There is still space left in the May 19th Directors Round Table at Dana Farber!

Join Bruce Berg (Director, Development Research and Prospect Management at Northeastern University), Barbara Moore (Assistant Vice President, Development Research at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute), and Leigh Petersen (Director of Prospect Development at Harvard Business School) for a discussion on the challenges and opportunities facing managers working in Prospect Development. 

The Directors Round Table is recommended for all those in a supervisory role (assistant directors, managers, etc.) or who are involved in departmental decision making.

WHERE:

10 Brookline Place

5th Floor Conference Room (563)

Brookline, MA 02445

WHEN

Thursday, May 19, 2016

9:30 AM

$85 Members

$125 Non-Members

For more information and to register click here!

FACILITATOR BIOS:

Leigh Petersen: Working with non-profits for near 15 years, Leigh Petersen is currently the Director of Prospect Development at Harvard Business School, where she oversees the prospect management, analytics, and research teams. Previously, she was the Direct of Prospect Development at Loyola University Chicago. Prior to that role, she was the Assistant Director of Planned Giving at Loyola, where she oversaw the legacy members and managed a portfolio of prospects. Additionally, she worked at Bernstein Global Wealth Management, Lyric Opera of Chicago, and the University of Nebraska - Lied Center for Performing Arts. She served as President for APRA-IL; Volunteer Co-Chair for APRA International Conference 2015; and Committee Member for APRA International Data Analytics 2016. Leigh earned her MBA in Information Systems Management with a certificate in Data Warehousing from Loyola University Chicago and a Bachelor of Arts in Music Performance from Doane College (Crete, Nebraska).

Barbara Moore: Barbara Moore is Assistant Vice President of Development Research for Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, one of the leading cancer research and care centers in the United States. She oversees all prospect research activities in support of Dana-Farber’s fundraising efforts and leads a staff of ten. Barbara joined Dana-Farber in 2001 and has served in her current position since 2004. She has over 19 years experience in fundraising and membership development. Prior to joining Dana-Farber, Barbara led market research efforts for an information technology consulting firm. Prior to that, she served as membership director at a leading technology trade organization. Barbara has presented at APRA and NEDRA, and is Past President of NEDRA. She holds a BA from Wheaton College and an MLS from Simmons College.

Bruce Berg: Bruce Berg is the Director of Research and Prospect Management at Northeastern University. Bruce manages a team of ten; providing support and guidance for university initiatives, programs, and development goals. He has worked to establish Northeastern’s research program as a model of expertise and efficiency by developing new tools, techniques and resources to empower, educate, and enable the research team and others to better serve their constituency. Northeastern University supports the researcher-as-consultant model, and gives research staff ownership and responsibility of their work.

Prior to working at Northeastern, Bruce served as Deputy Director of Research for Harvard University’s central development office. Before this, he pursued a career in classical music and served as Principal Percussionist for both the New World Symphony and the Hong Kong Philharmonic. An active musician and researcher, he freelances throughout the Boston area and is Principal of DonorIQ, a research consulting firm.

Bruce completed a B.A. (Religion) and a B.M. (Percussion) from Oberlin College and Conservatory and earned a Master of Music degree from Case Western Reserve’s Cleveland Institute of Music. In 2004 he completed Certificate of Special Studies in Administration and Management, from Harvard University’s Extension School. He is currently pursuing a certificate in Data Science.

MODERATOR:

Renana Kehoe: Renana Kehoe leads the development department operations and database process at the Harvard Art Museums. Prior, she was Director of Development Operations and Prospect Management at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum. Renana chairs the Brookline Commission for the Arts and serves on the Programming Committee for the New England Development Research Association. In the past, she taught courses at Suffolk University and Lesley University. Renana holds an M.A. from Boston University and a B.A. from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Attention DonorScape users! GG+A’s Client Engagement Manager, Gillian Wu, has some helpful tips for using Client Defined Fields in DonorScape. 

Client Defined Fields may not sound particularly exciting, but they give you and your organization an opportunity to really make the most of DonorScape’s powerful prospect research and segmentation tools. 

