All right. All right, so I am going to get started. Hello. Hello everyone and welcome to the case insights webinar on global philanthropy. I'm Deborah Trumbull, Senior Director of Research at case and I'm thrilled you could join us. Before we get started I have a couple of administrative notes. This webinar is being recorded and will be provided to all registrants, you will receive a follow up email after the event with instructions for accessing that recording. We will also be taking questions so please feel free to use the q amp a box to submit those questions you'll see that at the bottom of your screen. We'll try and answer questions as they come up, but we'll make sure to leave time at the end of the session to get through as many as we can. All right, that's left that's said let's do some introductions again I'm Deborah Trumbull, as Senior Director of Research at case I oversee a number of philanthropy surveys in regions that we conduct around the world. I've been a case for almost two years. I'm joined today by two of my colleagues, Jenny cook Smith and Nick camp easy, and I'll let them introduce themselves. Great, thanks so much Deborah and thank you all for setting aside a little time to join us today we're so happy to have you here for this first inaugural global philanthropy webinar. My name is Jenny cook Smith, and I lead the solutions team at case. And so today Nick is going to be sharing with you some really interesting findings as we started spending some time with the data, our team, then thinks about how do we help you as institutions build strategies, and I'll hand it over to you, Nick. Thanks. As you said, I'm Nick can PC. It's wonderful to be here today, all of you. I will be going over some findings that we're seeing across the world from our philanthropy surveys, and my day to day I tend to work with the benchmarking analysis and data from those surveys. All right, so let's talk about what we're going to cover today so in today's presentation, we will be talking about cases journey toward a global comparison so kind of where we've come from and where we are now, in terms of what we can provide for global comparison. We're going to look at some key takeaways from some data that we've collected around the world. And we're going to talk about how to act on some of those insights that were that we're walking through today and give you all some next steps for participating. Before we dive into some of the data and the history of these comparisons I just want to talk a little bit about who is case insights so you know case insights is, is our group here at case that provides the data standards and research here at case to our You can see the visual representation on the right of some of the research that we conduct, and you'll see all of those areas are surrounded by our case global reporting standards which really serve as the base for the work that we do in case insights, you'll see that we have surveys on philanthropy. Those surveys take place in regions around the world, including the US, Canada, the UK and Ireland, Australia and New Zealand, you'll see alumni engagement our survey there is a global survey as is a global survey. We have a campaign, we have a excuse me a survey on campaigns that we do in partnership with Martin Lundy. We also do work with our opportunity and inclusion center around diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging. The last little circle there is around marketing and communications and, you know, we find that marketing communications is probably one of the more challenging areas to track and measure metrics but we have a wonderful committee a task force that is going to provide us some recommendations this year on things that we, we feel that folks are going to be able to measure that we can, we can collect data and report on. So that's a little bit about case insights and I've provided the link there to our web page if you'd like to get some more information. So we thought, you know, obviously the meat of today's session is really going to be about what are some things that we've learned. Now that we have global comparisons, but we felt like it might be more helpful. And so we thought we'd use that to talk a little bit about the journey of how we got there. And to also provide some very basic foundational knowledge on the standards, you just saw in the graphical representation that Deborah showed, we really see the standards as the center of enabling these great comparisons and if you'll advance to the next slide. I know that you all are coming from different areas within advancement today. And so we're going to keep this really high level. Obviously, if you sit on more of the operations side of things, there's some next steps we'll discuss because you'd be in a role where it's really important to understand those standards. But for purposes of today, what I think is crucial to understand is that this is the first version of global standards. We'll talk you through the history in just a moment. But essentially, up until 2021, standards were really more of an interpretation of Canadian and US tax law and understanding what counts and doesn't count. And as you'll see with this new version, we were able to incorporate a global working group of volunteers to build a global set of definitions. And so, of course, part of that is what counts and doesn't count as philanthropy. And I'll share that with you. And of course, that's what allows us to enable benchmarks that are apples to apples. But it also includes some key ethics or ethical considerations and some key principles of practice as we think about the importance of our profession. And so I thought, gosh, what a great opportunity