This is a preview of restricted content.
- If you are an Advisory Board member, please log in.
- If you are logged in and still see this message, the content is outside your memberships portfolio, and we invite you to learn more by contacting us.
- If you are not an Advisory Board member and wish to learn more, please contact us.
Topics: Philanthropy, Performance Improvement, Strategy
The Performance Analyzer is an online tool enabling member access to and analysis of data collected through our Performance Benchmarking Initiative. It houses the Council’s database of revenue and expense performance from over 160 hospital and health system foundations and development offices.
The tool allows users to view performance statistics for the entire group or to narrow their analysis to focus on a smaller cohort. Users may choose from among nine different characteristics, such as staff size or market affluence, to build a cohort. In addition, each institution that submitted data to the Initiative has been assigned to a “Council Peer Group,” a cohort of five to fifteen institutions deemed appropriate comparators by the Council.
All staff at all member institutions may access the Performance Analyzer at any time. To view your own institution’s performance data, however, you must provide your Institution ID. These IDs will be provided only to the Chief Development Officer of each member institution. The CDO may obtain the ID by contacting philanthropy@advisory.com.
Implementation Assistance
Orientation to the Performance Analyzer
When the Performance Analyzer is launched, the Metrics Report will display data reflecting the performance of all organizations participating in the Performance Benchmarking Initiative, as is indicated in the blue area across the top of the screen. The first chart displayed is Overall – Total Funds Raised; you may use the expandable menu, Performance Graphs, on the left side of the screen to view other metrics on overall performance (e.g., average gift size) or to drill down into a specific development program (e.g., planned giving). You may also see a Performance Summary for your institution or alter the definition of funds raised from the navigation bar on the left. As a default, the Performance Analyzer reports outright gifts plus new pledges as funds raised, and excludes pledge payments. You may choose an alternate definition under Funds Raised Definition on the lower left.
If your institution submitted data and you have logged in using the appropriate Institution ID, you may also analyze your performance relative to your Council Peer Group. This is a cohort of five to fifteen institutions that we have selected as appropriate comparators for your institution. We have created these groups based on several factors including development budget, staff size, maturity, and type and size of institution served. We do not plan to reveal the members of each group at this time. To analyze your peer group, select Council Peer Group from the drop-down box under Cohorts in the top left corner of the screen.
Should you wish to build your own cohort for analysis, you may do so by clicking New under the Cohorts drop-down box in the top left corner of the screen. After naming the cohort, you will be directed to the Cohort Definition screen.
Cohorts are created by process of elimination. When a new cohort is created, the Performance Analyzer includes the entire participant sample by default. You, then, exclude foundations according to their characteristics. For example, if you wish to narrow your cohort to foundations in wealthy markets, click on the relevant characteristic (Market Affluence) and de-select the least affluent segments shown. As you do so, you will notice the Comparator Count shown on the right getting smaller. There are nine characteristics you may customize; to continue to narrow your cohort, select Click here to choose characteristics on the bottom right to return to the full list of nine characteristics. To preserve data confidentiality, you may not narrow your cohort to fewer than five participants.
When you are finished defining the cohort, select Click here to view results to return to the Metrics Report. You will see the cohort name displayed in the blue area across the top of the screen, as well as the count of foundations represented. All data displayed reflects the performance of the selected cohort. To edit the definition of an existing cohort, click Edit under Cohort in the top left corner of the screen. To analyze a different, existing cohort, choose that cohort by name from the drop-down list provided.
Data Submission
If my institution did not submit data, can we still use the Performance Analyzer?
Yes. When asked for an Institution ID, leave the ID box blank and click continue. You will be able to view the Metrics Report and create and analyze cohorts, but the bar on each graph designed to show the institution’s performance will be missing.
My institution would like to submit data. How do we do that?
All necessary instructions and forms are located on the Benchmarking page, which you may access from the navigation bar on the left.
My institution submitted data, but our performance does not display for some metrics. Why?
Your institution may not have submitted complete data. This is most likely to affect metrics that depend on expense data, as a small subset of participating institutions completed only the first phase of data submission (focusing on revenue) but did not complete the second phase (focusing on expenses). If your institution did submit expense data but the Performance Analyzer is still not displaying all metrics, please e-mail philanthropy@advisory.comor call 202-266-5555. If your institution did not submit expense data but would now like to do so, you may find the Phase II data request on the benchmarking page on our website. Please be sure that the time period for which you complete Phase II matches the time period reflected in your Phase I submission.
Why doesn’t the data I am getting from the Performance Analyzer match the publication Toward a Higher Standard and my institution’s individual report?
The Performance Analyzer analyzes a “live” database. We update the database on a regular basis as new institutions submit their data and as prior participants submit revisions. This fact should not have a major effect on analyses of larger groups, but may cause significant changes in results for analysis of small groups. There should be no change to your institution’s performance data unless revisions were submitted.
In using the system, I have noticed some errors in my own institution’s data. How do I fix them?
