Home  |  News on the Blog  Job Postings  |  Save the Dates  |  Share your success!  |  Contributors  |  About  |  Site Map  |  Search  |  Contact Us
  Peer Screening Research
Overview | Essentials | Timing of Activities | What to Include in Lists | Other Considerations | Screening Checklist | Sample Memo | Instructions

Peer ScreeningInstructions for Screeners

  • We're assembled today to take part in an evaluation process developed to identify alumni and friends who have the financial capacity to provide important support to the university through a major gift.
     

  • As a participant you are part of a nationwide program involving friends and alumni in over ____ cities. You have all generously agreed to review a list of your fellow alumni and friends and evaluate those in a position to provide important support for the institution.
     

  • In a few minutes we will begin a silent review, or "screening", of the names included in your booklet. There are approximately 2,000 entries -- individuals you may likely know from your community (ies), classmates, colleagues, fraternity brothers, etc.
     

  • These lists are computer generated, from our own alumni/donor database. We have compiled two different lists in each of your booklets: one list is in alphabetical order by area and one is by class year and school/college attended.
     

  • Some of the name you will be reviewing are already well known to us, but many are not. You may even find your own name in the list -- if that should be the case, please feel to provide a rating!
     

  • Let's tall a little about the ratings. The rating scale that we will be using today is printed on a card in your booklet. You may wish to use this card both as a handy reference and as a method to keep your place on the page. (DEMONSTRATE)
     

  • We're asking you to silently scan this list over the next sixty minutes and pencil in a rating, from those listed on the card, next to the names of those you know personally.
     

  • Remember, you will be estimating an individual's potential -- total financial capacity -- to give to all charities over a five year period. That means, for example, that an individual who may not be capable of a $100,000 gift could perhaps pledge that amount and give $20,000 annually over a period of five years. You would rate them at the $100,000 level.
     

  • Also keep in mind that you are evaluating what an individual could give if sufficiently interested, not what you think they will give. Although we're always interested in better understanding the degree of an alum or friend's enchantment or disenchantment with the institution, this should not be a factor in probability. Let me note, however, that any additional information you may have -- be it an individual's specific interests or concerns with the institution -- is gratefully accepted. You can write comments anywhere next to their name.
     

  • How do you rate an individual's potential, or capacity, to give? Remember, it is only an estimate. When several people make several appraisals, the average is often very accurate.
     

  • There are no hard and fast rules for determining potential. Your estimate may be one of many things, based on a lifetime of knowing someone. There are few obvious indicators that we do use, however, that may be helpful for you to keep in mind:

    - income
    - real property, i.e., home, real estate, etc.
    - professional affiliations ... board memberships (and resulting stock holdings)
    - other philanthropic activities and/or gifts
    - known family resources
     

  • If you'll turn to the ___ page in your booklet, we can talk for a moment about the format of this booklet. You'll see that names appear on the first list along with a spouse name, where applicable, and undergraduate (UG) or graduate (GR) class year and school or college attended (SC) (You will find a key for the schools on your rating card). City and state are provided, in the far right columns, but no other address information is given, as we find it tends to bias the way an individual may be rated.
     

  • To the left of each name you will see a space provided for your rating. Please pencil in the codes provided on your card here. The numbers in the far left column are for our own record keeping, so please don't concern yourself with them.
     

  • We appreciate any additional comments, aside from your rating, and you may write those anywhere. We're always in the process of updating and refining our records -- if you should come across the names of a couple who have been divorced, or an individual who is deceased, please indicate this for us.
     

  • Likewise, there may be names that you know, that should be rated, and are not included in these lists. Please don't hesitate to add them to the space provided on the last page of your booklets.
     

  • And finally, we recognize that screening is hard work ... a bit like reading the phone book ... and we sincerely appreciate the time you're dedicating. Don't feel that you need to closely study every name -- look only for those you know personally and rate them. We're not expecting you'll know many -- or most -- a 2% response is average, and very helpful to us. Be assured, also, that your ratings and comments will be kept in the strictest confidence.
     

  • Any questions?
     

  • We'll begin now, and work for approximately 60 minutes. Please feel free to help yourself to refreshments along the way, if you'd like, and take advantage to socialize with the friends gathered when you finish. Don't be concerned if you're not able to finish in the time allowed -- you can finish the booklet at a convenient time for you later on and return it to us in the stamped envelope I have with me.

 
Contributed by ...
 
Jennifer Cooper, Executive Director of Development Operations, Vanderbilt University
Email AddressSince April of 2004, Jennifer Cooper has had oversight responsibilities for Vanderbilt University's offices of Prospect Research, Information Management, and Gift/Record Processing. From 1993 to 2003, she was the Director of Research & Prospect Management at the University of Oregon Foundation. She has been a frequent presenter for both the Association of Professional Researchers for Advancement (APRA) and CASE. Last year, she served as co-chair for the CASE conference for Prospect Research, was the Prospect Management track chair at the APRA International Conference in Dallas, TX, and was the Prospect Research faculty for CASE's Summer Institute for Advancement Services in Nashville, TN. Jennifer has a BA in Public Relations and a BS in Telecommunications & Film both from the University of Oregon.

Supportingadvancement.com Overview of Peer Screening.

Supportingadvancement.com Prospect Screening Checklist.
 
iModules
 
  ↑  Top of Page  |  Feedback
SupportingAdvancement.com