to just take a moment and share a couple of those terms. These are front and center of the standards, but they're also on the case website. And something that I think no matter what your role is, is important to understand it's available, starting with the Donor Bill of Rights. Maybe most important right now as we think about the news, and I saw that there's a here in the US, we actually have a congressional meeting happening today with university presidents and around the idea of freedom of speech on campuses. But also what have donors done as institutions have had different reactions to the war in Gaza? And I know that for many of you, this is happening in your own countries as well. And so something like the Donor Bill of Rights means you don't have to go at it alone. You're not just saying, oh, no, what do we do when people say this shouldn't be happening or this should be happening? And this is actually beyond case. It's not just about educational philanthropy. This is actually a joint statement that is really protecting any donor's rights and critical as you're thinking about also the reporting out and how you should be using the donation based on the restrictions that donor implied. If we go to the next slide, kind of keeping on this idea of some ethical considerations, another important timing piece of the standards was that there have been a lot in the news when we think about some scandals, quite frankly, around education, around donor control and donor intent. And so the board felt very strongly that the standards were an important time and place to build a statement of ethics. And again, this is available on our website and right there front and center. Included in that same section are also principles of practice and those principles of practice outline this for the disciplines. So fundraising, alumni relations and marketing and communication. And again, that's a really good place to make sure that you and your teams really understand how we put ourselves front and center as professionals. And we think of these standards and metrics as a key element to advancement as a profession. So if you'll take us to the next slide, the one last term that I wanted to share with you was it really builds into the conversation we'll be having today. And this is the idea of educational philanthropy. If you take away one thing from today, I think this might be the term that I'd stick in my head. And that's because really everything in the standards was built on this anchor definition. And in fact, in the two and a half years the working group came together, anytime there was a question and a concern about, well, does this make sense to count or not count? This definition you see here was really what they put things up against. And I'll just call out a couple of terms or words for you. Voluntary, and this is private financial support. So the donor is freely giving their gift to the institution without any expectation that they're going to receive something else beyond that stewardship and recognition. Now, obviously, the standards does weigh in on things like tangible donor benefits. So if there are some elements that donors getting a piece of services, let's say, for example, to get seating for athletics or for cultural events, but anything above that is the donation itself. And that indication of private is really a strong call that when we're talking about philanthropy, we are excluding any governmental funds. And again, the way that that change or that explicit change might be a little different based on where your institution was and how things were counted before. But now the idea is that if it's governmental, it is not counted. And the last piece I'll say is that this may exclude revenue that is incredibly important to your institution. And that certainly is by all means continue receiving that revenue. But the idea is that if we're going to count things in a way that is similar from institution to institution or region to region, we want to only count that that fits in this larger definition. And if you'll take us to the next slide, with that definition established, then there's a couple of ways that we can count this. And I'm guessing for many of you, even if you're not using the exact case definition, you've been counting this way for many years. The definition on the left is actually not really new for any of our fundraising regions. And the term may be new. Our funds received, as you can see here, is really that idea of money in the bank. So for regions outside of the U.S., your surveys probably said something like cash income for the U.S. This actually just was total support in the voluntary support of education. But we've now really made that distinction. This is funds that are received. Comparing that against new funds committed. So again, if you're outside of the U.S., this actually aligns very much with what you would have considered new funds secured. And in fact, this is a place where the Standards Working Group really looked at what had been happening in the U.K. and Ireland for many years and counting new funds committed. And so it was very easy to sort of build off of that definition. Now, as you can see here, new funds committed, I think of as new gifts plus new commitments equals new funds committed. And therefore, we're counting pledges and we're counting outright gifts. And you'll see we're also including the new bequest intentions. There is an age qualifier. We won't get too in-depth into that today. But if the donor is 65 or older in the year, then that bequest intention counts. What we are not counting are payments towards pledges or realized bequests, because what we don't want to do is be in a situation where we're