Kotlarczyk_NCPP_Training an Army of Gift Planners_Plus Handouts_2016

How to Train Your DO:
Deploy an Army of Skilled Gift Planners
Katy Herbert Kotlarczyk
University of Colorado
(720) 413-5352
katy.kotlarczyk@cu.edu
Originally Developed for the Institute for Leaders in Development (May 2015)
Updated for the National Conference on Philanthropic Planning (September 2016)

National Conference on Philanthropic Planning 2 Katy Herbert Kotlarczyk
September 2016 University of Colorado
Introduction
Most institutions of higher education now have Gift Planning offices, with one or more individuals
primarily or exclusively devoted to working with major gift officers and donors on estate gifts, life-
income arrangements, or contributions of unique assets. This relatively new structure has created an
interesting state of affairs for planned giving officers: how to educate, train, and partner with the front-
line army of major gift officers who now interact more often and more deeply with prospective planned
giving donors. The resulting explosion of planned giving conferences, seminars, workshops, and webinars
underscore the well-intentioned efforts to apply a training regimen for development officers to enhance
and expand their skills in this area.
Despite these trainings, the number of planned gifts – while growing – remains lower than the prospect
pool in play. With the size of philanthropic campaigns increasing, the donor population aging, and the
giftable asset-base shifting away from cash, gift planning has an ever-more important role to play.
Planned giving officers will necessarily plateau in capitalizing on this opportunity if gift planning tools
are applied inconsistently (if at all) by major gift officers.
Gift planning offices must therefore focus on how to work more closely and more productively with their
army of front-line development officers. While some prior work has identified what gift planning offices
can or should provide their development officers, much less focus has been placed on the perspective and
needs of your typical major gift officer as expressed by that gift officer. What does your average major
gift officer think they need to know? What do development officers feel will successfully enable them to
have more productive (or more regular) gift planning conversations? What training has worked for them
in the past? What is the best way to transfer or partner on prospects between the two offices? How do they
and their academic partners feel about stewarding long-term planned gifts? What pressures or limitations
are impacting these activities?
Through a series of 28 one-on-one interviews with front-line major gift officers working in Colorado
colleges or universities, these questions were posed to identify the factors that could help development
officers and planned giving departments work more productively together. While this study focused on
the activity of gift planning officers and those in higher education, the findings may very well extend to a
much broader group of development professionals.
Executive Summary
By focusing gift planning efforts on aligning metrics, increasing development officer confidence, and
performing joint prospect strategy sessions, major gift officers will have the gift planning conversation
with their donors more regularly and with greater success in the future.

Research Methodology
As a prior major gift officer who had recently transferred to a Gift Planning position at the University of
Colorado, I found myself uniquely situated between two audiences: not fully departed from the major
gifts world, and not yet embedded within gift planning. I set out to interview my major gift officer peers
at the University of Colorado Boulder, as well as those serving in similar roles at institutions of higher
education across Colorado.
Twenty-eight interviews were completed by phone or in-person, each lasting 30-60 minutes. All
development officers were currently serving a major gifts role, managing a portfolio of prospects. Some
reported to a central development manager while others reported to a college dean or various campus
leaders, and each had some level of comfort with gift planning. All worked closely with academic
partners, including their school’s faculty, staff, doctors, coaches, or program managers. Only one
interviewee did not have another development staff member at their university devoted exclusively to the
gift planning function.
List of Those Interviewed:
Institution Number of
Interviewees
Sample Titles of
Interviewees
Anschutz Medical Campus
1 Director of Development
Colorado School of Mines 1 Director of Development
Colorado State University 2 Executive Director of Advancement;
Director of Development
Colorado College 2 Major Gifts Officer
Metro State University of Denver 1 Director of Major Gifts
Regis University 1 Assistant Director, Major Gifts
University of Colorado Boulder 16 Assistant Dean of Advancement;
Associate Athletic Director; Director
of Development; Assistant Director of
Development
Colorado Springs
1 Associate Director of Development
University of Colorado Denver 1 Associate Director of Development
University of Denver 1 Director of Development
University of Northern Colorado 1
TOTAL 28

Interview Topics:
Topic Discussion Areas
Perceptions Hurdles that prevent more gift planning conversations
Major gift officer perceptions of gift planning
Metrics Alignment with objectives
Alignment with academic partners
Incorporation with activities
Recognition, credit, and value
Training Training preferences
Effective prior training
Prospecting Sharing prospects between major and planned giving offices
Methods for donor work
Stewardship Expectations for major gift officers
Acceptance of role by academic partners
Results
A summary of results is presented by interview topic: Perceptions, Metrics, Training, Prospecting, and
Stewardship. While interviews were testimonial in nature, extensive notes were taken to review and
record findings and to identify trends.

