CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022 - Generating Philanthropic Support for Higher Education: United Kingdom and Ireland Findings from data ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022 Generating Philanthropic Support for Higher Education: United Kingdom and Ireland Findings from data collected for 2017–18, 2018–19, 2019–20 and 2020–2021
© 2022 Council for Advancement and Support of Education
Original publication date: April 2022
All rights reserved. No part of the material protected by this copyright may be reproduced or used in any
form, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and
retrieval system, without written permission from the Council for Advancement and Support of Education.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer: While the publisher has used its best efforts in preparing this document, it
makes no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of its contents. No
liability or responsibility of any kind (to extent permitted by law), including responsibility for negligence,
is accepted by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, its servants, or its agents. All
information gathered is believed correct at publication date. Neither the publisher nor the author is
engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services. If legal advice or other expert
assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.
CASE-ROSS EDITORIAL BOARD
The Editorial Board members helped manage the project by contributing their time and
expertise at each stage of developing this report. They were involved with survey review, script
creation, survey promotion, data collection, data verification, analysis, report writing and
dissemination.
The 2020–2021 Editorial Board consisted of:
l Tania Jane Rawlinson, Director of Development and Alumni Relations, Cardiff University
l Frances Shepherd, Director of Development and Alumni, University of Glasgow
l Tom Smith, Prospect Research and Database Officer, Loughborough University
l Martin Wedlake, Deputy Director of Strategy and Operations, University College London
AUTHOR
Divya Krishnaswamy, Senior Research Analyst (Project Lead)
CASE STAFF
Bruce Bernstein, Executive Director, Global Engagement (Europe and Africa)
Leigh Cleghorn, Deputy Director (Europe)
Deborah Trumble, Senior Director, Research
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, we would like to thank the institutional staff who gave their time to provide
information about the philanthropic income of their institutions and those who submitted case
studies to support the publication of this report. A special thanks to all the new institutions
participating in the survey for the first time. We are grateful to the CASE-Ross Editorial Board for
their continued guidance and support.
COVER ART CREDIT
© freaktor, Getty Images
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Divya Krishnaswamy
Senior Research Analyst
CASE
dkrishnaswamy@case.org or europe@case.org
+44 (20) 3752 9726
COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT
AND SUPPORT OF EDUCATION
case.org
London Mexico City Singapore Washington, D.C.CONTENTS CASE PRESIDENT AND CEO’S NOTE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Findings 2020–2021. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Cluster analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Interpreting the charts and tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 KEY INDICATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 New funds secured. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Cash income received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Alumni and donors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Fundraising and alumni relations investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Fundraising and alumni relations staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 TRENDS IN KEY INDICATORS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Philanthropic income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Alumni and donors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Fundraising and alumni relations investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Fundraising and alumni relations staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Trends by cluster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 FINDINGS BY MISSION GROUPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 FINDINGS BY OTHER GROUPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 FINDINGS BY PEARCE REVIEW GROUPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 APPENDIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Long Term CASE-Ross Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Comparisons with institutions in Canada, and Australia and New Zealand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Response rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Participating institutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022
CASE PRESIDENT AND CEO’S NOTE
In the midst of a challenging two years for every part of the globe, it is heartening to have witnessed the
innovation of advancement professionals and institutional leaders in their work to engage with key stakeholders,
often in two dimensions rather than three. During times of crisis, we have witnessed people being drawn to
what matters most. And in this spirit, donors have been motivated to support their schools, colleges and
universities in recognition of these institutions’ vital service advancing education to transform lives and society.
The CASE-Ross Support of Education survey, now in its 20th year, provides valuable insights into
charitable giving for higher education institutions in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Furthermore, the
launch of the CASE Global Reporting Standards last year marks an important step forward for the advancement
profession by laying the groundwork for transparent and consistent professional standards, ethics, and
benchmarks regardless of country or sector.
Global philanthropic benchmarks from CASE’s surveys revealed that giving is showing signs of recovery
in the second half of 2020 and into 2021 following declines in the early months of the pandemic. The first
indication of recovery was reflected in CASE’s survey on higher education fundraising in Australia and New
Zealand. This survey, based on the 2020 calendar year, reported a 1% increase in new funds secured and a
30% increase in funds received, positive changes that were driven by record-breaking market turnarounds in
the second half of the year. In fiscal year 2021, both the CASE-Ross survey and the CASE survey of higher
education institutions in Canada showed increases in new funds secured. Funds received also increased in
some regions – giving to Canadian institutions increased 17% and giving to U.S. institutions increased
6.9% over the last year’s survey which essentially showed flat giving.
CASE-Ross findings for 2021 indicate that while some key measures improved compared to the previous
year, notably the increase in new funds secured, the recovery from the disruptions of the pandemic is ongoing.
Flat or declining numbers of donors continues to be an area of concern, both in the UK and Ireland and in other
regions as well. This trend predates the pandemic; the pandemic also inspired new and innovative ways to engage
our constituencies, so we will closely watch this number and other engagement metrics over the coming years. As
we know, continuity and investment in advancement staffing are proven factors for long-term success. Sustained
engagement and stewardship of our alumni and donors will be critically important in the years ahead
In April 2022, we launched the CASE Global Reporting Standards Course, an online self-paced program for
advancement professionals at all levels to learn more about the standards – why they are important, what is new
in this global edition, and how to make the most of your data and benchmarking. As we begin to incorporate
these standards across all our surveys, including the CASE-Ross survey, this course will provide you with the
in-depth knowledge of the standards needed to benchmark and shape your fundraising strategy.
Warmest thanks to the members of the CASE-Ross survey Editorial Board for their insights and dedication
to making this report possible. Thanks also to all who have participated in the survey for your commitment
and contributions to this and other CASE surveys that enable us to better understand advancement around
the world through vital research.
