FundSvcs Community

Hello everyone,

Does anyone have examples of campaign reporting showing fundraising from a board's perspective? 

The NACGP (National Association of Gift Planners) have a guidelines document that offers a method to show resources that can have an immediate impact and show anticipated money in different 'buckets'.  Basically it aims to present cash ready to be applied and would decrease pledges as they are paid down within the campaign timeline.

 

This would show a leadership group four numbers

• Spendable cash raised
  1. Cash in the door
  2. Outstanding pledge balances
• Planned gifts expected
  1. Irrevocable
  2. Revocable

 

This differs from traditional 'fundraising' bucket of

• Fundraising
  1. pledges committed
  2. new cash not paying down pledges
• Planned gifts recorded
  1. irrevocable
  2. revocable

 

The question for your campaign report is are you keeping the pledge amount as the original commitment or moving payments into the cash bucket as time progresses?

 

Any input is appreciated and examples (numbers could be omitted) would be great.

Thanks,

------------------------------
Roger Childs
Associate Director of Advancement Info Systems
Augusta University
rochilds@augusta.edu
------------------------------

This is helpful. Thanks, John, for your input.

------------------------------
Roger Childs
Associate Director of Advancement Info Systems
Augusta University
rochilds@augusta.edu
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-25-2022 04:44 PM
From: John Taylor
Subject: Campaign Reporting / Buckets from a Board Perspective

You might want to look at the new CASE Standards.  Page 34 in particular.  They suggest something similar to what we developed at NC State 12 years ago.

CASE now talks about two reports:  Fund Received & New Funds Committed.

The first somewhat mirrors the VSE submission.  Which is important for the Board to see as that is what is being used for national comparisons.

The second - what we called "Gifts & New Commitments" - is a better reflection of fundrasing productivity.

Page 34 describes the two reports in detail.

However, I think both reports need additional buckets or presentations - meaning showing those same dollars in different ways.  You might consider, for example, one version showing breakdowns by source (donor type).  Another by fund category (unrestricted, current use, endowment, facilities).  And another by campaign objectives (priorities).

But, I never try to guess what a board wants to see.  I sit down with the Board Advancement Committee with a few mock-ups (knowing my system limitations!) and ask them what THEY want to see.  I don't want to guess wrong and then have to do it all over again!

John

John H. Taylor 

919.816.5903 (Cell/Text)

Big Ideas; Small Keyboard