University of Chicago

Prospect Management Policy & Process Guidelines University of Chicago Prospect Management

September 2010

University of Chicago Alumni Relations & Development 401 N. Michigan Avenue Chicago, IL 60611 prospect@ard.uchicago.edu

1

Prospect Management Policy & Process Guidelines

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1. Guiding Principles of Prospect Management

1.2. Griffin: Database of Record

1.3. The University Prospect Management Committee

2. Electronic Data, Privacy, and the Law ............................................................................................................... 5

2.1. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)

2.2. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA)

3. Roles and Responsibilities of Prospect Managers .......................................................................................... 7

3.1. Primary Prospect Management Roles

3.2. Prospect Contact Guidelines

4. Principal Gifts Prospect Management Program ............................................................................................ 11

4.1. Definitions of Principal Gift Prospects and Suspects

4.2. The University Principal Gifts Strategy Team

4.3. The University Principal Gifts Review Committee

4.4. Principal Gifts Prospect Identification

4.5. University Principal Gifts Tag Removal

5. Prospect Assignment (Newly Identified Prospects) ..................................................................................... 13

5.1. Prospect Assignment Criteria

5.2. Prospect Assignment Process

6. Prospect Reassignment ...................................................................................................................................... 16

6.1. Common Reassignment Scenarios

6.2. Mutually Agreed Upon, Fundraiser-Prompted Reassignment

6.3. Portfolio Reassignments as a Result of Staffing Changes

6.4. Prospects Not Actively Managed

6.5. Principal Gifts Reassignment Process

7. Solicitation Clearance ........................................................................................................................................ 19

7.1. Solicitation Clearance Policy & Process

7.2. Clearance Process: Solicitations Over $25K

7.3. Principal Gifts Clearance Policy & Process

8. Portfolio Management ....................................................................................................................................... 22

8.1. Ideal Portfolio Distribution

8.2. Ideal Portfolio Size

8.3. Prospect Stages Overview

8.4. Disqualification (Stage 6) & Inactivation Guidelines

2

9. Management Metrics and Fundraising Credit .............................................................................................. 26

9.1. Overview of Primary Metrics

9.2. Primary Management Metrics

Appendix A: Prospect Management Policy for Organizations ...................................................................... 29

Appendix B: Prospect Management Keyword Terms ...................................................................................... 32

3

1. Introduction The University of Chicago’s Prospect Management Policy & Process Guidelines sets forth the institution’s guiding principles for managing prospective donors through the development cycle. It is intended to foster coordination and collaboration among the various fundraising offices within the University, and it assumes a mutual commitment on the part of all development staff to create the best possible match between a donor’s interests and the University’s stated needs. The Prospect Management Policy and Process Guidelines establishes the roles and expectations of gift officers who manage relationships with prospective donors.

1.1 Guiding Principles of Prospect Management

We view alumni and friends as citizens of the University community and as individuals with complex, multiple philanthropic interests.

We believe that individuals will support the University to the fullest extent possible if we facilitate their long-term relationships with the University and with each other.

We recognize that the interests of our alumni and friends may or may not reflect the areas of the University they attended, from which they received degrees, or with which they were initially affiliated; thus, an effective donor-informed approach may involve multiple parts of the University and may evolve over time.

We understand that our responsibility as alumni relations and development professionals is to learn about and respect our prospects’ philanthropic passions, to find ways to match prospect interests with University priorities, and to engage them as partners in philanthropy to further the mission of the University.

Our prospect management program and our interactions with each other are guided by our common values of collaboration, transparency, and trust.

1.2 Griffin: Database of Record

A transparent prospect management system is essential to the success of the University’s fundraising efforts. This can only be accomplished with the full participation of all staff across the University It is the responsibility of every University Relationship Manager (URM) to keep all Griffin data accurate and up-to-date. Areas or individuals needing Griffin training should contact the Department of User Relations, Database Access & Training. Additional information is available online at: http://griffinhelp.uchicago.edu.

1.3 The University Prospect Management Committee

The University-wide Prospect Management (PM) Committee is a representative group of campus-wide senior leadership. The group meets monthly to:

Develop and monitor compliance of University’s Prospect Management Policy & Process Guidelines.

4

Review and recommend URM assignments on select lists of prospects where the Prospect Management team needs direction to move assignments forward.

Review all URM assignments and/or solicitation clearance requests needing arbitration.

Monitor the movement of the prospect pool and progress toward goals, including lists of prospects not actively managed.

Provide input on specific prospect management projects as needed.

Ensure University values of collaboration, transparency, and trust are fully integrated in all Alumni Relations & Development work.

Assess the ongoing validity and success of the Prospect Management Policy & Process Guidelines and the University PM Committee.

Committee Membership The Chairperson of the University PM Committee is the Senior Director of Donor Relations, Research & Prospect Management. The Chairperson, in partnership with the Director of Prospect Management, facilitates the meetings, coordinates meeting activity, communicates decisions to areas, and provides monthly meeting minutes to all frontline fundraising managers as well as a quarterly report to the AVP/VP group summarizing University PM Committee activity and issues. Committee membership represents each core area of the University’s development program. Each core area group will rotate the staff responsibility among its sub-group members once annually. These areas are as follows: Core Area Group #1: Medical Center Development (MCD) and Booth Graduate School of Business

(Booth) will have one member each Core Area Group #2: University Principal Gifts (PG) will have one member Core Area Group #3: University Regional Teams will have one member Core Area Group #4: Division Programs (COL, SSD, PSD, HUM) will have one member Core Area Group #5 Professional Schools (LAW, DIV, HARRIS, SSA) will have one member Core Area Group #6: Units (COURT, SMART, OI, GRAHAM, I-HOUSE, LIB, LAB) will have one

member University-wide Prospect Management representatives from Booth, MCD, and the University are invited to attend all meetings as participants, but they may not stand in for voting members. Committee members must be at the “Director” level or above, and serve a one (1) year term, with no substitutions being allowed within an area if a member is unable to attend. New member nominations will be submitted to the University PM Committee two (2) months prior to the current representative’s ending term. The nomination will be approved by the Chairperson, in consultation with senior leadership. The newly approved member will then participate in the exiting member’s last meeting for transition purposes, not in place of the current voting member.

5

2. Electronic Data, Privacy, and the Law It is important for users to recognize that much of the information stored in Griffin is highly sensitive and that all data and reports obtained through the system are confidential and for use exclusively by authorized University of Chicago staff and volunteers. As is indicated in the Statement of Confidentiality broadcast on the Griffin user log-on screen:

“Negligent or intentional misuse of data accessed via Griffin is an extremely serious violation of a staff member’s employment responsibilities and shall result in disciplinary action, which may take the form of immediate dismissal.”

In addition, certain elements of information stored in Griffin are protected by federal laws governing the handling of patient and student information. It is the responsibility of all users to understand the applicability of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) to their work, and to handle this information accordingly.

