This month’s post comes to us from APRA-C member Lisa Ukuku, Director of Prospect Research, The Citadel Foundation.

I recently saw a post in Prospect L (the online forum for conversation and collaboration about fundraising research) asking researchers to explain their process for disqualifying a prospect. One reply was that the prospect was discussed at a prospect management meeting, and if it was the consensus of the group, the prospect is coded “disqualified.” This process appears to be the best practice for many academic institutions: Allow the gift officers to cite any known information about the prospect, and make a group decision on whether or not the prospect should be cultivated at all. If the prospect is deemed to be someone who is not inclined to make a major gift, he or she is coded as such in the donor database. The prospect may also be coded “no contact” or “no solicitation” based on what information is known about the person.

… But a funny thing happened in our Research office. My co-worker and I were working on profiles that we call “bio briefs” for an upcoming event where top prospects and donors are invited to play golf with our college president. In this process, we only take a brief look at the prospect, their estimated wealth, and how much they have contributed to the college. My colleague noticed that one attendee had a note on his record requesting no solicitation. By protocol, the record should have been coded “no solicitation” and excluded from the invitation mailer. But the wonder of it all was that he accepted – even though he stated that he did not want to receive any mail from the college!

So, if his name had come up in a prospect management meeting, because of the note on his record, he would be someone who we would disqualify and code “NMGP” (“not a major gift prospect”).

Therefore, we have to consider what placing a prospect in this category means. When considering the guidelines for our database, the coding of “NMGP” would result in the following:

            The prospect would not be contacted by a gift officer.

            The prospect would be excluded from future wealth screenings.

            The prospect would be excluded from annual and major gift solicitations.

Is this what we want…forever? I think as researchers, we should examine the amount of time a prospect is placed in a “disqualified,” “no solicitation,” or “NMGP” category. The life situations of prospects could change, and they may be inclined to have a relationship with an organization now while they were not before.

So the process of disqualifying a prospect should never be a permanent status. Just because at one time a prospect did not want to be contacted doesn’t mean that he may not later want to attend an event hosted by the college. It may just be a question of finding the right tool to engage the prospect: We have to find the right program of interest for the prospect. Where does he or she want to make an impact at the institution? Or, in the case of what happened at my organization, send an invitation to someone after he requested not to receive anything. And who knows: A prospect may be more inclined to make a gift to an organization after attending an event where he is made to feel “qualified.”