NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATHLETIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORS
Industry Survey summary Spring 2013
What is your institution’s classification? This study surveyed colleges and universities from all divisions and levels across the United States. In all, 119 institutions responded and the resulting data helps to paint a picture of the fundraising landscape. Chart 1 outlines the spectrum of responses and the corresponding categorization of each responding institution. Of note, a remarkable 63 of 102 NAADD FBS members (62%) responded to the survey.
What is your institution’s conference affiliation? More than 44 conferences from Division-I FBS to Division-II/III, and NAIA responded. Division-I FBS conferences were strongly represented as the Big Ten, PAC-12, and SEC each had more than seven separate institutions respond. Conference USA, Mid-American, and Mountain West conferences also each had seven or more responding institutions. The volume of responses from the abovementioned conferences will provide ample opportunity for observations about the fundraising model, strategies, and techniques employed by these institutions.
2
What is your institution’s current undergraduate enrollment? The undergraduate enrollment is detailed here and responses are spread fairly evenly throughout each range. This is useful because it will allow us to reference fundraising milestones compared to the size of the reporting institution. Do all large institutions have big development departments and raise a lot of money? Questions like these and others relating to institutional enrollment can help identify best practices and benchmarking.
3
How many full-time athletic development employees are in your office? The total number of athletics development employees is another key element to our research. This information can be directly compared to the overall dollars being raised. We can also view this information across conferences, gaining a better sense of industry standards. In theory, the higher the number of development officers at each institution the more money that institution should be raising. Is this true? This could be useful as an institution petitions their athletic department and university development offices for more salaried individuals, especially if their peers are raising more dollars with more fundraisers.
How many intercollegiate athletic programs does your department sponsor? The number of intercollegiate athletic programs sponsored by each institution is intriguing information. This can also be used as leverage to get more fundraisers on staff. If institutions that have similar amounts of sports have more fundraisers on staff assisting with revenue generation, an institution of similar size may have grounds to match the size of their peer’s staff. Also, if an institution of similar size/staff and similar number of sports is raising considerably more money, an institution may wish to evaluate their current processes and strategies.
4
What is the population of the city in which your institution is located? (Not including students) The population of the city is very interesting to this study. Institutions situated in large metropolitan areas may have a lot of competition for disposable income. Whereas those institutions in smaller college towns may be the main attraction, does this correlate to an increase or decrease in the ability to raise money? Also, it may help institutions to benchmark the size of their staff. If a majority of institutions in larger cities have large staffs to reach all of the potential donors and they raise more money on average, then it may justify an increase in their current staff.
5
Are there any professional teams within 30 miles of campus? This chart relates to Chart 6 as it provides data on the number of professional teams within close vicinity to our responding institutions. Clearly, the more opportunities there are for people to get out and spend their disposable income, the less dollars there will be left for development officers to secure. Do institutions similar in size and development staffs differ in dollars raised because one is competing with a professional sports franchise and the other is not? What can be learned from similar institutions that each compete with a professional franchise, yet one of the institutions fairs much better in the amount of money that they are able to raise? Collegiate athletic departments that are able to raise money in spite of their direct competition with professional sports franchises can be useful to other institutions not fairing as well.
Are you currently in a Capital Campaign? Of the institutions that responded, roughly half were in an athletics/university capital campaign. The average campaign was just over $50 million dollars. The size of the campaign can be used to benchmark the overall number of fundraisers on staff; if an institution is in a similar size capital campaign and has similar institutional/athletics characteristics, there might be a case for support of adding more members to the staff.
Chart 8
** The average Capital Campaign was $50,324,107
6
Do you have formalized metrics for development officers’ minimum visits per month? This chart will help to determine whether or not those development offices that have a formalized process and requirements for personal donor visits per month actually raise more money. The respondents are broken down into two even groups, those that use formalized visit metrics and those that do not. It will be helpful to analyze how well each group is doing when it comes to fundraising.
Chart 9
** The average of those who have formulized metrics is 18 visits per month
Do you have formalized metrics for development officers’ solicitations per fiscal year? This chart is similar to Chart 9 in that it delineates between the institutions that have formalized metrics for solicitations per year. Do those institutions that require their development officers to make a certain number of solicitations per year actually fair better than those that do not? Obviously, if the answer is yes, then it will be helpful for those institutions that do not use this process to be aware of that, possibly incentivizing them to implement a more formalized solicitations process and schedule.