2.1 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) was the first comprehensive federal law to create national standards to protect privacy of personal health information and records. In 2003, the Privacy Rule declared that sensitive personal health information can be shared for core health activities only, with safeguards in place to limit the inappropriate use and sharing of patient data. This requires healthcare professionals to secure patient permission prior to discussions with their related development office. In 2005, the Security Rule was enforced to ensure the confidentiality of electronic protected health information. The impact of both rules resulted in a series of policy decisions on how development professionals should interact with related healthcare professionals. These included decisions on how to electronically track the relationship between development professionals and patients. Griffin will track all patient relationships as “friends,” and will not differentiate between patients and other non-alumni relationships. Additionally, Griffin should not house any information related to patient treatment, diagnosis, physician, and/or treating department.

2.2 Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) is a federal law that protects the privacy of student records. It provides students and parents of minor students the right to review education records, to seek to amend those records, and to limit disclosure of information in those records. The law applies to all schools that receive funding under from the US Department of Education. FERPA mandates that schools must have written permission from the student, or minor student’s parent, before releasing information contained in the student’s education record. The school may disclose, without consent, directory information such as student’s name, address, telephone number, date and place of birth, honors and awards, and dates of attendance. If the student does not want this information publicly disclosed, the law stipulates he/she can opt-out in writing. Since student information will be available in Griffin upon matriculation, the system will provide an opt-out flag to capture students who requested that their directory information be kept private. The opt-out flag – or, “FERPA flag” – will remain in place until the student or alumnus/alumna requests that it be removed. Because the law does permit “school officials with legitimate educational interest” access to

6

student records – even where there has been a request for FERPA privacy – access to this information will be made available to the Office of Development and Alumni Relations. It is important to note, however, that in cases where a FERPA flag exists on a student or alumnus/alumna record, the use of student information is allowed for development and alumni relations staff only and must not be shared under any circumstances with volunteers or other unaffiliated individuals or organizations.

7

3. Roles and Responsibilities of Prospect Managers

3.1 Primary Prospect Management Roles University Relationship Manager (URM) All prospects with University Ratings of $100K or greater should be assigned to a University Relationship Manager (URM). A URM is the development officer who maintains the primary personal relationship with the prospect or manages the actions of others who have personal relationships with the prospect. The process for assigning URMs to prospects is explained later in this document. The role of the URM is to:

Establish a comprehensive University fundraising strategy in coordination with all active Team Managers that considers multiple interests and all forms of giving (annual, reunion, major, and planned) to maximize the prospect’s giving over time to the University.

Manage the implementation of that strategy by keeping aware of and/or coordinating the timing of contacts and solicitations by colleagues, volunteers, University faculty, or other staff.

Identify and strategically increase the level of engagement between the prospect and the University community.

Ensure that all giving by the prospect is appropriately stewarded.

Ensure that all prospect information in Griffin is both accurate and current including, but not limited to, the University Rating, Strategy, and completed and planned activity (contacts, visits, solicitations, etc).

To “Actively” manage prospects a URM is expected to:

1. Contact or coordinate contact with the prospect within 30 days of assignment.

o Contacts must be entered in Griffin and may include a visit or an attempt to make a visit (email, phone call, etc...).

2. Qualify and enter into Griffin a University Rating and University Strategy for the prospect within 90 days of assignment.

o A University Strategy, at its minimum, should contain a plan for how to move a prospect forward in the pipeline. Specifically, the URM should consider:

A timeline

Cultivation and engagement objectives

Possible solicitation goals/plans

Identification of colleagues, volunteers, or senior level University officers who will play key roles in the cultivation and solicitation process

8

Appropriate cultivation and engagement activities (events, dinners, meetings w/ faculty, deans, president, etc)

Any additional detail to show the various steps to move the prospect toward the long-term objectives

o The University Rating is the gift range in which a prospect is likely to give to the

University during the current campaign. This rating is determined by the URM in coordination with all Team Managers. University Ratings are used to value individual gift officer portfolios, project expected fundraising totals, and build gift pyramids. The University Rating should reflect:

Interest, Affinity and Inclination to give to the University

Readiness to make a gift and/or the potential to improve affinity and readiness with proper cultivation

A prediction of the prospect’s cumulative giving (in campaign fundraising progress, not cash) during the specified campaign period

3. Contact or coordinate contact with the prospect at least once every 6 months after assignment.

Team Manager (TM) All active and qualified prospects should have at least one active Team Manager (TM) who is responsible for partnering with the URM to drive a specific Team Strategy. In some cases, the URM may also serve as the TM. Prospects with multiple interests and/or relationships with the University will have multiple Team Strategies and TMs in addition to the primary URM assignment. The role of a TM is to:

Proactively communicate to the URM when the addition of the Team Strategy will strengthen the University’s relationship with a prospect and contribute to increased cultivation opportunities that will maximize a prospect’s giving over time to the University.

Partner with the URM to build or enhance a comprehensive University Strategy.

Manage the implementation of that strategy by keeping aware of and/or coordinating the timing of contacts and solicitations by colleagues, volunteers, University faculty, or other staff.

Serve as the point person responsible for coordinating team-specific activity within the Team Strategy and with the URM.

Ensure that all team-specific prospect information in Griffin is both accurate and current including, but not limited to, the Team Rating, Team Strategy, and completed and planned activity (contacts, visits, solicitations, etc).

Solicitation Manager (SM) The Solicitation Manager (SM) is the development officer responsible for managing and driving a solicitation. All University solicitations (with the exception of some direct mail and telefund solicitations) should be tracked and managed in Griffin.

9

The role of a SM is to:

Ensure that the solicitation supports the University Strategy and increases the prospect’s level of engagement with the University.

Coordinate the solicitation with all involved staff (e.g., the URM, TM, and other staff).

Manage the planning and carrying out of the solicitation, including coordinating the timing of contacts by colleagues, volunteers, University faculty, or other staff.

Obtain clearance if the solicitation is planned or expected at $25,000 or more.

Ensure that solicitation data in Griffin is both accurate and current.

3.2 Prospect Contact Guidelines The following guidelines are intended to facilitate respectful and coordinated approaches to prospect engagement and solicitation.

1. Before a staff member initiates any contact with an individual who may be a prospect, he or she should consult Griffin to identify existing interests, affiliations, and relationships.

o If a prospect record does not exist, the staff member should contact University Prospect

Management (prospect@ard.uchicago.edu) to request the creation of a prospect record. The Prospect Management team can also add a URM assignment at this time. Once a new prospect record has been created and assigned, the URM is responsible for entering a University Rating and Strategy that accurately reflect the relationship between the University and the prospect.

o If an Entity record does not exist, the staff member should contact Griffin Data

(griffindata@ard.uchicago.edu) to request the creation of a new entity record. Once that entity record is created, the staff member can then contact University Prospect Management (see above).