You must submit a revised data request. Please e-mail philanthropy@advisory.com with a request for your current data file. We will e-mail the file to you and then you may make changes and re-submit it. Please be sure to obtain the data file from us before making revisions; we may have edited your original submission based on conversations with you, so our records will reflect the most up-to-date version.
My institution submitted data previously, but would like to update it. How do we do that?
Use our standard data requests for Phase I and Phase II to add a more recent year. When completing the requests, you need only provide the single year of data, rather than a three-year period. All instructions and forms are located on the Benchmarking page.
Data Access
How are you ensuring the confidentiality of our data?
We ensure confidentiality in three ways. First, institution-specific data is protected with a nine-digit Institution ID available only to the CDO at each participating institution. Second, the Performance Analyzer can only be accessed by registered users of advisory.com, which validates the e-mail domain. Finally, the Performance Analyzer will only display results for groups of at least five institutions, making it impossible to narrow the cohort to an isolated institution.
How do I get the Institution ID for my institution?
Check with your CDO first, as we provided Institution IDs to all CDOs upon launch of the Performance Analyzer. If the CDO has no record of the Institution ID, send an e-mail to webhelp@advisory.com. We will e-mail the ID to the CDO.
Is the ID just for me or for everyone at my institution?
There is only one Institution ID for each institution, but we also require that you are logged in to our website to access the Performance Analyzer. This allows us to save your cohort definitions in an area that only you will access. For this reason, you should be sure to log in using your own username and website password when launching advisory.com.
Can my CEO see this data?
While we encourage you to share your performance results with leadership at your institution, we also recognize that you may wish to do so at a time of your own choosing. Access to your institution’s data is essentially password-protected as we only release the Institution ID to the CDO.
I would like to use some of the charts from the Performance Analyzer in a presentation. Can I do that?
Yes, you may copy and paste the charts. Place your cursor just above the chart title on the Metrics Report, then click and drag downward to highlight everything you wish to copy.
I would like to print charts from the Performance Analyzer. Can I do that?
Yes. Use the menu on the left side of the screen to display the graph you wish to print. Select File then Print on the menu bar at the top of the screen, then set the printer properties to landscape (rather than portrait) orientation to ensure the entire graph fits on the page.
Analyzing Cohorts
Can I analyze a cohort for which my institution does not meet the inclusion criteria?
Yes. When you are on the Cohort Definition page, the Comparator Count box at the top right will indicate whether or not your institution is included in the cohort. In either case, you will still be able to view the Metrics Report for that cohort.
I built a cohort, but the Performance Analyzer will not display return on investment (ROI) or expense metrics. Why not?
Data collection for the Performance Benchmarking Initiative occurs in two phases, the first focusing on revenue, the second on expenses. A small number of institutions completed the first phase, but did not submit their second phase data regarding expenses. As a result, the comparator count for metrics that depend upon expenses is sometimes smaller than the count for metrics that depend only on revenue. The Performance Analyzer will display data for a metric only if there are at least five institutions within the cohort that reported performance for that particular metric. If you are experiencing this problem, we recommend you edit the cohort to make it slightly larger, increasing the likelihood that at least five institutions in the cohort will have submitted expense data.
I used the Performance Analyzer last month and got different results than I am getting today. Why?
The tool analyzes a “live” database. We update the database on a regular basis as new institutions submit their data and as prior participants submit revisions. This fact should not have a major effect on analyses of larger groups, but may cause significant changes in results for analysis of small groups.
Is there a way to see data in all performance areas without having to click on each one separately?
You may view the cohort’s median performance across all overall metrics by clicking Summary Metrics on the left side of the Metrics Report. This will also provide your institution’s performance across all metrics and all fundraising programs.
Why can’t I pick more than one foundation size characteristic?
The tool only allows users to filter on one foundation size characteristic (staff size, funds raised or expenses) to ensure a true performance comparison. If you were to choose a cohort that had roughly the same resources and the same revenue as your organization, you would effectively be choosing a group that is performing at your same level. By allowing you to choose only one of these characteristics, we are promoting the most accurate analysis of performance.
In the Hospital Type characteristic, what is the difference between “General” and “Complex” institutions?
This difference in classification is determined by the institution’s Case Mix Index (CMI). CMI is a measurement derived by Medicare to reflect the complexity of care at a hospital. Community hospitals tend to have a lower CMI than academic or tertiary medical centers. We consider institutions with a CMI of less than 1.7 to be “General Adult Hospitals” and those with a CMI of 1.7 or above to be “Complex Adult Hospitals.” We assign health systems based on the highest CMI across all system hospitals.
Why is there a characteristic for Years in Major Giving?
We use Years in Major Giving as a proxy for foundation age to allow you to narrow your analysis based on the maturity of the development effort. Many hospital foundations were established a long time ago, but only recently began elevating the sophistication of their fundraising efforts.
How do I narrow my analysis just to Academic Medical Centers?
At this time, the Performance Analyzer cannot isolate academic medical centers. This is due to varying interpretations of what constitutes an academic medical center. If your desire is to assess performance only of complex institutions, then we recommend you narrow your cohort to “Complex Adult Hospitals” under Hospital Type. This will isolate institutions with a Case Mix Index of 1.7 or greater. In the future, we hope to add the capability to filter for research mission, but we do not offer that feature presently.