With much gratitude,
Sue Cunningham
President and CEO
CASE
•4•CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022
FOREWORD
For the second year in a row, the global coronavirus pandemic has had a profound impact on universities and
fundraising, as evidenced in the CASE-Ross report. Uncertainty still reigned in the sector throughout the
2020–2021 year, across most parts of all universities – from the student experience to student recruitment
(both UK and nationally), to virtual or “blended” working practices, to furlough and hiring freezes, to
constantly changing COVID rules and requirements, to strained finances.
A mantra across the sector that we have heard involves “protecting our pipelines”. Pipelines of relationships
and of gifts are everywhere in the advancement business: they can be found in alumni relations programmes
which enhance connectivity, identify and develop leads to prospective donors; in fundraising programmes
which seek to build donor loyalty and grow gifts over time; and in legacy programmes which flourish when
there exists long-term (often unknown) loyalty from alumni and friends.
The CASE-Ross report’s headline figures appear to show that the building of these pipelines in preceding
years seems to have paid off. Both new funds secured and investment in fundraising have held relatively steady
across the last two years – though both are below peaks reached in 2018–19, and in fact these indicators are
now at almost exactly the same level they were in 2015–16. (Refer: Total new funds secured, 2004–05 to
2020–2021).
However, the pipeline nature of our work may mean that some of the 2021–2022 stability is built on
foundations laid over many years. In fact, might we expect to see the true impact of the global pandemic in
years to come? Can we see signs of this if we look beyond the headline figures?
We have always recognised that growth in fundraising can be lumpy, with a few large gifts (or not)
distorting the edges of the overall picture. But the CASE-Ross data has now been collected for long enough to
show that overall, we enjoyed steady (albeit sometimes lumpy) growth for the 11 years from 2004–05 through
2015–16 – but that since then, progress has stalled.
As we dig deeper, there’s a worrying note that uncertainty seems to have affected almost every “cluster”
we analyse. There are signs that our ability to maintain the pace set between 2004–05 and 2015–16 may be
further eroded in the coming years. On the positive side, the sector has continued to deliver new funds secured
above £1 billion for six consecutive years. Our relationships with our top donors remain strong. Less positive, is
the continued gentle decline in donor numbers: it could be argued that our wins in 2020–2021 – particularly
gifts large enough to have an impact on the sector’s figures – are the fruits of relationships built over many
previous years. With a pandemic which continues to curtail events, travel, visits, and development of new
friendships and partnerships, we need to watch the coming years carefully, in case pipelines may be drier than
necessary to produce sustained growth in philanthropic contributions to the sector. (Refer: Mean new funds
secured, 2014–15 to 2020–2021 and Mean fundraising investment, 2014–15 to 2020–2021).
As we look towards the future, global slowdowns or recessions, and high inflation, are likely, which may
impact donor behaviour. Universities will surely be pinched – and we know that can lead to stalled or removed
investment into fundraising and alumni relations functions. Both these factors could further affect pipelines.
Yet as fundraisers, we would like to be optimists. There are rays of hope. Our data suggests that the
staff dip in 2019–2020 recovered in 2020–2021, and anecdotal evidence is that jobs boards are awash with
opportunity now. Was the 2020–2021 recovery due to people coming off furlough? Will our non-salary
spend (very depressed in 2020–2021, largely because we could not travel or hold many events) return to
pre-pandemic levels soon? We hope so, in order to rebuild and restrengthen relationships which take time
to develop and grow.
•5•CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022
Indeed time and again, the survey findings have confirmed that those who invest in fundraising and
alumni relations, reap rewards. Sustained investment across the whole of advancement helps protect pipelines,
both in immediate income generation, and by producing leads and connectivity through alumni relations and
legacy programmes. The full financial impact of the pandemic and other challenges may not be felt for some
time. Similarly, the impact of investment in fundraising, or of reducing that investment, will be felt slowly,
but surely.
As we consider sector trends and patterns, once again some long-term trends shine through:
• Investment in alumni magazines declined once again;
• Contactable alumni numbers continue a long-term rising trend, and ‘contactable’ alumni seem to have
stabilised over the past year – perhaps reflecting increased attention to e-contactable graduates;
• Very large gifts have a disproportionate impact on the sector’s success, (indeed this year, they may mask
some worrying trends in mid and lower level giving);
• Reliance on large gifts is increasing and is particularly notable for the Established;
• Telethons continue to slow – indeed we suspect (though cannot easily confirm) that reported telethon
success is largely due to direct debit gifts made in telethons from two or more years ago;
• The 2020-2021 staff figures, which stabilised, are promising but will need close attention;
• Mass fundraising, which showed a flurry of activity in 2019–2020 (likely due to pandemic-related emergency
appeals), seems to have reverted to a long-term trend of overall downturn in donor acquisition. But we note
that the sector is still learning how to report mass fundraising from varied sources – telethon, crowdfunding,
challenge-based appeals, and more – so we are more willing to focus on case studies than on statistics per se.
For years, we have known that the CASE-Ross data set confers value. It allows us to find clusters of institu-
tions similar to our own so we can measure our own performance; and enables us to identify strong performers
whose examples we can learn from. We were therefore very excited when the data team at CASE helped us
compare the three largest UK and Ireland clusters to clusters in Canada and Australia and New Zealand. There
are striking similarities across the three regions. Best of all, the analysis demonstrates that our moving to inter-
nationally shared data points will help us as we seek out global communities of performance and practice. In
the coming year, we look forward to supporting CASE’s collaborative work towards global standards and survey
alignment. (Refer: Comparisons with institutions in Canada, and Australia and New Zealand).
We remain, as ever, enormously grateful to all the advancement professionals who put significant effort into
completing the Survey. Measuring the health of the advancement sector across the UK and Ireland has never
been more important than it is now.
