Campus Performance Report

Overview

The Campus Performance Report provides multi-dimensional comparison of campus effectiveness. Analyze partners, donations, calls, and engagement across all campuses to identify top performers, share best practices, and improve underperforming locations.

What Data Is Shown

This report includes five key visualizations:

Campus Comparison Chart

Visualization: Grouped Bar Chart

Shows multiple metrics side-by-side for each campus:

• Partner count (blue bars)
• Total donations (green bars)
• Call activity (orange bars)
• All scaled for comparison

Use Case: Visual multi-metric comparison across campuses at a glance.

Campus Ranking Table

Visualization: Data Table

Lists campuses with comprehensive performance data:

• Rank - Overall performance position
• Campus Name - Location identification
• Partners - Total partner count
• Donations - Total giving amount
• Avg Donation - Mean gift size
• Calls Made - Communication volume
• Active % - Percentage of active partners
• Growth Rate - Partner growth percentage
• Performance Score - Weighted composite metric

Use Case: Detailed analysis and ranking by various metrics.

Partners Per Campus

Visualization: Bar Chart

Simple bar chart showing partner count by campus:

• Sorted highest to lowest
• Clear visual ranking
• Easy comparison of scale

Use Case: Understand campus size and reach.

Campus Performance Radar

Visualization: Radar Chart (if implemented)

Multi-dimensional performance visualization:

• Multiple axes (partners, donations, calls, engagement, growth)
• Polygon for each campus
• Overlapping polygons for comparison

Use Case: Identify well-rounded vs specialized campuses.

Campus Location Map

Visualization: Geographic Map (if implemented)

Shows campuses on map with performance indicators:

• Marker size = Partner count or donations
• Color = Performance tier
• Clickable for details

Use Case: Geographic distribution and regional performance visualization.

How to Use Filters

Date Range Selection

Affects growth and activity metrics:

• This Year - Year-to-date performance
• This Quarter - Quarterly comparison
• This Month - Monthly snapshot
• Custom Range - Specific period analysis

Campus Filter

Focus on specific locations:

• Individual campus deep dive
• Select multiple for comparison
• All campuses overview

Metric Filter

Choose which metrics to compare:

• Partner metrics only
• Donation metrics only
• Activity metrics only
• All metrics combined

Status Filter

Include specific partner statuses:

• Active partners only (default)
• Include inactive
• All statuses

Understanding the Charts

Reading the Grouped Bar Chart (Campus Comparison)

X-Axis: Campus names

Y-Axis: Metric values (scaled appropriately)

Bar Groups: Each campus has multiple bars (one per metric)

Color Legend:

• Blue: Partner count
• Green: Total donations
• Orange: Call count
• Purple: Active percentage (if shown)

Example: Lagos Campus:

• Partners: 250 (blue bar - tallest)
• Donations: ₦5M (green bar - tall)
• Calls: 1,200 (orange bar - medium)

Abuja Campus:

• Partners: 180 (blue bar - medium)
• Donations: ₦4M (green bar - medium)
• Calls: 900 (orange bar - short)

Interpretation:

• Lagos: Largest campus, high activity
• Abuja: Solid performance across metrics
• Port Harcourt: Smaller but efficient

Pattern Recognition:

• Balanced Campus: All bars similar height (well-rounded)
• Partner-Heavy: High partner count, lower donations
• Donation-Heavy: Fewer partners, higher giving
• Activity-Heavy: High calls, moderate other metrics

Reading the Campus Ranking Table

Columns Explained:

Rank: Overall performance position

• #1 = Top performing campus
• Based on weighted performance score

Campus Name: Location identifier

Partners: Total partner count

• Sort to see largest campuses
• Compare to organizational average

Donations: Total giving in period

• Sort to see highest fundraising campuses
• Compare revenue generation

Avg Donation: Mean gift size

• Indicates donor capacity at campus
• High average = affluent donor base or major gifts

Calls Made: Communication volume

• Indicates engagement effort
• Compare to partner count for activity rate

Active %: Percentage of active partners

• Benchmark: 75%+ is healthy
• Lower than 70% needs attention

Growth Rate: Partner increase percentage

• Positive = Growing
• Negative = Declining (investigate)
• Compare to organizational average