double counting funds. We've color coded this, if you're a visual learner like me, so that the orange is the same in both categories. The blue is what's different. And as a reminder, that means you'd never want to add new funds received and new funds committed together to get a big overall total. New funds committed is really that total for you. And if we were all together in a room, this would be a great point to take a moment and say, does this make sense? Do you have any questions? And so I'll just encourage you again. If there's any clarifying questions on that, please feel free to submit that and we'll either address that offline or happy to discuss further if we've got time today. So as we go to the next slide, I'll just say, Nick is going to be sharing with you trends that build on both funds received and new funds committed. With new funds committed being new for 2022 in the States, we won't actually have trends there, but we can look at that for regions outside of the US. All regions have funds received for, again, for many years. And speaking of years, here you can see a little bit more details on some of the information that Deborah shared with you at the beginning. And so this is simply sharing with you the surveys, how long those have been in existence, and a general idea of how many institutions submit each year. We'll really be focusing on those first four boxes that you see here today as just an FYI, while we're together, we have started a new survey in the US for K-12 independent schools and look to start a pilot outside of the US for schools as well. And then, of course, our two global campaigns noted below. And so before I pass things over to Nick, I've alluded to some of this, but I thought it might just be helpful for you all to see a little bit of how we've gotten here. And by here, I don't mean the end journey that now we've got global comparisons and we're good to go. Because I think a critical piece of the new global reporting standards is that this is something that's a living, breathing document that's continuing to update and we're very much taking what we're hearing from all of you and your own practices and incorporating that to make sure the standards are always reflecting our complex global worlds of advancement. But as you can see, the standards are actually as old as I am. We were both born in 79. But again, that was called the blue book. It's still blue. But again, this idea is, it was really based on the tax code for US and Canada. We had four versions that came out and then this really long period between the fourth version and the global version. And that was really because in that time, if you think about it, campaigns got incredibly complex. Our world became a lot more global. And so there were a lot more considerations. And so, as you can see, there were actually just over two years that this working group came together. And built the new standards with the idea, and I'll use Sue Cunningham's analogy here, that moving forward, we are painting the Golden Gate Bridge. This is not something that we anticipate we'll spend another decade between versions, but that will continue those revisions and I'll talk a little bit more about that as we go down our timeline. So again, those standards came out in 21. They do include supplementary chapters that are noted here. And that's because we certainly understand that there's a lot of power in understanding what's happening globally. And there's also real regional differences that we have to consider. And so when we think about the standards, we often say we're looking at global comparisons with regional relevance. And those chapters are really a nod to that and something I think we'll continue to see. We'll build out more in terms of more in the chapters and more countries as we look towards the future. As that came out, CASE worked with a number of volunteers across the globe to start testing global metrics based on standards. And we called that our Global Core Metrics Pilot. And we learned a lot in that pilot. We learned some things that we said, you know, let's just hold off on this. We also learned some things. We said, this feels ready. And let's start putting this in standards and surveys. And that's actually what's been happening. Deborah's really taken the lead on ensuring those regional surveys are starting to use the same language in the areas where it makes sense. Finally, as we look towards this year, we included a Spanish translation this year. We also had some additional revisions. And that Spanish translation, I'll just add, is a bit of a placeholder as we think about that being our next area where we're looking at building some metrics. And hopefully, within the next couple of years, we'll start to bring Latin American region into this conversation as well. The idea being that we've now got this ability to start to see with some transparency and some consistency what's standing out when we start to understand educational philanthropy. And I'll leave you with one last slide. I cannot be more grateful for the excellent and hard work that our Reporting Standards Committee is doing. The original working group was chaired by Brian Hastings and Maddie Einan. And they have stayed on board and are helping us as we think through what that looks like next. And really excited again to, in 2024, start thinking about what some of those next revisions to standards will be. So Nick, I'm going to pass things over to you. Great. Thank you so much, Jenny. As Jenny mentioned, I'm going to spend a lot of my time focused on data and what we're seeing across the different regions, and then kind of extrapolating that to what we're seeing across the four regions that