With thanks,
CASE-Ross Editorial Board
•6•CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Findings 2020–2021 AVERAGE NUMBER OF DONORS
DECREASED BY 18%
TOTAL NEW FUNDS SECURED IN • 94 participating institutions reported a total of
2020–2021 WAS £1.14 BILLION 175,218 donors1.
• The total new funds secured in 2020–2021 was • Average donors decreased by 18% since 2019–
£1.14 billion. 2020 and average alumni donors decreased by
• The mean philanthropic funds secured in 2020– 15% since 2019-2020.
2021 increased by 5% since 2019–2020. • Among institutions that provided breakdowns of
• On average, institutions sourced 53% of their new donor types2, 96% were individuals and 4% were
funds from organisations (including companies, trusts and foundations, companies, lotteries or
trusts and foundations, lotteries or other organisa- other organisations.
tions) while the remaining 47% was contributed • 0.8% or 127,016 of the reported 15.9 million
by individuals. total alumni made contributions during the year.
• Amongst 75 institutions that provided the data,
179 donors made gifts or pledges of £500k or more AVERAGE INVESTMENTS IN FUNDRAISING
during 2020–2021 (excludes elite institutions). AND ALUMNI RELATIONS INCREASED BY
1% AND 3% RESPECTIVELY
TOTAL CASH INCOME RECEIVED IN • In 2020–2021 the total investment on alumni
2020–2021 WAS £1.02 BILLION relations was £48 million and the total investment
• The total cash income received in 2020–2021 on fundraising was £105 million.
was £1.02 billion. • Average fundraising and alumni relations invest-
• The mean cash income received in 2020–2021 ments increased by 1% and 3% respectively over
decreased by 3% since 2019–2020. the previous year.
• On average, institutions received 63% of cash • Staff costs accounted for 82% of average fund
income from organisations (including companies raising investment and 77% of average alumni
and trusts and foundations, lotteries or other relations investment.
organisations), while individuals contributed 37%. • The average number of fundraising and alumni
• Total cash income from legacies was £96 million relations staff increased by 5% and 7% respectively
in 2020–2021 from 1,053 legacy donations. since 2019–2020.
The CASE-Ross Survey Supporting Document prescribes definitions for recording philanthropic
income, guidance on eligible funding and provides general guidance on completing the survey.
Philanthropic income includes gifts/donations or grants that are eligible and fall within the
boundaries of philanthropic intent. Philanthropic support is reported in two ways:
• New funds secured in a year includes the value of new gifts/donations received and new pledges
confirmed in the year at their value for up to five years; it excludes legacy payments and cash
payments made against pledges secured in previous years. New funds secured reflect the
success of current fundraising activity.
• Cash income received includes all cash income received during the year and includes new single
cash gifts, cash payments received against pledges secured in the current or previous years and
cash from legacies; it excludes new pledges where payment has not been received. Cash income
reflects the success of the current and past years’ fundraising activity.
Note that a member of the Elite cluster, did not provide this data.
1
Not all participating institutions provided a break down of total donors into sub-categories.
2
•7•CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022
INTRODUCTION Benchmarking data was made available to participating
institutions at the time of report release.
The first CASE-Ross Support of Education Survey
was first carried out in 2002 (for 2001–02 data) Cluster Analysis
and built on previous surveys undertaken within
Latent Class Analysis (LCA) was first conducted
the Ross Group; the survey has been conducted
in 2013 on data from the CASE-Ross surveys in
annually since then.
2011–12 to explore the possibility of uncovering
The survey methodology has been adapted for
groups of institutions that had similar fundraising
use in other CASE surveys on philanthropic support
profiles and has been repeated every year. LCA was
for education in Australia and New Zealand, conti-
used to group institutions, into different clusters
nental Europe, South Africa and Canada.
based on certain defining variables that provided
During 2012–13, the CASE-Ross survey was
the most information about key characteristics of
offered online for the first time. Its methodology
fundraising activities and for which there was suffi-
also changed substantially (differentiating it from
cient variation between institutions to offer distinct
its predecessors) and was enhanced following a
patterns and differentiating factors. These variables
review that included scoping interviews with key
are:
stakeholders and development directors.
The CASE-Ross Support of Education Survey, 1. Average cash income received over three years
United Kingdom and Ireland, 2020–2021 was 2. Average largest cash gift received over three years
open to participants from 15 September 2021 to 3. Average number of donors over three years
17 November 2021. Invitations to participate were 4. Average proportion of contactable alumni
sent to 161 higher education and specialist institu- making a gift over three years
tions in the United Kingdom alone that are involved 5. Average fundraising costs per pound received
in some form of fundraising or alumni relations over three years
activity. Ninety-one institutions across the United 6. Average number of fundraising staff (full-time
Kingdom participated yielding a response rate of equivalent) over three years
57% (see Appendix for details). Three higher edu-
Average figures for these variables across a three-
cation institutions from Ireland and the Institute of
year period were used to ensure that comparisons
Cancer Research in the United Kingdom also took
were based on performance over time rather than
part in the survey. A total of 95 institutions across
any single year. In earlier years, a five-cluster solu-
the United Kingdom and Ireland participated
tion offered a good statistical fit for the data and
during 2020–2021.
made substantive sense; however, since 2015–16,
Participating institutions provided data for the
additional analysis on the Emerging cluster was
12-month period from 1 August 2020 to 31 July
conducted and it was found that the institutions in
2021. Data has not been reweighted to estimate
this cluster could be further divided into two sub-
funds raised and other data for non-participating
clusters producing a total of six clusters in recent
institutions so reported totals only account for a
years. The same process was first applied to the
portion of philanthropic support for higher educa-
2020–2021 dataset of 95 institutions using Latent
tion in the United Kingdom and Ireland.
