Pre-Capital Campaign Feasibility Study Report - …€¦ · Pre-Capital Campaign Feasibility Study Report for Community United Methodist Church ... and open communication regarding

Pre-Capital Campaign

Feasibility Study Report

for

Community United Methodist Church

Naperville, Illinois

June 2014

Prepared by:

John V. Clark

Tim McKearn

Donna Lund

The James Company • Community United Methodist Church • Feasibility Report, June 2014 • Page 1

June 2014

Community United Methodist Church 20 N. Center Street Naperville, IL 60540 Dear CUMC Leadership, We wish to extend our thanks to all for the cooperation, support, and gracious hospitality extended to us throughout the Feasibility Study. During the implementation process, we found friendly, concerned, and open communication regarding the proposed campaign and project plans. A special word of thanks to the Feasibility Study Task Force, Pastor Grace Imathiu, Pastor Sarah Meacham, Marty Cann, Kayla Duerr, June Green, Mark Overstreet, Char Somes, R. T. Stibbe, Ollie Taylor. Their assistance and sound guidance throughout the process has been invaluable. This Final Report is our distillation of the information, opinions, and ideas gathered through the Feasibility Study process. It represents our combined evaluation and appraisal of major factors related to the proposed capital campaign. Now, important decisions must be made to continue the momentum essential to your success. The James Company welcomes the opportunity to provide continued assistance. Best wishes, John V. Clark, President Tim McKearn, Director The James Company The James Company Donna Lund, Administrator The James Company


Feasibility Study

Table of Contents

Letter of Introduction and Appreciation .....................................................................................1

Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................2

Section One: Feasibility Study Methodology .....................................................................3

I. Introduction ..................................................................................................4 II. Feasibility Study ..........................................................................................4

III. Elements of a Successful Campaign ...........................................................5 IV. Blank Page ..................................................................................................6

Section Two: Feasibility Study Interview Questionnaire ....................................................7

I. Questions, Findings, Representative Comments ................................ 8 - 17

Section Three: Interpretation, Recommendations, and Acknowledgements .....................18

I. Interpretations ............................................................................................19 II. Strengths ...................................................................................................19

III. Obstacles ...................................................................................................19 IV. Recommendations .....................................................................................20 V. Acknowledgements ...................................................................................21

Section Four: Appendix ....................................................................................................22

I. Feasibility Study Survey ............................................................................23 II. Survey Responses ............................................................................ 24 - 34

III. Feasibility Study Pamphlet .................................................................. 35-36


Section One

Feasibility Study Methodology


At the invitation of Community United Methodist Church (CUMC), Naperville, Illinois, The James Company Stewardship Development Group conducted a feasibility study to determine the level of support for implementing a capital campaign. The facts, findings, and recommendations of the resulting process, now complete, provide a sound basis for leadership decisions with regard to conducting a capital stewardship appeal at this time. A complete description of the goals of the proposed plans may be found in the Feasibility Study pamphlet included in the Appendix.

FEASIBILITY STUDY As CUMC considers a capital campaign, several important questions need to be explored:

The awareness level of the members of CUMC regarding the proposed capital stewardship campaign. This serves to isolate areas which the education and cultivation phases will address.

The strong points and questions/concerns that might affect the outcome of an appeal.

This process also helps determine the thrust of a future education plan – emphasizing and enhancing the strengths of the proposed plan and determining the areas of concern so they can be addressed.

The level of potential leadership within CUMC to conduct a successful appeal.

The level of financial support from members and friends of CUMC available for an

appeal. Determining the answers to these and other questions is the major purpose of the Feasibility Study. Through the study we have researched, analyzed, and evaluated fundamental factors present, or capable of development, which will influence a capital campaign.

The study was conducted in three phases: research and preparation, church-wide gatherings and personal interviews, and analysis of data. Phase 1 An examination of CUMC’s needs, development of a “Case Statement,” determination of optimum campaign goals and timing, preparing for four church-wide gatherings, and selection of personal interview prospects were completed during sessions with the Feasibility Study Task Force. Phase 2 The Feasibility Study brochure (case statement) was mailed to all CUMC households. The brochure included an invitation to provide feedback through a survey. Hard copy and electronic versions of the survey were made available. Four church-wide gatherings were offered for feedback. An invitation was extended to 39 households that were selected by the Feasibility Study Task Force to participate in a confidential interview. Follow up phone calls and e-mails were made by The James Company Administrator, Donna Lund, to every invitee for whom we had phone numbers and e-mail addresses. Phase 3 Interviews were conducted and all feasibility study data was collected, analyzed, and the final report and recommendations prepared.