we do have data on. But first, I want to start with a few more qualitative things. And that includes, what are we hearing from you? We've heard a lot about staff turnover in recent years from COVID. And I would actually, before I get too into what we're hearing, say that COVID in the last three years have definitely been an anomaly in one way or the other for everybody. I think we all understand that. And looking at in the most recent survey cycle of 21 to 22, how are we coming out of that experience? And how are we bouncing back? Or how is philanthropy changed in new ways that are going to continue forward? For instance, we're also hearing things about focusing on large gifts. That's something that we'll cover later today. And then tied to that staff turnover, shortage in expertise, expertise in data and fundraising and that retention of those staff. And then finding those new staff who can kind of jump back in as we're all getting ready to go after COVID. Also, as Jenny mentioned, global crises. In recent months, the importance of the case standards in global crises. And more broadly in recent times, the focus on AI, interest in understanding the impacts of AI, both in our everyday lives, but then also in the field in general. And on both of those points for AI and global crises, we'll have in the slides that you'll get these links to case resources about what to do. For instance, in the global crisis, as you can see, our subject guide for helping institutions respond during a time of crisis. But then what are we also seeing before we get too much into the nitty gritty? What are we seeing and how does that relate to what we're hearing from all of you? We, looking at the second bullet point here, seeing that both new funds committed and revenue have bounced back, as I said, as we come out of the pandemic for all regions, but then budget cuts, budget cuts, budget cuts, tied to that staffing and the compounding of the difficulties we're facing in turning economies and how those are impacting our indicators and the metrics that we use to judge our own performance, but then also performance of the field in general. As was alluded to earlier, we have four major regions that we do have data on today that we can kind of benchmark across different regions and then also look a little bit within them. As you can see from the previous slide, but then also here at the top, they have a variety of histories. For instance, our U.S. survey going on for 60 years before it even came to case, it's a longstanding institution on philanthropy in the United States. And with that, has a lot more institutions than in other regions, as well as a lot more detail in terms of what can be collected. I also want to point out while we're here that the surveys also have different reporting times given different academic years, different fiscal years, and then all the way on the left, and I'll show you New Zealand. I also want to just point out here that the reporting year for that survey is the calendar year, January to December. And so this will create a little bit of discrepancy between the regions and how their trends are showing from the pandemic and from COVID. But as you'll see later on, I think that the trends are pretty evident with the bounce back, the dips in the bounce backs. Lastly, a few of our charts today will show these kind of interest groups. I tried to pick one from each different region for those research intensive universities, kind of our high performers, but then you'll also see some other groups for particular regions, just as a point of reference for other countries. I want to take a moment here to point out this established group in the UK. This comes from our case research findings, and what we do is we use a cluster analysis. And the established term here refers to the development or shop at maturity. And we describe this using organizational characteristics to group participating institutions into different bins. For instance, as I said, we'll have the established group today, but then we also have different groups such as emerging or elite. As I mentioned previously, with different histories and different reporting periods, I also want to take a moment to pause and reflect on just the more broad variations that could be impacting our philanthropy differences and trends between the regions, whether these are economic, cultural, or just based on funding models. For instance, the economic differences just can include the general state of the economies. As I said, the way that COVID impacted each country or region as a whole. And then also just more generally, the power of the dollar. All of our figures today will be in US dollars, but how far that goes and how much from the philanthropy side, the impact of a donation of a particular dollar, how far that can go will vary between the regions. Culturally, we all give in different ways. I know today we're going to spend a lot of time on kind of that treasure aspect and donating money. But then as we look towards and think about ways in which people give their time or their talent, this may vary between the different regions. And we go into this culture of philanthropy a lot more in our alumni engagement survey. So if you want to know a little bit more about that, please reach out or read that finding. And then lastly, the funding models, the support from the government, how are government funding areas influencing what you fundraise for, how much governmental support are you getting from your national government? These all can go into how we approach philanthropy. Before we get started, I kind of wanted to then back up again to those two lenses of fundraising. On the left, we have, again, funds