The content in this article is based on the presentation, “Metrics 201: Refining Metrics Over Time,” from Plug In to Metrics 2023. Interested in more content from this expert-led event? Best of Plug In to Metrics is now available on Apra University, covering three hours of high-quality programming.

---

In 2018, the University of Iowa Center for Advancement launched a new development officer metrics and goal-setting rubric for our entire team of approximately 100 major gift officers. Led by our in-house data analytics team, we drew heavily from David Lively’s seminal work on managing fundraisers. We first determined any effort focused on activity rather than outcomes was counterproductive. Based on that, we established five key performance indicators (KPIs) for goal setting and evaluation:

1. Asks made as primary solicitor
2. Asks made as secondary solicitor
3. Gifts closed as primary solicitor
4. Gifts closed as secondary solicitor
5. Average gift size

Developing the Metrics System

Each officer in our organization is assigned a “goal level” within a published range for their position (assistant director, associate director, etc.). The levels allow supervisors to tailor the level to suit the officer’s tenure, constituency and other factors, like percent of time fundraising in a given year. Our average gift size metric is designed to encourage stratification among our fundraisers and ensure senior fundraisers are working with our best prospects. An ancillary benefit to focusing senior staff on a higher average gift goal is nurturing our talent pool by encouraging referrals and hand-offs to newer staff.

A key point in the adoption of our system was the fact that it was based on our own data.  Each of the KPIs is based on weighted averages of actual results, and the entire rubric is recalculated each year. At the outset we committed that we would review after two years — giving us time (and data) to assess. 

The system has met our needs well, and we continue to use past performance (a three-year weighted average) to determine what the next year’s metrics targets should be. Collaboration has always been a hallmark of our culture. We wanted to preserve and celebrate that collaboration moving forward, so we chose to include asks and closes made as secondary solicitor in our KPIs. However, a gift commitment (no matter how you apply this to revenue) only counts once, so secondary solicitor credit does not directly impact revenue. However, one thing we noticed was that the numbers of gifts asked and closed at secondary began to increase significantly year-over-year. We needed to understand what was driving that and respond appropriately.

Refining and Adjustments

We presumed people would focus on primary gift roles, and the normal course of business would occasion ample opportunity for secondary assignment. What we found was that specific teams tended to gravitate toward a secondary role more often than primary on a gift, and this artificially inflated our secondary counts in our second and third year. As these counts increased, the targets followed suit, and officers found secondaries the most challenging metric to hit. 

In the quiet phase of our comprehensive campaign, we needed to focus our energy on revenue-producing activity first. Our solution was to index secondary asks and closes to primary: they no longer vary independently. While the numbers are still broadly reflective of the results of our team and these KPIs still reflect our commitment to collaboration, the indexing keeps our focus in perspective.

A second modification happened after we added a new role to our talent plan. A typical path of promotion for fundraisers was to executive director (ED), a managerial position, leading a team and serving as chief development officer (CDO) for a constituency. In parallel, we created a senior director role for top fundraisers who better matched an individual contributor model, with no management responsibilities and focused full-time on fundraising. 

When we launched the senior director roles, their metrics were grouped with executive directors as we envisioned them working on similar gifts, adjusting goal level to percent time fundraising. But the higher volume of asks and gifts of our senior directors stood in contrast to the EDs, who also have significant managerial and leadership responsibilities. We first added additional goal levels within the executive director/senior director family — but eventually realized that these two positions were apples and oranges. Our senior directors now have a separate row in the metrics matrix, and while the average gift expectation matches that of our EDs, the ask and close targets are dramatically higher.

Continuing to Improve

The implementation of our metrics and goal-setting system represented a true turning point in our fundraising history. We realize the details of our program are not applicable to all other organizations. However, we believe that applying the principles of our approach can benefit any shop.  Development leadership made clear from the outset that this was an initiative endorsed from the top — but built by a collaboration of data scientists, prospect management professionals and development officers. Our rollout included an explicit promise to reassess our plan after two years — and we did so.  Since then, we have been open with development staff about modifications and updates to the plan. This transparency about the design, implementation and continuous improvement has helped drive adoption among all users.

Advice for Other Nonprofits Make sure you have good data on your solicitations; Analyze that data over time to get a realistic sense of what your officers' actual productivity is; With that in hand, build out a goal-setting rubric that is within the range of what's possible — as proven by the fact that some on your team already achieve at that level; and finally, Reassess regularly!