Transcription
CASE-Ross Support of Education:United Kingdom and Ireland 2021Generating Philanthropic Supportfor Higher EducationFindings from data collected for 2016–17, 2017–18, 2018–19 and 2019–2020
2021 Council for Advancement and Support of EducationOriginal publication date: April 2021All rights reserved. No part of the material protected by this copyright may be reproduced or used in anyform, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage andretrieval 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, itmakes no representations or warranties in respect to the accuracy or completeness of its contents. Noliability or responsibility of any kind (to extent permitted by law), including responsibility for negligence isaccepted by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, its servants or agents. All informationgathered is believed correct at publication date. Neither the publisher nor the author is engaged inrendering legal, accounting or other professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance isrequired, the services of a competent professional should be sought.CASE-ROSS EDITORIAL BOARDThe Editorial Board members helped manage the project by contributing their time andexpertise at each stage of developing this report. They were involved with survey review, scriptcreation, survey promotion, data collection, data verification, analysis, report writing anddissemination.The 2019–2020 Editorial Board consisted of:l Sandra Jackson, Deputy Director and Head of Development Services, University of Bristoll Tania Jane Rawlinson, Director of Development and Alumni Relations, Cardiff Universityl Frances Shepherd, Director of Development and Alumni, University of Glasgowl Tom Smith, Prospect Research and Database Officer, Loughborough Universityl Martin Wedlake, Deputy Director of Strategy and Operations, University College LondonAUTHORDivya Krishnaswamy, Senior Research Analyst (Project Lead), CASECASE STAFFBruce Bernstein, Executive Director, Global Engagement (Europe and Africa)Leigh Cleghorn, Deputy Director (Europe)David Bass, Senior Director – ResearchACKNOWLEDGEMENTSFirst and foremost, we would like to thank the institutional staff who gave their time to provideinformation about the philanthropic income of their institutions and those who submitted casestudies to support the publication of this report. A special thanks to all the new institutionsparticipating in the study for the first time. We are grateful to the CASE-Ross Editorial Board fortheir continued guidance and support.COVER ART CREDIT yuoak, Getty ImagesFOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:Divya KrishnaswamySenior Research [email protected] or [email protected] 44 (20) 3752 9726COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENTAND SUPPORT OF EDUCATIONcase.orgLondonMexico CitySingaporeWashington, D.C.
CONTENTSPRESIDENT’S NOTE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Key Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Cluster analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Interpreting the charts and tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11KEY INDICATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .New funds secured. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cash income received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Alumni and donors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fundraising and alumni relations investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fundraising and alumni relations staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121418222528TRENDS IN KEY INDICATORS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Philanthropic income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Alumni and donors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fundraising and alumni relations investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fundraising and alumni relations staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Trends by cluster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .292930313233FINDINGS BY MISSION GROUPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35FINDINGS BY OTHER GROUPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36FINDINGS BY PEARCE REVIEW GROUPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37APPENDIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Response rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Participating institutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021PRESIDENT'S NOTEFor almost 20 years the CASE-Ross Survey has documented the growth and evolution of higher educationadvancement in the United Kingdom and Ireland. As the Editorial Board’s Foreword demonstrates, CASERoss data is a valuable tool providing insights into the impact of external factors, like the ongoing pandemic,institutional practice, notably sustained investment in advancement functions, and program level strategy onfundraising outcomes.Throughout the past year