Chart 10
** The average is 58.6 solicitations per year
Do you have formalized metrics for development officers’ gift dollars (dollar amount) per fiscal year? This is very similar to Chart 10, thus the near-mirrored response. Though, it is interesting that two institutions that have formalized metrics for overall number of solicitations to be made per year do not have formalized metrics for the dollar amount that needs to be made per year. Again, if it is gleaned that those institutions that require a formalized metric for total per person dollars are raising more money, then those institutions not currently using this model may want to consider it.
Chart 11 ** The average goal per development officer is $627,273
7
Has your department outsourced any external revenue area in the past? These charts indicate the number of schools that have used third party outsourcing for some aspect of their overall revenue generation. The outsourcing of media right by third party companies such as IMG College and Learfield Sports have been tremendously successful. In these models, money is guaranteed up front, regardless of the actual revenue generated. This allows institutions to be more accurate in budget predictions while also clearing this aspect of the business off of their plate. Furthermore, both IMG College and Learfield Sports have been able to build economies of scale, as they are able to leverage the large number of their respective properties to secure large national deals that are quite lucrative. Recently, the outsourcing of ticket sales has been a hot topic. As Chart 12 illustrates, the outsourcing of multimedia rights to third parties still represents the area most institutions outsource. However, the outsourcing of ticket sales to third party companies is increasing rapidly. Despite the success of the third party outsourcing of multimedia rights and ticketing, there are still many institutions that simply cannot afford it. One goal of this study is to determine if the outsourcing of development operations to third party companies makes sense in college athletics. In addition, if it does make sense, is there a profile of the schools that it would make the most sense for? Is there one model of outsourcing, or is the model diverse enough to work for schools of all shapes and sizes and in all locations? Third party outsourcing has been very effective with multimedia rights and recently with ticketing. If third parties can produce the same results in the development arena, institutions need to know this and they need to know how/if they can benefit from this. The respondents have demonstrated the overwhelming successes that third party companies can have on ticket sales and the sale of multimedia rights.
8
9
Ranking of the priority of importance for development purposes The average importance on each aspect is illustrated and this may differ because of any number of factors. These individuals acknowledge that different schools will need their services for different portions of their operations. Companies like Pursuant Sports and JMI Sports pride themselves on being diverse. They offer solutions for improving capital campaigns, annual funds, and overall donor data mining.
10
How often does athletics development meet with your institution’s central development office? Those athletic departments that responded predominately utilized weekly and monthly meetings with their institution’s central development team. This can be helpful information if those that meet more frequently with their institution’s central development team raise more money and work more efficiently.
Analysis of donor’s fiscal contributions Of the 119 institutions that offered any degree of response, less than 70 fully completed questions 8-11. Overall, six conferences and their corresponding data were extracted for analysis. The ACC, Big Ten, Conference USA, Mountain West, PAC-12, and the SEC provided enough responses to warrant further analysis. Conference USA institutions led the pack with on average nearly 4,000 donors giving cash on an unrestricted basis. Conference USA was also on par with other Big Six institutions as far as average number of overall donors is concerned. Finally, Conference USA institutions reported an average gift of $1,275 per donor. This number was higher than the average of reporting Big Ten, ACC, and SEC schools. Institutions that completed this portion of the survey vary in size and culture, number of sports and alumni, and overall size of the development staff.