2. Anyone wishing to add a new TM assignment and strategy to an existing prospect record must

consult with the current URM.

o The URM is encouraged to approve the addition of new Team Strategies in most cases, viewing these as newly identified interests that can lead to an opportunity to strengthen the prospect’s level of engagement with the University. If the URM declines a request to add a Team Strategy, the TM may forward the request to the Prospect Management team (prospect@ard.uchicago.edu), to bring the request to the PM Committee for arbitration.

3. The URM and all TMs must consult one another in advance of visiting a prospect. This should be

viewed as an opportunity to enhance collaboration and ensure that well-intended visits do not inadvertently compromise other active cultivation/solicitation strategies.

4. Where multiple Team Strategies exist, the URM is responsible for developing a comprehensive

University Strategy that accounts for all Team Strategies. The URM must coordinate a multi-interest approach to the cultivation, solicitation, and stewardship of that prospect.

10

5. All URMs who manage principal gift prospects must develop a comprehensive University Strategy and coordinate all cultivation, solicitation, and stewardship activities with senior leadership, in partnership with the Principal Gifts Strategy Team.

6. Copies of important correspondence (including e-mails, proposals, and stewardship reports)

relevant to a prospect’s cultivation or solicitation strategy should be shared with all appropriate staff that have an interest in the prospect. These documents should be archived for the University record.

o Hard copies of documents should be sent to the University’s Prospect Research team

(mszczepaniak@uchicago.edu), where all materials are scanned and entered into Griffin. These materials are then available at any time as attachments to Prospect Actions or Research

Reports on the relevant records. All development officers should remember that all significant activity with a prospect must be recorded in Griffin. If no manager or contact information is found in Griffin, it will be assumed that no activity has taken place with that prospect.

11

4. Principal Gifts Prospect Management Program

4.1 Definitions of Principal Gift Prospects and Suspects A Principal Gift Prospect is defined as any prospect with a University Rating of $5M or more or any Active University Trustee or Trustee Emeriti. A Principal Gift Suspect is defined as any prospect with a Capacity Rating of $5M or more, and a University Rating of “To Be Qualified”.

4.2 The University Principal Gifts Strategy Team The University Principal Gifts Strategy Team is responsible for collaborating with colleagues to manage the cultivation, solicitation, and stewardship of all Principal Gift prospects and suspects. This team works with the appropriate URMs to ensure that each prospect has an active and comprehensive University Strategy supporting the University’s strategic objectives. The University Principal Gifts Strategy Meeting is comprised of senior fundraising staff representing areas of the University that manage a significant number of active Principal Gift prospects. The University Principal Gifts Strategy Team meets bi-weekly to:

Review key metrics of the Principal Gift pool.

Review Principal Gift pipeline reports on various segments of the prospect and suspect pool.

Develop strategies and next steps for Principal Gift prospects and suspects.

Discuss upcoming Principal Gift cultivation and stewardship events.

Discuss upcoming and completed Presidential activity with Principal Gift prospects and suspects.

4.3 The University Principal Gifts Review Committee The University Principal Gift Review Committee is comprised of senior leadership and will, as needed, vote electronically or hold a meeting to review URM assignments or reassignments and solicitation clearance requests needing arbitration. University Prospect Management staff will facilitate the electronic communication process as issues are identified. Face to face meetings will be convened as needed on an ad hoc basis only.

4.4 Principal Gifts Prospect Identification Special “tags” in the prospect header clearly identify all University Principal Gift prospects and suspects in Griffin so they will be easily recognized by staff across campus and handled appropriately. These tags are visible to all staff with privileges to review prospect records in Griffin. As with any prospect, staff members considering establishing new contact with a Principal Gift prospect or suspect must coordinate in advance with the URM. As new prospects are identified, the University Prospect Management team will apply the “Principal Gift Prospect” and “Principal Gift Suspect” tags.

12

4.5 Principal Gifts Tag Removal If a prospect no longer meets the criteria for inclusion in the Principal Gift prospect or suspect pools, the tag will be removed from the prospect record and an incidental action note will be entered by the University Prospect Management team to indicate why the tag was removed. Principal Gift tags will be removed if:

The prospect no longer has a Research Capacity Rating at a Principal Gift level (less than $5M) and the University Rating is already below the Principal Gift level.

The prospect is University Rated below the Principal Gift level (less than $5M) or has been disqualified.

The prospect made a one-time Principal Gift and has no inclination to make another gift at that level.

Principal Gift Tag removal process:

1. The URM requesting the removal of the tag should email the University Prospect Management team (prospect@ard.uchicago.edu) requesting removal of the tag, with the explanation included in both the email and recorded as an incidental action or in the University Strategy on the prospect record in Griffin.

2. The University Prospect Management team will remove the tag and add an (additional) incidental action. All involved parties will receive a verification email from University Prospect Management.

13

5. Prospect Assignment (Newly Identified Prospects)

5.1 Prospect Assignment Criteria Assignments for newly identified prospects are made after determining if a prospect has a single identifiable philanthropic interest or multiple interests across the University. The following connections and affiliations are considered when determining if a prospect is single or multiple “interest”:

Degrees

Significant Giving

Current Parent Relationships

Significant Involvement

Existing University Relationships “Interest” considers the above information for all entities on the prospect record. If a prospect has none of the connections/affiliations above, or has connections/affiliations to more than one area of the University, it is considered “multi-interest”. A prospect with connections/affiliations to only one area of the University is considered “single interest”. Examples of Single and Multi-Interest Prospects are as follows: Single Interest Prospect

Alumni Degree(s) from one unit, school or division, no significant giving elsewhere

Non Alum (aka grateful patient and/or “friend”) with significant giving to one area

Non Alum Current Parent with significant giving and or involvement to the child’s degree area

Recommended Initial URM Assignment: Unit, School, or Division of Single Interest, with optional “opt-in” for Initial URM Assignment to a Regional Gift Officer

Optional TM Assignment(s): Relevant Areas

Multi-Interest Prospect

Alumni Degree(s) from more than one school

Alumni Degree(s) from one school with volunteer involvement from another area

Non Alum with significant giving to more than one area

14

Recommended Initial URM Assignment: Regional Gift Officer. However, in some cases if a prospect has no record in Griffin of ever being contacted or qualified by a development officer, URM assignment to a specific unit/school/division may be considered to allow qualification activities to proceed.

Optional TM Assignment(s): Relevant Areas

NOTE: A donor must have given $1K or more for giving to be calculated as an interest. Significant giving is (1) $25K or more cumulative giving to a single area of the University or (2) 75% or more of a donor’s lifetime total giving to a single area of the University. Donors with $25K or more cumulative giving to more than one area of the University and donors with less than 75% of their total giving to one area will be considered “multi-interest”.

