Thank you all for participating in the EAP for ScoreOmatic and giving great feedback to Jeff and his gang! The best way for this product to be the best that it can be is for users like us IN THE FIELD to put it to the test and use it in our real-world applications.
I'm going to put myself out here a little and share a little piece of "gold" with you all...since you are experts in the field also. (Honestly, I am hoping that you will provide me some feedback and share your own secrets also!)
Washburn University has run a major giving modeling project internally which used regression analysis techniques to determine the best variables in predicting Major Gift donors for our organization. This analysis provided us with the following variables and the weights that you can see below. We were then able to create queries within RE for each variable and using the point system and multiplier, configure a SCORE for each area of the analysis.
You can see that we have 6 components of our analysis (Giving, Capacity, Alumni Affinity, Student Affinity, Employment and Biographical) that all have scores. Then we have a TOTAL SCORE. This is extremely valuable to our organization as we now have 7 scores which we can cross-up and use in conjunction with each other to pull ASSESSMENT prospects that might have strong Student Affinity and Capacity scores, but low Giving and Alumni Affinity scores. Also, if an alumni has low Giving and also low Alumni Affinity and we know that those 2 are highly correlated due to our regression analysis output, we can influence alumni affinity by inviting them back to campus, honoring them with an award, etc.
All of these scores are ACTIONABLE in our organization! We are determining Major Gift portfolios using the ScoreOmatic system as a baseline and then allowing the officers to look through the lists with some discretion as to names that they may recognize, etc. However, the scores are bringing an analytical piece to the mix that has merit and is easy to create, analyze, refresh and rerun if needed.
We have done the same thing with Mid-Tier giving and are currently working through our modeling process for Annual Giving and Planned Giving. The Alumni Association is interested in us doing some scoring for them on just alumni membership prospects, etc. The options are endless with this....
Honestly folks..... We could all sink thousands of dollars into Target Analytics products or other vendors solutions, or we can share our analyses and scoring systems here and use the ScoreOmatic product for a fraction of the cost and be way further down the road with a customized, user-friendly and efficient product!
Director, Strategic Advancement Information Services
Washburn University Foundation
WUF Portfolio Analysis - Giving Score
|Largest Gift >= $25,000||Largest Gift Amount greater than or equal to $25,000.00 AND Largest Gift Type one of FUNDRAISING BASIS (Pledges and Cash)||3|
|Largest Gift between $5,000 - $24,999.99||Largest Gift Amount between $5,000.00 AND $24,999.99 AND Largest Gift Type one of FUNDRAISING BASIS (Pledges and Cash)||2|
|Largest Gift between $1,000 - $4999.99||Largest Gift Amount between $1,000.00 AND $4,999.99 AND Largest Gift Type one of FUNDRAISING BASIS (Pledges and Cash)||1|
|Total Campaign Cash Gifts >= $25,000+||Total Amount of Gifts_1 greater than or equal to $25,000.00 - CASH BASIS||3|
|Total Campaign Cash Gifts between $5,000 - $24,999||Total Amount of Gifts_1 between $5,000.00 AND $24,999.99 - CASH BASIS||2|
|Total Campaign Cash Gifts between $1,000 - $4,999||Total Amount of Gifts_1 between $1,000.00 AND $4,999.99 - CASH BASIS||1|
|Fund Stewardship Contact||Fund Relationship Reciprocal equals Fund Stewardship Contact||1|
|Consecutive Years Giving >= 5 Years||Gift Consecutive Years Giving_1 greater than or equal to 5||2|
|Loyal Donor||Loyal Donor - 12-13 = YES||2|
|Whiting Society Member||Planned Giving Society = Yes||1|
|Lincoln Society Member||Lifetime Cumulative Giving Society >= $50,000 = Yes||1|
|WUF Portfolio Analysis - Capacity Score|
|Estimated wealth more than $500,000||Constituent Specific Attributes TEMP - Research Point 7_30_13 Description one of W, V, U, T, S, R, Q, P, O, N, M, L, K, J, I, H, G, F, E, D, C, B, AH, AG, AF, AE, AD, AC, AB, AA, A||5|
|Estimated Wealth less than $500,000||Constituent Specific Attributes TEMP - Research Point 7_30_13 Description one of X, Y, Z||3|
|Estimated wealth unknown||Constituent Specific Attributes TEMP - Research Point 7_30_13 Description blank||-1|
|Capacity Rating - Prospect Tab||Gifts to Other Organizations = Yes; OR Prospect MG Status = High, Known Potential, MG Prospect, Long Term Prospect, Development Officer Referral; OR Prospect Interest Code is not blank||2|
|WUF Portfolio Analysis - Alumni Affinity Score|
|Alumni/Law Alumni LIFE Association Member||Current Standing equals Active AND Current Category one of Lifetime Member, Law Life Membership||2|
|Alumni/Law Alumni CURRENT Association Member||Current Standing equals Active AND Current Category one of Annual, Couple, Faculty/Staff - Individual, Faculty/Staff - Couple, Individual, Installment - Individual, Installment - Couple, Lifetime Installment Member, Recent Graduate - Individual, Recent Graduate - Couple, Student, Petro, Law Annual Recent Grad Membership, Law Annual Membership, Law Life Installment Membership, Law Complimentary Membership, Complimentary||1|
|Event participants||Participant Has Attended equals Yes in Past 5 years (up to 5 Max)||up to 5|
|Volunteer Activities||Organization Relation Specific Organization Record equals WUCP Attributes - Washburn AND WUCP - Alumni Activities Description not blank OR WUCP - WU Affinity Description equals WU License Plate Holder OR Organization Relation Specific Organization Record equals WUCP Attributes - Mulvane AND WUCP - Mulvane Women's Board Committee Description not blank OR Organization Relation Specific Organization Record equals WUCP Attributes - Law AND WUCP - Law - Volunteer Board Description not blank||1|