Perceptions
When asked “What is the biggest hurdle to major gift officers having more
planned gift conversations,” it is not surprising that development officers
provided a great variety of responses. Training, metrics, and the discomfort
of talking about death all came into play. However, the consistency of one
concept was surprising: confidence. Development officers have a substantial
fear of entering into a conversation they feel they cannot fully carry with
their donors.
They fear not having the answers to the questions that a donor will pose, not
using the right language or words to describe a gift, and getting caught in a
conversation too technical for their expertise.
While development officers are comfortable saying, “I don’t know” about a
great many things, philanthropy is their craft, and they do not want to lose
the donor’s trust in their ability to excel in it.
While more training for development officers would be an obvious
response to increasing the individual knowledge base of development
officers, the most interesting finding here is that this training will only
be effective if it results in an increased level of confidence for the
development officer. Otherwise, it may in fact have the opposite effect,
decreasing the number of gift planning conversations taking place with
donors.
Training objectives should therefore focus on helping development officers
feel empowered and training them to know what they need to know (and
what they don’t), so that they feel comfortable and confident fulfilling their
specific gift planning role. Reiterating how to manage a donor’s dual
interactions with gift planning and major gifts – sharing the relationship to
best serve the donor’s needs – could create a smoother partnership.
Extensive interview responses regarding training are further explored below.
First, however, the important role of metrics and goal alignment should be
addressed, as this was another common area identified as a factor limiting the
number of gift planning conversations.
Interview Responses
Fear & Confidence
 I need to come across as
confident and
knowledgeable to my
donors
 I’m afraid I won’t have
the answers to the
donor’s questions
 I might “fumble
verbally”
 I don’t want to say “I
don’t know” because the
donor will think I am
unprepared
 Academics, even more
than gift officers, don’t
want to be caught not
knowing something
 It’s “dangerous” to get
too into the gift planning
weeds
 People shy away from
the fear that something
will be difficult, and gift
planning just sounds
difficult
One interviewee drew an interesting parallel: development officers frequently must
return to home base when a donor hints at funding a new or unique program. This
common back-and-forth information-gathering and questioning carries no stigma
at all. Could expectations therefore be set that development officers should turn to
gift planning experts to answer the “how to fund” questions, just as they turn to
other leadership to answer the “what to fund” ones?

Metrics
Most fundraising campaigns now include planned gift numbers, “counting”
the value of a future gift at the time the donor makes a pledge. The
importance of planned gifts, therefore, has grown significantly over time and
will continue to play an ever-more-important role. The University of Texas at
Austin, for example, recently concluded a $3.12 billion campaign: 20% of
that total came from realized or pledged planned gifts.1
In other mega-
campaigns, it has not been unusual for planned gifts to comprise 30-40% (or
more) of the campaign goal. In fact, achieving ever-larger campaign goals
will likely not be possible without the continued inclusion of planned gifts,
whether pledged or received.
The major gift officers interviewed are beginning to understand this shift, but
still struggle with the “cash is king” mentality. Budget pressures and
comments from academic partners concerning current needs also create a
precarious balance for fundraisers to serve the “here and now” versus future
interests. One development officer stated that he is always asked by his dean
whether he “made every effort to turn a planned gift into a current one.”
An institution wants a driven and focused development officer, but alignment
of goals and metrics is no easy task. The hiring and promotion process seeks
and rewards those who repeatedly close large gifts in short periods of time.
Development officers expressed frustration with the length of time a planned
gift might take to close: introducing new concepts of complexity – such as
different giving vehicles, donor giving timelines, or various assets to fund a
gift – can slow the progress toward closing a gift, discouraging those
development officers who feel rewarded for closing gifts fast and often.
People want credit for the good work that they are doing, but that credit can
be a barrier if applied in a way that encourages competition between major
and planned gift officers. In other situations, expectations are too low. If the
only requirement is to simply have the planned gift conversation, a
development officer commented that this does not provide a significant
enough motivation for focusing much effort on this activity.
Current major gift metrics often focus on timelines; for example, how many
gifts will you close at what amounts within the next 12-18 months. The
planned giving timeline can stretch much longer. Development officers need
varied metrics to recognize that these conversations can take years, not
months, and tools to help keep these prospects “on the burner,” as one
development officer stated.
In order of importance then, a development officer must be incentivized to
have a gift planning conversation with their donor, and they must feel well-
prepared to have it.
1
University of Texas at Austin campaign brochure, March 2015, Gift Planning & the
Campaign for Texas. $146,616,218 in realized planned gifts, plus $485,056,050 in
new planned gifts.
Interview Responses:
Goal Alignment & Metrics
 Introducing planned gift
options can get a gift
conversation “stuck”
 I want every meeting to
get us closer to the
“close” – I’m less likely
to introduce something
new or unknown if it will
take me farther from
closing the gift
 When gifts don’t “count”
it sours the conversation
for development officers
and for donors
 Planned gifts are treated
as “second-class
citizens”
“If it’s not measured, it won’t get done.”

