I think we're good to get started, if you like. That sounds great. Okay. So, hello, everybody, and welcome to our session today on the Case Insights on Philanthropy Survey for Australia and New Zealand. Some of you will have been in contact with me over the past couple of years, but for those of you who don't know me, I'm Fiona South, and I manage the survey in this region. I'm presenting today from Sydney, and specifically the land of the Wollemagical people of the Eora Nation. I would like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land and pay respect to their elders past, present, and future. I'd also like to acknowledge the First Nation peoples from the lands wherever you are today, and I think looking at the last registration list, that was some 20 institutions across Australia and New Zealand. I'm just waiting for my slides to catch up. So, in today's session, we'll begin with some quick introductions to our speakers, and this will be followed by a brief overview of case insights. I will then move on to give an overview of the survey process with key dates and highlighting some important reference documents. Following this, I'll briefly run through the key sections of the survey and highlight a couple of issues that you might be aware of when taking the survey, and this will be followed by the main purpose of today's presentation, which will be time for your questions, and you can either unmute yourself or you can type questions into our Q&A feature, and please do use this as you go along so we don't miss any questions. Slides will play for a few minutes, and in addition, just to let you know that we are recording the session today for your reference. So, in addition to myself from CASE, we have Deborah Tumble here, our Senior Director of Research. She's going to introduce CASE Insights shortly, so she will introduce herself a little more then. We also have several members of our editorial group. Unfortunately, Steph Hardacre, our Chair, is unable to join us, but she has been on the survey group for about 10 years and is an absolute wealth of information on the survey completion. Also unable to be with us today is Rachel Dalton from the University of Melbourne. She joined us on the survey editorial group last year and is Director of Advancement Operations. If I could now just hand over to Elise, John, Jen, and Simon, if they could just briefly give an introduction to themselves and their involvement in the survey, that would be great. Fantastic. Hi, everyone. Lovely to meet you. My name's Elise Appleby and I'm the Manager of Advancement Operations and Alumni at UniSA. I'm really excited to be in my first year here on the editorial committee, and I really see valuable insight in regards to this benchmarking activity. And yeah, looking forward to supporting this as a group. Thanks. Ciara, my name's John Bird from the University of Auckland. I'm Associate Director of Business Intelligence. I think this is my seventh year on the survey, and as well as being involved with this committee, I'm also on the case global standards advocating for, well, we're looking for consistency of standards across the world and I'm advocating for consistency with our core of the world. Thanks, John. I'm Jen Gorman, I'm from Griffiths University, Advancement Insights Manager, so I'm lucky enough to work with Steph, who is a wealth of knowledge. This is my second year on the committee, but I think we've been participating now for maybe seven years, so it's been doing this for a while. And yeah, another year looking forward to it. Thank you. Hi, everyone, I'm Simon Watson from Australian National University, so I oversee the systems and data and intelligence teams here. It's the first year on the committee for me, but I think it's the fourth survey I've been on, and I think it helps prepare from ANU, whereas ANU's been participating for a number of years prior to that as well. So it's great to be on the committee and sort of great to see you all on the call as well. Thank you, everyone. So the commissio will be really useful in helping answer any questions because they're very experienced in filling in the survey. I should say they also contribute when we get to the analysis stage, providing some context and so on in the reporting. I'm just also just going to note that there are a couple of other people in the case team who are quite involved in ensuring the smooth running of the survey. For example, some of you may have come across Divya, who works in the UK, and she does an awful lot of work behind the scenes on our Qualtrics platform and putting together the data ready for analysis and also working on the benchmarking toolkits. We also have Jenny Cook-Smith and Nick Campuzzi who are involved in producing your individual reports. And Cara Giacomini is both the Vice President of Data Technology and Research for CASE. And in our region at the moment, she's our acting director. So you may come across her in that capacity too. And Deb, if I've missed anyone there, I hope not and do apologise. In terms of institutions participating today, we're delighted to have representatives registering from the following 20 institutions all across Australia and New Zealand. Great to have many of you back for a repeat of completion of the survey and also really pleased to see some new faces joining us this year. I'm sorry, my slides are a little bit slow to catch up, but I'm going to hand you over to Deb to give an overview of insights. That sounds good. Sorry, sorry. I'm sure the slide will pop up momentarily, but I'll go ahead and introduce myself. Hello, everyone. My name is Debra Trumbull. I'm the