GOLD® v5.0 software. However, this did not yield
CASE Research staff, with the support of the
us clear clusters. Further analysis showed that the
Editorial Board, queried data submitted by institu-
best fit was a four-cluster solution in which the
tions against an exhaustive set of logic, ratio, arith-
largest cluster was then divided into two-clusters
metic and substantive tests and survey participants
to yield the Developing and another larger cluster
were asked to confirm or correct their responses.
which then divided naturally into a group of 23
•8•CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022
Emerging, and 6 Fragile institutions. Through most could reflect the varied nature of fundraising
of this report, data has been presented broken down operations and/or maturity of fundraising
for the following six clusters of institutions: operations across participating institutions.
1. Elite (2 institutions) • The number of institutions given as the base (n)
2. Established (6 institutions) for a chart or table indicates the number of insti-
tutions that provided data for a response to a
3. Moderate (28 institutions)
question or for the given variable or variables.
4. Developing (30 institutions)
• For variables that were calculated from the
5. Emerging (23 institutions)
responses to more than one question in the
6. Fragile (6 institutions)
survey, first, the variable was calculated for each
institution and then the mean was calculated at a
Interpreting the charts cluster level and at an ‘all institutions’ level.
and tables • Aggregates reported for ‘all institutions’ are
calculated for all participating institutions that
• Through most of this report (other than trends by
provided a response.
key indicators) data has been presented broken
• All income figures in this report are reported
down by the six clusters.
in Pound Sterling. Data reported in Euros were
• Descriptive statistics, mainly using the measures
converted to Pound Sterling using an average
of central tendencies – arithmetic mean/average
of the conversion rate for the survey period
and median – were used to analyse the data
(€1 = £0.88222 or £0.88). Data from the CASE-
and report on key variables on a confidential
CCAE Support of Education Survey for Canadian
and aggregated basis.
Colleges, Institutes and Universitates for Fiscal
• Mean figures provide a snapshot of the overall
Year 2021 that was reported in Canadian Dollars
group’s performance including outliers, while
(CAD) was converted to GBP using an average
median figures highlight the exact midpoint
for the year to 31 March 2021 (1 CAD = GBP
in fundraising figures across participating
0.5801). Data from the CASE Support of
institutions.
Education Survey for Australia and New Zealand
• A normally distributed cluster has mean and
for the year 2020 that was reported in Australian
median figures that are quite similar. Differences
Dollars (AUD) was converted to GBP using
in mean and median figures may reflect the
an average for the year to 31 December 2020
outliers in the data reported by a cluster. Or it
(1 AUD = GBP 0.5339).
•9•CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022
KEY INDICATORS
The following section reports on new funds secured, broad overview of the return on investment and
cash income received, contactable alumni, donors economic impact of fundraising across institutions
and investment in fundraising and alumni relations in the UK and Ireland.
staff and activities. These key indicators provide a
Key indicators 2020–2021
n Total Mean Median
Philanthropic Income
New Funds Secured 95 £1,144,567,158 £12,048,075 £2,184,445
Cash Income Received 95 £1,020,514,206 £10,742,255 £2,304,007
Alumni
Total Alumni 93 15,877,014 170,721 161,244
Contactable Alumni 93 11,242,898 120,891 114,406
Alumni Donors# 89 123,327 1,386 439
Donors
Total Donors* 94 175,218 1,864 750
Individual Donors†
94 169,812 1,807 720
Organisations Donors‡ 93 5,487 59 37
Costs
Fundraising Costs 89 £104,716,785 £1,176,593 £553,549
Alumni Relations Costs 90 £48,113,173 £534,591 £314,859
Alumni Magazine Costs 47 £3,765,556 £80,118 £45,006
Staff
Fundraising Staff (FTE) 92 1,597 17 9
Alumni Relations Staff (FTE) 93 834 9 5
All figures reported in this table are for all institutions that provided the data; this table has been compiled using responses to multiple questions
and hence the sample size varies.
#
Note that many institutions, including one institution from the Elite cluster, did not provide data for this question.
*Total donor figures include individual and organisational donors; one institution from the Elite cluster did not provide data for this question.
†
Individual donor figures include alumni donors and non-alumni donors; one institution from the Elite cluster did not provide a breakdown of total
donors into these sub-categories.
‡
Organisation donors include trusts and foundations, companies, lottery and other organisations; a few institutions, including one institution from
the Elite cluster did not provide a breakdown of total donors into these sub-categories.
• 10 •CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022
A clear progression of fundraising capacity and and fewer staff may fluctuate more from year to
performance is apparent, ranging from the nascent year as a result of discontinuities in staffing and
programmes in the Fragile cluster to the long- investment and may be disproportionately impacted
established, well-resourced and highly productive by changes in operations, programmes, or donor
programmes in the Elite group. interests. It should also be noted that even in mature
It should be noted that the fundraising perfor- institutions, fundraising can vary widely from one
mance of institutions with less mature programmes year to the next.
Age of development and alumni relations programme by cluster 2020–2021
(n=95; % number of institutions)
11% 13% Programme Founded:
17% 20%
33% 1989 or earlier
22% 1990 to 1999
39% 23% 2000 to 2004
2005 to 2009
66% 2010 or later
100%
23% 39%
32% 67%
20%
11% 26%
17% 14%
7%
Elite Established Moderate Developing Emerging Fragile
(n=2) (n=6) (n=28) (n=30) (n=23) (n=6)
Mission groups3 by cluster 2020–2021
(n=95; % number of institutions)
3%
9%
Mission Group:
33% Russell Group
26% University Alliance
57%
MillionPlus
83% Not in a Mission Group
100% 97%
65% 67%
43%
17%
Elite Established Moderate Developing Emerging Fragile
(n=2) (n=6) (n=28) (n=30) (n=23) (n=6)
This includes the Russell Group, University Alliance and MillionPlus.