Performance Score: Composite metric (0-100)

• Weighted combination of all metrics
• Fair comparison across different-sized campuses

Example Row:

Sorting: Click column headers

• By Partners: Size ranking
• By Donations: Revenue ranking
• By Growth: Fastest growing
• By Score: Overall performance

Reading the Bar Chart (Partners Per Campus)

Simple Ranking: Tallest bar = Most partners

Visual Gaps: Large gaps indicate size disparity

Clustering: Similar heights = Similar scale

Example:

1. Lagos: 250 partners (tallest bar)
2. Abuja: 180 partners
3. Port Harcourt: 120 partners
4. Ibadan: 95 partners
5. Enugu: 70 partners (shortest bar)

Use For:

• Understand campus scale
• Resource allocation decisions
• Staff planning by campus size

Reading the Radar Chart (Multi-Metric)

Axes: Each spoke represents a metric (5-8 metrics)

Polygon: Connected points form campus profile

Larger Polygon: Better overall performance

Example Axes:

• Partners (top)
• Donations (right)
• Calls (bottom-right)
• Active % (bottom-left)
• Growth (left)

Comparing Campuses:

• Overlapping Polygons: Similar performance
• Well-rounded Polygon: Balanced campus (even sides)
• Spiked Polygon: Strong in some areas, weak in others
• Small Polygon: Overall low performance
• Large Polygon: Overall high performance

Example:

• Lagos: Large, well-rounded polygon (strong all-around)
• Specialty Campus: Spiked toward donations (high giving, fewer partners)
• New Campus: Small polygon (developing)

Reading the Geographic Map

Markers: Each campus location

Marker Size: Proportional to metric (partners or donations)

Marker Color:

• Green: Top performers
• Yellow: Medium performers
• Red: Needs improvement

Clustering: Geographic concentration of campuses

Use For:

• Identify underserved regions
• Plan new campus locations
• Regional performance patterns

Common Use Cases

Annual Performance Review

1. Open Campus Performance Report
2. Set date range to "This Year"
3. Review ranking table
4. Sort by Performance Score
5. Identify top 3 and bottom 3 campuses
6. Export for leadership presentation

Discussion Points:

• Top performers: What are they doing well?
• Bottom performers: What challenges exist?
• Resource allocation: Where to invest?
• Recognition: Celebrate top campuses

Identifying Best Practices

1. Filter to top 3 performing campuses
2. Review their metrics in detail
3. Identify common patterns
4. Document successful strategies
5. Share with other campuses

Analysis:

• What do top campuses have in common?
• High engagement rates?
• Effective events?
• Strong local leadership?
• Better donor cultivation?

Action: Replicate successes organization-wide

Supporting Underperforming Campuses

1. Filter to bottom 3 campuses
2. Review detailed metrics
3. Identify specific weaknesses
4. Compare to similar-sized campuses
5. Develop improvement plans

Diagnostic Questions:

• Is partner count low? → Increase recruitment
• Is active % low? → Improve engagement
• Is donation average low? → Enhance stewardship
• Is growth negative? → Address retention issues

Support Strategies:

• Assign mentor campus (top performer)
• Provide additional resources
• Leadership training
• Process improvement
• Staff augmentation

Resource Allocation Planning

1. Review campus comparison chart
2. Note partner counts and growth rates
3. Consider donations and potential
4. Allocate budget, staff, events proportionally

Allocation Approaches:

Proportional: Resources match campus size

• Lagos (30% of partners) = 30% of budget

Growth-Focused: Invest in fastest-growing

• New campus (small but +50% growth) = Extra resources

ROI-Focused: Invest where highest return

• High-donation campus = More fundraising investment

Equity-Focused: Support struggling campuses

• Low-performing = Additional resources to improve

New Campus Benchmarking

1. Filter to newest campus
2. Note current metrics
3. Compare to established campuses at same age
4. Set realistic targets

Example:

• New Campus (Year 1): 50 partners, ₦500K donations
• Established Campus (Year 1 historical): 45 partners, ₦600K
• Assessment: On track for partners, below for donations
• Action: Focus on donor cultivation

