1. Campaign Readiness Assessment Prepared by N ETZEL A SSOCIATES, INC. December 7, 2007 Cal Poly Foundation Recreation, Parks and Tourism Administration Program

2. 2 Assessment Objectives l Evaluate institutional capacity w Image of The REC Program w Perceptions of effectiveness in fulfilling mission w Strengths and weaknesses w Volunteer leadership and staff capacity

3. 3 Assessment Objectives l Determine most likely fundraising goal w Strength of case for support w Potential major contributors w Potential campaign leadership w External factors l Recommend a plan of action

4. 4 Assessment Process l Staff and counsel: w Reviewed case for support w Compiled & prioritized list of prospective interviewees l Netzel Associates conducted 15 interviews: w Advisory Council w Cal Poly involvement (inc. alumni) w Leaders from industry, or broader community l Industries represented: Hospitality, Marketing/Hospitality, Tourism, Events/Tourism, Events, Marketing Events, Parks/Rec/Community Service, Commercial Recreation, Sports Management, Foundation

5. 5 Institutional Capacity l Positive reputation w Effective in fulfilling mission w Effective compared to similar organizations w Far-reaching program w Prepares students for work environment l Identity and mission w Majority unfamiliar with mission or program w Identity is developing w Bolder mission statement w Stronger promotion of tourism aspect

6. 6 Institutional Capacity l Strengths w Practical curriculum w Range of hands-on learning experiences w Involved & highly-supportive faculty w Employment opportunities w “Learn-by-doing” method w Ready for work post-graduation

7. 7 Institutional Capacity l Primary needs for REC Program to address w Preparing students for real work environment w Providing leadership & communications skills w Providing in-depth knowledge of the service industry l Program considered “neutral” in meeting these needs

8. 8 Institutional Capacity l Suggested areas for improvement w Increase visibility w Address tourism industry overall ç Ex: Business & finance w Expand range of experiences ç Restaurants, hotels, airlines, wedding planning, florists, catering, gaming industry

9. 9 Institutional Capacity l Advisory Council w Effective in management w Newness of group w Moderately influential w Low fundraising capacity l Dr. Bill Hendricks & faculty highly-regarded w Involvement in fundraising campaign crucial

10. 10 Institutional Capacity

11. 11 Case for Support l Largely agreed with campaign, but some concerns: w Funding from private industry versus Council members w Low level of importance to industry ç Program insulated from supporters ç Program’s value not demonstrated l Interviewees’ suggested factors for success: w Grow reputation w Market economic impact on businesses/organizations w Broaden network & utilize university resources w Clearly define plans & objectives

12. 12 Case for Support l Case does not appear to be adequately compelling or urgent to raise the $2M goal w One new hire will not resonate with donors w Only a short-term goal w Realistic, but not visionary in scope l More strongly suggested strategies by interviewees: w Create bolder, more compelling vision w Build existing program internally w Develop stronger volunteer leadership & faculty fundraising capacity

13. 13 Fundraising Goal l Sufficient major gift potential to support $2M goal not identified at this time l Strengthen identity, profile & fundraising capacity for larger, more visionary campaign in the future l Majority would endorse campaign & give a gift w No gifts identified at $50,000 & above w 8 gifts offered at specific levels: ç 4 @ $10,000+ ç Four under $10,000

14. 14 Fundraising Goal l Interviewees recommended 53 potential sources, a large portion being corporations:  At $250,000+: 16 corporations, 4 foundations, 7 individuals w At $100,000—$249,999: 7 corporations, 19 individuals w At $50,000—$99,999: No sources suggested

15. 15 Volunteer Support l Sufficient leadership potential was identified l All interviewees would consider providing leadership l Involvement of additional high-powered individuals from private sector will be crucial

16. 16 RecommendationsRecommendations l Do not launch an endowment campaign of $2 million at this time. l Over the next 18 months, build fundraising capacity of the Program through the following: w Examine the mission & vision of The REC Program w Elevate the program to department status w Strongly consider changing the program’s name

17. 17 RecommendationsRecommendations l Strengthen the Advisory Council w Increase Council by 8-10 members: ç Individuals of high wealth capacity ç Key leaders of corporate & industry entities w Provide development coaching w Increase the Council’s exposure to current students & alumni

18. 18 RecommendationsRecommendations l Develop a public relations plan w Update collateral materials with revised vision w Communicate program’s impact on the industry w Continue to profile alumni accomplishments w Engage faculty, Council & university resources to promote the program among industry leaders w Create a Director’s Letter

19. 19 RecommendationsRecommendations l Develop a list of 25 qualified priority donor prospects l Create a full-time professional position focused on fundraising l Authorize retaining professional development counsel

20. 20 RecommendationsRecommendations l Follow up with interviewees w Meet personally with selected interviewees w Send letters of appreciation and a summary of findings to all others l Upon completing recommendations, reassess readiness for a major fundraising effort w Expanded endowment development program w Coordinated with a University-wide comprehensive campaign

21. Special Thanks to: The REC Program’s Advisory Council, Faculty and Staff!