Gillian’s post will help your organization determine the best uses for your client defined fields – yes, all 20 of them! - so that you can search and segment your prospect pool with unprecedented speed, accuracy, and detail.

http://www.donorscape.com/blog/2016/04/19/making-the-most-of-donorscape%E2%80%99s-client-defined-fields/

In this NEDRA News article from 1991, Susan Cronin Ruderman talks about knowing when enough is enough in research--when to stop looking for more information and what to include and exclude in completed profiles. 

Though this was written in a time before the internet and the wealth of other resources available today, it's a topic we still talk about today. How do you scale your research? Do you have a formalized standard in place or just a "go-with-your-gut" approach? Discuss in the comments below!

Susan Cronin Ruderman - When is Enough Enough.pdf

Please consider a gift of any size to the Heather Reisz Memorial Scholarship to support new members of the NEDRA community. With help from many donors, NEDRA has established the Heather Reisz Memorial Scholarships in honor of one of NEDRA's most active and beloved members, Heather Reisz, who passed away in May 2013. 

This scholarship covers the cost of registration and lodging for the NEDRA Annual Conference and pre-conference Research Basics Bootcamp, as well as a one-year NEDRA membership. In addition, travel expenses will be reimbursed up to $300. 

Becca Elwin of the Conservation Law Foundation, was one of last year's Heather Reisz Memorial Scholarship recipients. Here's what she said about her experience: “Attending the NEDRA Conference was a great opportunity. I was able to build my confidence, fill my research toolkit, and meet many colleagues who I can now call upon. Thank you to NEDRA and to Heather for this gift for my career!” 

To learn more about Heather and the Heather Reisz Memorial Scholarships, please visit Heather's memorial page on the NEDRA website.

To make a gift click here! 

On March 18th, the NEDRA Board of Directors were joined by Conference Committee members Bill Gotfredson and Diane Parsons for a tour of the conference space at the Portsmouth Sheraton. The hotel has undergone a number of renovations since last year’s Annual Conference and now sports an updated feel and a brand new indoor pool that will hopefully be open in time for NEDRA’s arrival. 

Following the tour, the board convened for an in-person business meeting. Among the topics discussed were final planning for the conference, board nominations, and the recipients of the Heather Reisz Memorial Scholarship, the Helen Brown Group-NEDRA Conference Scholarship, and the Ann Castle Award. Also discussed were plans for upcoming VINOs (Very Informal Networking Opportunities).

Read on for more information!

March 2016 marks the second anniversary of Prospect Development Pride Month, a celebration of our profession inspired by Helen Brown's seminal article Coming Out.

Reflecting on the progression of the fundraising intelligence field, we have great cause to be proud. The past two decades have seen Research break out, like a caterpillar from its chrysalis, from a support/admin role to being true partners in fundraising (forgive the butterfly cliché, but I'm under the influence of the Eric Carle Museum just down the road).

The perception of our field is more professional and respected than ever before. Employers are realizing how critical we are. We're seeing it again and again – a small shop without prospect development staff recognizes the need and hires one of the many awesome consultants out there; or dips its toe by bringing on a part-time researcher. A nonprofit with a part time researcher designates a solid FTE to prospect development. Employers that have long had research are expanding the team, adding positions in prospect management, analytics and more. We are at the important meetings, we are serving on campaign committees, our input is sought on key decisions.

I firmly believe that the advocacy, education and networking provided by APRA International and its chapters have been important drivers of this progression. The number of NEDRA members is on track for a record-breaking year – a testament that this field's ranks in the nonprofit world are growing, and that our employers are investing in our professional development.

Fatherly.com recently reported on a nationwide poll of what kids want to be when they grow up. Prospect development did not make the list--unless you very liberally interpret one kid's response of "gold miner." (I know you want to see the data. Here you go.) It's not a huge surprise that kindergartners aspire to be doctors, not fundraising analysts; more worrisome is how few college and grad students are aware of this great career option. We don't even make it onto the list of "18 Awesome Career Choices College Kids Have No Idea About." Ask a roomful of us how we got into this field, and I'll bet the leading answer is "fell into it accidentally."

It's time to take advocacy to the next level. APRA is making this a priority and doubling down on it. NEDRA is doing our part as well. In April, Tim Enman (Smith College) and I will present on prospect development careers to a gathering of library school students. In May, Stacey MacDonnell (Harvard Law School) and Erin Dupuis (Merrimack College) will be giving a talk to AFP-Mass, "Prospect Research 101: So Much More Than Just Google." NEDRA welcomes your suggestions and participation to keep this initiative going.