11
ACC Big Ten CUSA Mt. West PAC-12 SEC
Average Number of Cash Donors Unrestricted 632 3,508 3,933 1,005 3,465 5,800
Average Total Cash Unrestricted $243,154.00 $4,031,488.00 $5,013,625.00 $734,535.00 $5,749,493.00 $2,287,500.00
ACC Big Ten CUSA Mt. West PAC-12 SEC
Average Number Overall Cash Donors 1,250 5,040 4,406 1,347 4,116 6,438
Average Overall Cash Donations $1,997,934.00 $12,197,932.00 $6,787,000.00 $5,142,917.00 $10,840,115.00 $5,525,000.00
ACC Big Ten CUSA Mt. West PAC-12 SEC
Average Per Donor - Unrestricted $385.00 $1,149.00 $1,275.00 $731.00 $1,659.00 $394.00
Average Per Donor - Overall $1,599.00 $2,420.00 $1,540.00 $3,819.00 $2,634.00 $858.00
12
Analysis of open-ended questions The following is an analysis of the open-ended questions from the survey, looking at overarching themes across divisions and responses as a whole. What is your institution's strategy on sharing prospects between central development and athletics? Division I FBS - All positive responses noted a good working collaboration with central development when it came to addressing donors. A MAC school reported that they actually report to central development which was the only case reported in this questionnaire. Division I FCS - All responses showed a positive relationship when determining how donors funds are allocated in the university. Two Southern Conference schools made special note that they receive first right to funds donated by former student-athletes or student-athlete’s parents. This fell in line with a Summit League respondent who stated, “The prospects are shared. Money is donated according to the donors.” Assignment of donors by their relationship to the university was the overarching theme for this section. Division I (No Football) - This section showed the most responses with specific mention to sharing of contacts between central and athletics development. Responses also noted open communication and good sharing. Division II - A respondent with the California Collegiate Athletic Association (CCAA) was the only one who reported no working relationship or strategy between central development and athletics. All others reported a good working relationship between the two. Division III – There were only two respondents in this division. One with the Colonial States Athletic Conference has just recently begun an athletic development program this year. The other respondent from the Northwest Conference reported that prospects are assigned based off giving history or any expressed interest from the donor. NAIA – There was only one participant for this section. The Sun Conference school that responded reported a great relationship and notes that an athletic development officer is housed in central development to aid in communication. Overall theme - The overall theme regarding this question is an overwhelming majority of respondents reported a positive working relationship with central development with good communication. When determining the placement of prospects between the two groups, the most popular answer was that the donor’s background and interests determine them. What are three things your athletic development unit does very well? Overall - Building relationships/stewardship was the top answer for this question. It was submitted multiple times throughout all different divisions. This answer was submitted 21 times for this question. Raising annual funds followed this and finding new prospects as the most frequent answers with 9 mentions each. 13
Among Division I FBS participating schools Stewardship and Communication were the top two answers given for this answer. Communication appeared 10 times for this division and Stewardship/Service was given 9 times for this division. Division I FCS participating schools varied much more that the FBS. Among the most popular answers were communication, stewardship, and relationship building. Division I (No Football) respondents had 6 mentions of stewardship in its responses. It also included stewardship events, which was the first mention by any division. Division II respondents did not have any themes among the responses. Stewardship, communication, cultivation, and annual events were all present as they have been with other divisions. Division III respondents listed communication, stewardship, and cultivation as the strengths of their departments. The lone NAIA participant listed building sustained quality relationships with donors, customer service, and special events as their best skills. What are three athletic development priorities you would like to improve at your institution? Overarching, the most common responses for all respondents were as follows: Communication (internal/with donors), Annual Fund Management, Increase of Donors, Stewardship of Donors, and Alumni/Student Athlete Involvement. Division I FBS - The most frequent answers given for this question are as follows: Communication (internal/with donors), Annual giving membership, Endowments, Stewardship, Diversity of Giving Programs, Student Athlete/Alumni Relations, Major Gifts and Capital Programs. Division I FCS - The most frequent answers given for this question are as follows: Annual Fund Management, Communication (Internal/with Donors), Increase Donors, Knowledge/Usage of Database Software, Stewardship of Donors. Division I (No Football) - The most frequent answers given for this question are as follows: Annual Fund Management, Expand Membership Base, and Increase in Resources. Division II - The most frequent answers for this question are as follows: Increase in Giving (Major Gifts/Annual/Capital), Expand Department, and Student Athlete Involvement. Division III - Of the two respondents the responses were as follows: Identify prospects for a school our size, develop long term goals and plans, Increase staff, better strategic prospect meetings with institutional advancement, and alumni participation. Neither respondent used the same answer for any of the three responses.