Senior Director of Research at CASE, and I am in our Washington, D.C. office in the States. So I'm not actually in the office at the moment because it's in the evening for me, but I'm very happy to be joining the webinar today. Just a quick reminder for those of you, many of you have completed this survey in the past and you're familiar with CASE Insights, but if you're new, I will just share a little bit about CASE Insights. We are the division of CASE that manages all of the data and the standards and the research that you all have come to rely on, and you can see this visual we have here at the centre of really everything we do are those CASE Global Reporting Standards. I know John mentioned he is on the committee to represent your region and ensuring that we've got consistent standards. All of our surveys are built off of those standards. We issued our first global set of standards back in 2021, and over the last couple of years, we've been making sure that all of our surveys align with those standards. And you can see around that circle are some of the different areas that we do research in. So philanthropy, that would be what we're talking about today. We do have a global alumni engagement survey. We have a survey that's going to be launching in September on campaigns. We do work with our Opportunity and Inclusion Centre as well on areas of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging. And in the realm of marketing and communications, which has been sort of one of the harder areas to really determine what we can survey, because folks have such challenges collecting that data and wrangling that data, we do have a task force at the moment that is of marketing and communications advancement professionals around the globe who are making or will be making some recommendations to us on some of the things we might be able to track there, because we are really, really eager to have a survey in that area, to represent that area of advancement as well. So that's just a quick review of what we do here at Case Insights, and I will let Fiona take it from here. Okay. Thanks, Amy. Okay, so moving back, I guess, more specifically to our survey, the Case Insights on Philanthropy survey in Australia and New Zealand was previously known as the Case Support of Education survey, and has been running in this region for over 10 years. It's modelled on the long-running Case Insights survey in the UK and Ireland, also with an old name of the Case Ross survey. But the surveys are the same, and this year is actually identical in our region to the one before. It collects fundraising and donor data to measure the philanthropic performance of higher education institutions, and used for benchmarking between institutions, and also to estimate the impact of philanthropy in the sector. At an individual level, I'm sure you're doing benchmarking as well, year on year within your own institution, which I'm sure is a great reason why lots of you participate. 30 institutions completed the survey last year, and so far this year, we have 37 registered, and it would be absolutely fantastic to see as many of you complete that as possible, because I think that will be a record if everybody did complete from those numbers. Always a slight area of confusion. This is the survey carrying out in 2024, but it's the data from 2023, and most of the documentation you will see in relation to the survey does say 2023 on it, as we refer to the data. In terms of the survey process, my list up here begins with the point that you registered for the survey, but there were a few more tick tasks that went on prior to that, since the completion and publication of the last survey and associated reports. From a practical point of view, it would be great if everyone could check that they have received the link and are able to access the survey. If you find that you don't have the link or there's an issue with access, please do let me know as soon as possible, because call tricks should now have been sent out to all of you. They sometimes get caught up in spam filters, but I'm quite able to send you a link from my own email address if necessary. So, once you start the survey, and it's up and running, I should let you know now that you just have two more weeks before the deadline, but if you are having challenges meeting the deadline, please do let me know. Receiving the data in a timely manner is important in order to make sure our reports come to you on time, but we do know that some of you find some bits of the data a little bit hard to get hold of, and so just let me know if you need a little bit more time to finalise certain sections. After the survey closes, it can seem a little while before we actually get to see the reports, but that doesn't mean nothing's happening. Once everyone has submitted, then the whole series of checks goes on, and you might find that we come back to you if some of your figures aren't quite as expected. Please don't worry if this is the case. I have to say this probably happens for at least 50% of more than 50% of institutions, even sometimes the editorial group will find I come back with a question on their data. Normally a very good reason for it, but we do just want to check that the data is as accurate and as useful as possible. So, once all the queries are completed, graphs are produced, the analysis and the report writing takes place. At this stage, we're expecting the main reports to be released at the end of August, as in previous years, but we do hope that the benchmarking toolkit would be available sooner than this. As you complete the survey, there are a number of links which are important