Training
Most effective training
techniques:
 Prospect strategy
sessions with gift
planning officers
 Role play
 1:1 training with gift
planning officers
 Prospect strategy
sessions with managers
 Joint visits
 Constituent-specific
strategies – what gift
planning vehicles would
work best with graduates
of a particular field (i.e.
Engineering, Education)
Training
While abundant gift planning training opportunities exist, it’s essential to
recognize which methods development officers feel are the most effective.
Note that without proper incentives and recognition measures, development
officers were clear that training alone could not truly impact the number of
gift planning conversations taking place.
That being said, nearly every person interviewed felt that current gift
planning training focused too much on naming giving vehicles and
describing their functionality. This method does not “stick,” primarily for
lack of use: consider that a development officer might work on one or two
prospective gift annuity donors for every ten the gift planning office sees.
Also frequently mentioned was role-playing – and usually with the caveat
that nobody likes it (in fact, most hate it), but that it works.
The preferred method of training was individualized prospect-review
sessions, with development officers providing specific donor situations for
the gift planning colleague to consider and suggest strategies. Due to the
stated crisis of confidence most development officers referenced, focusing on
increasing the number of individualized and prospect-specific training
sessions could create both the knowledge and the script necessary to enhance
gift planning conversations with donors.
Most development officers wanted to go on more dual or joint visits with gift
planning colleagues (aptly called the “four-legged visit” by one interviewee)
in order to hear the language and “pitch” used. They also preferred examples
that used stories, which were much easier to remember and recount with
donors than giving vehicle names and functions.
However, many different training methods were referenced, and
development officers commented that a variety of methods should be used in
combination.
Specific gift planning tools requested by development officers:
 Describe the X type of donor who is ideal for Y gift planning vehicle
 Provide a script I can use to open the gift planning conversation
 Tell me the “cues and clues” or “buzz words” I should listen for or use
during my donor conversations
 What do I say when my donor says…?
 Give me a list of questions I should ask my donor
 Help me memorize the function of each giving vehicle in 2-3 sentences

Prospecting
The Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook (2014) estimates that 840,068 people in the United States
have a net worth over $10M2
. When divided between the numbers of nonprofits launching multi-million-
or multi-billion-dollar campaigns, this prospect pool suddenly feels very small. In addition, most in
development now understand that the portfolios of high-net-worth individuals are largely held in non-cash
assets (about 74%3
).
Number of Individuals in U.S. with Net Worth of $10M+4
Net Worth
$
# of
Individuals
in U.S.
10–50M 777,209
50–100M 42,279
100–500M 19,040
500–1B 1,036
over 1B 504
840,068
Asset Allocation for Individuals in North America5
2
Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook 2014, p112. <https://publications.credit-
suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=5521F296-D460-2B88-081889DB12817E02>. Accessed April 22, 2015.
3
2014 survey by Capgemini RBC Wealth Management, and Scorpio Partnership Global HNW Insights.
<https://www.worldwealthreport.com/reports/asset_allocation>. Accessed 4/22/15.
4
Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook 2014, p112. <https://publications.credit-
suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=5521F296-D460-2B88-081889DB12817E02>. Accessed April 22, 2015.
5
2014 survey by Capgemini RBC Wealth Management, and Scorpio Partnership Global HNW Insights.
<https://www.worldwealthreport.com/reports/asset_allocation>. Accessed 4/22/15.
26.6%