educational leaders and advancement professionals have proven themselvesinnovative and nimble. They have rapidly adapted primarily in-person alumni engagement and fundraisingprograms to online activities that have proven successful in sustaining relationships. They have also beensuccessful in newly engaging previously uninvolved alumni and stakeholders who are motivated by institutional missions and vision. Fundraisers have adapted their appeals in many contexts to raise support forstudents impacted by the crisis and the scientific research that has helped to pave a pathway beyond.Institutional strategy has also played a critical role in sustaining and growing fundraising capacity.Findings from this survey, as well as AMAtlas surveys of higher education fundraising in the US and Canada,demonstrate that even in years when overall giving declines as a result of economic and other external factors,many institutions sustain or grow fundraising. This reflects the importance of unstinting institutional supportof advancement programs. While the pandemic has posed many challenges, the CASE-Ross survey demonstrates the resilience of philanthropic relationships sustained through consistent engagement and stewardship.The CASE-Ross survey has long been a critical resource for UK educational leaders and advancementprofessionals and has become an important model for the global advancement profession. In March of 2021,CASE published the first CASE Global Reporting Standards, an internationally applicable set of reportingstandards informed by fundamental ethical and professional principles. Members of the CASE-Ross EditorialBoard as well as other dedicated volunteers from the UK and Europe provided invaluable guidance andsupport in the development of the new Standards. They include the CASE-Ross methodology of countingnew funds secured along with cash income as a central element.Over the next two years, CASE will be engaging with volunteers and industry partners to align our established regional fundraising surveys with the new Standards and define a set of core metrics, across advancement roles, while preserving valuable longitudinal and regional data. This work will enable benchmarkingacross national borders while ensuring that all CASE members have access to transparent, industry standarddata and can benefit from the metrics, analytics, and reporting resources provided by CASE’s AMAtlas team.With sincere thanks to the members of the CASE-Ross Editorial Board and the dedicated advancementprofessionals who contributed to this year’s survey and who do so much to advance education to transformlives and society.With much gratitude,Sue CunninghamPresident and CEOCASE 4
CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021FOREWORD2020’s global Coronavirus pandemic turned 2019–2020 into an unprecedented and difficult year for everyone, including universities, and their development and alumni relations programmes and teams. The fortitude,commitment, flexibility and care shown by advancement professionals across the UK and Europe, in the faceof the pandemic, was wholly admirable. Many professionals helped support key aspects of university “pivots”to address issues which the pandemic exacerbated.The pandemic meant that 2019–2020 was a year of two (unequal) halves – one pre-COVID, and onewhich tracked the pandemic’s early months. The CASE-Ross report for the 2019-2020 year does not distinguish between those two distinct timeframes, though the pandemic’s impact is evident across many of the datapoints we track.The overall story of the year, including those challenging early months of the pandemic, is stronglypositive. The sector delivered more than 1 billion of New Funds Secured from philanthropic sources for thethird year running. Strong momentum would seem to have been maintained, even as other sectors saw theirincome from giving [or fundraising income/voluntary income] decimated.That said, the story seems to be bifurcated in some areas of higher education advancement. Maturity, andinstitutional commitment to development and alumni relations, mattered more than ever.Mindful of this split, we reviewed our cluster analysis closely this year. Notably, initial cluster analysis leftus with a large emerging cluster, where we saw widely varied performances. Further analysis showed that thiscluster divided naturally into a group of 22 Emerging, and 11 Fragile institutions. (Last year’s Emerging clustermight have benefitted from a similar approach, so we recommend that this year’s charts are read on their own;they are perhaps more finely tuned and accurate, rather than representing a significant sector shift to more“fragile” institutions.)The more mature five of the six “clusters”: Elite, Established, Moderate, Developing and even Emergingreported relatively consistent results and appear to have weathered the start of the pandemic. The Elite,Moderate and Emerging clusters have all posted fundraising results that are slightly down on last year, butthis is in the context of a