for you to reference, and these can all be found on our survey webpage. If we have time at the end, I can click through to some of these, but I know it won't share the right screen if I try and do it right now. I would say one of the most important is the question-by-question survey guidance documents, which should be able to find us on our survey webpage, also in the Qualtrics link that you've received, and I would say this is the first point of reference when you've got any questions, and then I'm probably the next point after that, and I will disseminate it to Deborah or the editorial group if I'm still in further clarification. Another thing I would say is we do recommend inputting your data into the survey validation worksheet on Excel first, prior to inputting it into Qualtrics. This will tell you whether the format of your response is right, like should it be a number with a certain number of decimals and so on, and in addition, it will also highlight where the value doesn't seem logical. For example, if you were to indicate your largest gift under new funds committed came to $10 million, but your total figure for new funds committed only came to $5 million, the validation worksheet should flag that for you and say, ah, could you check what's going on? When you're completing the survey, there are nine sections, and I've mentioned it hasn't changed all this year, which I hope is really good news for those of you who've participated before. I'm going to very briefly overview each of these sections and point out a couple of issues where we do sometimes come back with queries. If this raises any questions, please do type them in the Q&A so we can make sure we cover these. I say most likely we will look at them at the end, but if there is something that looks like it needs immediate clarification, we can do that. However, just before I move to that, I'm just going to briefly hand you back to Debra, because she's going to outline two very important definitions that it's important for you to understand when completing the survey. Great. Thanks. Thanks, Fiona. One of the things I just want to cover when we're looking at philanthropic support, when the case global reporting standards came out a few years ago, one of the things that we worked very hard to do is to align two different ways of counting, and part of this came about because there were different ways of counting in different regions. In the U.S., we were a little more heavily reliant on funds received. In other regions of the world, more of a looking at commitments coming in was sort of the primary way of counting. So, the global standards sort of pulled this all together. I'm not going to go into a lot of detail here about how we're counting these things, but just recognize that when you're in the survey and you're going through these questions, we will be asking you to count your giving in these two different ways. And New Funds Committed is really measuring monies and property that were committed in the reporting year so that you can really understand the impact of your fundraising efforts in that year. So, you're looking at new pledges that are coming in, recurring gifts that are coming in, in addition to outright gifts that are coming in. In the area of funds received, I think this one's a little, it's pretty straightforward. We're looking at anything that has been received within the reporting year. So, think about it as just that's your cash flow and that money that's coming in. So, I will say, I will give you a little heads up that with our global reporting standards, one of the things that we've done is we have a digital version of the standards that when you renew your case membership, you get this digital version. And one of the reasons we did that is we wanted to be able to make updates more frequently. And we will have some updates coming out soon in the next couple of months. But I do want you to know that it's looking right now like the changes and the updates that we're putting out are really more for clarity and are not really going to have a big impact on how accounting is being done in your region. So, but I did want to give you a heads up that that's coming. But I think it shouldn't be too much of an impact for you all. Thank you, Deborah. Well, thank you, Deborah. Okay. So, starting with the easier section of the survey, I hope, we have the voucher institution, just background information, including name and contact details and so forth. We do also ask you to confirm the currency you're fitting in. So, that's New Zealand dollars or Australian dollars. In the final report, all these figures will be converted to Australian dollars. And I guess that might mean for some of our New Zealand participants, we could have a gift that was showing us $1 million or $10 million suddenly get devalued a little bit. But we don't change the numbers of gifts at this level when we're reporting. I don't know. I don't know if that's ever happened to you, John, or anyone else from New Zealand. But don't worry about it. Never looked into it in that much detail afterwards. It just occurred to me sometimes when I'm looking at the sheet. So, Section B. Now, this contains some of the really key headline figures on total new funds committed, funds received, as well as some request income, annual funds, information on the largest gifts and so forth. Most of the questions are required in this section. But I think there are a couple of optional ones if you're struggling to find the data. You might find queries do come back to you related to figures in this section, as the responses here really correspond both within the section