14
NAIA - The only respondent for NAIA listed the following three answers: Annual scholarship support, Post-eligibility scholarship assistance, and Capital project improvements. What are three athletic development priorities you would like to learn more about? Planned Gifts - The most popular and consistent answer was “Planned Gifts”. Nine times it was called out directly as one of the three choices, and many times it was the first choice written down. This is an obvious priority for those filling out the survey because they are primarily tasked with generating revenue through planned gifts and they make this a priority in always learning more. Best Practices/Successful Programs – In addition to prioritizing planned gifts, the surveyed group also consistently said that they would like to know best practices amongst other schools when it comes to planned gifts. They want to know what other schools are doing to creatively and successfully generate revenue. Goal Setting – Athletic development officials are concerned with setting goals centered on gifts and what their departments can do to meet and exceed goals and expectations. Estate & Will Planning – This seems to be an area where athletic development officials are not as familiar and they feel it is an area that they are not utilizing to its fullest potential. It is a growth area and they want to learn more. Technology & Social Media – Several of the surveyed officials listed technology and social media as a priority for their own learning. Online Donations – To go along with technology, some of the answers specifically addressed online donations From your institution’s perspective, what are the key benefits of being a NAADD member? Networking – 47 responses Best Practices – 45 responses Annual Conference – 18 responses Professional Development and/or Mentoring – 12 responses Email ListServ – 8 responses Resource Center – 7 responses Benchmarking – 6 responses NACDA Newsletter – 5 responses Current Events – 4 responses Magazine – 2 responses Industry Support – 2 responses A large number of those filling out the survey are members of the National Association of Athletic Development Directors (NAADD). The two most frequent answers to the question of what is the biggest benefit of membership were Networking (47) and Best Practices (45). 15
From there, the Annual Conference (18) came in next in popularity and so did the opportunity for professional development and mentoring (12). After the top four responses, there were several other responses that received multiple mentions from the surveyed group, and they include access to the Email ListServ (8), a Resource Center (7), Benchmarking (6), getting the NACDA Newsletter (5), staying up on Current Events (4), receiving the Magazine (2) and just overall support of the industry (2). Other mentions included a job search, a useful website and low cost of membership. If you are not currently a member of NAADD, what is the primary factor for not joining? There were only four responses to Question #25. Two of the respondents did not see the benefit in being a member of NAADD and two respondents chose “Other�. Of those two respondents, only one said why and it was because they had failed to renew at that time.
16
Summary of Survey Undergraduate Enrollment - Number of Donors and Cash Raised Under 10,000 students:
1,493 annual fund donors $1,499,675.87 annual fund dollars – unrestricted 2,072 total donors $4,583,184.23 overall cash donations
10,001-20,000 students:
2,487 annual fund donors $3,391,331.15 annual fund dollars – unrestricted 3,022 total donors $6,951,761.16 overall cash donations
20,001-30,000 students:
5,423 annual fund donors $5,397,817.73 annual fund dollars – unrestricted 5,607 total donors $8,849,154.71 overall cash donations
30,001-40,000 students:
4,295 annual fund donors $5,276,000.00 annual fund dollars – unrestricted 4,550 total donors $6,400,000.00 overall cash donations
40,001+ students:
7,009 annual fund donors $7,603,575.33 annual fund dollars – unrestricted 9,250 total donors $17,980,223.33 overall cash donations
Summary: Most of this data illustrates what common sense would predict. On average, the larger schools have more total donors and the raise more money. However, the 20,001-30,000 bracket trumps the 30,001-40,000 in both donors and money raised.
17
Athletics Development Staff - Number of Donors and Cash Raised For institutions with 1-3 athletics development employees:
Number of cash donors – unrestricted = 3,302 Annual fund dollars – unrestricted = $2,703,780.00 Total donors = 3,418 Overall cash donations = $6,814,989.12
For institutions with 4-6 athletics development employees:
Number of cash donors – unrestricted = 3,186 Annual fund dollars – unrestricted = $4,138,500.00 Total donors = 3,430 Overall cash donations = $8,138,808.63
For institutions with 7-10 athletics development employees:
Number of cash donors – unrestricted = 2,785 Annual fund dollars – unrestricted = $5,067,356.49 Total donors = 2,808 Overall cash donations = $5,269,286.06
For institutions with 11-15 athletics development employees:
Number of cash donors – unrestricted = 4,294 Annual fund dollars – unrestricted = $4,068,904.20 Total donors = 4,578 Overall cash donations = $7,642,492.00
For institutions with 15+ athletics development employees:
Number of cash donors – unrestricted = 5,690 Annual fund dollars – unrestricted = $7,240,000.00 Total donors = 6,233 Overall cash donations = $9,903,333.33
Summary: The most surprising aspect of this analysis is that in the 7-10 development employees bracket, the total number of donors and the overall cash donations decline. This is unexpected, as we had seen a steady rise in both donors and cash as the size of the staff grew. This is also somewhat counter-intuitive because it would make sense that as the staff grows, the amount of money they will raise would increase.