Therefore, in all of the interview areas, prospecting is a bright opportunity
for gift planning departments. Development officers are eager and excited
to partner with gift planning colleagues on identifying and cultivating new
donor prospects. How they suggest doing this is a bit more complicated.
When asked whether gift planners or development officers should visit a
potential planned giving prospect first, there were strong preferences:
unfortunately, they were equally-divided between the two options. With no
clear response, additional research should be done in this area to determine
which method is most effective.
Not surprisingly, those development officers creating a portfolio or
managing newer employees wanted more new prospects to themselves,
without “competing” with gift planning. The issue of trust and metrics came
up frequently, and a strong trust-based relationship seemed to make other
issues – such as who visits a prospect first – less important.
Most agreed that dual discovery visits are awkward to introduce and to
carry out. While one development officer suggested qualifying next steps
for new prospects on a case-by-case basis, this may not be realistic for those
with large, untapped prospect pools.
At all levels and across all institutions, the majority of development officers
preferred not to receive a large and “random” list of prospects. They
requested guidance, segmentation, training, and follow-up to hold them
accountable to the appropriate activity for the prospect names offered. Quite
a few stated that they just had “too many lists” and gift planning was simply
one more to add to the pile.
While preferring a single person to perform discovery work, nearly every
development officer eagerly anticipated any opportunity to bring a gift
planning professional on a future visit. This is an encouraging finding for
expanding the partnership opportunities with new prospects as well as all
direct-donor activities.
Prospecting
 I have too many lists and
I don’t know how to
prioritize the one you are
giving me [from gift
planning]
 I should do the discovery
visit
 Gift Planning should do
the discovery visit
 Dual discovery visits are
awkward
 I need “bite-sized”
chunks, and want to work
together on strategy
One development officer created an interesting metaphor: if you are hoping
someone will decide to remodel their bathroom, you would rather send the
salesperson in first (the development officer), before the structural engineer gets
involved (the gift planning officer).

Stewardship
Development officers are hired to close the gift – and not just one gift, but
many gifts. While they recognize the value of long-term relationships and
enjoy working with past (or current) donors, their inner drive and typically
their metrics trend toward closing the next new gift.
This places a strain on all stewardship activities, not just planned gifts,
especially when the expectations are not clearly outlined in the goals or
metrics for the development officer. However, planned gifts bear an
additional burden because these gifts and relationships may require multiple
decades of effort.
Most development officers said that both they and their academic partners
love stewarding donors, but they just do not know how to do it well and
efficiently. Aside from better understanding their leadership’s expectations,
multiple development officers mentioned that packaging any ready-made
stewardship opportunities would be very helpful and easy to apply to a small
set of donors on a regular basis.
Nearly everyone interviewed recognized that a planned gift donor might later
be a new or repeat major gift donor. However, one development officer
compared the pressures for them and for their academic partners to political
campaigns: it’s hard to care too much for the next generation if you are
worried about getting re-elected now.
One development officer pointed out how difficult it is for her dean to
steward a planned giving donor where there is not a prior relationship: either
because the gift came years prior or because the donor did not need to
coordinate with the dean to make the gift. If you made it this far before the
NCPP session on October 18, 2016, come to the front of the room at the
beginning of the presentation to claim your prize. Another development
officer suggested that unrealized or over-valued bequest intentions have a
negative impact: development officers and academic partners start to
question the level of stewardship provided to bequest pledges if planned gifts
do not ultimately equal their originally-stated value.
These comments aside, the grand majority of development officers
interviewed felt that they and their academic partners truly care about the
long-term future of the institution, appreciate existing planned gifts, and want
to do their part (within reason) to steward these gifts to help ensure they
ultimately benefit the organization.
Stewardship
 I love doing it
[stewardship], but how
much time am I supposed
to be spending?
 I like to close the gift and
then move on to the next
big gift.
 We are running so lean,
that it seems like there
are limited donor
relations options.
 I worry about over-
stewarding an expected
amount, if the realized
amount ends up being
much lower.
"Everyone should help steward, but we need
guidance because it takes time and strategy.”