5.2 Prospect Assignment Process Chicago Society Prospect Assignment Process: Standardized Process Currently Under Development Major Gifts Prospect Assignment Process:

1. New prospects are identified by the Strategic Services team (Research or Analytics) or the Frontline.

2. The University Prospect Management (PM) team runs monthly prospect reports and prioritizes MG+ ($100K+) prospects for assignment.

3. PM identifies single interest major gift MCD and Booth prospects and sends them to the

appropriate PM staff at MCD and Booth for assignment.

4. PM produces a monthly report showing all newly assigned prospects over the last month.

5. Managers and fundraisers review the new assignment report and decide if changes and/or TM additions are necessary.

6. The newly assigned URMs make initial contacts to qualify their prospects and identify the most appropriate strategy and/or other relationship manager

A newly assigned URM may reject an assignment if he or she believes that another gift officer would be more suitable. The existing URM must discuss the reassignment with the proposed new URM and forward their agreement to the University Prospect Management team (prospect@ard.uchicago.edu).

If assignment arbitration is needed, the manager or development officer may forward the request to the University Prospect Management team. The assignment will be placed on hold and added to the agenda for discussion in the next monthly PM Committee meeting. Principal Gifts Prospect Assignment Process:

15

The University Principal Gifts Review Committee will review all URM assignments for all Principal Gift prospects and suspects. In most cases, URMs for Principal Gift prospects will be members of the University Principal Gifts Strategy Team or represented by a member of the University Principal Gifts Strategy Team. Other units on campus may add Team Strategies on Principal Gift prospects and suspects by coordinating with the URM.

1. New prospects are identified by the Research team or by the Frontline. If prospects are identified by the Research team, they will use gift capacity rating and all identifiable prospect interests to make assignment recommendations to the University PM team.

2. The University PM team runs a bi-weekly query for new PG prospects and suspects and adds the appropriate tags.

3. The University PM team will review appropriate development officer portfolios as well as all of

the information provided by the Research team and make the final assignment recommendation.

4. The University PM team will send URM/TM recommendations to the University Principal Gifts Review Committee via email. The University Principal Gifts Review Committee members will have 5 business days to request discussion before the University PM team finalizes assignments in Griffin.

5. The University PM team will send the all development officers, manager, and senior leadership a

monthly report of all newly assigned prospects over last month.

6. Managers and their staff will review all assignment changes and decide if changes and/or TM additions are necessary.

7. URMs will coordinate the University Strategy, update the University Rating, and add solicitations and next steps to determine the overall prospect cultivation strategy.

8. URMs may request reassignment through the University PM team, where the reassignment request will be coordinated electronically.

9. If arbitration is needed, the assignment will be placed on hold by the University PM team and sent to the University Principal Gifts Review Committee or scheduled for review at a University Principal Gifts Strategy Team meeting.

The URM, in coordination with the University Principal Gifts Strategy Team, will drive the development of a strategy for Principal Gift prospects and suspects and take responsibility for the coordination of all activity with the prospective donors. To ensure a comprehensive University Strategy, the University Principal Gifts Strategy Team will involve all interested units/schools/divisions in the development of an overall Principal Gifts University Strategy for the successful cultivation and solicitation of the prospect. All University Principal Gift prospect, suspect, and lead volunteer assignments/reassignments may only be entered into Griffin by University Prospect Management staff.

16

6. Prospect Reassignment

6.1 Common Reassignment Scenarios The following are the three most common scenarios by which prospects are considered for reassignment (listed in the following sections in greater detail):

1. Mutually agreed-upon, fundraiser-prompted reassignment: These changes often happen as “one-off” requests when one development officer requests the URM assignment from another (or offers the assignment to another), and both parties agree to the change.

2. Portfolio reassignments as a result of staffing changes: This occurs when a development officer

either moves to a different fundraising office or leaves the University altogether. As a result, their portfolio must be appropriately reassigned to either new or existing staff members so that prospects can continue being qualified and cultivated appropriately.

3. Prospects are not being actively managed: When a prospect is not being actively managed

according to the standards outlined in the Prospect Management Policy & Process Guidelines document, the existing URM assignment will be reviewed for possible reassignment to another development officer.

Note: The Principal Gifts Reassignment process differs slightly. Please see below for details.

6.2 Mutually Agreed Upon, Fundraiser-Prompted Reassignment:

1. The staff member requesting the role of URM on a prospect that has an existing URM should make their request directly to the current URM.

OR

2. The staff member who wants one of their prospects reassigned to a new URM should make their

request directly to the recommended new URM.

3. If both development officers agree to the reassignment, electronic communication will serve as documentation of their agreement and should be sent to the University PM team (prospect@ard.uchicago.edu). Please note: When communicating reassignment requests, please make sure to include the following in your correspondence:

Prospect Name and ID

Existing URM and New URM

The existing and proposed new URM should be included and cc’ed on the e-mail to the University PM team.

Answer the question: “Should the existing URM maintain their Team Strategy and Team Manager assignment?”

4. University PM staff will add an incidental action to Griffin documenting the agreement between

the requesting URM and the current URM. University PM staff will then make the URM/TM updates in Griffin.

17

6.3 Portfolio Reassignment as a Result of Staffing Changes:

1. A staff member that is leaving the University should contact and discuss all active strategies and assignments with all other active assigned staff member(s) in their portfolio (for example, other active Team Managers).

2. Following those initial conversations, the departing development officer should discuss their reassignment recommendations with their manager to ensure that the portfolio will be assigned and managed by the appropriate new development officers. These discussions should occur prior to contacting University PM staff.

3. The departing development officer and their manager should then contact the University PM

team. University PM staff will have 2 weeks to review the portfolio with the exiting fundraiser and their manager (ideally, a manager should contact the Prospect Management Team in a timely manner that will allow them ample time to work with the exiting fundraiser prior to their departure.). The University PM team will also review the portfolio and make additional reassignment suggestions based on assignment policy included in the Prospect Management Policy & Process Guidelines document, taking into account existing relationships.

4. The University PM team will then send the final reassignment recommendations to the staff

member’s manager for final review. The manager will have 60 days to review the suggested reassignments and either confirm or dispute the suggested reassignments.

5. If the University PM team does not hear from the manager within 60 days, all prospects in the

portfolio will receive a URM assignment of “Under Review by Prospect Management”. The PM team will assume reassignment consent and move forward with making the recommended reassignments.

6.4 Prospects Not Actively Managed: REMINDER: Per existing prospect management policy, to “Actively” manage a prospect a URM is expected to:

Contact or coordinate contact with the prospect within 30 days of assignment.

o Contacts must be entered in Griffin and may include a visit or an attempt to make a visit (email, phone call, etc...).

Qualify and enter in Griffin a University Rating and University Strategy for the prospect within 90 days of assignment.