itself and between some of the other sections. So, for example, if you report a figure of $1 million as the amount in new funds committed from bequests, your total new funds committed must be at least $1 million. And again, the survey validation tool should really help you here. I think, and as we touched on a bit, bequests in the Australian New Zealand survey should only be counted when they're realised from the estates of deceased individual. Now, as far as I understand it, we should nearly always find that bequests in new funds committed and funds received are the same. I think there are a few exceptions, such as a bequest comes right in at the end of the year. Well, that's it's confirmed, but then it's banked in the following year. If there's anything to pick up on in more detail there, or if I've made any mistake there from the editorial group, do jump in now. Okay, the next section is philanthropic income by purpose. And this is where we break down how much money was given for each of the different purposes, such as research, scholarships, and so forth. And the survey guidance do have these categories in more detail. Although it's an optional section, we really would like to encourage you to fill this in if at all possible. We then have a similar section, section D. So, instead of looking now at the purpose of the gift, it's where it's come from, its source, whether it's from alumni, hustle foundations, sold, or just move forward a little bit, corporates, so forth. Again, all those definitions should be found in the survey guidance document. And to note that the sections for these categories, as is the case in section D, should be adding to the totals that you reported in section B. And if they don't, it is possible we might come back and just check this with you. Section E, this is quite an interesting one, which we added a few questions to last year, which is philanthropic income by contribution level. We previously just asked you to report the number of donors who gave gifts at a variety of levels. But last year, we added in questions to ask you for the dollar value of all gifts at various levels. And this brings graphs such as the one below from New Funds Committed. I've just taken a little extract from our report and illustrates, as I think many of us will be aware, that the majority of donors give at a low level, that's the bar on the right, so in the 1 to 999 category, which is making up 80%. But the majority of funds are actually coming from the high level donations, which you can see in the bar on the left. These are optional questions, in particular because we introduced them for the first time last year. But a lot of you responded, which is absolutely fantastic. Be great if you're able to do so again. There are some detailed notes on it in the survey guidance documents and we'll really happen to guide you through this if this is a challenging section. Section F, constituents. So, this covers the number of alumni, donor numbers, request intentions and so on. A change to this last year was that we changed the definition of contactable alumni to include those for whom we have telephone numbers, so not just postal and email addresses. Should just note at this point that the total donor numbers in this section should include soft credits. So, that's when a couple makes a joint gift. It's often recorded there in this section as two donors. However, in the previous section where we broke down donors by gift level, we don't include soft credits. And for that reason, the donor numbers may not add up to the same number in these two sections. I know I did have this conversation with a few of you in previous years. So, as I say, we previously, I think, expected them to add to the same total, but it's slightly different definitions of the use of SOC credits there. Just to note on this section, we did have a question previously, which is whether the business contact details can be used as counting someone who's a contactable alumni, and that is yes, and that's the same as in our alumni engagement survey. Section G on capital campaigns only needs to be completed if your institution is actually in campaign. So, great, and usually not, then you get to skip a few questions here. Section H, really important section, I'd say, on staffing and investment. And this looks at the staff and non-staff costs by fundraising and alumni relations, as well as the FTEs working in each of these areas. And this does allow some calculations on return of investment. And I did have one question come up in the last week around the FTEs, where you have people starting part way through the year. And the general consent seemed to be that if you say had someone start full time on the 1st of July, that would be 0.5 FTE and not one FTE. That seems to be the approach in most of the editorial group take. So, there's my advice there. This section does also include a question on total institutional spend. And we do understand that many institutions may need to add this figure later. Some institutions have to go through quite a lot of process before this can be released to us. And we're really happy for you to submit your survey without this figure. And I can just add it in later. Nearly on home straight here, Section I, this is the final sign off. This is where you'd get your Chief Advancement Officer or equivalent to agree that the data is all fine to submit and also to say that you agree to our data sharing agreement. We do sometimes find surveys sitting at 99% at our end, because it looks like a final button hasn't been pressed. And I'll contact you if this is the case. Because I do understand it might