WealthEngine Best Practices in Higher Education for Prospect ...

Best Practices
7
Balance Precision with
Timeliness in the Validation Process
When an organization acquires data through a wealth
screening, there is almost always a need for some initial
data confirmation and validation. Among HPOs providing
data concerning a recent screening, 94% included a validation
strategy in their implementation plan.
The extent to which the data is reviewed varies by organization,
and there is not one correct way to approach the
validation project. In reality, there is a continuum along
which an organization must find its unique point of maximum
return on investment (ROI). An organization’s placement
along the continuum depends on the robustness of
the prospect research staff, and the timeline for pushing
prospects to the front line. The development officers’
willingness to participate actively in the qualification and
assessment of new prospects is also a factor.
Because of the very nature of the wealth screening process
and the match logic used to link data to specific prospects
or constituents, there is inevitably some mismatched data
returned for some minor subset of constituents. Generally
speaking, in less than 10% of cases, screening ratings are
higher than warranted. 1 Where screening ratings are too
high, it is most frequently occurs when:
A constituent matches to securities data that actually
belongs to another individual with the same name. This
happens most often among constituents with common
names.
Fathers/sons or mothers/daughters share the same
name, particularly when they live in the same household
or work at the same business.
Indirect stock holdings inflate the holdings of a financial
services sector professional who manages funds for others.
This suggests that, at a minimum, those records representing
constituents matching to securities data—especially
those who have common names, those for whom the
organization has records for multiple generations of the
same family, and those with large indirect stock holdings—
should be reviewed prior to investing in cultivation activities.
A quick review of these particular areas of ambiguity
will allow the data to be released with some confidence to
the front-line fundraising team for action in the quickest
possible time-frame. Once contacts are made, appointments
set, and cultivation strategies are set in motion,
additional data confirmation can be executed, additional
research performed, and an appropriate ask amount determined.
This is more easily and more accurately accomplished
with the input of both the researcher and the development
officer after the DOs independent assessment.
Approaching the verification process in this manner has
the added benefit that little if any research time is spent
profiling constituents who have no interest in the institution.
This will help eliminate from the research queue
prospects who are unlikely to accept a request for a visit
or other cultivation initiation. The potential downside is
that development officers may occasionally spend their
time or resources assessing a prospect that does not have
research-verified capacity. Given the ease with which DOs
can normally make an assessment, whether in-person or
via phone contact, the benefit of a faster validation process
often outweighs the downside of a few “wildcards.”
For some institutions, particularly those that have a substantial
research staff and whose time frame for releasing new
prospect names into the prospect pool is not necessarily
aggressive, more validation may be warranted. Typically,
the cost of research resources, including human and data
resources, is substantially below that of the cost of major gift
resources, including human and travel resources. Therefore,
when research support is available and time constraints are
minimal, it makes sense to confirm capacity ratings through
research, as well as illuminate any philanthropic interest
areas and connections to the particular organization that
data can provide.
This approach, while much costlier in terms of research
resources, may help utilize front-line fundraising staff more
efficiently. It will reduce—though not eliminate—the
number of unproductive calls development officers make.
This approach does not, however, negate the need for the
development officer to provide an independent assessment
of the prospect’s interest and affinity to the organization.
The development officer should also be tasked with
providing a rating—not to replace the capacity rating provided
through quantifiable research, but to provide insight
into how much the prospect may potentially donate to
the particular institution. This rating would be tied to a
particular gift opportunity and eventually, with luck, to a
proposal and closed gift.
1 In three independent studies comparing WealthEngine Capacity Ratings to an organization’s confirmed (verified) ratings, WealthEngine Capacity
ratings had a general accuracy of plus or minus 1 capacity range for 70% to 80% of records. In less than 10% of cases, the WealthEngine capacity
over-estimated a prospect’s capacity. In the remaining cases, the WealthEngine capacity under-estimated the prospects true capacity.
26 | WealthEngine