|Volunteer Leadership - Boards||Constituency Code one of WU Board of Regents, WU Foundation Director, WU Foundation Trustee, WU Foundation Trustee Emeriti OR Alumni Board of Directors - Current, Alumni Board President - Current OR Law - Board of Governors Description one of Advisory Board, Foundation President, Member, President, President Elect, Secretary, Treasurer, Vice President||2|
|WUF Portfolio Analysis - Student Affinity Score|
|Scholarship Recipient||Fund Relationship Reciprocal equals Scholarship Recipient||1|
|Student Activities||Education School Name equals Washburn University OR Academic Clubs/Org Description not blank OR Greek Description not blank OR Honor Description not blank OR Law - Honor Description not blank OR Law - Law Journal Description not blank OR Law - Organizations Description not blank OR Law Clinic Description not blank OR Other Clubs/Orgs Description not blank OR Military Description not blank OR Political Description not blank OR Recreation Description not blank OR Religious Description not blank OR Student Life Description not blank||1|
|Student Athlete||Education School Name equals Washburn University AND Sports Teams Description not blank||1|
|Student Leadership||Education School Name equals Washburn University AND Education Attribute Comments contains *Pres* OR Honor Description one of NONOSO, Sagamore Society OR Law - Law Journal Description not blank OR Law Clinic Description not blank||3|
|Undergrad & Grad degrees from WU||Alumni received their Undergrad and Graduate Degree from WU||2|
|WU Grad Couples||Both members of the household are WU Graduates||2|
|WUF Portfolio Analysis - Employment Score|
|Employer Name is NOT BLANK||Primary Business Organization Name not blank||2|
|Employment - Executive Titles = YES||Primary Business Position contains *Chief* OR Primary Business Position contains *Executive* OR Primary Business Position contains *President* OR Primary Business Position contains *Partner* OR Primary Business Position contains *Owner*||3|
|Employment Title is NOT BLANK||Primary Business Position not blank||1|
|Retired employees||Employment Status Description equals Retired OR Organization Relation Reciprocal one of Retired Co-Owner, Retired Employee, Retired Founder, Retired Owner||2|
|WUF Portfolio Analysis - Biographical Score|
|Home Email no Blank||Home Phone Type not blank AND Home Phone Type equals E-Mail OR Home Phone Type equals E-Mail - Personal OR Home Phone Type equals E-Mail - Alternate||1|
|Home Phone Number not Blank||Home Phone Type not blank AND Home Phone Type equals Home OR Home Phone Type equals Alternate OR Home Phone Type equals Cellular||1|
|DOB is 1960 or earlier (age 54 or older)||
6 CommentsSorted by Oldest First
Thanks for sharing your model. I am trying to translate this to our Health Care Foundation. We consider gifts of $100K to $4.9M as Major Gifts and $5M plus as Principal Gifts. Can you share how you define a Major or Principal Gift?
We have annual mid-level donor clubs that cover the range from $1K to $99K. With that in mind would I need to do some major adjustment to your Giving Score model, or do I want to be focused on the mid-level donors who I want to move up to major? Perhaps we need a different score for donors who are already Major and Principal donors.
Great questions Jeff. Our major giving level is currently $25,000+ as the gifts in the millions are more sporadic and nice surprises to major campaigns. So, you might consider adjusting your Largest Gift criteria up to your MG levels and then tier it down to capture some of the up and comers. That is exactly what our strategy was in our Giving Profile scoring model. If we were just scoring those that have already made a major gift it wouldn't do us much good, as we already know who they are and likely are maintaining relationships with them, however we need to score them the highest to keep them in our portfolios. We established a slightly lower score for those that are making gifts close to a MG level but not quite there yet, and then another level even a little lower than that (more like what you are talking about with Mid-Tier level donors - the up and comers). This way our giving score will weight the MG donors the heaviest scores and then move down with their giving level, recency, loyalty and other giving clubs such as PG and Lifetime Giving. So, we are trying to capture the best of both worlds here by retaining our current MG donors, moving our mid-tier donors up and attracting others that might be assessments based on Capacity or Affinity scores that might not have any giving at all or just Annual Gifts only. Does this make any sense at all?
Then we have a completely different model and scoring system for mid-tier that uses different variables and attributes based on a analysis for predictive modeling for Mid-Tier donors. Plans and work are in progress to do the same thing for Planned Giving and Annual Giving. They all are different enough to warrant their own model, scoring system that pulls in different variables or attributes with different weights. That is where the true beauty of ScoreOMatic will come into play. It will be so easy to put all of these scoring structures into place and then into action with portfolios and action plans with segmentations, mailings, phonathons, etc.
I hope to get my Prospect Researcher involved in this project, but it is just me now. I would love to play with data analytics all day, but like most folks my domain ranges far and wide, from setting up servers to anything data related that nobody else can figure out. I am a big Tableau user and love that tool. You example is very helpful.
I think this ScoreOmatic is one of the most exciting products I have seen (besides QueryOmatic which I use everyday and should be part of the base RE). I hope ScoreOmaitc gets my staff to start placing more value on data and get them started putting more data into the database.
To clarify, you take the 6 scores you have and then write a new profile which looks at the 6 scores and creates a composite 7th Summary Score?
We will be adding a "Super profile" in the near future that will allow you create a profile of profiles rather than having to re-add all the queries to a new profile.
That seems like it would be a great feature and save lots of time and lots of additional queries.
I can hardly wait Steve!