not always be obvious. People think they've submitted when they haven't. And that's quite common. So, don't feel silly if that's you. I think it happens quite a few. Okay, so that's all the survey sections. And great if you've got any questions on that after the end of the presentation. But just before I move on there, I'm just going to briefly move back to Deborah, so that she can tell us a little bit more about using the data and the solutions offered by the Case Insights team. Yes. So, just to remind everyone, the data that is available through Case Insights, when you complete this survey, we always release key findings reports that are, you know, a narrative form report that provide high-level trends of what's happening with the, you know, with philanthropy in your region. We also have those same reports for our Alumni Engagement Survey, if you participate in that. And that is a report that's available to everyone, regardless of whether they've participated in the survey or not. As you move through taking the survey and participating in the survey, as a case member, you also receive the, what we're calling the Summary Benchmarking Report. This is an interactive report of five key measures that you can toggle the views to isolate different sources of giving. And it's a really nice summarized way of looking at your data. And anyone who participates in, any members who participate in the survey do receive that as part of their participation. You also receive access to the raw data in the Benchmarking Toolkit. And then, if you want to take it even further and dive a little deeper into your data and understanding how you compare to your peers, you can, for a fee, order our Strategic Benchmarking Report. And this is a report where it is also interactive. You look at, gosh, I want to say there's like 20 different key metrics in there. And when I say these numbers like 20, it doesn't sound like a lot because, but each graph can be customized in a number of ways interactively. So, it's really quite robust summary of your trends. And you would, you actually have the opportunity to partner with our team if you want to walk through that report and have some more kind of one-on-one review of that data to talk about next steps. So, they're sort of, you know, you can sort of access this data along the way, as deep as you're comfortable going, and as much as you'd like. So, that's a little bit about what we have available through Case Insights. Thank you, Debra. Right. So, the formal part of the presentation is finished. And we'd now like to encourage you to ask questions that you might have about completing the survey. Please do put those in the chat or QA, or you are welcome to unmute also. I think I'm just seeing something coming through from, thank you, from Diana. And just type your response to that. Oh, thank you. This is around trusts and foundations, individuals giving through trusts and foundations. Yeah, this is an area I find a little complex. Would you like to comment on that, John, for the group? I can never see the question. Yes, I've just finished entering my response. First caveat on this is quite happy to be challenged on this because it isn't written in black and white in the rules. So, if anyone disagrees, that's cool. Please say, but the question was, so in section D of the survey guidance states, if any individual gave through another vehicle, such as a trust and foundation or company, those donations should be counted as a gift from the individual. And the question is, does this guidance also apply to answering question B7, the source of the largest new pledge committed? And I said, yes, it should, because what we're really interested in is the original source of the donation. So, if an alumnus is making all the decisions and they happen to give through their own small privately owned company, but it really is a gift from an alumnus, then that's how you should consider it. And I guess I'm making that distinction. If an alumnus is on a board of a foundation, although they may be strongly influencing that decision-making and that is not their own financial vehicle, and that would be a foundation gift. So, I guess it's about the decision-making and the control of the funds, whatever the entity that actually gives the final money is. Thank you, John. Deborah, is there anything, rather, you have to add from a case perspective there? I know our setup might be a little different in Australia and New Zealand than the U.S. Yeah, I think I'll just add that in some other regions, notably in the U.S. and Canada, we have donor advised funds and some other vehicles of giving that are similar. And because we are also collecting soft credit data, we treat it differently. We actually count the donor advised fund or the foundation as the donor because we have the opportunity to use the soft credit to report both ways, essentially. But I would say, yes, I think the way that you all are doing it and the way that John is handling it sounds right for your region at this time. And I just saw there's a second part to Diana's question came up, which I kind of touched on. I mean, in New Zealand, we have a lot of family trusts. So, an alumnus may give through a family trust, but that's not like a trust and foundation with an independent board that's registered with the charity's office. And that's kind of where we would make the distinction between it being an individual gift and a gift from a foundation or a trust as it's about the control. Thank you, John. Diana, does that answer your question okay there? Right. Thank you. Okay. I'm not seeing any other questions up yet. Does anyone struck by