3
• 11 •CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022
New funds secured secured reflect the success of current fundraising
activity and demonstrate the true impact of devel-
New funds secured in a year are new gifts/donations
opment efforts inclusive of new gift funds received
received and new confirmed pledges4 (counting
in a year and the value of future commitments.
multi-year value for up to five years) from donors
Gifts given by individuals via charitable vehicles
that are made during the year. The funds pledged
such as a personal trust or foundation or from a
may not have been received during the year. New
privately held company are also recorded as gifts
funds secured include all legacy gifts where the
from an individual.
funds have been received during the year; and
The total value of new funds secured for all
exclude cash payments made against all other gift
institutions was £1.14 billion.5
pledges secured in previous years. Thus, new funds
Mean new funds secured 2020–2021
New funds secured Largest pledge
(n=95) (n=95)
Elite £290,559,593 £61,400,000
Established £36,202,104 £9,894,793
Moderate £9,664,685 £3,236,516
Developing £2,005,672 £1,381,711
Emerging £651,782 £251,191
Fragile £77,170 £45,317
All £12,048,075 £3,371,493
Total number of institutions that secured new funds at different income levels 2020–2021
(n=95; number of institutions)
27
15
14
13
10
9
7
Less than £100,000 to £500,000 to £1m to £5m to £10m to £20m and
£100,000 £499,999 £999,999 £4,999,999 £9,999,999 £19,999,999 over
Legacies are donations received from a donor's estate.
4
See the table on page 10 for more information on key indicators.
5
• 12 •CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022
Note that participating institutions (excluding Elite the remaining 9% were secured by Developing and
institutions) secured 179 confirmed pledges of Emerging institutions; there were no confirmed
more than £500k each. Of these, 90% were secured pledges of more than £500k received by Fragile
by Established and Moderate institutions, while institutions.6
Number of donors that gave or pledged new funds at various contribution levels 2020–2021
(n=75)
14
Gift range:
165 £5,000,000+
£500,000–£4,999,999
956 £50,000–£499,999
£5,000–£49,999
2,606
£1–£4,999
74,121
Note that many institutions, including both members of the Elite cluster, did not provide data for this question.
Individuals contributed 47% of the total new funds
secured while organisations7 contributed 53%.
Mean sources of new funds secured 2020–2021
(% of income)
Elite
(n=1) 50% 22% 13% 12% 3%
Established
(n=6) 31% 11% 36% 18% 4%
Moderate
(n=28) 24% 14% 37% 12% 13%
Developing
(n=30) 21% 22% 34% 13% 6% 3%
Emerging
(n=23) 11% 5% 39% 27% 12% 6%
Fragile
(n=6) 11% 18% 52% 18%
All
(n=94) 31% 16% 29% 14% 9%
Alumni Non-alumni individuals Trusts and foundations
Companies Lottery Other organisations
This chart has been compiled using responses to multiple questions and hence the sample size varies.
Institutions from the Elite cluster did not provide data for this question.
6
Organisations include trusts, foundations, companies, lotteries and other organisations.
7
• 13 •CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022
On average, the largest single new gift/pledge gift is an indication of the programme being overly
accounted for 28% of average funds secured by all dependent upon the largest gift, while a smaller
institutions; a higher dependency on the largest proportion indicates more sustainability.
Three largest gifts/pledges as a percentage of new funds secured 2020–2021
(% of income; chart shows mean figures)
11%
9% 27% 28% New gift/pledge size:
33%
3% 39% Largest
8% 59% Second largest
69% 10%
5% 10% Third largest
5%
7% 13% Other new funds secured
8%
77%
13%
60% 57%
49% 14% 6%
40%
7%
22%
10%
Elite Established Moderate Developing Emerging Fragile All
(n=1) (n=6) (n=28) (n=30) (n=23) (n=5) (n=93)
This chart has been compiled using responses to multiple questions and hence the sample size varies.
Note that one institution each from the Fragile and Elite cluster did not provide data for this question.
Individuals contributed 37% of the largest gifts/ As noted earlier, gifts given by individuals via
pledges received by all institutions. 39% of partici- other vehicles (such as their personal trust/founda-
pating institutions secured their largest new gift/ tion or own company) are recorded as gifts from
pledge from a trust or foundation. an individual.
Sources of largest gifts/pledges 2020–2021
(% number of institutions)
Elite
50% 50%
(n=2)
Established
50% 33% 17%
(n=6)
Moderate
18% 11% 46% 14% 11%
(n=28)
Developing
20% 27% 43% 10%
(n=30)
Emerging
13% 13% 39% 35%
(n=23)
Fragile
50% 33% 17%
(n=6)
All
(n=95) 19% 18% 39% 20% 4%
Alumni Non-alumni individuals Trusts and foundations Companies
Lottery Other organisations
This chart has been compiled using responses to multiple questions and hence the sample size varies.
• 14 •CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022
Cash income received from legacies8; it excludes new pledges where
payment has not been received. Cash income
Cash income received includes all donations
reflects the success of the current and past years’
received during the year. This includes new single
fundraising activity.
cash gifts, cash payments received against pledges
The total cash income received by all institutions
secured in the current or previous years and cash
in 2020–2021 was £1.03 billion9.
Mean cash income received 2020–2021
Cash income received Largest cash gift*
(n=95) (n=94)
Elite £256,494,610 £22,792,400
Established £27,034,533 £3,434,242
Moderate £9,480,428 £2,095,473
Developing £2,234,380 £608,523
Emerging £546,913 £147,343
Fragile £42,564 £13,674
All £10,742,255 £1,316,997
This table has been compiled using responses to multiple questions and hence the sample size varies.
*Note that a member of the Elite cluster did not provide data for this question.
Individual donors contributed 37% of all mean cash
income received.
