FundSvcs Community

Hello everybody, Please excuse this long e-mail, but I have a couple odd scenarios and questions! We are wrapping up a giving day athletics competition to see which team could raise the most donors per athlete, and our teams went a little off the rails toward the end with boosting their numbers. In some cases, teammates reached out to friends, family, etc. for $1 - $3 gifts just to boost counts. This one is partially our fault for only labeling $10 a suggested amount instead of a required amount, but how do you all generally handle receipting, record creation, and record management for small one-time gift scenarios like these? These donors are unlikely to ever give again unless directed by the student athlete, and the administrative time, acknowledgement postage, and new-year follow-up, will altogether equal or exceed their gifts. But more importantly, I identified a large number of cases where a coach and some athletes look to be splitting their gifts across members of their households to boost their numbers. In the most flagrant case, a staff member who knows one of the coaches confirmed that the coach clearly listed his dog in the donor name, and that there were a few other questionable, pet-like names amongst student athletes (Bane, ZuZu, etc.). Mailing addresses are the same as their human counterparts and e-mail addresses sometimes are the same while others are varied, but our crowdfunding vendor does not provide billing addresses or the last four credit card digits of a transaction. This leave us with no concrete evidence to confirm these donors are a) just one person behind a computer entering his/her family members' names in separate transactions, or b) not, in fact, a dog. Since donor count-centric Giving Days do involve a large number of small gift, one-time donors, I am looking for some thoughts on the best practices for a) creating/managing records for these one-time donors, b) sending out receipts/acknowledgement letters to them and c) handling scenarios where the donor name looks to be falsified, but with no capability to directly confirm the falsification. Best, Jay P. Kelly '12 Director of Advancement Services Office of Institutional Advancement Flagler College 74 King Street | Saint Augustine, FL 32084 904.819.6477 | Fax: 904.823.9477 www.flagler.edu/support<http://www.flagler.edu/support> [50 Hour Email Signature Button]<https://giving.flagler.edu/pages/home-2042> ________________________________ This email contains CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us by reply email and delete this email from your records. Furthermore, the contents of this email do not necessarily represent official policy of Flagler College.

Hi Jay, As for record creation and record management, my recommendation is that you "take this one on the chin" and create bona fide records for each human (to the best of your determination) who gave via check or credit card, or handed cash to a fundraiser or authorized agent on behalf of your organization. Neither does the size of the gift matter nor that they may be a one-time donor. If there is a legitimate account (check, credit card) or attestation that they gave, a system record should be created, they should be counted, and properly receipted. As for the likely fake CASH donors, what I suggest is that you clarify with your athletics staff that you will only count one donor for each donation of check, credit card, or cash lump sum from donors of the same household from which a proper employee or agent can attest to the identity of the donor. Cash collected by student athletes and non-agents should be booked under a "Miscellaneous donors" or "various donors" record and exempt from your giving day challenge totals and not receipted since there's no way for you to prove those "donors" actually gave anything - especially when the names are obviously made up. You may need to apologize for not establishing better ground rules, but there may be culpability on both sides if there was suspicious activity by individuals to game the system. Just my 2c, Eric Eric F. Valdescaro AVP, Advancement Services University of Hawaii Foundation From: Advancement Services Discussion List [mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG] On Behalf Of Kelly, Jay Paul Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 3:59 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG Subject: [FUNDSVCS] Giving Day Small-Gift Donor Counts, Record Creation, Receipting Hello everybody, Please excuse this long e-mail, but I have a couple odd scenarios and questions! We are wrapping up a giving day athletics competition to see which team could raise the most donors per athlete, and our teams went a little off the rails toward the end with boosting their numbers. In some cases, teammates reached out to friends, family, etc. for $1 - $3 gifts just to boost counts. This one is partially our fault for only labeling $10 a suggested amount instead of a required amount, but how do you all generally handle receipting, record creation, and record management for small one-time gift scenarios like these? These donors are unlikely to ever give again unless directed by the student athlete, and the administrative time, acknowledgement postage, and new-year follow-up, will altogether equal or exceed their gifts. But more importantly, I identified a large number of cases where a coach and some athletes look to be splitting their gifts across members of their households to boost their numbers. In the most flagrant case, a staff member who knows one of the coaches confirmed that the coach clearly listed his dog in the donor name, and that there were a few other questionable, pet-like names amongst student athletes (Bane, ZuZu, etc.). Mailing addresses are the same as their human counterparts and e-mail addresses sometimes are the same while others are varied, but our crowdfunding vendor does not provide billing addresses or the last four credit card digits of a transaction. This leave us with no concrete evidence to confirm these donors are a) just one person behind a computer entering his/her family members' names in separate transactions, or b) not, in fact, a dog. Since donor count-centric Giving Days do involve a large number of small gift, one-time donors, I am looking for some thoughts on the best practices for a) creating/managing records for these one-time donors, b) sending out receipts/acknowledgement letters to them and c) handling scenarios where the donor name looks to be falsified, but with no capability to directly confirm the falsification. Best, Jay P. Kelly '12 Director of Advancement Services Office of Institutional Advancement Flagler College 74 King Street | Saint Augustine, FL 32084 904.819.6477 | Fax: 904.823.9477 www.flagler.edu/support<http://www.flagler.edu/support> [50 Hour Email Signature Button]<https://giving.flagler.edu/pages/home-2042> ________________________________ This email contains CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us by reply email and delete this email from your records. Furthermore, the contents of this email do not necessarily represent official policy of Flagler College. This message (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. It is the property of the University of Hawaii Foundation. It may contain confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are not the intended recipient, you must delete this message. You are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message is prohibited.

I generally agree with everything Eric has stated. I worry about the underlying culture that may have been inadvertently created (and I read in your note that you get this!). It's akin to the drive to increase alumni participation rates artificially. Our fundraising activities should NOT be motivated by how many names we can add to our lists, but how many donors we have successfully cultivated into a longer relationship with the institution. Over a decade ago CASE offered the following in an alumni participation rate Q&A: *Q: Is it appropriate to ask alumni for a minuscule amount of money ($1, for example)* *just to boost the percentage of alumni giving?* *A: *No. Our mission to build support for our institutions is not properly served by attempting to manipulate reporting data. Energies are best spent on sound practices to increase institutional support from alumni. Whether initiated by advancement staff or volunteers, it does not build greater support for the institution to ask alumni for “an extra dollar” to boost the class participation percentage. On the other hand, asking seniors in the Class of 2008 to give $20.08 as a means to capture their interest and encourage a habit of giving would be acceptable. The same concept, in my opinion, applies to this and all other "giving days." Next time, I hope you can identify alternative metrics that will result in stronger relationships rather than create extra work with little or no gain for Flagler. I do support Eric's advice to create records for bonafide individuals. I have shared the personal story of my directing staff at Duke previously to generate a record for a child who sent in a dime. Neither she nor her parents had any prior affiliation with Duke. Several weeks after receiving my receipt the father wrote me a personal note of thanks and enclosed a check for $1,000. I created a record for his business (the check was written on his law firm account) as well as him and turned his name over to Prospect Research. He ultimately established a $25,000 scholarship. You just never know . . . Create a record where you have sufficient information to do so. Use "Various Donors" where you don't and record a single lump-sum amount for those. And then develop a policy/protocol for the future that will help foster true philanthropy! John John H. Taylor Principal, John H. Taylor Consulting 2604 Sevier St. Durham, NC 27705 johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com 919.816.5903 (cell/text) Serving the Advancement Community Since 1987 On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:27 AM Eric Valdescaro < Eric.Valdescaro@uhfoundation.org> wrote: > Hi Jay, > > > > As for record creation and record management, my recommendation is that > you “take this one on the chin” and create bona fide records for each human > (to the best of your determination) who gave via check or credit card, or > handed cash to a fundraiser or authorized agent on behalf of your > organization. > > > > Neither does the size of the gift matter nor that they may be a one-time > donor. If there is a legitimate account (check, credit card) or > attestation that they gave, a system record should be created, they should > be counted, and properly receipted. > > > > As for the likely fake CASH donors, what I suggest is that you clarify > with your athletics staff that you will only count one donor for each > donation of check, credit card, or cash lump sum from donors of the same > household from which a proper employee or agent can attest to the identity > of the donor. Cash collected by student athletes and non-agents should be > booked under a “Miscellaneous donors” or “various donors” record and exempt > from your giving day challenge totals and not receipted since there’s no > way for you to prove those “donors” actually gave anything – especially > when the names are obviously made up. > > > > You may need to apologize for not establishing better ground rules, but > there may be culpability on both sides if there was suspicious activity by > individuals to game the system. > > > > Just my 2c, > > Eric > > > > Eric F. Valdescaro > > AVP, Advancement Services > > University of Hawaii Foundation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Advancement Services Discussion List [mailto: > FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG] *On Behalf Of *Kelly, Jay Paul > *Sent:* Thursday, March 14, 2019 3:59 PM > *To:* FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG > *Subject:* [FUNDSVCS] Giving Day Small-Gift Donor Counts, Record > Creation, Receipting > > > > Hello everybody, > > > > Please excuse this long e-mail, but I have a couple odd scenarios and > questions! We are wrapping up a giving day athletics competition to see > which team could raise the most donors per athlete, and our teams went a > little off the rails toward the end with boosting their numbers. > > > > In some cases, teammates reached out to friends, family, etc. for $1 - $3 > gifts just to boost counts. This one is partially our fault for only > labeling $10 a suggested amount instead of a required amount, but how do > you all generally handle receipting, record creation, and record management > for small one-time gift scenarios like these? These donors are unlikely to > ever give again unless directed by the student athlete, and the > administrative time, acknowledgement postage, and new-year follow-up, will > altogether equal or exceed their gifts. > > > > But more importantly, I identified a large number of cases where a coach > and some athletes look to be splitting their gifts across members of their > households to boost their numbers. In the most flagrant case, a staff > member who knows one of the coaches confirmed that the coach clearly listed > his dog in the donor name, and that there were a few other questionable, > pet-like names amongst student athletes (Bane, ZuZu, etc.). > > > > Mailing addresses are the same as their human counterparts and e-mail > addresses sometimes are the same while others are varied, but our > crowdfunding vendor does not provide billing addresses or the last four > credit card digits of a transaction. This leave us with no concrete > evidence to confirm these donors are a) just one person behind a computer > entering his/her family members’ names in separate transactions, or b) not, > in fact, a dog. > > > > Since donor count-centric Giving Days do involve a large number of small > gift, one-time donors, I am looking for some thoughts on the best practices > for a) creating/managing records for these one-time donors, b) sending out > receipts/acknowledgement letters to them and c) handling scenarios where > the donor name looks to be falsified, but with no capability to directly > confirm the falsification. > > > > Best, > > > > *Jay P. Kelly ’12* > > *Director of Advancement Services* > > Office of Institutional Advancement > > > > Flagler College > > 74 King Street | Saint Augustine, FL 32084 > > 904.819.6477 | Fax: 904.823.9477 > > www.flagler.edu/support > > [image: 50 Hour Email Signature Button] > <https://giving.flagler.edu/pages/home-2042> > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > This email contains CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of > the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this > email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this > email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, > please notify us by reply email and delete this email from your records. > Furthermore, the contents of this email do not necessarily represent > official policy of Flagler College. > > This message (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic > Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. It is the property of the > University of Hawaii Foundation. It may contain confidential information > intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are not the > intended recipient, you must delete this message. You are hereby notified > that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message is > prohibited. >

You are correct in recalling comments made by Sue Cunningham. She published an editorial on this point. The problem with alumni participation calculations is one of the reasons why CASE launched their alumni engagement initiative. The only challenge with that initiative is that there isn't a one-size-fits-all metric that works for that, either. Indeed, US News & World Reports - and more specifically the head of research there, Robert Morse - supports identifying another metric. That is what he told me several years ago when Bob Burdenski and I met with him and his staff in their offices to discuss the alumni participation rate issue. And I understand from Ann Kaplan that he has essentially told Sue the same thing. If we can come up with a different universal metric to gauge alumni belief, support, feelings toward their institutions - and we can capture that information historically - they are all ears. But until some authoritative source presents an alternate path they will stay the course. John John H. Taylor Principal, John H. Taylor Consulting 2604 Sevier St. Durham, NC 27705 johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com 919.816.5903 (cell/text) Serving the Advancement Community Since 1987 On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 10:24 AM John Smilde <jps6@calvin.edu> wrote: > I agree with what both Eric and John are saying here. In addition, I’m > just returning from the Case DRIVE/ conference where Ann Kaplan, Senior > Director, VSE lead a session. She made a couple points that I think are > worth adding to the discussion. Those were: > > > > 1. VSE no longer publishes anything related to participation > percentages. The data is out there if an organization still wants to > calculate it on their own but they don’t view it as a value in support of > higher education. > 2. I believe Ann was quoting Sue Cunningham, President & CEO, CASE who > has gone on record stating that participation percentages are obsolete as a > viable data point in their survey. U.S. News & World Report’s response was > that they are very interested in feedback regarding better methods to > integrate alumni financial support as a part of their calculation. > > > > The general takeaway was that momentum is moving away from participation > counts and that might be valuable information to have if you are trying to > dissuade donor count and any amount mentality/pressure for things like > giving days. > > > > An additional note in support of what is happening at the VSE. Not only > is the full scope of VSE data, via Data Miner, now available to any CASE > member who participates, they have recently added IPEDS comparison groups > which may be valuable for reporting to areas of your college/university > that view IPEDS as the main benchmarking resource. > > > > Love this plus-and approach CASE/VSE is taking. > > > > > > John Smilde > > Director of Advancement Services > > Campaign Director > > Calvin College > > jps6@calvin.edu > > 616.526.8577 > > [image: full-color-positive] > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Advancement Services Discussion List < > FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> *On Behalf Of *John Taylor > *Sent:* Friday, March 15, 2019 7:10 AM > *To:* FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG > *Subject:* Re: [FUNDSVCS] Giving Day Small-Gift Donor Counts, Record > Creation, Receipting > > > > I generally agree with everything Eric has stated. I worry about the > underlying culture that may have been inadvertently created (and I read in > your note that you get this!). > > > > It's akin to the drive to increase alumni participation rates > artificially. Our fundraising activities should NOT be motivated by how > many names we can add to our lists, but how many donors we have > successfully cultivated into a longer relationship with the institution. > > > > Over a decade ago CASE offered the following in an alumni participation > rate Q&A: > > > > *Q: Is it appropriate to ask alumni for a minuscule amount of money ($1, > for example)* > > *just to boost the percentage of alumni giving?* > > *A: *No. Our mission to build support for our institutions is not > properly served by attempting to > > manipulate reporting data. Energies are best spent on sound practices to > increase > > institutional support from alumni. Whether initiated by advancement staff > or volunteers, it > > does not build greater support for the institution to ask alumni for “an > extra dollar” to boost > > the class participation percentage. On the other hand, asking seniors in > the Class of 2008 to > > give $20.08 as a means to capture their interest and encourage a habit of > giving would be > > acceptable. > > > > The same concept, in my opinion, applies to this and all other "giving > days." Next time, I hope you can identify alternative metrics that will > result in stronger relationships rather than create extra work with little > or no gain for Flagler. > > > > I do support Eric's advice to create records for bonafide individuals. I > have shared the personal story of my directing staff at Duke previously to > generate a record for a child who sent in a dime. Neither she nor her > parents had any prior affiliation with Duke. Several weeks after receiving > my receipt the father wrote me a personal note of thanks and enclosed a > check for $1,000. I created a record for his business (the check was > written on his law firm account) as well as him and turned his name over to > Prospect Research. He ultimately established a $25,000 scholarship. You > just never know . . . > > > > Create a record where you have sufficient information to do so. Use > "Various Donors" where you don't and record a single lump-sum amount for > those. And then develop a policy/protocol for the future that will help > foster true philanthropy! > > > > John > > > > John H. Taylor > > Principal, John H. Taylor Consulting > > 2604 Sevier St. > > Durham, NC 27705 > > johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com > > 919.816.5903 (cell/text) > > > > Serving the Advancement Community Since 1987 > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:27 AM Eric Valdescaro < > Eric.Valdescaro@uhfoundation.org> wrote: > > Hi Jay, > > > > As for record creation and record management, my recommendation is that > you “take this one on the chin” and create bona fide records for each human > (to the best of your determination) who gave via check or credit card, or > handed cash to a fundraiser or authorized agent on behalf of your > organization. > > > > Neither does the size of the gift matter nor that they may be a one-time > donor. If there is a legitimate account (check, credit card) or > attestation that they