anything as we've had this conversation or raise anything else? I'm just... I'll give you a moment to have a think about that. One question I have been asked in the past was regarding the source of the gift or it's where it's... Oh, sorry, the purpose of the gift. It's sometimes split for two different purposes. Does it count as one or two gifts? And I think our answer to this in the past is it's one gift. Although some databases are doing... may report it as two separate donations, but for our survey, I think it's one gift, even if they're two purposes. Maybe. All right. Nothing further striking anyone yet? Okay. I might ask the commission if they're prepared just for a moment to talk. I don't know. Could you briefly say how you use the data afterwards and the value of undertaking the survey? Or would you like to share anything about something that you found difficult about filling the survey in the past? I'm happy to go. Yeah. Thanks, John. So, I guess there's three main areas of benchmarking we've used it for recently. The first one is whenever we are going to the university to ask for more budget, we always look at how we compare against the other universities. So, we're either looking at dollars raised, but dollars invested, so some form of ROI measure. And we say, we kind of use that to say we're... And anyone can use this how they want. And you use the right item for you, but you're basically trying to demonstrate, look, we're underfunded for what we're achieving, we're punching above our weight. So, it's not unreasonable that we should be asking for more funds. So, dollars raised per dollar invested is one way of looking at that. Or the other way is, and we use this for alumni relations investment as well, is investment per alumnus, and comparing how we sit in those. In terms of measures for how we're performing as a fundraising team, annual giving is kind of this, there's not many questions related to that, but it's a nice kind of complex bit of the survey. So, we can look at the annual giving performance. And again, benchmarking that against the number of alumni, or what proportion of our overall funds raised. And then we can compare that to other institutions. And that tells us if our annual giving is a greater or lesser contributor to our overall funds compared to other universities. And similar kind of thinking on the bequest program, and how our bequest intentions compare against the number of alumni, if you think of that as one measure of your potential audience. And compare that against how our peer institutions are performing. And then the last one was something we just started doing some work on. Everyone's familiar with the donut pyramid and gift pyramids and how kind of your income should look like this. We definitely have a sky tower with the way we fundraise. So, a bit of a fat bottom, very thin middle, then another bulge and then another thin bit. And I think that might be true of a lot of major gifts teams. But there you can use the gift bands to start to say, does everyone have a sky tower or do other people have more of a uniform pyramid? And should we be looking to be more effective in that probably in the 100 to 500k gift range? So, that's how we use it. Thank you, John. That's really interesting to share. Other members of the committee, do you have anything you'd like to add about your use of data? John, we've covered most things from my perspective. We've just found the benchmarking really useful just to be able to compare like to like universities, like being able to see, you know, who's staffed similarly, how much they're raising. And it just gives us that really good benchmark and we've used it. Exactly as John said, so, you know, our performance versus the number of staffs, FTE, alumni engagement, it's been really helpful over the past few years and we're using it more and more. Thanks, John. And Fiona, it looks like a question came in through the Q&A. Yeah, I've just had a look. Thank you, Hilary. I don't know whether the committee's considered, so I might just read this out, which is regarding section C. And that's, where do you count a gift given to fund staff fellowships to conduct research? The question is whether this might be counted as restricted for staff and student bursaries and scholarships or for research programmes and partnerships. I don't know if anyone has a perspective on that one. So this is gifts given for funding staff fellowships for research. Research. Yeah, nods there. I guess the staff funding is like permanent compensation if it's permanently funding a position, which I guess a fellowship is as well, but a fellowship is there to conduct research. And so ultimately it's research funding. So we would distinguish it. I think it's a scholarship. I don't know. Okay. I don't see any other questions coming up at this stage. Any other comments from the committee? Are there areas you found difficult to complete in the past that you offer any wisdom on? No, I did not, but. Probably not difficult, but sort of the area that requires a little bit of work for us here at ANU is around the bequests or the plain gifts reporting side of things. And so just the way we track that and report that internally is different to the case standards. And so that's just one of the areas that a lot of the survey, we can just use our numbers. We've already prepared for our internal reporting, but around sort of whether bequest funding is being included or excluded or sort of realised versus expected is a bit different. So because we've been through the survey a number of times now, we sort of have a case version of our reporting as well. And we plug