v.7.3 philanthropy for us and international research - jb and mp

International Fundraising Analytics

Jason Briggs, Research & Prospect Manager, and Miryam Prasetyo, Prospect ResearcherThe University of Sheffield

Part 1 – Philanthropy for Us Reporta) Backgroundb) Construct c) Impactd) Critique

Part 2 – What have we learnt aboute) How to improve international

research?f) How to get analytics at the

heart of decision making?

Part 3 – Q & A

Part 1: Philanthropy For Us Report

1. Fundraising in the Far East, specifically Singapore, Hong Kong and China for 10 years - desire for enhanced results

2. Ad hoc international research - at the whims of senior intuition – piles!

Prompted fresh look at international strategy

Background

Our Question

‘Which countries, other than the UK or US, show the most amount of philanthropic potential for us ?’

Major donations as the target!

Coutts - Million Dollar Donor Report

BNP Paribas - Individual Philanthropy Index

Charities Aid Foundation - World Giving Index

Knight Frank - The Wealth Report

Big Mac Index

Barclays - Global Giving: The Culture of Philanthropy

Six Key International Reports

Issues – into the jungle

• Different presentations

• 70+ countries covered

• Difficult to compare

• Difficult to draw consistent conclusions

Issues – our internal data

• Consider findings with own internal data:

1. Where graduates live

2. Access to information

Create system to cohesively marry:

1) The findings of the reports2) Internal data

1) Report findings

2) Internal data

= Conclusions

for us

+

Objective

External Data1. Wealth Distribution

wealth of a country – UHNWI as indicator2. Philanthropic Tendencies

number and value of major donations made3. Gift Value

value of currency

Internal data4. Alumni Presence

total numbers of our graduates in each country5. Local University Presence

satellite campuses or partnerships in these countries6. Research Resources

subscription data visibility and language skills

Construct – Step 1: Six Categories

Construct – Step 2: Scoring System

Created a uniform coding system allowing information associated with each country to be easily compared

1. Sort data into categories

2. Line up the categories for each country

3. Line up all countries

CountriesData

Priority

Step 2: Scoring System

External Data Internal Data

PFU Score

1. WD (Wealth Distribution)

2. PT (Philanthropic Tendencies)

3. GV (Gift Value)

4. AP (Alumni Presence)

5. LP (Local Presence)

6. RR (Research Resources)

. . .

483%

91%

16%

Low

146,520

No

Yes

24% Less than 27

$0

72.7%

4%

-12%

41%

0

High

-68.8%

69% 1,173

$16,920,000,000

* Values show the minimum and maximum range across all countries

Yes

No


External Data Internal Data PFU Score

1. WD (Wealth Distribution)

2. PT (Philanthropic Tendencies)

3. GV (Gift Value)

4. AP (Alumni Presence)

5. LP (Local Presence)

6. RR (Research Resources)

WD Score

PT Score

GV Score

AP Score

LP Score

RR Score

A-F A-F A-F A-F A-F A-F

x3 x3 x2 x1 x1 x1

5-0 pts 5-0 pts 5-0 pts 5-0 pts 5-0 pts 5-0 pts

15-0 pts 15-0 pts 10-0 pts 5-0 pts 5-0 pts 5-0 pts

PFU score for each country is the sum total of all weighted category scores for that country:PFU Score = WD Score + PT Score + GV Score + AP Score + LP Score + RR ScoreMaximum PFU score = 15 pts + 15 pts + 10 pts + 5 pts + 5 pts + 5 pts = 55 pts



PFUScore

0

PFUScore55

The higher the PFU Score,the higher the philanthropic potential for Sheffield!

min –

– max

Example, Indonesia

Metrics Rating Points Weighting Total

1 Wealth Distribution F 0 x3 0

2 Philanthropic Tendencies A 5 x3 15

3 Gift Value F 0 x2 0

4 Alumni Presence C 3 x1 3

5 Local TUOS Presence D 2 x1 2

6 Research Resources D 2 x1 2

PFU Score =22

(out of 55)


Step 3: Final Product – PFU Ranking

*Macro view

Detail on ‘2. Philanthropic Tendencies’

Step 3: Final Product – PFU Ranking

*Micro view

Impact

• micro and macro analysis

Results

This created our own joint Top 5

Position Country PFU Score

1st Sweden 412nd Ireland, Netherlands, Canada,

Australia39

3rd Denmark, Switzerland 374th UAE, Israel, New Zealand 365th Austria 35

Comments on Results• Ireland – joint 2nd PFU

ranking, English speaking, calling campaign started

• Mainland Europe – clear indicators, Sweden #1, Netherlands #2, Switzerland #3 etc

Comments on ResultsFar East

• Singapore 0% of their $1m donations go overseas, 26th PFU ranking.

