Leading the Campaign: Advancing Colleges and Universities (review)

In Leading the Campaign: Advancing Colleges and Universities, Michael J. Worth, for 35 years a development officer and consultant at George Washington University, discusses the fundamental strategies and elements of a comprehensive campaign.

Drawn from Worth’s long experience and scholarly research, this book provides a framework for planning and executing a comprehensive campaign with emphasis “on the strategic decisions that a campaign requires and on campaign leadership,” giving special consideration to the leadership role of institutional presidents (p. 1).

The first chapter, “The Comprehensive Campaign,” provides a brief account of early campaign strategies that resembled church models of “passing the plate” and appeals framed in religious contexts, then covers more directed efforts such as the “Ward method” or capital campaigns, and ultimately explores comprehensive campaigns that “integrate capital, annual, and planned gifts under one umbrella” (p. 6).

Worth devotes the majority of the chapters toward defining the six key principles of a campaign: announced goal and deadline, focused support for specific strategic priorities, rated prospect lists and specific asks, the principles of sequential fund-raising, volunteer leadership, and emphasis on major gifts.

In Chapters 2 and 3, Worth provides an overview of the structure of a campaign and the various methodologies in organizing the people, resources, and objectives toward a successful comprehensive campaign. In defining the six essential phases of a campaign, he collapses those phases into three broad categories: planning (planning phase), execution (quiet period, kickoff, public, closing phases), and post-campaign (evaluation, planning, and stewardship) (p. 21).

Before delving into the intricacies of each phase, Worth discusses the importance of organizing the campaign team. He emphasizes that the president is often the “personification of the institution in the minds of alumni and other donors” (p. 35). A very helpful characteristic of this text is the continual definition and explanation of the president’s role in the various phases of the campaign; but Worth also stresses the importance of having a supporting team of experienced fund-raising professionals and volunteers who execute the campaign’s various functions and duties.

Worth provides four basic models for committee and personnel organization: “by gift level or phase,” “by source of support,” “by academic unit, project, or priority,” and “by geography” (p. 42). While blending the various models to suit a particular institution is common, Worth notes the importance of creating only what is needed. He stresses that extraneous complexity in organization can lead to the inefficient utilization of resources and complications in communication, support, and strategic direction.

Worth’s focus in the planning phase of a campaign centers on setting clear objectives and providing adequate resources and policies. In starting a comprehensive campaign, he recommends determining the timing and feasibility only after assessing institutional readiness in relation to economic, institutional, and prospect criteria. These elements must be identified in a case statement, which emerges from the institution’s mission, values, and vision.

He draws upon the rule of thirds established by Harold J. Seymour, which states that all gifts are distributed among three groups: first, 10 to 15 gifts will represent 40–60% of all gifts; 100–150 gifts will represent 33–50% of gifts, and the rest of the campaign goal will be comprised of all other gifts (p. 61). In understanding that the majority of gifts come from key prospects, Worth advises spending substantial consideration on evaluating the prospect pool to determine whether the campaign goal can be reached based on the availability of major gifts from specific prospects.

In planning the campaign, Worth stresses the importance of setting priorities and objectives and lists five basic ways in which campaign goals can be constructed: (a) by use of the funds as they relate to capital projects, endowments, and other specific purposes, (b) by institutional priorities, (c) by colleges, departments, or other organizational units, (d) by financial objectives such as raising specific dollar amounts for scholarships, and (e) by the type of gift, such as cash or deferred donations (p. 69).

While budgeting...