gave, a system record should be created, they should > be counted, and properly receipted. > > > > As for the likely fake CASH donors, what I suggest is that you clarify > with your athletics staff that you will only count one donor for each > donation of check, credit card, or cash lump sum from donors of the same > household from which a proper employee or agent can attest to the identity > of the donor. Cash collected by student athletes and non-agents should be > booked under a “Miscellaneous donors” or “various donors” record and exempt > from your giving day challenge totals and not receipted since there’s no > way for you to prove those “donors” actually gave anything – especially > when the names are obviously made up. > > > > You may need to apologize for not establishing better ground rules, but > there may be culpability on both sides if there was suspicious activity by > individuals to game the system. > > > > Just my 2c, > > Eric > > > > Eric F. Valdescaro > > AVP, Advancement Services > > University of Hawaii Foundation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Advancement Services Discussion List [mailto: > FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG] *On Behalf Of *Kelly, Jay Paul > *Sent:* Thursday, March 14, 2019 3:59 PM > *To:* FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG > *Subject:* [FUNDSVCS] Giving Day Small-Gift Donor Counts, Record > Creation, Receipting > > > > Hello everybody, > > > > Please excuse this long e-mail, but I have a couple odd scenarios and > questions! We are wrapping up a giving day athletics competition to see > which team could raise the most donors per athlete, and our teams went a > little off the rails toward the end with boosting their numbers. > > > > In some cases, teammates reached out to friends, family, etc. for $1 - $3 > gifts just to boost counts. This one is partially our fault for only > labeling $10 a suggested amount instead of a required amount, but how do > you all generally handle receipting, record creation, and record management > for small one-time gift scenarios like these? These donors are unlikely to > ever give again unless directed by the student athlete, and the > administrative time, acknowledgement postage, and new-year follow-up, will > altogether equal or exceed their gifts. > > > > But more importantly, I identified a large number of cases where a coach > and some athletes look to be splitting their gifts across members of their > households to boost their numbers. In the most flagrant case, a staff > member who knows one of the coaches confirmed that the coach clearly listed > his dog in the donor name, and that there were a few other questionable, > pet-like names amongst student athletes (Bane, ZuZu, etc.). > > > > Mailing addresses are the same as their human counterparts and e-mail > addresses sometimes are the same while others are varied, but our > crowdfunding vendor does not provide billing addresses or the last four > credit card digits of a transaction. This leave us with no concrete > evidence to confirm these donors are a) just one person behind a computer > entering his/her family members’ names in separate transactions, or b) not, > in fact, a dog. > > > > Since donor count-centric Giving Days do involve a large number of small > gift, one-time donors, I am looking for some thoughts on the best practices > for a) creating/managing records for these one-time donors, b) sending out > receipts/acknowledgement letters to them and c) handling scenarios where > the donor name looks to be falsified, but with no capability to directly > confirm the falsification. > > > > Best, > > > > *Jay P. Kelly ’12* > > *Director of Advancement Services* > > Office of Institutional Advancement > > > > Flagler College > > 74 King Street | Saint Augustine, FL 32084 > > 904.819.6477 | Fax: 904.823.9477 > > www.flagler.edu/support > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.flagler.edu_support&d=DwMFaQ&c=4rZ6NPIETe-LE5i2KBR4rw&r=N3xCjyp_KEYuYdV1qWGwAw&m=dY5O0CsFrIQwiBJ8lOSD8n8KJy6bZYIUk73PEIe-byA&s=gjLBZo_Z0AOT52ijM2f20fA83YCzEa5YjibBLBJZk0U&e=> > > [image: 50 Hour Email Signature Button] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__giving.flagler.edu_pages_home-2D2042&d=DwMFaQ&c=4rZ6NPIETe-LE5i2KBR4rw&r=N3xCjyp_KEYuYdV1qWGwAw&m=dY5O0CsFrIQwiBJ8lOSD8n8KJy6bZYIUk73PEIe-byA&s=6BoeYWWzhGFHg4D0jPmUahqQLTeyhjaaeK_MkbDaP6M&e=> > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > This email contains CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of > the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this > email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this > email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, > please notify us by reply email and delete this email from your records. > Furthermore, the contents of this email do not necessarily represent > official policy of Flagler College. > > This message (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic > Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. It is the property of the > University of Hawaii Foundation. It may contain confidential information > intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are not the > intended recipient, you must delete this message. You are hereby notified > that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message is > prohibited. > >

I had to laugh about this because in the non-education world, alumni participation isn’t the issue, but governing board participation is. I remember a time as a CEO when I asked for 100% board participation because a grant funder asked what our participation rate was, and a board member gave me dollar bills so I could enter them for any board member who didn’t give. Needless to say, I didn’t include them in our participation rate. ah! what we go through….. Donna Rex, consultant donnafund@gmail.com Mobile 904.910.9140 > On Mar 15, 2019, at 1:17 PM, Hejnal, Alan <00000031f8bb5829-dmarc-request@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> wrote: > > The last time I did a presentation focusing on issues and methods around calculating alumni participation for the U.S. News & World Reports “America’s Best Colleges” rankings, I took a quick a look at some of the alternate attempts to come up with metrics for alumni participation, educational effectiveness, educational quality, etc. It’s quite a diverse set of approaches, and, as John indicated, it’s not clear that they include anything better than the alumni participation metric. > > This is undoubtedly dated, and filtered through my own thought processes, but I thought I’d share the contents of those slides in case there might be additional interest: > > • Other approaches are beginning to emerge > > – Niche's College Rankings uses a survey of current students and recent graduates administered by Niche > https://colleges.niche.com/rankings/best-colleges/methodology/ <https://colleges.niche.com/rankings/best-colleges/methodology/> > – The U.S. Department of Education College Scorecard includes “supporting data on student completion, debt and repayment, earnings, and more” > https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/data/ <https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/data/> > – Wall Street Journal/Times Higher Education ranking of U.S. colleges looking at value added to graduate salary (12%) and to the loan repayment rate (7%) > > • “The THE data team uses statistical modelling to create an expected graduate salary and loan repayment rate for each college based on a wide range of factors, such as the make-up of its students and the characteristics of the institution.” > https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/wall-street-journal-times-higher-education-college-rankings-methodology <https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/wall-street-journal-times-higher-education-college-rankings-methodology> > – The Brookings Institution looked at earnings data of alumni of different schools and programs > > • Finding limitations in how useful earnings data is in comparing colleges > https://www.brookings.edu/research/making-college-earnings-data-work-for-students/ <https://www.brookings.edu/research/making-college-earnings-data-work-for-students/> > – College Measures from the American Institutes for Research, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation, and Gallup Inc. “works with state governments to help identify higher education credentials with high return on investment.” > http://www.air.org/center/college-measures/ <http://www.air.org/center/college-measures/> > – “The Economist’s first-ever college rankings <http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21677231-new-federal-data-reveal-which-colleges-do-most-their-graduates-pay-packets-they-are> are based on a simple, if debatable, premise: the economic value of a university is equal to the gap between how much money its students subsequently earn, and how much they might have made had they studied elsewhere.” > > • Helpful (and lengthy!) discussion of interpretation and caveats > http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/10/value-university <http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/10/value-university> > I also shared this excerpt from a column by the brilliant columnist Frank Bruni: > > “My larger point is this: For almost every well-intentioned measurement, there’s either a fundamental shortcoming or possible glitch. Take the Wall Street Journal rankings, which significantly factor in how a school’s current students, in a survey, evaluate their experience. > > This would seem to be — and perhaps is — an excellent idea. But in visiting colleges over time, I’ve noticed that the ones with the loftiest reputations sometimes marinate in their own mythology, sending students all sorts of messages about what an extraordinary opportunity they’re enjoying. This self-congratulation surely colors the survey responses, which may wind up saying as much about a school’s status as about anything else.” > https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/opinion/sunday/how-to-make-sense-of-college-rankings.html <https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/opinion/sunday/how-to-make-sense-of-college-rankings.html> > > The question is genuinely difficult, and I’m not sure that we’re on the cusp of replacing the current (admittedly imperfect) metric. > > My US$0.02 worth; the usual disclaimers apply. > > Good luck! > > Alan > > Alan S. Hejnal > Data Quality Manager > Smithsonian Institution - Office of Advancement > 600 Maryland Avenue SW, Suite 600E > P.O. Box 37012, MRC 527 > Washington, DC 20013-7012 > (: 202-633-8754 | *: HejnalA@si.edu <mailto:HejnalA@si.edu> > <image004.png> <https://www.si.edu/> <image001.jpg> > > > From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> On Behalf Of John Taylor > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 12:46 PM > To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG > Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] Giving Day Small-Gift Donor Counts, Record Creation, Receipting > > You are correct in recalling