It's clear from the abundance of passionate #ResearchPride outpourings that there is a great deal of career satisfaction in our prospect development world. We're happy and we know it. Let's clap our hands and share it with the world!

Suzy Campos

NEDRA President

We encourage all current NEDRA members to participate in our first-ever online election!

The NEDRA Nominating Committee proposes the below slate of officers and directors to serve on the 2016-2017 NEDRA Board.

To cast your vote on ratification of the slate below Vote Here.

Executive Officers

President…………………………..Amy Begg

Vice President……………………Ian T. Wells

Secretary…………………………..Susan Grivno

Treasurer………………………….. Lisa Foster

Proposed New Directors for 2016-2018

William Gotfredson

Tim Wilson

Directors Renewing Terms Through June 2018

Suzy Campos (joined July 2012)

James Cheng (joined July 2012)

Lisa Foster (joined July 2012)

Laura Parshall (joined July 2012)

Ian T. Wells (joined July 2012)

Directors Continuing Current Term Through June 2017

Amy Begg (joined July 2011)

Erin Dupuis (joined July 2015)

Tim Enman (joined July 2015)

Susan Grivno (joined July 2015)

Stacey Vial MacDonnell (joined July 2015)

Meet the new nominees:

William Gotfredson

Bill Gotfredson serves as Associate Director, Prospect Research of Boston Children’s Hospital Trust, a position he has held since 2014. Prior to Children’s, Bill worked for nine years with the Harvard University Development Office where he served as a Senior Research Analyst responsible for prospecting for the University’s science initiatives. He is also a prospect research consultant with the Helen Brown Group. Bill began his career in campaign politics in Massachusetts, followed by work at Cornell University's development office. Bill has served on the NEDRA Annual Conference Committee, as a Conference presenter, a RING host, and a NEDRA News contributor. 

“I hope to bring a unique perspective to the NEDRA board that incorporates an understanding of small shop realities as well as large shop complexity and the potential to elevate the fundraising discussion in both settings. I hope to build on my past work with the NEDRA Annual Conference and NEDRA RINGs to expand our organization's growth in the development community in New England and beyond, grow our membership, and advocate for NEDRA's mission with sponsors. And most of all, I am looking forward to meeting and learning from all of you, our members.”

Tim Wilson

Tim Wilson has over 15 years of prospect management and research experience. He entered the field after graduating from college and has spent his career at Harvard Business School, where he is Associate Director of Prospect Management. 

“I have thoroughly enjoyed being a member of NEDRA’s Programming and Membership committees. These roles have enabled me to connect with so many dedicated colleagues throughout New England to help deliver content and to invite people to connect or re-connect with our special organization. I am very honored to be nominated to serve on NEDRA’s Board of Directors. I look forward to sharing both my passion for prospect management and research, as well as NEDRA’s many offerings for career-building, networking, and learning, during my term and beyond. Being a member of NEDRA’s Board of Directors will continue my effort to give back to our industry community and help NEDRA remain a vibrant, supportive, and fun community of prospect management, research, and analytics colleagues.”

By Hugh Bennett

Associate Director, Prospect ID

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

As many of us consider upcoming conferences, a note on how Research is not dead. The Research field may seem to be morphing into two other valuable, but different fields - Prospect Management and Data Analytics. No one seems to be giving any Research track presentations anymore. Doesn't seem exciting enough. Some also question profiles as a service.

Well, there are trends in Research that show Research is not dead. Looking for relationships, linkage, and inclination come to mind as big drivers for many research projects today.

Another example - my small Research group (within a broader Research department) turns the definition of research on its head. We don’t look at an assigned record; confirm if the person is rich; seek inclination; and then write about them.

Instead, we troll external wealthy sites, places, people, industries, events, etc - with no promise of our alumni being present – and then see if any of those people are matches to people that we wish we had known about. It’s a different kind of block and tackling. All manual; one at a time; often timely.

An opportunity – a large percentage of publicly traded corporations do not identify schools of attendance for their executives on their websites or in SEC filings.

Another – most company M&A sales can be analyzed and ballpark estimated for proceeds to top executives can be applied, even with privately owned companies.