Sources of cash income received 2020–2021
(% of mean cash income)
Elite 33% 14% 38% 15%
(n=1)
Established 25% 12% 43% 16% 5%
(n=6)
Moderate 21% 11% 39% 8% 11% 11%
(n=28)
Developing 23% 19% 35% 13% 6% 4%
(n=30)
Emerging 10% 6% 44% 25% 5% 9%
(n=23)
Fragile 21% 24% 45% 7%
(n=6)
All 24% 13% 38% 12% 6% 7%
(n=94)
Alumni Non-alumni individuals Trusts and foundations
Companies Lottery Other organisations
This chart has been compiled using responses to multiple questions and hence the sample size varies.
Legacies are donations received from a donor's estate.
8
See the table on page 10 for more information on key indicators.
9
• 15 •CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022
Total number of institutions that received cash income at different income levels 2020–2021
(n=95; number of institutions)
34
14 13
10 9 9
6
Less than £100,000 to £500,000 to £1m to £5m to £10m to £20m and over
£100,000 £499,999 £999,999 £4,999,999 £9,999,999 £19,999,999
On average, an institution’s largest cash gift
accounted for 16% of the average cash income
received by the institution.
Three largest gifts as a percentage of mean cash income 2020–2021
(% of income; chart shows mean figures)
9% 13% 16%
4% 22% Cash gift size:
3% 27% 27% 31%
8% Largest
7%
5% 5%
9% Second largest
5% 10% 12% Third largest
7% 16%
8% Other cash income received
17%
84%
74% 72%
64%
56% 53%
36%
Elite Established Moderate Developing Emerging Fragile All
(n=1) (n=6) (n=28) (n=30) (n=23) (n=6) (n=94)
Note that some institutions, including a member of the Elite cluster, did not provide data for this question.
• 16 •CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022
Individuals contributed 37% of the largest cash
gifts received by all institutions.
Sources of largest cash gifts 2020–2021
(% number of institutions)
Elite
100%
(n=1)
Established
50% 50%
(n=6)
Moderate
29% 4% 50% 11% 7%
(n=28)
Developing
33% 10% 43% 7% 3% 3%
(n=30)
Emerging
9% 9% 48% 35%
(n=23)
Fragile
17% 50% 33%
(n=6)
All
27% 10% 46% 14% 3%
(n=94)
Alumni Non-alumni individuals Trusts and foundations Companies
Lottery Other organisations
This chart has been compiled using responses to multiple questions and hence the sample size varies.
Note that one institution from the Elite cluster did not provide data for this question.
Mean cash income received from legacies was £1.6 gifts (and provided the number of legacy gifts). On
million across 61 institutions that received legacy average, the value of a legacy gift received was £64k.
Mean cash income received from legacies 2020–2021
Cash income from legacy* Cash income per legacy**
(n=61) (n=60)
Elite £26,527,276 £112,757
Established £1,294,845 £57,692
Moderate £1,227,704 £69,831
Developing £276,859 £73,872
Emerging £43,917 £21,269
Fragile – –
All £1,565,624 £64,339
This table has been compiled using responses to multiple questions.
*Note that many institutions, including all of the Fragile cluster, did not provide data for this question.
**Note that many institutions, including a member of the Elite cluster and all of the Fragile cluster, did not provide data for this question.
• 17 •CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022
Overall, 10% of cash income received came from
legacies.
Cash from legacies as a percentage of total cash income 2020–2021
(% of income)
Other cash income received
Cash income from legacies
90% 88% 89% 90%
95% 93%
10% 12% 11% 10%
5% 7%
Elite Established Moderate Developing Emerging All
(n=2) (n=6) (n=23) (n=22) (n=8) (n=61)
This chart has been compiled using responses to multiple questions.
Only institutions that provided figures for cash income from legacies have been included (Fragile cluster did not provide data for this question).
Sixty three percent of cash income from individuals
was received as a result of face-to-face meetings or
tailored proposals.
Cash income received from individuals by communication trigger 2020–2021
(% of income)
Elite
7% 55% 22% 5% 11%
(n=1)
Established
5% 81% 10% 3%
(n=6)
Moderate
11% 55% 28% 4%
(n=27)
Developing
8% 68% 16% 5%
(n=29)
Emerging
23% 51% 11% 9% 6%
(n=22)
Fragile
3% 35% 60%
(n=6)
All
8% 63% 20% 4% 6%
(n=91)
Mass solicitation Face-to-face or tailored proposal Legacy Unsolicited Other*
*Other includes Unknown and Other types of communication triggers.
Note that some institutions, including a member of the Elite cluster, did not provide data for this question.
• 18 •CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022
Telethon campaigns accounted for 41% of all solicitations, followed by direct mail which
cash income secured from individuals via mass accounted for 32%.
Cash income received from individuals by mass solicitation 2020–2021
(% of income)
Established
26% 43% 16% 13%
(n=5)
Moderate
43% 30% 14% 10%
(n=24)
Developing
50% 28% 13% 7% 3%
(n=21)
Emerging
64% 21% 12%
(n=17)
Fragile
69% 31%
(n=2)
All
41% 32% 14% 10%
(n=69)
Telethon Direct mail Email Piggy Back Other*
*Other includes Text and Other types of mass solicitation.
Note that some institutions did not provide data for this question including both members of the Elite cluster.
• 19 •CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022
Alumni and donors in the world and who have not opted out of
communications.
Contactable alumni refer to addressable alumni
The average number of donors across all
(former students of the institution) – those who
participating institutions (that provided both total
have reliable postal or email addresses anywhere
donor and alumni donor figures) was 1,864.
Mean number of alumni and donors 2020–2021
Total Contactable Total Alumni Number
alumni alumni donors† donors‡ of legacies
(n=93)* (n=93)* (n=94) (n=89) (n=60)
Elite 333,277 290,952 38,771 34,193 266
Established 262,694 200,451 3,075 2,508 24
Moderate 200,513 142,302 2,877 1,966 23
Developing 137,820 99,403 1,009 538 4
Emerging 158,100 108,744 305 252 2
Fragile 97,894 38,724 29 21 –
All 170,721 120,891 1,864 1,386 18
This table has been compiled using responses to multiple questions and hence the sample size varies.