comments made by Sue Cunningham. She published an editorial on this point. The problem with alumni participation calculations is one of the reasons why CASE launched their alumni engagement initiative. The only challenge with that initiative is that there isn't a one-size-fits-all metric that works for that, either. > > Indeed, US News & World Reports - and more specifically the head of research there, Robert Morse - supports identifying another metric. That is what he told me several years ago when Bob Burdenski and I met with him and his staff in their offices to discuss the alumni participation rate issue. And I understand from Ann Kaplan that he has essentially told Sue the same thing. If we can come up with a different universal metric to gauge alumni belief, support, feelings toward their institutions - and we can capture that information historically - they are all ears. But until some authoritative source presents an alternate path they will stay the course. > > John > > John H. Taylor > Principal, John H. Taylor Consulting > 2604 Sevier St. > Durham, NC 27705 > johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com <mailto:johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com> > 919.816.5903 (cell/text) > > Serving the Advancement Community Since 1987 > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 10:24 AM John Smilde <jps6@calvin.edu <mailto:jps6@calvin.edu>> wrote: > I agree with what both Eric and John are saying here. In addition, I’m just returning from the Case DRIVE/ conference where Ann Kaplan, Senior Director, VSE lead a session. She made a couple points that I think are worth adding to the discussion. Those were: > > VSE no longer publishes anything related to participation percentages. The data is out there if an organization still wants to calculate it on their own but they don’t view it as a value in support of higher education. > I believe Ann was quoting Sue Cunningham, President & CEO, CASE who has gone on record stating that participation percentages are obsolete as a viable data point in their survey. U.S. News & World Report’s response was that they are very interested in feedback regarding better methods to integrate alumni financial support as a part of their calculation. > > > The general takeaway was that momentum is moving away from participation counts and that might be valuable information to have if you are trying to dissuade donor count and any amount mentality/pressure for things like giving days. > > An additional note in support of what is happening at the VSE. Not only is the full scope of VSE data, via Data Miner, now available to any CASE member who participates, they have recently added IPEDS comparison groups which may be valuable for reporting to areas of your college/university that view IPEDS as the main benchmarking resource. > > Love this plus-and approach CASE/VSE is taking. > > > John Smilde > Director of Advancement Services > Campaign Director > Calvin College > jps6@calvin.edu <mailto:jps6@calvin.edu> > 616.526.8577 > <image002.png> > > > > > > From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG <mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>> On Behalf Of John Taylor > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 7:10 AM > To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG <mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> > Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] Giving Day Small-Gift Donor Counts, Record Creation, Receipting > > I generally agree with everything Eric has stated. I worry about the underlying culture that may have been inadvertently created (and I read in your note that you get this!). > > It's akin to the drive to increase alumni participation rates artificially. Our fundraising activities should NOT be motivated by how many names we can add to our lists, but how many donors we have successfully cultivated into a longer relationship with the institution. > > Over a decade ago CASE offered the following in an alumni participation rate Q&A: > > Q: Is it appropriate to ask alumni for a minuscule amount of money ($1, for example) > just to boost the percentage of alumni giving? > A: No. Our mission to build support for our institutions is not properly served by attempting to > manipulate reporting data. Energies are best spent on sound practices to increase > institutional support from alumni. Whether initiated by advancement staff or volunteers, it > does not build greater support for the institution to ask alumni for “an extra dollar” to boost > the class participation percentage. On the other hand, asking seniors in the Class of 2008 to > give $20.08 as a means to capture their interest and encourage a habit of giving would be > acceptable. > > The same concept, in my opinion, applies to this and all other "giving days." Next time, I hope you can identify alternative metrics that will result in stronger relationships rather than create extra work with little or no gain for Flagler. > > I do support Eric's advice to create records for bonafide individuals. I have shared the personal story of my directing staff at Duke previously to generate a record for a child who sent in a dime. Neither she nor her parents had any prior affiliation with Duke. Several weeks after receiving my receipt the father wrote me a personal note of thanks and enclosed a check for $1,000. I created a record for his business (the check was written on his law firm account) as well as him and turned his name over to Prospect Research. He ultimately established a $25,000 scholarship. You just never know . . . > > Create a record where you have sufficient information to do so. Use "Various Donors" where you don't and record a single lump-sum amount for those. And then develop a policy/protocol for the future that will help foster true philanthropy! > > John > > John H. Taylor > Principal, John H. Taylor Consulting > 2604 Sevier St. > Durham, NC 27705 > johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com <mailto:johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com> > 919.816.5903 (cell/text) > > Serving the Advancement Community Since 1987 > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:27 AM Eric Valdescaro <Eric.Valdescaro@uhfoundation.org <mailto:Eric.Valdescaro@uhfoundation.org>> wrote: > Hi Jay, > > As for record creation and record management, my recommendation is that you “take this one on the chin” and create bona fide records for each human (to the best of your determination) who gave via check or credit card, or handed cash to a fundraiser or authorized agent on behalf of your organization. > > Neither does the size of the gift matter nor that they may be a one-time donor. If there is a legitimate account (check, credit card) or attestation that they gave, a system record should be created, they should be counted, and properly receipted. > > As for the likely fake CASH donors, what I suggest is that you clarify with your athletics staff that you will only count one donor for each donation of check, credit card, or cash lump sum from donors of the same household from which a proper employee or agent can attest to the identity of the donor. Cash collected by student athletes and non-agents should be booked under a “Miscellaneous donors” or “various donors” record and exempt from your giving day challenge totals and not receipted since there’s no way for you to prove those “donors” actually gave anything – especially when the names are obviously made up. > > You may need to apologize for not establishing better ground rules, but there may be culpability on both sides if there was suspicious activity by individuals to game the system. > > Just my 2c, > Eric > > Eric F. Valdescaro > AVP, Advancement Services > University of Hawaii Foundation > > > > > > > > > > > From: Advancement Services Discussion List [mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG <mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>] On Behalf Of Kelly, Jay Paul > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 3:59 PM > To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG <mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> > Subject: [FUNDSVCS] Giving Day Small-Gift Donor Counts, Record Creation, Receipting > > Hello everybody, > > Please excuse this long e-mail, but I have a couple odd scenarios and questions! We are wrapping up a giving day athletics competition to see which team could raise the most donors per athlete, and our teams went a little off the rails toward the end with boosting their numbers. > > In some cases, teammates reached out to friends, family, etc. for $1 - $3 gifts just to boost counts. This one is partially our fault for only labeling $10 a suggested amount instead of a required amount, but how do you all generally handle receipting, record creation, and record management for small one-time gift scenarios like these? These donors are unlikely to ever give again unless directed by the student athlete, and the administrative time, acknowledgement postage, and new-year follow-up, will altogether equal or exceed their gifts. > > But more importantly, I identified a large number of cases where a coach and some athletes look to be splitting their gifts across members of their households to boost their numbers. In the most flagrant case, a staff member who knows one of the coaches confirmed that the coach clearly listed his dog in the donor name, and that there were a few other questionable, pet-like names amongst student athletes (Bane, ZuZu, etc.). > > Mailing addresses are the same as their human counterparts and e-mail addresses sometimes are the same while others are varied, but our crowdfunding vendor does not provide billing addresses or the last four credit card digits of a transaction. This leave us with no concrete evidence to confirm these donors are a) just one person behind a computer entering his/her family members’ names in separate transactions, or b) not, in fact, a dog. > > Since donor count-centric Giving Days do involve a large number of small gift, one-time donors, I am looking for some thoughts on the best practices for a) creating/managing records for these one-time donors, b) sending out receipts/acknowledgement letters to them and c) handling scenarios where the donor name looks to be falsified, but with no capability to directly confirm the falsification. > > Best, > > Jay P. Kelly ’12 > Director of Advancement Services > Office of Institutional Advancement > > Flagler College > 74 King Street | Saint Augustine, FL 32084 > 904.819.6477 | Fax: 904.823.9477 > www.flagler.edu/support <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__www.flagler.edu_support%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3D4rZ6NPIETe-LE5i2KBR4rw%26r%3DN3xCjyp_KEYuYdV1qWGwAw%26m%3DdY5O0CsFrIQwiBJ8lOSD8n8KJy6bZYIUk73PEIe-byA%26s%3DgjLBZo_Z0AOT52ijM2f20fA83YCzEa5YjibBLBJZk0U%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7CHejnalA%40SI.EDU%7C3185804aeebf453579fb08d6a965d293%7C989b5e2a14e44efe93b78cdd5fc5d11c%7C1%7C0%7C636882652127468438&sdata=%2FV3lQmm47whpulasy49caq%2FTX9mh9JE8fyTSsdzf26E%3D&reserved=0> > <image003.png> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__giving.flagler.edu_pages_home-2D2042%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3D4rZ6NPIETe-LE5i2KBR4rw%26r%3DN3xCjyp_KEYuYdV1qWGwAw%26m%3DdY5O0CsFrIQwiBJ8lOSD8n8KJy6bZYIUk73PEIe-byA%26s%3D6BoeYWWzhGFHg4D0jPmUahqQLTeyhjaaeK_MkbDaP6M%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7CHejnalA%40SI.EDU%7C3185804aeebf453579fb08d6a965d293%7C989b5e2a14e44efe93b78cdd5fc5d11c%7C1%7C0%7C636882652127478460&sdata=nVikvxxDFamFVwiTLlY%2FjWjb4xELGz2v1o5V0SEDEo8%3D&reserved=0> > > > > > > > This email contains CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us by reply email and delete this email from your records. Furthermore, the contents of this email do not necessarily represent official policy of Flagler College. > This message (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. It is the property of the University of Hawaii Foundation. It may contain confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are not the intended recipient, you must delete this message. You are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message is prohibited. >

