By ISM’s definition, advancement refers to the strategic process1 by which a school advances its mission through the integration of its admission, development, and marketing and communications programs. Each specialty area within advancement has particular “performance characteristics” commonly needed to carry out the function with great effectiveness. Identifying the characteristics most pertinent to each role in your advancement area will guide the school in hiring outstanding professionals as well as in coaching, mentoring, and supporting incumbents toward their greatest effectiveness and impact.

ISM has long held that stable schools have strategic Boards. A capital campaign grounded in the Board’s understanding of (and commitment to) its strategic role is critical for campaign success. The use of the word strategic is intentional. “A strategic Board is one that sees its core role as building a financial/organizational platform that ensures that the institution will be able to fulfill its mission on behalf of the next generation of students … [by]… sustain(ing) long-term programmatic excellence.” The following set of four core elements critical to institutional readiness as the Board considers embarking on a capital campaign.

ISM has recently published several articles on the 21st Century School, all addressing the changing nature of the classroom experience. No less dramatic are the changes taking place in school resource management, resulting from the need for schools to maintain strong enrollment and to generate increasing amounts of gift and auxiliary revenue—all within the context of a challenging economy. These changes require that the school’s message be coordinated to engage a donor base that is sophisticated in gathering and synthesizing information from multiple sources. Admission prospects and donors are demanding the demonstration of value, and philanthropy must now fulfill their interest as much as it meets institutional need. In view of these changing circumstances, the 21st Century School is compelled now to coordinate the roles of admission, development, and marketing/communicating.

One of the most important tools your school needs when conducting a major fund-raising campaign is a gift chart. This illustrates to your donors and prospects how many gifts you must receive—and in what amounts—to reach your campaign goal. Gift charts are not created by the following math: to raise $500,000, we will ask 100 people for $5,000. Instead, what is required is a gift chart built like a pyramid—the campaign needs one top gift, several leadership gifts, and many smaller gifts.

As School Head, you want to assure that there is solid alignment between the way you and your marketing team portray your school and the actual outcomes your graduates experience. For example, if you tell others that you offer one of the leading college preparatory programs in your area, you want to be able to back that up with data about your graduates’ college experiences that substantiate your claims. You also want to be able to celebrate the successes of your graduates in ways that reinforce your mission, help keep your alumni engaged, and align your alumni’s values with your mission and vision so as to enable more robust financial support of your school.

In a 2007 study, the Association of Fundraising Professionals found that Development Directors stayed at an organization an average of 3.6 years (3.5 for females and 4.17 for males). Given the time it takes for a Development Director to gain trust with a Board and develop relationships with school donors, it is important to develop strategies that would enable your school to keep its Development Director for a lengthy period of time.

Your school is preparing for a capital or comprehensive campaign.1 As Development Director or Advancement Director, you want to ensure that the campaign will be successful, so you’ve contracted with outside fund-raising counsel to provide a feasibility study to test whether your campaign dollar goal is achievable. While testing a dollar goal is part of what you will determine from the study results, you are not getting the full value if you stop there. A robust feasibility study tests the waters for a particular campaign, and also tests institutional readiness and lays the foundation for long-term development success.

ISM has defined advancement as “the process by which a school supports admission, development, and marketing/communication programs.” To stress its direct relationship to faculty, we will now add another aspect to this definition—“to provide the resources for strong and sustained student performance, enthusiasm, and satisfaction.”

In its work with schools, ISM often hears Development Directors say that the annual fund goal is determined by the Board and School Head, based on the “gap” between expenses and expected revenues (often referred to as the “plug number”) with little consideration of data gathered by the Development Office. Further, the performance of Development Offices is frequently evaluated based on the school’s ability to meet these goals. In ISM’s experience, budgeting for gift income and evaluating the development program in this way provides an inaccurate picture of the school’s financial resources and the true fund-raising potential of the school’s constituents.

ISM recently surveyed a random sample of Development Directors from our I&P subscriber schools; 277 responded. (See “About the Respondents” for more information on survey participants.) This article focuses on the competition that private-independent schools face in hiring and retaining Development Directors, and on the role salary plays in this process.