Contact or coordinate contact with the prospect at least once every 6 months after assignment. The following process occurs to identify and resolve situations when prospects are not actively managed:

1. The University PM team will e-mail a monthly report showing management activity on prospects that have been assigned for more than 30, 90, and 180 days, but have not been actively managed during that period.

18

o This report will be part of a monthly suite of prospect management reports sent to all senior leadership, managers, and development officers at the end or beginning of each month to allow URMs and their managers to identify where contacts, strategies, or ratings are overdue. Upon request, the University PM team can provide managers with an additional strategy detail report to facilitate the review of ratings and strategies qualitatively.

2. The manager will then have an additional month until the next report is generated to work with

their staff member to boost activity on the prospect.

3. If a prospect appears in the 180-day report (indicating that there has been a lack of activity for 180 days), the PM Committee and relevant managers will be invited to discuss the prospect and agree on next steps. If agreement is not reached, the prospect will be referred to the Vice President for Development, in consultation with the appropriate AVPs and Deans.

6.5 Principal Gifts Reassignment Process

1. The staff member requesting the role of URM on a Principal Gift prospect that has an existing URM should first make their request directly to the current URM. If a reassignment agreement is reached, the requesting URM should contact the University PM team (prospect@ard.uchicago.edu) or the University Principal Gifts PM liaison.

2. The current URM for a Principal Gift prospect who wants one of their prospects reassigned to a

new URM should make their request directly to the recommended new URM. If a reassignment agreement is reached, the requesting URM should contact the University PM team (prospect@ard.uchicago.edu) or the University Principal Gifts PM liaison.

3. The University Principal Gifts PM liaison will forward reassignment requests directly to the University Principal Gifts Review Committee. The Principal Gifts Review Committee will have five (5) business days to object/approve of a reassignment request. After five business days, the University Principal Gifts PM liaison may consider silence as consent and the reassignment will be updated in Griffin..

4. The University Principal Gifts PM liaison will add an incidental action to Griffin to document the

agreement between the requesting URM and current URM as well as the approval of the University Principal Gifts Review Committee. The University Principal Gifts PM liaison will then make URM/TM updates in Griffin and notify the URM that the reassignment is approved and updated in Griffin.

Monthly assignment reports that are part of the University PM team’s suite of standard reports will show all Principal Gifts URM assignment and reassignment changes.

19

7. Solicitation Clearance

7.1 Solicitation Clearance Policy & Process Clearance is required on all solicitations of $25K or more. Planned solicitations of $25K or more can be entered into Griffin for any amount, but they must be cleared via the automated clearance process in Griffin before they are solicited. Clearance is not required in Griffin for solicitations amounts under $25K. All plans for the solicitation of managed prospects, regardless of the planned ask amount, should be entered and tracked as a solicitation record in Griffin. Furthermore, ALL solicitations should be a part of the University Strategy and coordinated with the URM and all active TMs. The Solicitation Manager (SM) is responsible for requesting clearance on their solicitation by updating the solicitation stage in Griffin to “Clearance Requested”. The SM must then coordinate solicitation activity with the URM and/or additional volunteers/staff assigned to the prospect. Clearance provides a one-year window for solicitation. Fundraising staff may call into question any clearance for which the one-year window has passed with no action on the part of the SM holding the clearance. Concerns may be sent to: prospect@ard.uchicago.edu and will be reviewed by the University Prospect Management Committee. There are distinct procedures for clearance requests based on the type of solicitation:

Solicitations for all prospects with a “Principal Gift Prospect” tag are reviewed by the Principal Gifts Review Committee and any other active staff on the prospect. Please see “Principal Gifts Clearance Policy and Process” below.

Foundation and Corporation solicitations do not require clearance in Griffin. Foundation and Corporation solicitations should be coordinated with the University Foundation & Corporate Relations team (see Appendix A for additional details).

If solicitation clearance disputes arise, they will first be reviewed by all involved parties. If an agreement cannot be reached, the dispute will be reviewed by the University PM Committee. If the University PM Committee cannot reach consensus on the timing and/or strategy of a solicitation, the AVP Team, in consultation with the Vice President for Development and the President of the University, will make the final determination. NOTE: The University of Chicago emphasizes an integrated solicitation approach. Solicitation strategies should consider the entire spectrum of giving opportunities. Major Gift solicitations should acknowledge the ongoing need for annual support. Annual Giving requests should be coordinated with the URM as part of the University Strategy. When appropriate, deferred giving proposals and bequests should also be considered. During the cultivation of a prospect, every effort should be made to personally solicit an annual gift at an appropriate time.

7.2 Clearance Process: Solicitations over $25K

1. Overnight, Griffin will identify all solicitations with a current stage of “Clearance Requested.”

2. An email notification will be sent for three consecutive mornings to the URM, active TMs, and the SM until the managers document their responses in Griffin. Each e-mail recipient will have three business days to respond to the clearance request directly in Griffin. Each manager will receive only ONE email per day listing all solicitations needing review.

20

NOTE: If the solicitation is identified as a Principal Gift solicitation, then it is placed on hold and reviewed by the University Principal Gifts Review Committee. The process is outlined in detail below.

3. After the three days, any non-response will be automatically changed to an approval.

4. If the three days conclude without a “discussion required” response, the solicitation stage will

automatically change to “Solicitation Cleared.”

5. If at any point a “discussion required” response is entered, no further responses are necessary and the solicitation stage will change to “Clearance Tabled.”

6. If the stage changes to “Clearance Tabled,” the University PM team will help to facilitate the

necessary communication among interested decision makers. Disputes will be reviewed by the University PM Committee.

7. After a solicitation is tabled and the discussion takes place, the SM must change the solicitation

stage back to “Clearance Requested.” This will set the solicitation clearance request process back in motion, giving all managers a new opportunity to approve the solicitation.

As part of the monthly suite of prospect management reports, the results of all solicitations clearance requests will be reported on and sent to all campus development officers. If you have questions regarding specific solicitations, please contact the University PM team by emailing prospect@ard.uchicago.edu.

7.3 Principal Gifts Clearance Policy and Process The Principal Gifts clearance process ensures that all solicitation requests on Principal Gift prospects are carefully coordinated and that the comprehensive University Strategy is carried out smoothly over time. In most cases, Principal Gift solicitation clearance will be handled by the process outlined below, with a five-day turnaround. In other cases, the process may require more consideration and will take longer. If the University Principal Gifts Review Committee cannot reach consensus on the timing and/or strategy of a solicitation, senior leadership, in consultation with the Vice President for Development and the President of the University, will make the final determination. The URM should take responsibility to work with colleagues in advance of any formal clearance request so that this process moves quickly. Because solicitation plans for Principal Gift prospects requires coordination with multiple development officers, Deans, and the President, some clearance discussions may require longer than the 5-day window specified below. Clearance Process: Principal Gifts

Principal Gift solicitations are excluded from the fully automated Griffin clearance system in favor of a partially automated process. This process ensures Principal Gift clearance requests are managed daily, granting solicitation clearance requests between bi-weekly University Principal Gift Team meetings.