INTRODUCTION

FEASIBILITY STUDY


There are certain elements which must exist in connection with every successful fundraising campaign.

1. Recognition and acceptance of the “tentative needs” as expressed, and an understanding of the benefits of the proposed plan for the mission of CUMC.

2. The case for widespread appeal. 3. Availability of strong financial leadership. 4. The capability of existing leadership to recruit additional support. 5. Past and current support levels for other CUMC capital campaigns. 6. The awareness of the proposed plans. 7. The economic optimism of the CUMC community. 8. Overall response to goal attainability. 9. Indicated interest in contributing to, and projected levels of support for the proposed

campaign. 10. Projected timing of the campaign.

These elements are carefully reviewed in this report. The Interpretation, Recommendations, and Acknowledgements Section of the report, as well as the Questionnaire Section, address these elements of success as we consider the readiness of CUMC to proceed with a major capital campaign. NOTE: Minor editing has occurred in some of the comments to ensure grammatical accuracy and preserve the anonymity of the Feasibility Study respondents.

ELEMENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL CAMPAIGN



Section Two

Feasibility Study Interview Questionnaire


1. How long have you been a member?

Membership Length:

< 5 years

6 – 10 years 1

11 – 15 years 5

16 – 20 years 2

21 – 25 years 4

> 25 years 32

Friend 1

2. Share with me three (3) ministry areas of Community UMC that are most meaningful to you and/or your family?

Findings

A wide variety of ministries were listed by those interviewed indicating healthy involvement. Many also indicated a desire for more community outreach.

Representative Comments

The most commonly referenced ministries were:

Music/Choir Adult Sunday School/Open Circle Missions Community Players Community Outreach (PADS, etc.)

CUMC FEASIBILITY INTERVIEW QUESTIONS


3. Are you overall supportive of the leadership of Community UMC?

Findings

Overwhelming support for current leadership both pastoral and lay was expressed.

Representative Comments Most responders referenced a strong feeling of support for Pastor Grace and Pastor Sarah. Several responders referenced that current leadership has worked hard to rebuild trust and reestablish the church’s financial position.

4. Have you reviewed the Case Statement that has been developed for this potential capital appeal? Do you believe that the projects described in the Case Statement adequately address the facility needs of Community?

Yes 31

No 6

No Opinion 8

Are there any elements that are missing from the proposal?

There were two specific items mentioned as missing: parking and kitchen renovations. Parking received the vast majority of mentions with 15/45 of those interviewed identifying parking as an important factor to consider. A small number of responders indicated a desire for a list of project priorities.

Have you attended one of the Information Gatherings?

Yes No

36 9


Findings

A strong consensus was apparent around the broad concept of improving the building. There was a thread of thinking that suggested the exterior of the building looked run down and didn’t “look like a church”. This led to a strong approval for the renovation of the entryway and welcome areas. The sprinkler system and boiler system repairs were widely acknowledged as important. Improved security and reworking of staff office space received strong support. There was strong concern about identifying priorities, paying as we go, and connecting these projects to the mission of the church.


I like supporting PADS

We should be doing more for ministry and mission

A sense of project priorities would be helpful

These projects struck a good balance

The new entryway will be very helpful in making us look like a church and welcoming others

5. When you think about your personal philanthropic (giving) priorities, how close a fit is giving to your church?

Exact Match Fits Closely Fits Somewhat Not a fit

9 20 13 3

Findings

29 of the 45 individuals interviewed indicated that these priorities were either an exact match or a close fit with their own philanthropic priorities. This ratio indicates relatively strong support. When these priorities were not a match it was because people perceived these projects as being about building repairs and not connected to mission. A strong effort will be necessary to connect each of these projects to mission and ministry.



I give to good ideas and these seem like good ideas

These ideas are sound and ministerial

These projects seem like indulgences

We need to take care of what we have first before adding new things

We need priorities

6. Do you think the financial goal of $3.4M is feasible for Community to achieve?

Yes 7

No 18

No Opinion/Don't Know 20

Findings

While many hoped it was possible to raise $3.4 million, most thought it was either not possible or didn’t feel as though they knew the congregation well enough to have an opinion.