received. And on the right, we have new funds committed. As Jenny said, these don't total up and your new funds committed are generally going to be a little bit higher than your funds received. Again, all of these figures that we'll use today are converted into U.S. dollars, so they may not match perfectly what you've read in our findings reports or what you've seen on the ground. But then also, as we roll up all of our institutions into their regions, we're going to talk a lot today about averages. I'm going to use this term a little bit more colloquially, but I want you to know that all of our values here today are going to be shown as mediums. We know a few things from our regional philanthropy findings. First, and as we saw before, we know that the funds received and the new funds committed have remained relatively stable, especially over the last five years, and you can see this here in today's chart. With new funds committed, we definitely see the more drastic decline from COVID within that bounce back in the 2022 cycle, having a little bit of a recovery as we come out of the pandemic. It's worth pointing out while we're here that both the funds received and new funds committed revenues are on average in 2022 above their respective 2020-18 levels in all regions shown here. And then I also wanted to point out while we're here on this high level charts that a little bit more information about what this orange all bar is. This will just be the average across all of the regions. While we do take in this chart a consistent cohort, for instance, of the institutions who participate across all five years, you'll see sometimes that we restrict this to really focus on the trends that we do have. For instance, the funds received question not being asked in Canada in 2018. Our Canada bar won't have a 2018 figure, and so we just tried to reflect this and really use this all bar as more of an indication rather than a truth. Lastly, as Jenny mentioned, our new funds committed question was new in 2022 in the United States. So while this number isn't included in the all bar, I wanted to go ahead and put their results here for you just to have that point of reference. As we move on, I want to spend another minute on some high level trends on staffing. So we hear a lot about staffing, and it's evident that staffing turnover, expertise, and the burden of work on our fundraising staff has increased out of the pandemic. I think that's something that's not necessarily unique to this industry. I think it's happening across the whole world at this point, especially as our staff try to balance in-person or remote work or transitioning between the two. As I mentioned before, this staffing turnover is something that we hear a lot, and from that staff turnover, the shortage of expertise does play a role into the impact of how we understand data and fundraising. As you can see in this chart here, most of the regions displayed a gentle decline in staffing between 2018 and 2022. But I want to point out in particular Australia and New Zealand, this dark blue chart, this dark blue bar, and their trend from 2020 to 2022. So we mentioned previously the budget cuts, and this region is undergoing budget cuts right now. And I think between 2020 and 2022, you can see how these regional budget cuts are impacting this region, creating different trends here from the other regions. But if we talk about a gentle decline, I want to also take a moment to look at what's the absolute change in our fundraising staff. While a decline in staffing may not look dramatic, if we examine the change in the FTEs over this time frame, we can start to imagine the realistic impact this is having on the individuals. For example, in the United States at the top, losing two staff members may not be a lot over five years, but the domino effect of transferred work and lost knowledge can have strong effects on our day-to-day results and activities. Similarly, although this chart doesn't examine turnover, we can imagine the further difficulties that this is having from the lost information institutionally or that lost information from the industry as a whole. But then referring back to those research intensive interest groups, I also just wanted to point out over here that all of our research intensive interest groups have had an increase in staffing. Most notably, the US research doctoral have increased their staffing 21%, and then the Australian and New Zealand group of eight have increased their staffing by 16%. So we're definitely seeing two different trends between those high performers and some of the rest of the countries or the regions rather. Now, we've mentioned that metrics of performance and metrics of outcomes have become a little bit more muddy in the recent years, but I think there's still something that are worth being looked at. Here, you'll see on the y-axis, the total costs and the investments from 2022, and then the x-axis along the bottom, those new funds committed that were raised in 2022. I want to also pause here and talk a little bit about sample size. So although the new funds committed question was new for the United States in 2022, as you can see up here on the top right, 864, the history of this survey really gets a lot more of participants for us, even though we may ask new questions in certain years. Across all of the institutions who participated in all of these surveys, we observed a linear trend that's positive between investment and the new funds committed. And this is this gray line here that you can see. This is the average trend between all of our institutions who participated. And what we see on that general trend is that those institutions with higher costs are raising