You may remember a few months ago I talked about how Brown University got a 500% return on the proactive research they did for the Boldly Brown campaign.  One part of that was successfully integrating the results of several wealth screenings that they did.

Because some of the vendors are offering database screenings at a deep discount this quarter, a number of our clients are taking advantage of the savings … which means that it’s screening analysis season here at HBG!

Andrea, Jennifer and Maureen have been collaborating closely as a unit and with our clients on these screenings, and I’ve been really interested as I listen to them share ideas over lunch or at our afternoon tea breaks.

There’s a lot of delight and excitement when a screening is returned, but also some regret when they find an opportunity that was missed.

What I hear from their conversations underscores that how you approach a screening really makes a difference in the end result.

So I thought I’d ask them to share their top tips for making the most of an electronic screening so that we can all boost our return on screenings to Brown proportions.  If you have more tips to share with readers, we’d love for you to add them!

From Andrea:

I’ve become a big fan of wealth screenings lately.  I’d say my top three tips are:

• Include as much information as possible: middle initials and spouse names are particularly important in helping save time later.
• Don’t trust the database’s judgment: verify everything! Screenings are a good jumping off point but the human element of analysis is important.

• Once the data is returned, try several different sorts to see if there are any trends.  I generally start to look for patterns sorting by confirmed assets, then by identified assets and filtering by state, zip, and past giving.  It’s really interesting what you can find!

From Jennifer:

• Pay particular attention to high net worth individuals in New York City – chances are if they own a co-op apartment that the entire co-op building is being counted in their assets.
• Cleaning the data beforehand is well worth the time investment. Fix any typos and check to be sure addresses are consistently entered – bad data is the #1 way why matches aren’t made. Time spent on this in advance can save lots of time (which is money!!) confirming later.
• Don’t include anyone that only has a PO Box address.  Either leave them out or find their street address.

From Maureen:

• Purchase an address update (NCOA) as part of the screening if you haven’t done one recently – a significant match point for assets is address.
• If your budget is tight, don’t waste it on screening donors that you already know well.
• Depending on the size of your screening, make sure to allocate at least one staff member to do the analysis when the results are returned.  Screenings are expensive and you don’t want the results to just sit there gathering dust.
• Don’t screen if you don’t have the front-line fundraising staff to follow up on the leads that are produced.  Be strategic in the number of prospects that you screen and consider doing rolling screenings.

I’ve been thinking about Chris Cannon’s blog post “3 Solutions to Prospecting Problems” ever since I read it earlier this week.  Chris’s solutions to common issues we face in the development office are these:

• We need to respect our colleagues, honor their experience and their contributions…
• …come up with a good plan …
• …and stick to it.  No personal or organizational distractions (to the degree that they can be avoided).

It’s not rocket science, but it’s true.  We lose our tempers, we lose our focus, and then we lose our way.

Don’t we accomplish so much more on a personal level when we stick to those three things?  Imagine what we could do as a development team.

For me, a lot of wasted potential I see in development shops comes down to communication and training. 

“I’ve stopped requesting research,” said one fundraiser to me recently. “It just takes too long to get it back and by the time I get the profile, the visit’s already happened.  It’s just too frustrating.  Google’s my researcher now.”

“I don’t get it,” said a researcher. “I’m working for four fundraisers and each one asks me for full profiles on people they’ve never met.  It takes me two days to do each full profile along with all the other stuff I’m doing, and then when I finally give it to the fundraiser I never hear anything back!  It’s frustrating!”

“The researchers don’t understand what I need,” said another fundraiser. “I work with a very specific group of high-level donors in a particular industry.  I get profiles back on people in the same industry with wildly varying capacity ratings.  I know what people make in this industry and every rating is wrong!  I need consistency from profile to profile and an understanding of this industry and what people make.”

“Sure, I would love to go to a training seminar on private equity compensation/lawyers/oil & gas futures” said a researcher to me recently. “We just don’t have the budget for training right now.”

There’s one really simple answer for each of these frustrated people.  Do you see yourself in one of them?

Great teams communicate well together.  We’re in the communicating and relationship building business, and the communicating and relationship building needs to happen both externally AND internally.

Talk to each other.  Respect each other.  Make a plan.  Do it.

Update:  Great infographic on exactly this subject:

Elevate Communication Between Your Colleagues

Jen Filla of Aspire Research Group and I have just signed a deal with John Wiley & Sons to write Prospect Research for Fundraisers; The Essential Handbook. We’re thrilled!

This book is going to be handy for every single front-line development officer, from the solo fundraiser in a one-person shop to the VP for Advancement overseeing a large university research department.

We’re going to highlight the successful partnerships, the innovative ground-breakers and the hair-tearing learning experiences, and our findings just may surprise you.

If you’ve ever wondered…

…then this book is for you!

We’re interviewing fundraisers and researchers to gain lots of perspectives, and the book will be chock-full of case studies and examples. We still have some space, so if you’d like to be featured for your great front-line/research collaborations, let us know!

Here is a crazy-good story for you:

When Brown University began their “Boldly Brown” campaign in July 2003 they had 1,535 people identified as potential major donors.  That may sound like a lot, but they had over $1 billion to raise to support scholarships, attract and retain faculty and to upgrade their facilities and research capability.  The fundraisers, both paid and volunteer, had some serious work to do if they were going to reach that ambitious goal.

During the course of the seven years to follow, the Brown research team made sure that their alumni records were up-to-date and that the data was as free from error as possible.  They used sophisticated screening tools to find people with the means and interest in supporting Brown.  They segmented their data to identify new potential donors based on the characteristics of their current loyal supporters.  And they researched and fine-tuned the information they had to be sure not to bother people who weren’t likely to be interested in supporting Brown at a higher level.

Because in addition to using these methods to identify future supporters, the other thing we researchers are trying to do is eliminate (to the degree possible) annoying people with unnecessary mail, phone calls and visits when they don’t want them.  It’s good business to avoid irritating people, but it’s also a smart way to save money, trees, electricity, and peoples’ valuable time. To be good stewards of past donor dollars.

So what happened?

5,284 new major gift prospects were identified.

That’s more than a 500% increase in potential supporters!

Even more incredible, Brown University received $710 million in new gifts and pledges from those newly identified and upgraded prospects.  If you’re thinking “Hmmm, that number looks eerily like it’s nearly three-quarters of the total campaign goal”- you’re catching on.  That’s the impact of applied prospect research and analytics – it makes a huge difference.

What else?

Brown University reached their goal of $1.4 billion eighteen months early, and went on (during the worst recession of our lifetimes) to garner over $1.6 billion in total support by the time they stopped counting in December of 2010.

Can their success be yours?

Sure, Brown University is a huge organization.  And yes, they have a crack research and analytics team headed by Elizabeth Crabtree, a brilliant leader in our field.  But the techniques Brown used can be applied to your nonprofit and scaled to your needs.  What are the building blocks?

• A cause that provides measurable results and inspires loyal support;
• A multi-faceted prospect identification program that is funded to scale;
• Policies and metrics for prospect relationship management;
• Highly skilled prospect researchers/analysts who are both strategists and tacticians;
• Effective collaboration between the research team and frontline fundraisers;
• Inspired and engaging fundraisers and leadership;
• Inspired and engaged donors and volunteers;
• Stewardship that surprises (pleasantly, of course).

All of this takes time and money as well as a serious commitment of your heart to achieve the kind of success they had.  But the results are undeniable:

• Increased participation…
• Increased donations…
• And a solid foundation for future support.

Even if you’re a small organization with a staff of one, you can do this.  You’ll need help, obviously, but there’s no time like the present to get started.