We have lost membership in recent years, many of them were wealthy

We may have the capacity, but not the willingness

It’s a stretch

It will be a hard pull

Given our challenges with our annual budget we have doubts

We aren’t paying our apportionment

I think it’s possible. We always manage to come through

Membership isn’t growing

I want to be optimistic, but my gut says “no”


7. What do you think are the most important actions church leadership can take to encourage and motivate a broad base of giving for this project?

Findings

Current leadership received praise for conducting an open process and communicating effectively. Some, in fact, claimed that the information gatherings were not particularly helpful because the project was already so well known. The top recommendations included continuing to provide timely and accurate information, provide a list of project priorities, and connecting the building projects to the church’s mission. Many also expressed the belief that Pastor Grace can play and important role in motivating the congregation.


We need to divide the project in stages

We should have a priority list

I think they are doing everything they can

More visual aids

More repetition, people need to hear things over and over again

We need to connect these projects with how people will be helped

8. From your perspective, is it feasible that we might receive major gifts of $25,000 or more, over a three-year period? Can you suggest individuals or families who might consider such a leadership gift?

Yes 33

No



Findings

While most felt as though we would likely receive gifts of $25,000, or more, most felt there would be relatively few and that the number had shrunk over the years.


I would expect to see this

I won’t be able to

You’d hope there would be

I don’t really have a sense of what people here are capable of giving

Newer, younger families don’t have the capacity

We seem to be a church of middle givers

9. Although you are not making a commitment at this time, are you inclined to support the proposed plan with a financial gift over and above regular giving? (Three year giving period)

Yes 28

No 0



If so, what range (show chart) of gift would you consider?

$1M or more

$750,000 - $999,999

$500,000 - $749,999

$250,000 - $499,999

$100,000 - $249,999 1

$50,000-$99,999 3

$25,000-$49,999 4

$10,000-$24,999 14

$5,000-$9,999 2

$2,500-$4,999 2

$1,000 - $2,499 2

$500 to $999

$1 - $499

Undecided 3

Can any amount of your gift be given upfront?

Twelve households indicated that they could provide a significant portion of their gift up front. Sixteen households indicated that they would likely make payments in equal three year payments.

Will your gift come from an asset or your cash flow?

Sixteen households indicated that their gift would likely come from assets rather than current income.


Findings

Thirty households were interviewed in person or by phone. One online survey provided a significant gift projection that was attributed to a specific individual, so this gift projection has been included in the study projections. Twenty-eight households out of the thirty-one indicated gift ranges totaling $574,500 to $768,000 in support of a campaign. These twenty eight households pledged $288,000 for annual support in calendar year 2014. The campaign giving ratio for these twenty-eight households is 1.90 to 2.66 of annual support. Of the sixty-seven individuals who filled out a survey, 51 indicated they would support the campaign financially, 3 indicated they would not and 13 indicated they were uncertain. Those who commented they would not be able to financially support the plan or were uncertain listed fixed incomes, health, a lack of plan priorities and the belief that the church should be in a different location as reasons for not providing support.

10. Can you suggest names of people who you think would do a good job helping to lead a capital appeal – people who are highly respected, have excellent leadership qualities and who “get things done”?

Findings

Thirty four names were provided as potential leaders for the campaign effort. This number of names is a positive sign of a congregation that values the abilities of its membership. These names will be provided in a separate document.

11. What is your willingness to consider a leadership role or to work in some capacity on the capital appeal?

Willing 15

Unwilling 23



Findings

One third of those interviewed indicated they would be willing to volunteer in a campaign effort or serve as leaders. One fourth of those who responded to the survey indicated they would be willing to help. This represents a healthy number of volunteers to work with, although we would work to grow this number as there is a direct correlation between volunteering and providing financial support to a campaign.


The folks involved are already doing a good job

I would be willing to help if I knew what was being asked of me

I’m too old

We’re gone part of the year

12. Is now a good time in the life of Community to conduct a capital appeal? Why or why not?

Yes 33

No 7


Findings

A significant number of those interviewed believed that now was a good time to proceed with a campaign.


Current leadership is strong

Our pastors are terrific

We have a positive atmosphere right now

Trust has been rebuilt

Now is as good a time as any


13. Is there anything we haven’t asked about that you think we need to know?

Findings

No one indicated that they were prevented from speaking their mind or they believed any important questions were not asked.