more money, which makes a lot of sense. While our average costs from the regions don't directly adhere to this trend, they're a little bit below this line, we can still clearly see another positive trend between them as these points continue to move upward and towards the right. If we look a little more closely, however, we can see certain distinct differences. For instance, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada have similar levels of investment. We look horizontally. But Canada has received over 2 million U.S. dollars more in new funds committed in 2022 than in Canada, if we look vertically. So we definitely see these trends that investment doesn't exactly equal new funds committed, although we do have this general positive trend. If we start to look at our high performers, we can see this trend becoming even more complex. So as I mentioned before, we have these research intensive groups, but then I also wanted to include the U.S. bachelors and the Canadian primarily undergraduate groups, even though they're not necessarily those who raise the most in terms of new funds committed, but they feel they do provide a more holistic comparison and a good point of reference for maybe those of us who don't fit into the research intensive category. As I said, it's not always those who spend the most that realize the most returns, as I'm sure we all can imagine. For example, here, the group of eight tends to spend much more on average first than any other research institutional group, but then also above this UK and Ireland established group. Although I want to point out here that that almost double spending doesn't equal to more new funds committed and actually tend to have an average of less revenue in this measurement. It's also worth mentioning that we're here, that the Russell group from the UK and Ireland looks a lot like the U.S. dot that we saw previously, both in terms of investment and new funds committed, but then also in terms of the ROI, the return on investment, which is the size of these dots. If we look a little bit more detail about that ROI, we mentioned, again, that this is a complex measure of performance, and as we all recover from pandemic changes and changes in staffing and budgets, it gets a little bit more money. But as we can see here, even those who raise the most are not always the most efficient on this metric. Canadian medical and doctoral institutions who raise by far the most in terms of new funds committed have the same average returns as the US bachelors institutions. We look at their $12 in new funds committed returned per investment dollar. As you can see, this is also the case for those who spend the most. While the group of eight who we talked about previously have that highest in terms of total investment, and are in the group of among the highest earners in revenue, new funds committed revenue. Their return on those investments are below what we see for other research intensive groups. And they look a lot more similar to the UK Russell Group, despite the UK and Ireland Russell Group spending less and raising less. And even on the institutional level, we see these kind of small but mighty institutions who are in terms of ROI efficient, while they don't always raise the most, they see great returns on those investments. I wanna point out here, the US bachelors who have this $12 in new funds committed per investment dollar. Even though they're not raising the most, have similar ROI metrics as those highest performers. And I can attest that through the diligence with data and a lot of those institutions that we work with here at CASE, they create good strategies that lead them to this kind of efficient returns and otherwise set themselves up with good strategic plans for the future. So here in the moment, I'll take a pause and do a shameless plug to come work with us, even if you don't have the time or skills on the staff to dig into the data. I think that CASE has a wonderfully robust ecosystem of data that we can draw upon. And it really serves as a great resource for you. But Debra will get into more about the opportunities for you to dig into the data or leverage CASE resources later. Next, we also looked at the percentage of funds received coming from the largest gift here in this chart for the major gift support. As you can see from the overall trend, 2022 is characterized by a little bit of a decrease from what we saw in 2021. And without picking on them, this is really most evident in Australia, New Zealand, this dark blue line again, which has been consistently among the regions with one of the highest reliances on major gifts. The turbulence in the reliance on the largest gift over the last five years and the changes that may be attributed to the pandemic are definitely also evident in this chart. But that being said, the economic conditions in each region, as I mentioned previously, are also important for shaping these trends. For example, our U.S. philanthropy findings identified increases in giving due to a really strong economy throughout the pandemic. And we can see that relative stability that occurred by following the U.S. line here. Nonetheless, despite that turbulence and some evident decreases during COVID, throughout COVID, and then some bounce backs, the change in the share of funds received that's coming from the largest gift is relatively similar to what it was pre-pandemic. And so here I've overlaid the change between 2018 and 2022 in terms of those percentages on the left. And we can see that the largest change being in the UK and Ireland of 2.5% change really isn't all that much. But I think it's also worth noting that the overall share, while relatively high in some