Before we get started: Is your system working?

A good alumni engagement metrics system needs to be easy, efficient, and effective. Ask yourself:

Does it track what you need it to?

When we developed Lewis University's metrics, we started with existing data within our database—giving, event attendance, volunteer work, and interactions with our communications. Our metrics categories reflected these topics so that we could run overall engagement scores (the tally of those four areas) or break down scores by category (to see, for example, which alumni have the highest volunteering scores).

This method helped demonstrate the ways alumni interaction has affected giving. We could answer such questions as "Do alumni who read our emails give more often to the university?" and "Is investing in direct mail going to provide more return on investment than a volunteer program?"

Do the scores make sense?

Do your test results accurately portray your most engaged alumni? Our biggest breakthrough when developing Lewis' system was to use what we call "eroding scores." Instead of engagement points accumulating over time, scores decline in value as they become older and are eventually deleted. That way, an alumnus who graduated decades ago and hasn't been involved with the university in 10 years doesn't appear more engaged than someone who graduated two years ago and attends every event.

Can only someone with a Ph.D. in statistics run your program?

More metrics aren't necessarily smart metrics if you need a fancy algorithm just to run scores. We created an operational manual when developing our system, making it so that anyone who can open an Excel document could operate the system. In addition, we could easily adapt the system at other institutions, depending on the existing information in their databases.

Once you have your system adjusted, you're ready to begin taking the resulting scores to a new level. Here are some ways we used metrics to improve all areas of the advancement team:

Build a better prospect list

Issue: Major gift officers need new leads, but the regular types of searches aren't generating much.

What we did: In the past, our advancement services team had researched prospects based on a certain wealth engine rating—a donor's estimated capacity to give. We ran a list of 550 alumni with the highest engagement scores who were never under prospect management, sorted that list by wealth engine rating, and provided it to the development team. This actually lowered the wealth engine rating by focusing on alumni who had demonstrated more engagement. It was a list with hotter leads, a much more effective search than, say, people with the word "manager" in their title.

From that list, 189 alumni were assigned to gift officers, 38 received initial visits, and a total of $25,000 was raised in fiscal year 2016. Those numbers are bound to go up in time, considering that cultivating major gifts sometimes takes years.

Metrics also helped Lewis' annual giving results. Our annual giving team supplemented its list with nondonors who exhibited active engagement in event attendance, volunteerism, and regularly clicking on links in our email communications. The use of engagement metrics helped to secure 118 more phonathon gifts in 2015 than in the previous year. It also helped us reduce the number of direct mailings by 35 percent while seeing a 25 percent increase in the number of gifts as compared to 2014.

Snag your superstar volunteers

Issue: You've exhausted your pool of closely connected alumni but need more volunteers.

What we did: To establish Lewis' 50th reunion committee, we sorted a list of contactable alumni in that constituent group by engagement score. We were able to identify highly engaged alumni who weren't previously on our radar. If they weren't active as students, we didn't have much data on them, or they may have been engaged in other ways besides volunteering and so didn't come readily to mind.

We personally invited the top 10 people on this list to join the reunion committee. Four of the seven who responded to us ended up being very active with the reunion planning.

While alumni with high scores have the potential to be more reliable and long-term volunteers, don't discount those with lower engagement scores. Lower scores might not signal disengagement; rather, they may describe alumni who attended only one event and are just beginning to become involved. Invite them to a one-time volunteering experience. Their engagement may increase over time.

Context is important for understanding scores—a lower score could have promise, or it could be a red flag. Beware of the recommended board volunteer with a low score. He or she might be a diamond in the rough, but more likely he or she will fall off quickly.

Issue: You need to prove a program's worth.

What we did: We wanted to show how our volunteer program impacted giving. If alumni volunteer more, will they give more? With the metrics system, we were able to prove our theory that they would.

When we looked at our alumni with the highest volunteering engagement scores, we noticed that their giving increased over time, as did the frequency with which they gave. Gift size also went up significantly—the average annual gift for alumni who volunteered once or twice was nearly $900, whereas that same group had given $358 on average before they volunteered. More-active volunteers gave even more frequently and made larger gifts.

The same was true for event attendance. Attending an event dramatically increased participation. Alumni who attended just one event in the most recent calendar year brought participation from 4.5 percent to nearly 50 percent, and their average gifts were more than four times larger.

Reduce costs on mailings and phone calls

Issue: You spent how much money on mailing last year?

What we did: Lewis University began a Women in Leadership Conference in Chicago in 2014. Our marketing budget for that first year was high—the goal was to reach as many people as possible to score great attendance. We sent a postcard to every alumna within a 20-mile radius of the Windy City, about 10,000 pieces.

In 2015, we wanted to send only 2,000 postcards, so we used alumni engagement metrics to hone the list. This time we ranked alumni in the geographic area according to overall engagement scores and mailed the piece to the top 2,000. Event attendance increased by 50 percent, even though we reduced the mailing by 80 percent. In fact, since 2014, the university's advancement office has saved $20,000 in mailing expenses, while increasing unique event attendees by 15 percent.

Breaking down our metrics by type of engagement has also allowed us to target mailings. We could send a mailer to the top 20 percent of alumni engaged by giving, or the top 50 percent of local event attendees. We've used these tactics to target our invitations to everything from homecoming to academic lectures, first segmenting by major or graduation year, for instance, and then looking at engagement scores to determine who in that population would be most likely to attend.

A+ affinity groups

Issue: The administration is pushing for more affinity programming, but which groups should you focus on?

What we did: In 2015, we were looking for a third affinity group to join the nursing alumni and aviation group programs. University administrators made several suggestions: law and mock trial alumni, Latino alumni, history majors, and former student-athletes. Athletics alumni were not only more engaged on average but also had a large collection of standout alumni who had engagement well above the average. We approached those standout alumni to be charter members and help launch the athletics affinity group.

Alumni within each of the three affinity groups continue to increase their engagement and giving. Their scores and participation rates have steadily risen since each group's inception—at a rate higher than the general alumni population—suggesting that targeted programming such as networking events and continuing education boosts both engagement and giving.

Affinity programming works well for members of an alumni group with elevated engagement. This measurement can also help you decide to discontinue a program: If participants haven't increased their engagement since first becoming involved, then the program might not be effective.

When we started Lewis' formal volunteer program in 2014, we used metrics to identify and recruit highly engaged alumni who had never volunteered for the university. We began with 151 active volunteers and in two years grew the volunteer base to 373 active and 639 interested volunteers. Our active volunteers took part in 484 opportunities.

Programming also had a positive effect—giving participation jumped from 25 percent to 39 percent in the first year for alumni who went from nonvolunteers to volunteers.

Why it matters

A good alumni metrics system not only helps you identify your most engaged alumni but also showcases the impact of your work. Alumni relations at Lewis University improved because we were able to see what areas of engagement and programming had the biggest effect on giving, and we focused our efforts on enhancing those alumni experiences. We are able to do our jobs better and use fewer resources.

Reggie Bustinza is the executive director of the Northern Illinois University Alumni Association. Joe Volin is the director of alumni engagement at Illinois Tech Chicago-Kent College of Law.