Section Three

Interpretation, Recommendations, and Acknowledgements


The interpretation of responses received in this study is a combination of analysis, listening insight, and broad experience in preparing for and conducting capital campaigns. Although such evaluations are not an exact science, as an experienced stewardship ministry group outside of CUMC, we are able to provide an objective analysis that helps identify strengths, obstacles, and potential for raising funds. Based on the feedback from this study, the authors find strong support for the Building Plan case, and an equally strong desire to provide financial support from those interviewed. Widespread support for the projects described in the case statement exists. Longstanding members were interviewed and expressed strong support for both the pastoral and lay leadership at Community UMC. In particular, the pastors at Community UMC received glowing support. A significant majority of those interviewed expressed the opinion that the case statement addresses the most important needs. Of those interviewed, 67% indicated that the priorities identified in the case statement were an exact match or fit closely with their own philanthropic interests. Those interviewed gave indications of support ranging from 1.9 to 2.6 times their annual support and about 90% indicated they would support the campaign financially. When asked, those interviewed provided a good number of suggested names as potential leaders for a campaign. Over 70% of those interviewed believed that now was a good time for a campaign. Of those filling out surveys, 75% indicated that they would provide financial support.

Most of those interviewed believed that $3.5 million was beyond the reach of the congregation to reach in a single campaign. Many of those interviewed believed that priorities need to be determined for the identified projects. The congregation appears to be speaking with two voices: The traditional worshippers and the contemporary worshippers. There was more evidence of this among those who identified as traditional worshippers than vice versa. While 75% of those who responded to the survey indicated they would provide financial support, about a third of those indicated that their gifts would be small and or modest. The parking issue weighed on the minds of a significant minority of those we interviewed. There are pockets of concerned members of the congregation who don’t want to lose the parlor space and music room space.

INTERPRETATION

STRENGTHS

OBSTACLES


1. Move forward with a 3 year capital campaign with a goal range of $1,250,000$1,500,000. This

goal range includes the $500,000 major gift which has already been received.

2. Report the Feasibility Study findings and the next steps to all church leadership. A note of thanks should be sent to all those who participated in the interviews. This thank you note can also help set the tone for follow-up interviews with these prospects about gifts in support of the campaign. This will build confidence that they have been heard and that their input is valued. It will be critical for this group of individuals to understand the next steps.

3. Provide a one page summary of the feasibility findings to the church at large. This is another step in building trust and keeping everyone in the loop as you move forward.

4. Create a Core Group that will lead the Capital Campaign in concert with The James Company staff.

5. Prioritize the campaign projects to be completed as money becomes available. Identifying priorities can fit in nicely with the anniversary celebration and will send a strong message to members that their voices were heard.

6. Using the feedback found throughout this feasibility report and with the assistance of The James Company, redraft the Building Plan case for support with an eye toward refining the vision and addressing the most frequently asked questions. This revised case can go into more detail on the need for the projects and deal with the most frequently asked questions

7. People maximize giving to their church when they feel a high degree of trust. The James Company recommends addressing the following issues that surfaced during the feasibility interviews:

There is perceived to be two voices within the congregation between “contemporary worshippers” and “traditional worshippers”. First Corinthians talks about us possessing different gifts, but the same spirit. Some effort is needed to bring these two voices together to see their expressions of faith as closely linked to the future of Community United Methodist Church.

Differing opinions emerged as to the current status in terms of the number of households worshipping at this time. Some referenced decline, others talked about stability. Many referenced the long term decline in attendance. Clear data on this issue will be helpful in making the case for where Community UMC is headed.

Parking. Although parking does not need to be addressed in this campaign, acknowledging people’s concerns would go a long way to dealing with this issue. Identifying a process to address the concern is recommended.

Financial stability. Many interviewed referenced the belief that the church’s financial condition has stabilized. A small number referenced that the church has not paid its apportionments. It is recommended that these issues be clarified and addressed.

RECOMMENDATIONS


The James Company is pleased to present this study report and wishes to express, once again, appreciation to all who have responded so graciously giving their time and effort to this study. Special thanks to the Feasibility Study Task Force who guided this process. The James Company presents these findings and recommendations as a vital step in assisting Community UMC to prepare for its Capital Campaign. Respectfully submitted, John V. Clark, President Tim McKearn, Director The James Company The James Company

Donna Lund, Administrator The James Company

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


Section Four

Appendix


Feasibility Study Survey














Documents

Pre-Capital Campaign Feasibility Study Report - …€¦ · Pre-Capital Campaign Feasibility Study Report for Community United Methodist Church ... and open communication regarding