*This includes institutions that provided both alumni figures and contactable alumni figures
†
Note that many institutions, including one institution from the Elite cluster, did not provide data for this question.
‡
Total donor figures include individual and organisational donors; one institution from the Elite cluster did not
provide data for this question.
Number of alumni donors making cash contributions by gift range 2020–2021
(n=73)
18
Gift range:
125 £1,000,000+
£100,000–£999,999
696 £10,000–£99,999
£1,000–£9,999
3,289
£1–£999
88,176
Note that many institutions, including both members of the Elite cluster, did not provide data for this question.
Number of legacies received by gift range 2020–2021
(n=52)
Gift range:
245
£1,000,000+
209 205
£100,000–£999,999
£10,000–£99,999
88 £1,000–£9,999
£1–£999
7
Note that many institutions, including both members of the Elite cluster, did not provide data for this question.
• 20 •CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022
Individuals accounted for 96.8% of total donors.
Composition of donor population 2020–2021
(% number of donors)
Elite
(n=1) 88% 10%
Established
(n=6) 84% 11%
Moderate
(n=28) 67% 30%
Developing
(n=30) 56% 40%
Emerging
(n=23) 79% 15%
Fragile
62% 25% 10%
(n=6)
All
72% 24%
(n=94)
Alumni Non-alumni individuals Trusts and foundations
Companies Other organisations*
*Other organisations include Lottery and Other types of organisations.
This chart has been compiled using responses to multiple questions and hence the sample size varies.
Note that a member of the Elite cluster did not provide data for this question.
Institutions reported that they could contact 71%
of their alumni via at least one of two contact
mediums – email or post.
Percentage of contactable alumni 2020–2021
(contactable alumni as a percentage of total alumni)
Total alumni
Contactable alumni
87%
76% 72%
71% 69% 71%
40%
Elite Established Moderate Developing Emerging Fragile All
(n=2) (n=6) (n=27) (n=29) (n=23) (n=6) (n=93)
This chart has been compiled using responses to multiple questions.
• 21 •CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022
On average, across all participating institutions,
0.8% of contactable alumni made a gift.
Percentage of alumni donating 2020–2021
(alumni donors as a percentage of the contactable alumni)
10.8%
1% 1% 0.8%
0.4% 0.2% 0.02%
Elite Established Moderate Developing Emerging Fragile All
(n=1) (n=6) (n=27) (n=29) (n=21) (n=5) (n=89)
Only institutions that provided both alumni donor and contactable alumni figures are included.
• 22 •CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022
Fundraising and alumni based on total advancement costs and total funds
secured. Numerous factors, however, influence
relations investments charitable giving decisions and impact an institu-
Fundraising costs are costs associated with the tion's ability to secure philanthropic support. As an
efforts to gather and process new funds secured and example, the value of institutional leadership and
cash income received. It includes the cost of the other academic time invested in fundraising can
staff undertaking fundraising activity and advance- be substantial and the cost of this time is outside
ment services (staff investment) and the other costs the scope of this report. Similarly, advancement
of running and maintaining the fundraising opera- activities benefit institutions in multiple ways and
tions (non-staff investment). When the cost of both advancement activities yield returns in the form of
staff investment and non-staff investment is com- alumni engagement, annual and major giving and
bined this equals the total fundraising investment. legacies over the course of years or decades.
Alumni relations costs are costs associated with Overall, £153 million was invested in
engagement activity with an institution’s alumni fundraising and alumni relations in total across
and community, including staff and non-staff all institutions. 69% of the total investment was
investment. for fundraising and 31% was for alumni relations.
The return on investment in fundraising and Institutions spent about £3.8 million on alumni
alumni relations could, in theory, be calculated magazines annually.
Mean fundraising and alumni relations investments 2020–2021
Alumni Fundraising and Alumni
Fundraising relations alumni relations magazine Institutional
investments investments investments investments expenditure
(n=89) (n=90) (n=92) (n=47) (n=91)
Elite £18,199,532 £6,634,167 £24,833,699 £427,789* £1,778,384,500
Established £2,762,761* £1,173,411* £3,280,144* £247,410* £816,997,991*
Moderate £1,275,860* £597,781* £1,785,376* £96,710* £418,764,144*
Developing £489,633 £284,961* £765,096 £31,368* £196,514,115*
Emerging £227,597* £196,488 £414,190 £32,864* £169,689,828
Fragile £119,855* £130,475* £168,657* £17,241* £89,082,422
All £1,176,593* £534,591* £1,608,736* £80,118* £315,009,853*
This table has been compiled using responses to multiple questions and hence the sample size varies.
*Note that many institutions did not provide data for these questions.
• 23 •CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022
Mean fundraising and alumni relations investments by cluster 2020–2021
(% of fundraising and alumni relations investments)
27% 30% 31% Investments:
32%
37% Alumni relations
46%
52% Fundraising
73% 70% 69%
68%
63%
54%
48%
Elite Established Moderate Developing Emerging Fragile All
(n=2) (n=5) (n=27) (n=30) (n=23) (n=5) (n=90)
Total number of institutions that made fundraising and alumni relations investments
at different levels 2020–2021
(n=93; number of institutions)
33 32
20
5
1 2
0
Less than £100,000 to £500,000 to £1m to £5m to £10m to £20m and over
£100,000 £499,999 £999,999 £4,999,999 £9,999,999 £19,999,999
This includes investments on fundraising, alumni relations and alumni magazines.
• 24 •CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022
On average, staff costs accounted for 82% of total
fundraising expenditures.
