewise, corporations and foundations are not just very large individuals!

Knowing that most of my colleagues in APRA Carolinas do individual research, I wonder, “Who might want to read about corporate and foundation research?” Yet I remain hopeful that some of you will, so I’m going to repost an excellent blog that Jen Filla shared with the CFRNET community. Here’s what she had to say on Prioritizing Corp & Fdn Prospects:

“Corporate and foundation research is different from individual research. Could it be so simple? About as simple as stating that boys are different from girls! They are different, but also the same in many ways. It’s complicated! Let’s take a quick peek at how corporate and foundation prospects differ when we need to identify new prospects or prioritize a long list.

Identifying Corporate and Foundation Prospects

There are some great tools out there for creating a good list of corporate and foundation prospects. Foundation Center Online and Foundation Search immediately come to mind. Pretty quickly you can create a long list of good prospects that fit some general criteria. Unlike individuals, many corporations and foundations don’t require a deep, personal connection to make a substantial gift.

And yet many times when you start digging deeper to craft your proposal, you realize that the prospects on your list aren’t as good a fit as you originally thought. For example, maybe they are listed as giving nationally but have only ever made gifts in Pennsylvania and Delaware. Or maybe they give to education, but only scholarships and not program.

Early on in my Aspire Research Group LLC career I was not interested in generating corporate and foundation prospects lists. There were plenty of grant writers around who could do that very well – and write the grants too!

But later on I started getting calls from people who had received a long and very broad list from a consultant or sourced the list themselves using products like Foundation Center Online. Now they were facing 100 or more prospects with no idea where to start and the pressure of meeting a fundraising goal.

When it comes to individuals, there are some great tools for narrowing a list like this. We have wealth screenings, predictive modeling scores and often, some giving history to our own organizations. As the Giving USA research has made quite clear, individuals provide the clear majority of overall fundraised dollars and it’s not surprising that the industry has invested in developing great tools for individual prospects.

Nevertheless, corporate and foundation partners are important players for many reasons, not the least of which because they help us engage with the individuals they employ and sell services to. And starting with the letter “A” and working through to “Z” is rarely ever the best use of time and resources.

I wanted to help people prioritize their corporate and foundation prospect lists, but in a way that would give them a good return on investment. In other words, I needed a way to prioritize that wouldn’t take much time so I could charge less. So I got creative. Maybe you have done this too?

Simple Scoring Scores!

Whenever I take on a prospect ID or prioritization project now, I create a simple worksheet based on my first interview with the client. Then we walk through the worksheet together answering the questions about what a really good prospect should look like. A fundraiser might want a prospect who will give to a certain project, but I make sure we get specific.

“Gives to after-school education” becomes “Has made a gift to a similar initiative of $5,000 or more”. I will probably try to define “after-school education” more specifically too. Are we talking science, computer literacy, reading or all of them?

While we are going through the questions on the worksheet I might add or delete some of my questions as I learn more about the projects and needs. I also keep my ears open on which criteria are the most important. When we are finished with the questions I summarize and confirm which criteria are simply preferable and which ones will disqualify the prospect entirely.

An easy example is geography. If the foundation only makes gifts in New York City and the client organization is in New Jersey, the foundation is not a prospect.

The next step is to translate the worksheet answers into a rating legend. And by playing a little bit and giving some criteria extra weight – a higher rating value – I can get the prospects to sort out in a very obvious way based on the client’s funding needs.

By taking time up-front to determine what disqualifies the prospect and what is most important, I can zip right through the project. Doesn’t give where my client is located? Done with that one. Next!”

Filla, Jennifer. "Prioritizing Corp & Fdn Prospects." Jennifer Filla. December 9, 2014. Accessed December 19, 2014. http://www.jenniferfilla.com/blog.

All’s Well that Ends Well

Some of my prospect ID projects have gone stunningly well and others not so much. The difference has usually been the quality of communication with the client and how early I discover that what the client wants just doesn’t exist. I’m careful now to do an initial search and communicate quickly if I am struggling to identify prospects that meet the agreed criteria.

Your organization might have a straightforward relationship with corporate and foundation funders such as asking for a grant and getting a grant, or you might have many layers to your corporate and foundation relationships such as providing the funder with volunteering, cause-marketing, or fulfilling other needs.

If you are tasked with corporate and foundation research you know you have just as much opportunity to help create wonderful and rewarding relationships as with individual prospects. Maybe you have helped the frontline fundraiser connect with your organization’s vendors, sourced donor relationships with corporate foundation executives or leveraged your organization’s constituency in other ways to identify prospects.

However you do it, identifying corporate and foundation prospects is different from individuals. And as is usual when working with together with other humans, success often requires good communication matched with the creative application of skills!

Our early December blog post comes from Margaret T. Johnson, Director of Client Services at Capital Development Services.

Coming from a consulting world, I have a different perspective than many of you, but I hope you find this blog helpful.