18
Size of City - Number of Donors and Cash Raised For institutions located in cities with 1,000,000+ people, the average number of donors and cash in the door are as follows (9 respondents):
Number of cash donors – unrestricted = 3,039 o Of the 9 respondents, three are over the average and six are under Annual fund dollars – unrestricted = $4,733,073.78 o Of the 9 respondents, three are over the average and six are under Total donors = 3,688 o Of the 9 respondents, four are over the average and five are under Overall cash donations = $11,770,063.67 o Of the 9 respondents, three are over the average and six are under
For institutions located in cities with 1-500,000 people, the average number of donors and cash in the door are as follows (18 respondents):
Number of cash donors – unrestricted = 3,391 o Of the 18 respondents, six are over the average and twelve are under Annual fund dollars – unrestricted = $3,593,422.72 o Of the 18 respondents, six are over the average and twelve are under Total donors = 3,909 o Of the 18 respondents, seven are over the average and eleven are under Overall cash donations = $7,040,355.67 o Of the 18 respondents, six are over the average and twelve are under
Summary: Based on the averages, there are few significant differences between the money raised in large cities when compared to smaller cities. Yet, the average gift is bigger in the larger cities because they have fewer donors, but more money overall.
19
Atlantic Coast Conference - Appendix A
ACC ACC ACC Averages
Annual Fund Donors Unrestricted 411 500 986 632
Annual Fund Dollars Unrestricted $156,375.00 $103,000.00 $470,087.02
Total Donors 826 1,000 1,923
$243,154.01
Average Per Donor Unrestricted $384.53
1,250
Total Cash Donations $466,359.00 $543,000.00 $4,984,444.00 $1,997,934.33
Average Per Donor $1,598.77
Big Ten Conference - Appendix B
Big Ten Big Ten Big Ten Big Ten Big Ten Averages
Annual Fund Donors Unrestricted 1,138 2,200 2,476 3,724 8,000 3,508 Average Per Donor Unrestricted $1,149.36
Annual Fund Dollars Unrestricted $501,061.00 $3,100,000.00 $1,156,378.00 $2,700,000.00 $12,700,000.00 $4,031,487.80
Total Donors 1,977 3,750 4,432 10,000 5,040
Total Cash Donations $2,240,774.00 $25,000,000.00 $1,548,887.00 $7,700,000.00 $24,500,000.00 $12,197,932.20
Average Per Donor* $2,420.34
20
Conference USA - Appendix C
Conference USA Conference USA Conference USA Conference USA Averages
Annual Fund Donors Unrestricted 10 122 600 15,000
Annual Fund Dollars Unrestricted $1,500.00 $53,000.00 $500,000.00 $19,500,000.00
3,933
$5,013,625.00
Average Per Donor Unrestricted $1,274.76
Total Donors 30 943 650 16,000 4,405
Total Cash Donations $1,000,000.00 $648,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $24,000,000.00 $6,787,000.00
Average Per Donor $1,540.49
Mountain West Conference - Appendix D
Mountain West Mountain West Mountain West Mountain West Averages
Annual Fund Donors Unrestricted 50 1,284 2,608 77
Annual Fund Dollars Unrestricted $15,000.00 $260,000.00 $2,630,626.00 $32,513.00
1,005
$734,534.75
Average Per Donor Unrestricted $731.06
Total Donors 100 1,354 3,400 532 1,347
Total Cash Donations $200,000.00 $286,000.00 $19,889,000.00 $196,666.00 $5,142,916.50
Average Per Donor $3,819.47
21
PAC-12 Conference - Appendix E
Pac-12 Pac-12 Pac-12 Pac-12 Pac-12 Pac-12 Pac-12 Pac-12 Pac-12
Averages
Annual Fund Donors Unrestricted 6,610 752 805 1,750 2,476 4,342 5,500 8,480 472
Annual Fund Dollars Unrestricted $12,500,000.00 $750,683.00 $445,697.00 $2,200,000.00 $1,156,378.00 $3,692,677.00 $21,000,000.00 $9,600,000.00 $400,000.00
3,465
$5,749,492.78
Average Per Donor Unrestricted $1,659.20
Total Donors 6,716 775 2,000 2,676 5,020 6,000 9,000 737
Total Cash Donations $19,300,000.00 $4,101,784.00 $3,000,000.00 $2,028,347.00 $6,175,677.00 $40,000,000.00 $1,275,000.00
4,116
$10,840,115.43
Average Per Donor* $2,633.97
Southeastern Conference - Appendix F
SEC SEC SEC SEC Averages
Annual Fund Donors Unrestricted 1,000 2,000 2,500 17,700 5,800 Average Per Donor Unrestricted $394.40
Annual Fund Dollars Unrestricted $600,000.00 $650,000.00 $1,600,000.00 $6,300,000.00 $2,287,500.00
Total Donors 1,500 500 6,000 17,750 6,438
Total Cash Donations $1,000,000.00 $3,200,000.00 $7,100,000.00 $10,800,000.00 $5,525,000.00
Average Per Donor $858.25
22