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.