Cal Poly Foundation
Recreation, Parks and Tourism Administration Program
Campaign Readiness Assessment
Prepared by
NETZEL ASSOCIATES, INC.
December 7, 2007
Assessment Objectives

Evaluate institutional capacity

Image of The REC Program

Perceptions of effectiveness in fulfilling mission

Strengths and weaknesses

Volunteer leadership and staff capacity
2
Assessment Objectives


Determine most likely fundraising goal

Strength of case for support

Potential major contributors

Potential campaign leadership

External factors
Recommend a plan of action
3
Assessment Process

Staff and counsel:



Netzel Associates conducted 15 interviews:




Reviewed case for support
Compiled & prioritized list of prospective interviewees
Advisory Council
Cal Poly involvement (inc. alumni)
Leaders from industry, or broader community
Industries represented: Hospitality, Marketing/Hospitality,
Tourism, Events/Tourism, Events, Marketing Events,
Parks/Rec/Community Service, Commercial Recreation,
Sports Management, Foundation
4
Institutional Capacity

Positive reputation





Effective in fulfilling mission
Effective compared to similar organizations
Far-reaching program
Prepares students for work environment
Identity and mission




Majority unfamiliar with mission or program
Identity is developing
Bolder mission statement
Stronger promotion of tourism aspect
5
Institutional Capacity

Strengths

Practical curriculum

Range of hands-on learning experiences

Involved & highly-supportive faculty

Employment opportunities

“Learn-by-doing” method

Ready for work post-graduation
6
Institutional Capacity


Primary needs for REC Program to address

Preparing students for real work environment

Providing leadership & communications skills

Providing in-depth knowledge of the service industry
Program considered “neutral” in meeting these needs
7
Institutional Capacity

Suggested areas for improvement

Increase visibility

Address tourism industry overall
Ex: Business & finance

Expand range of experiences
Restaurants, hotels, airlines, wedding planning,
florists, catering, gaming industry
8
Institutional Capacity

Advisory Council





Effective in management
Newness of group
Moderately influential
Low fundraising capacity
Dr. Bill Hendricks & faculty highly-regarded

Involvement in fundraising campaign crucial
9
Institutional Capacity
Council Assessment
Governance
Highly effectiv e/effec tive
Neutra l
Ineffectiv e/
highly ineffec tiv e
Influence
Highl y infl uential/infl uential
Neutra l
Ineffectiv e/
highly ineffec tiv e
Fundraising
Capacity
Highl y effe cti ve /effective
0%
20%
Ineffectiv e/
highly ineffec tiv e
Neutra l
40%
60%
80%
100 %
10
Case for Support

Largely agreed with campaign, but some concerns:


Funding from private industry versus Council members
Low level of importance to industry
Program insulated
from supporters
Program’s value not demonstrated

Interviewees’ suggested factors for success:




Grow reputation
Market economic impact on businesses/organizations
Broaden network & utilize university resources
Clearly define plans & objectives
11
Case for Support

Case does not appear to be adequately compelling or
urgent to raise the $2M goal




One new hire will not resonate with donors
Only a short-term goal
Realistic, but not visionary in scope
More strongly suggested strategies by interviewees:



Create bolder, more compelling vision
Build existing program internally
Develop stronger volunteer leadership & faculty
fundraising capacity
12
Fundraising Goal



Sufficient major gift potential to support $2M goal not
identified at this time
Strengthen identity, profile & fundraising capacity for
larger, more visionary campaign in the future
Majority would endorse campaign & give a gift


No gifts identified at $50,000 & above
8 gifts offered at specific levels:
4 @ $10,000+
Four under $10,000
13
Fundraising Goal

Interviewees recommended 53 potential sources, a
large portion being corporations:



At $250,000+: 16 corporations, 4 foundations, 7
individuals
At $100,000—$249,999: 7 corporations, 19
individuals
At $50,000—$99,999: No sources suggested
14
Volunteer Support

Sufficient leadership potential was identified

All interviewees would consider providing leadership

Involvement of additional high-powered individuals
from private sector will be crucial
15
Recommendations


Do not launch an endowment campaign of $2 million
at this time.
Over the next 18 months, build fundraising capacity of
the Program through the following:

Examine the mission & vision of The REC Program

Elevate the program to department status

Strongly consider changing the program’s name
16
Recommendations

Strengthen the Advisory Council

Increase Council by 8-10 members:
Individuals of high wealth capacity
Key leaders of corporate & industry entities


Provide development coaching
Increase the Council’s exposure to current
students & alumni
17
Recommendations

Develop a public relations plan

Update collateral materials with revised vision

Communicate program’s impact on the industry
Continue to profile alumni accomplishments
Engage faculty, Council & university resources to
promote the program among industry leaders
Create a Director’s Letter



18
Recommendations



Develop a list of 25 qualified priority donor prospects
Create a full-time professional position focused on
fundraising
Authorize retaining professional development
counsel
19
Recommendations

Follow up with interviewees



Meet personally with selected interviewees
Send letters of appreciation and a summary of
findings to all others
Upon completing recommendations, reassess
readiness for a major fundraising effort

Expanded endowment development program

Coordinated with a University-wide comprehensive
campaign
20
Special Thanks to:
The REC Program’s
Advisory Council,
Faculty and Staff!