University PM staff receive an automated daily email listing all Principal Gift solicitations requested the previous day.

21

The solicitation is automatically “tabled” and an email is sent to the SM, TMs, URM and all members of the University Principal Gifts Review Committee. Each email recipient has five days to answer this email before the solicitation is cleared in Griffin. If no response is received, consent for clearance is implied.

If any member of the University Principal Gifts Review Committee requests further discussion, the solicitation request is tabled for discussion until the necessary communication has occurred or until the bi-weekly Principal Gift Strategy Team meeting convenes.

22

8. Portfolio Management

8.1 Ideal Portfolio Distribution (Size & Prospect Stages)*

* Note: Ideal Portfolio Distribution by Size & Prospect Stage requires additional PM Committee discussion.

8.2 Ideal Portfolio Size Full-time development officers should not carry more than the maximum portfolio size referenced above. If a development officer has a full portfolio and requests an additional prospect, he or she should first remove an existing prospect from his or her portfolio before the new assignment can be completed. To move a prospect out of a portfolio, a fundraiser should first:

1. Review the prospect for possible inactivation or disqualification, and coordinate the update with the University PM team and other relevant managers working with the prospect; OR

2. Review the prospect’s University Strategy and University Rating and recommend that the

prospect be managed by a new fundraiser and/or in another prospect pool (e.g. Principal Gifts, Major Gifts, Chicago Society etc…). The current URM should communicate this recommendation directly with the proposed new URM, and once an agreement is reached the current URM should send the request and relevant communication to the University PM team (prospect@ard.uchicago.edu).

Fundraising managers who have non-frontline management responsibilities should work towards reducing the size of their portfolios to balance active management of their portfolios with their additional programmatic responsibilities. For example, if a development officer has both management and project responsibility that allows him or her to spend 50% of his or her time on frontline activity, then his or her portfolio size should be 50% of a full-time development officer’s portfolio.

8.3 Prospect Stage Overview Tracking prospects through each stage of the development cycle is a strategic approach to fundraising that supports the implementation of a fully integrated “Moves Management” prospect management system. This significantly increases our ability to proactively track and move prospects from identification to solicitation at all levels of management.

% Identified*

% In Qualification

% In Cultivation

% In Solicitation

% In Stewardship

Ideal Portfolio

Size

PG Officer N/A 75-125

MG Officer N/A 125-200

CS Officer N/A 200-350

Regional Director N/A 50-75

Division/School/Unit Officer

N/A 75-100

Division/School/Unit Director

N/A 50-75

23

Prospect stages begin with “Stage 0: Pre-Identified/Active Constituent” and are further defined as follows:

0. Pre-Identified/Active Constituent: This stage is used for all prospects that are not in any of the stages below. Since Griffin requires that a “prospect” record be created to track relationship information, this stage allows Alumni Relations and Development staff to create a “prospect” record and maintain “prospect” (relationship) information on individuals that are not necessarily active prospects, but rather individuals engaged in an active relationship with the institution (e.g., non-prospect friends, volunteers and alumni). Individuals with prospect records in this stage will not be considered part of the “prospective donor pool.”

1. Identified: This stage is considered the entry point at which an individual becomes a prospect in

Griffin. This can be initiated either by a member of the frontline or through proactive identification by the Research team. A prospect is considered “identified” when research or an initial contact demonstrates that an individual might have capacity or inclination to make a gift to the University of Chicago. At this point, the individual has an active prospect record possibly with a known gift capacity, but remains unassigned to a URM or TM. Specific inclination has not yet been determined and remains unknown.

2. In Qualification: A prospect moves to this stage once a development officer is assigned as URM

or TM. It is the responsibility of the assigned development officer to make the initial substantive contacts with the prospect in order to gauge the prospect’s inclination to make a gift (qualification). Qualification is indicated by the presence of a URM working towards providing a University Rating and Strategy. Per Prospect Management Policy & Process Guidelines regarding actively managing a prospect, a newly assigned prospect should not stay “In Qualification” for more than 90 days.

3. In Cultivation: A prospect progresses to this stage once there is at least one completed visit

action (or any other type of action with the purpose of “Qualification”) on the prospect record, and the URM has provided a University Rating (which takes into account inclination as well as ability to give). Once a prospect is considered qualified to make a gift, the fundraiser must create a strategy plan for next steps to move the prospect toward solicitation. This plan becomes part of the University and Team Strategy which defines the actions that the assigned development officer plans to complete in order to cultivate the prospect for a gift. The plan should be flexible and can be modified throughout the cultivation of the prospect. A planned solicitation can be entered while the prospect is in cultivation.

4. In Solicitation: Entry into this stage is determined when clearance is requested on an open

solicitation (or, in the case of solicitations below $25K, the solicitation enters the stage of “Clearance Not Required”). This indicates that the prospect is about to be solicited for a gift. Once the solicitation has been asked, the prospect will stay in this stage until the solicitation is closed (or until all open solicitations on the record are close). If the prospect declines the solicitation, the prospect will return to the “In Cultivation” stage. Note: In the case of a declined solicitation, the fundraiser may also ask the University PM Team to remove them from the cycle (see below: Disqualification/Inactivation).

5. In Stewardship: A prospect enters this stage once the gift is booked and the solicitation has been

closed (or any other open solicitations have been closed). At this point, the assigned development officer needs to determine whether the prospect remains in perpetual stewardship (if it is the last gift the prospect will make to the University), or if the prospect has the potential to make another gift in the future. If the prospect has the potential to make another gift and a planned solicitation has been entered, the prospect is automatically reintroduced into the “In Cultivation” stage of the development cycle.

24

8.4 Disqualification (Stage 6) and Inactivation Guidelines After an individual has been “Identified” and officially becomes part of the University of Chicago prospective donor pool, there are two options for removing that individual from the prospect pool: Disqualification (not a prospect now) and Inactivation (not a prospect ever). Disqualification (not a prospect now): Disqualification may be considered in two instances:

1. When a development officer determines that a prospect is unlikely to make a gift during the current campaign, but should be reviewed in a future year

2. When a prospect has not demonstrated any interest in being contacted

Before a prospect is disqualified due to a development officer’s or volunteer’s inability to make contact, a staff member should attempt contact (via visit, letter, e-mail, or phone) at least three times within a three month period.

The following steps should be taken to properly “Disqualify” a prospect:

1. The assigned URM should update the University Rating to “Disqualified”, add a “revisit date” indicating when the prospect should be reassigned to a development officer, and update the University Strategy to indicate why the prospect was disqualified.

2. The assigned URM must then contact the University PM team (prospect@ard.uchicago.edu) and request that all assignments be inactivated and that the prospect stage be updated to “Disqualified”.