Summary
As important as what was said, was what was left unsaid. Those interviewed did not question the need for
stronger partnerships between planned giving and major gifts functions: it seems the case has been made
and it is now a matter of how best to act on it.
Using metrics and incentives, as well as focusing gift planning training sessions on empowering
development officers should tighten the partnership between major and planned gifts. Leadership should
emphasize the potential for blended gifts to have a significant impact on campaign goals, and the growing
market for gifting non-cash assets. Creating straightforward processes for working with prospects and
providing easily-implemented stewardship opportunities should also help align all aspects of the
development operation with gift planning efforts.
Once equipped with the instruments, instructions, and inspiration they need, a full army of skilled
(enough) development officers will partner with their donors and their gift planning officers, feeling
empowered and eager to close more planned gifts for their organization.

By Katy Herbert Kotlarczyk
University of Colorado, July 2015
Ideas to Strengthen the Major Gift and Planned Gift Partnership
So where do development and planned giving officers go from here? Perhaps a few ideas resulting from
these interviews could help strengthen the gift planning and major gift partnership:
Perceptions ProspectingMetrics StewardshipTraining
Celebrate realized
bequests, especially
unexpected estate
distributions, to
make planned gift
pledges more
tangible and
meaningful now.
Make the objective of
each gift planning
training session to
increase confidence,
not knowledge.
Repeat often what a
development officer
truly should know
and do, and when it’s
okay to “not know”
and lean on subject-
matter experts.
Support this with
references to past
donor expectations.
Determine what
method works best to
decrease fear and
increase comfort for
each development
officer, and try to
allocate more
resources toward
those efforts.
Use simple and
inexpensive methods
to recognize
development officers
who secure new
planned gifts. Phone
calls, emails, and
group-references
from leadership,
managers, and
academic partners
were mentioned as
impactful ways to
show the value of
planned gifts.
Set metrics that
expect and “count”
new planned gift
intentions:
prefer straight-
forward and specific
goals.
Send smaller,
targeted prospect
lists with a note that
the gift planning
office will make the
first call unless the
development officer
removes names or
selects specific
people from the list.
Send small handfuls
of donors as
“assignments” to
specific development
officers, consistently
checking back to
discuss a varied
menu of prospect
strategies and
potential next steps.
Go with development
officers on dual
visits, no matter who
discovers the
prospect.
Define one or two
packaged items each
year that
could easily use to
steward current
planned gift donors.
Identify a bequest
gift range (i.e.
$1M+) when
are expected to keep
planned giving
donors in their
portfolio and steward
them, and assign a
percent of time they
should spend on this
effort.
Make it easy to add
planned giving
donors to invitation
lists for events across
the organization.
Allocate a more
significant amount of
gift planning
resources toward
individualized
prospect strategy
sessions with
development
officers.
Focus larger group
trainings on telling
stories of existing or
recently-closed
planned gifts.
Use case studies with
simple language and
specific donor
examples. Do not
over-explain the gift
technique and do
proactively remind
that they do not need
to remember the
details.
Ask development
officers what
specific tools might
help. For example, a
“Cues and Clues”
sheet that lists
specific words that
indicate they should
call the gift planning
office.
Save any technical
training for more
personalized sessions,
tailoring the gift
technique to the
needs of that
development officer
and their primary
donor constituency.
Tier group training
sessions for
by the numbers of
years of experience
they have or by the
number of planned
gifts they have
closed.

We Help Donors Consider
WHAT to give to CU
WHEN to give to CU
• Outright
• After Lifetime
• Life Income
OR

Name That Gift Opportunity
• A woman complains about taking a
required minimum distribution on her IRA.
• A couple is tired of taking care of their
beach-front rental property.
• A 75-year-old says he’s giving his whole
trust to CU after he dies.

• An 80-year-old has savings bonds
maturing.
• A 45-year-old man talks about avoiding
probate.
• A 70 year old is unhappy with the income
she is receiving from investments.

• A father wants to retire and pass his share
of the family business to his son.
• Parents want as much as possible to go to
their kids.
• A long-time Colorado resident never plans
to move.

Kotlarczyk_NCPP_Training an Army of Gift Planners_Plus Handouts_2016

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (8)

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Semelhante a Kotlarczyk_NCPP_Training an Army of Gift Planners_Plus Handouts_2016

Semelhante a Kotlarczyk_NCPP_Training an Army of Gift Planners_Plus Handouts_2016 (20)

Kotlarczyk_NCPP_Training an Army of Gift Planners_Plus Handouts_2016