What happens when a tried-and-true model isn’t working anymore? How can you move beyond what has long been considered best practice and introduce something innovative? Just because “everyone” has been operating one way for a long time, doesn’t mean the approach meets today’s priorities and technological landscape — best practice might not be best for your organization.

Evaluating Your Practices

Your existing practices should be evaluated based on accuracy, simplicity and strategy. If your existing approach falls short in these areas, look for practices and procedures that serve these needs better.

Accuracy: To the extent possible, the information in your customer relationship management (CRM) platform should either represent the current state of affairs or accurately document what happened in the past. We will never get 100% precision, but if your policies and procedures are a barrier to accuracy, it is time to reassess. It is also important to maintain a shared understanding of definitions and that codes are used consistently across the institution. Any significant inaccuracy in the data will negatively impact your ability to generate strategic insights.

Simplicity: Keep your policies and procedures as clear and straightforward as possible. Try to avoid overly nuanced definitions or procedures that rely on subjectivity, both of which could lead to confusion and inconsistent usage. Keep the priorities and skills of your users in mind (e.g. gift officers will, understandably, prioritize donor conversations over data entry tasks). Procedures that take too many steps are less likely to be followed. If the data is not maintained, accuracy is compromised.

Strategy: Policies and procedures must support your institution’s goals. What you track should uncover opportunities and insights into trajectory, and metrics and policies should drive the behaviors that propel your organization forward. As discussed earlier, inaccurate information will negatively impact your insights. Measuring the wrong things will limit your impact on strategic direction.

Case Study: Temple University

Like many organizations, Temple University tracked the various stages of the solicitation cycle (e.g., identification, cultivation, stewardship, etc.) as prospect status codes. This approach had several challenges:

• Accuracy
  • Prospect status often wasn’t updated when proposals were.
  • There was confusion about which status to use when there was more than one proposal.
• Simplicity
  • Proposal status updates happened in a different tool than where gift officers entered contact reports.
  • Prospect status reflected information tracked in proposals, therefore telling the same story twice.
• Strategy
  • Analysis of the portfolio composition was not helpful because the prospect status codes were not accurate.
  • Prospect status was based on the immediate pipeline and did not support long-term analysis and campaign planning.
  • The prospect development team provided a recommended portfolio composition, but rather than being aspirational it was too prescriptive. Gift officers, especially newer staff with cold portfolios, felt the recommended composition was unobtainable.

We had a strong case that our approach wasn’t working. Through several prospect development brainstorming sessions and discussions with gift officers, we decided to eliminate prospect status coding based on the solicitation cycle. We reframed the prospect status to reflect the overall maturity of the prospect’s philanthropic relationship with Temple University.

We outlined three new status codes for assigned active prospects, which we define as prospects that are being engaged for the purpose of securing a major gift. Gift officers had a separate maintenance portfolio for prospects they needed to be assigned for other purposes (e.g. permanent stewardship, volunteer, etc.).

These new prospect status codes are based solely on proposal history:

• Established: Donors with funded proposals in the last five years.
• Developing: Prospects with no funded proposals in the last five years but with an open proposal in the last three years (i.e. current open proposals or proposals that were open but did not result in a gift).
• Discovery: Prospects with no funded proposals in the last five years and no open proposals in the last three years.

This new structure solved many of the problems outlined above and provided new insights.

• Accuracy
  • Prospect status is updated through a nightly automation based on documented proposals. As a result, the status codes are current and consistent with proposals.
  • By moving prospects requiring lighter touches to a separate maintenance portfolio, there was clear insight into who was being engaged for a major gift.
• Simplicity
  • Gift officers no longer need to manually update status codes.
  • Reduced the number of status codes for active prospects from five to three.
• Strategy
  • Both the portfolio composition and prospects are categorized based on the maturity of the philanthropic relationship with Temple University.
  • Focus of portfolio reviews is now on understanding the current state of the portfolio and identifying opportunities for refinement. Portfolio composition is distinct from pipeline.
  • Insights into campaign pyramid analysis were improved by weighting capacity ratings for prospects under discovery and developing statuses.

The feedback on the new structure has been overwhelmingly positive. Gift officers are thrilled that a tiresome task has been eliminated. One gift officer responded, “These codes make a lot of sense. This represents how I think about my prospect pool.​” During a portfolio review, a manager shared, “I really appreciate this macro-overview of my portfolio. I get caught up in my tasks and lose sight of the big picture.”

Remember that at one point all “best practices” were new and innovative. As our profession evolves, so should our approach. Don’t be afraid to look closely at what is not working and find new models that support your organization.

Sarah Parnum Cadbury
Executive Director of Prospect Development, Temple University; Vice President, Grenzebach Glier + Associates

Sarah Cadbury is the executive director of prospect development at Temple University, where she leads a team of six talented professionals. Together, the team is building a comprehensive prospect management program, with innovative business practices and robust reporting in order to facilitate strategic engagement of donors.

She is also Vice President at Grenzebach Glier + Associates (GG+A) where she works with a variety of clients to build impactful prospect development functions. Prior to this role, Cadbury was the director of prospect research and management at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, where she led all aspects of prospect research and management operations. She provided insight and direction to leadership to develop strategic initiatives and establish goals, including setting a $525 million campaign goal and initiating the museum’s first prospect identification program, resulting in an elevated major gifts program.