In one of my recent Prospect Research training sessions with a client, someone asked the question, “Can you really trust what you find?” followed by, “How do you know it is accurate?” Both are very good questions and ones that I am sure have come up in your conversations about prospect research. As prospect researchers, do you hear this from leadership and staff? Are they wary of your resources?

After the training session was over, I began looking for information that addressed her concerns in greater detail than I could offer. Jen Filla, president and founder of Aspire Research Group and founder of the new Prospect Research Institute, LLC, has a great perspective. She sums it up pretty well in this article (downloaded from http://www.nonprofitconsultantsconnection.com/knowledge-hub-nonprofits/can-you-really-trust-prospect-research-10-things-you-should-know):

(1)  In-person research is a must

As a front-line fundraiser talking directly with donors, you are responsible for some of the most important prospect research your organization can do! You are the one who gets to ask donor prospects questions about why they give, what they love about your organization, what is going on in their family and so many other crucial questions.

Example: A donor prospect can look great on paper, until you visit and discover that the child has special needs, aging parents have run out of money for care and the wife has just cut her career back to care for family.

(2) Google really is good

Google and other search engines are an incredible source of information. Learning how to use search engines effectively has become a life skill. As a front-line fundraiser, you should be able to quickly find some basic information on your donor prospect. However, you will short change yourself and your organization if you do not get professional prospect research before asking for a major gift of $10,000 or more.

Example: A fundraiser had been engaging a donor for years and he was now on the board of trustees. When they were planning a campaign, she asked for an in-depth profile to help decide the size and type of leadership gift he might be capable of. Research discovered significant commercial real estate investments unrelated to the prospect’s primary business. The fundraiser was able to ask another board member who had made complex real estate gifts, to help cultivate and solicit.

(3)  Peer Review has pros…and cons

Peer review – asking a select group of volunteers to review and rate prospects – can help you uncover personal information about prospects that formal research does not find, including great insights into a prospect’s personality. But we’ve all known prospects who impress people as wealthy when really they carry a lot of debt or still rely on money from their wealthy families. Peer review is one piece in the prospect puzzle, not the whole picture.

(4)  Information is always as good as the source

One of the first rules of research is to scrutinize the source of information. Some sources are more reliable than others. It is important to ask your vendor and keep yourself educated on the sources being used in prospect research.

Example: A Google search on your prospect’s name might reveal a bio saying she serves on a local hospital’s board, but does she? Checking the hospital’s website and/or IRS tax form 990 is a better source. Or you could just ask her…(see #1)

(5) Prioritizing is not an exact science

Your organization has done a stellar job of managing its annual appeals and building its database. Now you have to figure out who among the 5,000+ records should receive event invites, specific appeals, or be asked for a major gift. You don’t want to start with the letter “A” and go from there. But recognize that prospect screenings and data mining efforts are not perfect.

Example: Sweet Charity was methodically working through its best-rated prospects from a recent wealth screening when a donor not on their list expressed an interest in a naming opportunity. It turned out that the donor held a middle-class job, but had a large trust fund as an inheritance. He had been well-stewarded by Sweet Charity for five years and when he read about the campaign in the newsletter he wanted to honor his parents.

(6)  Donor Giving is Confidential

Every fundraiser is aware that a donor’s gift to your organization is confidential. We know to ask permission before sharing donor names and stories. Keep this in mind as you review results from database screenings and prospect profiles. Prospect research can only find gifts that have been disclosed to the public by the nonprofit or the donor.

(7)  Private Companies are Private

Entrepreneurs are a very philanthropic group and usually own and operate one or more private companies. Private means that the shares or ownership of the company are not available to the public for purchase. It also means that the company does not have to share information, such as sales or profits. Really. Sometimes they do share, but most often we have to guess. It also means we don’t know how much of the company they own or what they sold their company for – unless they tell someone. And sometimes they do tell.

(8)  Maybe you can find out stockholdings

Unlike private companies, public companies trade their shares with the public. So you might think that if someone owns shares of a public company we could find out, right? Wrong! Maybe we can find out. Stock ownership is reported only if the person is an insider: top executive, director, or owns 10% or more of the company stock. There are exceptions, but not too many.

(9)  You get what you pay for

Many organizations want cheap research. Why should you pay a lot of money for research if you are not sure you will even get the gift? Because, when done well, you raise more money. If you know how to use a prospect screening effectively, every area of your fundraising could have improved results. Really, really. And if you hire a professional prospect researcher (i.e., researcher-fundraiser), you will get donor profiles that provide the kind of wealth and giving insights you need to maximize major gifts. Freelancers often don’t have the experience or the paid resources to give you what you need. How committed are you to using the information? Pay accordingly.

(10)  Partnering with Prospect Research raises money!

So you invest in serious prospect research, but it still feels generic and not so helpful. Make sure that partnering is part of the purchase. Prospect research is most effective when research can answer a clearly defined question. That means discussing the project before work begins, during and after. Prospect researchers are fundraisers too and we want to raise money – get a “Yes!” – just as much as you do!