regions, given that we're only talking about one gift here, has remained relatively stable and that the changes are only a few percentage points. So I just wanna take a moment to remind you that although these can look quite turbulent, even in Canada here with this brown line, the absolute changes in percentages we're talking about are still relatively small. Now, let's look at the share of funds received from individuals, both alumni and non-alumni alike, and the differences between these regions. Well, we previously saw that Australia and New Zealand had the highest reliance on those major gifts. We see here that they have among the lowest reliance on individual giving. So in this way, if they have 18% of their funds received coming from individuals, 82% of their cash is coming from organizations. Of course, on the other side of that is the United States, which has the highest among these regions, really tied to strong alumni giving. And while this data here is only for this 2021 to 2022 reporting cycle, I want to mention that over the last five years, the levels of support from individuals are, again, now about the same, if not higher, than those pre-pandemic levels. So again, I think the theme that's coming through in a lot of this data as we come out of COVID is that despite the turbulence that's happened over the last three or so years, a lot of institutions, a lot of regions are having that bounce back, and we're kind of returning to where we were in 2018. Within the regions, support from individuals is generally higher among those research-intensive institutions. In this way, it can be said that the non-research-intensive institutions, which really form this rest-of-the-region group, they tend to rely more on funding support from organizations, like we saw with Australia and New Zealand as a whole previously. Again, even in this chart, and focusing on the group of eight, Australia and New Zealand continue to be an outlier from the other regions internally as well. So while research-intensive institutions in other regions tend to have more support coming from individuals than the rest of the region, in Australia and New Zealand, the group of eight is having not only a similar level as the rest of the region, but they're actually receiving less support from individuals contrasted with those who receive more support than the rest of the region. Interesting, Canada also has a relative similarity. I would say they're the second in this group, although the Canadian medical and doctoral institutions do still receive more, 5% more support on average than the rest of Canada. The last thing I wanna point out today is that there are differences within the UK and Ireland where the Russell Group tends to rely more, the most on support from individuals than the rest of the group. Here you see they have 10% more than the rest of the region. And this was the largest difference within all four regions, and largely driven by three institutions in particular who had over 50% of their funds received coming from individuals. So I just wanna say thank you and I'll pass it off back to Debra. Great, thank you, Dick. There are a couple, before I go into the next section, I did just wanna mention there are a couple of questions that have come into the Q&A. And I think for some of these, we may need to get back to you. One question that has come in is about finding out who is in each group in terms of the UK Russell Group compared to the established classification. We can get back to you on that. Some of the, I know for instance, the established classification, we don't share who's in that group outside of participants in the survey. So we do have some data sharing, I don't know what the word is, privacy there in terms of who's participating and whether they fall into that category or not. But I can check with our analyst who works on that project and at least give you a sense of whether there's some overlap there. The second question is whether there is an income tax benefit to donors in regions outside the US. And I don't know the answer to that. So I see Jenny is shaking her head. Yes, I'll just say there is, it differs per region as to how much can be claimed and what that, sort of how much incentive there is. But I can say at least for the regions within this reporting population, all have some sort of a charitable tax deduction. Great. All right, excellent. So let's talk about next steps. In terms of next steps, let's just start with the case global reporting standards. So you should be aware that every member institution, every case member receives a digital subscription to the global reporting standards. You can also purchase additional copies in print or digital for your offices. The standards course does have seven modules. It's self-paced. If you are in the US, there are CFRE credits for completing that course and you receive a digital badge after you complete it. So it's really, you know, as you're working to update your practices and your data entry procedures to adhere to the standards and you wanna learn more about those areas around donor control and things that Jenny discussed earlier, you'll definitely want to take this course. That's really, it's really an in-depth dive into the standards. To learn more about our surveys and our research, the web address you see at the top of the screen, if you click there, you'll get this view that you see on the right. You can learn about surveys that are open in your region. Please participate in the survey. You know, for us to be able to present and analyze data like you've seen today, we need your participation. We need to be able to collect that data so that we have that continuing robust data set