particularly strong 2018-19 and is not necessarily a cause for concern. Because theseinstitutions are responsible for more than 95% of gifts, this strong performance means that an overall NewFunds Secured remained above the 1 bn mark for the THIRD year in a row. The fall of 236 million fromlast year is a return to 2017–18 performance levels, and it is worth remembering that the 2018–19 all-timehigh included a single new pledge of 150m for one elite institution.The sector’s focus on the long-term relationship based major gift model appears to have paid strongdividends. Unlike transactional or product-based fundraising, UK higher education’s approach seems tohave nurtured and maintained long-term donor affinity and momentum. Universities’ willingness to investin asking, and donors’ ongoing willingness to give, does not seem to have been affected materially by thepandemic in the last quarter of the 2019–2020 financial year.News and analysis of the broader charity sector has frequently included reports of dramatic losses infundraising success, with attendant reductions in expenditure on fundraising. Our figures show that whilstmany universities reduced overall expenditure in 2019–2020, staffing numbers did not decline much. Wededuce – and anecdotal evidence also tells us – that reduced spend was the result of pausing on visits andevents (including overseas travel), rather than significant staffing cuts.But at the very Fragile end of the spectrum (which now includes a number of institutions classed asEmerging in previous years), there have been advancement team closures and reductions. Notably, fewerinstitutions since the mid-2000s participated in the CASE-Ross survey. (Even some relatively mature offices 5
CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021were unable to complete the survey, or provide all its data points, due to staff pressures. We hope to welcomethem back to the full survey next year.) In 2019–2020, it seems, institutional commitments to fundraisingsuffered for some institutions with the least mature programmes.Stop-start investment in fundraising is a dangerous game. It can lead to damaged relationships and inturn to philanthropic income languishing and failing to recover when it is felt investment can again be made.Consistent investment, appropriately tailored to institutional needs and opportunities, has proven time andagain to lead to success – as the continued growth in all the other clusters demonstrates.Where there was success, what was it that counted? Institutions that showed impressive results have toldus their success relied on strong donor relationships, on institutional agility, and/or being well aligned withstrategic planning in their institutions. When some or all of those factors were in play, advancement teamscould respond to the crisis even as institutional needs evolved rapidly. They could demonstrate authenticityof need to donors who knew them well already and could showcase real impact to donors. Some universities found success through fundraising for research efforts associated with the pandemic and vaccine. Othersmoved rapidly, and successfully, to appeals which focused on new and urgent student needs during the crisis.Of course, we will also be watching carefully for the pandemic’s impact on the 2020–2021 year. At thisstage it is very difficult to predict. Some institutions seem to be faring well. We know that non-salary spendmay be far lower than in previous years, with no travel and few events possible. Telethons were more complex torun. But we have heard that online engagement with alumni is opening up new territories and opportunities –fertile ground for global engagement of a mobile, agile alumni community. Case studies of successes, andfailures, will be important for the sector to share in the coming months.The CASE-Ross Survey continues to highlight sector trends and patterns we have observed over time.Some longer-term trends have continued during 2019–2020: Investment in alumni magazines declined for the third year in a row; Contactable alumni numbers continue the long-term trend of inexorable rise; Very large gifts continue to contribute significantly to the sector’s success.Some trends we are watching were more difficult to chart in a tumultuous year: Telethons seem to have slowed for the second year running for the subset of institutions who reporton this data, though it is unclear whether this was due to strategic choices, or to lockdown pauses. Crowdfunding continues to grow donor numbers, but again the pandemic may be a factor. Didemergency appeals open doors to new audiences? While total staff numbers dipped very slightly (both in fundraising and alumni relations), a fewsignificant institutions did not report staff – and median staff numbers held largely constant. The2020–2021 numbers may offer a better picture of pandemic impact.We also observe fluctuations in “contactable” alumni with interest; we aim to consult with the sectorabout the causes here, and significance of this fluctuation.More