What is the Council Peer Group?
This is a cohort of five to fifteen institutions that we have selected as appropriate comparators for your institution. We have created these groups based on several factors including development budget, staff size, maturity, and type and size of institution served. To analyze your peer group, select Council Peer Group from the drop-down box under Cohorts in the top left corner of the screen.
Can I find out who is in my Council Peer Group?
We do not plan to reveal the members of each peer group at this time.
Methodology and Definitions
What year is this data?
To account for the volatility of fundraising revenue, the data reflects an average across a three-year period for each institution. The specific reporting period varies by institution, as it is based on the most recently completed fiscal year for the institution at the time the data was submitted At the time of the initial launch of the Performance Analyzer, about half of the institutions reported data for FY2002-FY2004 and about half reported for FY2003-FY2005.
Does this database include foundations as well as development offices?
Yes. For the sake of simplicity, we use the term “foundation” to refer to all respondents whether they are structured as a hospital department or a separate foundation.
How does the Performance Analyzer differentiate between stand-alone hospitals and health systems?
Our methodology collected data according to the structure of the fundraising effort at the participating institution. Some health systems have independent development efforts at each hospital; for these institutions, we collected data from each hospital as a stand-alone, though we did allocate the cost of central system development efforts to each of them. Other systems have one centralized development effort; in those cases, we collected the data only from the centralized entity. The characteristic, Hospital Size, allows you to select (or de-select) systems with centralized development efforts.
What does “overall” mean in the Performance Analyzer?
“Overall” refers to the aggregate performance across all five fundraising programs: corporate and foundation giving, major giving, planned giving, annual giving and special events. “Overall” does not include “other revenue” such as interest income, agency fundraising (e.g., United Way), in-kind gifts, non-liquidated gifts of personal property, and government grants. These other revenue sources are not reflected anywhere in the performance analyzer.
What revenue and expenses are excluded from this analysis?
“Other revenue” and expenses related to generating that revenue are excluded from the data. “Other revenue” includes interest income, agency fundraising (e.g., United Way), in-kind gifts, non-liquidated gifts of personal property, and government grants. For the median institution, “other revenue” accounted for 9% of total foundation revenue. Our methodology also excludes expenses related to occupying and maintaining space, as well as any atypical foundation expenses. For more information on what is considered atypical, please see the Introduction and Worksheet 2 of the Phase II Data Request, which is available on the Benchmarking page of the Philanthropy Leadership Council website.
What is included in each of the three choices for defining “funds raised”?
All three definitions exclude “other revenue” such as interest income, agency fundraising (e.g., United Way), in-kind gifts, non-liquidated gifts of personal property, and government grants. The Performance Analyzer’s default definition of funds raised, Outright Gifts + Pledges, includes outright gifts, new documented pledges, realized bequests (as a proxy for bequest commitments), and the present value of new irrevocable deferred gift commitments. Outright Gifts Only includes outright gifts, as well as any dollars realized from new, irrevocable deferred gift commitments in the same year the commitment is made. All New Cash includes outright gifts, pledge payments, realized bequests, and realized deferred gifts.
Why does Corporate and Foundation Giving account for such a large share of funds raised and demonstrate such high ROI?
Our methodology required respondents to report any contribution drawn on a business account as a corporate gift. In reality, many gifts drawn on business accounts are personal gifts from the owner of a small or moderately-sized business, such as a homebuilder or a car dealer. Our methodology captures these gifts in the Corporate category, though one could argue they belong under Major Giving. This has the effect of making the funds raised from Corporate Giving somewhat higher and the funds raised from Major Giving somewhat lower than other methodologies would. Our methodology also requested that development expenses related to these gifts, including gift officer time, be reported in the same category. While respondents adhered to our request to place the revenue for certain gifts in the Corporate category, we suspect they were less precise about allocating the expenses consistently. As such, the ROI for Corporate Giving is boosted at the expense of the ROI for Major Giving. The Performance Analyzer allows you to combine these categories in your analysis to eliminate any skewing resulting from lack of compliance to the methodology.
How are planned gifts counted?
To guard against double-counting and to ensure a focus on current performance, our preferred definition for “funds raised” across the various fundraising activities (major giving, annual giving, etc.) is to include outright gifts and new pledges made in the study period and to exclude payments made on pledges secured in earlier time periods. If we were to adhere to this rule for planned giving, then we would have included new planned gift intentions, many of which are revocable and, therefore, less certain than pledges. We chose instead to limit our consideration of expectancies to those that were documented and irrevocable and to use realized bequests (likely committed to in prior years and, thus, outside the bounds of our methodology) as a substitute for undocumented or revocable commitments. An imperfect solution to be sure, but the best available from our perspective.
How did you define each institution’s market for the data on wealth, generosity and population density?
During data submission, participants provided a list of the highest-volume zip codes accounting for 75% of inpatient admissions at their institution, which we considered to be their market. We merged this list with both public and purchased data to derive the market-specific data.