And – screening the top executives affiliated with a HNW industry (ex: every hedge fund with over $1B in assets under management) can churn up MG alumni unknown to be working in the industry or at that company.

No vendor service or screening does this. This is project based one-at-a-time trolling with name matching being done manually. Is that "John Cheng" who was just made a managing director at Goldman Sachs in Hong Kong, the same person as the "Xiaofan J. Cheng" in our database who has no career or address info?

This is productive for HNW individual identification and can be a valuable source for data in a database. It has to come from somewhere first, right?

We find information that is new to records and add it to records so they can become identifiable as major gift prospects. In our 250,000 plus records, many have next to no information or dated information. It is a big hole in every database. These holes cannot be matched in screening and are difficult to model or data mine from. So, we find new data by trolling likely wealthy marketplaces for matches that are currently unknown. We think this is really what should be defined as Prospect Identification. These are totally new prospects, not people who have been unsolicited, unassigned, or forgotten about.

We have added new major gift rate-able data to over 7,500 of our database records. And also added near MG rate-able data to thousands of more records that are now more up-to-date than before (so possible future upgrades). We have more than doubled our known, confirmed pool of wealthy rated prospects. We have also added significant industry, interest, wealth, and other coding to these records for future segmentation and contact ease of use (ie: data mining). And we have received major gifts from new prospects.

These new prospects did not come from screening, data mining, predictive modeling, or analytics. But now these records can be accurately used by data mining for the first time.

But wasn't data analytics employed by us for attempts at new MG prospect ID? They were. Experts here in analytics served up several generated pools of likely suspects. The people were "likely" due to inclination factors like event attendance, but also giving, wealthy towns of residence, average comp from zip codes, etc. But major gift capacity was not found by us in detailed researching of these pools. Researching these pools kept us from our otherwise productive efforts. Part of the problem is that we had already done a good job identifying the "low hanging fruit" of prospects that had suggestive data in their records. The new pools mostly served up connected, participatory, "super giver" type annual fund level capacity alumni who were accumulated lifetime donors or frequent small donors. What we needed was a way to find wealthy donor prospects where we didn't have data.

Analytics has been poor at telling us about the data that is not in a record. If you look in your database, I suspect that you will find lots of holes and dated info. For instance, 75% of our business info was over five years old. This is the kind of thing we can flesh out from external wealthy source data.

Our efforts seem different - few other higher ed orgs do this. But, we have made a case for another kind of research, and our results back it up. We are also lucky to be at a major institution where highly successful people have existed in many fields (sometimes unrecognized).

Analytics and Prospect Management can help you process what is in your database to make sure they are assigned, solicited, disqualified, etc. Or, Analytics may be useful to annual fund departments. But it is not how one actually finds new major gift prospects in a fairly static pool like ours at a higher ed org.

It is important to revitalize your pool with new prospects. Otherwise, you may be just circling the drain asking the same people for money over and over. Even if they are well analyzed and managed. Research can help.

Prospect Wealth Ratings can be tremendously valuable in setting the stage for an effective major gifts strategy. But when there’s a difference of opinion, who is right? 

By Paul Mateo

Vice President, Analytics 

GG+A

Wealth ratings are in the daily vernacular of Prospect Research, Prospect Management, and Frontline staff and are developed to aid in maximizing the gift potential of our prospective donors. They are traditionally based on wealth indicators found in publicly available information and incorporate some analysis of conditions that could affect someone’s giving potential. And since no single source for individual wealth exists, a broad range of methodologies have been developed in our industry to get at that wealth profile.One key result is an estimated monetary range for a gift or total gifts over a stretch period—such as five years—based on publicly available data.

Many non-profits employ systems to identify publicly available wealth indicators like real estate, insider stock holdings, corporate affiliation, and charitable and political giving. Some even identify things like boat ownership or pilot licenses. There are many vendors (including GG+A’s own DonorScape) that provide tools to aggregate this information in an easily digestible format, and many incorporate guidance and baked-in expertise with their tools. Non-profits may then use this information to craft or augment their own research ratings, and each has their own preference for what make good indicators of wealth.

With such a plethora of data sources, tools, methods, and formulas, how can fundraising staff feel confident that these ratings are accurate? Because these ratings cascade across the fundraising program when determining asks, managing portfolios, and developing campaign projections, what can we do to minimize risk?