Mean staff and non-staff fundraising investments 2020–2021
(% of fundraising investments)
19% 15% 18% 15% 17% 18%
21%
Investments:
Fundraising non-staff
Fundraising staff
81% 85% 82% 85% 83% 82%
79%
Elite Established Moderate Developing Emerging Fragile All
(n=2) (n=5) (n=27) (n=30) (n=22) (n=3) (n=89)
Of the average alumni relations costs, 23% was
spent on non-staff costs and 77% on staff costs.
Mean staff and non-staff alumni relations investments 2020–2021
(% of alumni relations investments)
17% 19% 20%
27% 23% Investments:
28% 32% Alumni relations non-staff
Alumni relations staff
83% 81% 80%
73% 77%
72% 68%
Elite Established Moderate Developing Emerging Fragile All
(n=2) (n=5) (n=26) (n=29) (n=23) (n=5) (n=90)
• 25 •CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022
Fundraising and alumni 44% of these staff members were employed in
Elite and Established institutions.
relations staff The ratio of average FTE fundraising staff to
A total of 2,431 staff (full-time equivalent or FTE) average FTE alumni relations staff was 1.9:1 across
were employed in fundraising and alumni relations all participating institutions. This figure was highest
roles across the sector10. for Elite institutions where the average ratio was 2.4:1.
Mean fundraising and alumni relations staff 2020–2021
Fundraising staff Alumni relations staff FR/AR staff ratio*
(n=92) (n=93) (n=90)
Elite 250.0 106.0 2.4
Established 39.1 20.2 1.9
Moderate 18.9 10.3 1.8
Developing 7.8 4.5 1.8
Emerging 4.0 3.4 1.1
Fragile 2.6 2.5 0.8
All 17.4 9.0 1.9
This table has been compiled using responses to multiple questions.
*Only institutions that provided both fundraising and alumni relations staff figures were included.
See the table on page 10 for more information on key indicators.
10
• 26 •CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022
TRENDS IN KEY INDICATORS
Trends are calculated using data from a base of 80 consistent year-over-year samples. Since institutions
institutions that provided information for a key set did not provide data for all key indicators for all
of variables for all four years – 2017–18, 2018–19, three years, samples sizes vary.
2019–2020 and 2020–2021. Trends are based on
Philanthropic income • Mean cash income received decreased by 3% since
2019–2020.
• Mean new funds secured increased by 5% since
• Mean cash income from legacies increased for the
2019–2020.
second year, by 8% since 2019–2020.
• In the case of the largest new gift/pledge received,
• In the case of the largest cash gift received,
the mean percentage decrease was 2% since
the mean percentage decrease was 19% since
2019–2020.
2019–20.
Mean percentage change in philanthropic income 2017–18, 2018–19, 2019–2020 and 2020–2021
% change 2017–18 to 2018–19 % change 2018–19 to 2019–2020 % change 2019–2020 to 2020–2021
36%
21% 23%
11%
8%
5%
-2% -0.5% -2%
-3% -4%
-17% -18% -19%
-24%
New funds Largest new Cash income Cash income Largest cash
secured gift/pledge received received from gift
(n=80) (n=79) (n=80) legacies (n=79)
(n=42)
This chart has been compiled using responses to multiple questions and hence the sample size varies.
• 27 •CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022
Alumni and donors • Mean donors decreased by 18% from 2019–2020.
• Mean number of alumni donors decreased this year
• The mean contactable alumni increased again for
by 15% after an increase of 4% over the previous
the third year, by 2.5% over 2019–2020 figures.
year’s figures.
Mean percentage change in alumni and donors 2017–18, 2018–19, 2019–2020 and 2020–2021
% change 2017–18 to 2018–19 % change 2018–19 to 2019–2020 % change 2019–20 to 2020–2021
4% 3.5% 4%
2.5% 3% 3%
2%
-15%
-18%
Contactable alumni Total donors Alumni donors
(n=79) (n=78) (n=76)
This chart has been compiled using responses to multiple questions and hence the sample size varies.
• 28 •CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022
Fundraising and alumni • Mean fundraising and alumni relations staff
investments increased by 5% and 10%
relations investments respectively since the previous year.
• The mean fundraising investments increased by • Mean fundraising and alumni relations non-staff
1% since 2019–2020. investments decreased by 15% each since the
• The mean alumni relations investments increased previous year.
by 3% since 2019–2020. • Mean alumni magazine investment decreased
by 8% since 2019–2020.
Mean percentage change in fundraising and alumni relations investments 2017–18, 2018–19, 2019–2020
and 2020–2021
% change 2017–18 to 2018–19 % change 2018–19 to 2019–2020 % change 2019–2020 to 2020–2021
10%
8% 7%
6.4% 5.7%
5% 4% 3% 3%
1%
-0.01%
-6.4% -5.8%
-8% -9% -8%
-15% -15% -15%
-29%
-33%
Total Fundraising Fundraising Total Alumni Alumni Alumni
fundraising staff non-staff alumni relations relations magazine
(n=75) investment investment relations staff non-staff investment
(n=73) (n=73) investment investment investment (n=32)
(n=76) (n=75) (n=72)
This chart has been compiled using responses to multiple questions and hence the sample size varies.
• 29 •CASE-Ross Support of Education, 2022
Fundraising and alumni • The mean number of alumni relations staff
increased by 7% since 2019–2020.
relations staff
• The mean number of fundraising staff increased
by 5% since 2019–2020.
Mean percentage change in fundraising and alumni relations staff 2017–18, 2018–19, 2019–2020
and 2020–2021
% change 2017–18 to 2018–19 % change 2018–19 to 2019–2020 % change 2019–2020 to 2020–2021
7%
5%
4%
1%
-2%
-3%
Fundraising staff Alumni relations staff
(n=77) (n=79)
This chart has been compiled using responses to multiple questions and hence the sample size varies.
• 30 •You can also read