Export Options

PDF Export

Best For: Board presentations, leadership meetings

Includes:

• Campus comparison chart
• Ranking table (top page)
• Key insights summary
• Professional formatting

Use Case: Annual reviews, strategic planning presentations

Excel Export

Best For: Detailed analysis, custom calculations

Includes:

• Complete ranking table with all metrics
• Partner lists by campus
• Donation totals and details
• Sortable, filterable, pivot-ready

Use Case: Deep analysis, budget planning, goal setting

CSV Export

Best For: Data integration, external reporting

Includes:

• Campus performance data
• Metric values by campus
• Calculated scores

Use Case: Import to BI tools, executive dashboards

Best Practices

Fair Comparison Practices

Context Matters:

• Campus age (new vs established)
• Geographic location (urban vs rural)
• Market demographics (affluent vs developing)
• Staff resources (large vs small teams)

Comparison Groups:

• Group similar campuses (size, age, location)
• Compare within groups for fairness
• Recognize different context challenges

Example Groups:

• Major Urban: Lagos, Abuja, Port Harcourt
• Secondary Cities: Ibadan, Enugu, Kaduna
• New Campuses: Less than 2 years old
• Rural Campuses: Outside major cities

Setting Campus Targets

Avoid: One-size-fits-all targets

Approach: Customized targets by campus

Target Setting Process:

1. Review campus historical performance
2. Consider local context and resources
3. Set growth targets (10-20% increase)
4. Establish minimum thresholds
5. Define stretch goals

Example:

• Lagos (established): 15% growth, 85% active rate
• New campus: 50% growth (from small base), 70% active rate

Recognition and Accountability

Recognition:

• Public celebration of top performers
• Share success stories
• Awards or incentives
• Document and distribute best practices

Accountability:

• Clear expectations for all campuses
• Regular review meetings
• Support plans for struggling campuses
• Address persistent underperformance

Balance: Encourage excellence while supporting growth

Using Data for Decisions

Strategic Decisions:

• Where to open new campuses
• Where to invest in expansion
• Where to consolidate or close
• How to allocate staff and budget

Operational Decisions:

• Event scheduling and distribution
• Campaign targeting
• Resource sharing between campuses
• Cross-campus collaboration

Combining with Other Reports

• Sourcing Analysis - Sourcing effectiveness by campus
• Partner Demographics - Demographics by campus
• Donation Summary - Giving trends by campus
• Executive Dashboard - Overall organizational context

Troubleshooting

Wide Performance Disparity

Problem: Large gap between best and worst campuses

Possible Causes:

• Inequitable resource distribution
• Leadership quality variation
• Market demographic differences
• Process inconsistency

Solutions:

1. Standardize processes across campuses
2. Leadership training and development
3. Mentorship program (top to bottom campuses)
4. Equitable resource distribution
5. Share best practices systematically

Declining Top Campus

Problem: Previously high-performing campus now struggling

Possible Causes:

• Leadership change
• Local market changes
• Increased competition
• Staff turnover
• Complacency

Solutions:

1. Investigate specific cause
2. Leadership intervention or support
3. Market analysis and strategy adjustment
4. Re-engagement campaign
5. Resource reallocation if needed

Stagnant Campus Growth

Problem: Campus performance flat year-over-year

Possible Causes:

• Market saturation
• Inadequate strategies
• Resource constraints
• Lack of innovation

Solutions:

1. Market expansion analysis
2. New partnership strategies
3. Additional resources or staff
4. Innovation and experimentation
5. Fresh perspective (consultant or mentor)

Related Reports

• Partner Status - Overall organizational health for context
• Sourcing Analysis - Acquisition effectiveness by campus
• Partner Demographics - Campus demographic profiles
• Executive Dashboard - Organizational summary with campus highlights

Next Steps

1. Review Campus Rankings: Open report and check current performance
2. Identify Patterns: Note top performers and common success factors
3. Support Strugglers: Develop improvement plans for bottom campuses
4. Share Best Practices: Facilitate knowledge sharing across campuses
5. Set Targets: Establish fair, customized goals for each campus