Among my clients, concerns regarding the veracity of wealth ratings generally fall into two categories:

1. Ratings from different providers don’t agree

2. External Ratings don’t align with internal research/opinion

When Ratings from Different Providers Don’t Agree

A client told me that they received ratings from two different providers for the same group of prospects (one set was rated by GG+A’s DonorScape®). They preferred the competitor’s ratings because more prospects were rated at higher levels. My advice?

No single source for individual wealth exists, so no single wealth screening provider is perfect. Each provider has their own methodology and definitions, varying data sources, and their own point of view on prospect research and evaluation. For example, some rely more heavily on real estate values.

Don’t rely on a single source for information. Do a comparison of the ratings—but be sure when comparing ratings that they are compatible in definition or scope. Many will use a ‘stretch’ or major gift time frame, defined as capacity to give rather than an ask amount. You’ll find pockets or disagreement in ratings— these disagreements are actually opportunities in disguise.

Drill deeper into the prospects that were rated differently. In my experience, these prospects tend to be much more interesting, and worth your time and additional research than those where there is a ratings consensus.

Use multiple sources to corroborate information. Successful institutions typically use one vendor to screen larger, more comprehensive batches, and one or more other vendors for individual research where they conduct one-at-a-time, single-name lookups.

Lastly, don’t let the rating distract you. Consider external ratings a prioritization and segmentation tool. Ratings at this stage should be directional only; we want to place prospects into specific segments so that we can do a better job of managing them.

When External Ratings Don’t Align With Internal Research

In my experience, this concern has to do with better tempering your expectations of an external screening for wealth and gift capacity. You should, without a doubt, expect a high-quality product from your provider. But be careful not to make the all-too-common mistake of dismissing the results before much of the value in the screening work can be put to use. Don’t miss the boat, so to speak.

When you are verifying ratings and the underlying public source matches that are helping determine those ratings, make sure you think about what you are learning about the prospect through an independent, electronic, and external lens rather than simply thinking about whether what you’re seeing matches up perfectly to what you already know about the prospect.

Understand the external provider’s rating methodology relative to your own. Be consistent in assigning and communicating definitions of ratings to the development community of staff, including how they appear in printed reports and screens.

Your broader audience should inherently understand that the external ratings are not the dollar figure that we expect from a prospective donor—only that these prospects have been pre-qualified through a third-party, electronic analysis as financially capable of philanthropically supporting the institution’s mission. Ultimately, it is the staff member who has developed the relationship with the prospect who can and should craft the true ask amount.

Originally posted on the GG+A blog.

We will see you all at #NEDRACon2016 in just two short weeks! 

If you haven't signed up, there's still time - Sign up today!

2016 NEDRA Conference

Thursday and Friday, April 14th and 15th, 2016

Sheraton Portsmouth Harborside Hotel, 250 Market Street, Portsmouth, NH

Conference Registration: $349 current members/$448 non-members (single day pricing available)

Hotel: $139/night with the NEDRA rate if booked before Sunday, March 20th, 2016 at 5:00 PM.

Register now! Follow this link for more information and to register for the 2016 NEDRA Conference!

2016 Research Basics Bootcamp

New to Research? Enhance your first conference experience with a full day of programming designed to provide the essentials of development research.

Bootcamp Date: Wednesday, April 13th, 2016

Location: Sheraton Portsmouth Harborside Hotel, 250 Market Street,Portsmouth, NH

Pricing:

Conference/Bootcamp Discount Package: $449 current members/$548 new members (registration includes membership). Register here for the combined conference/bootcamp pricing.

Bootcamp only: $199 current members/$298 new members. Register here for just the bootcamp.

Conference Keynote

We are thrilled that Laura Schroff*, a former media executive and bestselling author, is our keynote speaker for the conference. Laura, whose book An Invisible Thread was on the New York Times Best Seller list for a total of 39 weeks, is a passionate and compelling voice on the power of small acts of kindness and mentorship. NEDRA has partnered with RiverRun Bookstore, an independent bookseller in Portsmouth, to sell copies of Laura's book. To learn more about Laura visit the NEDRA website here.

*Arrangements for Laura Schroff made through Greater Talent Network, Inc., New York, NY