to review. You can also on this same website, learn more about the findings that we publish. We do publish broad narrative findings around all of these surveys. So you can learn about what's happening in different regions through those reports. And then of course, you can also go to learn.case.org for recent findings webinars that have been recorded if you wanna learn a little bit more about that. In terms of accessing your regional data, so if you are participating in surveys and you wanna get access to all of that underlying data, where you access it will depend on your region. So for US institutions, if you are taking the VSE, which was our Voluntary Supportive Education Survey, you do have access to that data. So if you are taking the VSE, which is our Voluntary Supportive Education Survey, you do access that in the data portal, that visual that you see on the left, you see the email or the web address there. The Alumni Engagement Survey is also in that same data portal, and that's a global survey. So for folks taking that survey, that's where you access that data. And if you're in other regions taking philanthropy surveys, UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the Benchmarking Toolkit is where you will go to access that underlying data. All right, and I'm gonna let Jenny cover this slide. Sure, so this is, I'm just going to expand a little bit on what Nick said. So to Deborah's point, everybody can go in and see those key findings. And for our survey participants, you have that access to see the results in the data portal. And even, any case member can have access to that. So even if you are not taking part in a survey and you are in Australia, and you said, I'd love to know what's happening with the alumni engagement results, because those results are in there, you could go in and see, and hopefully that will inspire you to do so. We do, though, want to provide some additional benefit to our survey participants. And that's where the Summary Benchmarking Report comes in. This is a report that Nick has designed. And the idea is that it's really meant, today we talked about big, big picture findings. And Nick shared with you some of the trends we're seeing in each region or among groups. Then the next step is, and what does that mean to me? Are we seeing these trends at my institution? And that's what the Summary Report can do for you. We also tell you, these are a group of peers that you look most like, and you can see your comparisons there. In that report, you will actually see a decision tree that says, hey, you can go and do this on your own. I should add, the Summary Benchmarking Report is a member benefit that is at no charge to case members who take part in surveys. And then that third circle here is really what Nick was talking about, an idea that we believe by partnering with case, there are a lot of great opportunities for you to really think strategically about how do I use this data to meet my goals? And so we do that in the form of Strategic Benchmarking Reports, where you can pick your own peers, where we do a lot larger trend history. And we've got a version where we build out an executive overview that's specific to you and do calls. We've also got a version where you can just receive that report. We will have a poll at the end today, and if any of this is something you're interested in, our colleague, Maureen Truxton, is here on the webinar as well, and she'll actually be available and happy to follow up to answer any questions, if anything we said has piqued your interest. I'll add one last plug. Today was really about philanthropy, but we did create, and we are really excited to continue to build upon this benchmarking cohort specific to alumni engagement. So if that's something that's of interest to you as well, we'll be doing that next session in May or June. Maureen can also help you out in that respect. Great, and then just our final next steps is just to talk a little bit about what we see coming in the future in terms of global metrics that we're able to collect. So you can see here in 2024, we are working on an update to the case global reporting standards. And I know Jenny mentioned this earlier on, this is part of our ongoing plan for standards is to not let there be a really long gap between updates that we wanna be able to provide additional clarification on areas where maybe folks had some challenges. So that's coming in 2024. We also will be launching a pilot survey for independent schools around the world. That's coming soon. We will also be looking to publish international philanthropy benchmarking reports. So meaning those benchmarking reports that come as part of your participation to be able to build reports that you can compare across regions, you can compare across regions as opposed to just comparing within your region. And then in 2025 and out to 2026, we will be developing a philanthropy survey for our Latin America institutions and also our European institutions as well. All right. And just as we wrap up here, thank you so much for joining us today. If you could just please answer our poll that's just popped up on your screen. A quick reminder that you will receive a follow-up email with instructions for accessing the recording of today's webinar. We really appreciate you taking the time to learn more. I don't have any questions in the Q&A. We do have three minutes if you want to put one last question in there. So just feel free to do that. But if not, again, thank you so much for taking your time to be with us today.

global philanthropy

case surveys

global reporting standards

benchmarking

survey findings

data

strategic planning

fundraising activities

available resources