those figures in, but that's just one of the differences for us, which takes a little bit of work to work through each year. Thank you, Simon. I might just take this moment just to switch my screen share from this presentation to the survey validation worksheet, because there may be a couple of people on this webinar who haven't seen or filled in the survey before. So I'm just put that up. Is that visible, this spreadsheet? Okay, so this is where we would encourage you to complete your survey before you actually input it into Qualtrics. And I think there was a front page. Read this first, let's start switching to it lastly, which just explains the sections and how this worksheet works. So we have this page, which really is just to check, I guess, that you're putting your number in the right format. So I'm gonna have a go at inputting something here. What year did we start our operation? I'm gonna pretend that we're really old. And no, the validation sheet does not like me claiming that we started in year 10. So I believe this has to be a number that's a little higher. So as you can see there, if you put in a number it doesn't like, it flashes red, and if it's a number it does like, it flashes green. Now there's another page to this, another tab to the sheet. So I had put some numbers in, but I think I may have deleted them again. So let's take B1, the total new funds committed by your institution. I'm gonna say we've got 10 million. Sorry, it likes the number and the way I formatted it. But now I'm gonna say that I've had 20 million in bequest. So again, the number itself that's coming out looks perfectly fine. Now, this will be the test. When I go to the validation sheet, I believe it might flash up as false for this number here. So this top line here is saying false, because it doesn't like the fact that I've said we've had more in bequest for new funds committed than total new funds committed. So I say it might look like a, I don't know, the most beautiful spreadsheet in the world, but I think it's quite useful in terms of just doing some basic checking that your data makes sense and it's logical. And it's a lot often the case that we will come back to you with queries which don't match, when it doesn't work on these rules here. Do, committee, do you all use this spreadsheet to fill in the survey or are you so experienced now that you don't feel you need to? Fiona, as new participants, this is only the second year I've participated and UniSA has only done it for the last three years. We find this immensely valuable. So thank you to the case for putting this together for us. It just allows us to really look at our numbers, make sure if there's any errors and really cross-check what we're putting into the survey. So for those that are embarking on this journey, similar to me at UniSA, highly recommend that you use this tool. Excellent. And if you put something in and it doesn't seem to, it gives you a result that you're not expecting, it says something's false or true and you don't think that's right, to do come back to us. So I will double check that everything is working properly on that. So, okay. I won't sit there with the play all day, adding different numbers there, but let's get back to our... It's very brave of you to do a live demo. I know. I was just waiting for it to do something different or me just put the wrong number of zeros in my millions there because it didn't have the commas so it would be confused me slightly. Hey, I'm not seeing any other questions coming up. So I'm feeling really confident that we're gonna get all our surveys nicely in by the 15th of March and you all know what's going on. So if that turns out not to be the case and when you do come to filling it in and you find there are questions, please do email me at f.south.case.org in the first instance. If I can't give you a quick answer, I might go back to our editorial group or to Deborah or someone in the insights team. We do also have the insights emails addresses up there, the insight solutions being the reporting. Email address. I'm really excited to start seeing the data coming in and seeing what patterns have come up this year. Are we still dealing with the COVID lag and so forth? I don't know. So Deborah, is there anything else from the case insights team you think we should be drawing attention to here? No, I don't think so. I just really wanna thank everyone for their participation. We at Case, obviously we wanna have data that is meaningful to you, that helps you do your job better. And the only way we can do that is through your participation and to have your consistent participation is really helpful as well. So I can just wanna say thank you and encourage you all to reach out to Fiona if you have questions. And yeah, we look forward to seeing the data. We've actually, for the first time, we actually pulled data from all of our regions this year and hosted a webinar around global trends. And that was pretty exciting. And it's been great for us to be able to pull that all together based on the work that you're doing. So thank you. Okay, thank you, Deborah. Okay, well, thank you everyone for coming. And just to say again, please just do shout out if there's anything at all. And I say, you should all have had those Qualtrics links. So if you can't find it or I don't know, not linking through, okay, please come back as soon as possible so that I can help you with that side of it. Okay, well, as I say, look forward to the data. Thank you very much for coming. Thank you.

Philanthropy Survey

Australia

New Zealand

fundraising data

donor data

benchmarking

survey process

Case Insights