I agree with what both Eric and John are saying here. In addition, I’m just returning from the Case DRIVE/ conference where Ann Kaplan, Senior Director, VSE lead a session. She made a couple points that I think are worth adding to the discussion. Those were: 1. VSE no longer publishes anything related to participation percentages. The data is out there if an organization still wants to calculate it on their own but they don’t view it as a value in support of higher education. 2. I believe Ann was quoting Sue Cunningham, President & CEO, CASE who has gone on record stating that participation percentages are obsolete as a viable data point in their survey. U.S. News & World Report’s response was that they are very interested in feedback regarding better methods to integrate alumni financial support as a part of their calculation. The general takeaway was that momentum is moving away from participation counts and that might be valuable information to have if you are trying to dissuade donor count and any amount mentality/pressure for things like giving days. An additional note in support of what is happening at the VSE. Not only is the full scope of VSE data, via Data Miner, now available to any CASE member who participates, they have recently added IPEDS comparison groups which may be valuable for reporting to areas of your college/university that view IPEDS as the main benchmarking resource. Love this plus-and approach CASE/VSE is taking. John Smilde Director of Advancement Services Campaign Director Calvin College jps6@calvin.edu<mailto:jps6@calvin.edu> 616.526.8577 [full-color-positive] From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> On Behalf Of John Taylor Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 7:10 AM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] Giving Day Small-Gift Donor Counts, Record Creation, Receipting I generally agree with everything Eric has stated. I worry about the underlying culture that may have been inadvertently created (and I read in your note that you get this!). It's akin to the drive to increase alumni participation rates artificially. Our fundraising activities should NOT be motivated by how many names we can add to our lists, but how many donors we have successfully cultivated into a longer relationship with the institution. Over a decade ago CASE offered the following in an alumni participation rate Q&A: Q: Is it appropriate to ask alumni for a minuscule amount of money ($1, for example) just to boost the percentage of alumni giving? A: No. Our mission to build support for our institutions is not properly served by attempting to manipulate reporting data. Energies are best spent on sound practices to increase institutional support from alumni. Whether initiated by advancement staff or volunteers, it does not build greater support for the institution to ask alumni for “an extra dollar” to boost the class participation percentage. On the other hand, asking seniors in the Class of 2008 to give $20.08 as a means to capture their interest and encourage a habit of giving would be acceptable. The same concept, in my opinion, applies to this and all other "giving days." Next time, I hope you can identify alternative metrics that will result in stronger relationships rather than create extra work with little or no gain for Flagler. I do support Eric's advice to create records for bonafide individuals. I have shared the personal story of my directing staff at Duke previously to generate a record for a child who sent in a dime. Neither she nor her parents had any prior affiliation with Duke. Several weeks after receiving my receipt the father wrote me a personal note of thanks and enclosed a check for $1,000. I created a record for his business (the check was written on his law firm account) as well as him and turned his name over to Prospect Research. He ultimately established a $25,000 scholarship. You just never know . . . Create a record where you have sufficient information to do so. Use "Various Donors" where you don't and record a single lump-sum amount for those. And then develop a policy/protocol for the future that will help foster true philanthropy! John John H. Taylor Principal, John H. Taylor Consulting 2604 Sevier St. Durham, NC 27705 johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com<mailto:johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com> 919.816.5903 (cell/text) Serving the Advancement Community Since 1987 On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:27 AM Eric Valdescaro <Eric.Valdescaro@uhfoundation.org<mailto:Eric.Valdescaro@uhfoundation.org>> wrote: Hi Jay, As for record creation and record management, my recommendation is that you “take this one on the chin” and create bona fide records for each human (to the best of your determination) who gave via check or credit card, or handed cash to a fundraiser or authorized agent on behalf of your organization. Neither does the size of the gift matter nor that they may be a one-time donor. If there is a legitimate account (check, credit card) or attestation that they gave, a system record should be created, they should be counted, and properly receipted. As for the likely fake CASH donors, what I suggest is that you clarify with your athletics staff that you will only count one donor for each donation of check, credit card, or cash lump sum from donors of the same household from which a proper employee or agent can attest to the identity of the donor. Cash collected by student athletes and non-agents should be booked under a “Miscellaneous donors” or “various donors” record and exempt from your giving day challenge totals and not receipted since there’s no way for you to prove those “donors” actually gave anything – especially when the names are obviously made up. You may need to apologize for not establishing better ground rules, but there may be culpability on both sides if there was suspicious activity by individuals to game the system. Just my 2c, Eric Eric F. Valdescaro AVP, Advancement Services University of Hawaii Foundation From: Advancement Services Discussion List [mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>] On Behalf Of Kelly, Jay Paul Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 3:59 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: [FUNDSVCS] Giving Day Small-Gift Donor Counts, Record Creation, Receipting Hello everybody, Please excuse this long e-mail, but I have a couple odd scenarios and questions! We are wrapping up a giving day athletics competition to see which team could raise the most donors per athlete, and our teams went a little off the rails toward the end with boosting their numbers. In some cases, teammates reached out to friends, family, etc. for $1 - $3 gifts just to boost counts. This one is partially our fault for only labeling $10 a suggested amount instead of a required amount, but how do you all generally handle receipting, record creation, and record management for small one-time gift scenarios like these? These donors are unlikely to ever give again unless directed by the student athlete, and the administrative time, acknowledgement postage, and new-year follow-up, will altogether equal or exceed their gifts. But more importantly, I identified a large number of cases where a coach and some athletes look to be splitting their gifts across members of their households to boost their numbers. In the most flagrant case, a staff member who knows one of the coaches confirmed that the coach clearly listed his dog in the donor name, and that there were a few other questionable, pet-like names amongst student athletes (Bane, ZuZu, etc.). Mailing addresses are the same as their human counterparts and e-mail addresses sometimes are the same while others are varied, but our crowdfunding vendor does not provide billing addresses or the last four credit card digits of a transaction. This leave us with no concrete evidence to confirm these donors are a) just one person behind a computer entering his/her family members’ names in separate transactions, or b) not, in fact, a dog. Since donor count-centric Giving Days do involve a large number of small gift, one-time donors, I am looking for some thoughts on the best practices for a) creating/managing records for these one-time donors, b) sending out receipts/acknowledgement letters to them and c) handling scenarios where the donor name looks to be falsified, but with no capability to directly confirm the falsification. Best, Jay P. Kelly ’12 Director of Advancement Services Office of Institutional Advancement Flagler College 74 King Street | Saint Augustine, FL 32084 904.819.6477 | Fax: 904.823.9477 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.flagler.edu_support&d=DwIGaQ&c=4rZ6NPIETe-LE5i2KBR4rw&r=RL66qO_KVI0qkdZA56E0IahMY2MmCPxf2Xjtl4IsXhg&m=fSt_MUFQf1-r5hhjdZJxO7z6Pi5khJ-3OqtBNOWIh60&s=zMdAIyvO8LD39-A8WonOyRdhLCv7OWQgw3kxN7-8-_4&e=<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.flagler.edu_support&d=DwMFaQ&c=4rZ6NPIETe-LE5i2KBR4rw&r=N3xCjyp_KEYuYdV1qWGwAw&m=dY5O0CsFrIQwiBJ8lOSD8n8KJy6bZYIUk73PEIe-byA&s=gjLBZo_Z0AOT52ijM2f20fA83YCzEa5YjibBLBJZk0U&e=> [50 Hour Email Signature Button]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__giving.flagler.edu_pages_home-2D2042&d=DwMFaQ&c=4rZ6NPIETe-LE5i2KBR4rw&r=N3xCjyp_KEYuYdV1qWGwAw&m=dY5O0CsFrIQwiBJ8lOSD8n8KJy6bZYIUk73PEIe-byA&s=6BoeYWWzhGFHg4D0jPmUahqQLTeyhjaaeK_MkbDaP6M&e=> ________________________________ This email contains CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us by reply email and delete this email from your records. Furthermore, the contents of this email do not necessarily represent official policy of Flagler College. This message (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. It is the property of the University of Hawaii Foundation. It may contain confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are not the intended recipient, you must delete this message. You are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message is prohibited.

The last time I did a presentation focusing on issues and methods around calculating alumni participation for the U.S. News & World Reports “America’s Best Colleges” rankings, I took a quick a look at some of the alternate attempts to come up with metrics for alumni participation, educational effectiveness, educational quality, etc. It’s quite a diverse set of approaches, and, as John indicated, it’s not clear that they include anything better than the alumni participation metric. This is undoubtedly dated, and filtered through my own thought processes, but I thought I’d share the contents of those slides in case there might be additional interest: • Other approaches are beginning to emerge – Niche's College Rankings uses a survey of current students and recent graduates administered by Niche https://colleges.niche.com/rankings/best-colleges/methodology/ – The U.S. Department of Education College Scorecard includes “supporting data on student completion, debt and repayment, earnings, and more” https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/data/ – Wall Street Journal/Times Higher Education ranking of U.S. colleges looking at value added to graduate salary (12%) and to the loan repayment rate (7%) • “The THE data team uses statistical modelling to create an expected graduate salary and loan repayment rate for each college based on a wide range of factors, such as the make-up of its students and the characteristics of the institution.” https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/wall-street-journal-times-higher-education-college-rankings-methodology – The Brookings Institution looked at earnings data of alumni of different schools and programs • Finding limitations in how useful earnings data is in comparing colleges https://www.brookings.edu/research/making-college-earnings-data-work-for-students/ – College Measures from the American Institutes for Research, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation, and Gallup Inc. “works with state governments to help identify higher education credentials with high return on investment.” http://www.air.org/center/college-measures/ – “The Economist’s first-ever college rankings<http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21677231-new-federal-data-reveal-which-colleges-do-most-their-graduates-pay-packets-they-are> are based on a simple, if debatable, premise: the economic value of a university is equal to the gap between how much money its students subsequently earn, and how much they might have made had they studied elsewhere.” • Helpful (and lengthy!) discussion of interpretation and caveats http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/10/value-university I also shared this excerpt from a column by the brilliant columnist Frank Bruni: “My larger point is this: For almost every well-intentioned measurement, there’s either a fundamental shortcoming or possible glitch. Take the Wall Street Journal rankings, which significantly factor in how a school’s current students, in a survey, evaluate their experience. This would seem to be — and perhaps is — an excellent idea. But in visiting colleges over time, I’ve noticed that the ones with the loftiest reputations sometimes marinate in their own mythology, sending students all sorts of messages about what an extraordinary opportunity they’re enjoying. This self-congratulation surely colors the survey responses, which may wind up saying as much about a school’s status as about anything else.” https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/opinion/sunday/how-to-make-sense-of-college-rankings.html The question is genuinely difficult, and I’m not sure that we’re on the cusp of replacing the current (admittedly imperfect) metric. My US$0.02 worth; the usual disclaimers apply. Good luck! Alan Alan S. Hejnal Data Quality Manager Smithsonian Institution - Office of Advancement 600 Maryland Avenue SW, Suite 600E P.O. Box 37012, MRC 527 Washington, DC 20013-7012 •: 202-633-8754 | •: HejnalA@si.edu<mailto:HejnalA@si.edu> [SNAGHTML5cbfa34]<https://www.si.edu/> [AASP_FundSvcs_LOGO-01(040pct)(mark)] From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> On Behalf Of John Taylor Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 12:46 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] Giving Day Small-Gift Donor Counts, Record Creation, Receipting You are correct in recalling comments made by Sue Cunningham. She published an editorial on this point. The problem with alumni participation calculations is one of the reasons why CASE launched their alumni engagement initiative. The only challenge with that initiative is that there isn't a one-size-fits-all metric that works for that, either. Indeed, US News & World Reports - and more specifically the head of research there, Robert Morse - supports identifying another metric. That is what he told me several years ago when Bob Burdenski and I met with him and his staff in their offices to discuss the alumni participation rate issue. And I understand from Ann Kaplan that he has essentially told Sue the same thing. If we can come up with a different universal metric to gauge alumni belief, support, feelings toward their institutions - and we can capture that information historically - they are all ears. But until some authoritative source presents an alternate path they will stay the course. John John H. Taylor Principal, John H. Taylor Consulting 2604 Sevier St. Durham, NC 27705 johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com<mailto:johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com> 919.816.5903 (cell/text) Serving the Advancement Community Since 1987 On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 10:24 AM John Smilde <jps6@calvin.edu<mailto:jps6@calvin.edu>> wrote: I agree with what both Eric and John are saying here. In addition, I’m just returning from the Case DRIVE/ conference where Ann Kaplan, Senior Director, VSE lead a session. She made a couple points that I think are worth adding to the discussion. Those were: 1. VSE no longer publishes anything related to participation percentages. The data is out there if an organization still wants to calculate it on their own but they don’t view it as a value in support of higher education. 2. I believe Ann was quoting Sue Cunningham, President & CEO, CASE who has gone on record stating that participation percentages are obsolete as a viable data point in their survey. U.S. News & World Report’s response was that they are very interested in feedback regarding better methods to integrate alumni financial support as a part of their calculation. The general takeaway was that momentum is moving away from participation counts and that might be valuable information to have if you are trying to dissuade donor count and any amount mentality/pressure for things like giving days. An additional note in support of what is happening at the VSE. Not only is the full scope of VSE data, via Data Miner, now available to any CASE member who participates, they have recently added IPEDS comparison groups which may be valuable for reporting to areas of your college/university that view IPEDS as the main benchmarking resource. Love this plus-and approach CASE/VSE is taking. John Smilde Director of Advancement Services Campaign Director Calvin College jps6@calvin.edu<mailto:jps6@calvin.edu> 616.526.8577 [full-color-positive] From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>> On Behalf Of John Taylor Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 7:10 AM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] Giving Day Small-Gift Donor Counts, Record Creation, Receipting I generally agree with everything Eric has stated. I worry about the underlying culture that may have been inadvertently created (and I read in your note that you get this!). It's akin to the drive to increase alumni participation rates artificially. Our fundraising activities should NOT be motivated by how many names we can add to our lists, but how many donors we have successfully cultivated into a longer relationship with the institution. Over a decade ago CASE offered the following in an alumni participation rate Q&A: Q: Is it appropriate to ask alumni for a minuscule amount of money ($1, for example) just to boost the percentage of alumni giving? A: No. Our mission to build support for our institutions is not properly served by attempting to manipulate reporting data. Energies are best spent on sound practices to increase institutional support from alumni. Whether initiated by advancement staff or volunteers, it does not build greater support for the institution to ask alumni for “an extra dollar” to boost the class participation percentage. On the other hand, asking seniors in the Class of 2008 to give $20.08 as a means to capture their interest and encourage a habit of giving would be acceptable. The same concept, in my opinion, applies to this and all other "giving days." Next time, I hope you can identify alternative metrics that will result in stronger relationships rather than create extra work with little or no gain for Flagler. I do support Eric's advice to create records for bonafide individuals. I have shared the personal story of my directing staff at Duke previously to generate a record for a child who sent in a dime. Neither she nor her parents had any prior affiliation with Duke. Several weeks after receiving my receipt the father wrote me a personal note of thanks and enclosed a check for $1,000. I created a record for his business (the check was written on his law firm account) as well as him and turned his name over to Prospect Research. He ultimately established a $25,000 scholarship. You just never know . . . Create a record where you have sufficient information to do so. Use "Various Donors" where you don't and record a single lump-sum amount for those. And then develop a policy/protocol for the future that will help foster true philanthropy! John John H. Taylor Principal, John H. Taylor Consulting 2604 Sevier St. Durham, NC 27705 johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com<mailto:johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com> 919.816.5903 (cell/text) Serving the Advancement Community Since 1987 On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:27 AM Eric Valdescaro <Eric.Valdescaro@uhfoundation.org<mailto:Eric.Valdescaro@uhfoundation.org>> wrote: Hi Jay, As for record creation and record management, my recommendation is that you “take this one on the chin” and create bona fide records for each human (to the best of your determination) who gave via check or credit card, or handed cash to a fundraiser or authorized agent on behalf of your organization. Neither does the size of the gift matter nor that they may be a one-time donor. If there is a legitimate account (check, credit card) or attestation that they gave, a system record should be created, they should be counted, and properly receipted. As for the likely fake CASH donors, what I suggest is that you clarify with your athletics staff that you will only count one donor for each donation of check, credit card, or cash lump sum from donors of the same household from which a proper employee or agent can attest to the identity of the donor. Cash collected by student athletes and non-agents should be booked under a “Miscellaneous donors” or “various donors” record and exempt from your giving day challenge totals and not receipted since there’s no way for you to prove those “donors” actually gave anything – especially when the names are obviously made up. You may need to apologize for not establishing better ground rules, but there may be culpability on both sides if there was suspicious activity by individuals to game the system. Just my 2c, Eric Eric F. Valdescaro AVP, Advancement Services University of Hawaii Foundation From: Advancement Services Discussion List [mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>] On Behalf Of Kelly, Jay Paul Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 3:59 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: [FUNDSVCS] Giving Day Small-Gift Donor Counts, Record Creation, Receipting Hello everybody, Please excuse this long e-mail, but I have a couple odd scenarios and questions! We are wrapping up a giving day athletics competition to see which team could raise the most donors per athlete, and our teams went a little off the rails toward the end with boosting their numbers. In some cases, teammates reached out to friends, family, etc. for $1 - $3 gifts just to boost counts. This one is partially our fault for only labeling $10 a suggested amount instead of a required amount, but how do you all generally handle receipting, record creation, and record management for small one-time gift scenarios like these? These donors are unlikely to ever give again unless directed by the student athlete, and the administrative time, acknowledgement postage, and new-year follow-up, will altogether equal or exceed their gifts. But more importantly, I identified a large number of cases where a coach and some athletes look to be splitting their gifts across members of their households to boost their numbers. In the most flagrant case, a staff member who knows one of the coaches confirmed that the coach clearly listed his dog in the donor name, and that there were a few other questionable, pet-like names amongst student athletes (Bane, ZuZu, etc.). Mailing addresses are the same as their human counterparts and e-mail addresses sometimes are the same while others are varied, but our crowdfunding vendor does not provide billing addresses or the last four credit card digits of a transaction. This leave us with no concrete evidence to confirm these donors are a) just one person behind a computer entering his/her family members’ names in separate transactions, or b) not, in fact, a dog. Since donor count-centric Giving Days do involve a large number of small gift, one-time donors, I am looking for some thoughts on the best practices for a) creating/managing records for these one-time donors, b) sending out receipts/acknowledgement letters to them and c) handling scenarios where the donor name looks to be falsified, but with no capability to directly confirm the falsification. Best, Jay P. Kelly ’12 Director of Advancement Services Office of Institutional Advancement Flagler College 74 King Street | Saint Augustine, FL 32084 904.819.6477 | Fax: 904.823.9477 www.flagler.edu/support<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__www.flagler.edu_support%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3D4rZ6NPIETe-LE5i2KBR4rw%26r%3DN3xCjyp_KEYuYdV1qWGwAw%26m%3DdY5O0CsFrIQwiBJ8lOSD8n8KJy6bZYIUk73PEIe-byA%26s%3DgjLBZo_Z0AOT52ijM2f20fA83YCzEa5YjibBLBJZk0U%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7CHejnalA%40SI.EDU%7C3185804aeebf453579fb08d6a965d293%7C989b5e2a14e44efe93b78cdd5fc5d11c%7C1%7C0%7C636882652127468438&sdata=%2FV3lQmm47whpulasy49caq%2FTX9mh9JE8fyTSsdzf26E%3D&reserved=0> [50 Hour Email Signature Button]<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__giving.flagler.edu_pages_home-2D2042%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3D4rZ6NPIETe-LE5i2KBR4rw%26r%3DN3xCjyp_KEYuYdV1qWGwAw%26m%3DdY5O0CsFrIQwiBJ8lOSD8n8KJy6bZYIUk73PEIe-byA%26s%3D6BoeYWWzhGFHg4D0jPmUahqQLTeyhjaaeK_MkbDaP6M%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7CHejnalA%40SI.EDU%7C3185804aeebf453579fb08d6a965d293%7C989b5e2a14e44efe93b78cdd5fc5d11c%7C1%7C0%7C636882652127478460&sdata=nVikvxxDFamFVwiTLlY%2FjWjb4xELGz2v1o5V0SEDEo8%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ This email contains CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us by reply email and delete this email from your records. Furthermore, the contents of this email do not necessarily represent official policy of Flagler College. This message (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. It is the property of the University of Hawaii Foundation. It may contain confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are not the intended recipient, you must delete this message. You are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message is prohibited.