3. The University PM Team then completes the disqualification process by adding an incidental action note to the prospect record indicating the stage change.

Inactivation (not a prospect ever): Inactivation may be considered in three instances:

1. When a development officer determines that a prospect has no inclination to ever make a gift to the University

2. When a development officer deems it inadvisable for the University to continue a relationship with or receive gifts from a prospective donor

3. When a parent has an active prospect record with no giving or activity in the past five years The following steps should be taken to properly “Inactivate” a prospect:

1. The assigned URM should update the University Rating to “Disqualified” (if the prospect will not ever give) and update the University Strategy to indicate why the prospect should be inactivated.

25

2. The assigned URM must then contact the University PM team (prospect@ard.uchicago.edu) and

request that the prospect record be inactivated.

3. The University PM team then completes the inactivation process by adding an incidental action to the prospect record indicating why the prospect was inactivated.

When a prospect is disqualified or inactivated, the attached entity record(s) remain active and are included in future prospect identification and modeling projects.

26

9. Management Metrics and Fundraising Credit

9.1 Overview of Primary Metrics The University-wide, common method for tracking fundraising credit is designed to encourage collaboration while still recognizing individual contributions. The overriding principle guiding this system is to be generous with credit. We believe that minimizing competitiveness and zero-sum thinking among colleagues and maximizing incentives to work cooperatively fosters the true interests of the prospect and maximizes their support of the University. One of our most important values as an institution is to recognize and reward outstanding individual fundraising work, while also providing managers the ability to hold their staff members accountable for specific, individual goals. This system is intended to encourage fundraising staff to be:

Motivated to see and solicit prospects.

Accountable for individually set goals.

Helpful and generous in working together to maximize the value of a prospect’s giving to the University.

Invested in achieving their own team goals and unit goals as well as broad priorities of the University's academic leadership.

Valued and rewarded for their work, including work that is done in support of another development officer’s cultivation and solicitation activities.

Managers should reference the following guidelines when setting goals for their staff members. All development officer goals should be confirmed and submitted by fundraising managers directly to the University PM team by e-mailing prospect@ard.uchicago.edu before the beginning of each fiscal year.

FY Visits Completed

FY Solicitations

Asked

FY $ Booked

Ideal Portfolio Size

Action Lead/Participant

Solicitation Manager

Solicitation Manager

URM Assignments

PG Officer 50-75 8-10 $10M-$20M+ 75-125

MG Officer 125-150 20-25 $1M-$5M 125-200

CS Officer 125-150 75-150 $250K-$750K 200-350

Regional Director 75-100 12-15 $1.5M-$5M 50-75

Division/School/Unit Officer 100-125 15-20 $1M-$5M 75-100

Division/School/Unit Director 50-75 12-15 $2.5M-$5M 50-75

27

9.2 Primary Management Metrics At the end of each fiscal year, managers should set goals for the next fiscal year with frontline staff based on a variety of factors, including the staff member’s experience, prospect pool, tenure with the University and other, non-frontline responsibilities. In partnership with all fundraising managers, the University PM team will ensure that goals are updated and accurate in Griffin. The following lists the primary metrics that will be used to measure frontline line success toward individual goals:

1. GOAL #1: Fiscal Year Dollars Booked

o Total Dollars ($) of all booked solicitations where the development officer is the SM. This total will be pulled directly from the actual amount of booked solicitations in Griffin where the specific development officer is the SM. Only one person may receive primary solicitation credit.

2. GOAL #2: Fiscal Year Count of Solicitations Asked

o Total Solicitations Asked (#) by the SM. Only one person may receive primary

solicitation credit. Regardless of the outcome of the solicitation, the SM will receive credit for any solicitations that are entered into the “Asked, Awaiting Response” solicitation stage.

3. GOAL #3: Fiscal Year Count of Visits Completed

o Total Visits Completed (#) by Action Lead or Action Participant. Credit for visits completed will be assigned to the Action Lead and all Action Participants based on the total number of “Done” visits in Griffin, where the Action Date is in the current fiscal year. In the case of multiple Participants on the same action, one visit should be entered in Griffin with the Action Lead and all Participants. The Lead and all Participants will receive full and equal credit.

4. GOAL #4: Fiscal Year Count of Prospects to Qualify for Building Portfolio

o Total Prospects Qualified for Building Portfolio. Select gift officers who do not have full portfolios are given annual goals for a count of newly qualified prospects added to their portfolio. Gift officers with incomplete portfolios are given a maximum of 20 “To Be Qualified” prospects at any given time who have capacity at the development officer’s specific portfolio level (PG, MG, CS, etc…). The development officer is charged with qualifying those prospects and building out their portfolio.

The following lists the criteria used to track “Assist Credit” for measuring additional fundraiser participation:

1. Solicitation Assist: Dollar amount ($) of all Solicitations successfully booked where the development officer is a Solicitor or Staff on the solicitation record. The Solicitor or Staff will receive full “Solicitation Assist Credit” for all booked solicitations with which he/she was involved. The Solicitation Manager is responsible for reviewing the active Staff and Solicitor assignments, ensuring that all individuals receiving credit have assisted with the solicitation.

2. Team Assist: ($) of all Solicitations successfully booked where the development officer has an active URM, TM, or other staff assignment on the prospect solicited. The URM, TMs, and other

28

staff will receive full “Team Assist Credit” for all successfully booked solicitations for prospects to whom they are assigned at these levels. The URM is responsible for reviewing all active prospect assignments.

29

Appendix A: Prospect Management Policy for Organizations For the purposes of this appendix, “organizations” is understood to mean corporations (corporations, corporate foundations, and most partnerships), foundations (independent grant-making foundations), and associations (groups and associations). Religious organizations, certain nonprofit organizations (zoos, historical trusts), and other higher education institutions (colleges, universities) can also be considered “organizations.” Giving relationships resulting from our interaction with these other

organizations are generally tracked as “associations and other organizations” for leadership reporting. These definitions are guided by current Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) standards. Family foundations, estates, alumni-related organizations, and trustee-related organizations are considered as individual giving vehicles, and are managed by individual prospect managers, with solicitations and giving attributed to the linked individuals and counted in individual donor totals. The Office of Foundation and Corporate Relations (FCR) can assist in distinguishing prospects that should be handled under organization prospect management guidelines.

Creation of Organization Prospect Records When a potential organization prospect is identified, the initial identifier should contact the Office of Organization Research and Prospect Management for promotion of the best entity record to prospect status.* This process reduces the possibility of duplicate prospect records and the need for a future merge. The identifier should provide:

1. Name of the Organization 2. Name of the potential University Relationship Manager 3. Name of the potential Team Manager

Ratings will be set by Foundation and Corporate Relations (FCR) as outlined by the current policies (generally “N/A for Orgs” except where noted otherwise). After the record is created, the identifier will be notified, and will then be responsible for establishing Team Strategy assignments and texts. *If it is determined that the identified potential prospect organization would have an exclusive relationship with a school or independent unit (Booth, Medical Center, etc.), prospect managers with research privileges may use their discretion in creating their own prospect in consultation with the Office of Foundation and Corporate Relations to avoid duplicate entries.

