Bringing in the dough: does your planned giving officer measure up?(PLANNED GIVING)

Several decades ago, in the infancy of planned giving, measuring the performance of those practicing in the rather obscure and this new fundraising specialty was as murky and abstract as the field itself.

"In the early days of deferred giving, the focus was on gift plans that did not produce funds for the charity until the death of the donor or a period of years in the future," according to a paper delivered at the National Conference on Planned Giving, held recently in Grapevine, Texas. "As a result, measuring the performance of deferred giving was amorphous, at best."

That's all changed now, said presenters Joseph O. Bull, director of principal gifts in the Central United States for The Nature Conservancy, and Elizabeth A. Ayers, director of planned giving at The Ohio State University Medical Center. Bull himself was at Ohio State until recently.

"In today's environment, much more focus is being placed on the planned giving/gift planning officer," they said. "As a result, gift planners are being held accountable for their activities and the results of those activities in a much more systematic manner?

They referred to planned giving consultant Tom Cullinan's outline of the key areas where a gift planning officer should measure the person's performance. These areas are:

* Realized net income;

* Expectancies discovered;

* Irrevocable gift commitments secured; and,

* Other numbers and dollars.

The process should also be measured through responses to marketing pieces; appointments with prospects; proposals delivered; advisor contacts; presentations made; coached contacts with trustees, volunteers and internal colleagues; and, prospect research developed.

In developing their own system of measurement, Bull and Ayers said Ohio State has also created a set of guiding principles for performance management that is results oriented; flexible and adaptable to the circumstances of individual employees; clearly targeted that avoid surprises on what is expected; realistic expectations based on experience and circumstance of the employee; and, the measurement of quality as well as quantity.

To obtain a picture of how other nonprofits measure the performance of their gift planning officers, the pair conducted a survey of a variety of agencies and institutions throughout the country.

Although the survey was not intended to provide the definitive answer on how to measure performance, it did offer a snapshot way to compare one's own standards with those of others. Starting with the structure of the gift planning office, the survey found that 44 percent were in a stand-alone or independent setting, while a quarter of the respondents had a stand-alone office that reported to the same supervisor as the major gift office. Some 19 percent of the gift-planning offices were fully integrated into the major gift office, while 12 percent were partially integrated into the major gift office.

Since the survey covered a wide spectrum of organizations in terms of size, mission and scope, it found a great variety in the number of gift planning staff, ranging from a high of 55 to a low of 1, with a mean of 12.

It found that 44 percent of the gift planning officers are deployed by geographical regions, 11 percent by specific units within the organization and 39 percent are generalists available to the entire organization.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

An unusual discovery from the survey was that one nonprofit even organized its efforts around how it views its donor markets. "I have one team focused on the 90 percent audience. The general population with estates small enough that estate taxes are not an issue, who are motivated to give almost solely by mission," the respondent reported. "There are five GPOs (gift planning officers) who work primarily on the phone or by mail out of our central office and mostly work on bequests and gift annuities. They handle the highest volume of gifts."

The respondent added that they have another team of regional gift planners focused on the 9 percent audience--the wealthy business owner as well as the "millionaire next door" type who are motivated by mission and tax mitigation and who often hold complex assets. "There are nine regional GPOs who work with our fundraisers and donors across the country on a variety of gifts?

Finally, "I have a small team of two philanthropic planners who work with the 1 percent--those high net worth individuals who employ a bevy of professional advisors, often tend to give to entities rather than directly to charities, and whose motivations also include a desire to preserve influence and control over assets."

For performance measurement, the survey found that several areas are included, including cultivation, solicitation (including proposal preparation), stewardship, assisting internal peers, marketing, administrative duties and participating in continuing education or other professional growth activities.

They learned that 47 percent weighed performance based on these activities, while 53 percent did not. Finding that the majority of respondents did not measure these activities" was a surprise to us; Ayers said. "We realize that this is a very subjective measurement. Some organizations are small enough that they don't need to measure activities because they know what employees are doing."

As one respondent explained, "This is a small enough place that they know whether or not we are doing the work no specific number assignments."

Of those activities that are measured, the median response found that gift planning officers spent 27 percent of their time on cultivation, 50 percent on solicitation and 10 percent on stewardship.

Another area that might come as a surprise to many is that only 33 percent of gift planning officers are measured based on the number of closed gifts, while 67 percent are not. And asked whether the gift planning officer is measured on the dollar amount raised annually, 50 percent said yes, 31 percent said no, and 19 per cent said the office is measured on the dollars raised, but the individual is not.

The question asking for other methods used to measure or evaluate the performance of gift planning officers drew several responses. One respondent's organization measured "new gifts they generate, new donors they contact, marketing efforts, assistance with events, and even articles written."

Another organization hands "new gift officers a line graph--that shows crossing lines for expected visit numbers and gift production."

"I expect newer officers to have to make more personal contacts to build relationships and receive referrals from satisfied donors, the respondent said. "Development is a relationship business and, in gift planning, one also needs to develop and maintain certain specialized knowledge."

The respondent continued: "Gift planning officers need to have the personal skills and desire and motivation to be successful. They need to enjoy getting to know prospects and donors, and being able to travel. I expect more seasoned officers to be 'stuck in the office' more with incoming work built up by years of building donor relationships. After a few years, if an officer is not successful in these categories, they may not be a good fit for development work."

Based on the results of their survey, Bull and Ayers concluded that the "best practices seem to indicate a team approach to measuring dollars raised and an individual approach to other activities related to the gift planning process?

Michael Patterson is associate vice president of planned giving for the Arthritis Foundation and is based in San Antonio, Texas.

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates