FundSvcs Community

That was worth the read and the laugh! Thank you for changing the path of my day from trying to find a gnome ASAP to okay others feel my pain I can stop banging my head on my desk and just get to it! Gerri Silveira University Advancement EOU Foundation 541-962-3835 eou.edu/foundation <https://www.eou.edu/foundation/> *High Quality Programs,** Access for All, **Live Learn Succeed* On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 7:58 AM John Taylor <johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com> wrote: > The discussion yesterday regarding the "typical" volume a gift > processor might handle in a given day, week, month, or year prompted a > private response to me. An old friend and colleague sent me the attached > missive late yesterday. Anonymity was requested, but permission was > granted to share. > > As this is a lengthy document, I am sending it as an attachment. I will > also put it at the download site. As I told the author, as I began reading > it, I was laughing out loud. But then I was nodding my head in agreement > thinking this is our reality. > > This is really worth the read - when you have a few extra minutes. > > John > > John H. Taylor > Principal > John H. Taylor Consulting, LLC > 2604 Sevier St. > Durham, NC 27705 > johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com > 919.816.5903 (cell/text) > > Serving the Advancement Community Since 1987 >

I agree with you Alan. While I too loved the piece and can attest to many of those situations described coming across my desk when I processed gifts, and still come across my desk as my Advancement Services team bring me the latest gift wrinkle, but it is important to take a moment and really think about all the responsibilities that land on "gift processing" to tease out the skills and experience required to not only recognize the complexity but also to define it and describe it so that those who don't appreciate it finally can. There is another side to this tapestry, that of the gift officers who are the public face of the organization and must interact with the donor who wants the gift in honor of the 1938 New York Giants (there were different sports?!?). They too have their frustrations with the donor requests and also have to make nice when what the donor wants is simply not possible. As difficult as our job is, so too it theirs. What I have believed for the last 18 years of working in Advancement Services is that we all need to spend a little time in each others shoes. Gift officers should spend a day with the gift processors or learning how to reconcile one gift report a year with the bank statement and AS staff should shadow a gift officer on a donor visit. What I'm saying is that the work we do is a team effort, I'm not spouting platitudes here, it really is. If we are to meet our goals the whole process needs to be correct from identification of new donors, through cultivation & solicitation and on to timely processing, reporting and donor stewardship. We all make mistakes along the way but rather than point to all the work we did correctly we should just fix the error and move on and thereby demonstrate our maturity in our roles and loyalty to the mission that we work so hard to achieve. And of course sometimes we need to let off steam, and shout out our frustrations, that's okay, even necessary. Just remember when you're done to get back to the work of changing the world for the better, one processed gift at a time. We have far too much us vs. them in the world right now. Aren't we in Philanthropy to help make a difference? I like the idea of developing a survey and working to define and describe our work, I think it would help us all to move forward. Lisa -- *Lisa Ziska-Marchand, M.S.* *Director of Prospect Research & Advancement Services* *California State University, Monterey Bay* *(831) 582-3363* On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 9:06 AM Hejnal, Alan < 00000031f8bb5829-dmarc-request@listserv.fundsvcs.org> wrote: > On the one hand, I don’t disagree with much of the substance of this. In > fact, in an off-list exchange yesterday early on in the current discussion, > I noted (in a more abbreviated, and certainly less whimsical, format) many > of the same complexities, relating to the range of tasks that a gift > processor might be asked to undertake (related to gift processing or > otherwise), the simplicity/complexity and clarity/ambiguity of the > information about the gift, and the characteristics of the advancement > system being used (and related support for the process, like various sorts > of automation, which I did not call out specifically, but are really > important). Comparisons are hard, and superficial comparisons can be > downright harmful. > > > > On the other hand, I do disagree, and rather emphatically. The colleague > who has no basis of comparison for their organization’s processes and > staffing level and who is looking to provide context to understand their > organization’s processes and staffing level has asked a very, very, very > important and thoughtful question, a question that may even be vital to > understanding and defending and supporting and improving their operations, > and one that I wonder whether we might discount too quickly with true but > unhelpful invocation of the complexity of the comparison, which those of us > with extensive experience are all quite able to recite knowingly. > > > > If we, as experienced practitioners in the field—myself included--can’t > offer more than “it’s hard to compare for the following list of very good > reasons,” it seems to me that we ought to be concerned about that and take > a look at what it would take to provide answer that might actually be > helpful. > > > > I’m not sure what it would take to take a swing at that. Maybe a survey > by aasp or one of our partners in the consulting business, allowing > organizations to report not just their (say) annual gift recording volume, > but also check off items from a list of other tasks their processors > perform and characterize the proportions of different types of gifts using > a thoughtfully-designed experientially-informed categorization and report > their use of supportive technologies like automation of various sorts. > Organizations that have really sliced and diced their work may even report > a couple entries, one for the automated straightforward annual gifts and > another for other, more complicated gifts. > > > > Thoughts? Volunteers? Partners? > > > > (How did I get up here on this soapbox?) > > > > 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 > > > [image: SNAGHTML5cbfa34] <https://www.si.edu/> > [image: AASP_FundSvcs_LOGO-01(040pct)(mark)] > > > > > > *From:* Advancement Services Discussion List < > FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> *On Behalf Of *John Taylor > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 10, 2019 10:58 AM > *To:* FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG > *Subject:* [FUNDSVCS] How Many Gift Processors Does It Take to Screw in a > Gift? > > > > The discussion yesterday regarding the "typical" volume a gift > processor might handle in a given day, week, month, or year prompted a > private response to me. An old friend and colleague sent me the attached > missive late yesterday. Anonymity was requested, but permission was > granted to share. > > > > As this is a lengthy document, I am sending it as an attachment. I will > also put it at the download site. As I told the author, as I began reading > it, I was laughing out loud. But then I was nodding my head in agreement > thinking this is our reality. > > > > This is really worth the read - when you have a few extra minutes. > > > > John > > > > John H. Taylor > > Principal > > John H. Taylor Consulting, LLC > > 2604 Sevier St. > > Durham, NC 27705 > > johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com > > 919.816.5903 (cell/text) > > > > Serving the Advancement Community Since 1987 >

The discussion yesterday regarding the "typical" volume a gift processor might handle in a given day, week, month, or year prompted a private response to me. An old friend and colleague sent me the attached missive late yesterday. Anonymity was requested, but permission was granted to share. As this is a lengthy document, I am sending it as an attachment. I will also put it at the download site. As I told the author, as I began reading it, I was laughing out loud. But then I was nodding my head in agreement thinking this is our reality. This is really worth the read - when you have a few extra minutes. John John H. Taylor Principal John H. Taylor Consulting, LLC 2604 Sevier St. Durham, NC 27705 johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com 919.816.5903 (cell/text) Serving the Advancement Community Since 1987

Ha! What a great read! I was looking the other day for any other studies or reports and encountered one gift officer who found in their research ratios ranging from 1:200 gifts to 1:44k gifts! Clearly, there's a lot of spread, and gift types matter a lot. I also wanted to echo your point from the other day, which is that automation can radically change the scale of gift-processing, but it does require some up-front investment in tools, process and training before you can reap the rewards. Similarly, beware of changes to your fundraising practices that create more peak-demand moments. I know an org that had a very successful Giving Tuesday campaign, but hadn't planned for the gift entry backlog that would result. Thank you, Isaac Shalev CRM Expert Sage70, Inc. (917) 859-0151 isaac@sage70.com Schedule a *30-minute consultation *now: https://calendly.com/sage70/30min On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 10:58 AM John Taylor <johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com> wrote: > The discussion yesterday regarding the "typical" volume a gift > processor might handle in a given day, week, month, or year prompted a > private response to me. An old friend and colleague sent me the attached > missive late yesterday. Anonymity was requested, but permission was > granted to share. > > As this is a lengthy document, I am sending it as an attachment. I will > also put it at the download site. As I told the author, as I began reading > it, I was laughing out loud. But then I was nodding my head in agreement > thinking this is our reality. > > This is really worth the read - when you have a few extra minutes. > > John > > John H. Taylor > Principal > John H. Taylor Consulting, LLC > 2604 Sevier St. > Durham, NC 27705 > johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com > 919.816.5903 (cell/text) > > Serving the Advancement Community Since 1987 >

Having recently begun to look at gift processing stats, we did it just to check on the workload. Our day of giving last year brought in a huge increase of gifts, and the results of one contest led to the institution of higher gift minimums this year. Nothing like a two-page CYE gift receipt with 20 $1 gifts on it! We've had to ease the fears of our processors that an increase in adjustments didn't reflect badly on them (a chart of accounts change) and that we knew our senior processor's lower transaction count was the result of more complicated transactions taking longer to process -- not laziness. There is always a story behind the metrics beyond just comparing numbers on a dashboard or report. Julie On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 11:25 AM Melissa Stevens < melissa.stevens464@gmail.com> wrote: > Loved and saved this. But as someone recently laid off after 30 years due > to my college's closure, I am actually starting to miss this stuff. > > Melissa > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 10:58 AM John Taylor < > johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The discussion yesterday regarding the "typical" volume a gift >> processor might handle in a given day, week, month, or year prompted a >> private response to me. An old friend and colleague sent me the attached >> missive late yesterday. Anonymity was requested, but permission was >> granted to share. >> >> As this is a lengthy document, I am sending it as an attachment. I will >> also put it at the download site. As I told the author, as I began reading >> it, I was laughing out loud. But then I was nodding my head in agreement >> thinking this is our reality. >> >> This is really worth the read - when you have a few extra minutes. >> >> John >> >> John H. Taylor >> Principal >> John H. Taylor Consulting, LLC >> 2604 Sevier St. >> Durham, NC 27705 >> johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com >> 919.816.5903 (cell/text) >> >> Serving the Advancement Community Since 1987 >> > -- *Julie Domel* | Assistant Director of Advancement Services - Reporting, Data Analysis, & Special Projects Alumni Relations & Development Division | 323 Stadium Drive <https://maps.google.com/?q=323+Stadium+Drive&entry=gmail&source=g> Trinity University | One Trinity Place | San Antonio, TX 78212 jdomel@trinity.edu | office: (210) 999-8057 | fax: (210) 999-8489 Registration is now open! Alumni Weekend 2019 October 4-6, 2019 Register online at gotu.us/AlumniWeekend <https://new.trinity.edu/alumni/alumni-weekend?utm_source=parentguide&utm_medium=gotu.us&utm_campaign=&utm_content=alumniweekend>

My staff and I howled when we read this. Putting into words what we think on a sometimes daily basis! I have to say, I've gone through quite a few gnomes in the last year! On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 10:58 AM John Taylor <johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com> wrote: > The discussion yesterday regarding the "typical" volume a gift > processor might handle in a given day, week, month, or year prompted a > private response to me. An old friend and colleague sent me the attached > missive late yesterday. Anonymity was requested, but permission was > granted to share. > > As this is a lengthy document, I am sending it as an attachment. I will > also put it at the download site. As I told the author, as I began reading > it, I was laughing out loud. But then I was nodding my head in agreement > thinking this is our reality. > > This is really worth the read - when you have a few extra minutes. > > John > > John H. Taylor > Principal > John H. Taylor Consulting, LLC > 2604 Sevier St. > Durham, NC 27705 > johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com > 919.816.5903 (cell/text) > > Serving the Advancement Community Since 1987 > -- [image: Denison University Logo] <https://denison.edu> *Sharon E. Pratt* *Assistant Director of Advancement Operations for Gifts and Records * Institutional Advancement 100 West College Street, Granville, OH 43023 <https://deniso.nu/2qF6h7M> | Beth Eden, 3rd Floor <https://denison.edu/map> Office: 740-587-5523 <1-740-587-5523> Fax: 740-587-*6425* pratts@denison.edu [image: Unlocking Potential: Invest in Denison] <https://unlock.denison.edu> NOTICE: This email message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by phone or by email, and delete this message and all copies and backups thereof.

Loved and saved this. But as someone recently laid off after 30 years due to my college's closure, I am actually starting to miss this stuff. Melissa On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 10:58 AM John Taylor <johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com> wrote: > The discussion yesterday regarding the "typical" volume a gift > processor might handle in a given day, week, month, or year prompted a > private response to me. An old friend and colleague sent me the attached > missive late yesterday. Anonymity was requested, but permission was > granted to share. > > As this is a lengthy document, I am sending it as an attachment. I will > also put it at the download site. As I told the author, as I began reading > it, I was laughing out loud. But then I was nodding my head in agreement > thinking this is our reality. > > This is really worth the read - when you have a few extra minutes. > > John > > John H. Taylor > Principal > John H. Taylor Consulting, LLC > 2604 Sevier St. > Durham, NC 27705 > johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com > 919.816.5903 (cell/text) > > Serving the Advancement Community Since 1987 >

Alan, thanks, I really appreciated your comment. We have to be sensitive to the broad audience and recognizes that insider humor can be a form of exclusion. John put this under separate cover, which felt right to me (a newcomer to this forum, if not to the business). The benchmarking work that we did was to help us answer questions about staff size in advancement services. We zeroed in on meaningfully comparable schools, and we did look at information largely as you suggested, cross-referencing with VSE data as well. Our study was meaningful and found a 1:10k ratio precisely because we held enough factors constant to be useful to our client. A broader study would need to name its goals very carefully to be similarly useful. The whole issue is that the question of ratio actually bundles in so many other questions, and without knowing what degrees of freedom their are with regards to the underlying tech, staff roles, and fundraising strategy, it's impossible to directly address ratio meaningfully. Similarly, the outsourcing option is a different way to approach the issue that should be part of this conversation. I do think that the whole thread of responses was rich in terms of actual examples, some great caveats and additional considerations, and thoughtful approaches to the question throughout. Thank you, Isaac Shalev CRM Expert Sage70, Inc. (917) 859-0151 isaac@sage70.com Schedule a *30-minute consultation *now: https://calendly.com/sage70/30min On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 12:06 PM Hejnal, Alan < 00000031f8bb5829-dmarc-request@listserv.fundsvcs.org> wrote: > On the one hand, I don’t disagree with much of the substance of this. In > fact, in an off-list exchange yesterday early on in the current discussion, > I noted (in a more abbreviated, and certainly less whimsical, format) many > of the same complexities, relating to the range of tasks that a gift > processor might be asked to undertake (related to gift processing or > otherwise), the simplicity/complexity and clarity/ambiguity of the > information about the gift, and the characteristics of the advancement > system being used (and related support for the process, like various sorts > of automation, which I did not call out specifically, but are really > important). Comparisons are hard, and superficial comparisons can be > downright harmful. > > > > On the other hand, I do disagree, and rather emphatically. The colleague > who has no basis of comparison for their organization’s processes and > staffing level and who is looking to provide context to understand their > organization’s processes and staffing level has asked a very, very, very > important and thoughtful question, a question that may even be vital to > understanding and defending and supporting and improving their operations, > and one that I wonder whether we might discount too quickly with true but > unhelpful invocation of the complexity of the comparison, which those of us > with extensive experience are all quite able to recite knowingly. > > > > If we, as experienced practitioners in the field—myself included--can’t > offer more than “it’s hard to compare for the following list of very good > reasons,” it seems to me that we ought to be concerned about that and take > a look at what it would take to provide answer that might actually be > helpful. > > > > I’m not sure what it would take to take a swing at that. Maybe a survey > by aasp or one of our partners in the consulting business, allowing > organizations to report not just their (say) annual gift recording volume, > but also check off items from a list of other tasks their processors > perform and characterize the proportions of different types of gifts using > a thoughtfully-designed experientially-informed categorization and report > their use of supportive technologies like automation of various sorts. > Organizations that have really sliced and diced their work may even report > a couple entries, one for the automated straightforward annual gifts and > another for other, more complicated gifts. > > > > Thoughts? Volunteers? Partners? > > > > (How did I get up here on this soapbox?) > > > > 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 > > > [image: SNAGHTML5cbfa34] <https://www.si.edu/> > [image: AASP_FundSvcs_LOGO-01(040pct)(mark)] > > > > > > *From:* Advancement Services Discussion List < > FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> *On Behalf Of *John Taylor > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 10, 2019 10:58 AM > *To:* FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG > *Subject:* [FUNDSVCS] How Many Gift Processors Does It Take to Screw in a > Gift? > > > > The discussion yesterday regarding the "typical" volume a gift > processor might handle in a given day, week, month, or year prompted a > private response to me. An old friend and colleague sent me the attached > missive late yesterday. Anonymity was requested, but permission was > granted to share. > > > > As this is a lengthy document, I am sending it as an attachment. I will > also put it at the download site. As I told the author, as I began reading > it, I was laughing out loud. But then I was nodding my head in agreement > thinking this is our reality. > > > > This is really worth the read - when you have a few extra minutes. > > > > John > > > > John H. Taylor > > Principal > > John H. Taylor Consulting, LLC > > 2604 Sevier St. > > Durham, NC 27705 > > johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com > > 919.816.5903 (cell/text) > > > > Serving the Advancement Community Since 1987 >

On the one hand, I don’t disagree with much of the substance of this. In fact, in an off-list exchange yesterday early on in the current discussion, I noted (in a more abbreviated, and certainly less whimsical, format) many of the same complexities, relating to the range of tasks that a gift processor might be asked to undertake (related to gift processing or otherwise), the simplicity/complexity and clarity/ambiguity of the information about the gift, and the characteristics of the advancement system being used (and related support for the process, like various sorts of automation, which I did not call out specifically, but are really important). Comparisons are hard, and superficial comparisons can be downright harmful. On the other hand, I do disagree, and rather emphatically. The colleague who has no basis of comparison for their organization’s processes and staffing level and who is looking to provide context to understand their organization’s processes and staffing level has asked a very, very, very important and thoughtful question, a question that may even be vital to understanding and defending and supporting and improving their operations, and one that I wonder whether we might discount too quickly with true but unhelpful invocation of the complexity of the comparison, which those of us with extensive experience are all quite able to recite knowingly. If we, as experienced practitioners in the field—myself included--can’t offer more than “it’s hard to compare for the following list of very good reasons,” it seems to me that we ought to be concerned about that and take a look at what it would take to provide answer that might actually be helpful. I’m not sure what it would take to take a swing at that. Maybe a survey by aasp or one of our partners in the consulting business, allowing organizations to report not just their (say) annual gift recording volume, but also check off items from a list of other tasks their processors perform and characterize the proportions of different types of gifts using a thoughtfully-designed experientially-informed categorization and report their use of supportive technologies like automation of various sorts. Organizations that have really sliced and diced their work may even report a couple entries, one for the automated straightforward annual gifts and another for other, more complicated gifts. Thoughts? Volunteers? Partners? (How did I get up here on this soapbox?) 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: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 10:58 AM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG Subject: [FUNDSVCS] How Many Gift Processors Does It Take to Screw in a Gift? The discussion yesterday regarding the "typical" volume a gift processor might handle in a given day, week, month, or year prompted a private response to me. An old friend and colleague sent me the attached missive late yesterday. Anonymity was requested, but permission was granted to share. As this is a lengthy document, I am sending it as an attachment. I will also put it at the download site. As I told the author, as I began reading it, I was laughing out loud. But then I was nodding my head in agreement thinking this is our reality. This is really worth the read - when you have a few extra minutes. John John H. Taylor Principal John H. Taylor Consulting, LLC 2604 Sevier St. Durham, NC 27705 johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com<mailto:johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com> 919.816.5903 (cell/text) Serving the Advancement Community Since 1987

Thanks, Isaac. I certainly intended no criticism of individual responders, who were all helpful in providing information to contextualize their reports of gift processing volume/staffing. I’m just thinking that we would provide a better service to our fellow practitioners if we could move from thoughtful anecdotal reports in the direction of more rigorous information. I’m thinking that there is a continuum from “these things are exactly alike” to “these things are so different that no meaningful comparison is possible,” and that while this question is clearly not the former, it’s also not the latter either. How we make that comparison is the interesting bit, and one aspect, as you describe from your benchmarking, is to come up with a helpful way to characterize comparable organizations. There are some aasp surveys of topics like salaries that make distinctions that are probably useful. I’m noodling around with some other ideas, ways to characterize gifts, maybe trying to isolate straightforward “annual gifts” where the ask is specific and the purpose of the gift is clear and established in advance by the nature of the solicitation (albeit allowing for individuals to make exceptions). 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 Isaac Shalev Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 12:46 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] How Many Gift Processors Does It Take to Screw in a Gift? Alan, thanks, I really appreciated your comment. We have to be sensitive to the broad audience and recognizes that insider humor can be a form of exclusion. John put this under separate cover, which felt right to me (a newcomer to this forum, if not to the business). The benchmarking work that we did was to help us answer questions about staff size in advancement services. We zeroed in on meaningfully comparable schools, and we did look at information largely as you suggested, cross-referencing with VSE data as well. Our study was meaningful and found a 1:10k ratio precisely because we held enough factors constant to be useful to our client. A broader study would need to name its goals very carefully to be similarly useful. The whole issue is that the question of ratio actually bundles in so many other questions, and without knowing what degrees of freedom their are with regards to the underlying tech, staff roles, and fundraising strategy, it's impossible to directly address ratio meaningfully. Similarly, the outsourcing option is a different way to approach the issue that should be part of this conversation. I do think that the whole thread of responses was rich in terms of actual examples, some great caveats and additional considerations, and thoughtful approaches to the question throughout. Thank you, Isaac Shalev CRM Expert Sage70, Inc. (917) 859-0151 isaac@sage70.com<mailto:isaac@sage70.com> Schedule a 30-minute consultation now: https://calendly.com/sage70/30min<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalendly.com%2Fsage70%2F30min&data=02%7C01%7CHejnalA%40SI.EDU%7C924059c878a24daee82508d7360e691a%7C989b5e2a14e44efe93b78cdd5fc5d11c%7C0%7C0%7C637037307834781705&sdata=%2ByFwbTX0va6diyZ%2FCdcxiELqFxNwl%2FSMmqwBDbF%2B7s4%3D&reserved=0> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 12:06 PM Hejnal, Alan <00000031f8bb5829-dmarc-request@listserv.fundsvcs.org<mailto:00000031f8bb5829-dmarc-request@listserv.fundsvcs.org>> wrote: On the one hand, I don’t disagree with much of the substance of this. In fact, in an off-list exchange yesterday early on in the current discussion, I noted (in a more abbreviated, and certainly less whimsical, format) many of the same complexities, relating to the range of tasks that a gift processor might be asked to undertake (related to gift processing or otherwise), the simplicity/complexity and clarity/ambiguity of the information about the gift, and the characteristics of the advancement system being used (and related support for the process, like various sorts of automation, which I did not call out specifically, but are really important). Comparisons are hard, and superficial comparisons can be downright harmful. On the other hand, I do disagree, and rather emphatically. The colleague who has no basis of comparison for their organization’s processes and staffing level and who is looking to provide context to understand their organization’s processes and staffing level has asked a very, very, very important and thoughtful question, a question that may even be vital to understanding and defending and supporting and improving their operations, and one that I wonder whether we might discount too quickly with true but unhelpful invocation of the complexity of the comparison, which those of us with extensive experience are all quite able to recite knowingly. If we, as experienced practitioners in the field—myself included--can’t offer more than “it’s hard to compare for the following list of very good reasons,” it seems to me that we ought to be concerned about that and take a look at what it would take to provide answer that might actually be helpful. I’m not sure what it would take to take a swing at that. Maybe a survey by aasp or one of our partners in the consulting business, allowing organizations to report not just their (say) annual gift recording volume, but also check off items from a list of other tasks their processors perform and characterize the proportions of different types of gifts using a thoughtfully-designed experientially-informed categorization and report their use of supportive technologies like automation of various sorts. Organizations that have really sliced and diced their work may even report a couple entries, one for the automated straightforward annual gifts and another for other, more complicated gifts. Thoughts? Volunteers? Partners? (How did I get up here on this soapbox?) 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://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.si.edu%2F&data=02%7C01%7CHejnalA%40SI.EDU%7C924059c878a24daee82508d7360e691a%7C989b5e2a14e44efe93b78cdd5fc5d11c%7C0%7C0%7C637037307834786703&sdata=xAc9E2R3Hzv41crWR4hPqCVRNjbMrwN5qrPH4ql6JCk%3D&reserved=0> [AASP_FundSvcs_LOGO-01(040pct)(mark)] From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>> On Behalf Of John Taylor Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 10:58 AM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: [FUNDSVCS] How Many Gift Processors Does It Take to Screw in a Gift? The discussion yesterday regarding the "typical" volume a gift processor might handle in a given day, week, month, or year prompted a private response to me. An old friend and colleague sent me the attached missive late yesterday. Anonymity was requested, but permission was granted to share. As this is a lengthy document, I am sending it as an attachment. I will also put it at the download site. As I told the author, as I began reading it, I was laughing out loud. But then I was nodding my head in agreement thinking this is our reality. This is really worth the read - when you have a few extra minutes. John John H. Taylor Principal John H. Taylor Consulting, LLC 2604 Sevier St. Durham, NC 27705 johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com<mailto:johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com> 919.816.5903 (cell/text) Serving the Advancement Community Since 1987

This subject and attached (well-written) paper speaks to my soul – thank you so much for sharing!!! I am saving this to my computer right now! Dina Ellis Data Entry Technician II, Advancement Services [http://www.callutheran.edu/brand/email/CLU-default-signature.png] 60 West Olsen Road #1650 | Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 Phone: (805) 493-3079 | Fax: (805) 493-3497 CalLutheran.edu<http://www.callutheran.edu/> The information transmitted by this email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. This email may contain proprietary, business-confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, be aware that any use, review, retransmission, distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> On Behalf Of Julie Domel Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 9:43 AM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] How Many Gift Processors Does It Take to Screw in a Gift? Having recently begun to look at gift processing stats, we did it just to check on the workload. Our day of giving last year brought in a huge increase of gifts, and the results of one contest led to the institution of higher gift minimums this year. Nothing like a two-page CYE gift receipt with 20 $1 gifts on it! We've had to ease the fears of our processors that an increase in adjustments didn't reflect badly on them (a chart of accounts change) and that we knew our senior processor's lower transaction count was the result of more complicated transactions taking longer to process -- not laziness. There is always a story behind the metrics beyond just comparing numbers on a dashboard or report. Julie On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 11:25 AM Melissa Stevens <melissa.stevens464@gmail.com<mailto:melissa.stevens464@gmail.com>> wrote: Loved and saved this. But as someone recently laid off after 30 years due to my college's closure, I am actually starting to miss this stuff. Melissa On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 10:58 AM John Taylor <johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com<mailto:johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com>> wrote: The discussion yesterday regarding the "typical" volume a gift processor might handle in a given day, week, month, or year prompted a private response to me. An old friend and colleague sent me the attached missive late yesterday. Anonymity was requested, but permission was granted to share. As this is a lengthy document, I am sending it as an attachment. I will also put it at the download site. As I told the author, as I began reading it, I was laughing out loud. But then I was nodding my head in agreement thinking this is our reality. This is really worth the read - when you have a few extra minutes. John John H. Taylor Principal John H. Taylor Consulting, LLC 2604 Sevier St. Durham, NC 27705 johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com<mailto:johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com> 919.816.5903 (cell/text) Serving the Advancement Community Since 1987 -- Julie Domel | Assistant Director of Advancement Services - Reporting, Data Analysis, & Special Projects Alumni Relations & Development Division | 323 Stadium Drive<https://maps.google.com/?q=323+Stadium+Drive&entry=gmail&source=g> Trinity University | One Trinity Place | San Antonio, TX 78212 jdomel@trinity.edu<mailto:jdomel@trinity.edu> | office: (210) 999-8057 | fax: (210) 999-8489 [https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/SJulmw4Cj66YywDttlEJdH7RKqrVeiKK-1KD8DipKJCCtnWErVrNx-I1jks38pNDS_Y_RpMs9F1Bbj10QIoFewyRlvnap5aU-0Cd7Q1v32NtG8fGWLLUIMy_exQxWQnvJuWtDarV] Registration is now open! Alumni Weekend 2019 October 4-6, 2019 Register online at gotu.us/AlumniWeekend<https://new.trinity.edu/alumni/alumni-weekend?utm_source=parentguide&utm_medium=gotu.us&utm_campaign=&utm_content=alumniweekend>

I thought the piece was great. I’ve been lucky to be a Director and Gift Officer, and had to fill in for our gift processor a few years back…Never again please. It’s a tough job. My favorite story is when I neglected to have some gift envelopes coded. They were stapled into the centerfold of our alumni magazine, huge fall edition. The only way the processor could tell the solicitation code was to look carefully for staple holes. Combine those envelopes with all the other fall mailings and it was a nightmare. [Untitled-1.png] Kristy Liphart | Vice President of Advancement Office: 920.693.1865 | Mobile: 715.292.1866 1.888.GO TO LTC Website<http://gotoltc.edu/index.html> | Explore Programs<http://gotoltc.edu/academics/> | Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/lakeshoretechnicalcollege> | Upcoming Events<http://gotoltc.edu/about-us/ltc-event-calendar/events-calendar.php> [cid:image004.png@01D567DB.3CE9ED40] From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> On Behalf Of Hejnal, Alan Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 12:12 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] How Many Gift Processors Does It Take to Screw in a Gift? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the LTC organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender. Thanks, Isaac. I certainly intended no criticism of individual responders, who were all helpful in providing information to contextualize their reports of gift processing volume/staffing. I’m just thinking that we would provide a better service to our fellow practitioners if we could move from thoughtful anecdotal reports in the direction of more rigorous information. I’m thinking that there is a continuum from “these things are exactly alike” to “these things are so different that no meaningful comparison is possible,” and that while this question is clearly not the former, it’s also not the latter either. How we make that comparison is the interesting bit, and one aspect, as you describe from your benchmarking, is to come up with a helpful way to characterize comparable organizations. There are some aasp surveys of topics like salaries that make distinctions that are probably useful. I’m noodling around with some other ideas, ways to characterize gifts, maybe trying to isolate straightforward “annual gifts” where the ask is specific and the purpose of the gift is clear and established in advance by the nature of the solicitation (albeit allowing for individuals to make exceptions). 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<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>> On Behalf Of Isaac Shalev Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 12:46 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] How Many Gift Processors Does It Take to Screw in a Gift? Alan, thanks, I really appreciated your comment. We have to be sensitive to the broad audience and recognizes that insider humor can be a form of exclusion. John put this under separate cover, which felt right to me (a newcomer to this forum, if not to the business). The benchmarking work that we did was to help us answer questions about staff size in advancement services. We zeroed in on meaningfully comparable schools, and we did look at information largely as you suggested, cross-referencing with VSE data as well. Our study was meaningful and found a 1:10k ratio precisely because we held enough factors constant to be useful to our client. A broader study would need to name its goals very carefully to be similarly useful. The whole issue is that the question of ratio actually bundles in so many other questions, and without knowing what degrees of freedom their are with regards to the underlying tech, staff roles, and fundraising strategy, it's impossible to directly address ratio meaningfully. Similarly, the outsourcing option is a different way to approach the issue that should be part of this conversation. I do think that the whole thread of responses was rich in terms of actual examples, some great caveats and additional considerations, and thoughtful approaches to the question throughout. Thank you, Isaac Shalev CRM Expert Sage70, Inc. (917) 859-0151 isaac@sage70.com<mailto:isaac@sage70.com> Schedule a 30-minute consultation now: https://calendly.com/sage70/30min<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalendly.com%2Fsage70%2F30min&data=02%7C01%7CHejnalA%40SI.EDU%7C924059c878a24daee82508d7360e691a%7C989b5e2a14e44efe93b78cdd5fc5d11c%7C0%7C0%7C637037307834781705&sdata=%2ByFwbTX0va6diyZ%2FCdcxiELqFxNwl%2FSMmqwBDbF%2B7s4%3D&reserved=0> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 12:06 PM Hejnal, Alan <00000031f8bb5829-dmarc-request@listserv.fundsvcs.org<mailto:00000031f8bb5829-dmarc-request@listserv.fundsvcs.org>> wrote: On the one hand, I don’t disagree with much of the substance of this. In fact, in an off-list exchange yesterday early on in the current discussion, I noted (in a more abbreviated, and certainly less whimsical, format) many of the same complexities, relating to the range of tasks that a gift processor might be asked to undertake (related to gift processing or otherwise), the simplicity/complexity and clarity/ambiguity of the information about the gift, and the characteristics of the advancement system being used (and related support for the process, like various sorts of automation, which I did not call out specifically, but are really important). Comparisons are hard, and superficial comparisons can be downright harmful. On the other hand, I do disagree, and rather emphatically. The colleague who has no basis of comparison for their organization’s processes and staffing level and who is looking to provide context to understand their organization’s processes and staffing level has asked a very, very, very important and thoughtful question, a question that may even be vital to understanding and defending and supporting and improving their operations, and one that I wonder whether we might discount too quickly with true but unhelpful invocation of the complexity of the comparison, which those of us with extensive experience are all quite able to recite knowingly. If we, as experienced practitioners in the field—myself included--can’t offer more than “it’s hard to compare for the following list of very good reasons,” it seems to me that we ought to be concerned about that and take a look at what it would take to provide answer that might actually be helpful. I’m not sure what it would take to take a swing at that. Maybe a survey by aasp or one of our partners in the consulting business, allowing organizations to report not just their (say) annual gift recording volume, but also check off items from a list of other tasks their processors perform and characterize the proportions of different types of gifts using a thoughtfully-designed experientially-informed categorization and report their use of supportive technologies like automation of various sorts. Organizations that have really sliced and diced their work may even report a couple entries, one for the automated straightforward annual gifts and another for other, more complicated gifts. Thoughts? Volunteers? Partners? (How did I get up here on this soapbox?) 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://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.si.edu%2F&data=02%7C01%7CHejnalA%40SI.EDU%7C924059c878a24daee82508d7360e691a%7C989b5e2a14e44efe93b78cdd5fc5d11c%7C0%7C0%7C637037307834786703&sdata=xAc9E2R3Hzv41crWR4hPqCVRNjbMrwN5qrPH4ql6JCk%3D&reserved=0> [AASP_FundSvcs_LOGO-01(040pct)(mark)] From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>> On Behalf Of John Taylor Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 10:58 AM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: [FUNDSVCS] How Many Gift Processors Does It Take to Screw in a Gift? The discussion yesterday regarding the "typical" volume a gift processor might handle in a given day, week, month, or year prompted a private response to me. An old friend and colleague sent me the attached missive late yesterday. Anonymity was requested, but permission was granted to share. As this is a lengthy document, I am sending it as an attachment. I will also put it at the download site. As I told the author, as I began reading it, I was laughing out loud. But then I was nodding my head in agreement thinking this is our reality. This is really worth the read - when you have a few extra minutes. John John H. Taylor Principal John H. Taylor Consulting, LLC 2604 Sevier St. Durham, NC 27705 johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com<mailto:johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com> 919.816.5903 (cell/text) Serving the Advancement Community Since 1987

Your story reminded me of a busy holiday season at a previous institution. Gift processing was swamped and could use an assist. Some staff in other offices were interested in some additional hours to earn little extra holiday cash. We held a training event, focused only on the most straightforward annual fund gifts, with no bio updates. Our volunteers were surprised to find out that gift processing was real work, and that they’d rather stick to their day jobs. We didn’t get much of an assist, but it was a valuable informational exercise! I was also reminded of return pieces that went out without an appeal code over the years, with samples on the gift processing bulletin board with the corresponding codes written across the front in marker. Fortunately, it didn’t happen often! I was also reminded of how much easier gift recording is when the return piece is personalized and has the constituent ID printed on it so that the gift processor doesn’t have to look up the constituent. That’s definitely one question to ask on any eventual survey, the proportion of return mail gifts entered using an ID on the return piece! 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 Liphart, Kristin Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 2:26 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] How Many Gift Processors Does It Take to Screw in a Gift? I thought the piece was great. I’ve been lucky to be a Director and Gift Officer, and had to fill in for our gift processor a few years back…Never again please. It’s a tough job. My favorite story is when I neglected to have some gift envelopes coded. They were stapled into the centerfold of our alumni magazine, huge fall edition. The only way the processor could tell the solicitation code was to look carefully for staple holes. Combine those envelopes with all the other fall mailings and it was a nightmare. [Untitled-1.png] Kristy Liphart | Vice President of Advancement Office: 920.693.1865 | Mobile: 715.292.1866 1.888.GO TO LTC Website<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgotoltc.edu%2Findex.html&data=02%7C01%7CHejnalA%40SI.EDU%7Cf7a209af2c87482d1b0f08d7361c660e%7C989b5e2a14e44efe93b78cdd5fc5d11c%7C0%7C0%7C637037367923856919&sdata=kzqWU1l%2BHsJ6w25P8WXtVBiCqbWHpWAhOtLNTWBeY7c%3D&reserved=0> | Explore Programs<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgotoltc.edu%2Facademics%2F&data=02%7C01%7CHejnalA%40SI.EDU%7Cf7a209af2c87482d1b0f08d7361c660e%7C989b5e2a14e44efe93b78cdd5fc5d11c%7C0%7C0%7C637037367923866915&sdata=bCdtuPxeFEfzfvUd9muVD5X%2FPqbB%2BvOvlNxg000ijcU%3D&reserved=0> | Facebook<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Flakeshoretechnicalcollege&data=02%7C01%7CHejnalA%40SI.EDU%7Cf7a209af2c87482d1b0f08d7361c660e%7C989b5e2a14e44efe93b78cdd5fc5d11c%7C0%7C0%7C637037367923866915&sdata=Rk7eTwm%2B%2FobvwLdwIN9HyIjubzZywb8cC%2FKo6by64Qo%3D&reserved=0> | Upcoming Events<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgotoltc.edu%2Fabout-us%2Fltc-event-calendar%2Fevents-calendar.php&data=02%7C01%7CHejnalA%40SI.EDU%7Cf7a209af2c87482d1b0f08d7361c660e%7C989b5e2a14e44efe93b78cdd5fc5d11c%7C0%7C0%7C637037367923876908&sdata=Yf4SR00TCfsaqBTNuRfApcuN0gen2P7TPKiXrPhVsnw%3D&reserved=0> [cid:image008.png@01D567E6.4053CB30] From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>> On Behalf Of Hejnal, Alan Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 12:12 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] How Many Gift Processors Does It Take to Screw in a Gift? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the LTC organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender. Thanks, Isaac. I certainly intended no criticism of individual responders, who were all helpful in providing information to contextualize their reports of gift processing volume/staffing. I’m just thinking that we would provide a better service to our fellow practitioners if we could move from thoughtful anecdotal reports in the direction of more rigorous information. I’m thinking that there is a continuum from “these things are exactly alike” to “these things are so different that no meaningful comparison is possible,” and that while this question is clearly not the former, it’s also not the latter either. How we make that comparison is the interesting bit, and one aspect, as you describe from your benchmarking, is to come up with a helpful way to characterize comparable organizations. There are some aasp surveys of topics like salaries that make distinctions that are probably useful. I’m noodling around with some other ideas, ways to characterize gifts, maybe trying to isolate straightforward “annual gifts” where the ask is specific and the purpose of the gift is clear and established in advance by the nature of the solicitation (albeit allowing for individuals to make exceptions). 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://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.si.edu%2F&data=02%7C01%7CHejnalA%40SI.EDU%7Cf7a209af2c87482d1b0f08d7361c660e%7C989b5e2a14e44efe93b78cdd5fc5d11c%7C0%7C0%7C637037367923876908&sdata=HtsIaHUAhJ3PSsYuzx2Qm%2BUxm6MG5YKhQOo6v2sWR5Y%3D&reserved=0> [AASP_FundSvcs_LOGO-01(040pct)(mark)] From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>> On Behalf Of Isaac Shalev Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 12:46 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] How Many Gift Processors Does It Take to Screw in a Gift? Alan, thanks, I really appreciated your comment. We have to be sensitive to the broad audience and recognizes that insider humor can be a form of exclusion. John put this under separate cover, which felt right to me (a newcomer to this forum, if not to the business). The benchmarking work that we did was to help us answer questions about staff size in advancement services. We zeroed in on meaningfully comparable schools, and we did look at information largely as you suggested, cross-referencing with VSE data as well. Our study was meaningful and found a 1:10k ratio precisely because we held enough factors constant to be useful to our client. A broader study would need to name its goals very carefully to be similarly useful. The whole issue is that the question of ratio actually bundles in so many other questions, and without knowing what degrees of freedom their are with regards to the underlying tech, staff roles, and fundraising strategy, it's impossible to directly address ratio meaningfully. Similarly, the outsourcing option is a different way to approach the issue that should be part of this conversation. I do think that the whole thread of responses was rich in terms of actual examples, some great caveats and additional considerations, and thoughtful approaches to the question throughout. Thank you, Isaac Shalev CRM Expert Sage70, Inc. (917) 859-0151 isaac@sage70.com<mailto:isaac@sage70.com> Schedule a 30-minute consultation now: https://calendly.com/sage70/30min<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalendly.com%2Fsage70%2F30min&data=02%7C01%7CHejnalA%40SI.EDU%7Cf7a209af2c87482d1b0f08d7361c660e%7C989b5e2a14e44efe93b78cdd5fc5d11c%7C0%7C0%7C637037367923886905&sdata=fqao4hLyOJVS2KE4RiFyxnHVXdf%2B3UjbPiyCsSRCXF0%3D&reserved=0> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 12:06 PM Hejnal, Alan <00000031f8bb5829-dmarc-request@listserv.fundsvcs.org<mailto:00000031f8bb5829-dmarc-request@listserv.fundsvcs.org>> wrote: On the one hand, I don’t disagree with much of the substance of this. In fact, in an off-list exchange yesterday early on in the current discussion, I noted (in a more abbreviated, and certainly less whimsical, format) many of the same complexities, relating to the range of tasks that a gift processor might be asked to undertake (related to gift processing or otherwise), the simplicity/complexity and clarity/ambiguity of the information about the gift, and the characteristics of the advancement system being used (and related support for the process, like various sorts of automation, which I did not call out specifically, but are really important). Comparisons are hard, and superficial comparisons can be downright harmful. On the other hand, I do disagree, and rather emphatically. The colleague who has no basis of comparison for their organization’s processes and staffing level and who is looking to provide context to understand their organization’s processes and staffing level has asked a very, very, very important and thoughtful question, a question that may even be vital to understanding and defending and supporting and improving their operations, and one that I wonder whether we might discount too quickly with true but unhelpful invocation of the complexity of the comparison, which those of us with extensive experience are all quite able to recite knowingly. If we, as experienced practitioners in the field—myself included--can’t offer more than “it’s hard to compare for the following list of very good reasons,” it seems to me that we ought to be concerned about that and take a look at what it would take to provide answer that might actually be helpful. I’m not sure what it would take to take a swing at that. Maybe a survey by aasp or one of our partners in the consulting business, allowing organizations to report not just their (say) annual gift recording volume, but also check off items from a list of other tasks their processors perform and characterize the proportions of different types of gifts using a thoughtfully-designed experientially-informed categorization and report their use of supportive technologies like automation of various sorts. Organizations that have really sliced and diced their work may even report a couple entries, one for the automated straightforward annual gifts and another for other, more complicated gifts. Thoughts? Volunteers? Partners? (How did I get up here on this soapbox?) 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://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.si.edu%2F&data=02%7C01%7CHejnalA%40SI.EDU%7Cf7a209af2c87482d1b0f08d7361c660e%7C989b5e2a14e44efe93b78cdd5fc5d11c%7C0%7C0%7C637037367923886905&sdata=batm%2FECuwNhZyPdVcfGuFbAooN4UYqWaiuASb0L%2FIaQ%3D&reserved=0> [AASP_FundSvcs_LOGO-01(040pct)(mark)] From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>> On Behalf Of John Taylor Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 10:58 AM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: [FUNDSVCS] How Many Gift Processors Does It Take to Screw in a Gift? The discussion yesterday regarding the "typical" volume a gift processor might handle in a given day, week, month, or year prompted a private response to me. An old friend and colleague sent me the attached missive late yesterday. Anonymity was requested, but permission was granted to share. As this is a lengthy document, I am sending it as an attachment. I will also put it at the download site. As I told the author, as I began reading it, I was laughing out loud. But then I was nodding my head in agreement thinking this is our reality. This is really worth the read - when you have a few extra minutes. John John H. Taylor Principal John H. Taylor Consulting, LLC 2604 Sevier St. Durham, NC 27705 johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com<mailto:johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com> 919.816.5903 (cell/text) Serving the Advancement Community Since 1987

Thank you for posting this. I found it to be funny and enlightening. I haven't been in my gift-processing position very long, and It's not easy to explain to friends and family what I do at work. I think I'll keep this essay on hand and read aloud a selection or provide a printout next time I need to describe my job duties. :)

Note to Self: Purchase Gnome for Desk. Anne August, Gift Analyst Office of Advancement Simmons University 300 The Fenway Boston, MA 02115 (617) 521-2329 (800) 831-4284 *Electronic Security Notice* Please do not email credit card numbers. If you wish to make your gift via credit card, please use the secure giving link below, or call the Advancement Office toll-free. alumnet.simmons.edu/giving Subject: How Many Gift Processors Does It Take to Screw in a Gift? From: John Taylor <[log in to unmask]> Reply To: [log in to unmask] Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 09:58:06 -0500 Content-Type: multipart/mixed Parts/Attachments: text/plain (791 bytes) , text/html (3025 bytes) , 2019 How Many Gift Processors Does it Take to Screw in a Gift.pdf (107 kB)