University Relationship Managers (URMs) The University Relationship Manager for an organization should generally be the Director of Foundation Relations for foundations and associations, and the Director of Corporate Relations for corporations (including corporate foundations and partnerships). If relationships with an organizational prospect are seen to be exclusive to a particular division or team, or if a given team fundraiser has an exceptional relationship or knowledge of a given organization, a University Relationship Manager can be assigned from the appropriate team. Please consult the Office of Prospect Management by contacting prospect@ard.uchicago.edu to resolve any assignment issues that arise.

30

University Relationship Managers for organizations have the same responsibilities and rights as those for individuals. Due to the complex nature of some organizations, it is recommended that URMs frequently update the University Strategy field to map the points of contact and goals for an organization, providing a date as the first item in the freeform text field.

University Ratings University Ratings can generally be entered and maintained as “N/A for Orgs.” The Office of Foundation and Corporate relations will, however, maintain University ratings for strategic foundations (new $1M+ prospects and active Chicago Initiative donors with campaign totals over $100,000), since a large percentage of total organization FRP comes from these strategic foundation partners. These ratings are estimates, based on previous campaign giving or newly analyzed potential, whichever is greater. Association and Corporation University Ratings will not be maintained by FCR because their assets, priorities, and governance change more rapidly than can be usefully modeled in a 5-year or campaign (currently 8-year) analytic window, and are especially hard to project in the current recessed economy.

Team Managers (TMs) Team managers for organizations have the same assignment process, responsibilities, and rights as team managers for individuals. Team Ratings For organizations, no team ratings are necessary (or recommended). The Office of Foundation and Corporate Relations will not maintain any ratings at the team level for organizations.

Solicitations Organization solicitations can be created by any team. All teams are encouraged to enter solicitations to track incipient or ongoing funding conversations with organizations. Any staff member can be entered as a Solicitation Manager (SM). Organization solicitations should generally be started at Solicitation Stage 2 (Clearance Not Required) in order to facilitate updating. Organization solicitations are not currently vetted through the Automated Clearance process; however, solicitation plans should always be reviewed in advance with the URM. Solicitation managers take responsibility for advancing solicitations through to the ask (Stage 7) and to the oral pledge (Stage 8), where applicable. When paperwork for a gift has been received (Stage 9), the solicitation manager should attempt to Link to Gift, which automatically closes the solicitation (Stage 10 – Gift Booked). The Office of Foundation and Corporate Relations will also review Stage 9 solicitations monthly and attempt to Link to Gift where sufficient information is available. For assistance with the Link to Gift process, please consult Griffin Training staff or FCR. If a proposal is refused, the stage should be manually updated to Donor Refused (Stage 12), which will close the solicitation.

31

Organization solicitations that have been withdrawn or cancelled should be updated as Cancelled (stage 14), which is only maintainable through the Clear-Cancel screen. The Associate Director for Organization Research and Prospect Management (FCR) can facilitate this cancellation if clear-cancel permission is not immediately available to a given team. Periodically, the Office of Foundation and Corporate Relations will review projects in TRACS (University Research Administration’s project database), and lists of gifts received in Griffin, and will retroactively create solicitations in order to provide a narrative context for gifts and projects with strategic importance. For projects that are faculty driven without development staff input, the solicitation manager will be set to “Manager Will Not Be Assigned.”

32

Appendix B: Prospect Management Keyword Terms Prospect Management – The planning, recording, and tracking of relationship development between a prospect and the University, as the prospect moves through the development cycle. Griffin - The official University-wide development database of record for biographical, relationship, and giving information about university constituents. Entity - A person or an organization for which biographical and giving information is recorded and stored in Griffin. Prospect - One or more entities (e.g. an individual, household, family, or organization) for whom a strategy is developed and relationship information is tracked, typically with the purpose of cultivating towards a gift. University Relationship Manager (URM) - The development officer who manages and maintains the primary personal relationship with the prospect and coordinates the actions of other staff and volunteers who have relationships with the prospect. There can only be one URM on each prospect record. Team Manager (TM) - A development officer who, in coordination with the URM, contributes to the overall University Strategy with a specific focus on the program or area he/she represents. There can be multiple TMs on each prospect record. Solicitation Manager (SM) - The development officer responsible for managing and maintaining a solicitation in coordination with the URM and all TMs. University Rating - The gift range in which a prospect is likely to give to the University over the current campaign period. This rating is determined by the URM in coordination with all TMs. Team Rating - The gift range in which a prospect is likely to give to the University, over the current campaign period, to the fundraising program or area represented by the Team Manager. This rating is determined by the Team Manager and should be used to inform the University Rating. Research Gift Capacity Rating - An estimation of the total amount that a prospect could give over a five-year period. It is based on publicly available information about personal wealth, assets, and philanthropy, and may be surmised by information about career history or family wealth. This rating is provided by the Prospect Research Team. Modeled/Screened Gift Capacity Rating – An estimation of the total amount that a prospect could give over a five-year period based on external wealth screening data and/or University of Chicago internal statistical modeling. University Strategy - A comprehensive strategy developed by the URM in coordination with all active TMs that considers multiple interests and all forms of giving (annual, reunion, major, and planned) to maximize the prospect’s giving during the current campaign. Team Strategy – A strategy developed by the TM that considers the prospect’s interest in the program or area represented by the TM to maximize the prospect’s giving to that program or area during the current campaign. Prospect Action – Significant information recorded on the prospect record that supports the development of the prospect’s relationship with the University. This may include visit activity, other correspondence, and incidental notes.

33

Solicitation – A proposal managed and maintained in Griffin with the purpose of engaging a donor in giving to a specific program or area of the University. Solicitations are tracked from the planning stages through the receipt of a gift. Clearance Process - Solicitations of $25K or more must be cleared via the automated clearance process in Griffin before they are asked. Solicitations over $5M or on any Principal Gift prospects are excluded from the automated clearance process. These solicitations are manually reviewed by Senior Leadership. Clearance is not required for solicitations under $25K. Principal Gift Prospect – A prospect with a University Rating of $5M+ or an Active University Trustee or Trustee Emeriti. These prospects receive a “Principal Gift Prospect” tag in Griffin. Principal Gift Suspect – A prospect with a Capacity Rating of $5M+ and a University Rating of “To Be Qualified”. These prospects receive a “Principal Gift Suspect” tag in Griffin. Major Gift Prospect – A prospect with a University Rating of $100K - $4.9M. Major Gift Suspect – A prospect with a Capacity Rating of $100K - $4.9M and a University Rating of “To Be Qualified”.