Yes, thanks! That is much a much more complete accounting and sounds a lot like what Ann said during her presentation. I was just so excited about all the data that is available to us it’s a miracle I remembered anything! 😊 From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> On Behalf Of John Taylor Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 12:46 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] Giving Day Small-Gift Donor Counts, Record Creation, Receipting You are correct in recalling comments made by Sue Cunningham. She published an editorial on this point. The problem with alumni participation calculations is one of the reasons why CASE launched their alumni engagement initiative. The only challenge with that initiative is that there isn't a one-size-fits-all metric that works for that, either. Indeed, US News & World Reports - and more specifically the head of research there, Robert Morse - supports identifying another metric. That is what he told me several years ago when Bob Burdenski and I met with him and his staff in their offices to discuss the alumni participation rate issue. And I understand from Ann Kaplan that he has essentially told Sue the same thing. If we can come up with a different universal metric to gauge alumni belief, support, feelings toward their institutions - and we can capture that information historically - they are all ears. But until some authoritative source presents an alternate path they will stay the course. John John H. Taylor Principal, John H. Taylor Consulting 2604 Sevier St. Durham, NC 27705 johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com<mailto:johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com> 919.816.5903 (cell/text) Serving the Advancement Community Since 1987 On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 10:24 AM John Smilde <jps6@calvin.edu<mailto:jps6@calvin.edu>> wrote: I agree with what both Eric and John are saying here. In addition, I’m just returning from the Case DRIVE/ conference where Ann Kaplan, Senior Director, VSE lead a session. She made a couple points that I think are worth adding to the discussion. Those were: 1. VSE no longer publishes anything related to participation percentages. The data is out there if an organization still wants to calculate it on their own but they don’t view it as a value in support of higher education. 2. I believe Ann was quoting Sue Cunningham, President & CEO, CASE who has gone on record stating that participation percentages are obsolete as a viable data point in their survey. U.S. News & World Report’s response was that they are very interested in feedback regarding better methods to integrate alumni financial support as a part of their calculation. The general takeaway was that momentum is moving away from participation counts and that might be valuable information to have if you are trying to dissuade donor count and any amount mentality/pressure for things like giving days. An additional note in support of what is happening at the VSE. Not only is the full scope of VSE data, via Data Miner, now available to any CASE member who participates, they have recently added IPEDS comparison groups which may be valuable for reporting to areas of your college/university that view IPEDS as the main benchmarking resource. Love this plus-and approach CASE/VSE is taking. John Smilde Director of Advancement Services Campaign Director Calvin College jps6@calvin.edu<mailto:jps6@calvin.edu> 616.526.8577 [full-color-positive] From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>> On Behalf Of John Taylor Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 7:10 AM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] Giving Day Small-Gift Donor Counts, Record Creation, Receipting I generally agree with everything Eric has stated. I worry about the underlying culture that may have been inadvertently created (and I read in your note that you get this!). It's akin to the drive to increase alumni participation rates artificially. Our fundraising activities should NOT be motivated by how many names we can add to our lists, but how many donors we have successfully cultivated into a longer relationship with the institution. Over a decade ago CASE offered the following in an alumni participation rate Q&A: Q: Is it appropriate to ask alumni for a minuscule amount of money ($1, for example) just to boost the percentage of alumni giving? A: No. Our mission to build support for our institutions is not properly served by attempting to manipulate reporting data. Energies are best spent on sound practices to increase institutional support from alumni. Whether initiated by advancement staff or volunteers, it does not build greater support for the institution to ask alumni for “an extra dollar” to boost the class participation percentage. On the other hand, asking seniors in the Class of 2008 to give $20.08 as a means to capture their interest and encourage a habit of giving would be acceptable. The same concept, in my opinion, applies to this and all other "giving days." Next time, I hope you can identify alternative metrics that will result in stronger relationships rather than create extra work with little or no gain for Flagler. I do support Eric's advice to create records for bonafide individuals. I have shared the personal story of my directing staff at Duke previously to generate a record for a child who sent in a dime. Neither she nor her parents had any prior affiliation with Duke. Several weeks after receiving my receipt the father wrote me a personal note of thanks and enclosed a check for $1,000. I created a record for his business (the check was written on his law firm account) as well as him and turned his name over to Prospect Research. He ultimately established a $25,000 scholarship. You just never know . . . Create a record where you have sufficient information to do so. Use "Various Donors" where you don't and record a single lump-sum amount for those. And then develop a policy/protocol for the future that will help foster true philanthropy! John John H. Taylor Principal, John H. Taylor Consulting 2604 Sevier St. Durham, NC 27705 johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com<mailto:johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com> 919.816.5903 (cell/text) Serving the Advancement Community Since 1987 On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:27 AM Eric Valdescaro <Eric.Valdescaro@uhfoundation.org<mailto:Eric.Valdescaro@uhfoundation.org>> wrote: Hi Jay, As for record creation and record management, my recommendation is that you “take this one on the chin” and create bona fide records for each human (to the best of your determination) who gave via check or credit card, or handed cash to a fundraiser or authorized agent on behalf of your organization. Neither does the size of the gift matter nor that they may be a one-time donor. If there is a legitimate account (check, credit card) or attestation that they gave, a system record should be created, they should be counted, and properly receipted. As for the likely fake CASH donors, what I suggest is that you clarify with your athletics staff that you will only count one donor for each donation of check, credit card, or cash lump sum from donors of the same household from which a proper employee or agent can attest to the identity of the donor. Cash collected by student athletes and non-agents should be booked under a “Miscellaneous donors” or “various donors” record and exempt from your giving day challenge totals and not receipted since there’s no way for you to prove those “donors” actually gave anything – especially when the names are obviously made up. You may need to apologize for not establishing better ground rules, but there may be culpability on both sides if there was suspicious activity by individuals to game the system. Just my 2c, Eric Eric F. Valdescaro AVP, Advancement Services University of Hawaii Foundation From: Advancement Services Discussion List [mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>] On Behalf Of Kelly, Jay Paul Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 3:59 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: [FUNDSVCS] Giving Day Small-Gift Donor Counts, Record Creation, Receipting Hello everybody, Please excuse this long e-mail, but I have a couple odd scenarios and questions! We are wrapping up a giving day athletics competition to see which team could raise the most donors per athlete, and our teams went a little off the rails toward the end with boosting their numbers. In some cases, teammates reached out to friends, family, etc. for $1 - $3 gifts just to boost counts. This one is partially our fault for only labeling $10 a suggested amount instead of a required amount, but how do you all generally handle receipting, record creation, and record management for small one-time gift scenarios like these? These donors are unlikely to ever give again unless directed by the student athlete, and the administrative time, acknowledgement postage, and new-year follow-up, will altogether equal or exceed their gifts. But more importantly, I identified a large number of cases where a coach and some athletes look to be splitting their gifts across members of their households to boost their numbers. In the most flagrant case, a staff member who knows one of the coaches confirmed that the coach clearly listed his dog in the donor name, and that there were a few other questionable, pet-like names amongst student athletes (Bane, ZuZu, etc.). Mailing addresses are the same as their human counterparts and e-mail addresses sometimes are the same while others are varied, but our crowdfunding vendor does not provide billing addresses or the last four credit card digits of a transaction. This leave us with no concrete evidence to confirm these donors are a) just one person behind a computer entering his/her family members’ names in separate transactions, or b) not, in fact, a dog. Since donor count-centric Giving Days do involve a large number of small gift, one-time donors, I am looking for some thoughts on the best practices for a) creating/managing records for these one-time donors, b) sending out receipts/acknowledgement letters to them and c) handling scenarios where the donor name looks to be falsified, but with no capability to directly confirm the falsification. Best, Jay P. Kelly ’12 Director of Advancement Services Office of Institutional Advancement Flagler College 74 King Street | Saint Augustine, FL 32084 904.819.6477 | Fax: 904.823.9477 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.flagler.edu_support&d=DwIGaQ&c=4rZ6NPIETe-LE5i2KBR4rw&r=RL66qO_KVI0qkdZA56E0IahMY2MmCPxf2Xjtl4IsXhg&m=FmoVXrINKGbGgU3tPrzhxf1EIwuEvD2J4UlvJ7iwAeA&s=XOXaX6sBhAKwYI62NLGUQfrkiB9piYM0X8j9ZTUbePs&e=<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.flagler.edu_support&d=DwMFaQ&c=4rZ6NPIETe-LE5i2KBR4rw&r=N3xCjyp_KEYuYdV1qWGwAw&m=dY5O0CsFrIQwiBJ8lOSD8n8KJy6bZYIUk73PEIe-byA&s=gjLBZo_Z0AOT52ijM2f20fA83YCzEa5YjibBLBJZk0U&e=> [50 Hour Email Signature Button]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__giving.flagler.edu_pages_home-2D2042&d=DwMFaQ&c=4rZ6NPIETe-LE5i2KBR4rw&r=N3xCjyp_KEYuYdV1qWGwAw&m=dY5O0CsFrIQwiBJ8lOSD8n8KJy6bZYIUk73PEIe-byA&s=6BoeYWWzhGFHg4D0jPmUahqQLTeyhjaaeK_MkbDaP6M&e=> ________________________________ This email contains CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us by reply email and delete this email from your records. Furthermore, the contents of this email do not necessarily represent official policy of Flagler College. This message (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. It is the property of the University of Hawaii Foundation. It may contain confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are not the intended recipient, you must delete this message. You are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message is prohibited.