Database Ranking - Development Plan

Hi @KarenWolf - me again! We began to undertake this type of project a few years back. It is proving a very long, very slow process for us. We are using a few different variables to very generally 'rank' donors already in our database. We've been loosely grouping people in coded categories, depending on their perceived positive affinity (so, multiple gifts to us over a time period, or service as a volunteer, committee member, or board member) + perceived/demonstrated capacity (cumulative giving AND/OR per gift minimum over a time period). In CSuite, we are ranking as A or B Engagement Type - really there are Aa and Bb, 4 total potential categories. This method was outlined by another Indiana CF that shared their ranking criteria with us. Naturally, we have had to adapt to fit our own structure. It is a version of RFM scoring without the math.

It has been THANKLESS, both in effort and outcome, so far - lol - and incredibly imprecise and subjective and all those things that make 'analysis' maddening. Of course, in FIMS, it was dang near impossible, even using Data Grid views. CSuite is helping somewhat, especially with the at-a-glance Donors > Reports 'pivot table,' but it's still a lot to look at - made much worse for us because we are essentially coding both lists for 9 different organizations (our 9 affiliates - and we have to keep them separate).

I'm the one doing this examination following strategic guidance from leadership, but it isn't something I can or have been able to dedicate a lot of uninterrupted time to at all, which, IMO, it really requires. No matter what, this coding requires pulling data out of the system and into Excel for analysis.

Having someone with a pretty good breadth and depth of institutional knowledge helps, but even so, it's an enormous project. The Foundation from which we adapted this method said it took them 3 years to come up with what they felt were even usable coded lists (they devoted an entire year to data clean-up alone!). Obviously, the way data has been historically captured and coded in your organization will make a big difference. I'm at ~3 years in now, but really only 2 because one of those years was consumed with our conversion to CSuite. The conversion has fast-tracked clean-up we could not do in FIMS, so maybe I am really only 1.5 years into this actual effort?! 😐️

Essentially, our criteria is:

A – High Capacity and High Affinity

- Constituents giving at least $5,000 (single gift amount) PLUS 3+ gifts on different dates within look-back period

AND/OR - Constituents giving $1,000-$4,999 (single gift amount) PLUS 3+ gifts on different dates within look-back period

B—High Capacity and Low Affinity

- Constituents giving at least $5,000 (single gift amount), who don’t qualify for “A,” within look-back period

AND/OR - Constituents giving at least $1,000 (single gift amount) up to $5,000 (cumulative), within look-back period

The larger strategic goal is to use these lists to target specific communications, campaigns, appeals, and attention. In the A case, we will need to really work on personal cultivation and stewardship to plumb their capacity, then make more meaningful and significant asks. In the B case, we will need to work toward meaningfully increasing their education about our organization and our work, and reach out more often and more pointedly, in hopes of building affinity (and, so, ideally, giving).

We've sort of detoured at the moment to better structuring Campaigns and tracking ROI for the communications we ARE already doing. Hopefully, I can get back to prospect analysis and examination eventually...

@KarenWolf If it helps, the CF from which we adapted our general approach offered a STELLAR bit of advice for anyone attempting this: Start where you are - but you have to start! It's kept me buoyed through this long process - hopefully my experience helps you, as well. Always happy to offer an ear or advice or insight - and always, encouragement!

@JesikaEllis, thank you for the tag! This is helpful, and it is also nice to hear so many of us are working toward the same goals.