• China, only 1% of $1m donations go overseas, 47th PFU ranking

• Hong Kong only 5% of $1m go overseas. However, emphasis on Higher Education, 7th PFU ranking. Exception.

Cultural differences?

• Senior Management Team decision

Comments on Results

Consequence• Recruited Arabic speaking

researcher• Zakat (2.5% each year –

unique!)

GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council ) Countries • Massive 95% of their $1m donations

to overseas projects, Higher Education is a preferred cause

• UAE contributed 80% of this total, coming joint 4th in our PFU ranking.

Decision • Senior Management Team

1. Reallocation of resources - closer look at GCC

2. Recruited 1 day week worker who can speak Arabic to research

3. Discovered encouraging cultural information - Zakat

Other impact

Data-led strategy • Not a coffee table report, real insight, real

decisions!• Positive analytical culture

Critique

Positives

Challenges

Critique – Challenges

• Gaps in data

• Subjective score boundaries

PercentPercentile

• What to do about expats?

• Emphasis on external data

Critique – Challenges

Critique – Positives

• Clarity – allows for a range of information to be easily compared

• Easy to use for many usersm.michael-weidemann.com https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/uk-better-competitors-international-student-satisfaction-

report-finds

• Contemporary – uses latest reports

• Easy to update

Critique – Positives

The Future!

Include a greater number of reports to mitigate gaps in data

Decide on more objective grade boundaries for scoring

Part 2: What have we learnt?

a)How to improve international research?

b)How to get analytics at the heart of decision making?


How to improve international research

1. Do not try to be omniscient! • Doing international research is

high risk: • Takes a lot more time • Results ‘patchy’…because of language and cultural gulf!

• Why try?

International students• £3,000 per year (same as

most research resources), 1 day a week

• More efficient• Quality results!


2. Record everything!• Get systems in place

to record your work

• Can asses samples on how each country is doing

• Helps secure investment – as can prove accurate deadlines


3. Set rules

• International research is very varied because the world is very varied.

• Set rules to help consistency for ‘top level’ reporting

Gift Capacity• same formula• same currency

Translating• Key paragraphs• Names

a)How to improve international research?

b)How to get analytics at the heart of decision making?


How to get analytics at the heart of decision making?

1. Take initiative – Have confidence! • Don’t wait around• Counter historical habits • We are best placed to

do this!• Senior management

response, very happy!


2. To be thorough• One or two shots at

proving analytics is the way to make decisions!?

• Thorough enough to withstand ‘intuition addicts’• And facilitate

conclusive decisions

Reduces risk of reallocation


3. Be inclusive

Real impact only occurs where everyone commits to the decisions!

• How to reduce commitment issues?

• Avoid closed door decision making• Include everyone in the

analytics process. • Ask staff for

metrics/opinion • Be open to changes

• Result• Secures a shared sense of

ownership - 100% commitment

• Higher impact

4. Brand analytics projects!• Try naming your projects

to gain more gravitas• It makes it real and more

attractive somehow, gains its own personality


Prospect Research Institute

‘10 Steps to Deliver on International Prospecting’

http://www.prospectresearchinstitute.org/10-steps-deliver-international-prospecting/

Conclusion - Philanthropy for You

• Invite you to think - what would your PFU score be?

GIFT!• Easily transferred to other

decisions too, like;

• Where best to recruit our international students?

• Where best to do a calling campaign?

In summary, the approach is not infallible of course, it is just the beginning of a much better way of making decisions:

Data led decisions, not intuition led decisions!

Conclusion - Philanthropy for You

v.7.3 philanthropy for us and international research - jb and mp

Documents