generally, both our Editorial Board and CASE remain committed to keeping colleagues in Europeinformed and consulted, whilst CASE globally updates its surveys and programmes. (See Sue Cunningham’snotes above about the wider landscape). We feel real pride that the CASE-Ross Survey, now passing its 20thyear, has helped provide much of the context for the recently revised Global Standards, and for data collectionin the forthcoming CASE “core metrics” programme.Our goal as an Editorial Board together with CASE is to ensure that European colleagues have the dataand tools they need to enable benchmarking, inform their programmes, and identify communities of bestpractice. We will do our best to provide early information about, and consultation on, updates and changes inthe CASE-Ross Survey. We will stay in touch, and continue the discussion at CASE events and programmes,in the months and year to come. 6
CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021Most of all, we are full of appreciation for the outstanding commitment which advancement colleagueshave shown to their universities, to their students and colleagues, and to their donors and alumni over the pastyear. Our work is valuable, is valued, and truly changes lives. This survey gives an idea of the financial impactwhich our work has – and all of us can be proud of the positive impact we have on people, on places, andon learning and discovery at our institutions. Thank you to all of the institutions who participated in theCASE-Ross Survey 2019–20!With thanks,CASE-Ross Editorial Board 7
CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021EXECUTIVE SUMMARYTOTAL NEW FUNDS SECURED IN2019–2020 WAS 1.09 BILLIONThe CASE-Ross Survey Supporting Documentprescribes definitions for recording philanthropicincome, guidance on eligible funding and providesgeneral guidance on completing the survey. Philanthropic income includes gifts/donations or grantsthat are eligible and fall within the boundariesof philanthropic intent. Philanthropic support isreported in two ways: New funds secured in a year includes the valueof new gifts/donations received and new pledgesconfirmed in the year at their value for up to fiveyears; it excludes legacy payments and cash payments made against pledges secured in previousyears. New funds secured reflect the success ofcurrent fundraising activity. Cash income received includes all cash incomereceived during the year and includes new singlecash gifts, cash payments received against pledgessecured in the current or previous years and cashfrom legacies; it excludes new pledges wherepayment has not been received. Cash incomereflects the success of the current and past years’fundraising activity. The total new funds secured in 2019–2020 was 1.09 billion. The mean philanthropic funds secured in2019–2020 decreased by 17% since 2018-19. On average, institutions sourced 66% of their newfunds from organisations (including companies,trusts and foundations and lottery) while theremaining 34% was contributed by individuals. Amongst 79 institutions that provided the data,219 donors made gifts or pledges of 500k ormore during 2019–2020 (excludes elite and fragileinstitutions).TOTAL CASH INCOME RECEIVED IN2019–2020 WAS 1.03 BILLION The total cash income received in 2019–2020was 1.03 billion. The mean cash income received in 2019–2020decreased by 0.1% since 2018–19. On average, institutions received 63% of cashincome from organisations (including companiesand trusts and foundations), while individualscontributed 37%. Total cash income from legacies was 85m in2019–2020 from 986 legacy donations.Key Findings1For 2019–2020, overall average new funds secureddecreased by 17% over those received during2018–19. Average cash income also decreasedslightly, by 0.1% over 2018–19 figures.The average value of the largest new gifts/pledges and average value of the largest cash giftsreceived by institutions decreased by 24% and 4%respectively. Average donor numbers have increasedby 3.6% while the average number of alumnidonors has increased by 5% since 2018–19.Average figures for investments in bothfundraising and alumni relations have decreasedby 9% and 16% over 2018–19 levels.AVERAGE NUMBER OF DONORS GREWBY 3.6% 94 participating institutions reported a total of214,115 donors. Average donors increased by 3.6% since 2018–19and average alumni donors increased by 5% since2018–19. Among institutions that provided breakdowns ofdonor types2, 97% were individuals and 3% weretrusts and foundations, companies, lotteries orother organisations. 1% or 149,715 of the reported 10.8m contactablealumni made contributions during the year.All average trend figures are for institutions that participated in the survey for all four years 2016–17, 2017–18, 2018–19 and 2019–2020.Not all participating institutions provided a break down of total donors into sub-categories.12 8
CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021AVERAGE INVESTMENTS IN FUNDRAISINGAND ALUMNI RELATIONS DECREASED BY9% AND 16% RESPECTIVELY In 2019–2020 the total expenditure on alumnirelations was 46m and the total expenditure onfundraising was 107.5m. Average fundraising investment decreased by 9%and average alumni relations investment decreasedby 16% over the previous year. Staff costs accounted for 79% of average fund raising expenditures and 73% of average alumnirelations expenditures. 9
CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021INTRODUCTIONCluster AnalysisThe first CASE-Ross Support of Education Survey(as it is now known) was carried out in 2002 andbuilt on previous surveys undertaken within theRoss Group; the survey has been conductedannually since then.The survey methodology has been adapted foruse in other CASE surveys on philanthropic support for education in Australia and New Zealand,continental Europe, South Africa and Canada.During 2012–13, the CASE-Ross survey wasoffered online for the first time. Its methodologyalso changed substantially (differentiating it from itspredecessors) and was enhanced following a reviewthat included scoping interviews with key stakeholders and development directors.The CASE-Ross Support of Education Survey,UK and Ireland, 2019–2020 was open to participants from 16 September 2020 to 24 November2020. Invitations to participate were sent to 161higher education and specialist institutions in theUK alone that are involved in some form of fundraising or alumni relations activity. Ninety-threeinstitutions across the UK participated yielding aresponse rate of 58% (see Appendix for details).Two higher education institutions from Irelandand the Institute of Cancer Research in the UKalso took part in the survey. A total of 96 institutions across the UK and Ireland participated during2019–2020.Participating institutions provided data for the12-month period from 1 August 2019 to 31 July2020. Data has not been reweighted to estimatefunds raised and other data for non-participatinginstitutions so reported totals only account for aportion of philanthropic support for higher education in the UK and Ireland.CASE Research staff, with the support of theEditorial Board, queried data submitted by institutions against an exhaustive set of logic, ratio, arithmetic and substantive tests and survey participantswere asked to confirm or correct their responses.Benchmarking data was made available to participating institutions at the time of report release. 10 Latent Class Analysis (LCA) was first conductedin 2013 on data from the CASE-Ross surveys in2011–12 to explore the possibility of uncoveringgroups of institutions that had similar fundraisingprofiles and has been repeated every year. LCA wasused to group institutions, into different clustersbased on certain defining variables that providedthe most information about key characteristicsof fundraising activities and for which there wassufficient variation between institutions to offerdistinct patterns and differentiating factors. Thesevariables are:1.2.3.4.Average cash income received over three yearsAverage largest cash gift received over three yearsAverage number of donors over three yearsAverage proportion of contactable alumnimaking a gift over three years5. Average fundraising costs per pound receivedover three years6. Average number of fundraising staff (full-timeequivalent) over three yearsAverage figures for these variables across a threeyear period were used to ensure that comparisonswere based on performance over time rather thanany single year. In earlier years, a five-cluster solution offered a good statistical fit for the data andmade substantive sense; however, since 2015–16,additional analysis on the Emerging cluster wasconducted and it was found that the institutions inthis cluster could be further divided into two subclusters producing a total of six clusters in recentyears. The same process was first applied to the2019–2020 dataset of 96 institutions using LatentGOLD v5.0 software. However, this left us witha large, emerging cluster, where we saw widelyvaried performances. Further analysis showed thatthis cluster divided naturally into a group of 22Emerging, and 11 Fragile institutions. Throughmost of this report, data has been presented brokendown for the following six clusters of institutions:1. Fragile (11 institutions)2. Emerging (22 institutions)
CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 20213.4.5.6.Developing (26 institutions)Moderate (28 institutions)Established (7 institutions)Elite (2 institutions) Interpreting the chartsand tables Through most of this report (other than trends bykey indicators) data has been presented brokendown by the six clusters. Descriptive statistics, mainly using the measuresof central tendencies – arithmetic mean/averageand median – were used to analyse the data andreport on key variable
For almost 20 years the CASE-Ross Survey has documented the growth and evolution of higher education advancement in the United Kingdom and Ireland. As the Editorial Board’s Foreword demonstrates, CASE-Ross data is a valuable tool providing insights into t
